Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

Is Astrodatabank reliable?

In 2011, there was a discussion whether Astro-Databank (ADB) was a reliable source, see here. I want to clarify (as an editor of ADB), that the project claims reliability for the birth data section, i.e. birth date, birth time and location. Each entry is rated with the Rodden Rating system, and each entry contains precise source notes naming the source of the birth data information. Many entries carry the AA rating, which means that an original birth record or birth certificate was either in the hands of the editor, or quoted by another data collector of high reputation.

The astrological charts shown in ADB are reliably computed.

Other information found on an ADB page, for example biography text and category classifications reflects the personal knowledge and opinion of the respective author/editor. For newer entries, biography information is often copied from Wikipedia. These parts of ADB claim no special reliability.

Would this "report" be considered a reliable source?

Hi, Could I have some opinions on whether this report would be considered a reliable source? Someone has used it as a source, and it looks more like pr talking points to me. http://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/131202135150-WhyEverySeriousEnvironmentalistShouldFavourFracking.pdf It would never make it through peer review - or on WP - because the sources in it often don't support the statements, and many are outdated, but those issues are not related to my question - My question is whether this report would be considered a reliable source. Thanks, Smm201`0 (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not reliable. Groups like the CPS exist in order to publish reports defending ideas that cannot be supported in academic journals, because no reasonable assessment of available evidence would lead to those conclusions. TFD (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Context: Here's the link to the discussion of this report, at Talk:Hydraulic fracturing.

And here is the version of the paragraph in that article, deleted by Smm201`0 from the Hydraulic fracturing article; diff

Public-health benefits of hydraulic fracturing

Richard A. Muller, Professor of Physics at the University of California, Berkeley, senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a Principal of the China Shale Fund, an organization whose purpose is "to prove that shale gas can indeed be profitable and viable in China," argues that the public health benefits from shale gas made available by fracking, by displacing harmful air pollution from coal, far outweigh their combined environmental costs. In a 2013 report for the Centre for Policy Studies, Muller writes that air pollution, mostly from coal burning, kills over three million people each year, primarily in the developing world.

I submit that this source is reliable in supporting our use of this opinion of a distinguished scientist, on a topic within his interests and expertise. Others at the Talk page discussion agreed, and Smm201`0 is close to a WP:SPA on this general topic. He appears to be opposed to "fracking." --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment, One other editor Martin Hogbin has agreed. I didn't agree or disagree, I offered a suggestion of how to move forward. Blackash have a chat 02:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If the source does misrepresent it's own references, that of course reflects back onto the writers. Lowering their credibility, if it is also true that Muller is being criticized for conflict of interest because of his financial ties to shale, then this lowers it further. I would suggest don't use this as a standalone ref, only use this a supporting ref. Or better yet use the sources from Why Every Serious Environmentalist Should Favour Fracking.pdf directly as refs for the fracking article. Blackash have a chat 02:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Muller's upfront about the connection -- he posted a link from http://www.chinashalefund.com/ to this report. If RS disputes/rebuttals to Mullers report were available , I think Smm201`0 would have posted them. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

My question for the RS discussion board was whether the source for the statement was reliable. That is the focus of that board. As I mentioned, there were other issues, like conflict of interest, and misconstruing sources within the report, but the focus of that board is the credibility/reliability of sources. So for instance, a report published by the New York Times and Washington Post would be considered an RS, but a report issued by a stand alone lobbying group would not, based on the publication in which it is published. There are critiques of Muller's work, but the RS issue/argument was more to the point. Smm201`0 (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there may be some confusion regarding what an "RS" is. My understanding is that it doesn't refer to how clearly or consistently a report states a fact, but on the nature of the publication or web site in which it appears. For more information, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smm201`0 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 29 December 2013

See "Questionable sources": "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be...promotional.... Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves...." The fact that the author is a scholar does not matter. If the article had been published in an academic journal it would be different. Also, his opinions are not significant unless that can be shown in secondary sources. TFD (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we've seen any evidence that this is a Questionable source. Just some unsupported personal comments from the OP, so far. The OP appears to believe that Muller has a financial interest in shale gas, but hasn't yet presented any evidence of this. Muller has fully disclosed his position at China Shale Fund, as indicated above. Pete Tillman (talk) 07:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The co-author, Elizabeth A. Muller, is "founder and Managing Director of the China Shale Fund, an investment fund that brings together the best geological minds for innovation in shale gas in China," according to the note on the final page. Richard A. Muller is Chief Scientist of Muller & Associates, an international consulting group specializing in energy-related issues, and counts at least one major energy company as a client. None of this would matter if the paper had been peer-reviewed. However, the publisher, CPS, is a think tank that advises the Thatcherite wing of the Tory Party. They do not disclose their funding, but they were prominent in climate change skepticism. TFD (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Having looked further into this source I think is should only be used as a supporting ref if then. Blackash have a chat 09:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll rewrite with that in mind. As I mentioned at Talk:Hydrofrac, the meat of the post -- coal smoke kills millions of people every year, and NG is far cleaner -- is available from such peer-reviewed sources as The Lancet. Or, as Prof. Muller would say, "Every Serious Environmentalist Should Favour Fracking," Might be a day or two. Thanks to all for their interest & cmts, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

If several sources make counterclaims, can either source be considered reliable?

