Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 167

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 160←Archive 165Archive 166Archive 167Archive 168Archive 169Archive 170

Desmogblog on funding for CFACT

On the CFACT page, there have been multiple attempts to add Desmogblog [1] as a source speaking to CFACT's funding in the years 2006 and prior. I recently removed the latest one, but Gaba_p (a user with reviewer & rollback rights) reverted my change and told me to open a section here if I disagreed. So, specifically, Desmogblog is being used to support this paragraph, [2], which makes claims regarding funding from Exxon and the Scaife Foundations. I believe Desmogblog should not qualify as a reliable source for the purposes of CFACT because, 1) it's a group blog (cf. WP:BLOGS) that is not part of a larger news organization (WP:NEWSBLOG, which are allowed), and all it does is provide links to other sources, 2) the link it provides to support it's claim about the Scaife funding is dead, indicating poor editorial oversight and fact-checking (cf. WP:QUESTIONABLE), and 3) it is strongly ideologically opposed to CFACT and the source it provides for it's claim about Exxon funding is Exxonsecrets, a propaganda arm of Greenpeace and a source other editors had previously agreed on the CFACT talk page should not be used in this context (cf. WP:BIASED). I understand that bias in itself does not always warrant removal of the source, but in this case and context I believe it does. Especially since the funding in question is very old (2006 and earlier) and the amounts of funding are trivial in light of CFACT's $3 million per year budget, making it misleading to include Exxon & Scaife as major donors considering how little information there is in the funding section.

Since I have much less history/experience on Wikipedia than Gaba, I am deferring to him and not reverting his change, but I think this case is pretty clear. Can we get the opinion of an outside editor? Thanks! Turnout8 (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for opening this section Turnout8 and sorry for not commenting on the TP of the article, I completely forgot about it. I disagree with Darkness Shines in both issues: I believe DeSmoBlog qualifies as a WP:RS given its notability and I don't see this fact as being "contentiuos" at all, it's simply a sentence mentioning two of those entities who have provided funding for the organization.
PS: regarding the statement "Exxonsecrets (...) a source other editors had previously agreed on the CFACT talk page should not be used in this context", I fail to see where this was discussed and/or agreed upon. All I see is a single comment about this but nothing more. Regards. Gaba (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't see what notability has to do with reliability. I also don't see how that responds at all to the 3 points I gave above. As for your PS, there were several comments after the one you mentioned. Ultimately the Exxon info was removed because it was outdated. See the talk for more details. Turnout8 (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Turnout8 point me to those comments please? I checked again and again I found that single comment I mentioned above about Exxonsecretes. Please provide diffs so I can see what you are talking about. Thanks. Gaba (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Celebrity Net Worth

Should the website "Celebrity Net Worth" be considered an RS for a BLP DOB (i.e. Peter Ostrum: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Ostrum&curid=685962&diff=600075346&oldid=600074356) — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

No. Personal information needs the highest quality sourcing and that aint it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Wetpaint

Is wetpaint.com a reliable source? It looks like it probably is, but I'm not very familiar with the site and don't see anything about it in the noticeboard archives. According to its Wikipedia page, it started out as a wiki farm, but moved to providing professional content later on. I'm not exactly sure what's meant by "professional content" though. --Jpcase (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Not look into this too deeply but I would be tempted to say no. It looks more like some sort of aggregator / link farm. --Asteriontalk 20:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
no, wetpaint is user generated content - no editorial oversight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Anthony Flood self-published article on Murray Rothbard

Users Steeletrap and SPECIFICO keep arguing that this self-published piece, filled with undocumented opinions, by an author who only is notable for a few articles published in a metaphysics journal is a more reliable source than information from books published by reliable publishers; they even have removed such info. Anyone want to try to disabuse them of that notion?

  • Anthony Flood, "Murray Newton Rothbard: Notes toward a Biography which he admits here was his researched but unwritten book.
  • vs: Raimondo, Justin (2000). An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-61592-239-3. OCLC 43541222 and Casey, Gerard (2010). Meadowcroft, John, ed. Murray Rothbard. Major Conservative and Libertarian Thinkers 15. London: Continuum. ISBN 978-1-4411-4209-2.

Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment – This RSN is unneeded. There has been no defense/justification put forth to keep the Flood material in the article. The only reason it has not been removed is because the page is under protection. (Specifico & Steeletrap have not argued that it should be retained.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
When people put back material that has been removed twice, and come up with personal accusations that avoid the issue as at Talk:Murray_Rothbard#Anthony_Flood_not_RS.2FRemoval_of_Casey_info, than what other choice is there? Plus if I want to ask the Admin who protected the article to insert the properly sourced material, it would help to have an opinion here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I requested an edit request on the page and the Admin declined to implement it. And once he did, I closed the edit request. We do not need other editors or another Admin to take a look at the edit request. (Also, coming to this noticeboard can be seen as forum shopping.) In any event you will not see editors coming here to defend the Flood material. So, the best course of action is to let them post justification for Flood on the article talk page (which they will not do), and then remove Flood when the page protection expires. Keep in mind that I have characterized the Flood material as RS-crap. It will go, but we do not need more drama here to complicate the discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Admins can be wrong, can't they? Of course, if you had asked to add the properly sourced info at the same time that you asked to remove the poorly sourced info, the outcome might have been different. It didn't occur to me that the Admin was a forum, however, so if other editors agree it's forum shopping to bring it here, then I guess we can close it - til 3 weeks have passed, if ArbCom still can't decide what to do. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The content cited to Flood has no controversial claims -- indeed it's obvious that the Rothbard family moved from Bronx to Manhattan because we have multiple other sources which discuss the subject's origin in the Bronx and subsequent coming of age in Manhattan. SPECIFICO talk 18:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, Flood's piece is a SPS/blog, and such sources "are largely not acceptable as sources." He is not recognized as an expert in the field of biography or the history of Rothbard. The policy does not distinguish about controversial claims or vanilla statements. If there are "multiple other sources", please provide them. – S. Rich (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The other sources are cited in the article, please refresh your familiarity with the discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
As there are "other sources ... cited in the article" there is no need to add Flood. – S. Rich (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Either way, the content is OK. SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The content is sub par but obviously we aren't going to get a third opinion at this point. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

lawyersupdate.co.in

Seems to be a website for a print magazine, being linked in multiple articles, for example [3] in Mary Bell. Examples [4] [5] [6]. Any thoughts? Яehevkor ✉ 19:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably not reliable for any contentious matters or for BLPs. What evidence is there of a policy that places a priority on fact-checking? Dezastru (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it time for a general reevaluation of our position on Russian and Crimean media?

In the past few weeks during the Crimean crisis, many sources have reported a systematic crackdown and enforced bias on Russian and Crimean media.[7][8] For example, though even in 2005 they were unpopular with Reporters Without Borders,[9] the popular network RT (TV network) and associated web content have gone from being seen as more or less just another network in archive 39[10] to biased like other news channels only more so in recent discussion.[11][12] But in the past week or so, there has been unprecedented criticism of the network and allegations that it is nothing more than Russian propaganda period,[13] though as that source points out, there are some holdouts like Larry King who disagree. For their part RT has some content about censorship in Ukraine[14] - admittedly, it is not so simple to be sure sometimes how much of the bias is on the "Western" end and how much on theirs.

Anyway, though the world may discover it is unable to pass sanctions against Russia no matter how much of the Ukraine they take, I'm wondering if it may be time for us to pass one of our own - to formally demote the status of RT and other Russian publications to that of a press release or other primary source, with all the concomitant policy restrictions for BLPs and other uses. This would be on the basis that, if they are really being told what to do by some government official in the shadows, they are no better than his own self-published statement. I'm not confident enough of my judgment here to say we should do that - only that, as someone who has used them without much discrimination in past editing, I'm starting to worry that I've been wrong to do so. Is there any way to develop some confidence about this question? Wnt (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If RT is a reliable source on the matter, they're not a reliable source according to one of their own. Even before Crimea, I thought they were on par with post-Fox Glenn Beck when it came to their use as an RS. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Are Facebook and Twitter a RS for an alternate name?

I had reverted this edit but the IP has reinstated the text and sources [15] so I'm asking for outside input: Are these Twitter and Facebook pages a reliable source for adding the text ["or simply Joy"] after the subject's name? ie. Joy Williams (or simply Joy) [16] [17]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly in other cases, but not in this case. First, the actual alternative version of the name shown on Facebook and Twitter is "JOY" not "Joy". Second, is there any other source, such as an interview, that says she is also known as or prefers to be called JOY? Since she is primarily notable as a vocal artist, has she made any recordings that list the name "JOY" rather than "Joy Williams", or has she had any performances in which she was advertised as "JOY" rather than "Joy Williams"?
(It seems she would like to join the one-name artists club, like Madonna or Adele, but the name doesn't seem to have caught on quite yet. And the name Joy isn't unique enough among artists - unlike, say, Adele - for everyone to immediately recognize who it is that is meant by the name.) Dezastru (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree with your analysis. Any other views?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting moving the page, just making people aware of the aka, so it doesn't matter if it's not immediately reconizable. The name she personally presents to the public (if only very recently, so yet to catch on) is surely worthy of a mention. 123.243.242.213 (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Daily Grindhouse a usable source?

I've been editing the page The Upper Footage. There's been a bit of a history of edit warring on the page, so I'll state that up front. I originally had a new user come on and try to edit the page and tweak it to be more promotional for the film. Accusations got thrown around fairly freely by this editor (you can see some here) and I seem to remember them trying to add various things that weren't RS. The reason I mention this is because one of the things brought up was that I was deliberately trying to sabotage the film by making it less positive than it was. I do not have any ulterior motives. It's just that the coverage is not exactly glowing for this film. I kind of feel that if I don't mention this, someone might say that I'm trying to discredit every review brought on the page.

OK, that said, one of the reviews is from Daily Grindhouse. ([18]) It looks to be a non-usable blog source, as I can't really tell the editorial process for the site. I've read their stuff before and I like it, but I don't think it's really a RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Is the Ukrainian Constitution a RS to say Parliament violated it?

The article is 2014 Ukrainian revolution. See [19] - the link, [20], is to a section of the Ukrainian Constitution. I have no idea why there is a sentence in Ukrainian there rather than English, but it means "(Article 111 of the President of Ukraine may be removed from the post by the Verkhovna Rada in the procedure of impeachment in case of committing it treason or other crimes.)" Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

No, there is too much interpretation of events required for that to be a sufficient source. It's a source for what the constitution says, not for what happened or whether what happened violated what the constitution says. Podiaebba (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Obviously not. To say that the Constitution has been violated is a legal analysis or interpretation of some event that has occurred; the Constitution cannot include an analysis of an event that occurred after it was written/adopted. Dezastru (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
However, after you find a reliable source you might be able to quote the relevant section, at least in a footnote, to make the point clear. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
No, per Podiaebba and Dezastru. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I removed it, got taken to ANI (no problem really), but the current edit, although unattributed, doesn't use it any more and is certainly better. Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Better but heavily contested at Talk:2014 Ukrainian revolution#The unconstitutional impeachment. - I'm staying out of it now. Dougweller (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Syrian Observatory for Human Rights being used as an RS for Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013-present)

The SOHR's Facebook page[21] is being used to back factual statements of deaths, etc at Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013-present). When I tried to change this last year I was reverted with an edit summary saying that SOHR was a reliable source.[22]. I left it at that but another issue reminded me of this today, so I'm bringing it here again. We've had earlier discussions at [23] and [24], neither of which seem to suggest we can simply use it as a reliable source. This article comes under WP:SCWGS per Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Syrian_civil_war_articles ([25]) and ultimately community consensus from August 2013 although it hasn't yet been tagged as such, something which I will do next. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Disallow. Not a valid source. --Asteriontalk 20:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Ive attempted to clean up the non-neutral, non-reviewed source but Ive been reverted. Werieth (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Someone thinks SOHR is a reliable source? What? Where? I'll help with the clean-up if need be.
Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 14:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks User:Aua. It's been cleared up several times this month but reverted each time. Latest clearup was today.[26]. This is a 1RR article now - I've tagged it as such. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Added it to my watchlist to help out whenever possible!
Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 00:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Did this noticeboard "support" the inclusion of the Virginia Draa school uniform study at School uniforms

@ZarlanTheGreen: In this revert of material sourced of a PhD thesis study about school uniforms, a Wikipedian said "No. No noticeboard was in favour of including it.)"

It had been discussed on the RS noticeboard Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_163#Reliability_of_Education-related_PhD_thesis:_School_uniform_.22study.22. My impression was that the noticeboard here saw it as "reliable" and the noticeboard therefore was indeed in favor of it being included

There are secondary sources that discuss it, either about the study, or about uniform implementation (referring to the study):

School districts themselves talk about the study

According to Google Scholar, this study is cited 11 times. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I searched the University of Houston library database after reading a textbook page that said that a Columbus Dispatch article talked about the Draa study, and I found this entry. I can get it off Wikipedia:RX if someone wants me to take a bigger look:

  • "Dressed for success ; Study shows high-school graduation rates rise when kids wear uniforms". (Home Final Edition) Columbus Dispatch, ISSN 1074-097X, 01/16/2006, p. 6.A "[...]for the young people involved. A high-school diploma is a key to success beyond the classroom. Most significant, this particular study examined data in 64 high schools[...]"

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The general consensus seemed to be that the study is reliable. But we did not - and almost certainly wouldn't on this noticeboard since we're operating without a lot of context and expertise - address the issue of weight. But someone claiming that there was a clear consensus that the source isn't reliable based on our previous discussion is very confused or dishonest. ElKevbo (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
"But we did not - and almost certainly wouldn't on this noticeboard since we're operating without a lot of context and expertise - address the issue of weight."
This is clearly false. The issue of weight was frequently mentioned and there were multiple judgements on whether or not inclusion of the source would constitute undue weight. Anyone who has read the discussion and thinks otherwise is very confused or dishonest.
Extended content
You're saying these comment's where not made?

There's a certain degree of cherry-picking going on as I don't see that this study is all that heavily cited, and some of the references I have found seem to come to conflicting conclusions. Mangoe (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I just took a look, and it doesn't look to me like cherry-picking./.../ —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC) (Yes the editor disagrees, but it is a comment on the weight of the source, nonetheless)

