Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 163

Archive 160

Archive 161

Archive 162

Archive 163

Archive 164

Archive 165

→

Archive 170

Helmuth Von Glasenapp

Is the following source reliable?

Source: Glasenapp, Helmuth von (1999). Jainism: An Indian Religion of Salvation. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 494. ISBN 978-81-208-1376-2.

Article: Jainism and Hinduism

Content:

Helmuth Von Glasenapp writes that the difference in the rituals of practitioners of the two religions would be that the Jains do not give any importance to bathing in holy water, cremating or burying ascetics, offering sacrifices to the dead and burning widows.

--Rahul (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not an optimal source, since the book was written in 1925. You should use more recent scholarship. The author is the subject of an article on the German Wikipedia, if you want more information about him. TFD (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Also his information is wrong. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The de.wiki article says that some of his works are still considered standard. Does this have any bearing on the case? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It explains why Motilal Banarsidass reprinted his book: unlike some, they don't reprint just anything :) I'd agree with TFD, though, that we ought to look for reliable sources more recent than 1925. Andrew Dalby 12:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the work is still considered as one of the standards. This might be of interest: [1] In this review (of another book), peter flugel mentions Glasenapp as one of the only four authoritative textbooks on Jainism. --Rahul (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The linked book review says Von Glasenapp presents "canonical and classical Jain doctrines in ahistorical terms. Not much consideration is given to the differences between canonical and classical Jainism, nor to post-classical, medieval and modern developments...." That is like writing about Christianity, but ignoring Protestantism. These are the types of problems that one expects modern scholarship to address. Many classic texts in social sciences are still used in college readings, for example Marx, Weber, Freud, but students are made aware of their limitations. TFD (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

So what to do? I have used this source extensively on Jainism and related topics. Should it be replaced by other sources everywhere? --Rahul (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

We wouldn't rule out the use of this book: Judith's point above is relevant to your question. But, since this is a major world religion, one could reasonably hope for later reliable sources on the same issues. If there are, we should prefer them. Scholarly approaches will have changed since 1925, and later work will sometimes be better informed. Andrew Dalby 10:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I would not remove material sourced to this book unless subsequent scholarship contradicts it. A lot of older articles on Wikipedia were created by copying out of copyright sources. The War of 1812 for example was copied from the 1910 Encyclopedia Britannica. Some have no sources at all. I would say though that going forward we try to find more up to date sources. TFD (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Car racing websites

I'm performing the DYK review for Lavaggi LS1. The article cites Racingsportscars.com, Planetlemans.com, and Ultimatecarpage.com. The Racingsportcars.com citations are to pages describing the results of races. The site solicits this information from anonymous volunteers (see the "Contributions" section of the site's About page). This puts it somewhere between questionable (for lack of editorial oversight) and user-generated, unless I'm missing something. The other two sites don't say a lot about their editorial policies, so I thought I'd come here for guidance. Thanks. Lagrange613 19:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Since this is a reasonably specialized field with few active editors in, I guess I'll have to duck out of my break once again to state my case here. Racingsportscars.com clearly states that the contributions are for the photographs, and the race programmes. As a result, it's a reliable source; if they're pulling things straight from a race programme, then it will be accurate. There are plenty of results for races on this website that are almost impossible to find anywhere else. In my experience, it's always been accurate; in fact, on occasion, more so than an official source (some of the British GT championship archives are incorrect, as they are inexplicably missing cars out altogether from some races, even when they ran.) It is also a source that has been used for years on Wikipedia, and in GAs although I know how little the former means.
• Planetlemans is the one that I'm really surprised is being questioned. It's a source with a wide amount of uses here, and one with a fairly good reputation; again, everything checks out against other sources that are definitely reliable, and it has been used in GAs.
• Ultimatecarpage is the only one that could be considered questionable, in my eyes. I use it predominantly for car specifications, but it could justifiably be seen to be a "case-by-case" thing. For example, if the article clearly cites its source as a company press release, then it is going to be reliable. The potentially questionable thing would be anything done by Wouter Melissen, although I would say he is reliable, just given what I've seen and have verified myself. One thing to back that up is [2], which is a piece he wrote for a reliable source, and the fact that High Gear Media list him as one of their writers, although I don't know if that means much.
• I realize that a lot of this is talking from my own personal experiences, and that this may not wash with some people; all I can give beyond this is my word that if I thought a source personally to be unreliable (and unless this RSN finds massive factual errors being abundant in any of these websites, it won't change my opinion; I'm sure anyone who has encountered me before knows how stubborn I can be about some things), I would not use it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