I'd appreciate if uninvolved editors cast an eye over this talk page discussion. The way I see it is that any number of people can be wrong. 1000 sources saying the same thing, mistakenly, does not make it true. And if 1000 other people claim that something is not true, then neither camp should be considered reliable. Ordinarily we would just apply WP:NPOV, but in this case I think it might be better to simply treat both camps as superfluous. Sorry for being so vague, but it would be quicker for you to simply read the discussion than for me to try and summarize things here. Thank you in advance. nagualdesign (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

In general "reliable source" is not the same as "infallible source." All WP:RS requires is a reasonable belief that the publisher of a claim has engaged in fact-checking, or peer-review, of the material presented. If there is a determinable majority view of a fact, then that can be stated, and any minority views should be presented with weight reasonably in proportion to the prevalence of the opinion. This does mean, in fact, that Wikipedia articles can have "conflicting claims" even within a single paragraph, and with proper sourcing for each, in keeping with WP:NPOV. Collect (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm struggling to find the words to adequately describe the problem, and didn't want my opinion to leak into this discussion, hence being a bit vague. To outline the problem, in Deus ex machina there is a section listing examples of DEM in literature, film, etc. Some of the examples seem inappropriate to me. The Lord of the Rings is one such example. The article states (in WP's voice) that the ending of LOTR is DEM, yet there are many reliable sources online which claim that it isn't. It seems superfluous to me, in an article about Deus ex machina, to give an example of DEM, followed by an explanation as to why that example isn't considered DEM (in accordance with NPOV). It would be simpler to just find a better example, would it not? Sorry if this is in the wrong place. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

if there are multiple typically reliable sources that say different things, we present all major views in proportion that they are held by current mainstream academia. WP:UNDUE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, this is not an article about The Lord of the Rings, it's an article about Deus ex machina. There is no requirement to mention LOTR at all. So to hold LOTR up as an example of DEM, and then digress into explaining why it might not be DEM (in order to satisfy NPOV), seems pointless and off-topic. Unfortunately I seem to have come across as attempting to defend J.R.R. Tolkien's 'good name', when in fact I don't really care who's right or wrong, I just would prefer better (ie, unambiguous) examples within the DEM article. The reason I came here is because another editor is conflating the issues by using sources to back up his stance. As in, lots of people say it, therefore it must be true. nagualdesign (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

sorry i was edit conflicted and didnt fully read your post before i responded the first time. I think that you are correct and that the issue is not the WP:RS , it is the WP:UNDUE weight. Wikipedia:V#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion and as an item about which the (semi) reliable sources do not agree, it is Wikipedia:IPC#Good_and_bad_popular_culture_references probably not a good example to include. Although if you get meta, and have the proper source, it could be used as a example to show that there are disagreements about interpretations of DEM appearances. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Literary criticism involves stating opinons rather than facts. When these opinions have overwhelming acceptance, such as saying that Hamlet was a tragedy, we treat is as a fact. In other cases, different critics may offer different views, in which case we should follow the policy of "Neutrality". The best approach would be to find a reliable source that discussed the two views and explained which had more acceptance. TFD (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you everybody for your comments and links. Much appreciated. Kind regards, nagualdesign (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think everyone is missing an important factor here... Even if X is a legitimate example of Y, noting says that X must be mentioned as an example in our Y article. It is perfectly acceptable to choose A, B, or C as examples of Y instead. While Hamlet is a tragedy... nothing says we have to use Hamlet as an example in our article on Tragedy. There are lots of other well known tragedies that could be used instead. That is an editorial decision.

So... in the case Nagualdesign presents to us, the question isn't whether LOTR is a valid example of Deus ex machina... the question is: do we want to use LOTR as an example. Since there is appartently debate about it, it probably isn't the best example... so... omit it, even if it is valid... use something else instead. Blueboar (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Uncited literary trope examples should be deleted on sight; the LotR example was completely uncited, so the question of whether it is a good example is moot for now, because it must be considered not an example at all. Mangoe (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Blueboar. That was precisely the point I was trying to make. And special thanks to Mangoe for going to the article in question and getting stuck in. Case closed, and Happy New Year! nagualdesign (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

My two cents: as a general rule, Wikipedia should be based on reliable (read: not infallible) sources, but it also shouldn't contradict itself. If two RSes contradict each other, we should be citing each as an opinion, unless it can be established that one of the RSes is probably wrong (say, all but one RS say one thing, and that one says the opposite). In the latter case, consensus should be easily attainable to remove the statement that is only backed up by a reliable source that just happens to be wrong. 182.249.240.38 (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Youtube source

Can someone look at this? The source is a lecture by Hideo Levy and uploaded by Stanford University's official YouTube account. 182.249.240.18 (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and the reason a YouTube source is needed is that User:Juzumaru, when presented with the two other print sources that say the same thing, refused to accept them because they can't be seen for free online. The other IP user's proposed solution to this problem is to post a more obscure, and apparently less relevant, print source instead of the one Stanford/Levy/YouTube source, leaving us with three print sources, each more unnecessary than the last, and the one source that actually solves the (admittedly quite silly) problem being dismissed precisely because it is available for free via a video-sharing site. 182.249.240.16 (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:NOYT, "official [YouTube] channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be trace [sic] to a reliable publisher. Videos may also be used as a convenience link for material originally published elsewhere. In all cases, care should be undertaken to ensure that the video is genuinely authorised by the copyright holder." I watch StanfordUniversity lectures all the time. That's the official channel. nagualdesign (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no requirement that sources be available on line. In fact that requirement would seriously limit what could appear in Wikipedia. TFD (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Privately uploaded videos are not the same as one officially uploaded by a major institution - if there is a contention that it is being misquoted or misused from even a single editor, then a transcript would help, but in this specific case that does not appear to be the issue, as long as it is not a "single source." And TFD is correct - Wikipedia does not require that sources be found online - however if someone finds such a source was misused or, worse yet, misquoted, then the editor using it is likely to be chastised.Collect (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Fundoofun.com

Wikipedia is being spammed with this (new) site. Is it a reliable source? Should the site be removed as a source? Should it be listed at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist? I thought posting here would be a good first step. Please advise.