Do I detect cherry-picking here? yes. And,,, should we be spending time discussing the 1 in a million PhD thesis that was passed through for political - or any other - reasons? No. Why not? Well, for the same reason that we don't allow a single dissenting example to steer the course of an article, namely, Undue weight. /.../ Mercy11 (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It's still not that simple. Another issue that can determine whether we use any peer-reviewed study is whether or not it's gained traction in academic circles. Eg one-off study on DNA 8 years ago that has been completely ignored since shouldn't be used as a source, even if it was a PhD, published paper, etc. There simply is no hard and fast rule that we can apply. And the idea that all peer-reviewed material is neutral simply is wrong. Dougweller (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
"But someone claiming that there was a clear consensus that the source isn't reliable based on our previous discussion is very confused or dishonest."
Really? Please explain.
Furthermore WP:Reliable Sources is very clear on this issue, in stating that it isn't a reliable source, unless there are other sources to confirm it as reliable. To quote from WP:Reliable Sources (the relevant section being here) with relevant emphasis and comments added by me:
"Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used (Zarlan: i.e. it is not clear that they should be used, just because they are a dissertation) but care should be exercised. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. (Zarlan: i.e. a PhD dissertation does not count as a peer-reviewed paper, unless there is verification of that having happened) If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties."--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
1. The issue of weight was discussed but not resolved because that's not the purpose of this noticeboard nor is this a good venue to do so.
2. You made the claim that "No noticeboard was in favour of including it." That's a bit confused because it's pretty rare that any noticeboard would definitively be "in favour" of including anything; our typical role is to help editors determine whether or not a particular source meets a rather narrow set of criteria that are necessary but not sufficient for inclusion. In any case, it isn't necessary for any noticeboard to be "in favour" of including material for it to be included so that's a completely bogus reason for removing anything.
3. Anyone who makes the blanket statement that doctoral dissertations are not peer-reviewed is woefully ignorant of the entire dissertation/thesis process and unqualified to hold an opinion on the subject of their reliability. By definition, dissertations from legitimate (e.g., accredited) universities are peer-reviewed unless there are highly unusual circumstances or aberrations in the process. The material you are quoting above clearly (a) addresses this issue and (b) speaks more to weight than to reliability. ElKevbo (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The thing about the noticeboard came in the edit in which I added the content: "Integrate Draa study after noticeboard posts were mostly in favor of including it" - Most of the posts determined that a PhD thesis counts as a "reliable" study and the secondary sources that discuss the Draa study do exist, adding the notability factor WhisperToMe (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
"The issue of weight was discussed but not resolved because that's not the purpose of this noticeboard nor is this a good venue to do so."
So you admit your error in stating that the issue was not addressed, then?
"You made the claim that "No noticeboard was in favour of including it.""
That was not addressed in that comment. You're reply is misplaced (never-mind, I'll let it slide this time) ...and fails to address the relevant point. Please note that WhisperToMe's sentence where he/she mentions it, makes it clear that I am clearly not the editor in question. Rather it was some unnamed wikipedian.
"so that's a completely bogus reason for removing anything."
Perhaps. I admit I expressed myself in a bit of an sloppy, oversimplified and exaggerated manner. I'm still fairly new to these noticeboards, so a bit of clumsiness is hardly unexpected. I'll add that your words are just as valid towards WhisperToMe's argument for the re-inclusion, however ...and WhisperToMe's attitude seems not to have changed: Note what he/she says above "/.../and the noticeboard therefore was indeed in favor of it being included"
Either way, there is ample reason to remove the citation, aside from issues of reliability, that I have pointed out in defence of the removal in the talk page, swiftly after removing the relevant bit ...making this noticeboard discussion rather pointless and irrelevant.
"Anyone who makes the blanket statement that doctoral dissertations are not peer-reviewed is woefully ignorant of the entire dissertation/thesis process and unqualified to hold an opinion on the subject of their reliability."
What you are arguing against are not just my words, but those of WP:RS. You are arguing an article of Wikipedia policy. An article that is subject to very strict, important and valued consensus. A consensus that is against your view.
"By definition, dissertations from legitimate (e.g., accredited) universities are peer-reviewed unless there are highly unusual circumstances or aberrations in the process."
Citation needed.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
You say "a Wikipedian said "No. No noticeboard was in favour of including it.)"", yet you do not provide a link to the statement? Then that is a mere rumour. Not something worthy of Wikipedia.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I provided a link to the diff above :) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
So you did, as I later realised. On that point I was in error ...but the sentence still doesn't make any sense.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
"There are secondary sources that discuss it, either about the study, or about uniform implementation"
That might count as valid, for mentioning the study in terms of the discussion about the validity of school uniforms, but not the the validity of the source for talking about the actual efficacy of school uniforms (which is the context in which you are trying to include it). Please note that the articles you mention are newspaper articles. Those are generally not all that reliable, especially not if the issue is controversial. (even where it might not necessarily be controversial in the academic world)
"School districts themselves talk about the study"
That is completely irrelevant, other than possibly when it comes mentioning the discussion about the validity of school uniforms. What the schools talk about is a matter of politics. Not research or science. The people involved may be policy makers, but they are not academics, in the field of studying the effects of school uniforms.
"According to Google Scholar, this study is cited 11 times."
I followed that link and found no evidence of that. In fact, I saw no mention of Draa's study, whatsoever. Thus your claim is nonsensical.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I think there a misunderstanding. I provided a Google Scholar link that is a list of the number of sources that cite Draa's study. You can individually count the number on the page. Page 1 of the results list shows 10 articles, and the final page shows 1 more. That's 11 articles citing the Draa study. If you look at the title of the link, it is "Draa: School Uniforms in Urban Public High Schools." - When you search Google Scholar for "School Uniforms in Urban Public High Schools." the results say that "School Uniforms in Urban Public High Schools." was cited by 11
"Please note that the articles you mention are newspaper articles. Those are generally not all that reliable" - In the social sciences, Zarlan, newspapers are usually considered "reliable sources" and are signs of verifiability. The medicine field is a special case. When I mention policies like WP:NEWSORG, I like to quote from them to show that I understand them and I'm not using them inappropriately. So, NEWSORG says... "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Agence France-Presse or the Associated Press, which are responsible for the accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it." The 19 Action News one was written by the AP.
To be frank, the fact that other school districts discuss and tout the Draa study is absolutely relevant. I bring up the school district pages to show that people expect to see it on here.
WhisperToMe (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
However, I took a look at the Brunsuma study. It's cited 99 times according to Google scholar. The Journal of Negro Education article (also brought up) is cited 6 times. There seems to be a wide disparity in citations between the Brunsuma one and the others. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
"I think there a misunderstanding. I provided a Google Scholar link that is a list of the number of sources that cite Draa's study."
I see no reason to believe that it is. Even if true, that isn't much.
"In the social sciences, Zarlan, newspapers are usually considered "reliable sources" and are signs of verifiability."
I see no reason to believe that.
1. Social Sciences are academic ...and they are Sciences. Please do not disrespect "soft" sciences.
2. I see no policy or guideline that indicates that Social Sciences don't count as sciences or academic fields, or that they are to be treated differently to other scientific fields.
3. WP:NEWSORG does not specify that it only applies to academic fields.
"The medicine field is a special case."
No one has mentioned medicine.
"So, NEWSORG says... "
That's all beside the point, given that NEWSORG says:
"News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact.", "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context." and "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis."
"To be frank, the fact that other school districts discuss and tout the Draa study is absolutely relevant."
You just say it is relevant, and expect people to accept it, just like that, with no argument or explanation!? On what possible basis? Just because you say so?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
1. I haven't heard of Google Scholar being wrong in their citation counts. If this is so, I would like to see examples. As the school uniform article currently stands, in School_uniform#Efficacy much more of this section is discussing the article with six citations.
2. I see no policy or guideline that indicates that Social Sciences don't count as sciences or academic fields, or that they are to be treated differently to other scientific fields." - On the medicine part: Wikipedia:MEDRS (it's clear what it's talking about!) - On everything else, a search of the archives of this noticeboard will show consistently that, other than medicine, newspaper articles are RS sources, especially when the AP is the author. Do I need to do more work than is necessary and show this to you?
3. All the cautionary stuff NEWSORG says doesn't apply to an article written by the AP (it's pointed out in this very policy that it's the AP that's responsible for the quality of such an article). And those passages are there so people cite The New York Times instead of the Small Town local newspaper (much of RS is about using better sources when they exist)
4. "You just say it is relevant, and expect people to accept it, just like that, with no argument or explanation!? On what possible basis? Just because you say so?"
  • They are school districts, and they say so, Zarlan. They say it's relevant. They are the ones who get parents to do the school uniform thing and get media publicity when they adopt uniforms (and newspapers write articles when the local schools adopt uniforms). So a parent points to the Wikipedia page, the school district, if savvy enough, will look at the edit history and they can tell the parent "it's just being scrubbed by somebody, it's not telling the whole story" and the parent will no longer take the article seriously. I know in the case of evolution and the like the Wikipedia articles are engineered to fit scientific consensus instead of the public debate in the United States, and rightly so. The Flat earth theory is also not given undue weight, so Wikipedia fairly represents viewpoints. But in this subject, I haven't seen a consensus that a "popular public view" on uniforms should be sidelined for being "determined wrong by the scientific community" and therefore I don't think it's a good idea to sideline a contrary study instead of addressing it through reliable sources. The Worcester Wired article says:
  • "Novick points to a study published in the Journal of Education Research in 1998. It’s an older study that tracked a national sample of 10th graders in 1988. The study concluded that the only positive result that could be found is a .05 percent improvement on standardized test scores for students who wore uniforms.[...]But a 2005 study often cited by proponents looked at school uniforms in six of 64 public schools in Ohio. The study’s author Virginia Draa, assistant professor of human ecology at Youngstown State University, said she found although uniforms did not appear to improve academic performance in reading and math, schools that had uniforms did have increased attendance and graduation rates and fewer suspensions. Critics say the six schools with uniforms in the study did not constitute a large enough group and that the improvements could be credited to other factors as well" (this article is about a school committee vote to adopt uniforms - one member brought up the 1998 Journal of Education Research study but the member was outvoted by everyone else)
This is how the school uniform debate is currently set up in the public sphere. If we don't mention Draa there will be a significant element of people who will accuse Wikipedia of being biased or trying to ignore something it doesn't like. Likewise people in the uniform debate point to Long Beach USD and not mentioning it will be perceived as a huge omission. This article does say "Critics say the six schools with uniforms in the study did not constitute a large enough group and that the improvements could be credited to other factors as well" in regards to Draa but I want to know who those critics are and where this info is published
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
"I haven't heard of Google Scholar being wrong in their citation counts. If this is so, I would like to see examples."
that's not the issue. Please demonstrate to me, that Google Scholar indicates that it has that many citations ...because you haven't.
"As the school uniform article currently stands, in School_uniform#Efficacy much more of this section is discussing the article with six citations."
First of all, which article is that (there are three separate articles from The Journal of Negro Education, that are cited in the School_uniform#Efficacy section), and secondly: Please demonstrate to me, that Google Scholar indicates that it has that many citations.
"On the medicine part: Wikipedia:MEDRS (it's clear what it's talking about!)"
Again: No one mentioned either medicine or WP:MEDRS. How is it, in any way, relevant?
"On everything else, a search of the archives of this noticeboard will show consistently that, other than medicine, newspaper articles are RS sources, especially when the AP is the author."
...
No.
"Do I need to do more work than is necessary and show this to you?"
...
I think we rather disagree on what is necessary.
"All the cautionary stuff NEWSORG says doesn't apply to an article written by the AP (it's pointed out in this very policy that it's the AP that's responsible for the quality of such an article)."
...
I fear you are mistaken. Note that it says "Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Agence France-Presse or the Associated Press, which are responsible for the accuracy."
This means that when a paper reprints a AP article, it is AP, who are responsible for the accuracy, rather than the paper who reprints the article. It does not, in any way, indicate that AP articles are to be regarded as any more reliable or unreliable, than any other news source.
"'They are school districts, and they say so, Zarlan."
So what? That has no impact on what is true about the actual efficacy of school uniforms.
"So a parent points to the Wikipedia page, the school district, if savvy enough, will look at the edit history and they can tell the parent "it's just being scrubbed by somebody, it's not telling the whole story and the parent will no longer take the article seriously."
The same could be said about evolution, climate change and September 11 attacks (among many others).
Are you saying that we should treat unscientific nonsense seriously, to pander to creationists, climate change deniers and truthers?
If you do, then you are in complete defiance of Wikipedia policy.
If you don't, then you are clearly a hypocrite.
"I know in the case of evolution and the like the Wikipedia articles are engineered to fit scientific consensus instead of the public debate in the United States, and rightly so."
...yet in this scientific debate, you think that the science should take a back seat to peoples uninformed, knee-jerk opinions? That is rather hypocritical.
I remind you: The section is called "Efficacy". Not "Debate".
"The Flat earth theory is also not given undue weight, so Wikipedia fairly represents viewpoints."
It is interesting that you mention that fringe idea, specifically.
To quote from WP:DUE (with emphasis added by me):
"For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. /.../ Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)."
The Flat Earth concept (it is not a theory, BTW) is mentioned on Wikipedia, due to it being notable, yet it is not, and should not be, mentioned in the Earth article. If you wish to use Flat earth as an example, then that would suggest that Draa's study should not be mentioned.
Please try to make arguments that are not self-contradictory and self-defeating.
Speaking of "flat earth", this seems somewhat relevant: Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat
"I haven't seen a consensus that a "popular public view" on uniforms should be sidelined for being "determined wrong by the scientific community""
I have: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:Scientific consensus, WP:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat...
Do you want me to go on?
Besides: The section is called "Efficacy". Not "Debate".
"This is how the school uniform debate is currently set up in the public sphere."
What is debated in the public sphere has no impact or relevance to the science.
"If we don't mention Draa there will be a significant element of people who will accuse Wikipedia of being biased or trying to ignore something it doesn't like."
First of all, I am far from convinced of that ...but more importantly: So what? That's not relevant ...as I've explained above.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
"What is debated in the public sphere has no impact or relevance to the science." and "So what? That's not relevant ...as I've explained above."
Wikipedia is absolutely under the scrutiny of the public, so we have to address what's in the public debate. I am very well aware of how Wikipedia deals with the flat earth theory. It has a place where it goes, and it is not removed entirely from Wikipedia. That's why the articles like Barack Obama have FAQs. It's fine that Barack Obama doesn't mention the conspiracy theories (because there's another article that houses those) and the FAQ does a good job telling the public why this is the case.
"I have: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:Scientific consensus, WP:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat..."
Throwing policies without explanation won't stop this fact: In the case of "flat earth theory" and creationism the Scientific community has explicitly made statements against these things. It's easy to verify that scientists don't care for the flat earth. That's what I'm looking for. Wikipedia has articles stating that explicitly. Without a sourced claim that Draa's study isn't scientific enough, a random Wikipedian can't claim it's not scientific when other Wikipedians in an RS noticeboard will claim that it is indeed scientific.
You can say all you like that, for instance, Long Beach USD study is not scientific but people in school board meetings keep bringing it up. Wikipedia has to address it somehow. The readers expect to see it somewhere. Then shouldn't Wikipedia state somewhere explicitly that educational commenters argue that Long Beach USD's promotion is flawed? Readers expect to see the Draa study too. Shouldn't we find evidence of any problems in Draa's study instead of trying to hide it from everyone? So the pro-uniformers can't accuse us of trying to hide this info. Instead they have to deal with counterarguments.
  • And if you bring up weight and say that "it shouldn't be in school uniform" then... where does all the information go? Is there a better article? It must go somewhere, either "school uniform" or some other article, but it can't be nowhere. Wikipedia complies with WP:DUE by having a special article for flat earth theory and a special article for conspiracy theories on Barack Obama. If there is no "other article" then pro-school uniformers will criticize Wikipedia and get voting parents to ignore it. We don't want that. We want voting parents to understand the whole issue and make informed decisions. If the pro-uniform arguments are not scientific, don't hide them! Show that reliable sources say they are not scientific.
"Please try to make arguments that are not self-contradictory and self-defeating." - How are they self-contradictory and self-defeating? Explain??
"1. Social Sciences are academic ...and they are Sciences. Please do not disrespect "soft" sciences." - It's not disrespect. It's simply: the media gets them right, while the media gets medicine wrong. The media is incompetent with medicine.
I'm going to show you another quote from the Worcester article:
  • "School Committee member Brian O’Connell said he believes uniforms will have a beneficial effect on Chandler by improving personal attire and that they would help the students focus on academics. O’Connell cited the education facilities in Long Beach, Calif. as successfully applying a uniform policy with several positive results."
Wikipedia has to reach and be of use to the parents who sit at school board meetings and hear these arguments. The question of efficacy of school uniforms cannot ignore the Long Beach arguments even if they are "not scientific" and the question cannot ignore Draa's study as it is being cited too. If there is some alternate article which can discuss these aspects I would like to know what it is.
WhisperToMe (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is absolutely under the scrutiny of the public, so we have to address what's in the public debate."
Irrelevant.
"It has a place where it goes, and it is not removed entirely from Wikipedia."
Yes. It has it's place and it is not allowed outside of that place. You accept that, yet you want the Draa's study to be included where it does not belong. That is the very definition of double standards or hypocrisy.
"Throwing policies without explanation won't stop this fact"
I could explain. It would make for a very long comment though, and I fail to see the point in doing so. I've already pointed out several parts of policies, that back me up already. There is no need for me to waste any more time on it.
"It's easy to verify that scientists don't care for the flat earth. That's what I'm looking for. Wikipedia has articles stating that explicitly."
...
It is one single, methodologically flawed, study and all other studies contradict it.
The burden of evidence is on anyone trying to argue that it is relevant. To demand evidence that it isn't relevant is to misplace the burden of evidence and to ignore the clear evidence that is already shown.
"Without a sourced claim that Draa's study isn't scientific enough, a random Wikipedian can't claim it's not scientific"
Without a sourced claim that Draa's study is scientific enough, a random Wikipedian can't claim it is scientific.
"when other Wikipedians in an RS noticeboard will claim that it is indeed scientific."
Neither RS noticeboard has agreed with you (at best the first one was inconclusive on the issue or it being a RS), as many (even ElKevbo, who argues that it is a RS) have pointed out to you already ...and there is still the issue of undue weight, which frankly makes the issue of reliability, a moot point.
"You can say all you like that, for instance, Long Beach USD study is not scientific but people in school board meetings keep bringing it up."
So what? Creationists/climate change deniers/flat earthers/truthers keep bringing up their stuff.
Again: you are arguing for a double standard. Special pleading is a fallacy, you know. However much you repeat your arguments, they are still completely invalid and hypocritical.
"Wikipedia has to address it somehow?"
Has to? No.
"Shouldn't we find evidence of any problems in Draa's study instead of trying to hide it from everyone?"
What is this nonsense about "hiding" the study? Please stop using such dishonest implications and loaded language.
"So the pro-uniformers can't accuse us of trying to hide this info."
Again: Evolution, Climate Change, 9/11, Obama, Scientology...
Why should we pander to conspiracy theorists? What they think should not effect Wikipedia policy.
"where does all the information go?"
Well a mention in a Debate/Controversy section would be okay. (note the short little Social and cultural responses section at the bottom of Evolution)
"don't hide them! Show that reliable sources say they are not scientific."
Again. You are being very dishonest an thus very uncivil. You are also being hypocritical, as you don't think that the lack of mentioning the Flat Earth concept in Earth, counts as "trying to hide it".
Your arguments and logic on Flat Earth and creationism can be used to show why Draa's study doesn't warrant inclusion, while your logic for its inclusion would also work to completely transform Wikipedia articles to include any and all fringe ideas, conspiracy theories and pseudo-scientific nonsense, everywhere ...in complete disagreement with Wikipedia Policy.
You have not presented a single valid argument. Almost all of them are instances of special pleading.
"How are they self-contradictory and self-defeating? Explain??"
You brought up the Flat Earth concept, to defend mentioning the Draa's study in School uniform (just like how Flat Earth is mentioned in Earth), yet the Wikipedia article about Earth makes no mention of that idea, and your logic would thus argue for the same being the case here: No mention of the Draa's study in School uniform. Thus your logic worked perfectly against the position you argued for ...which is the very definition of an argument being self-contradictory and self-defeating.
Did I not explain this already?
"- It's not disrespect. It's simply: the media gets them right, while the media gets medicine wrong. The media is incompetent with medicine."
First of all, that is pure nonsense. The media messes up social sciences at least as much as any other science (often far more) ...but also: There is no mention in any Wikipedia Policy, Guideline or Essay, that says that social sciences should be treated any different to any other science.
In other words, there are no Wikipedia rules that say so, and no reason why those rules should.
Thus you have no grounds for saying that they should be.
"Wikipedia has to reach and be of use to the parents who sit at school board meetings and hear these arguments."
Wait what!?
...
No. No it doesn't. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia was not set up, with the purpose of being the foundation for school board meetings ...and any school boards that treat it as such, are utterly terrible.
"The question of efficacy of school uniforms cannot ignore the Long Beach arguments even if they are "not scientific""
...
It can and it should ...just like how explanations of the nature of evolution ignores creationism, explanations of what happened during 9/11 ignores conspiracy theories, explanations of Climate Change ignores the nonsense that climate "skeptics" spout and explanations of Obama's early life make no mention of any thought of him being born in Kenya.
Studies that cannot reliably say anything about the effect of school uniforms (as the Draa's study has explicitly been pointed out as being) has nothing to say about the effect of school uniforms.
"and the question cannot ignore Draa's study as it is being cited too."
Citations by newspapers do not make it any more scientifically valid.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I note that there was a points that you failed to address:
You claimed that the cautionary stuff WP:NEWSORG says, doesn't apply to an article written by the AP. I pointed out that, that isn't what WP:NEWSORG says. You have neither acknowledged that you were wrong, nor made a counterargument to argue that you were right.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

