Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 201

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There have been many threads about IMDB on this page. I did an archive search and found some varying opinions. While I did not look through every page that mentions Imdb, I came to the conclusion that either there's no clear consensus except that it's often unreliable. But perhaps there is consensus and I'm just not seeing it.

The primary question is for what purposes do we consider Imdb a reliable source?

The specific example here is here. I removed Imdb as a reference from Mickey Rooney and [email protected] reverted with edit summary "IMDB is QUITE unreliable re personal details/biodata, etc; but IMDb is QUITE reliable regarding credits, roles, etc".

I have not heard this blanket "Imdb is reliable for credits, roles, etc." argument before, and I can accept that perhaps my understanding of Imdb is incorrect but would like to make sure.

Based on some of the archived discussions, the secondary question is: what conditions, if any, must be in place for Imdb to be considered a reliable source for such purposes? For example, I saw mention of some sort of WGA certification or other indication that might exist on an Imdb page which makes it reliable? (I looked through a few profiles and haven't seen any such indicator -- perhaps it requires Imdb Pro?).

To add a little more context, there's some fishy business going on with some articles related to

IMDB is, in essence a wiki of sorts. It is user generated and not an RS as far as I am concerned. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

In general this is covered by

WP:RS/IMDB. The info at IMDB can be submitted by anyone. For me there biggest drawback is that their fact checking is woefully lacking. Also their is no accountability from the site that I can find. I can never get them to explain why they wont fix or delete something that is wrong. To be fair I have used the site for over a decade but I don't think it can or should be used as a reference for Wikipedia's purposes. I also think that it can't be used for some things and not others here at WikiP as there are too many problems that arise from that. Along with the current Chenay walledgarden mess these two hoaxes Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Bucharest Film Festival, Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Yuri Gadyukin were bolstered by their entries at IMDb and they weren't removed there until they were uncovered here. MarnetteD|Talk

17:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@

WP:RS/IMDB (which redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Resources#Questionable_resources

) is pretty clear about it, isn't it: "IMDb content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged".

However, that page links to the essay that threw me off to begin with, Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, which does list some "appropriate uses". Yes, it's just an essay, but if it directly conflicts with consensus on the subject it should not be in the Wikipedia namespace. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping R. It looks like the

WP:CONSENSUS but then the corresponding pages or MOS's don't get updated. I am not complaining - just trying to explain what you have encountered. MarnetteD|Talk

17:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that, too. I don't think WikiProject Film is very bureaucratic, and it tends to let conversations go without an official close. No, I don't think the IMDb is reliable for anything, and I've repeatedly said this here. The content is user-generated, and the site itself is specifically mentioned in

WP:USERG as unreliable. The filmography section of the IMDb is no more reliable than any other part of it. Besides transcription errors from users that go uncorrected, I have seen people demonstrate the unreliability of the IMDb by inserting themselves into productions as cast members. The IMDb is untrustworthy because it encourages unsupervised input from the community, just like an open wiki. It is usually correct, but so is Wikipedia. We still don't allow Wikipedia as a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 21:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, IMDb should not be cited on Wikipedia, but is useful for preliminary research. For example, if IMDb says a certain actor was in a certain film, a Google search including the actor name plus the film name is highl likely to uncover a superior source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's a very good point. By the way, I should mention that there are very specific areas of the IMDb that do have consensus as reliable. When the credits of a film are signed and validated by an official body, this is reliable. This would include when the Writers Guild of America (WGA) validates the writers' credits of a film. You can determine this by a badge next to the writers' credits that says (WGA). I am not aware of any other bodies that do this, but they could exist. I sometimes forget to mention this when I go off on a rant about the IMDb. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah. This is what I was referring to in my original post above. I saw the WGA thing mentioned but couldn't find any example of it. I suppose that's because I was looking at just the normal film pages whereas the (WGA) tag is only visible on the "Full Cast & Crew" page. For example, The Fountain has it, but Requiem for a Dream does not. Anybody know what goes into the cast listing heading of either "awaiting verification" or "verified complete"? For example, Dancer in the Dark is awaiting verification but Moon is "verified as complete" (quite an undertaking for that movie's ensemble) :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

They check credits before inclusion[1] and it is used in the industry so I see no problem in using it for that. It is the most accessible source and any errors can be corrected by comparing them with credits actually displayed in films. I would not use them for detailed biographical data because they do not provide sources. And certainly user reviews should not be used. TFD (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: What you're saying seems at least in part at odds with what some other people are saying in this thread. For example, NinjaRobotPirate's anecdote about people demonstrating unreliability by getting themselves listed as part of a production. The impetus for this thread was a film for which verification itself is the biggest problem, with Imdb being one of the sources used most heavily to demonstrate the most basic information about it. So there's no way to correct any errors by comparing them with the credits displayed in the films, because nearly everything we know about the film comes from either Imdb or primary sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• They don't really check all that thoroughly. I can give you an excellent example of this: a couple of years ago some woman called
  (｡◕‿◕｡)
  04:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Just revisited Ashinger's (now deleted) article. Here's one of her claims: " In 2013, she then moved back to the U.S. in Los Angeles, California, with her first on-screen appearance being as an announcer for the live Grammy Awards best actresses." If I remember correctly, this was also on her IMDb profile and a look at that sentence should tell you how badly someone failed at verifying that profile. (Given that Grammys are music awards...) She also was supposed to have been on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., so someone really dropped the ball on that one. Basically, there's no way that claims of this nature shouldn't have been immediately caught by IMDb, yet it stayed up for an undetermined amount of time before it was finally caught by us here on Wikipedia. Mostly though I'm just saying this as a trip down memory lane because of how outlandish her claims were.
  (｡◕‿◕｡)
  04:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

As you say, they corrected the error. That is what makes it a reliable source. Unreliable sources do not do that. The top movie today, according to IMDB, is The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2. IMDB says it stars Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson. Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Julianne Moore are also given top billings. It came out 20 November, cost $160 million, has taken in $232 million, runs 137 min., is in color and has an aspect ratio of 2.35:1.[2] Does anyone doubt that is probably true? TFD (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• They only corrected the error after several people pointed it out to them - I was one of the people who did this and it took them quite a while to actually remove it. In the meantime various places were reporting on this and openly saying that they thought that the claim was bogus. That they caught on to this and IMDb didn't doesn't really say great things about their overall quality checking, that they need someone to point out hoaxes like that. They don't really require much to create a page when it comes down to it and I've created a couple myself, to be honest. They only required one source and they didn't ask to see the source in question. As long as someone can create a legitimate sounding source name, they'll take it, as evidenced by Ashinger's profile and it won't be challenged until someone else points it out as problematic. Now when it comes to extremely high profile things, they're like Wikipedia - the higher profile something is, the more likely that any incorrect or false information will be detected. However with smaller things that get little to no information, it's more difficult for those to be caught. Until we hear back from the National Archives or until someone can find a good, authoritative source that doesn't rely on information from Chaney, we have to assume at this point that it could potentially be a hoax, given that people have made very persuasive arguments as to why it could be false.
  (｡◕‿◕｡)
  11:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ultimately, that users correct each other's user-generated content doesn't change the fact that it's user-generated content -- and that the odds are pretty good that a fact it contains is probably true doesn't change that it's often enough demonstrably untrue. (Especially, as Tokyogirl79 points out, for lesser known subjects.) If a UGC project being decent at catching its own errors creates an exception to
  WP:UGC
  , that needs to be reflected in the guideline, but it seems unlikely that's the case.
• I'll play devil's advocate for a moment here. I can't argue that Imdb is a reliable source, but I can appreciate how very useful it is. I think it's a problem we would face if we were talking about another database project that relied on UGC like Discogs or something (though I hope that doesn't send us off on a tangent). Technical details, extended cast and crew lists, release variations, runtimes, etc. are not the sort of thing that typically get covered in reliable secondary sources (and when they do, I imagine they're not subject to the same editorial oversight). So it's best to get them from the primary material. Imdb makes it so only one person needs to have some obscure film in order for everybody to have access to those details. So for older and lesser-known movies especially, it does seem like we limit the amount of information we can reasonably expect to include. But if we're willing to accept a primary source and willing to assume good faith that a user on Wikipedia is telling the truth when he/she says "I have this, here's the information", what's the difference between that user and the user who added the information to Imdb? If, on the other hand, we say we'll only rely on secondary sources, we have to accept that there's a lot of information in movie that would go unfilled....hence linking to Imdb.
• Is there precedent for a type of source that we use by default but which can always be challenged with reason and must be removed/replaced if challenged? I mean, "low quality sources" in general, I guess, but more specific? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not like Wikipedia where anyone can add anything. IMDB requires completion of a "New Title Submission Form." Normally films in production are not accepted unless proof is submitted. While registered users submit changes they are checked by IMDB staff before inclusion. There is a process for requesting corrections.[3]