Spammers:

A little digging shows that this user has a clear conflict of interest:

• Amitsri2014 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This user's name is from Delnex Media Private Limited who launched Fundoofun.com:

• Delnex (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

See also: Wikipedia article Fundoofun.com

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Pamela Geller source

The New Religious Intolerance: Overcoming the Politics of Fear in an Anxious Age Martha C. Nussbaum Harvard University Press p 195. is proffered as a source for asserting in Wikipedia's voice that Pamela Geller is "right wing." Is it properly used therefore? [1]

The book is specifically about religion and intolerance, primarily Christian and Muslim issues, and is not about politics in general, nor about the political spectrum at all, and the single use of "right wing" for Geller is as an adjective on one single page. The book also refers to such topics as Muslim circumcision where it states as a fact that it is not different from US male circumcision (page 53) and on page 125 that female genital mutilation of minors should only be barred if it "impairs sexual pleasure or other bodily functions." The author clearly states her positions in the first person "it seems to me" and thus at most the "right wing" comment made in a first person narrative and not in a study of the political spectrum is, at most, first person opinion, and, at worst, an example of googlemining for a book, any book, using "right wing" and "Pamela Geller" in the book. My own position is that opinions (and a book written in the first person is "opinion") must e'er be cited and ascribed as opinion. (review: Nussbaum is one of America's leading liberal thinkers. In The New Religious Intolerance, she turns her attention to the rise of antireligious—and specifically anti-Muslim—zealotry since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. (Damon Linker New York Times Book Review 2012-07-22)) Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Unrelated to the discussion of THIS proposed source

This is forum-shopping by Collect, who already shopped this issue to WP:BLPN but didn't get his way. Boring. MilesMoney (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC) That's a very interesting (and comical) allegation, Miles, considering that it was YOU who originally started the discussion at BLPN. [2] Roccodrift (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Collect already fought to whitewash the article on BLPN. That didn't work, so he came here. That's what I call forum-shopping. Now, if I had filed this report, you might have a point instead of yet another distraction. MilesMoney (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC) For Christ's sake, STOP your incessant bickering with EVERYONE who happens to disagree with you. You are personally responsible for filling up these talk pages with unnecessary pages of gibber gabber. Does that make you feel good? It annoys the crap out of me and I suspect many others. And then there is this [3] to consider as well, from the article talk page: " If you want to go to RSN over that, feel free." In light of what you've said now that we're here, this seems like it may have been said in bad faith. Roccodrift (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC) He's free to do whatever he wishes. He's not free to ignore the consequences. You should understand the difference now that your block is over. MilesMoney (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Well-known philosopher, published by top academic press. Highly reliable. Any sources of similar standing that disagree must also be referred to. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Obviously reliable. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
• While reliable, the proposed text is unbalanced and thus a violation of BLP.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec multiply)The issue is whether a first person book presented the claim as an opinion or as a fact which can be used in the lead of a BLP. BTW, the "whitewash" claim is simply attacking editors who actually follow WP:BLP on all persons equally. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

We also have sources calling Geller a blogger. Is that also an opinion? Other sources say she's a woman. Is that an opinion, too? MilesMoney (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

She is self-identified as a "blogger" per multiple sources, including SPS (which is allowable for such a claim), Village Voice, New York Times and multiple other sources found without googlemining exercises. As you are certainly aware, self-identification means a lot for any BLP claim. As for your "say she's a woman" such a sexist connotation is ill-placed on any noticeboard. Collect (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Your memory seems a bit selective. She also states that her opponents are leftists which makes her... oh, I don't know. Then there's her bio on her blog, where she collects praise, including "heroine of the right wing". She does not hide her right-wing orientation. That's something for her fans to do on Wikipedia. MilesMoney (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This source is reliable for use within the purview of its subject matter (religion), but not within the context of the use being proposed (politics). Context is a controlling factor here per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS ("The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.") It seems that someone is reaching for a source outside the realm of politics because none could be found otherwise. Roccodrift (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Your argument betrays deep ignorance about Nussbaum's qualifications. There's this little site I like to use to look these things up. I don't know if you've heard of it, but it's called Wikipedia. Anyhow, here's what it says about her:

Martha Craven Nussbaum (born May 6, 1947) is an American philosopher and the current Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago, a chair that includes appointments in the philosophy department and the law school. She has a particular interest in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, political philosophy, feminism, and ethics, including animal rights.

She also holds associate appointments in classics, divinity and political science, is a member of the Committee on Southern Asian Studies, and a board member of the Human Rights Program. She previously taught at Harvard and Brown.[1]

So, do you really doubt that she's qualified to recognize a right-winger? MilesMoney (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Your appeal to authority isn't very convincing. This isn't a book on law or on classical antiquity, and there is no feature of the dispute that even approaches animal rights. Roccodrift (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This sources is reliable for the description of Geller as "right-wing". Please refrain from carrying on the debate here. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Problem is that she is specifically "libertarian", "pro-LGBT rights" and "pro-choice" from RS sources ... which them also should be in the lead if I read the policies correctly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to WP:RSN, where we get feedback on source reliability but refrain from carrying on the debate. Which part didn't you get? MilesMoney (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Martha Nussbaum is a well respected philosopher and one of the main developers of the Capabilities approach. I've read the above book and have a problem with using the book with respect to the BLP in question. I don't have the book in front of me but as I remember Nussbaum says she has done no research on Geller but defers to either the SPLC or ADL on the matter. Thus Nussbaum is a WP:TERTIARY reference and we have many secondary references that we can draw from directly. I think Nussbaum voice is an important on matters of opinion and philosophy but as to the facts of a BLP, I would recommend against. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that we should support this citation with citations to the SPLC and ADL? I'm fine with that. MilesMoney (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

