Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 148

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

Archive 145

Archive 146

Archive 147

→

Amazon as a RS for product ingredients?

Another editor added in baby powder a link to Amazon as a reference for the ingredients of Johnson's Baby Powder. I reverted, and the other editor re-reverted to include the link as a reference. Is a site that is selling a product (but not the manufacturer thereof) a reliable source for the ingredients in that product? LadyofShalott 23:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I searched for other references for ingredients. The manufacturer doesn't list it, but other sites selling the stuff does. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Daniel's response beat me to coming back. The most recent diff in this string is [1]. LadyofShalott 23:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Any input from someone not part of the dispute originally? LadyofShalott 21:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be cautious of using an Amazon product description. The information is ultimately provided to Amazon by the manufacturer, but there's no reason to believe that the manufacturer has kept Amazon up to date on any changes. Amazon's processes are highly automated so it is likely that this content is not carefully curated. GabrielF (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Local newspaper on military awards

There's currently a dispute at Talk:George Juskalian on whether the Centreville Patch, a local newspaper, is a reliable source for the claim that his "decorations [are] among the rarest bestowed on United States service members". Kevin McE says that's "a throwaway comment in a peacock piece in a local paper" and thus not reliable; I'd say it's ovious from the paper's very next sentence that the journalist did fact-check his claims and thus is a reliable source. Opinions? Huon (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Local papers get PR from the government - so it is not just a "throwaway line" in all likelihood. He did get a post office named after him. The Air Medal is a notable one, indeed, and very far from common, as are some of the others noted. Collect (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in the journalist's CV to lead one to believe that she is an authority on military awards, and any suggestion that she received government information is pure assumption. The following texts attest to them being high honours, probably not very common decorations, but give no confidence that they are among the rarest. That, as it stands, is uncorroborated hyperbole. Journalists in local papers are encouraged to employ some poetic licence and loose definitions to speak well of local personalities: encyclopaedic editors are not.

Not being common is not the same as being "among the rarest". To analyse whether his medals are among the rarest (as opposed to not being very common), one would need an authoritatively sourced list of the awards and sort them according to how many times they have been given, and then see where Juskalian's honours sit in that list. Kevin McE (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The source is reliable. Might I also add for the record that Patch Media is a local news and information platform owned by the AOL corporation. The AOL corporation in itself is regarded as a reliable online news source. In regards to the article, the notion of rare medals is clearly confirmed by the additional news sources that make the exact claim. The TP of George Juskalian has presented a few examples. Above all, I think it is important to note that although some of the other medals are not considered in the "Top 10" rare medals (I don't know if such a countdown exists), but given the circumstance, context and time frame in which they were awarded, the medals were indeed rare and hard to attain. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You can't just announce that the source is reliable. There is no such assumption for low circulation local media. Prove it.

If other news sources make the same claim, post them to the article and the debate is over. But do they claim that these are "among the rarest" awards, or simply that they are not very common?

If there is no comparative list of how many of which medals have been awarded, then the journalist cannot have any confidence in her claim.

Factors like "circumstance, context and time frame" or "hard to attain" might make the collection of awards notable, but they have no bearing on whether they are among the medals are among the rarest.

Juskalian's honours can be indicated and shown to be notable without any need for this spurious claim. Kevin McE (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I encourage uninvolved editors to express their opinions. I would also like to clarify that some of the medals Juskalian has been awarded with have been proven by additional sources that they are indeed rare in the talk page of article. It is also clear that the writer of the article has done her research with the Department of Defense and has made the statement in accordance to the DOD's standards.--Երևանցի ^talk 19:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we have sources other than patch.com sources that verify the awards in question? I am not on board with patch.com sources being automatically considered reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see TP of George Juskalian. The medals he has been awarded are verified in terms of their rarity with the help of additional sources. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Rare ≠ among the rarest. What on earth is so hard to grasp about that? Talk pages are not the place to have sources that the article is reliant on for verification. Kevin McE (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Kevin McE, you've got two different issues involved here. First, is this local newspaper a reliable source for the comment about "among the rarest"? I agree with you that it is not by itself. That comment must be verified by official Air Force records or reliable studies of the awarding of medals in the Air Force. Second, you seem to have a problem with the meaning of "rarest". "Rare" is not an objective measurement of anything, it is always relative. The statement "Hungarians are rarer than Americans" is true, even though there are about a dozen million Hungarians in the world. Compared to the number of Americans, they are "rare". "Rare" just means "much less common" than something else it's being compared to. The Air Force Medal, for example, is, indeed among the rarest of Air Force medals. It is not as rare as the Medal of Honor, but it is much more rare than the Air Force Commendation Medal, and, therefore, it can legitimately be said to be among the "rarest". Pushing some rigid idiosyncratic meaning for "rare" violates its actual relativistic meaning in English. --Taivo (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Re First point: I agree entirely.

Re second point: I do not agree that I have a meaning with rarest because, unlike your Hungarian example, a context is given to the population that is being compared. The true analogy would be to consider whether Hungarians are "among the rarest of European ethnic groups". They are rare when compared to Spaniards, Italians, English or French, but the rarest European ethnic groups are Romansh speaking Swiss, native Sammarinese, German speaking Belgians etc. To claim that something is "among the rarest" implies knowledge of an ordered list, a decision as to how high up that list an arbitrary cut off is made (rarest 10? Rarest 15? rarest 8%), and honest application of such criteria. No-one has suggested willingness or ability to do this in relation to this claim. Kevin McE (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

When the medal in question (the Air Force Medal, as I recall) is among the three rarest medals, then it is, indeed, among the rarest. But the real issue isn't whether it is among the rarest or not, but whether that statement by the local newspaper can be quoted as if it is from a reliable source. You are making the wrong argument, Kevin McE. You need to focus on the issue of using the local newspaper as a reliable source (which I contend it is not), rather than on the semantics of "rarest". That is the real underlying issue here. Once you realize that the local paper is a source, but not a definitive reliable source, then other than reporting that X received Y medals, it is not a reliable source for the relative frequency of award for any Air Force medals. The only reliable sources for the frequency of award of Air Force medals are the Air Force itself and scholarly works that deal with Air Force medals in a systematic way. Even if the local reporter made a phone call to the Pentagon, that does not make her/him a reliable source for that information. --Taivo (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

A consensus has already been reached regarding the issue. It turns out that everyone is pleased now. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Primary sourcing on Peter Ruckman

In the Peter Ruckman article, the fact that Ruckman is twice divorced is sourced to the following footnote here. The first sentence makes it apparent that Ruckman must have gotten divorced twice, and seems okay to me. The rest of the material speaks of Gospel articles torn out of typewriters, destroyed artwork, people throwing themselves out of cars, suicide attempts, threats of beatings, etc. Is it appropriate to use a primary source as an extended footnote in this fashion on a BLP? Seeking comments from other editors after myself and another editor had different perspectives on it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

omniglot.com

Forgive me if this is not the right place to bring this up --- I'm an old man. In 2007 a Wikipedia article about the website <www.omniglot.com> was deleted because it was alleged not to be notable. I remember being surprised at the time, but assumed that was a mistake that would soon be corrected. Recently I used the Wikipedia search facility against "omniglot.com", and turned up 414 citations to it in mainspace articles. But no article about the website. You can't have it both ways -- either delete all those citations -- or restore the article!! Too Old (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we can have it both ways - though whether we should in this case is another question. Whether an article about a subject is merited depends on it meeting our notability guidelines, and whether a source can be cited depends on it meeting reliability guidelines - and it is entirely possible for a source we don't consider notable to nevertheless be considered reliable. As to whether omniglot.com actually passes our reliability guidelines, I have some doubts (it seems to be run by a single individual), though to some extent it depends what it is being cited for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo and Boxoffice.com

Hello everyone. There's been a very lengthy discussion about which website to use for box office gross at this section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Which_box_office_number_site_that_should_be_use_for_references) of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. This matter is getting out of hand. I feel like I'm talking with people who are not ready to listen anyone's opinion here. I'm not insulting them but after reading the content in upper link carefully you'll probably understand why I'm saying this. Trust me I've tried explaining to them and also they keep making stuff up like I'm bullying them. I accept I called them inexperienced users once but that was actually the only insult i gave to them well ony to users BattleshipMan and Betty Logan. All of these users are saying that Boxoffice.com is not reliable but BOM is. I'll like you to check this link carefully please ( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=reddawn10.htm) . As you can see the total foreign box office gross of this movie Red Dawn is given as "n/a" while foreign box office gross of many countries is given. Now this user Betty Logan that I was discussing with say that gross for all countries is not available. Well I'm surprised how does user Betty Logan knows this? I don't think she has contacted them and even if it is true why don't BOM add up all the gross for all territories that are available to them. Even if they do not why in the world are they showing worldwide gross equal to the domestic gross. They're contradicting their own info! Which trade source have ever you seen state the domestic gross and worldwide gross of the movie equal when they only have the data about domestic gross of the movie available with them? Under one of the rules of idintifying a reliable source, " 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 and is an appropriate source for that content." The data atleast for this movie is not reliable since they're contradicting their own info. And atleast for this movie BOM is not reliable however those users fail to understand this. I'd also like you to notice that this problem is present only with low grossing movies. No high grossibg film has this problem on BOM. Last of all no trade source uses BOM for citing the gross of this film Red Dawn. So I request you to exclude BOM as a reliable sources for the films where they make these type of mistakes.

My next topic is Boxoffice.com which kind of has a statas quo. I'd like you to notice that this website regularly updates it's foreign box office gross, backed up by TheNumbers.com and never contradicts it's own info. The users say it is not reliable. Well where's the proof for your statement? I accept budget is unusually high on this website and I don't want to get speculating like them. I do not want this to turn into an edit war that's why I requsest the intervention of admins. Instead of using a single source I suggest we use multiple sources for box office gross. Also last but not least I didn't say that Boxoffice.con is more reliable than Box Office Mojo. I used it because unlike BOM it does not contradicts it's own info. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

~~Be aware that this editor is now WP:FORUMSHOPPING.~~ Any readers will want to see this previous thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Which box office number site that should be use for references. You will note the reasoned arguments put forward by most of the editors there for the preferred use of Box Office Mojo. KahnJohn27 was warned about treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND but has obviously chosen to ignore that. So as to prevent the same discussion taking place you might add any comments to the previous thread - though you are certainly free to respond here as well. MarnetteD | Talk 00:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Followup I now see that K was recommended to come here to get more input so I have struck through my initial assertion of why this post came about. Editors will still want to be aware of the previous conversation. MarnetteD | Talk 00:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

KahnJohn27 is misrepresenting the discussion at the Film project. Box Office Mojo has served as a reliable source on film articles for box office data for many years, and has been included in many GA and FA rated articles without incident. This editor has been going through film articles replacing this source with a less reputable source on the pretext that he does not consider BOM reliable. The sole reason for this is that in some cases Box Office Mojo has not included the foreign grosses in its summary totals (see Red Dawn for an example, and note that the foreign gross is left unfilled). However, if you click on the Foreign tab, the foreign data is made available on another section of the entry. It seems KahnJohn regards Box Office Mojo as "unreliable" due to this inconsistency. I beg to differ: Box Office Mojo still makes the foreign data available to its readers i.e. it's there if you want to use it. He is drawing unfounded conclusions on the basis Box Office Mojo just hasn't updated a section of its website. The key points we look for in ascertaining the reliability of a source is that we trust it to accurately and honestly convey the facts and figures that we source to it, and there seems to be no cause for concern in this regard! Box Office Mojo still provides a breakdown of foreign grosses, it just doesn't conveniently tot them up for us in some cases, but the data is still there if we wish to use it and there is no compelling argument to doubt its veracity. He seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a "reliable source" on Wikipedia, and unfortunately despite several attempts at the Film project we have been unable to get the point across. As for the situation with BoxOffice.com, no-one to my knowledge has said it is unreliable: it's not a source any of us are particularly familiar with; in fact we advised that it should be vetted here before it is inserted into any more film articles. Betty Logan (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Just so you guys know, this is what KahnJohn27 wrote on my talk page in This section after I spoke to him on the talk page of Darkwarriorblake on this section. Betty Logan is one of the most experienced editors on Wikipedia. KahnJohn27 is not and he started editing as of last September. He is misrepresenting all this information and doesn't how to spell English that properly. I think the reliability and accuracy of BoxOffice.com should be vetted as well before it is inserted into any of the film articles. If it not that reliable, I say we should not use that site as reference for any of the films articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I'm "one of the most experienced", but I'm certainly not "inexperienced" either; although being red linked I can appreciate why some editors might think that. I'm confident in my evaluation of Box Office Mojo though: I have used lots of box office sources in my time here and none of them have been without errors, and that includes Box Office Mojo. However, I don't believe this is the case this time: it's not ideal that BOM hasn't totaled the foreign grosses thus complicating its usage and that in itself may be a good reason to consider other sources on convenience grounds, but I don't agree it debunks it as a reliable source, especially if we don't have a legitimate reason for thinking the individual grosses are inaccurate. Betty Logan (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes i accept I once called you inexperienced. That was the only insult I gave to you but I have never made a disrusptive edit so please stop that accusation. Also I might not spell English correctly. But this noticeboard is not the place for reporting someone's behavior or their incorrect English and nor any of us is going to decide which source is reliable or unreliable. The final decision rests in the hands of administrators and whatever they decide we all should respect that. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I assure you all my edits are in good faith and I'm not trying to enforce my opinion. I am not misrepresenting the discussion. I am only reporting what I saw. Till now you have failed to give any proof that "Boxoffice.com" is unreliable. If I was trying to force my opinion I wouldn't have brought this matter here in the first place. Also I have already said that it was actually Darkwarriorblake who told me about Boxoffice.com so I think he will be a key help in solving this problem. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

When a website starts contradicting it's own info it cannot be classified as reliable. Articles have earned the GA or FA status because they are reliably sourced and not because of Box office mojo. I'm not the one who is making things up but it is actually you. How can you so confidently say that BOM has'nt collected the box office gross for all territories that is why the total foreign gross is "n/a". Needles to say you're making this up on your own. I'd like to remind you just because a source is less reputable it doesn't mean it's unreliable. Also why don't you comment about using multiple sources? Is it really neccesary that we have to use a single source? KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

all sources occasionally make mistakes. KahnJohn, in order to completely discount BOmojo you would need to show that it REPEATEDLY is coming up with incorrect numbers- not just that it has once or twice, or that it hasnt published all of the information that you want in the for that that you want. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is a list of links proving that BOM repeatedly makes these mistakes repeatedly :-

Also Betty Logan said that BOM is conveying facts honestly. How is it providing information honestly when it is contradicting it's own info? It is not honestly conveying facts but misrepresenting facts. Last but not least why is there any problem with using Boxoffice.com. Why are we just using a single source for box office gross when we know they can't be completely accurate. Why can't we use multiple sources? KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

what " mistake"? it is not a mistake for them to not report all of the data that you want in the manner that you want it presented. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

As an editor for nearly eight years, I can vouch for Betty Logan as one of WikiProject Films' most conscientious, knowledgable and constructive editors for quite some time. Multiple editors at the Project's talk page have all disagreed with KahnJohn27's position and find it disruptive to face his thousand-word rants and his bullying insistence that we "prove" this or that to him.

Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, two of the most venerable, longstanding trade publications in television and film, use the figures from Box Office Mojo, as has Wikipedia for years. If the film industry itself, whose studio accounting executives are certainly knowledgable and experienced in these matters, accept Box Office Mojo, then it certainly makes sense for Wikipedia to comport with the industry's most-accepted figures. The discussion at Wiki Project films looks WP:SNOWBALL from my perspective. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur that Box Office Mojo is a reliable source. From what I can tell, BoxOffice.com seems acceptable since it has been referenced in news coverage too. Regarding Box Office Mojo, the cited examples are films that are still screening in theaters, so the figures are bound to be dynamic. Is the so-called mistake that it says "n/a" instead of rolling up all the countries' figures? While odd, it's hardly damning of this source. I would be more concerned if this was a systematic matter with films no longer in theaters, but I do not believe this is the case. In short, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Instead of purging Box Office Mojo from Wikipedia entirely, we should email Box Office Mojo to get clarification about their approach here and/or consider a process of using alternative sources if BOM does not have updated figures. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I also support BOM being used as a reliable source and I also agree with Tenebrae and Erik's concerns and helpful suggestions here. We should contact BOM to get clarification about their approach to box office grosses. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea about Boxoffice.com's gross figures and they don't even actually list foreign figures, just American figures and a total gross so they don't offer the same breakdown that BOM does, but tehre is definitely something wrong with their budget figures which are often massively out of line with BOM and industry sources, sometimes by tens of millions. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should be reliable sources on this and I think BOM is reliable enough as possible. I notice something else. On Olympus Has Fallen, BOM lists it production budget as $70,000,000 and BoxOffice.com lists it production budget at $100,000,000, which differs $30,000,000 on those sites. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not completely discounting BOM. I am only saying that is unreliable for those movies where this "n/a" problem is occuring. I agree that contacting them this problem and why it is occuring will be a much better solution. Also if you think Boxoffice.com is reliable then why is there a problem for using it for those films where this problem of n/a foreign gross occurs with BOM. Besides there is not much difference between the gross of the two sites. Why do we need to mention the gross accuarately as given on the websites when it can't be accurate? Why can't we instead show it as $21 - 24 million instead of $23.5 or $21.8 million? This question has been asked by me from beginning and unfortunately no one has talked about it. I request you to discuss this too. Lastly about the high budget on Boxoffice.com I don't know about that at all and I don't want to speculate. I suggest we should contact Boxoffice.com about this. But their high or wrong budget doesn't mean they can't be used as a source for box office gross. Apart from that even BOM's budget can be incorrect. It has displayed the budget of Oz The Great and Powerful as $195 million while all other industry sources say it is $200 million. Last but not least. In order to assure you that my edits are in good faith and not disriptive I'll like you to know I'll support the decision of the consensus no matter what's the decision but only if all facts are duly weighed. If I fail to convince you even then be it. I will try to appeal the decision if all facts are not counted but won't get into an edit war. I request you to please forgive if I have made a mistake or if I have insulted you. I'm really sorry. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

at the risk of pointing out the obvious, you do realize that the difference between $195 million and $200 million is all of 2.5% - and you expect anyone to think that such a variance on estimates is evidence of criminal errors? you are just making your position look more and more ridiculous. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It's best to not get bogged down too much in the budget debate. No sources are great for budgets because they are usually estimates or based on industry leaks, so on most articles we tend to represent them as estimated ranges (The Dark Knight Rises being a good example of that approach). Usually you can get a ballpark figure but pinning it down exactly is usually impossible. Box office grosses tend to be relayed by the distributor, so there is a process in place for reliably reporting them, that any competent publisher should be able to do. Unfortunately KahnJohn is still missing the point: not supplying a foreign total in some cases is inconvenient, but it's not like they are supplying a figure that mismatches the foreign grosses. That said I have no aversion to using other reliable sites for totals if the editors on those articles deem them to be a more suitable source for whatever purpose, but that's for the editors of those articles to determine through a consensus based process. Purely on the subject of Box Office Mojo's reliability, nothing has come remotely close to convincing me they are not accurately reporting foreign grosses in the cases raised. Editors obviously have to just use the data sensibly. Betty Logan (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Listen, KahnJohn27. A lot of us on that noticeboard vouches that BOM is accurate, despite the n/a problems that it has on that site recently. So they are looking into that problem right now and check out the reliability on these sites at this point. Let's just wait and find out. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You were right TRPOD. I have put myself in a ridiculuos position. But not because I'm giving some stupid reasons because I now remember that BOM does not only show total foreign gross as "n/a" in movies. This is what Darkwarriorblake talked to me about when I was editing the box office gross at the 2012 film Dredd. I request everyone to check these two links carefully and try calculating the total foreign gross manually :-

Upon manually calculating the foreign gross of all countries of Dredd it comes out to be higher than the total foreign gross given by BOM. No it is no calculation error and you can check it for yourself. In the case of The Man with the Iron Fists the calculated foreign gross of all countries is lesser than the total foreign gross. How is that possible? If the reason is same that is grosses of all territories are not available well then why is total foreign gross is n/a while it is available for other movies when the gross is not available? Have they collected the data of some territories together? I don't think that's possible without collecting data of each individual territory. I'm not implying that BOM is incompetent or unreliable but this atleast debunks to some degree the implication made by Betty Logan that one of the reasons data for all territories might not be available. It also debunks to sone degree the myth that BOM is a very trustable source. It might be trustable but not that much trustable. But I don't want to imply anything and be rash. Also the theatrical run of Dredd ended many months ago. The theatrical run of The Man with the Iron Fists has also ended and so of Red Dawn. But Red Dawn's total foreign gross is still listed as "n/a". Now I wonder why is that. But still I think we should contact and ask them about it. Also please notice that while BOM might have been used for mentioning the gross of films by many trade sources. But please notice this no trade sources at all have used BOM as a source for mentioning the gross for Red Dawn, Dredd; The Man with the Iron Fists or The Incredible Burt Wonderstone. BOM is not reliable for referencing the gross of these movies. Maybe it is due time we paid detailed attention to Box Office Mojo because if you think it is reliable it might not be so. Apart from that if Boxoffice.com is reliable then why I am being stopped from using it as a source just because other users are already usig BOM. That is no proper reason especially when Box Office Mojo displays incorrect data. If Boxoffice.com is reliable then every user has a right to use it as a source instead of BOM especially if it is indeed displaying incorrect info. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

In the case of Dredd the explanation is blatantly obvious because Box Office Mojo gives you a dated breakdown of all the figures: the foreign total is dated November 18, 2012, while some of the foreign grosses for that film (five at my count) are dated up to December. Yes, it's inconvenient that their foreign total hasn't been updated yet but that doesn't make it wrong: there is no reason to doubt the figure is correct for November, which is the month the source states it is for, and the up to date figures are still available for you to use. This doesn't make BOM unreliable, it just means care has to be exercised to not use out of date totals. BOM is hardly unique in this respect: in the case of Red Dawn, BOM shows it having a foreign gross of 5-6 million, while Boxoffice.com shows it having a gross of 3-4 million, so it is most likely that Boxoffice.com hasn't updated its total either to reflect the total current income. At least with a source like BOM the breakdown makes it possible to see which territories it is accounting for and when, which makes it possible for you to corroborate its data, which is its biggest asset IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You know, KahnJohn27. At least now your starting to act less rashly. It's a start. You just got to avoid a WP:BATTLEGROUND from happening to you again.