Errors will occur in the most reliable sources. The New York Times has reported errors in their reporting every day this week. Today alone they reported 20 errors. Yet we consider them reliable because they have standards for fact checking and correcting errors. Sometimes editors will find errors in reliable sources before they are corrected and we can challenge them. It does not mean we reject the source, otherwise we would have no sources for articles.

TFD (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@

WP:RS/IMDB. Are you arguing for existing consensus not being accurately reflected there, or are you arguing to change the guidelines? — Rhododendrites ^talk

\\ 15:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - the NYT has zero fact checkers employed. None. The newspaper used to do fact-checking, but now, like almost all other papers, they rely on press releases rather than using actual reporters. This can lead to stories about "amphibious baseball pitchers" and the like. Collect (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

FWIActuallyW, I'd like to see the slightest proof of that obviously bullshit claim. --Calton | Talk 14:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: What is this, a random derailing of a discussion you have heretofore not participated in just to take a baseless jab at a publication you don't like? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

See [4] for the discussion.

I suggest you note that press releases are used by just about every major newspaper now - recall that staffing levels at newspapers in general are down more than 40% in less than a decade. Revenues for newspapers are down about 60% in the same general time period. For medical press releases see [5] back in 1998 - " Of the 1060 newspaper stories analyzed, 142 referred to journal articles; of these, 119 (84%) referred to articles mentioned in press releases and 23 (16%) referred to journal articles not mentioned in press releases (comparison of proportions, P=.03). Articles described first or second were referenced in more newspapers than articles described later in the press release (P=.01 by chi2 analysis." Yep - newspapers even back I 1998 relied very heavily on those press releases, an did not do too much work as journals not mentioned near the top of the release did nit get mentioned in articles.

[6] 2003 "Maryland.—In a breakthrough discovery that may change the face of scientific communication forever, a researcher has found that, although journalists rely on press releases to bring important discoveries to their attention, they do not write news stories about every press release they receive. Even more striking is the discovery that press releases from scientific journals sometimes present incomplete information about scientific findings.

“I’m shocked, just shocked”, said the author of the article, which appears in the current issue of Science Editor. “I never would have guessed that journalists would have such blatant disregard for what they are told is news, and I never would have suspected that journals aren’t neurotically meticulous in their press releases.” ("fake" press release used for real article following)

(actual finding) Woloshin and Schwartz found that 23% of the press releases mentioned study limitations, and 65% quantified study results. (JAMA study)

In short - often the fault is in the press release sent out by the actual medial journal, and something an editor would not normally call back on. (read the full article - it also deals with specific newspapers)

[7] (covering the Guardian, Independent, Daily Mail, and Times) In 2008, researchers at the Cardiff School of Journalism, UK, discovered that 60 percent of the articles in British newspapers the Daily Mail, the Guardian, the Times, the Daily Telegraph and the Independent had been copied from wire reports and press announcements issued by various corporations, businesses and universities. Three out of four such stories had also gone to print without being fact-checked, a trend that seems widespread: in 2012, an audit sponsored by the European Observatory of Journalism found factual errors in approximately half of all news stories published in Switzerland, Italy and the United States

60% - and including the "elite" newspapers in the same group. [8] "Most newspaper articles (72%) were written by named journalists (the unnamed journalist category refers to labels such as ‘Daily Mail Reporter’) and in nearly a quarter of cases were there was no clear identification of who had written the story (as is often the case with Nibs). Only 1% of stories were directly attributable to PA or other wire services (see Table 2.4). At first glance, then, these data suggest that the newspapers give the impression that they depend on their own journalists rather than wires or other outside sources." then " Indeed, 30% of the stories in our press sample replicated wire service copy almost directly, and a further 19% were largely dependent on wire copy. In other words, nearly half of all press stories appeared to come wholly or mainly from wire services. " Even where a "journalist" gets a by-line.

DM gets a hit "So, for example, a story about the health risks of eating oily fish (‘Why oily fish might not be so good for your health after all’, Daily Mail Reporter, Daily Mail, March 24th 2006, p7) directly replicates facts and quotations taken from two Press Association stories, and another from the regional news wire Mercury." but not for being "inaccurate" but for copying inaccurate material from what Wikipedia would normally accept as a "reliable source."

"Despite the covert nature of much PR activity, we expected to find examples of PR playing an agenda-setting role. However, in many cases the influence of PR goes much further. We found that nearly one in five newspaper stories and 17% of broadcast stories were verifiably derived mainly or wholly from PR material or activity (Table 2.6) – which suggests that the practice is rather more typical than John Lloyd’s critique suggests."

"For example, a Times story headlined ‘George Cross for Iraq War Hero’ (Michael Evans, The Times, 24th March 2006, p27) is an almost verbatim repetition of a press release issued by the Ministry of Defence. " also from The Times "An example of a print story that mainly consists of information from a single source of PR material is an article in The Times about a new league table of UK Heart Surgeons (‘Hand on heart, who is the best surgeon?’, Nigel Hawkes, The Times, 27th April 2006, p16). The article is almost wholly derived from a press release issued by the Healthcare Commission," uzw.

In short - even a decade or more ago, newspapers were dominated by press release material - and the situation is worse today by far (noting that US newspaper employment is down over 40% - and the number of actual newspaper journalists is down much more as the total "newsroom" count includes the "web editors.") Back in 1998 [9] " Like most news organizations, Business Week has no choice but to put its trust in the fairness and accuracy of its reporters, because neither money nor time allows for writers' work to be formally fact-checked. ", then "At the same time, newsmagazines are curtailing their fact-checking budgets and requiring their writers to verify those details once double-checked by others. And at many newspapers, those traditional sentinels of accuracy, editors and copy editors, are expected to focus more than ever on presentation of stories, less on their content." then " One more fact-checking caveat. Most researchers rarely trust newspaper clips. Not formally fact-checked before publication, say magazine staffers, they're just too prone to contain errors. "We're not going to trust that the New York Times has been fact-checked," says Forbes' Kroll. " Clear?

[10] from Forbes is fun to read - managing to note a newspaper which ran a headline "Amphibious Pitcher Makes Debut" But wait, there's more!

[11] The Times again " Karol Wojtyla was referred to in Saturday’s Credo column as “the first non-Catholic pope for 450 years”. This should, of course, have read “non-Italian”. We apologise for the error." In 2015 they should have caught it earlier. And delightfully The New York Times "An earlier version of this column misidentified the sea that God parted in the Book of Exodus. It is the Red Sea, not the Dead Sea." Although I suppose Lot parted the Dead Sea ...