For both Racingsportscars.com and Ultimatecarpage.com you seem to be asserting that reliability is somehow inherited from one's sources, and that's simply not the case. Suspecting a source's information to be true is necessary but not sufficient; we also need some indication that the source has a process for weeding out false information. The requirement in WP:SOURCES of "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" sums it up nicely. You're asserting accuracy; what I'm looking for is an indication of fact-checking. Lagrange613 15:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oh come on. If something is coming straight out of a race programme, or an official results list, then it is going to be reliable and accurate, and no further checking is going to be required; this is not "suspecting a source's information to be true", this is common sense - and if you're not seeing that, then I'm afraid your knowledge in this area is too limited for you to be participating in properly (wrt analysing a source's reliability/verifiability/accuracy/whatever). And I'm not doing anything of the sort with Ultimatecarpage.com; they either requote a press release (in which case it is as reliable as the press release is), or they use the writings of someone who can verifiably be seen to have written for reliable sources. As I've said, when I've verified these sources against other ones, they've been found to be accurate, and in some cases, more so than official sources, which contained errors. If a source is accurate, then the facts are fine, and the source is reliable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Please also include mulsannescorner.com in your considerations here. It is also cited in the Lavaggi LS1 article, and in many other car racing related articles, and has been added to many racing car articles by User:Mulsannescorner who states on his user page that he is "the Editor of the website Mulsanne's Corner, http://www.mulsannescorner.com." - start at the bottom of this list, and work up to see them. Jaggee (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Mulsanne's Corner can potentially be variable. The relevance of the Mulsannescorner user is marginal at best; I can see clear improvements that they've made, regardless of if they've cited themselves as the source or not; they were last active in 2012, and their talk page shows a clear encouragement from WikiProject Sports Car Racing in 2006 to contribute; this shows that the source is well regarded. Their specifications and such things are highly reliable, and have always cited reliable sources for their data in my experience; they're also the best source of aerodynamic data that I've seen on the web. The potentially "questionable" Mulsanne's Corner section is the "news" section. In the Lavaggi LS1 article, the particular source comes as a direct quote from Lavaggi himself, and his team's Sports Director, so it is reliable. Fuller can be found being quoted in reliable sources, such as [3], and is a published author and has been an aerodynamicst for several teams. So I'm pretty damn sure that source is reliable as well, particularly for anything to do with the aerodynamics of racing cars; the guy knows what he's talking about. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

... Bueller? Can we please get some community input on this? The DYK review is languishing, and as Jaggee points out this question has the potential to affect other articles as well. In at least one case editors are waiting on this thread to establish consensus so they can make changes to a GA if necessary. Lagrange613 17:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I've found something that clearly states that WikiProject Motorsport regard Mulsanne's Corner and Planet Le Mans to be reliable: see this list. The list was last updated in 2009, and is clearly incomplete (things like Sky Sports F1 haven't been added, just as an example) so the lack of Ultimatecarpage.com and Racingsportscars.com on the page doesn't mean anything per-se. And no, User:Mulsannescorner did not add their own website to the list, just in case anyone wants to query that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

  So Pc13 thought the sources were reliable when that user added them to this list in 2008. That counts for something, but it's not consensus. Lagrange613 20:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• And for those two, they are reliable enough to be in the Sports Car GAs on the Howmet TX, and the Jaguar XJ220, as well as the Allard J2X-C article that is the centre of some dispute. So 3/5 articles on sports cars have passed GA using those sources. UCP is also a reference in the GA-standard BMW M1 Procar Championship, whilst RSC is present as an external link in the 2007 24 Hours of Le Mans GA. In fact, UCP is actually used as a reference in WikiProject Sports Car Racing's sole FA; the Maserati MC12 article, and it was present during the FA review as well. I think that says enough. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