The reason why we remove references on Boxoffice.com is because no one knows how reliable it is and there is conflicting reports on various movies regarding production budget on movies and the box office gross on each of them. While BOM gets news references from Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, no one knows if Boxoffice.com gets news recognition from any online news source. That's what we need some reliable and accurate sources before we put them in film infoboxes. What I mean that you indirectly cause a dispute over reliable sources regarding conflicting box-office gross and production budget costs that don't match to either of those sites. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Your wrong on all accounts Betty Logan. May I ask how are you so sure that whatever is it saying is true. You don't have any proof for that so I ask you to please stop making up reasons on your own. You never have contacted any of the source. If the gross of Dredd is not updated then it is their error. Atleast Boxoffice.com never makes that mistake. Also User: Erik has already said that Boxoffice.com is reliable and it is also used by trade sources. If it is then why are you saying Boxoffice.com is unreliable. Now if you can't prove that Boxoffice.com is unreliable please don't call it so. If it used by trade sources then it is reliable. You have yourself said that BOM is reliable because it is used by trade publishers. Well Boxoffice.com is too. I request you to please discuss this issue. Also I please ask you again why aren't none of the editors commenting about using multiple sources? I have asked about it so many times. Please I request you discuss that too. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm completely correct, and denial doesn't make you any more right. Let's take this one by one:

BOM Foreign grosses for Red Dawn: 1,134,023 + 167,548 + 460,393 + 48,925 + 658,101 + 188,145 + 58,902 + 187,782 + 157,810 + 678,227 + 60,126 + 187,518 + 376,847 + 31,957 + 572,505 + 679,139 = 5647948
BO.com foreign gross for Red Dawn: 48,169,726 (worldwide) — 44,806,783 (domestic) = 3362943

So why don't YOU provide us with proof that BOM is incorrect in this case and BoxOffice.com is correct. If neither source is incorrect, then the most likely explanation is that BO.com has not updated the total with the latest figures. There is no inherent reason to drop BOM in this example, especially when it gives us an itemised and dated breakdown.

Now for Dredd. The total for the foreign gross is dated 11/18/12. However, some of the foreign grosses have been updated after that date: Austria (12/23/12), Belgium (12/16/12), Egypt (12/16/12), Germany (12/9/12), New Zealand (11/25/12), South Korea (12/9/12). If you sum the indivdiual grosses, the foreign total comes out to $23,153,028, whereas for BO.com it comes to $22682533.

There are several things that are clear: In some cases BOM does not provide totals, but they do provide the individual grosses. This does not make the source unreliable, just inconvenient in those cases. In other cases the totals are dated before some of the actual grosses listed, meaning the sum of the grosses and the totals don't match up, simply because the figures come from different time periods. Again this does not make the source unreliable, since there is no evidence the figures were incorrect on the dates given, and simply means care must be taken when a total is dated earlier than some of the individual figures. Thirdly, in both cases the foreign totals on BO.com are less than the sum of the foreign grosses on BOM, which means—if we go by the assumption that both sources are reliable—that BOM is simply more up to date than BO.com. None of what you have argued makes a compelling case to replace BOM with BO.com; indeed it raises questions about how up to date BO.com data is. Betty Logan (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Your takling about Red Dawn but looks like you've forgotten about "The Man with the Iron Fists". Adding numbers by yourself is only proving what I have been saying. You don't have any proof till now just like I don't have any proof that Boxoffice.com figures are reliable or not. A real proof in your case will be a source that confirms what you're saying and I have provided a list of proofs that atleast confirms that the foreign gross on Box Office Mojo is unreliable. Box Office Mojo is not honestly conveying facts Betty. The only way to comfirm what is right and what is wrong is to contact both sources. Unless and until then I see no point in having this discussion with you because nearly everything you have said has no solid proof and I'm sorry to say but it seems like your making this up on your own and trying to enforce your opinion. Darkwarriorblake, Sjones23 and Erik have rightly said the only way to confirm anything is by contacting the source. Unless the sources are contacted and replied there is no way to confirm that either of your or mine statement is true. I actually have no proof of Boxoffice.com is reliable except that it is used by trade sources and it does not contradict's it's own info unlike BOM. You might not have known this earlier but the worldwide gross of The Man with the Iron Fists is higher on Boxoffice.com is higher than that on BOM. Also if you manually calculate it's entire foreign gross it's only half of the total foreign gross that is shown. This debunks your claim that BOM gross figures are higher than those of Boxoffice.com. Boxoffice.com's figuress seems to be morsle up to date. I'm sorry to say but after this if you still say the figures are higher on BOM than I see no point in anymore discussion. Only contacting the sources can confirm what's real. Until then nothing can be proved completely. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

For more convienience I am providing these links all of the same film The Man with the Iron Fists from BOM, Boxoffice or BO.com and TheNumbers.com.

Now please read this part carefully. :-

After manually calculating foreign gross on BOM it turns out to be between about $3.3 - 3.4 million. If you add that with the domestic gross it turns out to be round about $19 million.
The worldwide gross shown by BOM is $19,721,245.
In both of the above cases the worldwide gross is less than that at Boxoffice.com or TheNumbers.com whose grosses are $20,255,313 and $20,280,476 respectively. Also the gross of TheNumbers.com is much closer to that of Boxoffice.com. There is very little difference b/w the two but a much larger in case of BOM. The difference is $1.2 million. If it appears small to you then the difference between the two grosses of the film Dredd at BOM and BO.com is also very small. And you were saying that BOM is more updated than Boxoffice.com. I think that I have disproven your implication that Box Office Mojo is more updated.

Also please note that I eariler misplaced the link of this movie with that of Dredd. So the link of Dredd has been shown two times. That was a mistake . Sorry for that. I was actually going to add the link to Man with the Iron fists. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Taken to ANI here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not here to dispute with anyone but to suggest an easier solution for Box Office Mojo's incorrect gross. I'm not enforcing my opinion and I will like to ask other editors about it first. Wherever this "n/a" problem is present we could instead manually calculate the foreign gross and add it to the domestic gross. The calculated gross can then be added to the infobox of the film on Wikipedia. I think it will be a very convinient solution. Also I'll like you to know that no trade sources use BOM as a source where this n/a problem is occuring. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

This is to inform every editor that I've contacted Box Office Mojo and sent them a message regarding this "n/a" problem or mistake as you might want to call it and have also included some examples along with it.. Hopefully they'll reply soon. However I seem to have forgotten to insert thank you at the end of the message. Just trying to lighten the mood up but I really have forgotten to insert a thank you. I don't know if that would have an impact on the message or not. If you will like to contact then you can do it easily through this link (http://boxofficemojo.com/about/). KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

To all users who think Box Office Mojo provides correct budget please think again. Atleast in case of the film The Last Stand the budget at BOM is much higher than those of industry sources. BOM reports it to be $45 million while nearly all industry sources state it to be$30 million. The budget given by BOM is 50% larger than those of BOM. So I see no reason why Boxoffice.com can't be used in it's place. Box Office Mojo is not the be all end all. However we should wait for the reply of the website. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I may not like the way you been disruptive before. I will say that in Olympus Has Fallen, BOM says it production budget is $70 million and in boxoffice.com it says it was $100 million, which it is $30 million off on both of those sites. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Now I ask you how is that disruptive. I've tried very hard to keep polite in my previous comment. I have chosen the words very carefully. I'll say I don't know where you have called me being disruptive. If it is about ANI then all I have said is true. It was you and MarnetteD who started the so called edit war and User:MarnetteD and User:Tenebrae have induldged in uncivil behavior. Their claims of me being disruptive are highly doubtful when their behavior has been more disruptive than mine. Apart from that you always seem to be rather exaggerating matters. I have repeatedly requested you to comment about my behavior at ANI and not here since this is not the place for talking about someone's behavior no matter how disruptive they are. I haven't even once discussed about anyone's behavior here. If it is about my previous comment on this discussion then my behavior is completely polite and in line as well as im good faith. Also if you're saying that my behavior was disruptive in the beginning of the discidssion then you have already said it many a times and it is not correct to keep putting blame on othees. I think you should know that repeatedly blaming someone even if if their guilty or not is completely uncivil behavior because by displaying that behavior you are bullying him and harassing him. Not only this against rules of Wikipedia but also against human values. I'm sorry to say that if you continue to display this behavior I'll have no choice else to but to report it ANI. I am now taking time and choosing what to say carefully. Needless to say you are unfortunately either misinterpreting or misrepresenting my statements. It will be decided by admins if my behavior is really disriptive or not. I think it's no fault of my behavior in actual but it is the fault of your own behavior. That's whybI request to please stop making these same remarks again and again because it is disrespectful to treat someone

Apart from that coming back.to.this discussion I have already said that I know about Boxoffice.com's higher and inaccurate budget. Mostly instead of BOM industrial sources industry sources are used especially in case of big budget movies. BOM is rarely used in case of high budget movies. It cannot be denied that Box Office Mojo's budget is highly inacurate atleast in case of The Last Stand. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

We told you boxoffice.com isn't the most reliable source for production budget and box office gross worldwide, KJ27. You're assuming that you always right. There maybe problems with BOM because of it's foreign gross issues. But it gets sources from The Hollywood Reporter and Variety, regardless of the problems and the flaws that it is having. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that we have exactly one editor who is advocating for using Boxoffice.com rather than the long-established BoxOfficeMojo.com, which the two leading industry trade magazines and the studios themselves use, would someone other than that editor explain how this is not WP:SNOWBALL? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

And I'm sorry, but I'm tired of KahnJohn27's bullying and threats. He already made a baseless claim against me at the ANI noticeboard, which an admin quickly closed, and now he's threatening BattleshipMan. ("I'm sorry to say that if you continue to display this behavior I'll have no choice else to but to report it ANI.") KahnJohn27 completely doesn't seem to understand that beating a dead horse, bludgeoning other editors with huge, rambling walls of text with poor grammar and spelling, and digging in his heels so tightly that he keeps dragging other editors to several different pages now is disruptive behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well then I ask where is it written that poor spelling is disruptive behavior. Even if it was it was not intentional. My claims were not baseless and Tenebrae has been told to improve his behavior and the discussion was closed because you accepted to improve your behavior. You had yourself accepted that you made personal remarks. You are misrepresenting everything. Your own spelling is sometimes incorrect. However removing somebody's comments as ramblings is disruptive behavior. And words like "I'm sick and tired of you" represent conflictive and disruptive behavior. Apart from that I already knew about Boxoffice.com's inaccurate budget even way before this discussion began. I am not assuming that I am correct but I am simply speaking the truth. I had noticed about it's innacurate budget when I came to know about this website for the first time. And that was on the 2012 film Dredd. My edits were made on that film long before I replaced your edits with Boxoffice.com as a source. Apart fron that it hasn't been disproved that BOM might be unreliable atleast in some cases. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Apart from that Hollywood Reporter and Variety use BOM as a source but not always. Especially in the case of films like Red Dawn, Texas Chainsaw 3D, Dredd, 21 & Over, The Man with the Iron Fists and many more where it provides inaccurate gross. However you have not mentioned that. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Mediator's note

KahnJohn27 and Tenebrae requested that I come by and try to help you guys figure things out.

Before I begin - please note that I am functioning as a neutral bystander in this role. My function as an administrator is not relevant here, though I'd like to think I have experience with Wikipedia's policies.

I've done my best to read through every relevant talk page and discussion between individual editors. I'd like to commend everyone for remaining (mostly) civil and focused on the subject at hand.

I've already said this on KahnJohn27's talk page, but my outsider's perspective on is that consensus favours BoxOfficeMojo as a reference. As I've explained to KahnJohn: per this policy, we cannot act as number crunchers. Note that the 'Routine calculations' section does not apply here; while you may, for the reader's convenience, take two relevant figures from a reference and add them for easier readability, you may not work the other way and use numbers to attempt to disprove the reference.

If consensus has termed BOM a reliable source, we may add up box office totals all day and compare them with whatever we'd like - what the reliable source says, goes. Unless multiple other reliable sources come out in direct opposition, we can't override a reliable source simply because we think their numbers may be wrong.

I'd like to thank you all for having Wikipedia's best interests at heart in this dispute. Your work is greatly appreciated.

If anyone has further questions, feel free to ask here or swing by my talk page. Regards, m.o.p 17:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all I would like to thank m.o.p. for intervening.With all due respect I would like to say that I don't think that the consensus is in favor of BOM because Darkwarriorblake and LordSjones23 haven't said anything about using Boxoffice.com in place of BOM and neither any user has said that BOM and Boxoffice.com should be used together. Not only that it hasn't been confirmed what exactly this cause of "n/a" problem is. BattleshipMan and Betty Logan have said that it is because BOM hasn't updated their gross which they are clearly making up on their own since their is no proof for it. Also when asked for proof they said that it is the truth and I should accept it. It can be clearky seen who really is trying to enforce their views and I cannot let that happen. Also the users seem to be taking decisions without any proof whether their decision is right or not. There must be a proof and I've been saying this again and again. Needless to say it cannot be considered a valid consensus when decisions are taken without any proof. Many editors seem to be reaching a decision themselves because they think BOM is more accurate which might not be so. I've already contacted BOM and only they can confirm about it's exact reason. One of the reasons might be they are not really reliable and might have been providing inaccurate or even false data. Nothing can be said at this point. So it is impossible to reach a clear decision. BOM might have been confirmed reliable many times but unfortunately this "n/a" issue was never taken up while confirming it's reliability. Any user has the right to question it's reliabity when they have concrete evidence for their claims which is what I have done. As is said in Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources under [section] "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 and is an appropriate source for that content." However it can been seen that Box Office Mojo is not reliable for the statement being made where the foreign gross is "n/a" or inaccurate. I don't think it will be fair to take a decision till the reason is known for this inaccurate data and if and when BOM replies I will take it up again. According to Wikipedia policies all points and counterpoints should be weighed and judged in a discussion. I have no right to decide about a consensus but until the exact users should use BOM as a source but please I request you not to remove Boxoffice.com and replace it with BOM in mine or any other user's edit because it will be edit warring. It still has not been proved whether BOM is reliable where this "n/a" foreign gross is present. I promise not to replace BOM with Boxoffice.com anywhere in the future unless this matter is decided and try to infom everyone about it. However I would like the admin to tell me if what I am saying is according with Wiki's policies or against it since I do not know all of them. Also I don't think any user has noticed this but Boxoffice.com provides the gross for many films whose gross is not even given at Box Office Mojo. I think Boxoffice.com can be used atleast in these cases where BOM does not provide any gross. I would like to request all the users to comment about that to because all editors have said that Boxoffice.com is a good source. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Look, Boxoffice.com could be inaccurate in production budget cost and box-office gross numbers as well. We don't even know how reliable boxoffice.com really is or it's even getting an outside online news source or what kind of source as well. I will tell you one thing. I do know that Olympus Has Fallen has conflicting production budget cost numbers and are off by $30 million. Boxoffice.com is less than reputable and nobody knows how reliable and accurate the numbers in that site are. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

KahnJohn: this is not a court of law. People with a differing viewpoint are not required to document and present every piece of evidence they have. Multiple editors, some of whom have been along for quite some time, have stated that they prefer BOM as a source with valid rationale. That is the definition of consensus.

Now, if there's no opposition to using BO.com in situations where BOM does not have the required information, or using them both, then that's a respectable solution. However, that's something you'll have to discuss - I know that Lexein was talking about it earlier, but I'm not sure if the other editors involved support that direction. m.o.p 00:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I know evidence isn't required how ever I am only demanding evidence of why this n/a problem is happening. Also they themselves have said that BOM hasn't updated their gross. Proof for this is atleast required because it might not be the only reason. This is no court of law but we are not required to always abide by a single source. This is no court of law but still making a claim always requires evidence no matter wherever it is. However I can perfectly understand the concerns and opinions of fellow users. It is the exact reason why I want to let this matter end right now and thus give my final vote. I also request all users who have participated and also request admin m.o.p. to do the same :-

Not use Boxoffice.com instead of Box Office Mojo and manually calculating the gross where "n/a" - The only reason I have made the decision because of no perfect proof whether BOM is unreliable and Boxoffice.com is more reliable.

If and when BOM replies I will inform m.o.p. and hope due action is taken according to it. Also I would like to request m.o.p. to contact Box Office Mojo since I think his approach will be much more professional. Last but not least thanks to everybody for devoting their valuable time to this discussion. Many thanks to all and take care. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll see if there's anything I can do to contact BOM tomorrow, though I can't promise anything as of yet.

Thank you for changing your viewpoint, though. Adapting to consensus will bring this discussion along, and I'm sure that other editors may chime in shortly. If we can all focus on KahnJohn's proposed resolution, this dispute may just be resolved yet. m.o.p 07:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Just for clarification, KahnJohn: when both BOM and BO.com figures are present, are you okay with going with BOM's amount? This seems to be the currently-supported consensus above. Would we use BO.com in instances where BOM does not have figures? And would said additions be performed solely from BOM's public gross numbers?