What question is being asked here? If the question is "Did this noticeboard 'support' the inclusion of the Virginia Draa school uniform study at School uniforms?", the answer is that the discussion was inconclusive. Some contributors to the discussion said that the Draa thesis is reliable (mainly arguing a PhD thesis is reliable by definition), while others disputed that a thesis is automatically reliable. The latter contributors did not focus so much on the merits of this particular thesis; they instead addressed the question of whether theses should automatically qualify as a reliable sources generally speaking. Dezastru (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The latter contributors were talking about this particular thesis. TFD said: "You are confusing rs and weight. The thesis is a reliable secondary source for the development of school uniforms, the arguments offered for and against them, and the academic literature on them, which is the subject of the first 50 pages. It is also a reliable primary source for the study carried out and the author's conclusions." and Doug Weller said in response to the entire post by TFD: "I wasn't confusing rs and weight - I was commenting on using peer-reviewed studies, not whether they were RS - I guess I wasn't specific enough with my wording but I thought the point was important to make here. But I agree with everything else you've said here." WhisperToMe (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
By "latter contributors," who challenged the idea that theses are all automatically reliable, I meant those such as SlimVirgin, MASEM, and Dougweller. Dezastru (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok. TFD analyzed the actual document, and Dougweller ultimately agreed with what TFD said. I read what Masem and Slimvirgin had to say.
  • Slimvirgin: "I think we should be wary of using PhD theses as academic sources. If nothing hangs on it and no one objects, it should be okay, but for anything contentious it's worth bearing in mind that there's a big variation in quality between mainstream universities, and even within the same university between different departments." - I haven't read about any published challenges to the Draa study. If there were any, though, I'd imagine it would be in the context of a "uniform debate" and could be used to contribute to the article (The Long Beach USD promoted uniforms in the 1990s and caused a lot of media attention but there were very public challenges to that district's arguments)
  • Masem's comment was early in the thread and it was posted 3 hours after my post (the final post was 6 days later).
  • He said: "I've been through this, and no, this is not true across the board. Yes, the thesis will have been reviewed by the advisory committee and a good committee will be critical but others will be more looking at the scientific process rather than the claims of the results. As such, by default, thesis should be considered unreliable. But that said - if the committee includes a known expert in the field that might be a reason to assume reliability. And in many places, publication in peer-reviewed journals (which might become part of the thesis) is a necessary requirement, so finding a thesis of a topic of interest, one should seek out papers by that person that were part of the thesis." - But over the course of the discussion it seemed like in general the view that a thesis should usually be considered un-reliable was not shared by the other participants.
WhisperToMe (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Long story short: I fully agree with Dezastru and find that the quotes that you provide, do nothing other than to confirm what he/she says. Sure some others did not share that view, but that only shows that there was disagreement. Not that there was anything that even comes close to a consensus.
Besides, as I've said: WP:RS says that dissertations can be reliable, if they are shown to be. They are not, however, automatically counted as reliable, just because they are dissertations ...and that is an issue of policy, which thus overrides any opinions on a noticeboard.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there a quote from a policy that states that PhDs are not automatically reliable in a way that disqualified the Draa study instead of analyzing it? After all an RS commenter did exactly that with the Draa study. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
"Is there a quote from a policy that states that PhDs are not automatically reliable in a way that disqualified the Draa study instead of analyzing it? After all an RS commenter did exactly that with the Draa study."
I fail to understand the question. Your words are not clear: What exactly are you saying?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources in Kinzelyuk Waterfall

This article may have sourcing issues (I can't tell for sure, as 2 of the 3 are books and all are in Russian, a language I don't speak). The article's opening sentence is:

The Kinzelyuk Waterfall (Кинзелюкский водопад) is probably the highest waterfall in Russia, after the elusive Talnikovy Waterfall (which may not exist any more).

Can somebody help out?ChromaNebula (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources as shown in a primary source

I've just encountered the article Natalia Turine for the first time. (I hadn't previously heard of the biographee.) At first glance, the sourcing looks insufficient yet not too bad. But click on any of the twelve references and all the text links change color (one's browser shows that it has already displayed the lot). That's because they're all linked to the biographee's own page http://www.natalia-turine.com/gallery.php?id=19

This raises at least three questions. One is, even if these are all what they seemm to be, it's not obvious that they're all present with the permission of the copyright holder. And WP mustn't link to copyright violations.

However, sets of reproductions like this are very normal these days. Let's assume for a moment that reproduction on that website isn't problematic, and move on.

Secondly, there's always a possibility that sources such as this could have been tampered with or could even be total fakes. Is there something in a guideline (or policy) about use of primary sources for (what purport to be) secondary sources? (I've a feeling I've read something, but can't remember where.)

And if, or so far as, sources/links such as this are permissible/desirable, how are they best presented via Template:Cite web?

(I tend to avoid this template myself: by avoiding it, I can easily add the text snippet as reproduced [http://www.natalia-turine.com/gallery.php?id=19 here] in Turine's website. But I appreciate its value in principle, and if it's already used in an article then I'm reluctant to do away with it.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, the article was created by somebody who has so far been an SPA within en:WP, but who actually translated the article from its French equivalent. About whose sourcing there has already been at least one discussion (Lomita asks for online sources). -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The way to cite, for example, the 1990 Liberation article by Pierre Briançon would be to use Template:Cite news.
(The website with the gallery is not the actual source. The link to that web gallery that includes a photograph of what is apparently the original printed edition is just a convenience link. See "Convenience links" in the guideline on citing sources.)
Whether the website gallery is in violation of the copyright holder's rights, and should not be linked to for readers' convenience, I don't know. This seems to be a grey area for Wikipedia. I believe the applicable Wikipedia rules are WP:ELNEVER and WP:LINKVIO. WP:ELNEVER says, "Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use". It doesn't look like the website with the gallery is showing any indication of having licensed the work (although I haven't scoured the entire site looking for such). Wikipedia says about fair use as it applies to Wikipedia itself (but presumably this would also apply to how Wikipedia views others' use of copyrighted material as well?): Acceptable use of text = "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea"; Unacceptable use of text = "Excessively long copyrighted excerpts". (I would think that a copy of an entire article would seem to fall into the unacceptable use of text category, in this context.)
But I am not sure how Wikipedia treats this sort of copyright issue, so I too would like to hear what others say. (It was this same kind of issue that had me start participating in the noticeboard a few weeks ago.) Dezastru (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Video review shows

Are any of the reviewers of comedic video based review sites (e.g. That Guy with the Glasses, The Angry Video Game Nerd, The Spoony Experiment, etc.) considered reliable? They are critics by trade, and their reviews do contain editorial oversight and a history of accuracy. The fact that their sites are more humor driven shouldn't be an issue, as many reliable text reviewers such as IGN also use heavy humor in their reviews. Looking over the policies, I see nothing that precludes such sites from being reliable sources, and some articles do seem to be using some of them without question. (For instance, Whistle (Flo Rida song) already cites a review from That Guy with the Glasses reviewer Todd in the Shadows.) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

MuslimHeritage.com and FSTC removal

Hello I hope this is the right place. I propose a site-wide removal and ban of MuslimHeritage.com and the organisations articles behind it - "Foundation for Science Technology and Civilisation" / "Foundation for Science, Technology and Civilisation (FSTC)" sources as unreliable, as it is still being used on many pages. It has previously been established it misrepresents sources and is unreliable by Wikipedian's and even outside historians:

The organisation looks and sounds reliable so keeps being used, which is why it's such a problem.--Diamondbuster (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I looked through most of those pages and here is what I think:
  • You can't refute a reliable source with your own OR. That's just replacing one potential problem with another, definitive problem.
  • Some claims might be inaccurate and they deserve to be discussed at their own talkpages. If we remove all sources b/c they had a couple of inaccuracies, nothing would remain here b/c everything, inevitably, has a problem.
  • Just because a source says another source is inaccurate does not really make it so.
In conclusion, because we lack any evidence the site is massively misrepresenting history, I think it is best to bring up problems at the respective talkpages.
Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 15:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I do not see any arguments for why it is not rs. If the authors sometimes express opinions that differ from the mainstream, that is an issue of weight, not rs. If there are sometimes errors of fact, there are in even the best rs. If there are better sources for some articles, then by all means use them. Personally, I can see few cases where a popular website, which is a tertiary source, should be used as a source, but if you want to block its use, then you need to change the policy that allows it. TFD (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I've never heard of FSTC so I won't comment on that but what was wrong with the Edicions Universitat Barcelona source you removed [29][30][31] by the way ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Certainly being published by FTSC adds no evidence of being a reliable source, since FTSC is an apologetics outfit, and has no reputation for fact-checking. If challenged material is being sourced to something published by them, and there is nothing else which gives evidence of it being reliable, then remove the material. We've had problems with boosterism on such topics before. The work of Jagged 85 is still being cleaned up to this day, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85. If you do need advice, maybe talk to User:Merlinme, as he or she may be able to help you. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how practical a "a site-wide removal and ban of MuslimHeritage.com" is. The normal procedure as I understand it is to agree that it's not a reliable source here and then deal with (i.e. remove or replace with a better source) on a case by case basis. I agree it's not a reliable source, though, and in fact is demonstrably misleading in many cases. In general it's clearly a site set-up to promote one point of view; it does give some sources, but the original sources need to be checked, MuslimHeritage does not always report them correctly. Sometimes the sources it quotes are not given proper citations, e.g. a chapter or even an entire book is given, without a page number; on some occasions when I've actually tracked down citations given they do not support what is being claimed. A trivial but revealing example is the claim that municipal litter collection was invented in Cordoba. See full discussion here: Talk:Islamic_contributions_to_Medieval_Europe#What_sense_is_meant_by_.22contribution.22.3F, but to summarise, one of the main "references" was to History of the Moorish People, which is an 800 page book, with no page number. I found a searchable copy of the book, and on p. 619 found "[streets] were kept in a state of cleanliness unknown to the best regulated municipalities of modern Europe", which is not support for the invention of litter bins and litter collection. It's hard to know where to start, really; the comparison is with medieval Europe, so the source says nothing about other cultures, e.g. Roman, Chinese. There is certainly no support for the claim of "first". Also what is being described (in a rather throwaway sentence) sounds to me like efficient street-cleaners, yet was being used in Wikipedia to support the claim that Cordoba was the first city to have litter collection.
Interestingly when I had a look at the current 1001 inventions website, "A History of the Moorish People" is no longer listed in the sources section, however this seems to be mainly because no sources are listed to support the "litter collection" claim at all; but the litter collection claim for Cordoba is still made in the "Town" zone section.
So I do not consider 1001 Inventions (and related organisations) to be a Reliable Source, except possibly in the case where the original source is listed here: http://www.1001inventions.com/academicreferences, and even then you'd be better off checking and referencing the original source. --Merlinme (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Aua, the source wasn't refuted using OR, it was refuted by another academic and many others when looking up the reliable source it supposedly references. When multiple outside reliable sources show this single source as false, it's clearly unreliable.

TFD, these are not differing opinions, these are differing claims and facts not backed up by the sources they used, so is misleading in some cases complete lies.

Sean, this source are articles from the unreliable source being discussed, which have been republished by the same author.--Diamondbuster (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

http://libweb.sonoma.edu/regional/faculty/phillips/bohemianindex.html

Is a doctoral dissertation apparently published by UC Davis but not nor in any peer-reviewed journal. The author [er GoogleScholar appears to be cited by very few places at all (10 cites for the dissertation total)

It is being used to present as fact that specific people were members of the "Bohemian Club" List of Bohemian Club members

This source specifies that it used lists of guests etc. to determine the interconnected nature of "elite men's clubs" and "capitalism" (i.e. it is focused on economic power and not on the actual individuals, nor does the author try to verify any memberships other than using the SPS primary sources). (Lists of guests to summer encampments at the Bohemian Grove for 1971 and 1993 is listed as a source)

Two issues -- while some doctoral dissertations have been deemed RS in the past, where living people are involved, does the\is particular doctoral dissertation meet WP:V and WP:BLP for contentious claims about living people?

Second, for dead people, is reliance on what appears to be only a self-published list of members sufficient to declare that a person was, indeed, a member?

Thanks for any input thereon. Collect (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi collect. Our guideline per WP:SCHOLARSHIP states: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. "
The dissertation does not need to be found in a "peer reviewed" journal to be used as a source. It also does not need to be peer reviewed itself, however you do point out that the work is cited ten times and I see that as well, however I would point out the ten citations are to THAT particular PDF version made available on Angelfire. It appears the work has been cited more than that, but ten is enough. This appears to be an acceptable source by our standards.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
What may be at issue is the fact that to be invited to the club and attend....I believe you have to be a member. It is by invitation only and I believe that is the working idea behind the list of guests being used as a membership list. This may not be the best method, but it may still be accurate with this organization.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The dissertation used lists of "guests" and noted that members could bring "guests" - thus assuming that a guest was a member seems quite improbable. In fact the author makes a specific point that he was a "guest" more than once - thus overtly stating that one need not be a member to attend. In the case of living persons, the standards for making contentious claims are a bit higher than a doctoral dissertation provides -- and membership in this group is decidedly "contentious." Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Now you make a good point, but the question is "a guest" where? To the club or to the grove? How was the list used? Can you ascertain that? If not how claim something is contentious? The standards for making a claim about a living person, whether that information is negative, positive or just neutral rests in having sources. I am one who will look further into how a source is used so, as long as you can demonstrate that the sources the author used, were not used in accordance to our standards and that inclusion of guests were added inaccurately, I think you would have a case. Can you make such a demonstration?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The source stated "guests" to the "encampment" which I trust is the term generally used for the gatherings of that organization, and rather clearly stated that guests did not magically become members -- else the author ought well have listed himself as a member. As he did not, the claim can not be made that guests become members. And if an organization is absolutely pure, but that rumours circulate about the organization making it notorious way, that the claim is contentious -- "truth" has nothing to do with it. And there is clearly an abundance of notoriety about the organization. In short, I regard it as clear that the membership in that organization is, indeed, contentious as a claim. Collect (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure...as being listed as a boy scout can be contentious...but here we are attempting to claim this source is mistaken or taking its information out of context. The encampment is Bohemian Grove located in Monte Rio, California. The club is located in San Francisco. No, the term "encampment" actually means...the camp. It is not a general term for "gatherings" of the organization but a yearly gathering of members. It may or may not be part of the private ritual to accept new members to what is considered the most exclusive club in the world. Just because the author does not add his name does not mean anything to our look at the source. there are a number of reasons they may not have added their own name.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion here. The "Club", generally speaking, means the organization, not the building in San Francisco (although there is at least one use of "the Club" in a specific context to refer to the clubhouse building – see note 6 on page 23). The term "encampment" refers to gatherings at the Grove (for example, "For many of the demonstrators the issues they were concerned about were perceived as being planned and discussed in the Grove during the actual summer encampment they were protesting." page 10). "Guests" were not "members" of the Club at the time that they were guests (someone who had been a guest might presumably have later become a member, however). The author used various sources for documenting that individuals were members, some of which included reviews of the work of other scholars (eg Dumhoff), examination of personal archives of members, and official lists of members of the Club. More specifically, for the latter he used "Active Bohemian Club membership list for 1941, 1971, and 1991" of which he said, "Active Club membership means that I included only those members who were listed on the annual summer encampment lists. This includes 90% of all Club members (Baxter 1987) but excludes any new members and inactives." For guests he used "Lists of guests to summer encampments at the Bohemian Grove for 1971 and 1993" obtained from the Club's records. He distinguishes between "members" and "guests" when describing the relationships individuals had with the Club. Page 98, for example, lists the Secretary of Defense as a "guest" 1991–1993 and the Secretary of State 1970. On page 25, he lists H.F. Stone as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice who was a guest in 1928, as recorded in a San Francisco Chronicle article. Similarly for members, on page 25, note 7, he says, "Joseph A. Moore, shipbuilder, had been a member of the Club since 1904"; page 35, Jack London was a member 1904–1915; page 57, note 15, "Charles Coburn was voted in as a Club member on October 25, 1948 (Bohemian Club members 1951)." The appendices list members ("Bohemians"), not guests, drawn from the Club's 1941, 1971, and 1991 records. Dezastru (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what exactly the claims at question are here: The first claim that someone is a member of the Bohemian Club at List of Bohemian Club members that is cited to Phillips 1994 is for Stephen David Bechtel, Sr.. The source is reliable for this claim. P. 147 says that Bechtel was a member. The dissertation was successfully defended for his PhD at the Sociology department at UC Davis, which is a completely respectable department, and the university published it as such, and there does not appear to be any controversy concerning the piece: It is just a run-of-the-mill piece of standard scholarship on the Bohemian Club. I don't understand the condition that a journal publish the piece: The piece is 245 pages long; I've never seen a journal publish a single piece that long. E.g., the editors at AJS say: "Authors should note that many referees balk at reading papers larger than 10,000 words (i.e., 50 pages at 200 words per page)" [32]. Whether a claim is contentious does not affect whether a source is reliable for a claim. That's getting the method precisely backwards: First one determines what reliable sources there are for a claim and its contradictions, then one uses a full comparison of those to decide whether the claim is contentious. If one didn't depend on the reliable sources to judge on the reception of a claim in the scholarship, then one could only depend on unreliable sources, which is forbidden by core policy. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
the dissertation was about numerical values -- the "list of members" was not done by his own research, but specifically using self-published (by the BC) primary sources, including lists of "guests." The gist of the dissertation was a correlation between money, position, and membership -- but that does not mean he actually researched individuals and the organization is, indeed, "contentious." Nor would any of those at his defence have asked about individuals at all. BTW, most of the dissertation is in appendices. As it is public record that some who have been listed in the past have denied membership, I find that it requires stronger sourcing. Lists used from other sources do not automagically become "reliable" unless they have been checked. Collect (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry Collect, but attempting to draw your own conclusions are simply not appropriate. We've answered your question, the source is reliable for the content. My attempt was to see if your were able to demonstrate your claims. It does not appear you are able to. I tried to see what you were saying but this entire situation is based on another editor's moral ideology and interpretation of the organization which is simply false to begin with.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Collect is mistaken in saying that the author used only sources published by the Bohemian Club. On the contrary, the author says he perused archival materials found in several libraries, even boxes of archived personal papers belonging to past members. The author says he interviewed some 200 people about the club. All of this adds up to a wealth of research including much corroborating data. Finally, the club's own publications should be considered the best source of who was a club member. Who else would have better information? That's the part of Collect's complaint which puzzles me most. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
And you are mistaken in ascribing something to me which I did not say. Sorry --- doing such is a teensy bit disingenuous. the issue is that the only source which has been found for at least two people was self-published by the club. Period. The sources which state they used that source are therefore precisely as reliable, and only as reliable, as the source used. Checking many sources, we found two errors out of two checked -- which is not a teensy error rate AFAICT. I wonder what would happen if we tried looking at all the redlinks in the list, for which there are no biographies in many cases. Cheers. And please avoid saying I wrote that which I did not write. It makes it very hard for people to figure out just who really said what. Collect (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
What two names are you talking about? Binksternet (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Disingenuousness incarnate -- as the topic is at the article talk page and includes Mark Twain whose myriad biographers were quite thorough, and not a single one of whom makes the Bohemian Club membership claim, that his papers which are pretty thorough make no reference to any such claim, that his published letters make no such reference, and where the only "sources" all appear to require using the self-published lists from the club itself. Cheers -- I rather think you knew the examples I referred to though. Collect (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The two names are what? I don't understand what reference you are discussing. If Samuel Clemens a.k.a Mark Twain is one of the names, then a handful of other references support the inclusion of Twain as an honorary member, so Phillips is not really on trial for that. If it's not more trouble than typing "Disingenuousness incarnate", you can type out two names and enlighten the discussion here. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