We already use the SPLC and ADL. We should examine their discussion on the matter in the talk pages of the BLP in question. Let' re-read them and review. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Would you please keep out of this, MilesMoney. Jason, I demur from your assessment of this as tertiary. I can access the book through a Google preview, searchable of course, and can't find her anywhere saying that she relies on SPLC or ADL for this information. And even if she did, I would suggest that a "tertiary source" is just that, a whole source. It seems strange to take one statement and call it "tertiary". Itsmejudith (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't have the book in front of me and I can only get some of the pages on Google preview. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know. Let me see if I can get hold of the book. I was under the impression that her whole assessment of Geller was via SPLC or ADL. By the way, I just re-read the ADL study and it is a sober critical treatment focusing on the main points. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I've only got the Google preview, same as you, so if you want to double-check that would be very helpful. She does mention that SPLC has described Geller and Spencer's group as a "hate group", but otherwise doesn't seem to be reliant on SPLC or ADL. I am OK in principle about sourcing to SPLC and/or ADL. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Even if she was reliant on those secondary sources (which isn't clear to me, either), it doesn't diminish her value as a tertiary source who evaluates and endorses the secondaries. This is why I suggested earlier that we can avoid a lot of haggling by citing the three in tandem. MilesMoney (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

We already have the "hate group" bit in the BLP -- the issue is that the other sources do not specify that she is "right wing" and we do not include the reliable sources making clear that her position is pretty much simply "libertarian" as the Village Voice and NYT articles aver. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Not that I want to jump into a can of worms, but if someone is saying The Village Voice and The New York Times are not RSs pretty much 100% of the time, I'd be concerned about their reasoning and possible biases. It's only extreme right-wingers who denigrate the Times as "The Jew York Times" and the like and don't consider it RS. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Ten, don't sweat it; that's just a straw man. I'm all for the New York Times and Village Voice being used, although I'm not in favor of the latter being abused to confuse libertarianism with liberalism. MilesMoney (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources about the Pantheism and Shintoism

Main topic: Pantheism and Shintoism, Dispute:- Talk:Pantheism#Shinto Considering that there are many sources, regarding the known connection of Pantheism and Shinto. I want to know, if any of these sources are reliable, or legible, and should be used for pushing the information that Shintoism is pantheism.

• Shelton, Barrie. Learning from the Japanese City: Looking East in Urban Design. p. 112.- "very much on the plural for it is a polytheistic and pantheistic belief".."Shinto refers to an assortment of beliefs and practices that are pantheistic in nature"..
• The Ethnic Dimension in American History. p. 168. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)-"Shintoism combined a pantheistic worship of nature with deification of the emperor, who was the living kami",
• Stuart Picken. Sourcebook in Shinto: Selected Documents. p. 302.-"It stands to reason that pantheism should have a more powerful attraction for the Shinto of the future than monotheism",
• Genchi Katu. A Study of Shinto: The Religion of the Japanese Nation. p. 64.-"As we have just seen, although the animistic polytheism of original Shintō evolves into naturalistic pantheism..",
• Spirit of the Environment: Religion, Value and Environmental Concern. p. 52. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)-"I conclude that the religion we need to embrace now is pantheism, as exemplified in Shinto,...",
• Paul Carden. Christianity, Cults and Religions. p. 52. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help)-"All of nature is animated by the kami—including things such as rocks, trees, or streams—making Shinto a combination of polytheism and pantheism..."

Bladesmulti (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Picken, Katu and Clark (in Cooper and Palme) are appropriate sources for the Pantheism article. Picken and Katu are reliable for Shintoism. What they are not reliable for is a bland statement "Shintoism is pantheism". The sources have to be summarised properly with regard for the many nuances they insist upon. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length, and this editor is fishing for sources to justify what he already "knows". I have presented various other sources which say just the opposite, e.g. : "Nor is Shinto pantheistic for Shinto does not regard an omnipotent logical principle as identifying itself with the universe, but sees divine spirit as living reality self-creating itself as the universe." Mason, J.W.T. (2006). The Meaning of Shinto. Trafford Publishing. p. 78. Retrieved 2014-01-01. Mason is one of the classic western analysts of Shinto (his papers are collected at Columbia) so this a very authoritative source.

Part of the problem (besides the willy-nilly search for anything that juxtaposes "Shinto" and "pantheism") is that a lot of these sources don't seem to understand the latter term and use it as a synonym for nature worship (which isn't a great explanation of Shinto either) or confuse it with animism (which all good sources agree is found to some degree in Shinto). This is a field where there is no substitute for knowledge of the material, because there are so many superficial analyses of what is really a very difficult anthropological and ethnographic puzzle; Shinto doesn't fit western religious categories very well and a lot of authorities would object to it being called "a religion" at all. I have tried at length to get this editor to understand this, but I've had to address the same small set of sources (most of which are patently unsuitable) over and over. I've also had to address the much more blatantly false assertion that Zoroastrianism is pantheistic when any even vaguely competent source says exactly the opposite. This article is plagued by editors who want to see pantheism in every religion, when really it appears only as an element in some of the Indian religions (and yes, we're having a big fight over sourcing that too). Mangoe