Others are free to respond below, as well. m.o.p 07:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Resolution

Thanks for double checking. It's always better to be completely sure. As for my final vote :-

Use BOM always when figures of both sources are present.
Use BOM even when total foreign gross is n/a and wherever it is n/a manually calculate foreign gross of all countries on BOM and add it to the given domestic gross to obtain the actual worldwide gross.
Use Boxoffice.com for films whose gross is not given at BOM.
Not replace Boxoffice.com with BOM and vice-versa when they are already present there.

Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

While the first three points seem workable I would add that we should be able to incorporate Lexein's suggestion here [2], especially in regards to using footnotes. On the other hand, the last point cannot be used. It is basically saying that, at the spot in the article where either BO or BOM has been used it can never be edited again. That flies in the face of the basic concepts of Wikipedia. It also does not allow for updating if the current source is proved wrong or a better source comes along that refutes the info as is. One last item, several of the editors who had previously made their thoughts known here (or at the previous thread at the filmprojects noticeboard) have stopped following the conversation for various reasons. It would benefit the move towards a resolution if they could be made aware of where the conversation is now and they could add their input. MarnetteD | Talk 17:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll let the other editors involved know. m.o.p 18:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we can afford to be flexible here. If a film article lacks box office information, we can reference either Box Office Mojo or BoxOffice.com. (I am assuming BoxOffice.com is reliable because various news articles reference that website. Let me know if its reliability is questionable.) It is just that Box Office Mojo has been the traditional go-to source, and the "n/a" marker for foreign gross is new and odd. We should acknowledge that for films currently in theaters, either website may not be fully updated or be in sync. I don't want to have footnotes for temporary differences; they make better sense for when the theatrical run has come to an end and when both websites (perhaps The Numbers as well) have significant differences. In short, I would rather take a case-by-case approach. Perhaps we can focus on one example where the figures are especially dynamic? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the first three points seem helpful to everyone. I think that, per Erik, a case-by-case approach may be necessary in any case. I think it would make sense when a film's theatrical run has come to an end and when either BOM and The Numbers have serious differences. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think those solutions are a good idea. I like those ideas. What I think we should do at when the numbers differ from both sites, we should double-check news sources including The Hollywood Reporter, Variety and other reliable entertainment news sites for accurate production budget costs and box-office gross numbers, just to be sure. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should be manually calculating anything. That seems as if it would be OR synthesis. It would also be problematic to update, since a change to any one or two counties' total in a list of countries' totals wouldn't be immediately noticeable. Even if it were, this would call for continually checking and recalculating figures. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Not disagreeing or agreeing, but note that the OR policy has a sub-clause on routine calculations which I think this would fall under - provided consensus supports such calculations, of course. m.o.p 22:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I am against this proposal, simply for the fact that it is not the place of RS/N to determine which source should be used. The most suitable source(s) should be determined by the article editors in deference to WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. I can think of many cases where this proposal would break down:

In some cases if any one of these sources can be proven to be demonstrably wrong, then there shouldn't be a mandate to use them (the further back you go for instance, the more inaccurate box office data becomes).
Contradictory numbers do not automatically mean one of the sources is incorrect. One could just be more up to date than the other depending on the internal update procedures, and if the more up to date source can be identified it should be used, regardless of editorial preference. A source being out of date does not make it unreliable, since if the data was correct at the time of publication then the source has reliably published it.
Box office data is drawn from a wide variety of sources, among them Variety, The Numbers, books and various studio ledgers. I see so logical reason for elevating one source above another.

RS/N should only decide whether a source can be used, and discussion on the article talk page, the relevant projects and RFCs should determine that in the case of a dispute. It's pretty obvious the consensus of this discussion is that Box Office Mojo is reliable, and as such it is just one of the many sources available to us when we source box office data. The issue we should be focusing on is whether BoxOffice.com is a reliable source by our criteria. At the Film project I suggested to KahnJohn he should bring BoxOffice.com here to get it vetted, and he still hasn't done that. If it meets the criteria then it simply joins Box Office Mojo and The Numbers as just another source we can select from, and then the job of RS/N is done. My suggestion is that this discussion is closed since it hasn't actually accomplished anything, and he starts a fresh one to purely address the reliability of the BoxOffice.com. Betty Logan (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You know what, Betty Logan, I kind of starting to agree with you on this. I think your right. Do you think we should set up a new discussion on the reliability of Boxoffice.com once we research it for it's outside news sources and such? BattleshipMan (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually Betty Logan and BattleshipMan I have been saying this the whole time that just because there is difference in between the gross of two sources it does not actually mean that one source is incorrect or that it is reliable or unreliable. However I still say that we should not replace BOM or Boxoffice.com when they are already there because it will trigger edit warring with many users. Also according to Wikipedia policies it is ok to manually calculate data from a reliable source and m.o.p. has already mentioned that fact. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not just the box-office gross is different between two sources, the production budget cost numbers in those sites differ, as seen in Olympus Has Fallen (as BOM shows the production budget is $70 million while boxoffice.com says $100 million). They can be some movies that have inaccurate production budget costs in those two sites. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you there BattleshipMan. Really to say I don't know why Boxoffice.com budgets are so high. It might be that either they are inaccurate. But on the other hand their budgets might also include the marketing costs. Most of the sources just mention production budget but don't include the marketing costs. However even if they have inaccurate budgets that does not mean they are'nt a reliable source for box office gross. I also agree with you that a new thread or discussion should be started about Boxoffice.com and also a background check should be performed. Thanks BattleshipMan and Betty Logan that's a useful advice. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

if you dont know and they dont say, where they get their numbers and they seem different than other reliable sources, that is a far more serious reliability issue than whether or not certain foreign Box office numbers might not be specified for certain films. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Boxoffice.com is considered a reliable source

Information

This is the Wikipedia page where boxoffice.com is at. It on Boxoffice (magazine). The article is a stub at this point. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

According to this it is the web presence of the official publication of National Association of Theatre Owners, so on that basis I have no problems with it being used as a source for box office data (I still have concerns over its budgets, since they are so out of sync with every other source). We should probably add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#Box office if everyone is ok with that, and wrap up this discussion. Source selection should remain the domain of the article editors, with any disputes settled at the Film project. Betty Logan (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about this. Like you said, the budgets and gross numbers are out of sync with every other source. We could have future disputes over the accuracy on the production budget and box-office gross numbers. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Budgets and grosses are different types of data, since they are obtained in different ways. Grosses are reported through despatches by the distributor, whereas budgets are usually estimated by whoever is writing the piece. I would be interested in learning why their budgets are so much higher than the others (are they including marketing? distribution costs?), but the fact is Box Office Magazine appears to be a respected industry journal in the vein of Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, and has reported box office for years, making it a reliable source, at least for box office data. The website is basically just the web presence of the same thing. It would take a very strong argument to discredit an industry trade journal. Betty Logan (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Votes

Per the above, a proposal we should add boxoffice.com as a reliable source and should be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#Box office. Should we add it? Votes below:

Support inclusion as nominator Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment: As I said above, I don't know about this. The budgets and gross numbers are out of sync with every other source. We could have future disputes over the accuracy on the production budget and box-office gross numbers and that's was concerns me and Betty Logan. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Support RS status for grosses. Truth be told I think the jury is still out on budgets. I don't think it's a great problem that there are inconsistencies between grosses; it's most likely due to internal update procedures, and that can be dealt with on a case by case basis i.e. checking the dates on the data, corroboration with other sources etc. Betty Logan (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Support treating BoxOffice.com as a reliable source. Identifying it as a reliable source does not mean we will use it blindly. Since there are several outlets regarding box office figures and production budgets, it is only fair to compare this source with other sources and make a determination about what detail (or range of detail) to include in a film article on Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Support it as reliable for grosses and budgets. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Support: I don't know about the budgets but the difference between the grosses at boxoffice.com can't be taken as a reason not to include it as a reliable source for box office gross data since in actual no source can be completely accurate about box office gross. Also budgets and box office gross are seperate data. As already said that it is a reputable industry source and it will be hard to discredit it without a concrete evidence. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Partial support: In that case, I would support the idea for grosses, but maybe not the budgets since they can be off, like I said above. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Partial support: From what I understand, BO.com's budget figures are problematic. Secondly, for consistency of reported figures throughout Wikipedia and the industry trades themselves, and so we're not comparing apples and oranges, I would strongly advocate we use BoxOfficeMojo numbers unless for some reason it has no numbers for a particular movie. In that case only would I use BO.com. This isn't a question of reliability, but if we're metaphorically measuring things with pounds and ounces throughout most movie articles, we don't want a bunch of movie articles measuring things in liters and grams. Yes, I know it's not exact comparison since figures can be converted, but you get the idea: BoxOfficeMojo has one methodology, BO.com has another, and it's important to keep methodology consistent across a numerical landscape. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment: It doesn't make sense. Why do we need to follow the methodology of one source when we have multiple sources available? Grosses can never be completely accurate. KahnJohn27 (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Consensus

It seems to be obvious that despite the discrepencies both Box Office Mojo and Boxoffice.com can be regarded as reliable sources. Bearing that in mind I have taken the liberty of adding Boxoffice.com to WP:FILM/R#Box office, so I think we can close this discussion now. If there are inconsistencies between sources, and you would prefer to replace BOM with BO.com or vice versa, it would be wise to initiate a discussion about it on the article talk page rather than edit-warring. Betty Logan (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This shouldn't mean that if BOM is in place however that it can be replaced just because Boxoffice.com has a higher gross which has been the frequent implementation of boxoffice.com referencing. The site is useless to wikipedia as it cannot be archived and it's budget figures are questionable, it should only be considered where BOM fails to have figures, which is never the case, just not high enough figures for some people. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That kind of makes sense. The budget number differs on both BOM and boxoffice.com. The budget on Olympus Has Fallen on boxoffice.com is $30 million higher than on what it says on BOM. I think we should only use that site as a last resort if BOM files to have it's figures. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I sympathize DWB, and have added a warning about the budget figures at our resource page. But the archiving issue is really a question about whether the source is robust enough to use, rather than the reliability of the source, which is what this board is supposed to assess (you can't webcite the New York Times for that matter either (or the Wall Street Journal which hides behind a paywall), but that doesn't mean we strike them off. I think on balance it is no more or less reliable for box office than The Numbers for instance, since the magazine version seems to be a low-rent Variety. I prefer BOM for the sole reason it is more comprehensive: country by country breakdowns, and they are dated too; but if there are instances where BOM is clearly not updating and the others are then we do need to consider looking further afield for our info. Betty Logan (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't mean to exclude it just because it can't be cited, but if BOM has the figures there, it's hard to argue for replacing it, while I feel this discussion seems to be veering towards more of an attempt to gain justification for that. At the The Man with the Iron Fists, the source was replaced with boxoffice.com because it was higher by a few hundred grand. No excuse for why that is the correct figure, or why it's more up to date beyond the user's personal interpretation which makes it seem a lot more obvious that it's about getting the higher figure, but as we found with The Dark Knight Rises when it was first released, we're not a news site and it isn't about having the highest gross, and a part of the reason I round those figures is because at teh end of the day they are estimates, they cannot know what something has made down to the dollar, and the movie sites report rounded figures also. It's fine to add BO.com as a reliable source, I'm just making sure it isn't taken as a sign to run through articles replacing existing reliable sources because BO.com offers a higher gross. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

KahnJohn did enquire about this on my talk page, and I asked him to obtain a consensus before changing any of the box office sources. We certainly don't want to keep flipping between sources every few days; basically we need to be sure that one site is tracking it and the other is not. Betty Logan (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Betty, we are concerned about the budget of films in Boxoffice.com. They are off from BOM. Sometimes, both sites can differ on grosses as well, even domestic and foreign wise. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the budgets are a problem, and I have added a note about their usage at the resource page. Personally I think they probably include the distribution and marketing costs too (and hence why they call it "Total budget"), but there is no way of knowing that for sure. As for the reasons why the grosses differ then that is more complicated, which is why it is important to discuss any source replacement beforehand. Does anyone know if these discrepencies occur in films 2-3 years old? Betty Logan (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Distribution costs is probably what matters more than marketing cost. I wouldn't rely on boxoffice.com for budget numbers. Plus, I wouldn't know when discrepancies occur in films to be honest. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think what we should do is investigate the budgets on boxoffice.com to see how reliable it really is since it is quite higher than BOM. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo isn't fantastic when it comes to budgets either. The problem is studios don't usually release their budgets so it is difficult to ascertain how accurate an estimate is. There is one case involving Sahara (2005 film) that was audited for a court case over Hollywood accounting: according to BOM it cost $130 million, while according to BO.com it cost $185 million. According to the court audit it actually cost $160 million, so both were quite far out. It's often best if you can find an article where a journalist actually talks to a studio spokesman or a producer, like we have in the case of The Dark Knight Rises or Men in Black 3. Betty Logan (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Quackwatch

Is it a reliable source for biomedical information? Considering that:

a) It is a commercial site that gets commissions from sales on other sites to which they refer and profits from the sale of publications.

1. Stated income is also derived from usage of sponsored links, including Amazon.com.

b) Using online and self-published sources - Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using online and self-published sources, a guideline, warns against use of sources whose content is controlled by their owner - "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication." Ryanspir (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Please check the archives for previous discussions. a13ean (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable source for their own statements. Should not be used as a general source for medical fact, but if there is a controversy over a particular practice, it should be sufficient for saying "Quackwatch has stated practice X is not beneficial" or whatever. Virtually every site out there is commercial in some fashion. That has no impact on its reliability or not. Our "gold standard" for sources is newspapers, magazines etc, and they are heavily reliant on ad revenue and sales. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

LA Times article

Is the LA Times article as it is used on the article of medical uses of colloidal silver http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_uses_of_silver is a secondary source or a primary source?

According to WP:MEDRS - "For Wikipedia's purposes, articles in the popular press are generally considered independent, primary sources."

However there is an editor that claims that the LA Times article is a reliable secondary source. Ryanspir (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

What article are we talking about? What LA Times article is being used as the source? To verify what content?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

"The Los Angeles Times stated that "colloidal silver as a cure-all is a fraud with a long history, with quacks claiming it could cure cancer, AIDS, tuberculosis, diabetes and numerous other diseases."[63]" this is the content. Article: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/02/business/fi-swine-flu-scams2. Ryanspir (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit unclear as to whether the LA Times is reporting what the FDA thinks of colloidal silver, or whether they are stating it on their own authority. In either case, I would suggest treating it as if it were a reliable primary source (ie with attribution). It would certainly be reliable for a statement along the lines of: A recent LA Times report described the cure-all properties of colloidal silver as "a fraud with a long history, with quacks claiming it could cure cancer, AIDS, tuberculosis, diabetes and numerous other diseases."[63] Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The LA Times article should stay in. It is not being used to describe the medical effects, it is being used to describe fraudulent promotion, which is well within its expertise to describe. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a discussion about keeping or not the LA article. It is a discussion about establishing if it's a secondary source as one editor has said or it's a primary source as WP:MEDRS says.

However I'm not sure we can say "a recent", since it was printed in 2009. Ryanspir (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ryan, re if it's a secondary source as one editor has said or it's a primary source as WP:MEDRS says: you are the only editor at Talk:Medical uses of silver with the notion that the LA Times article as used is a primary source. Everybody else has said it's a secondary source. Please stop misrepresenting the situation to further your own editing goals.

As well you are misapplying WP:MEDRS. Regarding popular press, where WP:MEDRS says, "for Wikipedia's purposes, articles in the popular press are generally considered independent, primary sources," it is referring to popular press "articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer reviewed journal or reproduced by other experimenters" as it says. It talking about popular-press coverage of individual study results. It is not talking about popular-press coverage of the marketing history of a kind of product, as the LA Times article is. Sorry if the wording in WP:MEDRS is unclear and is confusing you but you are applying it incorrectly here. Zad68 16:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Well said. Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Official sites

Official sites of authors, bands, artists etc are often used in articles, hopefully with care and an eye to WP:NPOV, WP:PSTS etc. Is there a guideline anywhere that talks specifically about using official sites in referencing ? Thanks Span (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No... not one specifically about official websites. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't find one that even mentions official sites in passing. Span (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUBLISH, perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

And maybe Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Using the subject as a self-published source. This text doesn't use the term "official site", but I'd say that for our purposes a subject's personal site and official site come to the same thing: they are published by or under the authority of the subject. Andrew Dalby 15:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That'll do. Great. Thanks Span (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

findacabra.com

There's a stale thread at "List of magic museums" over whether "findacadabra.com" should be used as a source in the lede. The site appears to be WP:USERGENERATED (it's a Google map which accepts user submissions, with an unclear level of moderation) and possibly redundant, as it's only being used to source the statement that "more than two-dozen museums exist". (The article lists 27, using other websites as sources.) Should this source be used? --McGeddon (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Geeks of Doom usable?

I'm more inclined to believe that this is non-usable as a reliable source, but before I completely dismiss it, I wanted to ask if the Geeks of Doom site would be usable as a RS or not. I've seen the site around and the only reason I'm somewhat unsure is that I've seen a few other sites mention it here and there. It wouldn't completely save this article that I'm trying to rescue from AfD, but it'd go a long way towards helping. Here's a link to the website here: [3] I'm thinking no, but again- it doesn't hurt to double check. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

SPLC & Men's Right: Is this article speaking for the SPLC or Arthur Goldwag?

Source: Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement. Arthur Goldwag, SPLC Intelligence, Report No.145 [4]

Article: Men's rights

Content:

"Aspects of the American movement have been criticized by the Southern Poverty Law Center for exhibiting misogynistic tendencies." (in Lead)

"The Southern Poverty Law Center has criticized aspects of the American movement for exhibiting misogynistic tendencies. The SPLC noted about websites, blogs and forums related to the movement that "while some of them voice legitimate and sometimes disturbing complaints about the treatment of men, what is most remarkable is the misogynistic tone that pervades so many." (in Criticism section)

Comment: The question I would like help in clarifying is:-

Is the Arthur Goldwag article reliable as a citation to reflect the views of the SPLC? These views are expressed in the voice of the SPLC in the Wikipedia article. Or can this only be used as a citation for the views of Arthur Golwag. I don't think broad statements about the reliability of the SPLC can be made; good judgement should be used with each case looked at individually. In this case I feel this article is not reliable as a source for its contents to be quoted in the voice of the SPLC. Though clearly reliable for the views of Arthur Goldwag.

To me parts of this article read like a polemic, and it further includes statements such as:-

The men’s rights movement, also referred to as the fathers’ rights movement (which is factually incorrect), is made up of a number of disparate, often overlapping, types of groups and individuals.

The men’s movement also includes mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists who are eager to learn the secrets of “game”—the psychological tricks that supposedly make it easy to seduce women.

Some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women. Others, who have internalized Christian “headship” doctrine, are desperately seeking the “submissive” women such doctrine celebrates.

I would appreciate your feedback.