This thesis is a reliable source for membership in the Bohemian Club, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, for individuals who are deceased, and for most (if not all) who are living. In any case in which a particular living person disputes having been a member, the specific text within the thesis that says the person was a member would need to be examined to determine how Wikipedia should handle the matter. (The principles of WP:BLPCAT would likely apply, since Lists, like Categories, 'do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources'). Dezastru (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Do organizations ever list non-members as members? That is the gist -- with one asserting that a club's claim that a person was a member is absolutely to be taken as truth. The problem is that organizations have frequently asserted that noted persons were "members". The "thesis" specifies that the club's own publications were used as a source -- we can not assert that the thesis found any other evidence whatsoever for the "membership". Including the Rosicrucians insisting Franklin was a member, onwards. The tendency is to present a "higher level notability" for an organization by asserting that famous people were members. In the case of Twain, absolutely no Twain-related source makes the claim that he ever knew anything about the club, and the anecdotes which had him going to meetings are poor as he was not in San Francisco to "meet Bret Harte at the Bohemian Club" between 1868 and 1906. Indeed, he was in San Francisco for a few hours for a benefit on 21 April 1906, and never otherwise even visited any of California. Few people are as thoroughly documented as Clemens at all. [33]. His famous world wide lecture tour was 1895-6. The chronology of his speeches is at [34]. And there are no records of any "Bohemian Club" in any of the Twain archives AFAICT. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

"Mark Twain" does not appear anywhere in the dissertation, as far as I can tell (please cite the specific location if that is wrong). "Samuel L. Clemens" appears once, on page 21, where it says that he was listed as an honorary member in the 1887 roster. (This appears to be cited to a 1977 work by Starr, although I am not sure if that is a correct reading of how the dissertation's author intended for that citation to be used.) You seem to be assuming Clemens would have had to have been present at a meeting to have been inducted as an honorary member; what's the evidence to support that assumption? Dezastru (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: "The Annals of the Bohemian Club" printed in 1898 [35] make the claim that Twain became a member on 17 October 1873 (before his major works were published) -- quite a feat since he was in Hartford, and no correspondence indicates anything of the sort. (took a whole to find the alleged date -- which is first mentioned a quarter of a century later). [36] which deals with Twain, Harte and the Bohemian Club specifically makes no such claim about any connection between Twain and the club. So what we have is a PR book from a quarter of a century later asserting that Twain was in San Francisco to become an Honorary Member in 1873 -- with the trivial problem that not only was Twain not there, we know quite well where he was. Collect (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Collect has posted here requesting feedback on his query. It's apparent that he doesn't like the feedback he has received and will continue to dispute with people who take the view he dislikes no matter how many they are. I'm not sure there's much point in carrying on with this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Collect stands on the assumption that Twain is required to have been present to win the honor, or to have visited the Bohemian Club at some point in his life. Because this assumption is wrong, it invalidates the whole position. We know that Twain was made an honorary member on October 17, 1873, around the same time that Bret Harte was made an honorary member. I think we're done here. Binksternet (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
We also know Twain was not there, that the Club made a practice of electing honorary members solely to enhance the prestige of the Club and that some people were quite surprised to learn they had been elected viz. Riley telling the Club representative to see his business manager! Cheers - the Club in those days was a bit of a fraud and humbug. Collect (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Collect, I think I missed where you presented evidence that Twain would have had to have been present to be inducted as an honorary member. Incidentally, SF Weekly, 1996: "La vie boheme of the 19th century was not limited to the Latin Quarter of Paris. The new Bohemianism, with its emphasis on literature and the arts, flourished in the San Francisco of the 1860s as well. The locus of that activity was a weekly newspaper, The Golden Era. Edited by Bret Harte, the paper included such contributors as Mark Twain, Adah Isaacs Menken, Charles Warren Stoddard, Ambrose Bierce, Ada Clare, and Ina Coolbrith. While researching the Bohemian Club for his doctoral dissertation, Gary Graves discovered this amazing congruence of artists and writers. The result is his new play, The Golden Era, which opens at the Berkeley City Club July 12."[37]
Mark Twain: Unsanctified Newspaper Reporter(p 218): "Unlike the Californian, The Golden Era above all promoted Pacific Coast writers.... Bret Harte and William Wright were regular contributors by 1862, and Lawrence took early notice of a talent on the rise, Sam Clemens, by publishing original Mark Twain material when the pseudonym was but a few months old."
So whether Twain actually visited SF or not at the time, he was known in the literary circles, which would have been reason for Club members to extend an honorary membership. Whether he was impressed by that at the time (and made a note of it in a journal or in correspondence) is a separate matter. You also seem to be assuming that every word he ever wrote in private has been preserved and thoroughly indexed, which seems rather far-fetched. Anyway, I've wasted more than enough time on this one. Dezastru (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Being "Bohemian" in 1868 did not make one remotely a member of a club started in 1872. Twain did live in SF for three or four years -- well before the Club existed. So that bit makes no sense here. What we have is that a source states the purpose of "honorary members" being elected was one of promoting the club, and that members were "elected" without their knowledge at all. (read the cite below) but was a game of "collaring celebrities" without them having any forewarning. Collect (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

One more: [38] " Early in its career the Club developed a mania for collaring celebrities. At first the organization was content with designating notable personages of letters as their honorary co-Bohemians. In 1873, Mark Twain and Bret Harte were elected honorary members. Shortly afterwards, on a Winter evening, the Club sent telegraph greetings across the continent to Oliver Wendell Holmes. The members must have been either drunk or absent-minded at that moment. They did not take into consideration that darkest night reigns in the East while it is early evening in California. Dr. Holmes was got out of his warm bed and away from his slumber by the telegram." In short, people were made "honorary members" for the specific purpose of enhancing the Club's perceived status. "This boast grew more shrill and fantastic as the years rolled by. A painful surprise came in 1892 when James Whitcomb Riley was accosted in his hotel by a proud representative of the Club. (Riley told the person that it would have to go through his business manager!)" Garrets and Pretenders: Bohemian Life in America from Poe to Kerouac Albert Parry; Courier Dover Publications, Jun 17, 2013; 480 pages. the Club comes of as being basically a fraud when it came to adopting "honorary members". Did the Club assert that anyone it named an honorary member was one? Yes. did that make them actually a member of any sort? Not as far as actual Twain researchers are concerned. Cheers - I think this is dispositive. Collect (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You have once again proved that Twain was made an honorary member. Keep digging, you'll continue to find more proof, all of which buries your case. Binksternet (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Read again please. It shows that in 1897 or so the Club asserted that they had been "elected" as honorary members, but if you think that makes them members in any logical sense, I fear I demur. I suggest that being elected a member of a society which one does not know about, and where the election was not only not sought for, but not even with any notification that the membership is pure humbug. If the KKK "elected" Obama as an "honorary member" of the KKK would that make him one? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I can see that the source affirms Twain as an honorary member. What other issue is there? Oh yes, your opinion otherwise. Thanks for sharing your opinion about what makes for membership in a club, but it has as much bearing on this question as a plague of frogs. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Where I come from, if an organization makes you an honorary member and does not necessarily even tell you that it has done so, the "membership" is wertlos utterly, and the organization is a bit of a fraud. Or perhaps if a KKK chapter made Obama an "honorary member" you would add that as a "fact"? The concept of being a "member" of something is that you specifically are willing to associate yourself with that organization. I think the quote given above from Parry might reasonably be added to show how the Club treats the concept though. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
You have no proof that the Bohemians failed to send Twain an announcement of their decision to make him an honorary member. Such proof would be damn near impossible to assemble, since many of the documents in Twain's life were discarded and are lost. Especially ephemeral are telegrams. At any rate, your notion that this is an important point to consider is not supported by all of the reliable sources which happily report Twain's honorary membership, without worrying about his being notified. Binksternet (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Um -- what we do have is the lack of notification of intent for Holmes and for Riley. Two individuals. Do you need proof that they never notified anyone that they were to be elected as "honorary members"? That would be outré. Collect (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Just in: [39] "Mr. Peabody" is an "honorary member" of Mensa. Collect (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Give it a rest. Even the plague of frogs stopped after a couple of days. You're not getting any further toward your goal with Peabody and Mensa. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Aleksandr Dugin's 'Foundation of Geopolitics'.

Re: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics> & <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Ivashov>. Both of these entries cite as reference 1, John B. Dunlop. "Review: Aleksandr Dugin's Foundation of Geopolitics" and link to pdf., <http://lisd.princeton.edu/publications/wp_russiaseries_dunlop.pdf>. However, this website just gives a list of various publications, none of which includes the cited work.

The link is wrong (at least in the first Wikipedia article you listed). The intended source is John B. Dunlop, "Aleksandr Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics" Demokratizatsiya Winter 2004 12(4):41–57. Whether that article, presumably written by this Russian/Soviet expert, is reliable for the statements in the Wikipedia articles is a different question. Dezastru (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

White separatist and astrophysicist Michael H. Hart used as a source to show the significance of people

Michael H. Hart's book The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History is used in a number of articles, eg 2nd millennium to show that people are significant. Hart's field of expertise is astrophysics and he is a self-proclaimed white separatist. My own opinion is that his opinions don't belong in any of our articles, but he currently is used extensively. Dougweller (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

How has The 100 been received? Is it cited by other bio or history sources that are typically considered authoritative?
And how did Hart come up with his list and ranking? Was it just his own opinion (as opposed to based on a survey of historians, for example)? Dezastru (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I would say keep it for scientists at least, as his white seperatist beliefs do not appear to be reflected in the list.--Diamondbuster (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep the citations for the scientists based on what criteria? How can anyone argue to keep the citations without answering the questions I posed in the preceding post? Dezastru (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Um, if we want a source for the "Most Influential Persons in History", we should look to historians, not astrophysicists - White supremacist or otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Which is why I asked how he came up with the list. Was it just his own opinion? Dezastru (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
On investigation, yes, it was his opinion. I think it has as much academic standing amongst historians as my list of favorite foods would to a registered dietitian. In other words, purely subjective ranking and selection with no content verified to be relied upon generally or by scholarly experts.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
There is absolutely no reason to "keep it for scientists at least". Right now it's being used to support the idea that Edison was an influential figure in a completely general sense. This is not obscure scientific knowledge that needs any more expertise than what's available to the next person you happen to meet. I don't think his opinion is needed to verify any assertion beyond his own opinion, and I don't even see where that would be relevant. The book cited was originally self-published then re-published with a z-rate novelty-title/copyright-infringing book packager. It's not scholarship. Our article for that book cites no external sources regarding the book's notability, it only cites the book itself.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
It's also a book that spreads fringe theories, such as the idea that Edward de Vere wrote the plays of Shakespeare. I see no evidence here that anyone uses Hart's opinion as in any way authoritative anywhere else. I don't see why it has an article of its own, frankly, beyond some promotional aspect.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Help with cleanup would be good, see [40]. Hm, maybe the list is smaller than that suggests, see [41] Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hart's competence as a historian is reflected in the fact that he identifies Edward de Vere as one of the list, because, of course, he was the real author of the works of Shakespeare. Paul B (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Oops. I see that point has already been made by Elaqueate. Paul B (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this book self-published? It could be a coincidence that the author and publisher have the same name, but the identifiable "Hart Publishing" is based out of Oxford, not New York, and focuses on law. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources used in recent changes at Aisha by editor calling others "Wicked liars"

The lead used to say

"Traditional sources state that Aisha was married to Muhammad at the age of six, but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina;[8][9][10] with the exception of al-Tabari who records that she was ten years old." but now says

"Traditional sources state that Aisha was the only virgin Muhammad married and claim that he married her in Mecca at the age of seven, and consummated his marriage with her, when she was nine or ten, after his migration to Medina.[11][12] However, most these sources attribute the figure of the age of Aisha to only one man whose name is Hisham ibn Urwah which makes this claim weak and unreliable.[13] Both Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham mentioned in their books, which are the earliest written books about the biography of Muhammad, that Aisha was born in the pre-Islamic era and converted to Islam when she was young girl among the first people who converted to Islam.[14][15] This indicates that Aisha was at least 18 years old when she married Muhammad."

The statement "However, most these sources attribute the figure of the age of Aisha to only one man whose name is Hisham ibn Urwah which makes this claim weak and unreliable." has one source, [42], written by this person. There's no source for "This indicates that Aisha was at least 18 years old when she married Muhammad." At Talk:Aisha the editor in question has started a section called "The article contains false info. based on western slander, twisted biased history, and hate against Muslims" and states that " It is written, like most of wikipedia's articles, by Wicked Liars" - - bringing it here as I doubt I am going to get a reasonable discussion with someone who starts off like that. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This article [43] written by this person[44]has just been added as a source for "This indicates that Aisha was at least 18 years old when she married Muhammad" and "Furthermore, traditional sources state that Aisha was betrothed to another man called Jubayr ibn Mut'im before Muhammad, which makes it unlikely that Aisha was nine or ten when she married Muhammad". Dougweller (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Credibility of IMDB credit

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2823486/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_8

This is an Imdb credit for a major cable network credit that was passed upon by the network. Wikipedia has a policy of disregarding Imdb credits, for very good reason, but in the capacity of issuing "tv movie" crdits they have a strict editorial team who confirms with the distributors and networks. One cannot fake a "failed" tv pilot. What do I have to use this as a legitimate source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middleamericajames (talk • contribs)

There is no "strict editorial team" confirming the existence of projects that didn't happen, with production companies that don't notably exist, for networks not mentioned. This shouldn't be used for anything at all. I don't know what article you would intend to use it, but this "project" does not seem to be notable in any conceivable way. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Sites with user-generated content, are not reliable under WP:USERG, which is part of WP:IRS. This includes forums, message boards, other wikis, and websites that solicit user contributions or edits including Patch Media, TV.com, Answers.com, and yes, IMDB. Nightscream (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Virtual International Authority File

Is the Virtual International Authority File reliable for biographical info in BLP articles? Is this VIAF page reliable for birth info for Eric Kim? I just wanna make sure. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello? Nightscream (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Your question was referred to me and I will attempt to give you an answer. Yes, both VIAF and the LC Name Authority File usually can be considered reliable sources for birth and death dates. Catalogers inputting authority records into both files do research to find birth and death information as well as other distinguishing characteristics to help identify authors. This is also very helpful with common names like John Smith or Paul Taylor. However, there are times when no information can be found. The cataloger will note that in the 670/675 field of the record (670 or 675 is the "name" of the field in which the cataloger inputs the info; it can be found toward the bottom of the record). In the case of Mr. Kim, a search was done on his own website, which had his year of birth. I hope this is helpful.--FeanorStar7 00:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The Virtual International Authority File is a professional resource for librarians. It offers authority files that can be used globally for authority control. "Authority files" establish a single acceptable name for each search term. In cataloging and databases, it's a real problem if "Clive Staples Lewis" and "C.S. Lewis" aren't recognized as the same person. So these VIAF records would be used commonly in libraries that don't or can't do their own authority control. I would judge the information to be scholarly and accurate. But since these records are relatively technical, I'm not sure they would be the first place I'd go to back up biographical information. My recommendation would be to go ahead and use the source, but keep your eyes peeled for a better source that would be more acceptable to general audiences. --Libraryowl (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Is an anti-Mosque organisation a reliable source for Child Grooming~

66.225.160.172 (talk · contribs) keeps inserting material sourced the the "Law and Freedom Foundation"[45] (formerly "Mosquebusters"[46]. Specifically, [47] added "The authorities in the UK have been slow to identify and prevent this criminal behaviour, as documented by the Law and Freedom Foundation." and a link to Love Jihad with the edit summary "just because dougweller disagrees with the alleged aims of a source does not mean that the source ought to be silenced by wiki. let the readers decide" and [48] added " A more recent concept of localised grooming, in which gangs of reprobates groom neighbourhood victims, was devised of necessity in 2010 by the UK Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre,<ref name=ceop>[http://www.ceop.police.uk/Documents/ceopdocs/ceop_thematic_assessment_executive_summary.pdf ceop.police.uk: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CEOP thematic assessment" June 2011]</ref> although this phenomenon had been seen since at least 1990.<ref name=lff>[http://lawandfreedomfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Easy-Meat-Multiculturalism-Islam-and-Child-Sex-Slavery-05-03-2014.pdf lawandfreedomfoundation.org: "Easy Meat: Multiculturalism, Islam and child sex slavery"]</ref>" Identical material was adding earlier by 69.171.101.3 (talk · contribs), probably a dynamic IP. I've deleted this a couple of times but I expect the IP to replace it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this is transparently an anti-Muslim organization whose interest in child welfare is as a battering ram against mosques, not an actual expert organization on child welfare. The source is clearly not reliable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
That has to be the dumbest question I've ever seen posted here. Is the purpose of the question just to get it "on the record"?Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Two kinds of pork, you aren't new but you are pretty inexperienced, so I'll ignore the insult. But I do wonder, dumb or not, why you bothered to respond but didn't answer. Of course this seems pretty obvious but the IP adding this is pretty intransigent so I'm hoping to get a few sensible responses. I'm hoping this way an edit war can be avoided. So yes, it's important sometimes to get things on the record. Dougweller (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, no insult intended. It's just that I've seen a lot of these and this one broke the proverbial camel. Perhaps I should have used "silly" instead. And if you read the title agin, it is quite silly. And to answer the question, of course not! Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record: the website is palpably not reliable. It states: "British common law is clear that there can be no justification for: the preaching of sedition; claims that women, Jews, homosexuals or non-Muslims are inferior and can be abused." This seriously weasley. As far as I know, it's perfectly legal in the UK to express the view that any group is "inferior", in a specific or general sense, but of course it's illegal to "abuse" any group, if the term "abuse" is understood to include unlawful acts of violence, intimidation or whatever. Indeed, the sentence is essentially a tautology. It's against the law to do things to people that are against the law. The site may contain useful links to more reliable material. The term "localised grooming" does seem to be something used in various reports, though I'm not clear what exactly it means (as opposed to "globalised" grooming?), and the idea that it was somehow created in 1990 seems on the face of it confused. Paul B (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Certainly not reliable. Even the brief quote from them shows their ignorance of the English legal system. TFD (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Are recipe sites RS?