What we have left? No newspaper is as assiduous in fact-checking as it was even 15 years ago. Even "elite" papers routinely use press releases without actually looking t the studies puffed. Silly proof-readers are no longer used at newspapers - they rely on automated spill chuckers. And thus the theoretical belief that "good newspapers always check facts" is gone with the wind. Sorry to burst everyone's bubble - but papers that used to have a dozen (low paid) fact checkers now generally have zero. Their old group of actual proofreaders - gone forever. One newspaper (?) [12] offers zero money for "volunteer proofreaders"! In 1909, New York City alone[13] had on the order of 1000 compositors and proofreaders. Many "working" proofreaders get well under $25K p.a. (bottom 10% get under $19K) In New York. A person at the proposed new minimum wage for fry cooks there will make over $30K p.a.

I trust the points are clear - so will leave with [14] The New York Times got rid of all its remaining 125 Linotype operators and proofreaders (many did both due to cutbacks) - by 1990. In short - "elite" papers also run press releases. The main and substantiated difference is down to headline witing - and the job of the headline writer is the same as the "clickbait" writer - no more, no less. If anyone uses a newspaper article, note that the real journalist does not write the headlines. Until we have genuine amphibious pitchers in baseball. Collect (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I would hope the Times has removed the linotypes by now. The book you cited talking to removal of proofreaders appears to just make stuff up. For example, they gave the quote: “I have a friend who was a newspaper proofreader. Each knight, he wood read a pre-edition copy to correct errors.” The author followed this up with the absurd statement: “The point is that spell-checkers can’t recognize the context of a word.” I typed the quote into Word, and it caught both errors. The amphibious pitchers quote you kept making fun of is from a small paper serving two East Oregon counties with a circulation of 7,000. The NYTimes has a circulation of 1,380,000. BTW, average salary for a proofreader/copy editor in NYC in $44K-46K. Objective3000 (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I used the figures given in the reliable sources. Might you proffer a source saying that the average proofreader in New York makes $45K p.a.? And how many proofreaders are employed by the NYT? That you dislike the reliable sources I cite does not make me "wrong" here, as far as I can tell. The Hilary campaign said the NYT made "egregious errors" in articles just a few months ago. See also CJR [15] "But six errors in a story she had ample time to work on and check is not acceptable, especially for a reporter with such a troubling history of error" about a NYT article. Cheers - but you have not shown the sources just "made things up" at all. AFAICT, the NYT currently has about 3,500 employees. In 2012, it had 5,300 employees. And pretty much every newspaper - from the Guardian on has the exact same problems. Collect (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You are the one that made the absurd claims the NYTimes has no proofreaders, just creates headlines and copies all its news instead of having reporters, and proofreaders make an absurdly low salary (easily disputed by a simple search). The onus is on you for making statements that are seriously strange. Objective3000 (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@

WP:POINT

much?

It's almost besides the point, but, of course, the wall of text in no way backs up what you said. Where is there "proof" that "The newspaper used to do fact-checking" (which, of course, implies that they no longer engage in the activity of fact-checking)? Are you trying to say that because they don't have a proofreading department or someone with the title of "fact-checker", they don't "do fact-checking"? And where is there "proof" that they "rely on press releases rather than using actual reporters", which, of course, would mean they don't use actual reporters (or don't "rely" on them, I guess?) Regardless, I'll again reiterate this is a complete tangent that adds nothing to the discussion, and should still be hatted (I'll leave that to someone else, though). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Um -- if the newspaper no longer has any fact checkers as the sources clearly state, that is a clear implication that the newspaper no longer uses fact checkers. I would note, as a matter of simple fact, that I was not the person who first mentioned the NYT in this thread (The Four Deuces was the one who did), so your accusation that I somehow chose to aim barbs at the NYT when the "barbs" hit every single major newspaper, and the stats about use of press releases were done by well-qualified persons. The proof about using press releases is in the scholarly studies cited. As for your seeming wish to make personal charges here - I suggest that this noticeboard deals with facts and not personal attacks that someone is pushing a POV (when the POV is simply that the Guardian, Daily Mail, New York Times etc. all are guilty of sloppier practises than in the past about fact checking). Collect (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

If a newspaper no longer employs people with the job title "fact-checker" that obviously doesn't preclude having "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" ("fact-checking" being an activity that is not the sole domain of those whose business cards say "fact-checker"). In fact you replied to a statement about NYT issuing corrections. As per

WP:RS

: "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections."

Four Deuces did mention NYT, yes ..... in the context of the current discussion. He/she also mentioned infoboxes. That doesn't mean it's time to jump in to dump 10,000 bytes of unrelated

WP:POINT

about infoboxes.

If you want to talk about Imdb, go for it. If you want to attempt to discredit the New York Times, start a new thread. If you want to distract from your own disruption by accusing me of making personal attacks, take it to ANI. Otherwise, would you please concede to hat this tangent? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I was specifically accused of lying about the facts. I take it you feel giving actual sources showing my statements to be well-sourced is "improper" when your mind is already made up? <g>. Collect (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, RS/IMDB is not a guideline, and it links to an essay explaining how to use IMDB (Wikipedia:Citing IMDb). RS/IMDB says data can be used if it "is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." Clearly we should not use reader postings in discussion threads, storyline, biography etc. But then we should not be using tertiary sources for that type of information anyway.

As a general rule, this board should be used to enquire about specific text rather than sources in general, since most sources are reliable for some things but not for others. So I will provide an example, the upcoming Sisters (2015 film). The infobox provides basic details on directors, producers, writers, stars, release dates, budgets, etc. No other source provides all that information. I imagine all this detail was taken from IMDB, yet it is not cited. There are cites for only three facts: music, running time and budget. Yet the music writer could have changed since it was reported, the running time in the UK may not be the same as the rest of world and there is no reason why the budget info should be taken from Box Office Mojo, which is owned by IMDB, rather than IMDB.

So what should we do? Use IMDB as a source and not cite them? Or delete most of the information in the infobox?

TFD (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:USERGENERATED

is.

Personally, I think it's reasonable to say that the (WGA)-tagged cast lists could be considered reliable, but otherwise the argument in favor of citing Imdb seems on shaky ground.

You could substitute any site for Imdb in the infobox argument. Should we remove [certain information] if it's only available on [some user-generated content site]? More content is generally good, but it's not a question of "is the content useful, regardless of where it came from" -- it's about "can we point to a reliable source for this content". We could get a lot more information in infoboxes if we did away with

WP:RS altogether, after all. (An extreme example, I know, but I think the point holds). — Rhododendrites ^talk

\\ 20:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Cast lists, credits, filming locations, release dates, running time, box office etc. are all reliable. Beyond that the issue of reliability is moot because we should not be using tertiary sources for more extensive information. As for information in the infobox, could you please tell me where else the one could find it for Sisters? TFD (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you missed my point regarding the infobox. I don't know where else you can find particular information that you found on Imdb. That's not the point. The point is there's a lot of information we could include if we have no standards for sources whatsoever. We sacrifice content to have

WP:USERGENERATED, user-generated content is part of what we should eschew as unreliable. In other words, that a poor source has certain content and it's not available anywhere else, that means we shouldn't have it either, no? Or would you say that that's true in all cases except for movie credits? — Rhododendrites ^talk

\\ 22:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to reiterate something, though: I don't have strong feelings about using Imdb. I have strong feelings about guidelines being clear. This started when I removed Imdb as a source and was reverted by someone who said it was, in fact, a reliable source in the way it was used. That conflicts with what our guidelines say and what WikiProject Film says (and what the majority of people in this thread have said). If there's established precedent, I'd like to see that somewhere, otherwise