CSDarrow (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Flippant comment Combining these two subjects is like the anti-Christ of Reese Peanutbutter cups. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 02:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC) −

(edit conflict)Thank you for bringing this here CSDarrow, and I toowould also be glad to hear other opinions. But I would just like to point out that this argument is incorrectly framed, since it isn't just Arthur Goldwag and the article mentioned above that speak about the SPLC in relation to the men's rights movement. Two other articles in the same Intelligence Report issue, [5] one] written by Mark Potok (the editor-in-chief) and Evelyn Schlatter and an unsigned article also makes the same claim of misogeny among Men's rights activists. This clearly isn't just Goldwag's opinion. Slp1 (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

My question is clear and with respect to Arthur Goldwag. CSDarrow (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

After reading the source, it is clear this is the opinion of the SPLC and not soley Goldwag's opinion. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

So the further 3 statements I quoted from the article are also the opinions of the SPLC? CSDarrow (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It looks like he is speaking for the SPLC. He's writing in their magazine, without any disclaimer that he's only speaking for himself. Another SPLC article by different authors seems to have said many of the same things.[6] In a later blog post on the SPLC site, Goldwag seems to have thought he was speaking for the SPLC.[7] He's made other posts on the subject on the SPLC site.[8][9] The Good Men Project thinks he was speaking for the SPLC in that article.[10] He was quite harsh, yes; but he's not claiming to be balanced. We can't cite the things he says as facts, but I think we can cite them as the view of the SPLC, which is generally notable on this sort of subject. --GRuban (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I doubt the SPLC has a formal opinion in the sense that an esteemed group sits around a table balancing out evidence. They rely on editorial control and authors who they feel will reflect the general ethos of the organisation. Usually their targets are pretty easy marks and it is pretty difficult to mess up. They messed up with the Goldwag et al articles and they know it. Goldwag wrote a damage control article later. [11]. I doubt they will revisit this issue, it's too contentious. CSDarrow (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Directly responding to your critics isn't "damage control". It's called communication. I'm concerned, CSDarrow, that your own POV is getting in the way here. Viriditas (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. SPLC's Intelligence Report isn't merely a magazine with articles by authors expressing their independent views. The views are those of SPLC on the issue, not just Goldwag's. The two other articles in the same issue expressing the same views underscore that conclusion. Fladrif (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see evidence supporting that statement. Viriditas (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Note, having written about Goldwag and his work I'm somewhat familiar with him if anyone has any questions. Viriditas (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think he is a low brow equivalent of Anne Coulter. He is from the genre of 'journalism' that writes polemics for the masses, either left of right. They appeal to the adrenalin kick of agreement or outrage and have existed for centuries in all cultures. In the Middle East it is a national sport, with wildly popular TV programs featuring the likes of Goldwag or Coulter shooting from the hip, it's considered humor by most. In the West we are novices in comparison. CSDarrow (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you must have Goldwag confused with someone else. There is no valid comparison at all. In fact, I would challenge you to come up with a single evidence-based comparison. Frankly, your statement appears to be based on pure fantasy and wishful thinking. It's one thing to make an informed criticism but quite another to invent it because you dislike the subject. Sorry, but honesty isn't optional here. Viriditas (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

We obviously aren't talking about the same Arthur Goldwag. CSDarrow (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Put up or shut up, CSDarrow. You have repeatedly claimed that "Goldwag is a well known polemicist" and you've compared him to Ann Coulter. Which reliable, independent third-party sources support your contention? None, of course, because you made it up. Sorry, but the RS noticeboard isn't a place for fantasy and science fiction. Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

As my 8 year old daughter would say, "Lol". CSDarrow (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

So you openly admit that everything you said about Goldwag cannot be found in any reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Final comment. Thanks to all for considering this. I take the consensus is that the opinions express in Goldwag article, and other pieces discussed here, can be considered to be the opinions of the SPLC. CSDarrow (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not "final" for me. Could you tell me how you arrived at that opinion? In what way is Goldwag representing the opinion of the SPLC? Not only is he a reliable, authoritative source on this subject, he's speaking as an expert, not as a representative of the SPLC. The claims that the American men's movement is misogynistic is an uncontested, uncontroversial observation based on good observations and solid analyses. It's hardly a "polemic" nor a minority opinion. In reality, it is considered the mainstream view. Wikipedia strives to give proper weight to mainstream views in our articles. Viriditas (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No, he's pretty clearly giving the opinion of the SPLC. (Which we should have in the article, but labeled as such.) Look at how Goldwag describes his own article himself [12]:

"The last issue of the SPLC’s Intelligence Report presented a scathing portrait of “a hard-line fringe” of the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM)" - if he thought it was not a polemic, but a balanced view, he would not have called it scathing.
"The article, entitled “Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement,” provoked a tremendous response among men’s rights activists (MRAs) and their sympathizers." If this was already the mainstream view, it would have been unlikely to provoke a tremendous response.
"It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit. But we did call out specific examples of misogyny and the threat, overt or implicit, of violence." Note the emphasis (bolding mine) on how this is the SPLC saying these things; "label"ing, "claim"ing, "call[ing] out". Not "these are just the facts" or "this is just the mainstream view", but "we, the SPLC, say this". --GRuban (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It is the mainstream viewpoint and Arthur Goldwag is an expert on organized hate and extremist groups. He does not work for or speak for the SPLC. Unless you have evidence showing otherwise, then you will have to concede your argument. Opinions from the "manosphere" are fringe opinions, not the mainstream. Wikipedia isn't part of the manosphere. You don't get to make stuff up about Goldwag. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, I don't care if it Goldwag or the SPLC who is speaking. But it is very important to know who is. Consensus is, whether you like it or not, seems to be the SPLC not Goldwag. I don't have a counter to the arguments presented here, as neither it would seem do you. CSDarrow (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Does Goldwag work for the SPLC? Yes or no? He's an expert on this subject matter, and he is speaking based on his expertise. Wikipedia recognizes sources as authoritative, not editors. A consensus must be based on the sources, not on what editors think about them. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Um - hello? Viriditas? Did you read the statement just above yours? The one where Goldwag refers to his own article and says it is the SPLC speaking? If he doesn't work for or speak for the SPLC, then he is one very confused individual. --GRuban (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You took a statement out if context and made a comment about his use of the royal we. Am I supposed to take this seriously? Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are. It's not out of context, the entire article refers to his previous article as speaking for the SPLC, and never says that it is only speaking for him. Earlier I linked to multiple articles he has written for the SPLC in exactly the same context. He is absolutely convinced he is speaking for the SPLC, as are the various people complaining about the article. "The royal we" seems farfetched. --GRuban (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

He's speaking for himself and when he says "our article" he's responding as the writer of the article published by the SPLC. This is obvious. That you are turning this into something it is not is telling. Does he work for the SPLC, yes or no? Do writers who are published by the SPLC speak for the organization or for themselves? Yes or no? Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think we are getting a bit of an unnecessary tangle here, as I think Viriditas and GRuban are really saying much the same things in terms of the reliability and the inclusion of this material in the article: it doesn't matter really about the status of Goldwag, as an article by the editor in chief as well as an unsigned column in the same issue make much the same point. Together there are several reliable sources saying that the SPLC has pointed out misogynist aspects of the MRM.

What I am concerned about, however, based on CSDarrow's "Final Comment" is the possibility that s/he is hoping to use a "consensus" here to justify some proposed pointy edits - see this and this. I've already commented on the talkpage of the Men's rights movement that while Goldwag and the Intelligence Report are reliable sources, particularly for their opinions on specific situations, this is not an all or nothing situation. The comments made here, it seems, are about the misogeny material, not necessarily giving the green light to the other quotes from the Goldwag article listed above. It would be good to get the opinions of other editors about this aspect of the issue. Slp1 (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Spl1, I think you need to read WP:GOODFAITH. Either this is Goldwag or the SPLC speaking. Initially, I actually thought it was Goldwag, but have been convinced otherwise.

CSDarrow (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then. I'm happy to assume good faith that you won't use this discussion to justify any other edits than the misogeny material. Would you care to confirm that my good faith is well-founded? Slp1 (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Spl1, I think you really need to read WP:GOODFAITH again. Either this article is Goldwag or the SPLC speaking. This is a very simple question I was asking, and I think a very important question. I actually thought it was Goldwag, but have been convinced otherwise. I don't care who it is, if people want to go with Goldwag I'll go with Goldwag. But the consensus among uninvolved editors, supported by convincing argument, is that it is the SPLC. Your posts are muddying a very simple issue.

Frankly I find your comment utterly puzzling, perhaps I am tired. Time for me to go to bed, goodnight.

CSDarrow (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, I am much more puzzled by your repeated characterization of Goldwag as a "polemicist". I am quite familiar with Goldwag's work, and he's as far from a polemicist as one can get. Now, you can stop characterizing him in this strange way or you can cite a reliable source supporting it. It's your choice. You recently compared him to Ann Coulter, which is so off the mark, that I'm questioning your ability and competence to participate in this discussion. There isn't a single thing that Goldwag and Coulter have in common. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Re:- "There isn't a single thing that Goldwag and Coulter have in common."

7 letters? You have sources for your statement? CSDarrow (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, you asked if Goldwag was a reliable source? He is. You also claimed that his piece was a polemic. There is no evidence of any kind, and Goldwag is not a polemicist. He's an expert on organized hate and extremist groups, and his piece on extremist elements of the men's movement is backed by solid sources, as is all of his work. You appear to be misusing the RS noticeboard to push your singular "men's rights" POV. Please don't do that. Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas: In fact Arthur Goldwag is such an expert he does know the difference between the Men Rights and Fathers Rights movements. And I quote

"The men’s rights movement, also referred to as the fathers’ rights movement....." [13]

I was not going to post again but the absurdity of your comments was too much to resist. 18:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You apparently have difficulty understanding what you read. That would explain the reason for this thread. Goldwag is an expert on organized hate and extremist groups. At a higher level of abstraction, one might certainly paint all related groups with a broad brush, just as one would refer to a family of plants in general without specifying their subspecies. Your fallacious focus on highlighting such minutiae is quite telling. I get it, you are only here to play games and push your POV not build an encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Formal reply: Arthur Goldwag is an author and journalist who writes for the Southern Poverty Law Center Hatewatch blog as a "hate expert". Writers do not "speak" for their publications, although they may accurately represent their positions. On Wikipedia, when we cite a quote, statement, or opinion from a writer, we attribute it to their name (Arthur Goldwag) and their publication (in this case, based on the two different sources linked above, the Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report and the Southern Poverty Law Center Hatewatch blog, depending on which one you are citing). End of discussion. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

No offense intended, Viriditas, but the evident consensus (as Wikipedia defines the term) reached here is in direct contradiction to your statement, and your assertion that you somehow have been entrusted with the power to end the discussion in contradiction to this consensus seems a bit overstated. If discussion is over, it's because the person asking the question got his response. And, unfortunately, it is not your response. --GRuban (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I know quite a bit about Goldwag and I know how we attribute authors. I can say with some certainty that the so-called "responses" that you refer to demonstrate that they know neither. Worst of all, they are intimately involved in editing the article in the question, and they appear to be pushing their own POV in that regard. I am not involved, and as someone who is familiar with the source and how to attribute it, I can safely say that this is the only correct response. Further, the original question was flawed. We don't determine who the author is speaking for, we focus on proper attribution. I hope this corrects your misunderstanding. Viriditas (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I am duly corrected, and honored to be able to share a noticeboard page with someone of your authority. Will you also be changing the header of this page, so it no longer suggests visitors ask for the consensus opinions of other editors, and just directs them to go straight to you from now on? --GRuban (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

In general the SPLC has not disavowed signed articles for claims of "fact", and they are routinely referred to as being in the voice of the SPLC on Wikipedia. It is unusual indeed for anyone to argue otherwise - where the claims are phrased as "fact" and not as "opinion" then we do not ascribe the "fact" to the author. SPLC presumably fact-checks facts, after all. Were the example to be clearly an "opinion" then best practice is to ascribe opinions only to those holding them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

What is unusual here is your argument that we must prove a negative. That's not our responsibility at all. Our job is to accurately attribute, and the claim that Goldwag speaks for the SPLC isn't supported anywhere. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I made no such argument at all. It is up to editors to determine whether something is a "fact" or is an "opinion" - and best practice is to ascribe opinions as opinions to those holding them. How in hell do you get "must prove a negative" from that? Collect (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You wrote, In general the SPLC has not disavowed signed articles for claims of "fact", and they are routinely referred to as being in the voice of the SPLC on Wikipedia. In other words, you imply that we must prove that the author does not speak for the SPLC, because Wikipedia editors assume that they do. You can't be serious! We aren't arguing over facts vs. opinion but about proper attribution. We accurately attribute by author and publisher. What we don't do is speculate about whether an author speaks for an organization. This is really simple. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't?

Thomas Fleming (political writer), lead: "The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed Fleming as a key intellectual in what it calls the "neo-Confederate" movement."
David Horowitz Freedom Center, lead: "The Southern Poverty Law Center has described it as a far-right organization."
Animal Liberation Front, lead: "In 2002 the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which monitors extremism in the U.S., noted the involvement of the ALF in the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty campaign..."
Sovereign citizen movement, lead: "In 2010 the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) estimated that approximately 100,000 Americans were "hard-core sovereign believers"..."
Veterans Today, lead: "The Anti-Defamation League ("ADL") and the Southern Poverty Law Center have criticized it for promoting bigoted and extremist viewpoints."

There are plenty of other examples, these are just the first few that I found. We clearly do speculate - heck, we say straight out - that an author does speak for an organization, and not just any organization but specifically the SPLC, and I don't know why you think we don't, and it's "really simple" that we don't. Unless, of course, this was intended to be another use of the "royal we" again? I'm so not good at catching that. When you write, could you next time please specify, "What we, Viriditas, don't do ..." and so forth? That would make it more clear to us commoners. --GRuban (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Those examples show that the sources are mostly attributed to employees of the SPLC. To summarize, We accurately attribute by author and publisher; what we don't do is speculate about whether an author speaks for an organization. In an attempt to "refute" our best practices, you provided five examples where the actual author wasn't attributed, and instead, the organization was used in place of the author. For some reason, you seem to think that because OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it must be representative of ALLSTUFFTHATEXISTS. This is a common mistake made by new editors, and not something I would expect from a seasoned editor like yourself. Does Goldwag work for the SPLC? I have seen no evidence that he does and we don't speculate about his role. We default to attributing the author and the publication. However, in cases where we know an author works for the organization, such as the case of Thomas Fleming, where the authors are Heidi Beirich and Mark Potok, employees of the Southern Poverty Law Center, one might name the organization instead, but that isn't best recommended practice when we cite sources. The David Horowitz Freedom Center cites Sonia Scherr. Does she work for the SPLC? The Animal Liberation Front cites two employees of the SPLC. The Sovereign citizen movement article cites J.J. MacNab, an expert on the topic, but he does not appear to work for the SPLC. The Veterans Today cites Evelyn Schlatter who has been called a "contributing editor" to their Hatewatch blog. So, out of five examples that you offered that cite SPLC, it looks like three are written by people who work for the organization, unlike Arthur Goldwag. I hope this makes sense. Viriditas (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand the argument, I just don't buy it. You wrote: "Writers do not "speak" for their publications" - well, I cited an entire paragraph by Goldwag himself, in the same publication, referring to the specific article in question, and saying that he was, in fact, speaking for the SPLC, to which you said it was "royal we". You wrote "we don't do is speculate about whether an author speaks for an organization" - I provided lots of examples where we, Wikipedia, clearly do. You discounted them as "five". They aren't five in the Wikipedia, five in the first few pages of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=%22Southern+Poverty+Law+Center%22&fulltext=Search, I'm quite sure there are tens if not hundreds, and I'd find five more in as many minutes if I wasn't completely convinced you'd discount them as well for yet another reason; you've already started setting the groundwork, for quickly changing your argument from "we don't do this" to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which is the exact opposite of "we don't do this". Does Goldway work for the SPLC? Yes, he absolutely does, and I say this without knowing "quite a bit about Goldwag" - only from what I've read here. He writes for them. A lot. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22by+arthur+goldwag%22+site:splcenter.org says "about 332 articles". That's not a one time guest column. That's a regular contributor. Does he get a paycheck? I don't know, but neither do I care. It's a nonprofit, and a very idealistic one, so lots of people work for them for free. It certainly trusts him to publish hundreds of articles under their byline, without a disclaimer, highly controversial, "scathing", articles, the opinions of which are then held up by other SPLC authors. That's working for them. Not a single other person in this debate agrees with you, not even the original questioner any more. Of course, that doesn't stop you from being Right, and writing Formal reply in bold, and "end of discussion" as if you have some kind of special dispensation, but, well ... on this one, you're wrong. --GRuban (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not wrong at all, and you haven't been able to show anything "wrong" with a single thing I've said. On the other hand, you've once again supported exceeding the remit of this board and engaging in editorial interpretation. We don't do that, GRuban, and you need to stop. And yes, I used the word "we", does that mean I speak for Wikipedia or that I work for them? Of course not, but for some bizarre reason, when Goldwag uses it as a writer who contributed an article, he's suddenly speaking for the SPLC in your eyes. Sorry, but you are wrong here and no amount of interpretation by you is acceptable. Further, your Google Fu skills are terrible. Goldwag hasn't written hundreds of articles for the SPLC nor does he post under their byline. You really need to stop with this nonsense. I haven't changed any of my arguments, but your arguments above are so incredibly silly, it's difficult to address them without breaking out into laughter. The more you point to OTHERSTUFF that was posted by OTHER editors, the more I get the impression you don't understand the discussion. To put a stop to your nonsene, it's time you actually read the Hatewatch blog page from the top: "Hatewatch is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Report, an investigative magazine published by the Alabama-based civil rights group Southern Poverty Law Center." The staff listings are available here. Goldwag does not run the blog nor is he listed as staff. You see? We don't need your editorial interpretation to accurately attribute. The correct term is probably "guest blogger", but that's just my interpretation and we can't use it. This entire discussion has to do with a primary article written by organized hate expert Arthur Goldwag for the Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report. Goldwag was an expert on this issue (hate) before he ever published this article, and his expertise is not connected with the SPLC. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

All that said, though, I think there is no reason not to write "Arthur Goldwag, writing for the Southern Poverty Law Center" as the attribution, as it should hopefully mostly satisfy both camps. Even if the second camp is only the royal Viriditas. :-) The red link there should turn blue in a few days, since it looks like Goldwag is a sufficiently published author who qualifies for an article. We can have someone who knows a lot about Goldwag to do it, or if not, I will. --GRuban (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason is that's how we properly attribute sources. And that's reason enough. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Lloyd Irvin sources

Lloyd Irvin ia a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu trainer at the centre of various allegations. However given the niche nature of martial arts, reliable sources are few and far between. Most of the reporting has been done by bloodyelbow.com and then repeated in other outlets. The previous consensus on bloodyelbow.com was that it was generally unreliable, which I would agree with, as although I'd consider it relatively reliable for MMA news I've seen little evidence of the editorial oversight that would be required for it to be a good Wikipedia source. However I have a general question regarding public statements.

Public statements

In general, is it appropriate to report public statements? Can they, for example, be used as a source for the views of the person who made the public statement? Does it matter if the statement has been reported by third party sources? Does it matter if the statement has been published by a third party?