This question concerns the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Food_and_drink#Notability_of_food:_are_recipes_enough.3F, and in particular, the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plums in chocolate. Are recipes listings like [49] on the internet good enough for us to 1) link to and 2) use as a reference / proof of notability? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The website you link from the BBC - certainly a reliable source regarding many subjects, and I can't see any obvious reason to think that the recipe wouldn't be reliable. As for other online recipe sources, we'd have to consider each one on its merits - we don't make blanket assertions regarding reliability. Having said that, you seem to be confusing reliability with notability - and the latter isn't really an issue for this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Instagram or Facebook for date of birth

In the Instagram account of Corey Harrison reliable for the date of birth of his father, Rick Harrison? When you hover the mouse over the photo of the two of them at this page (The one under the heading March 2014), it gives the date March 22, 2014, and when you click on it, the caption indicates that it is Rick Harrison's birthday. His article already has his birth year, but not the day. Is that reliable?

Also, is this Facebook post by Harrison reliable? Is there a way to determine if a Facebook account is the verified one of the person in question, like with Twitter? Looking through the archive for discussions on Facebook used to source dates of birth, I came across this one, in which someone stated that a link from the person's official site would do this, however, the only website I know he has is the one for his business, and I couldn't find any link to a Facebook account there. Nightscream (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Short answer: Instagram and Facebook are not reliable sources. 71.139.148.193 (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Can chat shows be used as valid sources for financial earnings as well as sales?

The link, from Entertainment Weekly talks about how in a Barbara Walters show it was announced that singer Mariah Carey earned 500million throughout her career. My question is are these chat shows reliable at all? Most of the time its for promotion of the said guest who is appearing and has no indication of a journalistic or academic credibility behind the info, except PR fed. What are other's thoughts on this? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Another source, courtesy of The Daily Telegraph was provided as well. Discuss what you please, however the issue has already been resolved. Cheers.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Nobody here is questioning the validity of Entertainment Weekly Petergriffon. WE are talking about PR publicized talk shows being used as source. Not all publications deemed reliable have reliable authors. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Son of the Bronx

Source
Son of the Bronx
Article
Numerous articles involving cable television series
Content
Nielsen ratings figures

The site's sole publisher is Douglas Pucci, who started the site in 2011 using the Blogger service. It specializes in compiling detailed listings of Nielsen ratings data for various major cable channels. Its data has been published by multiple third-party sources, including TV by the Numbers and The Futon Critic, who also publish data provided by Nielsen directly to them; the latter two sites are also used extensively in television research.

Below is a list of some of the site's attributions:

Third-party publication history
Yahoo! Sports
TV by the Numbers
Soccer America
The Futon Critic
The Stuart News

Its data seems to be consistent with other cable rating reports, and all of its entries cite Nielsen Media Research. Per WP:UGC, I believe this meets the criteria of an author who "is an established expert on the subject matter whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Some editors from WP:TV are turned off from using it because of the fact that it is hosted on Blogger, though, and would like another opinion from here. Whisternefet (t · c · l) 04:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I too am interested in a community-wide solution to this conundrum. Television articles need reliable sources for ratings. Sources like Son of the Bronx and TVBytheNumbers, and Futon Critic provide this information, although some do it in more consistent ways than others. Son of the Bronx seems fairly consistent and I'm not aware of specific problems related to their accuracy as it relates to ratings. Contrarily, I've seen inconsistencies between reliable sources TVGuide.com and Zap2It for episode airdates (I believe CatDog and Scaredy Squirrel are two series with conflicting airdate information), yet there is no consequence for that. Much of what goes on in the world of TV article editing involves cobbling together information from disparate sources. Some sites, like TVBytheNumbers don't report ALL of the ratings for ALL of the US TV networks. They occasionally leave out days, (Sunday, I believe isn't always on their radar), and ratings for other networks, like Nickelodeon, are often submitted via the comments section in blog posts by users who seem to have some sort of authority on the matter. So my point is that there is not one central reliable source for ratings that we all have access to. Son of the Bronx is at least one more resource to tap. Otherwise, we might as well prohibit the inclusion of ratings information except for those few notable series and episodes that happen to make Variety and The Hollywood Reporter and such, since all these other new media sources have their flaws. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This site fails WP:SPS. It is not reliable for sourcing viewership numbers. If all of its content is derived from Nielsen, then Nielsen should be cited directly – or, much better, a secondary source that cites Nielsen, or some other ratings provider, in the context of discussing the show itself should be cited for Wikipedia. (See, for example, [50].) In addition, a number of the Wikipedia articles listed above that cite Son of the Bronx are themselves of dubious notability, judging from the way the articles currently appear. For example, does The Amazing World of Gumball (season 2) really meet Wikipedia notability guidelines? And if it does, is the number of viewers listed for each episode really that important for how Wikipedia covers the show? Take out all of the citations of Son of the Bronx from that article and what is left for the article's sources? Same with AwesomenessTV. See WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Dezastru (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Pucci's site is indeed self-published, but it clearly meets WP:UGC's exception based on its third party publications, who have cited him for data they are unable to obtain from their Nielsen datasheets. Ratings data provides encyclopedic content beyond the scope of a normal TV guide, so I fail to see how listing such data is indiscriminate; regardless of its source, the way ratings data is presented in a table is identical. As for Gumball, it's generally practiced that episode lists are split into seasons based on lengthiness rather than notability, and the same can be said for many other list articles. Whisternefet (t · c · l) 18:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing it, but I don't see how the site meets the WP:UGC exception. Please directly quote here the part of WP:UGC that you feel allows for use of Son of the Bronx for ratings data. Dezastru (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
"Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." I provided a list of some of these publications above. Whisternefet (t · c · l) 18:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
"An established expert whose work in the relevant field" means something like an historian, a law professor, a scientist, a political analyst, who has published books or peer-reviewed articles in the field and is considered an expert in the way that a scholar who is a university professor is considered an expert in his or her field of study. It does not mean someone from whom others have borrowed third-party data, as in the cases you listed above. Dezastru (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Now I'm confused. I have no idea where you got "historian," etc. from WP:UGC. Based on the guideline alone, the site meets the criteria for exception. "Relevant field": collecting ratings data from Nielsen; third-party publications establishing expertise: see the list. WP:SPS states virtually the same thing, so the same logic applies. Whisternefet (t · c · l) 19:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have posted a notice at WT:RS to hopefully encourage others to join the discussion. Dezastru (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Chiming in to say I'm following this. I'm torn about this issue as well and I hope we can get closure on this issue once and for all. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Would it be too far-fetched to say that given the current wording of WP:UGC, "expertise" can be established or derived from those reliable third-party sources? I've seen the same logic being applied with previous discussions on here about the site: one had asked for third-party articles citing him, and another inferred that his site may qualify as an "expert exemption" when given some of the same articles I've provided above. I doubt that one needs to hold a doctorate in statistics in order to be considered a reliable outlet for the republication of Nielsen ratings, and given that multiple third-party sources have borrowed his numbers and cited him (on top of Nielsen), I think he meets the exception as a reliable self-published source. Whisternefet (t · c · l) 00:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


Can we get some board regulars to weigh in here? Dezastru (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Second that! Some resolution would be lovely. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops, bad timing. Anyway, I'll watch to see whether anyone replies to this, but am proceeding on the assumption that this is done. So:

Synopsis I knew Wikipedia frowned on interpreting primary sources as original research. I didn't know Wikipedia accepted interpreting primary sources for the purpose of synopsising a work of fiction. I'd be interested in knowing whether interpretations of this cognitive dissonance are documented.

Judiciary Act of 1793 More seriously, how far does this exception extend? This article was my first substantial Wikipedia writing, and despite a thin veneer of references and framing, it's essentially a synopsis of the law in question, which is not fiction. Good or not good?

Secret Garden (TV series) In this framework, it's clear what I should have done. I should have expanded the synopsis, perhaps removing the plagiarism at the same time, to English Wikipedia's normal spoiler-heavy length, and included in it something like this: "Meanwhile, the central relationship remains stalled in pursuit and flight until, in episode thirteen's famous "bed scene", Kim Joo-Won's second sexual assault on Gil Ra-Im convinces her that he really loves her, and she begins to return his feelings." Since I hate the show, I'm quite unlikely actually to do this, but at least now I know.

Dramabeans That said, this is where y'all disappointed me greatly. With regard to the particular person I was citing, javabeans, there's no question that this is self-publication, and she herself refers to it as a blog. I was citing her reaction to the bed scene. I'm getting two sorts of explanations for why that's no good. One is that because she self-publishes a blog, she MUST NOT be quoted except via a third party. Note that in this case, where I'm talking about her opinion, there is no issue of reliability per se: to get someone's opinion, you quote them. But because it's a self-published blog, it can't be quoted. Um, this isn't an explanation, this is a reiteration, and of a silly rule that isn't made less silly by reiteration.

More seriously, I'm told her reaction isn't notable. ("My uncle Al".) I've presented evidence of its notability, which has not been challenged. (Really. I'm physically near a complete collection of the YA Entertainment K-drama releases. Challenge me: I can go there and *count* how many times they quoted each blurb source. Dramabeans will win.) I can add to that: two days ago, I went to a lecture on K-dramas at the Seattle Asian Art Museum. The speaker, Bonnie Tilland, who is ABD in the University of Washington Anthropology Department, who taught a class at the UW last fall about K-dramas, and whose dissertation, almost finished, deals inter alia with the effects K-dramas have on Korean women's aspirations, was asked by the lecture organisers to cite a book attendees could read for more information. Her choice? Why Do Dramas Do That? by javabeans and girlfriday. I suppose your obvious reply is that unreliable sources ("She's ABD!") stick together, but isn't this getting to be an untenable line of argument?

English Wikipedia has done an excellent job of purging all explicit references to Dramabeans. To the extent that Dramabeans is a source for K-drama news and gossip, this is probably appropriate, although they normally link to their (Korean-language) sources. But I don't think citing their recaps and evaluative writing has been shown inappropriate. It's only inappropriate by undefended shibboleth. I expect English Wikipedia to continue refusing to cite Dramabeans, and I expect it to continue to have no good reason for that refusal. I'd like to be proven wrong on one of those expectations.

Korean drama I've posted in a bunch of places looking for help with this article and/or its Korean counterpart; I haven't contacted the final list of Wikipedians I was given, but have written to Ms. Tilland, within hours of her talk. So far, no results. As to the references which, contrary to the claims of Kuyamarco123, I did provide:

Jeon This is the central reference without which the "History" section collapses. It is a dissertation approved by the University of Glasgow Department of Theatre Film and TV Studies in 2013. Unfortunately, while its supervisors' online biographies make a convincing case for their authority in media policy studies generally, they make no case at all for those supervisors knowing Korean. Moreover, much of Jeon's writing - which is focused on media policy, turning historical primarily to document past policy and justify claims concerning the future - rests on a considerable number of interviews she did (although relatively less of what I cited is based on these). I don't see a persuasive way to rescue this source's reliability until and unless, in a year or three, people y'all see as reliable start citing it; and its topical reliabity is anyway doomed because what such people would cite for K-dramas' history isn't Jeon, but the books already extant in Korean.

With S2 This is an important source for the first half of the section, and although it's clearly based on research, it just as clearly doesn't provide any pointers to that research; it's self-published; it's pretty much the epitome of unverifiable.

DramaWiki I've shown that in a sample of over 4% of Wikipedia's 500+ K-drama articles, one fourth plagiarised DramaWiki. This fairly obviously calls for a system of vigilance, which could probably be automated: survey all articles in List of South Korean dramas and all additions thereafter (and since DramaWiki also covers Japanese and Chinese dramas, ...); find in each article the title in Hangul; find the DramaWiki page citing that Hangul title; compare for plagiarism. How could I find out whether anyone is working on, or even suggesting, such a system? Or does Wikipedia have a policy against being proactive?

Separately, DramaWiki can't be cited because its parent site, D-Addicts, is blacklisted by Wikipedia. Nobody offered suggestions as to how I could find out why this blacklist exists.

Separately, is DramaWiki an unreliable source? Several verifiability-related pages refer specifically to "open" wikis as especially unreliable. DramaWiki requires registration, but anyone can register; I don't know how open that makes it. Probably a lost cause, though, which is unfortunate, given that I also documented a habit of starting Wikipedia articles after a drama finishes airing, which makes Wikipedia's writers all the more dependent on DramaWiki for factual data. (I depend on D-Addicts itself for a list of YA Entertainment releases, for that matter, although archive.org offers an alternative involving original research...)

History of Usenet Here's an irony. Not only my work, but most of my sources, are in fact peer-reviewed. That's what posting to Usenet (unequivocally self-publication) did, in the 1990s and early 2000s: assuming your post was on-topic, it became available to peers to review. The difficulty, of course, is that such posts normally aren't revised to take this peer review into account; see, for example, at archive.org, my hierarchy summary of the NET.* hierarchy, which isn't safe to rely on without checking a later post. (Note that this is a different post from the summary of the net.* hierarchy. Detailed guidance to my sources, as of the end of my two main bursts of work on the topic, is available here and here.) In contrast, however, note Lee Bumgarner's pioneering oral history of Usenet, the "Great Renaming FAQ", an important source for all his successors, which he did revise to take peers' comments into account. (Then again, it's cited heavily in Great Renaming, also in Backbone cabal. So that's sorta fair.)

As it happens, there has been scholarly work on the history of Usenet, well, um, at least sorta, by one Ronda Hauben, but it doesn't extend much past the beginnings. Non-scholarly, but published, work which Wikipedia would probably find acceptable sources are cited in the NET.* post, with regard to a group called NET.test, which they (and Lee Bumgarner, following them) make false statements about. So in this case, verifiability seems to require propagating a falsehood. (To be fair, it's been about a decade since I last worked on this; I don't know how much the landscape in print has changed.)

Newcomers I have made a concerted argument against the verifiability policy as presently applied, and it's been answered by silence. This may be because this is an inappropriate venue for such arguments; but nobody's pointed me towards a more appropriate one. Is it simply unacceptable for newcomers to be told reasons for Wikipedia's policies at all?

I participated for a decade in a Usenet newsgroup dedicated to Usenet policies that lots of people had issues with, and already within a year I'd spearheaded this, meant to provide newcomers a one-stop shop for our side. Nor was I exceptional there, at that time. I'm unimpressed by what I'm seeing as a newbie here; I'm getting some pointers, especially but not only from WhispertoMe (apologies if there's a spelling mistake - I don't know how to get to the archived discussion), but only to Wikipedia policies and methods, not to Wikipedia explanations, let alone places to argue.

The most I've been able to come up with as a result of this discussion is that Wikipedia verifiability (at least) is a set of rules for a game, and you win the game by writing Wikipedia-verifiable articles. When I started posting to news.groups I was already in my late 20s, and the reward for playing that game was the creation of newsgroups. This game has far more complex rules, information about which is far harder to find, for less of a prize, and I'm a lot older now. I learned from my news.groups experience not to take oaths, but if the response to this post is as I expect, I doubt I'll be throwing much effort into Wikipedia in the future.