WP:USERGENERATED should be the default. — Rhododendrites ^talk

\\ 22:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

So are you going to get Sisters deleted because it is almost entirely sourced to IMDB? TFD (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

... Eh? I opened this thread to get a better idea of what the guidelines say (and what the consensus interpretation is) concerning whether Imdb is considered a reliable source. As it turns out, it was more straightforward than I thought because it's explicitly named not just at

WP:UGC. I took your disagreement with that characterization as an indication that you might have known something others don't, but I'm getting the impression you just don't like Imdb being considered unreliable. That's a perfectly fine perspective -- I'm sympathetic in many ways and said as much above -- but if you're going to turn this into some kind of appeal to "deletionism" or something because I asked you for a policy/guideline basis for your position, I think this may have run its course. I certainly did not intend to offend, and no, of course I won't be "getting Sisters delete because it is almost entirely sourced to Imdb" (which, incidentally, it isn't). — Rhododendrites ^talk

\\ 05:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The point is that it is used extensively and most editors consider it reliable for basic information such as credits and release dates. TFD (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• TL;DR - I've never had any problem with using IMDb as a reliable source for filmography-type credits in the past. Obviously, there can sometimes be better, even more reliable sources for this kind of info though. IMDb is generally not a reliable source for biographical information though, and the awards/nominations section of IMDb can sometimes not be very comprehensive in my past experiences with it. I've also found in the past that it's actually pretty difficult to get something added or fixed (even obvious typos) on IMDb, so they definitely do have some sort of editorial supervision about what actually gets posted on IMDb. Guy1890 (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• My understanding is that some areas of the IMDb are RS (or were considered RS at one time), for instance the Awards pages are not self-sourced.Example These are obviously taken from the primary sources, I've found them (the awards pages) to be very accurate and in many cases their archives are more extensive than the primary.009o9 (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The question arises from a friendly discussion on the Donald Trump page. I am not including diffs as there really is no dispute at the moment and the failed verification templates I put on two references in the political campaign section are likely to be amicably resolved. However the same sort of issue may be elsewhere on the page; I found it the first place I checked for it.

Assuming that there does in fact exist a first-hand link to an audio clip of Donald Trump "clarifying" something he said several days earlier, would this be RS for saying that subsequenty he said that of course he had said no such thing?

In other words, Trump was initially reported to have said that all Muslim travel to the United States must be shut down. In the referenced article is a link to a film clip with an embedded phone-in from Donald Trump saying well of course US citizens are different. Yes I did listen to it that far, a voice does say that. It also talks about 9-11 and no-go zones in Paris and....you don't want to know, really you don't. In other words, the publisher is RS, it's a respectable talk show, I think, broadcast news, it's RS that he *said* it but otherwise...speechless. Surely this statement can be found somewhere in print? This is the Republican frontrunner, discussing a matter of national security and human rights. You'd like to think it would get covered.

Yet two days earlier another publication reported a named staffer saying "Mr Trump says everyone". That sounds pretty definite. I don't know that "clarify" is the right word here. My personal opinion is that we should document each pronouncement with RS, as opposed to buying into the idea each time that there was simply some misunderstanding. Do people agree? Also, what is the best documentation (video? audio? analysis?) of what Donald Trump did or did not say or might or might not favor as a candidate? Elinruby (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Determining political positions is not straight forward. What is meant and how it is phrased may differ, and pronouncements may be contradictory. Analysis is required, which is why we should use reliable secondary sources. Readers do not want every pronouncement listed, they just want to know what the positions are. TFD (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. So if campaign staff says on Friday that the policy is x and the candidate says on Sunday that the policy is not-x, as appears to be the case here, though? Again, there is no current dispute, but since we seem to have a pattern of subsequent disavowals, and I anticipate running into this elsewhere on the page. My point is that in my opinion it is still relevant what the staff said on Friday about the candidate's platform, especially considering the space devoted to the candidate's hair. The question about video vs text also remains.~

If it's unclear what the policy is because Trump said x and his staff said y, it's probably best, for that issue, to write exactly that: "Trump stated x, his campaign staff stated y." -Darouet (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

If something is relevant then it will be found in reliable secondary sources, because they - not Wikipedia editors - determine what is relevant and analyze various statements to determine what his policy positions are. There are dozens of reporters on the case. TFD (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Is a reliable source? 2A02:582:C74:6C00:A436:91E7:2A35:6D9A (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I′m trying to ask about a website but I got an error all three times I tried to post the link. Anyway, I′m talking about ref no. 3 at Joey DeMaio. 2A02:582:C74:6C00:A436:91E7:2A35:6D9A (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this the source you are referring to? Meatsgains (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup! 2A02:582:C74:6C00:9C91:3120:9F5:4A55 (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• http://tumblr.thefjp.org/post/10989510473/daily-mail-amanda-knox
• http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/oct/04/dailymail-amanda-knox
• http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/daily-mail-guuilt/
• http://www.fullstory.co/2pvfe (searchable text copy of the story in question)

This isn't the first time The Daily Mail has straight-out fabricated a news story. Even if they had guessed right on the verdict, the story was pre-written and was in no way an actual report of what happened. When are we finally going to say that we have had enough of this and declare The Daily Mail to be an inherently unreliable source? When are we going to decide once and for all that if something is in The Daily Mail the editor must find another source, and that if it is only in The Daily Mail we have no idea whether it actually happened as reported? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it should not be considered an RS source herein. Kierzek (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry - no newspaper is a good source for celebrity gossip at all ("instant analysis" included)-- but that does not mean the DM is to be ruled out as a reliable source otherwise. This has been discussed it seems dozens of times - and the consensus here has never been to blacklist the newspaper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Have to agree with Collect. I hate the Daily Mail, but they do sometimes have real reporting - e.g. sending reporters on patrol with units in Afghanistan [16]. -Darouet (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

As Greenslade's article notes, four UK newspapers, including The Guardian, initially reported the verdict incorrectly. To generalise this as evidence that the Mail specifically can't be trusted is to stretch a point.Martinlc (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] I don't think it is stretching a point at all.

"As Knox realised the enormity of what judge Hellman was saying she sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears. A few feet away Meredith's mother Arline, her sister Stephanie and brother Lyle, who had flown in especially for the verdict remained expressionless, staring straight ahead, glancing over just once at the distraught Knox family. Prosecutors were delighted with the verdict and said that 'justice has been done' although they said on a 'human factor it was sad two young people would be spending years in jail'." --The Daily Mail

Did The Guardian or any other source other than The Daily Mail provide a totally fabricated detailed eyewitness description of the reaction to the verdict that never happened? Did they fabricate a direct quote from the prosecutors? Remember, that fake direct quote would still be up on the web if not for them getting the verdict wrong, and Wikipedia could have used that direct quote as if the prosecutors had actually said that -- supported by a "reliable source" that flat out lies about things.

"Following the verdict Knox and [Raphael] Sollecito were taken out of court escorted by prison guards and into a waiting van which took her back to her cell at Capanne jail near Perugia and him to Terni jail, 60 miles away. Both will be put on a suicide watch for the next few days as psychological assessments are made on each of them but this is usual practice for long term prisoners." --The Daily Mail

Did The Guardian or any other source other than The Daily Mail provide a totally fabricated ride in a van and a totally fabricated suicide watch?

No, this is not the same thing as getting the verdict wrong and reporting that wrong verdict. This is hard evidence that The Daily Mail fabricates quotes and events, and an excellent reason why we should never allow The Daily Mail as a source.