This is Reliable source noticeboard, not content dispute, your comment is largely unrelated here. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, Mangoe, that we see research being done in the wrong way, by trawling through Google Books. The sources that I have said are reliable are difficult philosophical texts and you can't cherry-pick from them. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Would be much better if you give a try too. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that Mason is self-published, I wonder why? Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Doug, that's a reprint of a collection of older materials. I'm not sure why I don't find older editions but Mason was mostly active before the early 1940s. Mangoe (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I see an original date of 1935. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Nearly every RS discussion has a content dispute behind it, and this is no exception. Mangoe (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. When this board works well we can move content disputes forward by concentrating on the sourcing aspect of encyclopaedic quality. In this particular case I think the page could also benefit from some input from experts in comparative religion, theology or philosophy. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Album sales figures/WP:SYNTH

At the article for Taking Over, an album by the band Overkill, User:Paranoid90 keeps adding a source which he insists is adequate proof of the album having sold a certain amount of copies. Currently, his addition to the article reads:

"As of 2011, Taking Over had sold over 100,000 copies in the U.S."

However, a simple browser search reveals no mention whatsoever of Taking Over within the source provided. A very fleeting mention of album sales is made at some point by the interviewee, who is a bandmember:

"How I could have sold over 100,000 units on Atlantic records and not received one penny!"

... but in context, these 100,000 units do not explicitly correspond to Taking Over. How could it, when the album itself is not even mentioned in any shape or form? Therefore I maintain that the source is NOT reliable in confirming such a definitive statement regarding album sales figures, and that I am correct in removing it. Nonetheless, User:Paranoid90 chooses to edit war over it rather than find a more reliable source. At my talk page he has put forth some half-assed rationale about record labels and timeframes, which he somehow expects other users to "know" in advance and even to disregard the content of the source. In his words, "The readers almost never care about the source, they just read it". Clearly his grasp of WP:RS is lacking, as well as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I just realised this should be in the WP:NOR noticeboard. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

NOW News

Is NOW News reliable enough to be utilized for the claim that a BLP works for the CIA. See history at As'ad AbuKhalil. Thanks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Not alone. "How would they know?" is the first question to ponder, if this is being approached purely as a matter of reliability. Anyway, as a BLP, there are other major issues here beside reliability. Andrew Dalby 09:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Also see posting at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#As.27ad_AbuKhalil. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to the article. It is posted as "commentary" and hence not reliable for facts. The claim is highly dubious. A journalist who works for a pro-government paper in Kuwait writes in a pro-American newspaper that a left-wing critic of U.S. policy, teaching in the U.S., is secretly working for the CIA, based on copies of documents found on the internet. If the story were worth repeating, mainstream U.S. media would have picked up on it. Here is a response to the story in Jadaliyya. TFD (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Not even a remotely close call. The claim is contentious, and requires more than single sourcing in the first place. Adding such material is an abuse of Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Not even two years in existence. Alternative website of unknown standards. No. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

WantChinaTimes

While this source seemed reasonable at first, the quality has been dropping down to blogish levels lately.

For example:

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20140102000017&cid=1101 As the Zubr-class landing craft is three times larger than the patrol vessels with which the Japanese coast guard and most countries in Southeast Asia are equipped, it is nearly unstoppable, even when detected.

Note that nobody is credited for writing this piece, no publisher is noted, and no person is credited for having anything to do with the site.

I strongly suspect that "Kaowei Nee" of Selangor, Taiwan is a lone operator.

Should we purge all links to this site? Hcobb (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked closely enough to form much of an opinion on reliability, but the site seems - rather bizarrely - to be operated by Want_Want. So, not a lone operator, but possibly not much better. Barnabypage (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The BBC seems to refer to them in their "monitoring" piece and also elsewhere: 1 2 so the site probably doesn't deserve to be written off entirely. Of course, the perspectives may be specifically Taiwanese so depending on the content being sourced caution would be advisable, in detail if the content contains editorial views or opinions of Taiwan's position, say, vis-a-vis the PRC. --Dailycare (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

www.stringbandrecord.com

The site in question is a self-published "labor of love", "compiled by Brian Maher". (Maher, apparently, is a former Mummer.) At issue (currently) is a claim on Aqua String Band. Maher states Aqua missed three parades, but does not explain how he determined this. (Most likely, he reviewed newspaper reports from the three years in question, 1927-9, and did not see Aqua listed.) The band's website states, "The Band has never missed a New Year's Day Parade..."[4] Other bands in the parade also claim to have the longest uninterrupted string of marches.