Joe Bernstein [email protected]

205.175.116.106 (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

  • First, if you make your questions short and to the point, rather than 50 sentences in 20 paragraphs, you'll get much better results.
  • Second, the reasons we have WP:V are stated right at the top of it. "Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up." Surely that's not hard to find? Anyone, at any time, can edit almost any Wikipedia page, and insert errors, lies, or simple gibberish, and often do. So we need to insert references to respected sources that can't be similarly edited by anyone at any time. And I played on Usenet too: with rare exceptions, it was not what we'd consider a respected source.
  • Third, if you make a user account, then people can follow what you're doing on Wikipedia. Just now, for example, I clicked on your IP address link to see if I can find the specific argument you're having (since you didn't link to it) and couldn't find anything since your IP must have changed since your argument. --GRuban (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
This a continuation of the epic thread Verifiability_and_popular_culture:_Korean_TV_dramas, currently occupying archive 166. Readers access it at their own risk. Paul B (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
1) Well, be grateful I'm unhappy with Wikipedia then: I do write long, always have.
2) OK, so the reason DramaWiki isn't a reliable source is clear. But this doesn't say anything about blogs, except to the extent (common with a bunch of electronic sources Wikipedia does cite) that they can indeed be changed.
3) I've always put off becoming a registered Wikipedian because I didn't want to take the time to read the rules, which I estimated would be about 40-200 hours. Now for the first time I've spent a significant amount of that time, and this is basically my last attempt to postpone my decision never to become a registered Wikipedian; I'm really unhappy with a fair amount of what I found in that reading.
As for links? You participated in that discussion ("my uncle Al" - so hey, is javabeans still our uncle Al?). Anyway, I found it: here. But the argument there is mostly pretty diffuse. Its core is something I didn't write in one sentence - The existing verifiability policy makes significant areas of interest excessively hard to document on Wikipedia, because it rules out whole classes of communication that are primary ways those areas are documented.[1] - and something I did - It's also an engine of hostility between Wikipedia and communities. Which is what made me think of news.groups, whose policies were often accused of being such engines, and where a bunch of us spent a lot of time dealing with such accusations.
Joe Bernstein [email protected]
[1] As witness the plagiarism.
128.95.223.115 (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
1) Thanks for coming down from the wall of text.
2) In general, if it's a blog written by a reliable author (one who's written a reliable source before on the topic), then it's a reliable source, and if it's written by an unpublished amateur then it's not. I strongly doubt that Korean television dramas are only covered by amateurs, and never in professionally published books, newspapers, or magazines. They may only be covered by amateurs in English, and you may not be able to read the Korean, but that's no more an excuse than saying that we should allow you to write an article on high-energy physics based on some guy's blog because you can't read the math used in real high-energy physics texts.
3) Yes, are a lot of rules (and what's more, they keep changing, from discussions like this one, in fact!), but you're no less bound by them by editing from an IP than from a user account. There are no disadvantages of registration, only advantages. --GRuban (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
2) This is becoming circular. I cited a *reaction* reported on a blog. One response was that because it's a blog it's an unreliable source even for such an opinion. This is insane, though it may be policy. Reactions, in this case to sexual assault portrayed as romantic entertainment, are not physics, and it's a fundamental epistemological error, so fundamental as to impair the errer's ability to function in life, to hold that only authoritative sources can decide what someone's reaction is.
The other response, *yours*, was that the blogger is equivalent to "my uncle Al" - why should we care? So it's a notability question, albeit not the same *kind* of notability question as governs what should have separate articles. [1] I've presented a bunch of relevant evidence: Dramabeans is cited by a lecturer I saw, by two random people I've run across, and by a marketer on a bunch of specific DVD cases I can name, if requested, within a few days. (As well as by Wikipedia articles in European languages, and some plagiarisers in English Wikipedia.) Is this inadequate evidence? Fine, then I'll try to make it more adequate. I don't know what the criteria for citing critical opinions are; I assume there's some written Wikipedia policy somewhere. The policy I was pointed to wasn't about critical opinions, but about self-published opinions. By itself it discourages citing Jonathan Rosenbaum, former film critic at the <Chicago Reader> and author of several books, now that he's self-publishing on a blog; um, come to think, it would discourage citing anything William Morris published of his own work at Kelmscott Press. So it can't be the whole story.
But in any event it's a separate question from reliability. I wrote that some people object strongly to scenes in a drama. Objections are proof of that statement, regardless of where they've been published. Your reasonable response that not all objections have the same weight is what I thought we were discussing.
Joe Bernstein [email protected]
[1] By the way, English Wikipedia has around five hundred articles on K-dramas produced since 2000. There haven't actually *been* that many notable K-dramas since then, y'know. Unless it's been decided that K-dramas are notable simply by virtue of being K-dramas - in which case there are some sticky edge questions (cable shows, single-episode dramas...).
66.212.73.228 (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Rosenbaum would probably be fine specifically because he is a former film critic and author of several books, as per WP:SPS which I linked to above. If you want to nominate some of the KDrama articles for deletion for lack of notability, feel free to follow those link too. Except, of course, you'd need a user account. --GRuban (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Persianfootball.com

Is Persianfootball.com an RS? And if not, how do we address an editor who keeps on posting it in article talkpages across the Project? And reverting editors who delete it?

See, e.g., here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here. Epeefleche (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Epeefleche: - ridiculous. How can these online forums be considered an RS. No way to prove these posters are experts in their field. Content is WP:USERGENERATED. self-published media such as Internet forum postings... are largely not acceptable. I am going to delete those links from the talk pages, if the editor keeps reverting just go to WP:AN/I. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai

Soka Gakkai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Soka Gakkai - Revised

Most of your source citations for the Soka Galkai post are erroneous and misleading; you should reference Dr. Dayle Bethel's work The Value Creator which discusses the life of Tsunesaburo Makiguchi and his reform efforts within the Japanese Education system prior to WW II. His successor, Josei Toda also reformed Japanese society after the war by alleviating the public's suffering based in their beliefs in false religions which brought the Japanese defeat and misery. To be sure, Toda spoke out against the use of Nuclear weapons in 1957 long before the peace movement of the 1960s; hence the motto: Peace, Culture and Education. We're you aware of that? Now, Honorary SGI President Ikeda (who simply recieves a salary from the organization) carries on the efforts of his mentor Toda as it concerns Peace, Culture and Education. As an academic, I am voicing my opposition to your assertions in the article posted as your ideas are either false or one-sided.

Sincerely,

Paul Neuhausen, MSCIS

Unless you have a specific question about the reliability of one or more sources used in the article, it's unlikely that anyone will act on suggestions or questions left on this noticeboard. But please feel free to edit the article or to make specific suggestions and comments in the article's Talk page! ElKevbo (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of these Russian sources

  1. Source. A user added 3 sources in Russian language in this revision: [51]
  2. Article. Caspian race
  3. Content.

    The phenotype is prevalent to the following ethnicities: Azerbaijanis[5][6][7]...

    Please verify source 5, 6, and 7 (those new Russian sources).
  4. Additional notes. There is a recent sock puppetry on that article. That user added these sources after the article protection. Also, he didn't translate those sources to English OR providing English version of them, just added a bunch of citations to support his desired claim and content.
  5. My request. The reliability of those three cited sources (or an English version to verify them). Thanks.--Zyma (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Then they are non-expert and non-reliable for this article (this topic) and I can remove them, right? --Zyma (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
That's actually the exact opposite of the opinion you were given. In so far as ethnography itself is a science - and that is debatable, see Ethnography#Evaluating_ethnography and tell me those are the criteria for evaluating a science - these are written by expert ethnographers, focusing on this specific topic. Note that 6 and 7 have the same publisher, so comments about 6 should also apply to 7. --GRuban (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
That edit was removed from the article, because they are added by a sock puppet. But if they're reliable, add and discuss them. Actually, I think that article needs a better revision with more sources. --Zyma (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Henry Kriete Letter International Churches of Christ

Copied this here from the Reference Desk Miscellaneous. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have a question about the Henry Kriete Letter that exposed a lot of abuses in the International Churches of Christ. Because Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter (husband and wife) aren't they the best source on the letter that they wrote?

In several posts I tried to explain something to User JamieBrown2011, but he keeps saying that Henry and Marilyn Kriete's website and Henry and Marilyn themselves are not reliable sources on the letter that they themselves wrote. I don't understand that.

Here is some of my reasoning:

@Qewr4231, personal blogs are not Reliable Sources for Wikipedia, yet you insist in trying to insert content from them. Even if you agree with the opinions of the authors it is still not appropriate for Wikipedia. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@JamieBrown2011, who wrote the Henry Kriete Letter? Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter. Who's website is this? http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/ This is Henry and Marilyn Kriete's website.

Again, let me ask you . . . who wrote the Henry Kriete Letter? Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter. Who's website is this? http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/ This is Henry and Marilyn Kriete's website.

Again let me point something out to you . . . who wrote the Henry Kriete Letter? Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter. Who's website is this? http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/ This is Henry and Marilyn Kriete's website.

I quote from WP:RS

"Definition of a source

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

  • the piece of work itself (the article, book);
  • the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
  • and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

WP:RS says that a credible source is "the creator of the work (the writer, journalist)." The source I used was Henry and Marilyn Kriete's own website Gloriopolis (http://henrykriete.com/). Further I sighted the exact source that the material came from: Gloriopolis (http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/). This is a nine part series written by Henry and Marilyn Kriete, on their own website; however you called what WP:RS calls a reliable source, unreliable.

Qewr4231 (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually now it's a 12 or 13 part series that is still continuing. But you know what? Here's the kicker . . . The Henry Kriete Letter was written by Henry and Marilyn Kriete. Qewr4231 (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Qewr4231 (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a primary source. If this letter has received attention elsewhere, then you should cite the independent sources. You can also include a link to the letter itself. If it hasn't received attention elsewhere, then it isn't relevant to the article. I'm copying this discussion to the the reliable sources noticeboard, the proper place for these questions. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Florida's 13th congressional district special election, 2014

Do the following count as WP:RS sources?

>[52] WSJ Republican David Jolly beat his Democratic opponent Alex Sink on Tuesday in a Florida special election for Congress seen as a bellwether for this year's midterms.

[53] TheHill.com Lackluster candidates, millions spent, a third-party candidate: Every detail of Tuesday’s special election in Florida’s 13th District makes it unusual, but the bellwether district is still the first indication of the 2014 electoral mood.

[54] CNN But the contest for Florida 13 has landed smack in the middle of the national political spotlight. It's seen by some pundits as a bellwether for November's midterm elections. (written before the election, and pretty dang close to the Wikipedia usage)

[55] HuffPo Florida's 13th District Bellwether Report: Why Obamacare's Least Of Democrats' Worries (post-election)

[56] Reuters Florida election a bellwether for fall U.S. mid-term race (pre-election)

[57] Orlando Sentinel Republican David Jolly narrowly took the contentious and expensive special election on Tuesday to replace his former boss, the late Rep. Bill Young, in the Pinellas County seat in Congress that some believe is a bellwether for contests nationally this autumn.

[58] New York Magazine Whether or not it’s a bellwether, “It's now likely impossible for Democrats to pick enough seats in November to even have a chance of regaining the House of Representatives,” writes Ben Jacobs in The Daily Beast. Gaining 17 seats was always a long shot. But the fact that Obama won the 13th district twice made it one that was potentially up for grabs after the death of Bill Young, who held the seat for 40 years. The big question now is if Republicans can pick up six seats for control of the Senate in November.

The pundits:
“[T]hese results in the swingiest district in the swing state of Florida are a clear sign that, unless something changes, Democrats are in big trouble this fall.” —Jacobs
“Whether or not what happened Tuesday in Florida is a bellwether of anything, it will unnerve Democrats and energize Republicans.” —Cillizza
“The victory will embolden Republicans as they head into the midterm election and bolster their message — that the nation disapproves of the Affordable Care Act and Mr. Obama’s leadership.” —New York Times
“Democrats had a better-funded, well-known nominee who ran a strong campaign against a little-known, second- or third-tier Republican who ran an often wobbly race … Outside Republican groups — much more so than the under-funded Jolly campaign — hung the Affordable Care Act and President Obama on Sink. It worked.” —Florida political analyst Adam C. Smith
“[T]he Florida contest may or may not be a bellwether. But it did lay bare the Democrats' 'fix Obamacare' dilemma.” —Byron York (all from New York Magazine)

[59] AP After months of railing against President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, Republicans scored a key victory in a hard-fought congressional race that had been closely watched as a bellwether of midterm elections in November.

[60] CBS DC The chairman also touted a key victory this week in a hard-fought Florida congressional race that is seen as a possible bellwether of November midterm election. Republican David Jolly defeated Democrat Alex Sink in a special election Tuesday that largely turned on President Barack Obama’s health care law. (considered a major player in political punditry in DC)

[61] Canada Free Press (not in the US, d'oh) In a bellwether special Congressional race, a long-time aide for a long-time Congressman, a flawed (and former lobbyist) Republican David Jolly faced off against Florida’s 2010 Democratic gubernatorial candidate Alex Sink to finish out the term of recently deceased Bill Young, who had represented the district for forty-two years, the longest serving Republican in the House of Representatives.

[62] Sunshine State News In what was billed as a bellwether for November, Republican David Jolly defeated Democratic rival former state CFO Alex Sink by nearly 2 percentage points in a special election Tuesday to win the seat held for decades by his former boss, the late U.S. Rep. Bill Young.

[63] WSJ Professional political observers and journalists touted the election as a bellwether. "It's rare in politics that anything other than a presidential contest is viewed as a 'must win'--but the special election in Florida's 13th District falls into that category for Democrats," wrote Stuart Rothenberg back in January:

A loss in the competitive March 11 contest would almost certainly be regarded by dispassionate observers as a sign that President Barack Obama could constitute an albatross around the neck of his party's nominees in November. And that could make it more difficult for Democratic candidates, campaign committees and interest groups to raise money and energize the grass roots.

[64] DigiNews But Young was a moderate, and his district is a swing district; both sides treated it as a bellwether.

[65] NY Mag citing Frank Rich - noted liberal "pundit" This race was a bellwether to be sure — not of what’s going to happen in November, but of the true idiocy of our political culture. A ludicrous $12 million in campaign spending was poured into this single district in which fewer than 200,000 people voted. Much of the bloviocracy hyped the race before and after as a battle akin to Ali-Frazier or, perhaps given the Florida setting, Bush vs. Gore, and as a decisive verdict on the political valence of Obamacare. And now both sides are overreading meaning into an election decided by less than 2 percent of the vote (under 4,000 votes) in a race where a third-party Libertarian candidate received almost 5 percent of the vote.

[66] WWSB (pre-election) Today's special election to replace District 13's late congressman C.W. Bill Young is being watched closely by both political parties as a possible bellwether of things to come in the 2014 midterms.


Do they furnish sufficent basis to the claim"

Some political experts viewed this election as a possible bellwether for the fall 2014 elections.


One editor insists that only people with specific degrees in Political Science so qualify, although several of the "pundits' appear to have such degrees, they are not all given full WP biographies stating such. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those are RS for that simple claim. Academic degrees are one type of source but the mainstream media is our standard reference. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Some of those sources are better than others, but I concur that they are sufficiently reliable to support that claim. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Reliable. Obviously. Question is phrased and put as an almost rhetorical question, so simple answer. Two caveats, though. First, the dispute on the page is only tangentially about WP:RS. Second, the question of "bellwethers" is ALWAYS one of opinion, or judgement. The judgement/opinion that the race WOULD BE a bellwether while the race was on is arguably the more WP:N, and the opinions expressed, since they shaped both coverage and activity (money, voter's perceptions, turnout), more supportable as WP:RS, (as would meta-analysis) than speculation of what the race MAY mean in the future. Lumping the two together confuses the issue. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
did you note the words "possible bellwether" in the claim? Last I looked "possible" does not mean "absolutely sure-fire" nor should people interpret it in that manner in my experience. Collect (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
"possible" is redundant, bellwethers, as stated, are always analogies varying in their imperfection, and matters of judgement.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
As Anonymous209.6 pointed out, Collect is being incredibly disingenuous. The original statement was roughly "Given the district's very evenly divided nature, some pundits believe this election will be a bellwether of the the fall 2014 elections." To which I added "However, professional election analysts warn against reading into the results of special elections." To support the second sentence I referred to political scientists showing the political science of special election, whilst commenting specifically on FL-13 (the article in question) - 538, LSCB, RPR, RCP, and 538. Now I raised this issue on the talk page, after Collect objected. He has constantly belittled my reasons whilst not addressing my concerns that the political science should be included. Instead he egregiously exacerbated the problem by changing the wording to "Some political experts viewed this election as a possible bellwether for the fall 2014 elections" which is obviously the point in contention. After I made a RfC, all those who commented were sympathetic, and I tried my best to edit my contribution (to satisfy both sides). So instead Collect posted this unnecessarily large amount of redundant sources and tried to claim his bringing comments here made a consensus in favor of his edit. He clearly never brought up the real issue here and never alerted the talk page to the fact he had posted here until after he could use it as an alleged support of his wording. Given his uncooperativeness and the RfC, I removed about half of the sources supporting his claim (leaving 7 local/national/round-up articles) and edited it to the following "Given this, some journalists called the election a bellwether for the 2014 midterm elections.(Collect's sources) Political scientists cautioned against overinterpreting the results, as with any special election.(My sources)." Please feel free to comment on which edit you think is reasonable. In the meantime, I have initiated a Dispute Resolution Request.(unsigned)
I never said Collect was being disingenuous. You are not reading my comments in an objective/neutral way. With regards to Collect's references, they are indeed WP:RS as to what is being said, which is a matter of opinion, but also a reporting of perceptions, a matter of fact. On the other hand, your treatment of YOUR references violates WP:RS, but not because the references you cite are unreliable, or bad; quite the contrary, as you observe, they are very good references. That is NOT, however, WP:RS. WP:RS is ALWAYS a matter of whether the references support the use IN CONTEXT, and your use is inappropriate, as you are also not citing THEM in a neutral/objective way. You set up the widely held perception, (held across party lines) that this could be regarded as a bellwether, and as stated in opinion columns and journalistic articles, as being OPPOSED by political scientists, ie that THAT is something that makes the statements controversial. It does not. The LANGUAGE of opinion columnists and journalists is punchy, direct and sometimes overly emphatic, but that is a comment on the nature of the writing style. That political scientists, or data analysts never make statements without a raft of qualifiers is also a function of the writing style and narrowness of the discipline, not an indication of opposition, as you stated. Except for the one ref of yours that does not relate to FL13, your refs state that there WAS the perception of FL13 as a bellwether, and that either the result DID change their perception of the upcoming race, or that it did not, but only because they had already reached the same conclusion through other, better metrics. The general quibble that there is never a perfect bellwether, or the observation that, had Sink won, it would have meant little to the broader election issues are minor points. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Anonymous209.6 Thanks for replying. Apologies if I misread you. From what you've said, there's no problem with my sources, but with how we represent their views. I'm perfectly amenable to editing the sentence. But I have to say I do read the sources as disagreeing with the idea that special elections can or should be called a bellwether (even granting, to an extent, the stylistic difference), even whilst they acknowledge the general perception of the race by non-experts as such. To illustrate, I am not aware of any special election to which any of the political scientists apply the term bellwether (whether or not the result was consistent with their predictions for the succeeding general election), because all think that puts far too much weight on said data. Would you agree with the idea that a) their views are notable b) at the very least we need a different sentence to represent their views since they can't be summed up as 'calling it a bellwether' (they certainly aren't calling FL-13 one)? (Aka we can't just tag them on as sources to the pre-existing sentence) 2406:E000:90F2:1:C5C5:C413:70A3:C376 (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Affirmative to both a) and b), obviously. Problem is, you are not stating their VIEWS, you are stating the QUALIFIER to those views, and are further inserting it as if it were a rebuttal, which it is not. The VIEWS stated in your own references are, for example,
"The special election result does strengthen our belief, as expressed in this space for months, that Republicans are in position not only to hold the House but to add some seats to their House majority in November."
"If Jolly wins: Because this is a seat that Sink should win in a neutral year, should she lose despite all her advantages we’ll have another data point that this is not shaping up as a neutral year."
"Republicans will almost certainly hold onto the House in 2014. They also have a chance to take back the Senate. But we knew that before the citizens in Florida 13th’s District voted."
which, if summarized with a qualifier along the lines of "while statisticians, pollsters and/or political scientists warn that there never is a true bellwether", would be fine. It is the setting up of that qualifier as if it were simple repudiation of OTHER peoples prognostication that makes this not WP:NPOV/WP:RS.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