To all: I am considering posting an RfC on this. Where would you suggest as the best place for that RfC to be posted? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It shows that breaking news is frequently wrong. In this case the reporter heard she was held guilty of slander and assumed she was held guilty of murder. In the Obamacare verdict, most media heard that Roberts CJ had written the opinion and determined that it ruled against the U.S. government. In 2000, news media declared Gore had won the U.S. presidential election. These errors however get corrected, which is why these sources are reliable. TFD (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you really believe that if The Daily Mail hadn't gotten the verdict wrong they would have corrected the fabricated reactions to the verdict or the fabricated direct quote by the prosecutors? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

More fabrication by The Daily Mail:

• http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2014/07/09/george-clooney-daily-mail-exclusive-statement-response/12368061/
• http://www.snopes.com/isis-bans-pigeon-genitals/
• http://www.deccanchronicle.com/150826/nation-current-affairs/article/jumbo-torture-%E2%80%98fabricated%E2%80%99
• http://tktk.gawker.com/my-year-ripping-off-the-web-with-the-daily-mail-online-1689453286
• http://www.lolwot.com/10-completely-fabricated-stories-published-by-the-daily-mail/
• http://listverse.com/2015/06/23/10-egregiously-false-stories-in-the-daily-mail/
• http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/how-a-fake-story-ruined-three-peoples-lives

And yes, I did puposely include several non-reliable (but better than The Daily Mail!) sources in the above list. I wanted to see if any of the DM supporters could point that out without imploding from the irony. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

In your first link, George Clooney said a false story was "picked up by hundreds of other outlets citing the Daily Mail as their source." You need to either get these sources to stop using the DM or persuade us to eliminate any news media that uses DM. We get back to how news media are not 100% accurate but they are the most reliable sources for what happened five minutes ago. I never can understand why editors want to update articles with what happened five minutes ago, when reporting may change moments later and readers are more likely to go to news sources for breaking news. But at least errors soon found are corrected. TFD (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

PCC Censures UK Daily Mail for Fabricated Amanda Knox Story

by Sydney Smith, writing for iMediaEthics

"UK print regulatory body the Press Complaints Commission “censured” the Daily Mail for its October 3 fake story reporting the wrong verdict in American student Amanda Knox’s trial, the Guardian’s Roy Greenslade reported. As we wrote at the time, soon after an Italian court found Knox not guilty in the murder of her roommate, the Mail published a story with the wrong verdict saying she had been found guilty. Shortly after publication, the Mail pulled the story from its website. The Mail published a story with the correct verdict (not guilty) and apologized for the error.

According to Greenslade, in response to the incident, the Mail started an internal review into the incident and “disciplined the person responsible for the error.” We wrote Oct. 5 about the announcement of the Mail’s internal review. The Mail claimed that the article was up only for 30 seconds, however, Seattle Weekly said the article was up for about half an hour.

Possibly most egregious, the Daily Mail’s article included quotes from prosecutors on the (fake) guilty ruling and reported on Knox’s reaction to the (fake) guilty ruling. The PCC’s ruling (see here) said that complainants questioned those quotes from prosecutors about the verdict of guilty, and a description of what happened after the guilty verdict. According to the PCC, the complaints were made by “members of the public.”

The PCC’s ruling noted that the Daily Mail claimed the quotations “had been obtained from the prosecution in advance of the trial.” However, even if that is true, iMediaEthics notes that there is no possible way for the Mail to explain away its claim that Knox “looked stunned” in response to the phony guilty verdict. That part of the story was clearly fabricated and a guess on behalf of the Daily Mail as to how Knox would react."

Source: http://www.imediaethics.org/pcc-censures-uk-daily-mail-for-fabricated-amanda-knox-story/ (emphasis added)

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't there some discussion of creating a list of perennial sources, similar to

talk

) 00:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no motivation to get embroiled in this again. But, what I would like to say is that content editors must have strong guidance here. I used the Daily Mail as a source a while ago, I was criticised for it, then decided to discuss this on the RS talk pages. This was a HUGE time-sink for me and others. And I only found out after that I was one of a string of editors who had similarly raised such questions. A clear decision (whichever way that goes) and guidance for editors would be a massive step forward. Please do this.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed far too many times - and the answer remains the same - the Daily Mail and all newspapers have problems with celebrity news, but the statistics show that for other news the Daily Mail is just about the same as all newspapers - the desire to blacklist this source is simply contrary to the intent of

• I agree with Collect. Yes, there are some ridiculous publications in Daily Mail, and I have seen some ridiculous publications in Nature (journal). Yes, Daily Mail is a much less reliable source than Nature, sure, but that does not make any of these sources inherently/completely unreliable. One must simply use multiple sources, especially with regard to sensational, controversial or unusual claims. My very best wishes (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

So they are a member of the PCC which investigates all claims of inaccuracy against them. I would agree that in cases where the DM changes a story or the PCC finds it inaccurate that we should not use the original article. Otherwise there is no problem. TFD (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between "inaccurate" and "invented whole-cloth". This article covers why what the Daily Mail did here was so much worse than the errors you're listing. Someone working for them sat down and deliberately concocted fake quotes to pad out the article. Someone else approved and uploaded it, in advance, getting it ready for publication even though the quotes in it could clearly only have been falsified. Pre-writing articles for key events that can go one way or the other is normal (such as for an obituary or election victory, where you can cover major past events in the timeline without having to invent any facts and can therefore easily have something ready for publication the moment the core question is decided); but deliberately inventing facts for them is different, and the way it happened here clearly throws the Daily Mail's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy into question. Everyone makes simple factual errors now and then, but for a paper with obviously concocted quotes to be ready for publication the instant the verdict came down heavily implies that the Daily Mail is either performing no editorial oversight whatsoever, or that its editorial oversight is hopelessly inadequate. While of course reliability is contextual, either one would mean that it is generally not usable as an

WP:RS. No one event can decide these sorts of things, of course, but can you honestly say that the Daily Mail has a "reputation for fact-checking or accuracy?" --Aquillion (talk

) 20:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Aquillion has correctly identified and commented on the specific problem I have with The Daily Mail -- deliberately inventing "facts" and reporting on them as if they actually happened. Many of the other comments in this thread appear to address other issues that other editors have had with The Daily Mail in previous discussions. For anyone who wishes to claim that other media outlets "do the same thing" I would ask for examples of them "doing the same thing" when the "same thing" is the specific problem I am complaining about, which is The Daily Mail fabricating events and direct quotes and then reporting on them as if they actually happened. The other media outlets don't, as a rule, do that. The Daily Mail does.

Clearly I need to post an RfC on this. Again I ask, where would be the best place to post it? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably reliable sources. And to attract wide participation, you should add similar middle market tabloids. But before you do that, I suggest you read up on how newspapers actually work to see whether the DM falls outside normal practice. If you show in secondary sources that their standards fall below normal levels it would help your case. But providing a list of bad reporting in the past is not persuasive because the same can be found in all newspapers. "Dewey Defeats Truman" was a bigger error than anything you mentioned. TFD (talk) 04:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

As

multiple people have pointed out already, there is no evidence that any "similar middle market tabloids" do what The Daily Mail does. And I am well aware of "how newspapers actually work". Hint: they don't publish wholly fabricated stories. --Guy Macon (talk

) 00:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment We are not just talking about a newspaper getting some facts wrong, or even about a rogue reporter, we are talking about a newspaper that knowingly published a wholly frabricated story. What makes a source reliable is its editorial oversight, and there is clearly something very wrong with the editorial oversight at the Daily Mail. Yes, they carry out rock solid journalism in some cases but how can we have confidence in their editorial oversight to weed out errors and poor journalism when they knowingly publish fabricated stories? Personal blogs may publish accurate stories but we don't permit them on the basis that they are usually correct; we prohibit them because there is no reliable editorial oversight and this is the case for the Daily Mail now. Betty Logan (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to start considering it an unreliable source, and any exceptions need consensus. --

talk

) 01:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

http://www.sps-automotive.com/en_sps/track/07Nt_zonda.html http://twinrev.com/cars/Fastest-Production-car-supercars-20.6km-Nurburgring-lap-times-under-9-03.30-7119945 http://www.mobisux.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3096509 http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife http://www.zeperfs.com/en/classement-ci1.htm I have verified nurburgring laptimes in those site all the laptimes existing there seem to be correct.