IMO, reliable sources have not been provided to state that any particular band has or has not marched every year, uninterrupted. Various bands make the claim to be the oldest. One self-published source does not answer the question. As no reliable sources discuss it at all, we leave it out. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Brian Maher does not appear to have the bona fides of having been previously published in the subject area so that his self published work would be considered as a reliable source. Without reliable sources to verify any of the claims of "first" or "longest serving" or of specifically not participating, etc., the article should not make mention either way. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The reliable source at hand, "The Philadelphia Mummers' String Band Record", has been used not only throughout the Mummers' community as the only reliable source of material for the history of the Philadelphia String Bands, it is also the source material used by live television commentators during the annual Philadelphia Mummers' Parade - String Band Division coverage. More notably, the "String Band Record" was used on current Wiki sites (most notably, Ferko String Band), and remained, without objection from anyone in the Wiki, String Band or Mummers' community, until Summer saw it, remembered about the Aqua page, and had it removed. Summer also stated that "The Philadelphia Mummers String Band Record" was a "self-published article". Wiki defines a "self-published source" as: " books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets." The Philadelphia Mummers' String Band Record isn't based on any of those. The opening paragraph clearly states that the source material was culled from thousands of pages from at times up to seventeen different Philadelphia newspapers, from 1901 to the present. This is all that "The Philadelphia Mummers String Band Record" is made up of. Summer also states (above) that the issue with the Aqua String Band missing three parades is not fully explained. Aqua String Band didn't march, because they did not exist during those years, they did not march those three years, they did not receive a parade permit for those three years, the City of Philadelphia did not hand over any prize money to a group called "Aqua String Band" for those three years (yes, the String Band Record is detailed enough to provide actual prize money won by the over 1,500 +/- String Bands that have marched from 1902-present). By the virtue of the Aqua String Band not being present in any coverage from the up to seventeen Philadelphia newspapers, and the City of Philadelphia not having distributed prize money to any group with "Aqua String Band" in their name, all the other String Bands being accounted for (so there were no name changes), and no parade permits issued by the City of Philadelphia for a group called "Aqua String Band" during 1927, 1928 and 1929, we have sufficent evidence, short of building a time machine, that the aforementioned band did NOT march. If Summer has evidence to the contrary, he has not shown it to me, or any other group involved in the Philadelphia Mummers' Parade. Above, Summer claims that "various bands make the claim to be the oldest". I am not sure what he is making reference to, as I am unable to find such references, other than Aqua String Band's own website stating that they are "one of the oldest bands marching in the Philadelphia Mummers' Parade". The oldest Philadelphia String Band currently marching is the Fralinger String Band. The oldest consecutively marching Philadelphia String Band (never missing a parade), is the Joseph A. Ferko String Band.StringBandDivisionThesis (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the self-published source states what you say. Aqua states they have never missed a parade, since 1920: "The Band has never missed a New Year's Day Parade since the time they first stepped onto “The Street” (1920)..."[5] Ferko states they have never missed a parade, since 1923: "From its first Mummers Parade in 1923, the band's history of prize-winning mirrors such perennial greats as the New York Yankees and the Dallas Cowboys. This internationally known string band has appeared in every parade since its inception."[6] That's "competing claims". None of these are reliable sources. One guy searched through old newspapers, made his own decisions about years with only unofficial parades, came to conclusions based on what he did not find and put his conclusions on his personal website. That is not a reliable source. We do not report original research. We do not use unreliable sources. We do not assume that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. (Your back and forth last year, eventual page protection and return to it after the protection, culminated in you saying "as long as those two lies are kept out of this Wiki on the Aqua String Band, I will be satisfied." Now that you aren't satisfied, we're here to resolve the issue.) - SummerPhD (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"One guy searched through old newspapers, made his own decisions about years with only unofficial parades, came to conclusions based on what he did not find and put his conclusions on his personal website." No, one guy didn't "make his own decisions" for his reliable-source document. History made those decisions. Up to seventeen different newspapers reported on history. These are facts. All of these facts, spanning over 110 years, are presented in this reliable-source document. It is these same sources that support the Joseph A. Ferko String Band as being the oldest continually-marching String Band. They also support the fact that the Aqua String Band has missed three parades, 1927, 1928 and 1929. Reliable facts within a reliable-source document.StringBandDivisionThesis (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

While the individual newspapers probably qualify as reliable sources themselves, none of them has been presented as the source for the claim. The claim is being made by the creator of the website who does not meet the criteria of a WP:RS, ie someone whose work has been reviewed by an authoritative editorial board or peer review etc. its just some guy who posted some stuff.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The "individual newspapers" are what makes up the String Band Record. If you are stating that they are reliable sources, the String Band Record must be allowed. If individual newspapers are NOT considered reliable resources, we would need a consensus (not just one other person...) to go along with this, which would, I'm sure, turn a few other Wikis into question.StringBandDivisionThesis (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I am, also, still waiting for a "consensus" within the Wiki community in regards to my source....StringBandDivisionThesis (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The String Band Record is NOT the individual newspapers, it is research based on those papers. The newspapers do not say that Aqua did not march in those three years. The String Band Record says that. You haven't yet explained how you feel the String Band Record meets the criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. You have stated that you believe it is "reliable", that various people use it for various things, etc. None of these have anything to do with whether or not it is a "reliable source" as Wikipedia uses the term. The consensus of experienced editors here is pretty clear: It is a [[WP:SPS|self-published source and is not a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

and if that "some guy" who created the website is you, you should be aware of the conflict of interest policy in promoting the value and appearance of the website as a source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Last year StringBand stated that Maher was a friend of his from school. Not quite the same degree, but he clearly has personal feelings about the site, Mummers, etc. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of the Daily Mail

I'm sure long-time RSN editors will be aware of the unreliability of the Daily Mail, but the following might nevertheless be a useful resource for disputes about the reliability of its stories: Lies of the Daily Mail. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

DM is not great for celebrity gossip -- nor is the Guardian so great either. Vote totals in elections, and actually most medical reporting is actually reasonably good, along with most other "hard news" stories. Note that almost all the "lies" were, in fact, "celebrity gossip" for which the NYPost and a lot of other papers have quite similar records. Collect (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