Examples:

Lloyd Irvin statement on graciemag.com

"Lloyd Irvin issued an official statement to Graciemag, the Brazilian jiu-jitsu magazine, on January 22nd 2013, in which he made it clear that he deplored what had happened, and distanced his team from the incident, noting that the accused had only trained with his organization a few months. He also responded to online discussions regarding a 1989 incident involving himself where he was found not guilty."[14]

Jordon Schultz statement to bloodyelbow.com

"Jordon Schultz has left Team Lloyd Irvin."[15]

Lloyd Irvin statement on Facebook, reported on bloodyelbow.com

"On March 10th 2013 it was reported that Lloyd Irvin had announced on Facebook that he was terminating the Team Lloyd Irvin Affiliate Program, because of what he described as lynch mob attacks on Team Lloyd Irvin affiliate businesses." [16]

Keenan Cornelius statement on Facebook, reported on graciemag.com

"Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu gold medal winner Keenan Cornelius said in a statement that he could no longer be sure that it was the right environment for him."[17]

Other

Team Lloyd Irvin defections

Is bloodyelbow.com a reliable source for the statement "Some of Irvin's best students have recently left his team."[18] Does it make any difference if this is broadly supported by the Schultz and Cornelius statements above?

graciemag.com

Is graciemag.com a reliable source for basic Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu news, for example: "Keenan Cornelius has joined team Atos JJ"?[19]

Thanks in advance. --Merlinme (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Whether it helps or hurts, I think it should be additionally mentioned that all of the Bloodyelbow blog posts provided have evidently been authored by the same individual. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

These do not look like reliable sources to me. Fladrif (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Is that in every single case? I was hoping for slightly more feedback. In particular I was hoping for some guidance on whether it makes any difference if the source is "the official public statement" of someone, as published by a third party, or whether the source remains as reliable (or otherwise) as the publisher/ reporter. Also is graciemag a reliable source for basic brazilian jiu-jitsu news? Thanks again. --Merlinme (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

global security.org

i want to know wether this source is reliable or not,there are manythings in many articles which relay on this website.Dil e Muslim talk 09:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Am Not New, you didn't follow the instructions at the top. As I explained on my talk page, it's not a blanket question of whether or not that globalsecurity.org page is a reliable source (though I think that, average, globalsecurity.org is probably not reliable, but...), it's a question of whether it is specifically reliable for the information you want to add. That is, a source can be reliable for one kind of information and not another. Thus, you have to give details.

So, what Am Not New wants to use globalsecurity.org for is shown in [20]—that is, specifically for religious beliefs. Now, while globalsecurity.org does have some people who probably meet Wikipedia's definition of "expert" in matters such as military (tactics and armaments) and international politics, I don't see that they have anyone who can really be considered a religious scholar. Further, I'll note that this specific page does not have a named author, and thus we can't really examine the person's credentials. Since I don't think the site has a blanket "almost everything they say is RS" (like, say, the major dailies have), and this page doesn't have any specific named author with specific religious credentials, I don't believe this is an RS for this specific information. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the source, there does not appear to be an author or source document which globalsecurity.org got their information from, therefore I would not consider that subpage on globalsecurity to be a reliable source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've already noticed at least one internal contradiction with the factual claims made in the subpage. This makes it seem as though it's either a composite of other sources or was written by more than one author without the oversight of an editorial staff. For a factual claim which cannot be supported by other, undisputably reliable sources to be included in the Barelvi article does not seem like a professional manner of composing articles for Wikipedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Am Not New/Dil e Muslim (same user), if you think global security is a relable source then why did you remove it with this edit claiming that it isn't a reliable source? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

For the very reasons highlighted by RightCowLeftCoast and Qwyrxian, I do not think it is a reliable source. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

well mezzomezzo where i said that?i also want to know its rliability.there are manythings in religious articles like Barelvi Deobandi and salafi which is based on this source.Dil e Muslim talk 16:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Mezzomezzo, the sequence was that he added it, then I removed it as not meeting WP:RS, then he went and removed it from other articles. Assuming it was the same type of info from globalsecurity. While I assume the removal was a bit pointy, it's actually the right final result, assuming it was the same type of globalsecurity article (as I said, some of their articles may be reliable, particularly those written by recognized experts in their fields). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand now. If he is agreeing now that it isn't a reliable source, then we should be able to close out this discussion, correct? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Snooker.info

A bit of background is required here. The Snooker project maintain a list of century makers at Century break#List of players with at least 100 century breaks. Up until 2011, the source in use was Chris Turner's Snooker Archive. The Snooker Archive was self-published by Turner, but he supplied the snooker statistics to Eurosport, and WP:SPS makes exceptions for acknowledged experts, so we figured it was reliable on balance. The problems started when Turner passed away in 2011, and this data ceased to be maintained.

Several hobby websites have sprung up since, and several editors have attempted to use these hobby sites as a source for updating the figures. The latest one is Snooker.info, but this appears to be nothing more than hobby site according to this: [21]; it acknowledges "quite a few mistakes" and using Wikipedia as a source in the past.

A dispute has a arisen on the talk page where a couple of editors insist on using Snooker.info, stating: Note that you cannot keep the data from almost two years ago in Wikipedia article, just with the reason that you think the given reference is not a good reference! ... However, in the future if you find some more reliable reference, you can express your new reference and update the data based on that. Now, I'm 99% certain that this newer source is not reliable, so I would like two things:

An official ruling on the RS of Snooker.info.
A suggestion on what to do in these cases, where data is out of date and a more up to date source cannot be located.

Betty Logan (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Conflict between secondary source and primary source it reports

Page: Southern Poverty Law Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
An article in the Christian Science Monitor (CSM) says, "In December, 22 Republican lawmakers, among them Speaker Boehner and Representative Bachmann, three governors, and a number of conservative organizations took out full-page ads in two Washington papers castigating the SPLC for “character assassination” by listing the conservative Family Research Council as a hate group."[22]

However the ad says that it was taken out by the Family Research Council. While the FRC ad makes the complaints mentioned in the CSM article, it claims only that the congressmen and others had signed the following:

"We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Family Research Council, American Family Association, Concerned Women of America, National Organization for Marriage, Liberty Counsel and other pro-family organizations that are working to protect and promote natural marriage and family. We support the vigorous but responsible exercise of the First Amendment rights of free speech and religious liberty that are the birthright of all Americans."[23]

There is no mention in the text about the SPLC or hate groups. There is no evidence to support or refute that the signers were aware of the full text of the ad.

Should we use a secondary source that is not supported by the primary source it presents? Or is it original research to question its description of the ad?

TFD (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

What's the article content this is being used to support? You can do a number of things here, like adjust the article wording not to contradict either source, you can say "Some lawmakers signed an ad..." What's the important thing here that you need to cover in the article-- whose names appeared in the ad, or who paid for the ad? Can you find another secondary source that is more careful? Or is it possible that the secondary source is actually correct, in that the lawmakers paid for ("took out") the ad even though the FRC's name is at the bottom, and that the secondary source has access to that information, but it's not obvious from the ad? I'd have a hard time believing the lawmakers didn't know the content of the ad they were putting their names on. Zad68 20:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any contradiction -- when politicians sign a statement in support of a group with the apparent permission to feature the statement in an ad, it is rational to assume they knew the purpose of the ad and the general nature of the ad in which their short statement would be placed. And trying to parse the words of the CSM (which is an undoubted "reliabkle source") is silly -- I am sure that they have the same basic knowledge of political ads as anyone, and probably better than most <g>. Sahing that the signers were ignorant of the use of their statement is one of the more incredible arguments I have seen today. Collect (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the ad does not say it was taken out by the FRC. At least, the PDF you present as evidence does not specifically that. It has the FRC logo, and contact information, and it has a URL which they may or may not have owned, but there's no claim that anyone in particular was responsible for the ad. So I'd have to take the CSM as better source. Mangoe (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This article by the Christian Science Monitor was echoed by CNN, Fox News, and the Southern Poverty Law Center itself. In fact SPLC's public assesment of the ad closely mirrors the CS Monitor article. The only suggestion that the source is "wrong" is one editor's view. We have no RS suggesting otherwise. This is original research, and less insightful than the CSM source. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Moon-eyed people

This rather bizarre article concerns the hypothesis that certain aincient American tribes were depended from white-skinned European people. This appears to have been based on a single anecdote in which an army officer recounts having heard this legend in 1797. On FTN, others have already observed that none of these sources appear to have been from actual Cherokee scholars.

This article been the subject of a discussion on WP:FTN for some time now, however I'd like to bring it to this board's attention since it might also be a WP-SYNTH violation. We appear to have a set of mostly dubious sources which mention the topic only fleetingly - when taken together this seems to give a misleading impression that we are dealing with a notable myth or legend. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What you say is quite mistaken; it is a simple matter to establish that everything ever written on the moon-eyed people in academic literature attributes this legend to the Cherokee, and nearly everything written on the Cherokee in academic literature mentions the moon-eyed people. This includes most of the scholars who are normally used as expert sources when it comes to the Cherokee: Barbara Mann, Barbara Duncan, Barbara Reimensnyder, Vicki Rozema, Russell Thornton, and Bruce Johansen. Wikipedia is already full of references to these same authors, and if they are deemed "unreliable" just because you "don't like" what they say about the "moon-eyed people", there will be hardly anything to say about Cherokee history, because these are the most prominent experts. Whether or not they need to be ethnically Cherokee, or not ethnically Cherokee, to be deemed "credible" by you, is totally beside the point, although as chance would have it some of them likely are. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"This appears to have been based on a single anecdote in which an army officer recounts having heard this legend in 1797." This statement you just made appears to be the original research of some wikipedia editors, because no scholar to treat on the "moon-eyed" people of Cherokee legend has ever reached this novel conclusion, and in fact every scholar to treat on the "moon-eyed people" of Cherokee legend has reached the opposite conclusion and attributed the legend directly to the Cherokee themselves, often including several variants and details that don't appear in the brief 1797 mention. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

My criticism above were based on the sources provided in the article. The so-called "moon-eyed people" do not seem to have been the subject of any serious scholarship, beyond passing mentions. I'm not here to engage in a dispute with Til with whom I respectfully disagree. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're only looking in the wikipedia article as it is now, you are going to miss the majority of serious scholarship by the academics I have mentioned who have indeed written about the "moon-eyed people" in greater depth. That's the problem with using wikipedia as your Bible and ignoring everything else. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This is being sorted at the article. Note that Barbara Reimensnyder is Barbara Duncan, her name is Barbara Reimensnyder Duncan. In regards to another source I've discovered Til didn't know about WP:SPS. Futher discussion is best at the Talk:Moon-eyed people at the moment so it doesn't get fragmented. Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law

Seeking wider consensus on if this journal, and more specifically this article (convenience link from author's site) is a reliable source. Editors on the Gun Control article repeatedly tagging it as unreliable and self published and arguing for its removal.

Journal is student edited, but there does not seem to be a policy in place prohibiting such sources (see Harvard Law Review etc). Source is not being used for any statement of fact (or any fact in contention) but merely as a proxy representing/sourcing anti-gun-control arguments and opinions in the gun control article. Please discuss at Talk:Gun_control#The_Arizona_Journal_of_International_and_Comparative_Law to avoid forum splitting.

Notably our article later cites an additional article by Harcourt which is indented as a rebuttle of Halbrooks articleGaijin42 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

BUMP. Need response/input. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I commented at two other places, and I repeat. In addition to the traditional major law reviews, which are RSs, most law schools now publish additional subject oriented publications, of which this is one. Quality of these vary. I consider this particular one of relatively low quality, using the criterion that it almost entirely includes local authors only. But the author of this article is a nationally known expert, though the position e takes is controversial. What he publishes anywhere can be used as a RS, though, as with anything in this debate, it can not be quoted as definitively settling the issue it discusses. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC) .

Citation at Mark B. Cohen

The article mentions that Cohen is a Freemason ... and cites the following:

"The Ill:. Thomas Hopkins 33rd Degree Memorial Class, Program for Degree Conferral, Valley of Philadelphia Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry Spring 2013, Friday, March 15, 2013, Friday, April 19, 2013"

I am not sure if this qualifies as a reliable source or not. It would be similar to a program for a high school graduation ceremony, being used to support a statement that the subject graduated from a particular high school in a given year. I am not sure if it counts as a "published" (if it does, it would be self-published by the local chapter of the Scottish Rite). I don't know if this would be a "private" document or something available to the general public for verifiability. Given that this is a BLP, and that membership in the Masons can be controversial, is this good enough? Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable source, not published. I removed as a BLP violation. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. I will attempt to explain to the editor (a newbie) who added the information, so he can try to find a reliable source. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

BDINN.com

BDINN.com is a news aggregating site, which mainly gather anti Bangladesh government and propaganda type news. It mainly highlights Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami leaning news and works for defaming International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh), as Jamaat leaders are detained by this tribunal for crime against humanity charges. Even it's first page contains a anti tribunal petition signing campaign link at it's home page. Mahmudur Rahman has some work in fervor of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami and work for Bangladesh National Party, which is ally of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. A interview of MR's has added from BDINN.com at external link section. Is it OK for a BLP article?--FreemesM ^(talk) 16:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Thunderbird (mythology)

Some new age nonsense trying to inserted here [24]. I've started a section here Talk:Thunderbird (mythology)/Archive 1#Grandmothers Counsel the World: Women Elders Offer Their Vision for Our Planet. Any thoughts on this <ref name="tb_citation_">{{cite web|url=http://www.amazon.com/Grandmothers-Counsel-World-Elders-Vision/dp/1590302931|title="Grandmothers Counsel the World: Women Elders Offer Their Vision for Our Planet."|accessdate=26 February 2013}}</ref> as a source for anything productive? He iro 22:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Condor addition to oral history.

Condor

Hi there, I am hoping to add this story to the oral history and cultural significance of the Condor on this page. The two references are a cultural subconscious thing, and many sites any stories will tell the story of the Condor and the Eagle. I believe that this information should be allowed to be. See wp:diff link below to check the text I would like to add.

Sources are this book, a collection of the highest wisdom from a council of elder grandmothers. http://www.amazon.com/Grandmothers-Counsel-World-Elders-Vision/dp/1590302931 pp.126-127 and the pachamama alliance website with video on the story. http://www.pachamama.org/blog/the-eagle-and-the-condor-prophecy The WP:DIFF http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andean_Condor&diff=553110654&oldid=553107222

Please. EM Che. From a collective computer in a hackerspace. Being bothered by a cop and feeling oppressed ;D

Same reasons as for the other article, does not pass WP:RELIABLE or WP:FRINGE. Read our policies. He iro 22:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

And also see history of Andean condor, not the Condor article they linked above.He iro 22:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The book in question is published under a Shambhala imprint. This does not give me warm feelings of scholarly rigor, but instead suggests a tendency towards flights of a certain fancy. I would be nervous about using them as a sole source unless there was good evidence that the book is well-received in the scholarly ethnographic/anthropological world. Mangoe (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It is being used to cit "gifted with the great power of sight and was able to transmit telepathically ancient wisdom and knowledge in prehistoric times" and "According to ancient legends, the world will know a time of balance, and amazing things will be able to happen when the Thunderbirds come home" in the article Thunderbird (mythology). Now, this book may be fine for citing International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers, but when it comes to actual ethnographic articles, I don't think this should be considered a valid source. He iro 14:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable source - personal blogsites

Hi. I understand that it is wrong to use personal blogsites for citations.

Source: [25]

Article: World Mission Society Church of God

This site contains copies of books that certainly violates the ownership of the valid publishing company.

It is not an official site but a personal blogsite, violates copyright, and the translation is terrible.

Content:

For the History section of World Mission Society Church of God.

1985 - Ahn Sahng-hong, dies in February of that year; Church is divided into New Promise Passover, Church of God (Now New Covenant Passover Church of God) and Ahn Sanghong Witness Church of God (Now World Mission Society Church of God).

As was disputed on the subject article talk page by a third party, the NCPCOG site is not a personal blog site. It is a very whittled down version of their Korean page: http://ncpcog.co.kr/rb/ which may redirect to the English site depending on your settings. As for the copyrights of the ASH books, ASH passed away in 1985 and those books were all completed by 1984. The publishing company that belongs to the WMSCOG was established in 1990. According to Korean intellectual property rights, when a person dies their intellectual property carries on to their next of kin. This is where there is a discrepancy as there is no concrete evidence that Zahng Gil-Jah (God the Mother) was ever married to ASH, therefore his intellectual property would have reverted to his son, who runs the NCPCOG. Now, given that the Korean courts have not forced either the WMSCOG or the NCPCOG to stop publishing/distributing these materials this would infer that no copyright laws have been broken. Possibly the WMSCOG editions have been changed in some way or ASH's son has allowed them to publish? Superfly94 (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Speech of a Senator

Is a speech of a Senator considered a reliable source? Also, is it in public domain? Example: [26] Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the question you should be asking is whether the Congressional Record is a reliable source, since that is what you have linked. I'd have thought that it would be RS for a statement that 'Senator X said Y', though you will have to be more specific if you want a definitive answer. As to whether it is in the public domain, why does this matter? You can cite it regardless of whether it is or isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

1.) There is important biographical information on Harry Kizirian that I would like to incorporate in an article I am currently working on in my sandbox. 2.) If it is in Public Domain, I was actually thinking of copying and pasting it. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

To answer the second point first, you can only copy-paste material into Wikipedia if you attribute it, regardless of whether it is public domain or not: to represent someone else's words as your own constitutes plagiarism, and isn't permitted on Wikipedia, regardless of copyright issues. As for whether Senators' speeches can be cited as WP:RS on Kizirian, I'd think that it might be questionable - I see no reason to assume that they have any particular expertise on the subject, or are doing anything more than repeating material provided by others. The mere fact of being a Senator doesn't infer reliability in of itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You can use his speeches as a source for his opinions to some extent. However you should provide specifics. TFD (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I note opinions must be cited as opinions -- in the case at hand the issue is facts, and the Congressmen absolutely have access to government records, and it is not up to use to assume he did not consult such records readily available to him. The USPS also certainly has information about the person as a former Postmaster. As this is the case, I suggest the material is, indeed, usable here. US Law moreover states that there is no general copyright on such material, but the rules on plagiarism absolutely apply. Collect (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

We can't make any such assumption: he may have consulted all possible records, he may not. He may have had notes in front of him, he may not. We can take his speech, recorded in the Congressional Record, as a reliable source for his opinion (at that date), not as a reliable source for a fact. Andrew Dalby 10:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Congresspeople have notoriously added vast swaths of nonsense and lies into the Congressional Record as is their privilege; I have a vague recollection that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion was once entered there in full. You certainly can't assume that any kind of fact-checking took place! For that reason, the Record is only a reliable source for what the Senator had put in there in his name (members of Congress notoriously reserve the right to "amend and extend" their remarks). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

In the case at hand - two Senators. And it reads like a carefully prepared speech, not ex temp at all -- thus we can well afford treating it as RS. And anecdotal recollections that someone once read (Fanny Farmer's cookbook) into the record do not affect much of anything at all. I found Congressman McFadden referring to the "protocols" in 1934, but no such reading of them into the CR ever. BTW the term of art is "revise and extend" and is usually taken to indicate that the time alloted to the person is grossly insufficient to read the entire speech. Collect (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It boggles my mind how you or anyone can think that a political speech is a reliable source for a statement of fact. Yes, the congressional record is a reliable source for the speech, but not for the truth of any of the statements in the speech. Politicians misstate facts all the time - in fact, the common joke is that you can recognise a lying politician by the simple observation that his mouth moves... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the sentence "He has won the Purple Heart" an opinion for example. Especially when it is easily verifiable. I am going along and using it as a source per Collect. But, I will not add anything that cannot be verified. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Being a senator or congressman does not make one's words reliable sources. TFD (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

But neither would a mere journalist. Right? I'm sincerely trying to learn. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. There's a sincere answer. Journalists write for publications part of whose task is to check facts. If a journalist says "it is so", editorial staff are supposed to check whether it is so before the text gets published. Newspapers that omit this step (some do, of course) soon lose their status as reliable sources.