Your input is requested at Talk:Bijeljina massacre#RfC: Should this article make reference to the Bosnian Serb politician Biljana Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak to kiss the Serb paramilitary leader Željko Ražnatović (aka Arkan) Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

http://amgtve.formusiciansonly.com/

Is this a reliable source that could be used to create content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirk Leonard (talk • contribs)

Looks like a decent book. Although the publisher is little known, the book has been cited by several other sources. utcursch | talk 21:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, so can I add content sourced to the book and also start new articles based on pedals described in the book?

A new article should be about a subject that is written about extensively in several reliable sources. This could be one of them, but if it's the only source the subject may not be notable enough for a separate article.—Anne Delong (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Are two sources enough for a topic, or should it be three or more?

Cracked.com has a humor article titled "6 Reasons You've Probably Read Russian Propaganda Today".[17][18] Key quote: "Because of the way Facebook works, if you find yourself clicking on a lot of articles from a website -- say Russia Today or Sputnik -- because it had one of those headlines you just had to check out, new articles from that same site will show up more frequently in your news feed. And they won't all look instantly crazy." The same is true of Google, and any number of other sites that customize content according to what (they think) interests you. Clearly this works the other way as well: if someone only looks at legitimate news sites they will see more links to legitimate news sites, which would lead to underestimating the amount of crazy out there. The "fun" begins when members of those two groups each try to edit the same Wikipedia page according to the sources Facebook or Google spoonfeeds them, often followed by a trip here. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I hate extremely: search engines trying to second-guess my interests. I remember I took part in a wikipedia discussion about notability of porn industry awards and naturally did some research. A couple of weeks later I had a not so small talk from my wife after she did some browsing under my microsoft account I did not log out :-)

talk

) 02:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The source in the subject, published by J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing, is used heavily in Joachim Peiper, currently linked from the main page "On this day" section. There has been some doubt voiced at Talk:Joachim_Peiper#Agte about the use of this source (which, honestly, I share). Some more input would be appreciated. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed here recently and the there is a strong argument to be made that his writing is pov driven, not objective and carries undue weight for the subject matter. Kierzek (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a dispute over allowable content on "divine revelations" concerning the biblical messenger Gabriel. Wikiisawesome is using specious boilerplate arguments to violate my First Amendment freedom of religion beliefs, for not being considered reliable, by him, under personal bias. Under the scapegoat that the II Revelation isn't reliable source, according to policy. Citing various policies which may apply to "reliable sources" when there is an authentic debatable factual dispute over quality of sources. He is not able to point me to one "provable source of information on Gabriel." Yet, he says that this is the reason why my post is disqualified. He then attempts to use "self-publishing" source as the chancellor's foot, even though in the book itself, the divine revelation was that it could not be published for commercial use. And with no offer to potential offer to publishers (to gauge its religious/literary value), this would be extremely arbitrary to say that it is not a quality work (having in the very least artistic, educational, and literary value, on the subject matter).

I feel the bottomline is that there is no way to truly apply reliable source policies on coherent works of literature that describe spiritual beings. Because the book is published on Amazon.com and is coherent, and has literary value on the subject matter; it should be included in public discourse to determine its relation within the Wiki-content by the individual reader. This is more on point with the content neutral perspective of Wikipedia, to offer perspectives from all angles, that is not showing bias towards a particular religious belief.

If the II Revelation were not a high quality biblical work, and had no literary or educational value, then I would find that sufficient to say that it lacks relevance to the serious educational content of the Wikipedia page. But, since it is a high quality, well written work, that is written in a style similar to the Young's Literal Translation of the Bible, quoted often therein; it certainly is of educational value on the subject matter, and of strong relevance. Even though it is a noncanonical work, and is not ancient. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Good day, the II Revelation document in question is here. I suggested that Hungarywhitebear read

/tlk

16:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this is not an RS. The first line I read is 1 A second revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to him, to show his servants the secret of God, and he did signify, having sent through his messengers to his servant Jason Steven Koda, So is this not a Primary source as well as failing the self-published rule?Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Though individual "divine revelations" may be impossible to fact-check, we can conclude from the sheer quantity of mutually contradictory "divine revelations" that "divine revelations" must be frequently non-factual. And very unreliable. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The Revelation given to John of Patmos starts in a similar manner?

Rev 1:1 A revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to him, to shew to his servants what things it behoveth to come to pass quickly; and he did signify `it', having sent through his messenger to his servant John, Rev 1:2 who did testify the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, as many things also as he did see.

Does it violate the Reliable Source rule?

There is no per se rule against self-published sources, as you are trying to interpret it. And, when the source of information is not provable, as there is no way to prove the revelation given to John was real; then there is no way to say that there is a reliable source or not. The revelation given to John is more commonly accepted and known, because of its age; not because it presents provable testimony. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The concept behind the II Revelation, is that it is the fulfilment of I Revelation 10:11 Rev 10:11 and he saith to me, `It behoveth thee again to prophesy about peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings -- many.' That John of Patmos must prophesy again in the future, and write a second revelation. And, the fulfilment of the gospel of John words, that John would somehow remain until the second coming.

John 21:21 Peter having seen this one, saith to Jesus, `Lord, and what of this one?' John 21:22 Jesus saith to him, `If him I will to remain till I come, what -- to thee? be thou following me.' This word, therefore, went forth to the brethren that that disciple doth not die, John 21:23 yet Jesus did not say to him, that he doth not die, but, `If him I will to remain till I come, what -- to thee?'

Thus, the II Revelation, has credence for allegedly fulfilling these prophecies, and whether it did or not, is open to endless debate; as is the rest of the bible. But, the arguable basis alone, is sufficient to make it of educational value on the subject matter. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see none of the RS on the wikipedia page John of Patmos are written by John of Patmos.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Then where exactly does the RS for these writings come from? If they are not based on writings from John? Hungarywhitebear (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First of all you have no First Amendment rights here as we aren't the US government or even a state or local government. I also agree that this isn't a reliable source. Additionally, I note that an edit of yours says "that is virtually unknown to the general public." Wikipedia is not a venue for new ideas, which this appears to be. Doug Weller (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The last is the real issue: this is apparently not notable given that the only sourcing on it comes from the promulgator's own website. Mangoe (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

All of your arguments are complete nonsense. They are fundamentally illogical. You are saying that a self-published author who recently wrote a noncanonical biblical book, in which he describes his vision of Gabriel; cannot be relevant or posted onto an article on Gabriel. Because there is no way to verify the author had this vision, or that it actually was Gabriel, and his book was not published by a commercial corporation putting their reputation behind the allegation that it was Gabriel, and that there is no reliable source to prove that it was Gabriel; and also that there is a blanket restriction on the inclusion of citation to newly published material on Wikipedia. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

That is not what we are saying. We are saying that statements on Wikipedia have to be

notable or covered in reliable sources with commentary and analysis. This alleged "II Revelation" is something nobody has heard about, nobody cares about, and nobody has commented on, and that's why it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk

) 20:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, according to another user, II Revelation would count as a primary source. And, people obviously care about the subject matter, because it discusses Gabriel. People may not be aware of the primary source because it was just published last month. Citing facts from such a primary source without basing the entire article on it, is permissible according to the policy. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:ONEDAY is of application. Tgeorgescu (talk

) 01:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

As stated on Gabriel edit page: I don't see how the link is relevant, when I am not writing an entire article about II Revelation; I merely quoted a few verses for an article on Gabriel, of relevance. Second of all, I am not promoting a new word, idea, or invention. Notoriety is only relevant, when it involves writing an entirely new article on a topic; that it must be considered of value by someone (representative of the public at large). Information on Gabriel, historic, and how it is evolving in recent literature and media, is all relevant to the topic of the Gabriel article, which has well-established notoriety. I think your getting too deep into the commercial value of the book and saturation into media, rather than its relevance, as a modern noncanonical primary source work briefly cited on point of the topic. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Only

no original research rule. In analysing that book we rely upon secondary sources written by reputable scholars. They make the call about the Book of Revelation and its characters, Wikipedia editors don't make the call, instead they simply render viewpoints expressed by academics. Tgeorgescu (talk

) 03:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Every other breath there is some new angle, to say that II Revelation doesn't meet the standards for inclusion. My time is more precious than to waste it arguing with close-minded people. You can interpret the policies any way you like, apparently if you all gang up saying that new users are wrong; it seems fine. But, the record is against you; by your own words, how you have changed your specious reasoning at least thirty different times; it stinks of fraud. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hungarywhitebear, I think it's clear that experienced editors here agree that using II Revelation as a source is inappropriate for many reasons. It is not "changing" reasoning to mention different relevant policies at different times. It will be difficult for you to contribute productively to Wikipedia if you continue to refuse to listen to other editors; see

WP:IDHT. --Macrakis (talk

) 14:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe any of your myriads of mercurial excuses are valid. But, like I said, it is not worth my time to argue. Upon retrospection, it is probably better that I keep knowledge of the book underground; because that is what ruined the original Christian movement, with too many fake Christians. Besides, it makes the rest of the article sources look patently fraudulent/not very compelling/fragmented/etc. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I am now watching Hungarywhitebear's edit history. We may have to block him per

WP:POLEMIC. --Guy Macon (talk

) 00:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

such a long debate about such a simple decision?

preaching style posts made here. Perhaps an admin can put a warning on the said users TP. FreeatlastChitchat (talk

) 03:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I just would like to check whether the sources provided in Yasser Hareb article are reliable or not? could you please advise in this regard?. The article is proposed for deletion for unreliable sources reason, but I don't know what is wrong with the sources that I've provided. He has his own page for his weekly articles on the official websites of official newspapers from the UAE and Middle East region. In addition to that, I've provided some sources about his tv show on the official website of official channels in the UAE as well as some sources about his books. Badis1988 (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

First off - I see that the first source listed is a blog written by Yasser Hareb himself (http://paulocoelhoblog.com/2011/09/10/the-desert-editar/) In this case, this would be a self-published source which is not reliable, as the information in a blog is usually not fact checked nor cited, especially when used in a BLP. See

WP:BLPSPS. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro

02:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello [[User:Comatmebro|Comatmebro] what about the other sources used in the article? are they reliable or not? you just advised me about one source, thanks. Badis1988 (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the entire article should be deleted, non of the sources are reliable enough. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Checking to see if I am correct that this source is a commercial, for-profit site and hence not an RS for articles about

COI aside, The Academy by Neue Schule would not be considered a reliable source. It is an enrollment course/training site. Meatsgains (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice thread heading ;-) I am no expert in these matters, but it does look rather like someone trying to get a for-profit site in the encyclopaedia. If it is notable enough, I would have thought there would be a more "scholarly" source.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is a lot of other material out there from better sources. I wanted to have someone assess the commercial/for-profit stuff because I smelled a bit of COI there... but I get called a lot of bad things when I tell someone with a COI that they can't do something and then they are so mad at me... meh! So thanks! ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 08:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

An editor has been adding Indonesian sources to some articles with questionable notability. One of them is this source being used at Cemre Melis Çınar. My language skills don't extend this far but it appears to be an anonymous blog and so would not be a reliable source. Am I correct in assuming this? The editor in question has used similar sources at Isabella Damla Güvenilir, Selin Sezgin and Volkan Çolpan. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The home page through Google translate supports the blog theory. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

tabloidbiodata.blogspot.co.id - I would not call something on a website of such name "the home page". - üser:Altenmann >t 06:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Bruce Eder writes many articles I come across. He has written music and movie criticism for not only AllMusic, but also the Criterion Collection, the most prestigious DVD label, as well as a host of other publications.

Your question is very broad, so the answer to that question would be, no.

WP:RS looks not just to the author, but to the identity of the publisher and method of the publication - then too, there is specific text and context, which cannot be answered in a general way. Alanscottwalker (talk

) 14:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

One editor told me that we look not only at the publication but also the author. For instance, whatever criticisms one has about AllMusic, there are still some noted writers who contribute there, such as Richard Unterberger and Steve Erlewine. Eder is one such writer. He has written in several publications. He was chosen to write the liner notes for a box set for the Rolling Stones--I would imagine that he had to be highly thought of to be given that honor. He has also written liner notes for the Criterion Collection DVD's. They usually feature liner notes and commentary from the worlds most esteemed experts. That is one of the reasons people pay twice as much to buy a Criterion DVD. He has written extensively there. [[19]]

talk

) 17:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of where a citation to Eder is in dispute? Gamaliel (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

"He seems to be a writer of impeccable professional credentials " - If you concluded this from his allmusic profile, I would advise you to be careful. Who, in your opinion, wrote this long, detailed bio? - üser:Altenmann >t 06:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

This

If you prove lots of plagiarism from Wikipedia I would say no because Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. It wouldn't have a reputation for fact checking. DreamGuy (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

DreamGuy, "no" to what? The book being reliable or not? Kailash29792 (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You never even gave us the name of the book, just the author, a claim that it's inaccurate and plagiarizes and some chapters. No one is going to be able to make an opinion without some details and some examples of what it's being used for. What specific claims are you questioning? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• At Karnan (film) now, it's being cited for his opinion that it's "only Tamil film which portrayed the mythological character Karnan in a grand manner." (footnote 40) which is closer to puffery than particularly enlightening. It's also cited for a view that the performance was from another film and "not well received" (probably could just cite author directly), for a quote by another critic and for the writers, and editor. Is the quote inaccurate? Are the writer and editor inaccurate? The two opinions could be kept or cut, as I don't know how his personal opinion would be inaccurate of himself. No citations to Pavalakkodi (either version) nor at Vallinam so I'm just puzzled here at this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The author has written two books: The Best of Tamil Cinema (in 2 volumes) and Pride of Tamil Cinema, a single book. Right now we are dealing with the latter book, which can be viewed through Google preview. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682, can you see how much of the book is available on Google books preview? Or should I photograph each suspected chapter and show you? Kailash29792 (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Kailash29792 I'd rather you start with evidence of factually incorrect claims, evidence of plagiarism and responding to my question about what in particular are you against using this book for. Simply you pointing out the book sections and saying "it's wrong" will just be circular arguing until we have some idea what statement is the problem here. Again, is the "grand manner" that's bothersome? Is the writer or editor inaccurate? Are the quotes of other critics wrong? Do you disagree on his personal opinions about films? I'm not sure where you're going with this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll photograph the suspected pages and share them with you by tonight. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682, here is Karnan and here is Vallinam. Vensatry, please tell me more chapters from the book you caught red-handed. I'll upload them too, and the book's credibility will be judged. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Kailash29792 I don't get your point here. Ok, that's pages from the book. Where is the evidence that it is plagiarism or factually incorrect? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Irrespective of whether it's plagiarized or not, the book cites Wikipedia articles as references. It's not an acceptable as per

WP:CIRCULAR. utcursch | talk

21:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

utcursch, how do you know? Did you read it fully? The Karnan chapter copied the whole production section from us. The Vallinam chapter has the quote "ensure that he lived the role rather than act", which we also use. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:ExxonMobil#Request for comment: ExxonMobil among most vocal climate change deniers. Issues of reliability of sources have been raised. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I would like to request some feedback on whether the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) is a reliable source, because I am considering helping them contribute to business/economics topics with a self-citation COI. MGI publishes data-based, peer-reviewed, papers on business/economics topics. I would compare them to reports published by industry analysts.