If you think that the Daily Mail is a good source for medical reporting, then I am utterly speechless. MastCell ^Talk 19:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

the stories identified in the source as false are NOT celebrity gossip " disabled people are exempt from the bedroom tax; that asylum-seekers had “targeted” Scotland; that disabled babies were being euthanised under the Liverpool Care Pathway; that a Kenyan asylum-seeker had committed murders in his home country; that 878,000 recipients of Employment Support Allowance had stopped claiming “rather than face a fresh medical”; that a Portsmouth primary school had denied pupils water on the hottest day of the year because it was Ramadan; that wolves would soon return to Britain; that nearly half the electricity produced by windfarms was discarded. " - not a "celebrity gossip" story in the bunch of identified falsehoods from 2013. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, there's that, too. Collect must have been looking elsewhere, because as you point out, most of the lies listed on the website seem calculated to stoke xenophobia, irrational fears of government euthanasia, resentment against the poor and disabled, disdain for renewable energy, and religious hatred. I'm sure they also published a lot of false celebrity gossip, though. MastCell ^Talk 20:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The comparison with the Guardian is pointless because we don't cover gossip anyway. I've always argued that the Mail is sometimes to be treated as reliable, but never for science. However, I see few cases where it is reliable, except for stories that are covered in other papers anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I echo Itsmejudith - a good chunk of time it is not reliable. in the cases where it would be considered "reliable enough" a more reliable source is almost always available. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Your use of "we" is interesting -- are you affiliated with any newspaper perchance? IIRC, The Guardian was just recently strongly chastised by the PCC? Collect (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian does cover celebrity gossip, though not with the same enthusiasm of some other papers. "We" clearly means Wikipedia. However, it's fair to add that the linked article does include examples of celebrity gossip (about Sharon Stone, Rowan Atkinson etc) Paul B (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Paul, my point was that whether a paper is "good" for gossip or not is irrelevant to us, as we don't cover gossip. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's what I said. Paul B (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Collect, you make me want write [[WP:OTHERBADSOURCESEXIST]] Really, the quality of the Guardian, for good or ill, does not ameliorate the lack of reliability of the Daily Mail. I'd suggest blacklisting it except that we need to link to it for all the nonsense it instigates and which we need to document as subjects for our articles.The sly ad hominem is also unwelcome. Mangoe (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No "ad hominem" was intended, and, I trust, was not inferred by Itsme. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Not affiliated with any newspaper. By we I mean we at WP. The UK newspapers we (on WP) treat as generally reliable are, in alphabetical order, The Daily Telegraph, The Evening Standard, The Guardian, The Independent, The Scotsman and The Times, as well as their Sunday equivalents ("the broadsheets"). Regarded as less reliable are, in alphabetical order, The Daily Express, The Daily Mail, The Daily Mirror, The Daily Record, The People, The Daily Star and The Sun ("the red-top tabloids"). Hope this helps. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I fear you conflate WP:RS meaning "published with editors who do some fact checking and corrections as needed" with reliable as in "always correct." The NYT does corrections on a regular basis -- the Guardian was caught in an error which got the ire of the PCC. [7] Nonetheless, the three items had contained "serious overstatements, presented as fact" on the nature of the complainant's role. Noting that this was a "particularly concerning case [because] the inaccuracies were central to the reporting; they appeared across all three items; and they directly contributed to the newspaper's criticisms of the nature of the complainant's role and his personal suitability to fill it", the Commission upheld the complaint. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

So what is your point? There is scarcely any newspaper that has not sometimes made mistakes. What matters is the overall reputation for accuracy. It remains utterly unclear what you meant when you wrote "DM is not great for celebrity gossip -- nor is the Guardian so great either." The Guardian is not "great" for celebrity gossip because it generally isn't interested in it much, not because it has a reputation for printing falsehoods. The juxtaposition is case of apples and oranges. Paul B (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No, of course I would not waste the time of this board with a suggestion that "reliable" means "always correct". Itsmejudith (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for posting this resource. The Daily Mail is a worthless tabloid which is close to useless for our purposes. We can never use it to support anything to do with BLP for example, and the suggestion that we could use it to source medical matters is frankly a ludicrous one; at one time it could perhaps have been used as an emergency substitute for toilet paper or as a resource in producing papier-mâché, but in the digital age even these uses are closed off. I would move to fully blacklist it, except for the possibility it might occasionally be a good source for its own lies or (let's be charitable) unreliable vapourings. The contention that because another more reliable source has sometimes been criticised, the Mail is therefore reliable is one that fails the most elementary logic test. --John (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yup. WP:RS asks for sources with "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The Daily Mail has neither. It does however have a reputation for printing tendentious bollocks for the purpose of denigrating whatever minority/disadvantaged group it feels is the flavour of the day. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to Collect for a useful original post. The list of UK newspapers added by Itsmejudith is also valuable, thank you. The late and not-in-the-least-lamented "News of the World" can be added to the second category there. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You mean David Eppstein? If Collect added anything useful to this thread it was in the Socratic sense of illustrating something by stating the opposite. I think all of his claims have been thoroughly debunked at this stage. I agree with you about the list and about the NoW. We could also add Metro to the shit list. --John (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I most certainly meant to thank David Eppstein, as you correctly surmise. Sorry about that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away. Don't get me wrong - on a scale of one to shit, the Daily Mail is very shit. It has a poor reputation for fact-checking on anything to do with science, including social science. However, it does have a reputation for fact-checking to the extent that if you want to know what was on BBC2 at 7 pm yesterday, its TV listings are generally as reliable as those in any UK newspaper. And the contents of its news reports, to the extent that they are factual and non-contentious, can usually be relied upon, albeit fairly weakly.