Congressional Record is not a record of facts, it's a record of what was said. Senator X is entitled to say whatever he wants (within limits). Editorial staff at Congressional Record are just as serious as those at newspapers, but their job is to check, in doubtful cases, whether senator X really said and meant that. If he did, they'll print it. Andrew Dalby 12:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy considers articles in newspapers that have fact-checking to be reliable sources. TFD (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for you help! I understand now. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Periodical of Armenian Students suitable for WP:BLP

This periodical (which is not active anymore, and is mirrored by Campus Watch) was used in a BLP article to describe the events of dispute between a professor and the Armenian society on Campus. My question is whether this can be considered reliable to describe the account of the controversial events that eventually lead to UC Berkeley Senate's intervention given the fact that the Armenian society was one side of the dispute. Thanks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It is clearly not a reliable source. Nor is the "Asbarez" article, because pretty clearly, it's a reposted press release with no byline or other means by which to verify its author. In fact, it appears to be a press release from an Armenian group - which means it is a source entirely likely to be biased to one side of the dispute. There do not appear to be any neutral discussions of the event. polarscribe (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

[copied from article talk page:] I'll leave my unasked for comment here and will copy to the other venues: it looks like a horribly sourced non-notable incident and it should be removed. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Journal of the Western Mystery Tradition

Could I have comments on whether the website jwmt.org, pertaining to be the "Journal of the Western Mystery Tradition", could or should be considered a reliable source? Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Periodical of Armenian Students suitable for WP:BLP

I am resubmitting my query to attract more attention since the previous consensus(can be found on this page) led to an edit war in the article on the basis that there were not enough people attending the discussion. Here is the question:

This periodical (which is not active anymore, and is mirrored by Campus Watch) was used in a BLP article to describe the events of dispute between a professor and the Armenian society on Campus. My question is whether this can be considered reliable to describe the account of the controversial events that eventually lead to UC Berkeley Senate's intervention given the fact that the Armenian society was one side of the dispute. Thanks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No, student newspapers are seldom reliable sources and certainly not for highly negative statements in a BLP. TFD (talk) 07:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it can be used to source claims made on campus by this professor, especially if supported by additional sources like this, but not to make contentious claims about professor. My very best wishes (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

SFF World usable?

I can't remember what the general consensus is on anything from SFF World. I know that the random reviews aren't usable, as they're posted by Joe and Jane Anybody, but what about the reviews posted by the site administrators that are seen as "official reviews" of the site? Here is the post in question saying it's an official review and the review itself. [27], [28] I can't remember if those were usable or not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

If it is usable, I also have an interview I could also use on the article for Hugh Howey. Right now I'm having a bit of a debate with myself whether or not to redirect the page to his Wool series or to keep it on its own. He's really most known for the Wool series, although there are a few articles that interview him or mention him based on the concept of self-publishing phenomenon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

LinkedIn profile of Dan Abnett for years at Oxford

Hi. To support writer Dan Abnett's graduation from St Edmund Hall, Oxford in Abnett's article, I cited his page at St Edmund's own website.

However, another editor, an anonymous newbie, has pointed out that at Oxford, the "year" of an alumnus is the year they matriculated, not the year they graduated. Can I change this on the basis of a say-so from another editor, especially an IP editor? Or do we need a source that either supports the Oxford system or gives Abnett's graduation year?

Also, if we indeed do the latter, does this LinkedIn profile constitute a reliable source for his Oxford matriculation and graduation years? Or is question of whether that Dan Abnett and our article subject are one and the same an issue? Nightscream (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Each College website is no doubt different, but yes, 1984 would be the year he matriculated (i.e. entered university). These things are written partly for other alumni, who are typically supposed to be interested in people who began the same year as they did. Anyway, this ties in with his birth date of 1965: if, born that year, he got his BA in 1984, he had a most unusual childhood; if, born that year, he entered university in 1984, that would be as expected. Andrew Dalby 08:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Carmen Ortiz (and Aaron Swartz), op-ed using anonymous sources

Can an op-ed by an eminent lawyer be used to support a contentious statement in a BDP (Aaron Swartz) or BLP (Carmen Ortiz)? What if the lawyer attributes his information to anonymous sources who were engaged in a legal dispute with the LP?

(Cf. NEWSORG, BLPGOSSIP, IMPARTIAL.)

Op-ed (in Mass. Lawyers Weekly): The Swartz suicide and the sick culture of the DOJ (republished in Media Nation).

Text supported (direct quote):

[The local D.A. was planning for Swartz’s state case to be] continued without a finding, with Swartz duly admonished and then returned to civil society to continue his pioneering electronic work in a less legally questionable manner. Tragedy intervened when Ortiz’s office took over the case to send ‘a message’.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The material added to the Swartz subsection of the Ortiz BLP was not a "summary" of the article linked, which is how subsectiions in the BLP should be constructed, thus I removed them as being UNDUE at the least without looking at RS-ness. I would, however, note that the amount of quotes in the Swartz article is excessive, naking the article excessively long, full of repetition, and suffering from "include everything-itis" where a shorter article would have far greater effectivemess. I note the example quote given above is "first year law" and thus of little value - and ESP as to what someone "would have done" is speculation in any event, which must be sourced to the specific person asserting such knowledge. Collect (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This article was published in a prominent periodical, which stands behind it. The passages assert pertinent facts. There is no reason to believe the reporting in this piece was in any way flawed or the asserted facts invented. For some reason, the poster has been seeking a rationale for months to excise is quote -- see the AaronSw page as well. 05:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ad hom -- since I did not "excise" anything - only noted that having it in the subarticle does not atuomatically mean it should be added in full to the main article -- and this has been Wikipedia policy and guideline that the main article has a summary of the subarticle. BTW, "MarkBernstein", please use 4 tildes when making posts. Collect (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Even if the information in the Op-Ed is factually correct, it is an opinion of the writer as an opinion piece (even if published in a reliable source publication). Therefore, it can be used only to verify the opinion of the writer, and if used in the article should be attributed to the writer of the op-ed piece.

This isn't a columnists source is it?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Not in the ~~writer’s~~ source’s (Silverglate’s) opinion...
“I was asked to do an op-ed for the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.” Harvey Silverglate, The Swartz Suicide and the Sick Culture of the DOJ, The SilvergLatest (Jan. 23, 2013). --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources for far-right and fascistic politics in Hungary

The talk page for the article on Ferenc Szaniszló is the site of an ongoing debate over whether news articles in the BBC ([29]), Le Monde ([30]), Die Süddeutsche Zeitung ([31]), Die Zeit, Der Tagesspiegel, Haaretz ([32]), The Independent ([33]), the New York Times ([34]), the Toronto Star ([35], [36]), the Times of London ([37]), The Guardian ([38]), and The Irish Times ([39]) can establish that:

The Roma are a persecuted minority in Hungary, and
Kornel Bakay and Janos Petras, far-right public figures in Hungary given awards by Viktor Orban's center-right coalition at the same time as Szaniszló, need to be referenced to give context to Szaniszló's award.

Norden1990 has stated that the articles provided are insufficient for various reasons: one article is "political propaganda" and "political opinion from a left-wing newspaper" and the "policy statement from a Le Monde journalist." Another "is wrong, therefore is not an authentic source."

Comparing an article in the Toronto Star to the Canadian Government's decision to list Hungary as safe for minorities for the purposes of immigration, Norden1990 wrote, "The report of the Canada Border Services Agency is more reliable than a lie of a Gypsy family who tried to settle in Canada."

According to Norden1990, one article "does not contain specific details, but only generalization," and another article, "a lack of concrete," whereas for another article mentioning a specific case, "Hungarian serial killing is an isolated case where the perpetrators were arrested."

KœrteFa has stated that the "articles have a much wider scope, so it does not really matter if they talk about other recipients," that Bakay and Petras are "not relevant" and "highly irrelevant," and that major figures or parties mentioned in major newspapers describing Szaniszló are "weakly connected."

Could people take time to note whether articles about Szaniszló or persecution of the Roma, from the above newspapers, are reliable sources? And whether the mention of Bakay and Petras in articles describing Szaniszló justifies inclusion of their names in Szaniszló's article? Thanks in advance - -Darouet (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to link in diffs now, to make thinks easier.-Darouet (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are the relevant articles from

Die Zeit: [40]
Der Tagesspiegel: [41]

-Thucydides411 (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

At least some of the sources seem fine from a reliable sources point of view (there are a flood of links, so that I haven't checked them all), but I'm not sure why the other award recipients need to be brought in. Specifically the New York Times piece does seems to say exactly what you want to say. "... last month the government gave the Tancsics Award, its top award in journalism, to Ferenc Szaniszlo, a presenter for the pro-government Echo TV channel who is known for anti-Semitic outbursts and detrimental remarks about the country’s ostracized Roma minority." Especially if any others of the sources say anything like that, that should be sufficient - that is basically what you want to write, right? Sure, the very next sentence mentions Petras, but that's because the Times article isn't writing about Szaniszlo specifically; ours is. If we have an article about anti-Semitism or anti-Roma(-nism?) in Hungary, we can mention both, but this isn't it. This should be about Szaniszlo specifically. BTW, right now the Ferenc Szaniszló article is more than half about the returned award. Surely that's undue weight. --GRuban (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gruban for responding. Ferenc Szaniszló became internationally famous because of this award; few outside Hungary knew of him beforehand. So the weight in the article reflects coverage by reliable sources, and is actually biased towards his earlier life (I had to dig to find those sources).

The reason I believe that Petras and Bakay deserve mention is that most sources, like the New York Times article you mentioned, describe their awards as context for Szaniszló's. One could theoretically argue that neither Jobbik, nor Fidesz, nor Echo TV, nor the Roma, nor Hungary itself should be mentioned, because this article is about Szaniszló. I know you're not arguing that, but I'm simply suggesting that the international media all reference Petras and Bakay when describing Szaniszló's award, and we should too. -Darouet (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

To give a few easy to follow examples:

The Independent published a news piece, "Hungarian government awards Tancsics prize for journalism to notorious anti-Semite Ferenc Szaniszlo," writing "Other recipients included the musician, Janos Petras, lead singer of the group Karpatia, which is regarded as the house band of Hungary’s extreme right-wing and virulently anti-Semitic Jobbik party, and the archaeologist Kornel Bakay, who has claimed Jesus Christ was Hungarian and that the Jews were slave traders during the Middle Ages."
The BBC published a news piece, "Anger in Hungary at prize for 'anti-Semitic' reporter," writing "The choice of two other recipients of national honours on the same day has also been sharply criticised - archaeologist Kornel Bakay for allegedly anti-Semitic comments, and musician Janos Petras of the rock band Karpatia, which is associated with the far-right Jobbik party."
Haaretz published a news piece, "Israel condemns award to Hungarian reporter it calls anti-Semitic," writing, "They included Janos Petras, singer in a far-right rock group, Karpatia, and archaeologist Kornel Bakay, who organised a controversial exhibition in 2003 about Hungary's Nazi past."
The New York Times, as GRuban noted, wrote an article, "Politics Spills Onto Stage in Budapest," stating that "Janos Petras, the lead singer of Karpatia, who composed the anthem for Jobbik’s paramilitary wing, calling for an “immaculate nation” and the expansion of Hungary’s borders, was also given an award. Although protests in Hungary and abroad led to Mr. Szaniszlo returning the award, the feeling that Fidesz is courting Jobbik supporters remains."
Die Zeit published a news piece, "Hungary's government gives awards to anti-Semites (A broadcasted presented widespread anti-Semitic theories and abused Roma as "apes"; now he gets the most important Hungarian journalists prize)," writing, "Hungary's government also honored the archaeologists Kornel Bakay with a Merit. Bakay excited again stir with anti-Semitic statements. So he assumed that Jews had organized the slave trade in the Middle Ages. He also claimed that Jesus Christ was not a Jew, but a prince of the - supposedly related with the Hungarians - old-Iranian people of the Parthians."
The Suddeutsche Zietung wrote a news piece, "Government gives awards to anti-Semitic journalists," writing, "Archaeologist Kornel Bakay was awarded the Order of Merit; he claims Jesus Christ was not a Jew but a prince of the Parthians and related to Hungary... Another award - the Golden Cross of Merit - was awarded to Janos Petras, the lead singer of the rock band 'Karpatia'...."

These sources don't somehow prove we should add this material, but do show that all these other large papers found this context relevant. -Darouet (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: I've asked the last three editors who've contributed to this noticeboard, and Orangemike, if they'd consider offering opinions here. -Darouet (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Süddeutsche Zeitung and New York Times both draw a direct connection between the various awards. The Süddeutsche Zeitung has this as its subheading:

"Kritiker vermuten einen Freundschaftsdienst der konservativen Regierung an die rechtsextreme Szene: Der ungarische Staat ehrt mehrere Rassisten und Verschwörungstheoretiker mit staatlichen Orden und Medaillen. Der zuständige Minister gerät in Erklärungsnot."

"Critics suspect a gesture of friendship from the conservative government to the extreme Right Wing: The Hungarian state honors several racists and conspiracy theorists with state orders and medals. The minister responsible (for the awards) is confronted with a public relations crisis."

Right in its subheading, the Süddeutsche Zeitung connects the various awards. The context of Szaniszlo's award is important, since together with awards to people of similarly extreme views, it sparked a crisis for the government.

The New York Times also links the various awards:

"Janos Petras, the lead singer of Karpatia, who composed the anthem for Jobbik’s paramilitary wing, calling for an “immaculate nation” and the expansion of Hungary’s borders, was also given an award. Although protests in Hungary and abroad led to Mr. Szaniszlo returning the award, the feeling that Fidesz is courting Jobbik supporters remains."

The New York Times notes the same criticism that the Süddeutsche Zeitung does, namely that the various awards were part of an effort by Fidesz to court the extreme Right (including Jobbik supporters).

It's important to have this context to understand why Szaniszlo might have been given the Tancsics Award. Since leading German and American papers talk about the possibility that the government wanted to court the Right through these awards, it's definitely worth mentioning in the Wikipedia article on Szaniszlo. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the context being important; I still think the section occupying more than half the article seems too much. Even if he was only notable within Hungary before, there should still be coverage of his life and actions that caused him to get the prize in Hungary. We're not restricted to international coverage. While Hungary isn't the largest country in the world, neither is it some illiterate village - I feel sure there must be at least some news articles and magazines about him before the award. But since I can't read Hungarian, I can't fix it myself, so I'm not able to complain too strongly that someone else isn't doing it. --GRuban (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice to have more information about him from before this event, but there is none available in the international press. The only editors on the page that could provide such sources are more interested in eliminating material they think casts a poor light on Hungary (particularly Fidesz) than in rounding out the article. In terms of how Szaniszlo is known internationally, however, the article does present a balanced view. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

They are reliable sources. What some politician, in this case Canada's immigration minister, is irrelevant. In 2011, tribunals accepted 166 Hungarian claimants because they had a well-founded fear of persecution. TFD (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it your conclusion? Unfortunately, because that is irrelevant. Canada's minister stated that Hungary is a safe county for Roma people. I don't think that before this statement Gypsies received residence permit because "they had a well-founded fear of persecution", this would be inconsistent and illogical. And according to my knowledge there neither been a change of government in Hungary nor Canada. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Nordern1990, in Canada the courts decide who is accepted as a refuge, not the minister.Here is a link to the source about the acceptance of claimants. TFD (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't appear so much a WP:RSN issue - the sources, especially taken together, are reliable - but a WP:WEIGHT issue.Volunteer Marek 14:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

What would be advisable, as an appropriate next step? -Darouet (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Volunteer Marek, and think that it is not really a reliability issue. I certainly also agree that the mentioned sources are reliable for objective facts (e.g., person X got award from the government of country Y, etc.). There is no doubt about that, and I would also use them as sources. However, I am not so sure that their reliability is that certain when one of their journalists expresses his/her subjective political opinion. Furthermore, if the only connection of person X and person Y is that they got (different) awards from a government in the same time, then I do not think that person Y should be mentioned in a short biography about person X, even if some sources which write about the general situation (and not only about X) connect them. Even if they were right, this would still be out of the scope of a biographical article about X. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

So right now, we're still where we started: KœrteFa is not so sure that [sources'] reliability is that certain when one of their journalists expresses his/her "subjective political opinion," and Norden1990 writes that the description of Roma as persecuted "is irrelevant" because according to the governments of Hungary and Canada, the Roma are fine. -Darouet (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with KoerteFa on the following: "if the only connection of person X and person Y is that they got (different) awards from a government in the same time, then I do not think that person Y should be mentioned in a short biography about person X, even if some sources which write about the general situation (and not only about X) connect them. Even if they were right, this would still be out of the scope of a biographical article about X."

My opinion (after a brief survey) is that the controversy about this group of awards is notable, but it belongs to the story of the Hungarian coalition, not to Ferenc Szaniszló's biography, unless he links himself to the other prizewinners. So far as I have seen, he doesn't. Andrew Dalby 13:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrew Dalby. I think that it is much more a content dispute than a reliability issue. At least, I do not question the general reliability (i.e., about objective facts) of those sources. Hence, in my opinion, we should go back to the Talk page of that article and continue the discussion there. Of course, everyone is welcome to join our discussion, especially, since we are kinda stuck at the moment. All the best, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of posterity, editors should please note that news articles from major global newspapers, accepted here as reliable sources, do not contain a mixture of "objective facts" and "subjective personal opinions" of their authors, which can be so designated by editors on the basis of their personal opinions. Should that ever become wikipedia's policy regarding reliable sources, the reliability of a source would immediately become irrelevant because its content would be either reliable or not reliable, depending upon whether we felt a statement was a fact or an opinion. That is not the policy of this noticeboard or this encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

A handy general rule, but it doesn't cover all cases: I'd say rather that this board considers cases individually. Andrew Dalby 09:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, are you suggesting that in this case you "consider" the persecution of the Roma in Hungary to be merely the opinion of journalists writing for the Toronto Star, the Times of London, The Guardian, The Independent, and The Irish Times (also see this article in the economist [42])? Or that the calculation of journalists writing news (not editorial) pieces for Le Monde, Die Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Zeit, Der Tagesspiegel, The Independent, and the New York Times is wrong, and if so, what sources do you have to support your position?

As far as your statements regarding due weight are concerned, I agree with you on principle that for verifiable information, we must evaluate "the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" and write our article with due proportion to achieve neutrality. I disagree with you about the proportions in this case, however, because the only articles that have been found and presented are straightforward regarding the nature of Szaniszlo's award. -Darouet (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Your comment, to which I was responding, Darouet, was phrased generally and didn't mention the Roma. In replying to it, I didn't mention the Roma either. Andrew Dalby 18:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

My comment, in a thread dedicated to specific sources concerning the Roma and Szaniszlo, contested the claim that we can decide when we feel reliable sources are providing facts or opinions on the basis of our political prejudices alone (in this case, right-wing Hungarian nationalism). As you had not commented on the reliability of the sources, and still haven't, your apparently general reply could easily be interpreted as addressing the sources and issues discussed here. In any event we might follow Occam (you may know more about him than I) and note that general laws or principles are invested in specific cases. If ever we made an exception, I would be surprised if we did it when covering the widely reported persecution of a minority.

If there are any specific problems with facts presented in this case (to address reliability), they should be presented here. Otherwise, if there are other reliable sources to consider beyond those so far advanced (to address weight), they should be presented on the Szaniszlo talk page. -Darouet (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Nazi activist known for involvement in war crimes, use of Jewish slave labor and post-war nationalism used to source information about population statistics in Poland

Recently a book was used in several articles under the name of Ost- und Westpreußen. Handbuch der historischen Stätten (= Kröners Taschenausgabe, Band 317). Unveränderter Neudruck der 1. Auflage 1966[one example[43]). Under closer view it appears to be edited by a person called Erich Weise.

Since the book was used to demonstrate in often dubious manner ethnic and religious divisions( a controversial subject) I decided to search for who Erich Weise is.