For example, lets say I were to add this MGI report to the Gender pay gap page with something like "According to a study by The McKinsey Global Institute, global GDP would be increased by $28 trillion if the gender gap was closed." Articles in The Wall Street Journal and TIME Magazine that covered the report could also be cited. However, lets say I also wanted to add freely licensed diagrams from page VII and 28 showing gender gap breakdowns by region and by industry respectively. Those aren't covered by press sources and could only be added by relying on MGI alone as an RS.

The type of stuff I would like to add to Wikipedia is their data on market-sizes, demographics, projections, etc.

David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 16:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, can you clarify whether McKinsey & Company is paying you to do this? Adding company links to articles on behalf of a client would be SEO/spamming. See Wikipedia:Spam: "adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced."

If independent third parties (secondary sources) have used McKinsey as a source, they can be used instead. Using high-quality secondary sources means the McKinsey material will have been evaluated in some way. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Re-posted from

I didn't say you added it. I said you requested me to add it, so I did. Biscuittin (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

If you still don't understand why I objected, we have a problem, but I'm not going to compound it by naming it.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 17:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this a concealed slur on me? Biscuittin (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I assume you're here to get an answer to the original question, so a better question might be "After reading all the stuff at the top of the page, and reviewing other threads to see how things work on this board, what is your own self assessment of the approach you have taken with respect to your original RS-related question, thus far?"

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 18:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No comment. Biscuittin (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

There is another edit war in progess at

Hopefully, this isn't going to degenerate into another conflict. But I'd like to draw your attention to (a) [20], in which B is displaying distinctly battleground-type mentality; and (b) a spate of controversial edits and reverts having just come off a 3RR block. Hopefully, B will see sense and back off a little William M. Connolley (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It is precisely because I wish to avoid a battleground that I have asked for advice here. Biscuittin (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

A battleground describes a venue, which is not what we're talking about here. Instead, the expression "Battleground" is short for each editors private state of mind.... are we here with "battleground mentality"? You have already been alerted that DS applies to discussions of climate change as a result of ARBCC. Everyone is going to assume that you have taken time to read that, especially

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 11:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

So I have been found guilty of "battleground mentality" before the trial even starts. I'm not going to respond to any more of these slurs. I will wait for EdJohnston to respond. Biscuittin (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

As the discussion has strayed off-topic, I would remind people that it is not about me, it is about whether or not these two papers [21] [22] are reliable sources. Biscuittin (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

This thread started off with a request for process advice, with respect to determining whether some sources are RS. My advice, step 1, eds are most effective when they do not attempt to "rescue" articles from other eds they think of as a "Cabal". Step 2, if unsatisfied at article talk, go to the

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 13:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@

the section I opened on the article talk page and notice the question isn't about whether or not your sources are reliable, but if your text belongs in the article. Since we have various pages on the topic, I myself was thinking for a moment your text was pertinent, but it's not. Editor Dmcq politely and succinctly explained

the matter on the talk page:

Putting in those violates

Dmcq (talk

) 02:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

YoPienso (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, but he's the one defining the issue that he is prosecuting, no matter the advice/response from other editors.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 18:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You just keep moving the goalposts. Biscuittin (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - So, there are two papers for consideration. One of them appears to be a study and the other one seems to be a written opinion presented to a state government. Studies are considered primary sources, and we typically prefer tp use reliable secondary sources when writing articles. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources that cover this topic, so there is no reason for primary sources to be used, especially when attempting to present a dissenting viewpoint. The study was commissioned by the GWPF which is known to be a climate denial think tank. This means they have conflict of interest concerns and would be a questionable source. The second paper isn't even published and just appears to be a written summary, which even the author regards as his own "views". I don't see this meeting any of WP:RS criteria, especially when multiple peer reviewed articles and studies are currently supplied in the article. Scoobydunk (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The content I added to

I do not think that such a website can ever be called a reliable source. I think you are assuming that because biased sources are allowed, no matter how heavy the bias, we should allow this. However you should understand that a source must first fall under

2015 Zaria Shia Massacre. so please do not include this highly unreliable source in wiki. FreeatlastChitchat (talk

) 03:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but I'd rather receive responses from other users, not you. Mhhossein (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Mhhossein lol why? no I do mean seriously. Why don't you want to receive a response from me on a public noticeboard? On a side note, almost 100% of other users will agree with me, so you are basically accepting "my response". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This page exists to get outside viewpoints, though of course participants can state their own position up front. The khamenei.ir piece does not seem to be reliable for the statement expressed. It seems to be an opinion piece by a non-scholar (they seem to have an MA in international relations, that's basically it).

That said, the claim, suitably modified, is well-supported. One can find many good sources

here. Just look at the footnotes. Basically the US removed Iraq from the list of states sponsoring terrorism in 1982, and dual-use technology was allowed. Most of the support did not directly come from the US, which concentrated on providing intelligence and giving funds and credit. A lot of the weaponry came from the Soviet Union and Europe. Kingsindian ♝ ♚

13:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

that useful article. I think a substitute can be found there. Mhhossein (talk

) 16:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@

WP:BULLSHIT and it actually was. Perhaps next time you can be kind enough to not engage in personal attack if my judgement is corroborated by someone else, its kinda not my fault that the source sucks, blame the Ayatollah if you want for spewing this kind of stuff. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk

) 05:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Be careful about accusing others of lying because it is considered personal attack. I did evaluate your failing to judge the sources based on your participation in talk page of different articles. your background shows that you can't evaluate the sources correctly. For example, here you rejected the source in a biased approach only due to being related to

khamenei and expressed yourself in a harsh and uncivil manner while Kingsindian tried to say that the article although being well sourced is not written by a scholar. Can you figure out the difference? Mhhossein (talk

) 12:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein I will just copy paste wjat I wrote, I think you did not read it. The sequence of what happened is this.

1. I told you earlier that this source is hilariously bad, rather its more than bad, its just a Shi'ite Ayatollah mouthing off without rhyme or reason, Israel made the boko Haram, Hamerica is bad, The jews fathered every bad thing in the world, including the Ayatollahs firstborn.
2. you did not want to accept my view.
3. Now you have been told my KingsIndian that this source IS bad
4. you should not blame me
5. Saying that I fail to judge sources seems to a personal attack and a blatant lie in this context to be frank, seeing that I actually judged the source to be
   WP:BULLSHIT
   and it actually was.
6. Perhaps next time you can be kind enough to not engage in personal attack if my judgement is corroborated by someone else,
7. its not my fault that the source sucks, blame the Ayatollah for spewing this kind of stuff if you want.

PLEASE can you let go of this issue? There is not even a need to reply to me. I gave my opinion, you did not like it, other people liked it, the source is bad. Whats there to talk about now? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you tend to enlarge the threads in which you enter.

civil! Mhhossein (talk

) 05:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)