Problem: The IP appeared after the election to change language which had been there since November 2013 without any problems. He forumshops when an RfC is open but not going his way, edit wars while an RfC is ongoing, and makes ad hom comments on a noticeboard about reliable sources and what they reasonably can be stated to claim. Cheers -- but AGF is being bungeed. Why did you wait until after the election to insist on your own version? Note also that many quoted are not "journalists" in any case. Collect (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I have replied on the talk page. But to elaborate on a few points here: 1) I feel it's pretty rich for you to claim I forumshopped, when you posted here, without notifying the talk page, and didn't mention the dispute on the talk page. 2) The RfC has been sympathetic to my edit, they've said things like 'include both for NPOV,' 'both versions seem reasonable,' and the most recent person said if we tweaked them both could be included, which I have been open to. 3) I didn't edit until after the election because I didn't notice it until then. It doesn't change the fact that the political science is notable and which you are trying to exclude without any attempt to meet half-way, which I've tried repeatedly. (unsigned)

The claim is that people called it a "possible bellwether" which is proper wording for opinions cited as opinions. Your aside here that only "political science" experts can hold opinions goes against reason -- the top political reporters and political experts cited by them are surely sufficient here for the claim made. Cheers. And please start signing your posts. Collect (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Celebritynetworth.com take 5

In the past we have talked about celebritynetworth.com and its reliability. I am bringing this up again as we have a few editors this week going over many bios adding net worth based on celebritynetworth.com. What if any decision has been made about this site? I am concerned because of the parameter "net_worth" at Template:Infobox person that does not explain in any way what is a reliable source for this parameter. In a few cases I have seen Forbes estimates replaced with celebritynetworth because it looks more upto date. Lets look they are close but in a few cases billions off the mark from one and other Forbes list vs Celebritynetworth list -- Moxy (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

[67] It has always been found to be dubious and shouldn't be cited as being generally reliable. I don't see that anything has changed. If there's no reliable source for net worth, a specific figure shouldn't be in the article based on a non-vetted guess from this source. Infobox parameters are optional, they shouldn't be filled at all if there's only rumors. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Patheos blogs

Hello! MjolnirPants (talk · contribs) has added two Patheos blog articles (Exhibit A and Exhibit B) to the article God's Not Dead (film) in order to prove his point that the film is based off of an urban legend. Are Patheos blogs acceptable as reliable sources on Wikipedia? Furthermore, my assessment was that adding in a link to that urban legend in the article as a reference violated WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because this website does not even discuss the film. It seems to be used only to support the user's claim that the film is based off of an urban legend. The sentence that User:MjolnirPants is using these sources for reads as follows (diff):

Numerous sources have cited the film's similarities to a popular urban legend. The basic structure -that of a Christian student debating an atheist professor and winning in front of the class- has been the subject of at least two popular legends and a popular Chick tract".

I would appreciate any comments and feedback. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel compelled to point out that it is not a claim about the origins of the film's plot in the above block quote taken from the article, but a claim that a comparison of the film's plot to a common urban legend has been frequently made. I agree that patheos blogs are not a reliable source for the inspiration behind the plot, but I contend that they are a reliable source for the claim that the comparison is frequently made, and by notable persons. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree that Anupam's characterization of the sentence is inaccurate. I'm not all that happy about the theory that bloggers on Patheos are necessarily notable, and I don't know about "Numerous sources". But I don't see the reliability problem here. Mangoe (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

menaopportunities.info

I'd like more input on the use of the website menaopportunities.info as a source. This page has been used to support the inclusion of two people on the page List of Lebanese by net worth ; what makes it especially problematic is the fact that one of the main contributors to the menaopportunities.info website is the person who has repeatedly used it as a source in the Wikipedia article, and there is a very clear conflict of interest in that the editor is repeatedly adding the name of a relative against consensus. Even discounting the COI issue, the website does not appear to meet WP:RS at all, to me, but I would welcome other opinions and insights on this. --bonadea contributions talk 10:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

no evidence of a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

World Tribune

Is this paper reliable for this reverted edit? The paper has reported that the government forces now control 80% of Aleppo. But it is being removed for no good reasons that I can see. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

See The New Yorker article about it.[68] It fails rs. TFD (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
That's pretty much the most efficient response I've seen around here lately. What a take-down that New Yorker piece is, eh? Good find.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Though I've never heard or WT before now, it does appear to have the bona fides for being a RS. The staff is composed of experienced journalists. However, it does trouble me that none of the articles I looked at used any sort of byline. Perhaps that might related to the mobile browser I'm using.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
You've never heard of it before now but your first impression after glancing on it on your phone is that it appears to "have the bona fides for being a RS" even though we have an article in the New Yorker explaining that even though it appears to have to bona fides, it actually does not? And while the staff may or not be composed of experienced journalists, it's composed of people "who still have their day job" according to the publisher. The publisher admits that they have to keep their day jobs to write for the website. And they don't sign their pieces. All in all, the evidence is strong that this is not reliable for anything whatsoever. Although I will grant that they seem to have a sense of humor, given that they list Roy Cohn as their legal counsel.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't see the composition of the editorial board? Bill Gertz is about a heavy hitter as they come. While I'm not surprised the New Yorker would try and find a problem with an organization whose membership all have close ties to the Washington Times, the dated article complains that the WT isn't really a newspaper (well,the distinction 10 years ago might have been important) but that they weren't even UK based. I'm not sure about where the last part came from, or where he was going with it, but I'm assuming he was making some sort of point. More of a smug shove than a takedown. In fact the only valid complaint I see is the one I mentioned; the lack of a byline.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, sigh. The main point of the NY-er article is that they report stories based on a network of anonymous informants and they're like WorldNetDaily and a number of their stories, reported as fact, don't appear in legit newspapers. Like the one at hand. The Ny-er article doesn't seem so dated when you consider that it's about a story in 2003 that ended up not being reported by legit newspapers, and here we are in 2014 with a story about how the Syrian government controls 80% of Aleppo, also not being reported in legit newspapers. One assumes that if the reporting were reliable Gertz would be printing it in the Washington Times rather than on a website whose lawyer is Roy Cohn.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Assumptions.... In any case the proposed edit wasn't a good one not because of the source, because it didn't reflect what the source said; Diplomats made this claim. The WT wasn't making this case.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
They are not unreliable because they are right-wing, they are unreliable because they report things that are not true. A good standard to follow in articles about current events that are widely reported is to use sources that are widely known and respected, such as the New York Times.
Also, the source does not say 80% of Aleppo is occupied, but that "it is believed." IOW it is someone's opinion, not a fact.
TFD (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Wether it is someone's opinion or fact is beside the point, we write what is in the sources. In ongoing war-related articles we write exactly what is claimed in the sources and we attribute those claims to the person that is claiming it per the source. This was done with the edit in the Battle of Aleppo article. The New Yorker's assesment of the World Tribune from 11 years ago by all intents and purposes can be considered out-dated. There is no proof provided that the World Tribune is still an experiment news website as it was more than a decade ago. EkoGraf (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't the World Tribune website more recently a nest of Birther conspiracy theory nonsense? This isn't a generally reliable source. (It still seems to be promoting its "Cosmic Tribune" website.) As for this edit, we don't "write exactly what is claimed in the sources", we write what is found in reliable sources, if it deserves due weight. Rumor and speculation from a generally unreliable source shouldn't be given weight.__ E L A Q U E A T E 10:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
You know very well that I ment what is found in reliable source, because that is the point of this discusson. And I am still not seeing any factual proof provided that the World Tribune is today considered an unreliable source by other reliable media, except the personal opinions of some editors based on an article from over a decade ago and their personal observations. EkoGraf (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The conspiracy theory stuff and Cosmic Tribune stuff aren't from ten years ago. The fact that you don't see proof that it's unreliable is also not proof that anyone actually considers it reliable. The fact that no other reliable source vouches for or mentions this source is not somehow proof it is credible. We aren't supposed to give undue weight to fringe viewpoints. Looking at their archives, if we relied on the World Tribune, we would have added many unsourced reports that Bin Laden died multiple times over the years, that Obama's birth certificate was "100% forged" and other patent nonsense.__ E L A Q U E A T E 11:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The main point here is its fringe viewpoints in your personal POV, not in any provided opinion of established experts who have spoken out about World Tribune. But back to the matter at hand, like Two kinds of pork said, its not WT who made the claim about Aleppo, its the diplomats. Unless you think western diplomats are now making fringe claims. EkoGraf (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
But you are missing the main point. We do not know if diplomats have made any claims about Aleppo, because we have no reliable sources that they have. TFD (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
ALL we have is an established reliable source that claims the World Tribune website is not a reliable source. They've also put put articles based on the premise that outlandish conspiracy theories deserved serious consideration. This works against taking them as reliable. You haven't provided anything to suggest they're trusted by anyone, anywhere. (Reporting that the people who claim Obama's birth certificate is a forgery are "forensic experts" is a fringe view; that's not my POV.) Adding unattributed speculation from an anonymous source not known for reliability is not appropriate here. If you find anyone who vouches for this website we could review that.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

To put it another way, the thing that's missing here is the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If the World Tribune website doesn't have this, then it's not likely to be considered a reliable source. "No reputation at all" is not a substitute.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This website has no such reputation and is therefore not a reliable source. Moreover, it is "a Web site produced, more or less as a hobby" and it has no dedicated staff ([69]). Its operating principle has been described thus: "a story may not be based on knowable facts, but it nevertheless may occasionally turn out to be right", and its content often "resembles a Bat Boy update in the Weekly World News ([70]). Anyone seriously arguing that this is a reliable source for a serious reference work needs to stop and rethink their understanding of our policies. MastCell Talk 19:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I am once again pointing out that you are basing your claims about the World Tribune on a more than a decade old article. So once again my question is - Do you, or do you not have a more recent reliable source saying WT is unreliable? EkoGraf (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
one does not go from a reputation for crap to a reputation for fact checking and accuracy without doing stuff that gains you a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. you keep providing zero evidence that their reputation has changed. That is NOT a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. thats evidence that their reputation has not changed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
And EkoGraf is clearly ignoring the other stated objections that aren't based on the New Yorker article in a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This source has neither a present day or historical reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and present day indications (conspiracy theory-promoting and reliance on anonymous crowd-sourced news) that it shouldn't be considered generally reliable.__ E L A Q U E A T E 10:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

is PWInsider.com a reliable source?

Hello, after a recent discussion, we over at WP:PW would prefer a second opinion on whether PWInsider is a reliable source for professional wrestling. Frankly, our style guide's list of reliable secondary sources for professional wrestling is quite few, so we would like to add more sources to it. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is some background information, the site is run chiefly by Dave Scherer and Mike Johnson, who have an extensive history in professional wrestling. Scherer - webmaster for the Extreme Championship Wrestling (3rd largest American wrestling company at the time) website until 2001. Penned the Saturday pro wrestling column at the New York Daily News for two years. Founder of "The Wrestling Lariat" newsletter in 1995. Joined 1Wrestling.com in 1997. Started PWInsider in 2004. Also rote for the now-defunct WOW and ECW magazines. Johnson - was Extreme Championship Wrestling's official website historian and researcher on International talents... and helped with DVD / action figure / video game lines in ECW. Wrote for Wrestling Lariat, 1Wrestling and PWInsider. Consultant for Capstone Press on a series of children's books about professional wrestling. Co-hosts "The Mouthpiece Wrestling Show" - a radio show.
PWInsider has incentive to provide accurate information due to its paid subscription service "Elite", featuring exclusive access to news, interviews with wrestlers, podcasts and newsletters.
PWInsider has interviewed numerous wrestlers like Doug Williams, Billy Robinson, Bret Hart, Daniel Bryan, Triple H and Jeff Jarrett. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


The site is primarily a "content aggregator" and blog AFAICT, existing primarily to provide many ads (more than twenty per page) and very little actual factual content. It cites reliable sources where it does have content, and it is those sources which ought to be cited, not an ad site. Collect (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Eh, I'm going to have to disagree. Personally, I would use PWInsider for its television and pay-per-view recaps of various professional wrestling programmes. Like this report of the WWE Main Event show on March 25 and another report of the Impact Wrestling show on March 13. Such TV/PPV reports are surely original content. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The material written by Scherer specifically should be citeable per WP:SPS, but I'm not seeing any indication of editorial oversight, fact checking or corrections when it comes to the site at large. Do established reliable sources ever cite the site? That could help. Siawase (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Mike Johnson claims to fact-check results from this site (its own accuracy disclaimer here). I'm sure he has others, too, but it's evidence of some checking. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
notifying WP:PW editors who contributed to previous discussion @HHH Pedrigree: @Wrestlinglover: @STATicVapor: @GaryColemanFan: @LM2000: @InedibleHulk: (Hulk, if you get this ping, please remove your name from here) starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Why? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Nvm, it was to test if you got the second ping. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on http://www.pwinsider.com/contact.php it doesn't meet the criteria to be considered a RS. If you want to review the other sources, that's a separate discussion. This one doesn't appear to be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Why? Could you elaborate? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Um-- you posed a question here, and usually one expects to get replies. When a reply does not agree with the poser's position, then the poser clearly was not asking for responses, but seeking only agreement with his own position. I rather think that no one here has agreed with you, and you likely should take that as a sign that you might actually be wrong in your opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe he's just looking for something more than a basic "No, sorry, move on". You yourself did give an explanation, but i have to give a few rebuttal to it. You called it a "content aggregator" and said that it "existing primarily to provide many ads". That is false. Yes, PWInsider has ads; however, there are two PWInsiders. The free one has ads similar to ads on a free phone app, in that it's not meant to get you to buy a bunch of products, but to annoy you into signing up for the paid service (which is http://www.pwinsiderelite.com/). As for being an aggregator, yes they pull information from other websites and sources, just like CNN.com, NBCnews.com, Foxnews.com, etc. If they get a tip, they research it to find out if it is genuine or BS. When they're not doing that, they're interviewing people and companies in or involved with professional wrestling. If a large promotion such as WWE or TNA holds a press conference, they specifically invite PWInsider to cover it. Within the realm of professional wrestling, and form on entertainment notoriously known for having its members protect it and keeping outsiders out, they have been entrusted with inclusion by the wrestlers and the various promotions around the world. Furthermore, if i may come at this from another direction, when a less than reputable wrestling news site has a story that is that is completely made up or a rumor stretched out the with logic that 1+1=3, it will almost always be "cited" to one of two "sources": the Wrestling Observer and PWInsider. Why? Because people will more readily believe it based on the credibility those two sites have built up over the years bot with those in the wrestling industry and from the wrestling fans. Now, as for Walter Görlitz dismissing it as a reliable source because of that one section of the website, what specifically on there disqualifies? The only thing i can really see would be the "Send us news items and show reports" (which is poor wording, its actually "news tips"), but if that's the case here is the exact same thing for CNN [71] and Fox News [72]. 99.43.175.19 (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I did not dismiss it as a reliable source but rather stated that it was unreliable.
The criteria is that the authors of the website are not professionals in this area. There is no editorial over-site. You asked an opinion and based on what I know about RSes, the site isn't one. I'll offer two others, without being asked: read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and read the discussions here about RSes. I don't need to be summoned again. It was obvious, as stated by Collect, that the person who posted the question didn't want disagreement with their opinion that the site met RS and is willing to argue against any contrary position. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I came here to get PWInsider approved as a reliable source. I am willing to argue against any contrary position, and I don't think that's wrong at all. Let's face it, while you all are more familiar with RS criteria, I am more familiar with the source itself. When I see you all make what I think to be wrong presumptions about the source (because you are unfamiliar) and then say it is unreliable, of course I will challenge your opinion. I don't think I'm being unreasonable to expect people to back up their own opinions and respond to counter-arguments. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz - I'm not sure what's your criteria to consider that they "are not professionals in this area" - then who is? The authors have work experience with (at the time) the third largest pro wrestling company in the United States, and they've been writing newsletters on pro wrestling since 1995. Dave Scherer was even called an expert by SLAM! Wrestling, which WP:PW already considers a reliable source - "who the experts picked". Somebody wrote a book on pro wrestling and credited Scherer as a journalist for pro wrestling. Mike Johnson was credited as a consultant for a book for a "kid's guide to pro wrestling". Hell, I just found out even WWE uses PWInsider as a source. As for editorial oversight, WP:IRS does not really explain it. But, I have found cases of "editor's note" appearing in PWInsider. Likewise above I have posted links to "corrections" made by PWInsider, which points to some fact-checking. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

OK -- three outsiders state it is not WP:RS on a prima facie basis (one says it may fall under SPS for limited use -- but that only applies to statements about that person writing). Zero agree that it is fundamentally WP:RS. As for why you claim that was I said was "false" - you concede that it is a "content aggregator" and that it has a huge number of ads - for which your claim is that they are there to annoy people <g> (to annoy you into signing up for the paid service). In short -- it is a content aggregator with lots of ads. As stated. Cheers -- but when no one agrees with your position, accept the fact that your position might be wrong. BTW, I am unsure that "slam.canoe.ca" meets RS either as it appears to be primarily blogs not associated with a newspaper or the like. It subscribes to CMI (whatever that is - it is not apparently findable on Wikipedia or Google) and Reuters, but appears to have no' actual "reporters" of its own (checking major stories). Collect (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Reportedly haunted locations - do articles need a mention/source to have this category added?