It appears that he was a dedicated Nazi activist, in 1932 he declared in the name of German archivist loyalty to Third Reich saying " The initial aversion of the German archivist against engaging in political matters has waned. As the keeper of the legal codes of the state and the nation, ha has become the herald of the national cause...Because Germandom (Volkstum) and the the spirit of the state and the decisive will for ethnic (Völkisch) survival have to be kept alive, the German archivists are fully behind the new Germany of January 30, 1933. In the spirit of the Third Reich, they work with the Volk for the Volk " The Struggle for the Files. The Western Allies and the Return of German Archives after the Second World War. Astrid M. Eckert, Emory University, Atlanta, p. 101

These statements were made at a conference he attended which was dedicated to Ostforschung-a nationalist ideology dedicated ot supporting German claims in the East and expansion in Central Europe The Struggle for the Files. The Western Allies and the Return of German Archives after the Second World War. Astrid M. Eckert, Emory University, Atlanta, p. 101

When Nazi Germany occupied Poland he was made responsible for overseeing Polish archives in Warsaw where he purged staff of all workers that were deemed "non-Aryan" and politically unwanted, reducing it by 50%(The Struggle for the Files. The Western Allies and the Return of German Archives after the Second World War. Astrid M. Eckert, Emory University, Atlanta, p. 115, footnote no. 68)> He viewed this action with pride[44] He also exploited Jews in forced labor(Staatsarchive im Dritten Reich, p. 130, Torsten Musial - 1996)

After the war he lied and deceived courts to escape denazification(The Struggle for the Files. The Western Allies and the Return of German Archives after the Second World War. Astrid M. Eckert, Emory University, Atlanta page 115 )

When Cold War started he joined other often former Nazi historians in writing propaganda version of history of Eastern Europe presenting Germans as bringers of order and civilization to other nations, this was an attempt to exploit conflict between Eastern and Western bloc to promote chauvinistic version of German history(Michael Burleigh Cambridge University Press, Germany turns eastwards: a study of Ostforschung in the Third Reich, Volume 8, Part 1991 page 315).

His views are considered by modern historians to be outdated(rankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 17.10.2000, S. L48. Biskup, Marian; Labuda, Gerard: Die Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens in Preußen) and nationalistic(Der Ordensstaat als Ideologie: das Bild des Deutschen Ordens page 329 Wolfgang Wippermann - 1979 Eine stark nationalistische Tendenz ist dagegen vorherrschend in: Erich Weise, Die Bedeutung der Nationalitätenfrage beim Abfall des Preußischen Bundes vom Deutschen Orden im Kontinuität oder Kontinuitätsbruch? 329).

I believe a dedicated Nazi, involved with war crimes, who was involved in plundering Central Europe, and is now considered an outdated nationalist historian can't be considered a reliable source on such controversial issues as ethnic divisions in territories German nationalists aimed to conquer.

I believe more modern and neutral sources must be used to show such topics as percentages of German and Polish population, and a Nazi involved with war crimes and post-war nationalist writings can't be seen as reliable source on such issues and would like to see how other wikipedians view this matter. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This source does not meet the criteria that some of us have been developing at WP:HISTRS. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

His views as "a dedicated Nazi, war criminal... [and] outdated nationalist historian" could be, however, considered of interest to readers and editors if they are disclosed as such. -Darouet (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If they have been discussed by post-war historians, who should be our sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

And in appropriate contexts, not for statements of fact.Volunteer Marek 22:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the OP, it does sound like not only an outdated historian but also one with a very dubious agenda indeed. However I don't see any links to articles in the OP where this source has been used. I believe it is required that diffs are provided or at least a link to articles where this source has been applied. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the reason why the articles weren't listed is because this source has been spammed into dozens of them. As a sort of a central repository you can just look at the editing history of User:Kaiser von Europa [45]. One article would be Chojnice in this version [46] (search for "Weise"). See also the talk page [47], though there are some additional problems with a misuse of primary sources (reprinted later on on a web page and presented as secondary sources). The user in question then kept adding in sources edited by Weise but omitted his name from the source description, making it harder to identify. Some of this has spilled over to the article on Erich Weise himself.Volunteer Marek 22:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Notabene - not every single piece of text that is cited to this source is "controversial". In fact, some of them are quite mundane (i.e. "there was a fire in the town in 1762" or something) But the mundane sourcing is used alongside sourcing for controversial claims, like the population break downs or some other sketchy claims. What I've done so far is leave the obviously non-controversial stuff in, but removed Weise as a source and put in a ^{[citation needed]} talk instead.Volunteer Marek 22:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have added an example--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC).

de:Handbuch der historischen Stätten is a series of 21 volumes published by de:Alfred Kröner Verlag (kroener-verlag.de) dealing with historic sites in (historic) Germany. Each volume is written by several authors and edited by a single or sometimes by a group of experts. Kröner chose Weise as the editor of the volume dealing with East and West Prussia, however the whole book wasn't written by Weise and you can't blame the authors who work for a highly reputable book series published by a highly reputable publishing house for that (maybe) regrettable desision. Weise's maybe problematic background says nothing about the reliability of the specific authors.

Weise's books are available at every German bookstore including amazon [48] and the "Handbuch" is used by plenty of modern authors as a source[49]. That he is criticized by other modern authors just means he is still part of a scholarly discussion.Wolfgang Wippermann, btw, publishes for the communist Neues Deutschland and believes the victims of the Gulag shouldn't be regarded victims of communism as the Soviet Union wasn't a communist/socialist state - mmmh.HerkusMonte (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Herkus. That a book is widely available doesn't mean it is reliable. As to your link it is just a google search for the book. In what context and in what manner the book is used is another thing. For example just one book on the first page of the search you linked is Der Ort des Terrors: Geschichte der nationalsozialistischen Wolfgang Benz, Barbara Distel - 2009 which actually criticisms the book as example of distorted and manipulated history writing that ignores parts of German past to present Germans as victims. Some are simply reprints of the series mentioned. And of course there is also the question who the authors are and who is using the book. That Weise is criticized doesn't mean he is part of scholarly discussion or reliable, as it would mean for example that racist authors who are criticized today are part of it too. Regarding other authors the ones I could find are Nazi war criminal Kurt Forstreuter who worked together with SS in plundering of Polish archives, the three-member commission in which Forstrueter was involved had overseen the theft from Plock theologicl library 50,000 volumes, including 100 coming from XII and XIII century. Another is Ernst Bahr who published works connected to Ostforschung ideology and cited book calling for territorial demands against Poland which used as source Theodore Oberlander a known Nazi activist and war criminal. He also wrote obituary for leading Nazi activist and historian Erich Keyser who after the war reformulated German nationalist history vowing to exploit Cold War to present Germans as bringers of civilization to Eastern Europe.

So so far it seems that the other authors are as unreliable and nationalistic and Nazi like the main editor. I have asked who the others are the editor who puts this book in wikipedia, who the other authors are but he has several times refused to name them, leading me to believe that there are good reasons why he wishes them to remain hidden.

I am certain that there are modern and reliable sources that can be used that aren't written by Nazis and war criminals. I might also add Herkus that your claim that Polish cities like Torun are "historic Germany" seems to be highly biased and supportive of the overall extreme POV found in the book. It would be better for the atmosphere of discussion if such claims weren't pushed forward.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That West Prussia was once a part of historic Germany is hardly arguable, I don't see how this simple fact might be regarded an "extreme POV". Wolfgang Benz criticizes that a book about "historic sites" in West Prussia ends in 1919 (thus ignoring WWII), he says nothing about the book as an "example of distorted and manipulated history writing that ignores parts of German past to present Germans as victims". As West Prussia largely ceased to exist in 1919, there is actually a good reason to choose 1919 as a terminal date.

A general comment: They don't sell Nazi stuff at German bookstores or at amazon. You're trying to present this book as Nazi propaganda and Weise as a lifetime Nazi. That's what I call a "highly biased and supportive of the overall extreme POV". He was a member of the Nazi party like millions of Germans - some of them for opportunistic reasons, some without even knowing about it (well that's what they claim, e.g. Hans-Dietrich Genscher) and some as convinced Nazis. Fritz Fischer was a member of the Sturmabteilung and the Nazi party, he supported the German Christians Movement and lectured about the "Jewish influence on the British upperclass" - and he became the most influential and respected historian of post-war Germany (and his post-war views were for sure not Nazi-like).

The “Handbuch” is used by many modern scholars and criticized by some, but we are talking about the usage as a source in principle. Details might always be discussed but I don't see a reason why it should be banned in principle. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"That West Prussia was once a part of historic Germany is hardly arguable, I don't see how this simple fact might be regarded an "extreme POV"

Claiming that a city is part of "historic Germany" because it was conquered once IS extreme POV. By that logic Warsaw is part of historic Germany as well as it was part of Prussia in Partitions, and later conquered by Nazis. You can discuss Genscher and Fritz Fischer elsewhere. Here we are discussing Erich Weise-a known Nazi involved with war crimes, and nationalistic propaganda. A general comment: They don't sell Nazi stuff at German bookstores or at amazon. This is incorrect. I know several books written by Nazis(including ones involved in genocide) that are widely available and sold.Only the ones generally recognized are difficult to get, but names not widely known are in circulation. " He was a member of the Nazi party like millions of Germans"-he openly declared loyalty of entire group of archivists to Nazi ideas, used Jewish slave labor, and was a war criminal. No are you claiming that millions of Germans just like Weise are Nazi war criminals? I am certain that this is not the case. As you yourself admitted he is criticized and I fail why are you are determined to defend use of a Nazi war criminal dedicated to proving German claims in the East as source in articles on Polish cities. In fact I find it disturbing. There is absolutely zero reliability of a Nazi nationalistic historian regarding Polish history. Far more reliable sources, modern sources exist and should be used instead of a book by Nazis that modern historians disregard as outdated. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

~~C-c-c-content dispute. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)~~

I don't think I understand your comment. It's a question about the reliability of a source edited by Erich Weise. Of course it has to do with content. But this isn't WP:AE or WP:ARBCOM where one can claim "content dispute" and ignore the issue (however problematic) - this is exactly what this board is supposed to be for.Volunteer Marek 02:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, had AN/I and RS/N open in neighbouring tabs and must've mixed them up. As you were. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Based on description of Erich Weise in article about him, his writings should not be used to source anything except his own personal views in article about him, just as it would be with writings by Anatoly Fomenko, Yuri Zhukov (historian) and other people like that. My very best wishes (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The article on Erich Weise was recently created by MyMoloboaccount, an attempt to portray him as a lifetime Nazi and the first step towards this request. You also ignore that the "Handbuch" was written by several authors and is part of a highly reputable book series. HerkusMonte (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The article on Erich Weise is well sourced and accurate. Look, there's no denying the fact that Weise was a devoted Nazi during WWII, that he was in charge of plundering Polish archives and that he evaded the denazification process. All that is sourced to reliable sources. Providing evidence to back up a statement or a request is EXACTLY what is supposed to be done. And yes, the Handbuch had authors other than Weise... like Erich Keyser, another Nazi historian. That doesn't exactly help the case you know.Volunteer Marek 05:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course a problem with specific author/source does not invalidate all other German authors/sources. For example, the German encyclopedia you talked about can be a valid source, depending on the time of publication (I noticed it was not published during the Nazi regime), on the author of specific publication, and so on. Two more points. (a) Who was an editor of a book does matter because editor usually decides who will be contributing and what. (b) There was the denazification in Germany, which makes their sources no less reliable than something published in other democratic countries. Just to provide a counterexample here, there was no a similar process of decommunisation/lustration/deKGBsation in Russia, hence a book edited by someone like an FSB general Zdanovich (a person responsible for whitewashing the organization) used in this edit) would be a problematic source. My very best wishes (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Update, another author listed is infamous Nazi Erich Keyser who was responsible for inciting ethnic hatred towards ethnic Poles under Nazi Germany

I managed to find out that another author in the book is Erich Keyser, an infamous Nazi activist and nationalist who was responsible for propaganda campaigns and inciting ethnic hatred towards Poles under Nazi Germany. I think that explains why the editor using the book didn't want to reveal other authors besides Erich Weise when I asked him. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Erich Keyser has a an article on German wikipedia (google translate).Volunteer Marek 17:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

nyrblog in The New York Review of Books

Source: A nyrblog article[50] in The New York Review of Books
Author: David Shulman, "Renee Lang Professor of Humanistic Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an activist in Ta'ayush, Arab-Jewish Partnership."[51]

Content has been removed from the Susya article(diff) on the basis that the source is a blog and therefore not an RS for the content.

Given the source, the author, the nature of the content and the way it was presented, is the removal consistent with policy ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be a perfect match for WP:NEWSBLOG, which means we can use it if the opinions are attributed to the author. Zero^talk 04:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

My reading of the content that was in the article based on this source is that, although it was attributed, none of it is opinion, it's statements of fact about events and quoting living people. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Its a RS by both the publication and the author. David Dean Shulman has written extensively on Susya and the are of the Hebron Hills. His book Dark Hope was published by University of Chicago Press. There is zero basis for its removal. The publication is a RS, perhaps needing attribution, per WP:NEWSBLOG. nableezy - 14:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's obvious reportage by someone known in the field; it seems an impeccable source to me. Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a blog post written by an acknowledged political activist. It might, possibly, be used with attribution and great caution, to mention an opinion if that opinion is notable. Under no imaginable circumstances can it be used for facts. GoGoBot2 (talk)

I'm only interested in opinions from experienced editors whose editing history provides an evidence based reason to believe that their assessment can contribute to resolving this question from a policy perspective. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This passes for a reliable source. To GoGoBot2: factual statements can be stated as facts, and this article contains plenty of them. If you can produce reliable sources that dispute some of those statements of fact, then that's something that needs to be reconciled. Statements of opinion should be attributed as opinions. TheBlueCanoe 06:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a reliable source. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

New Mexico

This source states that New Mexico received the most federal financial benefits of all states. I know its a blog but it gives a secondary source. Pass a Method talk 08:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not a reliable source, and something like this (if true) should be easy to cite to much better sources. Zero^talk 13:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Fanzines

We have had a situation on Ian Fleming recently that has resulted in the inclusion of an article from a fanzine, largely at the insistence of the author. Although the new information (which I inserted with this edit) is probably correct and has replaced what was probably an incorrect and unsupported statement, it is still based on something from a fanzine, which makes a number of editors rather uncomfortable. Given the source to be a fanzine, published by the James Bond International Fan Club—and this edit to have been pushed by the author of the article—would people generally consider information from a fanzine to pass muster as a reliable source in any article, much less an FA? - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Fanzines can gain reputation for being reliable sources, but that has to be shown first, but in general no. But, that said, there are some elements that fanzines or fansites get that are unique, primarily interviews with appropriate people from published work, that may offer more details than what interviews with more established reliable sources can pull. The use of such should be considered by consensus, judging how likely the fansource got that interview, their past credentials, how much of the interview responses overlap with other sources, etc., and if used, one should be on the lookout to try to backup statements from other RSs. But this is based on the fact that we're talking a primary source (an interview) and so we're assuming that the fansource isn't altering that content or lying about it in the first place. Other types of articles produced by fansources, on the other hand, are likely inappropriate to include unless they go into opinion pieces, and only if the fansource/writer of the opinion piece is considered an expert in that community. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It is important to realize that reliability is rarely a binary "always reliable" vs "always unreliable" thing. The same source can be highly reliable in one context and completely unreliable in another. Reliability isn't always black and white... there is often a lot of grey. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Pop culture subjects hardly, if ever, receive serious academic treatment, much less serious journalistic coverage. Even in today's world where blogs are passe and there's an infinite amount of pop culture critique on the web, determining what of that is reliable and what is not is exceedingly difficult. My opinion about Fanzines is the same as my opinion of something I work with much more frequently -- local historical works. These, which you may see published by a certain Town/County/State/Parish's "Bi-, Tri-, Quadricentennial Commission[s]" are often presenting valid facts, but can do so in an adoring and non-NPOV manner. At the same time, those sources may be the only ones dealing with a subject of interest. They may be the only sources that would care to write a 50-page booklet on a minor battle between partisans during the American Revolutionary War. With those, I can't rely on the publications themselves, but must also check their sources in order to confirm verifiability. In other words, then, an article in a fanzine should be judged based on how academically rigorous it is. If it cites to perfectly reasonable primary and secondary sources, and doesn't have an ideological or fan-based agenda, I think it can be cited to reliably. If the fanzine article itself is rife with NPOV issues, and if it doesn't follow a standard citation format or if it cites to "oral history" too frequently, it is per se unreliable. Cdtew (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Int'l Journal of Hindu Studies

When checking notability for Being Different, I noticed that nearly every usable citation is to the International Journal of Hindu Studies. The journal looks reliable on its face, but according to our article on Rajiv Malhotra, the book's author, his foundation provides funding for the journal. It's hard for me to tell how much entanglement there is there. Should reviews of the book in this journal be considered independent, and thus reliable for purposes of establishing notability? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"according to our article on Rajiv Malhotra...": After I tracked down the citation within the Malhotra article to Mittal (2006), I discovered that the reference does not support the statement in the article (search on the journal name or see page xiv HERE). Springer is a well-respected publisher. Most of the articles themselves offer substantial criticism of the book. The only indicator here of "entanglement" is an unsupported claim in an unreliable source (namely, Wikipedia itself, which we treat as unreliable). --Presearch (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's good to know. Can you suggest other reasons for which repeated reviews of this book come plentifully but almost exclusively from a single journal? It's still suspicious. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The book was regarded as important, so discussing it was clearly made the focus of a special issue. That's not an everyday occurrence in academic journals, but it's not highly uncommon either (and its frequency varies from journal to journal and discipline to discipline, and is more common for target articles than target books, but books are done, too). The fact that it was judged worthy of a special issue, and that many academics around the world responded with multipage commentaries, speaks favorably to the book's notability. Many of the articles lodged serious criticisms (as well as favorable comments), and Malhotra was given a response. This is all typical for sections of extensive academic commentary. Nor is the book discussed "almost exclusively" in this journal - there are reviews in two other academic journals. There's nothing "suspicious" I've seen here. -- Presearch (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if notability is in question, you'd want reviews or responses in other sources too: one journal is just one journal. Andrew Dalby 18:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean, since Footnote 3 of the General Notability Guideline (HERE) suggests that "a series of publications... in the same periodical is normally counted as one source". However, the issue seems moot since there have been discussions in 3 different journals. --Presearch (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Overall, then, I think discussion in 3 journals, including a whole special issue in one of them, places this book above the notability threshold. The range of contributors in that special issue outweighs the legitimate query about COI and suggests that its treatment of the book should be regarded as reliable and fit for our use. Andrew Dalby 08:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Using an Armenian source in an Armenian related dispute in a BLP article

Apparently, Hamid Algar engaged in a verbal confrontation with some Armenian students demonstrating on campus back in 90s. The question is whether Armenian-written sources such as this can be used to narrate the account of the event or we need a third-party independent source to describe the story.--Kazemita1 (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it can can be used, especially if there are no better sources to describe the story. But you are placing almost the same question already third time on this noticeboard, in addition to placing in on BLP noticeboard. Do not you think this is an overkill? My very best wishes (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, plus you can use this as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Student periodicals are not suitable for BLP articles as mentioned here. and no these are separate questions I am asking each time. The first time it was about student periodicals and the second time purely about Armenian sources in an Armenian related dispute.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

There was no meaningful discussion and consensus that student periodicals are never suitable for BLP. In fact, they are suitable to describe something related to student affairs, as in this case. Same about periodicals that focus on various matters interesting for specific ethnic communities. Do you suggest that events described in these sources never happened? My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

How is it not RS? And it can be used to supplement the Armenian source, which is also RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with My very best wishes and Darkness Shines. A search of WP:RSN for "student newspapers" and related terminology indicates various discussions that reveal that those types of publications are generally acceptable. Context, of course, matters. Location (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

referenceforbusiness.com

I was examining this edit to Operations management, that contained sentences like "The reason why it has been gaining recognition because we started to see how successful the manufacturers products are in Japan and how least successful they are in America." which suggest it's being copied poorly from other sources. The only source offered was [52] which strangely didnt work for me, while [53] does.