We ought to pay attention to the commonsense bottom line of "how likely is it that this is true?" more than on poisoning the well, which can all too often be a devious wiki-tactic. The Daily Mail can actually be a useful source in many cases. Formerip (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's not use the accuracy of TV listings as supporting a "fact-checking" reputation, please. All newspapers (at least UK) will get their listings information from the relevant media directly without any "fact-checking". It's a form of PR "churnalism" which just happens to be useful. Podiaebba (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is rs and a member of the Press Complaints Commission. That does not mean of course that everything printed is accurate. Here btw is an article about their baby euthanasia story. However, we are supposed to use the best sources, which tabloids rarely are. We are not supposed to use stories when rs have said they are wrong. When they are reporting what is in another source, in this case the BMJ, we should not report their version when it obviously inaccurately reports what another source says. For medical information, we should not use them at all, per WP:MEDRS. If no other source reports the same story then WP:WEIGHT usually means we should not include it. And of course we should only use it report facts, and ignore any opinions that their reporters add. TFD (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure about your first statement? The entire rest of what you say contradicts it. I am seriously struggling to come up with an example where a Daily Mail source would be a positive addition to an article, other than an article about the Mail. Can you help me? --John (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment In my personal opinion, the daily mail is for the most part unreliable for several reasons; it is among the most sensationalist media out there, it does not do a lot of fact-checking, plus it sometimes permits some of its columnists to write racist columns. We can surely do much better than that? Pass a Method talk 12:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • it does not do a lot of fact-checking - I think editors tend to be vastly overoptimistic in terms of how much fact-checking any media sources do, in the sense of systematic independent checking of journalists' work by another employee. Exceptions would tend to be major investigative stories where legal liability is likely to be an issue. Beyond that, it's basically a form of the "smell test" with editors reading stories and looking for things that sound dubious, and asking the journalist to confirm, and maybe leaving it out. The idea that media sources, even at the top end, routinely have a "fact-checking" process something akin to academic peer review was always a myth, but in the 21st century, commercial imperatives have reduced this even further (eg by removing experienced specialist sub-editors from the process, who provided an extra layer of smell-testing in the past). (Also, let's not forget that fact-checking sometimes fails when it is done - vide the Sunday Times' infamous Hitler Diaries episode.) Podiaebba (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Has become a cause celebre for some erstwhile editors, and rightly so, I think. However, it does sometimes publish excellent photographs, as I noted when Ravi Shankar died back in 2012: [8] - don't see any problem with using that as an excellent source. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I fear some editors label a source as "not RS" on the basis that they disagree with it socially or politically. WP:RS does not state that "I disagree with it" is actually involved in the determination of usability of any source - we use many sources which a great many people disagree with. Calling any source a "piece of shit" is not actually relevant, it shows the POV of the person using the term far more than anything else. And, as was shown, even the vaunted Guardian can end up with very bad articles per the PCC. And, of course, there are editors who course around Wikipedia removing every usage of material from disfavoured sources -- but miraculously never removing material from sources they agree with politically. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I fear editors forget that the reliability of sources is contextual. Arguing whether a source is reliable or not in the abstract is a bit like arguing whether surgery is a reliable form of treatment in the abstract. Podiaebba (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

And what is the context in which we would report a story that appeared only in the Daily Mail, and no other major media outlet? Mangoe (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be the million dollar question here, all paranoid claims aside. --John (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Two or three kinds of case. The most obvious is a cultural review; the Mail's opinion of a Hollywood blockbuster is as notable as the Independent's opinion. Another is where they have a detail that isn't in other papers, although that should ring alarm bells about notability. And the third is if the paper has done investigative journalism, which they have done on a few occasions in the past, especially in relation to exposing fascism (which is of course ironical...). We shouldn't rule sources out or in, especially not in the abstract. Having said that, it may well be that the Mail is overused. We could do a mass cleanup, although we still haven't completed any of the mass cleanups we have started. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as reviews are concerned, I do not know if the DM's reviewers are taken seriously in the critical community (unlike say the NYT, which is considered a taste-setter). In the other two cases, I would still say no. A detail reported only in the DM I would not trust, and investigative reporting which no other media outlet picked up I would not repeat. Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The Mail's arts critics are not completely without credibility, for example Christopher Tookey and Robin Simon (critic). Certainly a Mail review of a London West End theatre production, for instance, can be taken far more seriously than its latest updates on the causes and treatments of cancer...

It may also be a reliable source for some sports coverage, something I don't think we've mentioned here, though I don't know enough about that to have an opinion either way. Barnabypage (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying we would recommend using the Mail in those cases. But we might. And the Mail is a good-enough source for when a TV series airs, on what channel, etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Trayvon Martin

The Shooting of Trayvon Martin article discusses the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. A section of the article deals how the media portrayed Martin and Zimmerman as the case was being reported on. The sentence being challenged is

Martin's and Zimmerman's height and weight were the subject of contention in the media and blogs and used to inform speculation.

The source provided to support that statement is an interview of a friend of Zimmerman that was broadcast by a local television news program, in which Zimmerman's friend said: "That's a perfect example of all the misinformation that is out there. Based upon his 2005 arrest, a mug shot says he weights 250 pounds and that doesn't say he is 5 feet, 8 inches and 170 pounds . . . It's not his appearance it is the information and the accuracy of everything that we have heard from the very beginning characterizing him as white, his size his weight." A discussion on this and related matters has been underway here. Dezastru (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That particular source is probably not valid, but there are likely dozens and dozens of actually reliable sources that could be used to support that content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I made a page for myself

Hey there I'm new to all this, people have said i should make a page for myself. I have & its all true, but from here i don't understand how to get it verified ect... my names Tony Fulton & I play AFL in AU, user name Fultsfults. was just hoping i can get a page up like the other guys i play footy with, but it all seem very complicated! my dad can be a "ref" just dont know how to do it (I tried hours ago just by writing a few words) if you look at what i wrote. you could see that, no one can just make that up!

cheers

Tony Fulton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fultsfults (talk • contribs) 19:39, 4 January 2014‎