Disclaimer - I brought up the addition of this category to articles at WP:FTN. It was only after the editor justified his addition of this category to articles that have no mention of reported hauntings stating that "I would also ask you to read WP:REF, which nowhere states that the reference needs to be in the same article that is being categorised - only that there need to be references in Wikipedia articles. Which there are. Basically he has added over 630 articles to this category "semi-automatically" on the basis they the articles are in a poorly sourced article List of reportedly haunted locations. He is being reverted by myself and at least one other editor but continues to reinsert, and for Great Wall of China the best source he can come up with is About.Com[73]. I think that it is up to the editors of the articles in the list to decide whether a category belongs in an article they edit, not the list compiler, and that there must be well-sourced mention of the subject of the category in the article, eg if Giza Necropolis has a mention of hauntings that manages to stick, only then should it be in the category. This issue probably involves three areas or Wikipedai - fringe, reliable sources and I guess categorization, although I don't know of a venue where this particular type of problem should be discussed. Dougweller (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

1) According to WP:REF, of course articles need sources. However, WP:REF also makes it clear that those references have to be in Wikipedia, but not necessarily in the article. This is the reason why we are able to have category listings for redirects (for example), even though a redirect never has a reference within it.
2) In the case of the Reportedly haunted location articles, I have been adding categories based in references at List of reportedly haunted locations. As I have already explained, I intend to go back and add refereences to the individual articles, once I have completed the semi-automated task of categorising - it is far quicker to add the categories first in one batch, and then go through the category to see which articles require references, rather than to individually check and categorise the articles one at a time (at an apprioximate estimate, this should reduce the time taken to complete the task by over 50%, probably nearer 75%).
3) In all, of the articles I have added, six have been undone - only one of them more than once, and none of them more than three times (it seems Dougweller does not believe that WP:3RR is strict enough).
4) Saying that "the best article I can find" is from about.com is disingenuous - it was a random source I suggested when the other undoer was not happy with the listed source, and was simply the first one on a list of several thousand sources on google. This is, however, the first time I've ever heard anyone querying the use of an about.com reference as reliable for Wikipedia.
5) It is also disingenuous to refer to me as a "list compiler" when I have edited several of the articles comprehensively and have made it clear I intend to further edit many of the articles I am categorising. Grutness...wha? 11:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
In all but a very few cases, this would be both a trivial characteristic and a non-notable one, per the advice at Wikipedia:Overcategorization. It also doesn't matter if it's sourced or weakly sourced if it's not a strongly defining characteristic of how the place is described. It has to be a noted by reliable sources that the location has that folkloric reputation, not by all the goofy tabloids at List of reportedly haunted locations. An example of an exception would be Winchester Mystery House, where the reported nonsense is a defining aspect of how the is place described, and sources could be easily found even if they weren't directly in the article. This list, List of reportedly haunted locations, is not sufficient a source by itself as it stands to base category inclusion on, as it's based on non-reliable silliness and obviously dodgy sourcing. We should not base anything on it unless the list is purged of self-promotional sources and non-notable sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 11:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
More simply: Beyond the ephemeral sourcing, "haunted" would roughly have to be the within the first fifty words someone would use to describe the Great Wall of China. It's not and shouldn't be categorized that way based on outlying and trivial sourcing, regardless of any inclusion in another Wikipedia article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Most simply: You're admitting you're adding categorization based on unreliable sources like this. Please stop it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaqueate (talk • contribs)
Ok, I will qualify my comment about the "best article you could find" - it was the best you could find when challenged by another editor. "List compiler" was just shorthand, it wasn't meant as any sort of job. AGF, ok? And you have said that you think About.com is a reliable source because it is used in so many articles - that's not the case, read through the archives or look above. Thanks to User:Elaqueate for the response. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I misunderstodd something Grutness said, he did not compile the list in question. However, he is adding categories based on a very badly sourced article. If he wants to add these he needs to properly source the relevant part of the list, then add something to the article itself about it being reportedly haunted. That needs to include the sources. Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • comment In some cases, as a matter of accepted practice, we include things in categories even if they aren't WP:DEFINING - these sorts of categories I term "all-inclusive". For example, Category:Companions of the Liberation - and many other such award categories - if someone won the award, even if it's barely ever mentioned (like for Paris, for example), we add them to the category (or, ice the cat, but I don't usually do that - other eds love going after those cats, I couldn't really care less) - "year of birth" cats are another example - when RS talk about Paris Hilton, they almost never mention what year she was born in, but by convention everyone gets put in those cats. For other categories, my favorite example being Category:Restaurant staff, we do not include everyone who ever worked as a waiter. Now, if wikipedia someday created List of actors who worked as waiters (shudder), that would STILL not mean we could fill the category accordingly. As such, lists can sometimes be larger than categories, since some/most categories need to follow the DEFINING rule. Thus, if some paper somewhere said "X is purportedly haunted", but it's the friggin' Great Wall of China, it doesn't belong in the category - the only things that belong are things which one would describe as haunted in the lede, things which are KNOWN and FAMOUS for being haunted, things where most RS mention the haunted-ness of it - not just where haunted is one of many things people have said about the place. Thus, in short, lists need not replicate categories and vice versa, and sometimes cats will be shorter than lists because of DEFINING rule - if it's one of the cats where we apply such a rule.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Can publications by analyst firms Forrester or Gartner be considered Reliable Sources

in some articles on Computer Science or Information Technology, such as Application Portfolio Management, Automated Document Factory, Big data, and Mobile enterprise application platform, there are references to articles written by analyst firms like Gartner or Forrester. These firms specialize in creating research for the consumption of subscribers. Access to the articles is generally not available to non-subscribers. However, for any subscriber, it is fairly easy to verify that the articles do, in fact, exist and have the content indicated.

Are citations made to articles written by these firms considered to be reliable sources?

Also, in some cases, through prior arrangement with the analyst firm, a company or individual may be allowed to make an article available for examination by the general public. The organization making the article available usually has to pay for that right (although universities and government institutions often do not have to pay). Clearly, firms that make the article available are hoping to benefit because their firm was reviewed favorably by the analyst firm in their report. Those articles usually appear on the web site of the vendor or company that licensed them. In these cases, 100% of the content of the original article, and the logo of the analyst firm, is retained. They are simply "reprints" in an electronic form.

Are these articles to be considered reliable sources? Nickmalik (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. People regularly cite Gartner or Forrester reports so no reason we shouldn't.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Restricted or paid-only access to sources says nothing about the reliability of a source. ElKevbo (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Amazon.com, Target.com and Itunes sales pages as reference for discography

From time to time I use advanced searches to try to locate spam links. Today I looked for Amazon.com and came across a page I would like some advice on before taking further action. Here is the basic information:
1.Source.62 separate Amazon.Com product pages (and 1 Itunes + 1 Target sales page). Here is one example (they are all the same, different songs): http://www.amazon.com/What-Makes-Beautiful-Glee-Version/dp/B007YO6ZUO
2.Article.List_of_songs_in_Glee_(season_3)
3.Content.Here is one example:
! scope="row" | "Bamboleo" / "Hero" | Simon Diaz / Enrique Iglesias || Sam Evans and New Directions males || 12. "The Spanish Teacher" || style="background:#9EFF9E;color:black;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;" class="table-yes"|Yes || The Complete Season Three || <!!ref!!cite!!web|url=http://www.amazon.com/Bamboleo-Hero-Glee-Cast-Version/dp/B0072T976K/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1327797395&sr=1-1%7Ctitle=Bamboleo / Hero (Glee Cast Version)|publisher=amazon.com|accessdate=January 28, 2012

Summary: This is a discography for the Third Season of the TV show Glee (Disclosure: I have never seen the TV Show). The page is entirely sourced by sales pages fro various retailers for individual MP3 download pages. The use of the pages is not necessary: Although the third season page is almost entirely sourced based on these sales pages, articles for seasons 1 and 2 are not. Further, a small number of the links for the season 3 article are not to sales pages. I performed a brief Google search and was able to find a number of alternative sources; although most of what I found had some sort of COI problem, almost none of them were selling something directly on the page containing the information that would need to be referenced. For example, see:

The Problem: This is the first time I have approached the Noticeboard for advice. Typically in this situation, I would change the references an note the changes on the Talk page. In this case, I checked the talk page before making changes, in order to determine what happened to allow the article to get into its current state. You can view the Talk page here. Amazon and Itunes show up in various discussions with a number of different users going back to 2012. All of the discussions seem to take it for granted that Amazon and Itunes are non-controversial, reliable sources. I am concerned that if I simply remove these links my edit will simply be reversed as soon as I stop watching the page. I do not want to watch a page; I find it leads to emotional investment/stress, prevents me from working on more constructive things, and is not a long-term solution any way.

Proposed Solution: I will be frank. While there may be some scenarios in which linking to retail sales pages is considered a legitimate reference for this encyclopedia, I have never seen a legitimate use of such a link in an actual article. 99% of the Amazon links I have seen is someone too lazy to use Template:Cite_book. The other 1% are on these Glee pages that I am consulting with you about now. IMO, they should be removed immediately and replaced with citations from the sources I listed above. These sources are widely known and respected for listing and tracking music production, or it is a list produced by the distributor of the music.

Anyway, that is the problem and my proposed solution. This seems to be the place to go to get consensus from people not involved with any specific page. I look forward to your feedback and will respect whatever the consensus decision here happens to be. Thanks. Jay Dubya (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think major retailors like Amazon.com can be considered reliable for basic information such as what is being used on that Glee list page. As a major company selling the product, they can generally be expected to have the basic information about the product correct. I also don't think the fact that they are selling the products is enough of a concern that they should never be used if another source isn't available. However, if reliable sources are available that aren't selling the product, then I think using them would be preferable. Discogs.com is not a reliable source per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_48#Discogs, but as far as I know allmusic.com and billboard.com are reliable sources (I don't know about gleethemusic.com). So I would say go ahead and change the sources to use allmusic.com or billboard.com if the same information being cited is available there. Calathan (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
(ec) I've run into exactly this problem. While I think that amazon and itunes are sufficiently reliable for uncontroversial information such as track listings, I think their use for this purpose is problematic as we're linking to a site that sells the item in question (see WP:ELNO #5). Where there is a physical artifact, I prefer citing the artifact for track listing just as I would cite a book. I don't have a good solution for material that this download-only and is only found on pay sites. I could argue that, as the track listing information is unlikely to be challenged, a citation isn't required (until a challenge occurs, at least). I think a stronger argument is that if the track listing info is only available on the site selling the music, there's no particular reason we need to include the track listing info in the article. Hope that helps. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
In some cases though when it comes to things released in North America the only things that have these reliable release dates are sources like amazon or the primary source for the company selling the product, this is not just confined to things sold in the United States. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
See musicbrainz for why Amazon's dates aren't particularly reliable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
That link doesn't say anything that Amazon's dates are unreliable. It just warns that caution should be used when more than one date is given. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Jay when it comes to removing amazon.com as a reliable source then you are talking about a huge deal, there are a lot of article on Wikipedia that use amazon as a source for release dates, and I feel it would require a broad consensus from the community. There have been discussions in the past regarding amazon and consensus has been so far that it is okay. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Previous discussions about using Amazon.com as a reference
The general consensus of all of these past discussions have been that Amazon.com is a reliable source to prove that certain items exists and for release/publication dates after the fact. However, upcoming dates are generally viewed as a crystal ball. But there is absolutely no consensus that the links to Amazon.com are "spam" when used as references as the OP did here, here, and here. Unilaterally removing these reference without a consensus is disruptive. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate everyone's feedback so far; with the exception of the "background check" ran on my contributions above, which I do not appreciate. I came here to *avoid* finger pointing and ad hominem. I fail to see how removing references and proposing more reputable replacements without touching content is more disruptive than, for example, trying to shame other editors who have asked for advice in good faith.
I would like to clarify my prior summary. This is a situation in which Amazon, Itunes and Target.com are to be used as factual sources to determine whether music was used in a television show. The article is not about a specific soundtrack album. The retail references establish that such music exists on the show through a sales page for an MP3 that lists the name of the song and the name of the show. In this instance Amazon references are not the only source of information, I have listed four other possible un-used sources that are not sales pages (in the Summary section in my original post) that could easily be used instead (there are other options for the diffs provided above, also). My objection is not that Amazon and Itunes are "commercial" sites as such. In fact, one of my proposed sources is from the record company that releases the soundtracks for the show. I do not think of reliability as a black and white proposition; I think of it as a continuum of various shades of gray. IMO, music sales analysts, journalists and the record company that produced the music are all more reliable than a retail outlet who sells music. In a situation where no other sources exist and retail outlets are the only option, I am not sure what the correct course of action would be. Fortunately, that is not the issue in this case.
I am not claiming that Amazon can never be used as a reliable source, or that any reference with Amazon.com included should be deleted on an automated basis.
I have reviewed the archives provided for reference in the links above above and what they seem to indicate is that this is has remained a controversial topic. That said, when the archives do show agreement, they seem to indicate that Amazon is to be used with some explicit provisos that I do not believe apply in this case.
For example Archive_21 is mostly a flame war, but when it calms down three users state: "Amazon cites should be replaced by non-commercial reliable sources where possible"; "For basic facts, it can be seen as a source of last resort", "My gut says: 'don't cite'". Archive_7 asks if Amazon is a reliable source for the existence of merchandise which is not what we are talking about here - we are looking for whether Amazon is a reliable source for songs used in a television show, not whether a soundtrack album exists. Archive_115 only has two editors respond, not enough to establish a consensus, and both of whom disagree: "Until something is released, it falls into the "crystal ball" category" and "perhaps notable enough that we could use them with an 'According to Amazon.com'".
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_56#Amazon.com_for_digital_music_release_info appears to be directly related to this issue; but it isn't. This archive deals strictly with the issue of release dates as provided by retailers. In this context, the consensus is not to use Amazon: "None of the sites are reliable for release dates." "Amazon often list items (such as books) that they say will be published then are not". Archive_114 again does not have enough responses to merit a consensus claim. Only two editors responded, and both of them speak to very different issues. Once again the notion that Amazon is only a reference-of-last-resort makes an appearance: "Much to my reluctance I'd say that if you can't find a better source it should remain" while also putting a number of other restrictions on use, as part of already published policies: "You may certainly cite an advertisement as a reliable source, under the same sorts of circumstances that you would cite a business's own website, press release, or other marketing materials. All advertisements and other marketing materials are considered self-published."
To summarize, I respect all views listed here, however I have found no indication of a broad consensus at least as evidenced by the links provided above. All evidence so far seems to indicate either controversy or that retail sites should only be used in situations where no other references are available. I look forward to further comment and appreciate any further citations to prior discussions that might fit the circumstances of this discussion more closely. Jay Dubya (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
there is nothing that can be reliably sourced from a commercial sales site like amazon that cannot be sourced from a more reliable source such as the primary source item itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I've never seen a book, DVD, Blu-ray, or an album give its own release date anywhere on the jacket cover or inside. Copyright dates—which is typically only a year—are not a substitute for publication/release dates. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
if there is no reliable source for a particular claim then we dont use not reliable sources just so that we can make a particular claim. we only include what we can appropriately source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The issue is that you removed citations to reliable sources by calling them "spamlinks" simply because they were to a retail website. While non-retail sources are generally preferred, that does not mean that retail websites are unacceptable as sources. If the citation is already there, it should not be removed like you did here, here, and here. You did not replace a single one of those citations. There has been no dispute that the retail websites lacks accuracy and there has been no consensus that they are spam when used to cite a release/publication date. And finally, removing citations to reliable sources without replacing them IS disruptive regardless of what the source is. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a consensus that removing these links is disruptive. You think it is, I don't, so let's talk about it. As best I've been able to tell, the record labels aren't putting out press releases containing release dates. I've not been able to find that information in music publisher databases or at the record companies. The information isn't recorded in worldcat or Library of Congress. As best I can tell, this information doesn't matter to anyone outside of the retailers. Would you give me a rationale as to why it's important that we have this information, and why that importance outweighs the specific guidance at WP:ELNO? Why isn't the copyright year sufficient? Thanks. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:RS#Questionable_sources "Questionable sources ... include websites and publications ... that are promotional in nature,.. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." You can hardly get more promotional than a commercial site dedicated to selling products. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree it's better to simply omit the data than to link to online stores – or, if you're adamant about including the release date, leave it unreferenced. You could also try to reduce your precision. "April 2014" or "Spring 2014" may be easier to source than a specific date. If you still can't find any reliable sources, press releases, or even documentation at the official website, then maybe nobody cares? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_167&oldid=1142502365"