I was unable to find any information at referenceforbusiness.com on where their articles come from, their editing process, etc. beyond that the copyright holder is http://www.advameg.com/ . I searched around referenceforbusiness.com further and found articles copied from inc.com without attribution (as in [54] vs [55]), so I removed the edit and notified the editor.

Then I thought to search referenceforbusiness.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com and found to my surprise that it is used across many articles.

Am I missing something here? Should we be using referenceforbusiness.com as a reference? --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Can a fansite ever be considered as a reliable source?

As I was working on the article Ed, Edd n Eddy, I noticed that it was using toonzone.net as a reference. I know that this website has received some opposition on this board before and initially, I was quite skeptical of it myself. Having discussed the matter with an editor who supports the website though, I've been unable to come to much of a conclusion on it either way. It appears to be a fansite of sorts, which is why I am hesitant about using it, but if any fansite could ever be considered as a reliable source, it would probably be this one.

Now, I'm not sure that any of the writers have credentials apart from their work on the website, but they do seem to comprise a "staff" of sorts. While it doesn't seem that this is a full time job for any of them (this page [56] classifies them as "volunteers"), they do have specific titles and duties. This page [57] mentions news editors, reporters, moderators, graphic designers, administrators, and webmasters. Also, as opposed to just reporting rumors or information that they get from other publications, this page [58] (unfortunately, the original page from ToonZone seems to have gone dead, but there is no reason to doubt that it was transcribed correctly) indicates that the website actually engages in its own investigative journalism. The main reason why I think that ToonZone might possibly constitute a reliable source is because of the incredible reputation that it has managed to acquire. This link [59] includes praise from two-dozen professionals in the field of animation and quite a few professional publications have even used the website as a source. Here are the links.

Apparently the website has also been cited by The Oakland Tribune, The Chicago Sun-Times, and The Kansas City Star, although I have not actually seen links for those. I'm definitely opposed to using critical reviews from ToonZone on Wikipedia, but am unsure whether it might be suitable for referencing certain pieces of information. In this article specifically, it is being used to cite a description of what happened during a panel at Comic-Con. In any practical sense at least, I don't see why the website should not be considered as reliable for this kind of information; it's not exactly difficult to accurately write down something that was said at Comic-Con and the above sources all see the writers for ToonZone as trustworthy. I recognize though, that the website might not meet everybody's standards and since Ed, Edd n Eddy is a Featured Article, I feel like there should be a consensus on this if it is to remain as a reference. --Jpcase (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I, as most know, support ToonZone. It might be worth mentioning that The Spectacular Spider-Man producer Greg Weisman seems to be a ToonZone follower, according to an interview with IGN.

According to this discussion. the three publications you named (Oakland Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, Kansas City Star) cited ToonZone in several pay-per-view articles found in a Google News search; the discussion is from 2010 though, perhaps that's why Google News can't find the articles anymore ... --Khanassassin ☪ 18:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

United States Census Bureau Report

Is an official Census Bureau study stating the number of people who self-describe as Christian Scentists a reliable source for the number of Christian Scientists in the US? [71] is the diff showing the Census Bureau page at [72] which shows variabilty in results over a period of years, which is taken by some to mean the figures must perforce be wrong, and that the study is a "primary document" not allowed by Wikipedia. I suggest that a poll which showed no variability would be highly suspicious <g> and that rejecting US governemt reports as not meeting RS is silly - that this is the precise type of fact-listing primary source that is specifically allowed on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, we use a figure of "under 100,000" from that greatly respected statistical source on American demographics - the New York Times.

Query: Is the Census Bureau not a WP:RS source? Is a "primary source" for American demographics not a reliable source for Wikipedia claims as to American demographics? Is the New York Times article at [73] a superior reliable source for a factual claim as to number of Americans self-identifying as Christian Scientists? And as that group does not seem to keep "membership rolls" is "self-described" sufficient to state number of adherents?

NYT text: Though officials do not provide membership statistics, scholars estimate that the church’s numbers have dropped to under 100,000 from a peak of about twice that at the turn of the 20th century.

Thanks. Collect (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

In general demographic data from the United States Census Bureau are reliable sources. They are far more reliable than say a population figure given by the The First Church of Christ, Scientist themselves (who would be a primary source).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The only other figure proffered as being usable is from the NYT ascribed to unnamed "scholars". Some editors are positive the number must be lower from personal knowledge, but I rather supsect the Census Bureau trumps personal knowledge in any case. Collect (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree... There is a common misconception that we are not allowed to use primary sources (like Census data) in Wikipedia. We can. We must use extreme caution when using them (See WP:PSTS for more on that), but we can use them. Blueboar (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Reading the NYT source, I would not call it superior. The USCB has a known and well documented system of creating their demographic data and are normally very transparent (with Congressional oversight even), however the NYT doesn't provide the raw data and the "scholars" are unknown to the reader. Their data can be attributed to the source, but I would prefer the USCB data if I had to chose one or the other.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that the ARIS poll numbers are not described as a being derived by potentially faulty methodology. They are guesses, not actual populations. All other secondary sources describe a religion that has been diminishing in population since the 1970s, so this ARIS poll should not be accepted as fact. Other sources tell a story of multiple church closings, the lack of young church-goers to replace the natural loss from death, the unsuccessful attempts by CS to attract more adherents, etc. This widely known situation cannot be reversed by one guesstimate poll. Note the complete absence of news articles describing a notional boom in CS population. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The US Census poll is not reliable for the claims you wish to make. It was not designed to be as accurate as you wish it to be with small religious groups, but to give very rough ballpark figures, at best. With a sample size of only about 50 respondents answering that they were Christian Scientists, the margin of error would be far too great to justify either the level of accuracy you wish to convey, nor the contention that there has been an increase in the number of Christian Scientists over time. The report is based solely on raw data, with no interpretation. No one at the Census Bureau would stand behind either of the claims you wish to make. Sorry, but you're using an inadequate source for the claims you wish to make. The source is undoubtedly reliable for a wide-ranging ballpark figure, but you go far beyond the intentions of the designers of the survey when you portray them as anything more than that, or to use them to contradict more precise surveys and scholarly calcualtions. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Your point is valid, that the ARIS poll did not tap enough people in order to determine how many Christian Scientists are in the US. They estimated 228,182,000 adults in the US in 2008, and from their poll responses they estimated 339,000 of them to be CS. This is 0.15% of the population, which implies that 0.15% of their poll respondees said they were CS. Out of 54,461 interviews they conducted in 2008, about 80–81 of these said they were CS. The margin of error is too great with such a vanishingly small pool. A much better methodology is to examine the number of churches and CS groups, and estimate the population of each based on typical observed sizes. Such a methodology was used by The Atlantic in 1995 to arrive at a population of 100,000 CS adherents in the US: "Suffering Children and the Christian Science Church". The same article estimated 7,000 CS children existed in the US in 1989; these few children are not enough to populate a notional (and unbelievable) 175% increase in numbers from 2001 to 2008. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Aha -- you know that the figures can not be right! Unfortunatrely for you, the poll is more accurate than your assertion that "number of churches limits number of self-described adherents." If so, then Russia could not ever have had many Orthodox Christians when there were virtually no churches <g>. Personally, I regard huge polls (>50,000) to be fairly accurate - and to assert that it is off by a factor of three is mind-boggling. BTW, AFAICT, Christian Scientists do not have to attend churches - in fact it appears that most self-described adherents do not attend CS churches. So working to numbers that way is pretty useless. If the number labile? Yep. But so are political affiliations in the US. Collect (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Caroline Fraser in The Atlantic gives absolutely no methodology att all. Nada. None. So your refererenc to the "methodology" of that journal is risible. Collect (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

[EC] This discussion raised my eyebrows for several reasons, one of which is that the Census Bureau doesn't measure religious affiliation. The data source is the American Religious Identification Survey, not the Census. The Census Bureau's statistical abstract of the United States (a very reliable source, IMO) merely reports the information, accurately and reliably. Counts of membership/adherents of religious denominations are often challenged; the numbers depend on who's counting, who they count as a member or adherent, and how they go about collecting the information. When there are conflicting numbers from reliable sources (such as ARIS and the denomination itself) Wikipedia should report the different numbers and tell where they come from. If there's a problem here, it's the perceived need to report exactly one value in the Wikipedia article's infobox. --Orlady (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The 100,000 figure has been repeatedly added to the infobox. I suggest a factor of three error in a large poll is unlikely. Collect (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

A factor of three error is very, very likely. A factor of 10 is what I would expect from the sample size. The sample was far too small to obtain the level of accuracy you desire. Definitely far to small to ralk about trends. Sorry, but raw numbers from crude surveys like this don't mean much unless they have been interpreted by qualified scholars in reliable secondary sources, which is not the case here. The conclusions you have drawn are based on your own OR improperly using primary sources.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the ARIS report itself reports "a standard error of under 0.5 percent for the full sample" [74]. For very small groups like the Christian Scientists, this completely dominates the result. For large groups, it's a very good margin of error. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

"A factor of three is very. very likely"???? With a small number, the square root is a good approximation for "one sigma" -- you assert that a 6+sigma variation is "very, very likely". Last I looked, the odds of being that far off on a large poll (positing that 81 is statistically a large enough number to use statistical analysis on) are about 50 to 1. So much for "likely." Meanwhile, there are zero reliable sources for any other statistical analysis. BTW, a "factor of ten" is at the 9 sigma level roughly -- or a bit under one in a thousand. Likely? As for using USCB published studies -- and calling them OR -- that is as big a misuse of "OR" in a post as every made on Wikipedia! And stephen -- the "error" is not based on the largest number - but on the number in the subset - read up on Probability and Statistics ... Statisticians use the number in the exact response, and determine individual error likelihoods on each. Collect (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Umm... nope. Don't know where you pulled that out of. And using a source for a purpose it was not designed for is indeed OR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Collect appears to have been pulling his statements out of orthodox statistics textbooks. This suggests that the propositions that “No one at the Census Bureau would stand behind either of the claims you wish to make” and that Collect is “using a source for a purpose it was not designed for” imply that somebody has personally asked someone at the Bureau. Is this inference accurate?

The ARIS academic research team uses random-digit-dialed telephone interviews.[75] Presuming that more children have been given own telephone numbers, the 2008 sample would seem to have rather less bias error than the 1990 survey.

A random sample n > 10,000 is a “very large random sample”. If pn > 30, you can use it to calculate a working estimate for any pN, no matter how large.

Note. The Census Bureau mentions (but doesn′t directly recommend) the American Religion Data Archive as a source for religious data.[76] See American Denominations: Church of Christ, Scientist. The membership data are most likely fraudulent, because most editors or publishers would have known that they were made-up. The data on churches maybe could be used—with great care−to estimate trends within certain time frames. Reported number of churches: 1993–1995 average = 2,400; 1998–2002 average = 2,100. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Collect did not tell me or others on the page that he had started this discussion. All secondary sources that I'm aware of say that, at the height of its popularity in 1936, the church had around 270,000 members in the US, and that the figure is now under 100,000 (many sources say considerably less than this). The only source that differs is the church, which I believe says 400,000.

An editor arrived a few weeks ago on the talk page with the American Religious Identification Survey from 2008, which put the figure at 339,000. Collect is now being very aggressive about repeatedly restoring this to the lead and infobox; it is too much information for the lead even if accurate, but it's also highly problematic. In addition, Collect appears to believe that the Census Bureau report and the ARIS are different things, and is reporting them in the lead as two separate surveys. [77]

This was discussed on the article's talk page in March, and there were objections to including it. The survey suggested that there were 339,000 Christian Scientists in the United States in 2008, and 194,000 in 2001, so that the figure is growing significantly. But this contradicts all the secondary sources and all the evidence; the Christian Scientist on the talk page also agrees that there is something odd about it. [78] So I think the survey should be ignored entirely, or at most reported in the section about the church. But it definitely shouldn't be in the lead or infobox. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Aggressive? First - I was not the only one adding the Census Bureau publication. Two - the agreement here seems to be that the USCB is a reliable source publisher of a survey - and thus is not a "primary source" and if it were, governmental primary sources are generally used on Wikipedia. As to numbers being labile in surveys - they may well be, but that does not make the survey non-existent. I would point out that the Wicca figures also vary over time. In fact, if a survey showed no chabnges, that would be far more unusual. Cheers -- but deleting reliable sources with genuine statistical backing in favour of "unnamed scholars" seems against Wikipedia policy. Lastly, as this is a noticeboard for getting independent views, I think iterating arguments from a talk page is pretty useless. YMMV. Collect (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Collect, you began this noticeboard entry with your argument. How can you expect only your voice to prevail, when others have valid arguments? You cannot stifle discussion in this manner. All editors are invited to noticeboards. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What Collect expects is not pertinent. (What all Wikipedia editors expect is that the participants will be addressing their attention to each others′ comments about the topic.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Whoa everyone. Let's simmer down here. The primary question of this noticeboard is is X a RS for Y content. Can there be more than one RS for a given figure, or different figures? Sure. I think as was suggested above, being inclusive of the reliable sources that are available and listing them with attribution to the sources would provide the most information to the readers of the article in question. Would this compromise be OK?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree on both points. Collect’s sources appear to me to be more authoritative; but listing both estimates is helpful. It discloses the existence of a serious and interesting dispute about even the most objective property of the group: its size. (About which I have no opinion, should anyone care.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, the data can differ depending on geographical location. Pass a Method talk 09:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Report from the RefDesk(Science)( Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#accuracy_of_a_poll): My understanding of the statistics is sound, and those who asserted otherwise have been shown factually wrong by others who also have had courses in probability and statistics. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What an asinine sort of remark. Let folks read on the RefDesk noticeboard that the number to a 95% confidence level would be 270,000 to 410,000 and the odds of being "off by a factor of three" are on the order of one in a million. As for rejecting statistics but allowing "estimates" by unknown "scholars" that path leads to insanity on Wikipedia <g>. Collect (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, Collect, while Stephan's terse comment could stand to be a bit more detailed, he is correct that your synopsis of the RD/Sci discussion is...less-than-sufficiently nuanced. The Ref Desk discussion appears to have identified a number of plausible ways in which a report like this could inadvertently be susceptible to overestimating the population of small-minority groups. For instance, the 95% CI you've quoted was calculated by Bowlhover, who in his very next sentence notes that the number could be badly skewed by even a miniscule false positive rate (per false positive paradox).

Of course, all this is somewhat moot. The Census Bureau is a generally reliable source, and we shouldn't be second-guessing figured published under their imprimatur without reliable sources offering viable alternative data. (If there are other sources which have made a credible attempt to produce a better number, we should certainly also consider them, particularly if they explicitly touch on the census data in their coverage.) It's also worth bearing in mind that there is a distinction between the number of people who might identify with a particular faith in a telephone survey, versus the number who actually attend services regularly, versus the number who actually follow a more-or-less strict version of that faith's teachings. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Again - the USCB "published" the study of 54,000 people done by a group which has now done several such studies. The argument that it could be off by a factor of three was risible -- and the argument that polls in general can have "false positives" is true of every single poll ever made <g>. And "false negatives" also exist, of course. Actually - I think that religious affiliation is far more labile than some assert, and that saying "fewer peope attend services" of a group which does not stress religious services is less useful than a large survey is. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Polling data can only be used as a measure of religious self-identification, not as a measure of membership. I don't know if the Christian Scientists can be included among those who keep rigorous statistics, but for example Gallup polls of Episcopal Church affiliation consistently show twice the membership tallied from church records. The ARIS numbers can be taken as reliable measures of affiliation, but cannot be compared to membership numbers. Mangoe (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The actual church appears to assert about 400,000 ... but was ruled out as a "self-serving claim" on the talk page. In short - less discrepant with the ARIS figures than with the unsourced NYT figures (the Atlantic figure is simply a "claim by assertion" without any claim that it is based on any actual study). Collect (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Update: One of the editors now opines

There is no snark in my recommendation not to represent the 2008 ARIS number in Wikipedia's voice. When Wikipedia editors are faced with multiple sources in conflict we attribute the various conflicting reports. In representing to the reader that the church has been in a long decline since about 1941, the fact being reliably sourced, any increase in membership will be hard to accommodate in prose

Is a reliable source excludable on those grounds -- that because it contradicts what we are telling the reader, that therefore it ought not be used? I found this a quite interesting position -- that facts which contradict what we tell readers should be excluded because what we assert as fact would be "hard to accomodate in prose". [79] Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You are arguing against a point that I did not make; your argument is against a position that nobody holds, the classic straw man. The ARIS poll is going to be mentioned and attributed, not excluded. Binksternet (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The precise quote from that editor is given in italics. I take it from this post that you have ;;no objection;; to using the statistically valid reliable source poll figures from ARIS published by the Census Bureau in that article and infobox? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to continue to object. The ARIS data specifically denies the validity of representing their values as membership numbers. You can see for the "Anglican" column a discrepancy of about a million between the ARIS affiliation count and actual tallied membership, which itself is a little inflated because the base data isn't kept as up-to-date as it might be. I can tell you that the continuing Anglicans and ACNA do not have anything like a million members between them. The NYT number seems intended to be represented as a membership number, and an average membership of around sixty is a much more plausible value than the well over two hundred that the ARIS numbers would give. In any case the range of numbers tends to imply a certain uncertainty, all the more so since other sources refuse to provide any value. The ARIS numbers could be included in the body of the article with appropriate caveats, but they categorically cannot be included in the infobox as "members". Mangoe (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Huh? The claim is that 339,000 Americans self-identify with that church. The concept of "membership cards" was not asked nor imputed by ARIS at all. Are church self-identification numbers labile? Yep. But your assertion that ARIS self-identification numbers are off by a facotr of five *60,000???) is on the order of a likelihood of one in a hundred million per discussion at the RefDesk <g>. Meanwhile, no numbers are in the infobox. I guess several editors are so absolutely certain they know the truth that solid statistical evidence is moot <g>. Collect (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you keep confusing sampling error with the many other sources of error, several of which are also discussed at the ref desk. That does not make the source unusable, but it does raise enough of a red flag to require explicit attribution and careful phrasing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Collect, enough with the drama. I am aware that the number isn't in the infobox—and it should stay that way. I said exactly the opposite of "don't use the number at all," so you can stop berating me about that. My point is that, regardless of how good you or anyone else thinks the number is as a matter of self-identification, the article needs to make very clear that this isn't a membership number, because everyone who works with these statistics knows that affiliation survey numbers tend to be two or more times actual membership numbers for groups that keep and publicize good records. It's not impossible for both the NYT and ARIS numbers to be accurate, but if any number goes in the infobox, it's the former. If we choose to report only the ARIS numbers we have to also say that a membership count is unknown. But really, I don't see the problem with reporting both sources, since they do not contradict each other. Mangoe (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: SlimVirgin asserts that the ARIS numbers are an "anomaly" and "disputed". Might someone tell me that an editor "knowing" a figure is an "anonaly" makes a source other than reliable? I would note the RefDesk unanimous consensus was that the number is highly unlikely to be greatly in error. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to note that all the figures are in the article. The issue is that Collect is repeatedly restoring the ARIS figure to the lead, as though it is unproblematic, so that the lead now looks contradictory, and is placing one poll on a par with the scholarly sources. [80] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

FWIW: The only "scholarly methodology" given was "multiplying number of churces by 87 because that was the ratio used in 1936" <g>. Somehow I think a survey of 54K people is more accurate than that particular "scientific methodology". Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't more accurate because they are not measures of the same thing; as a measure of membership the ARIS numbers are inaccurate, as ARIS itself says. And as we have said many times over: Collect, you have no standing to object to the estimation method. Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)