  The uses in the promoted articles also count for something. However, let's keep in mind that many of those promotions are quite old, and the standards have risen over time. The only articles to be promoted in the last five years are Allard J2X-C and Jaguar XJ220, and in both cases the citation to the website at issue is supported by another source. Per WP:ELMAYBE a source can be not reliable but still be suitable as an external link. In any case, I'd rather we not be circular. The correct order is to establish reliability and then to judge their inclusion in articles. This is why it's come up over at Allard J2X-C. Lagrange613 20:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• They may be old cases, yes, but a source doesn't become unreliable overnight; it is the notability criteria that has changed the most, not the judgement of sources. I've already established that all of the sources are reliable, and that clearly a lot of others agree. Two of the disputed sources are included on the Wikiproject's reliable source list, and the other two are used in GAs and FAs; beyond that, I've also presented evidence of their reliability, and your previous quibbles with semantics haven't shown anything otherwise. These are not tiny websites that no-one in this subject area had ever heard of, or ones that had been unused. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Using a commercial website as a source if it has valuable encyclopedic information

dndclassics.com is a website that I first visited earlier this week. It is an offshoot of DriveThruRPG and OneBookShelf and hosts the same content there, but focusing solely on Dungeons & Dragons products. It is a blatantly commercial site, intended to sell PDFs of both new and out of print RPG material. And I want to use it to source a whole bunch of articles.

Hold on, before you go thinking I'm crazy (if it's not already too late), I have a good reason. What I found in my browsing is that a lot of the product pages have detailed histories accompanying them. The ones I like best are the ones written by Shannon Appelcline – an established game designer, owner of RPGnet, and author of the non-fiction book Designers & Dragons. Designers & Dragons is a history (or series of histories, company by company) of the RPG industry, which originally began as a recurring column on RPGnet, and which Appelcline compiled into a single source in 2011, and has expanded significantly for a second printing (I believe) later this year. I have found his work to be particularly well-researched, detail oriented, and informative in just the right way to be used as a very valuable source for adding encyclopedic content to Wikipedia articles. Appelcline also has a Designers & Dragons column on RPGnet, which includes two big articles, full of links to these product histories, and recognizes them as real, researched histories.

As for the histories I found in dndclassics/drivethrurpg, who knows, I would not be surprised if they are eventually compiled into a book as well, or at least hosted at a less commercial site, but for now they are hosted on a site that has an "add to your cart" button on each page, which is why I am concerned that other people would be concerned. In reading through these product histories, I found them to be just as valuable as his earlier work. These numerous product information pages go into the exact sort of detail that I would need to really build up Wikipedia pages – both to add nice flourishes to articles that are already in great shape, and to add some meat to articles that are struggling. These histories include what was happening at the publishing company at the time, other works those authors were involved in, where the books fit in the history of the game and the publisher, what purpose the books were intended to serve, and other insights that are not available anywhere else. The histories are not written by or for the publisher (TSR/Wizards of the Coast), but they are likely benefitting the retailer website.

I am looking for feedback before I start using these histories, so that if I am challenged later, I know how to respond. If you need any examples on what I would do with this, I can respond later today. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to tell you. Your best argument is that Shannon Appelcline is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. In this particular case, Appelcline has authored a book[4] published by Mongoose Publishing. However, you are not supposed to use an WP:SPS as a third-party sources about living people. That said, you still run the risk of other editors objecting and all your hard work going to waste. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Does this part of the WP:SPS guideline exempt Appelcline from concerns about using self-opublished sources (such as RPGnet)? "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from in your last two sentences, A Quest For Knowledge. Appelcline did not publish Designers & Dragons himself, and the product histories on drivethrurpg are not published by him either, but by the website (or so I assume). Please help me follow your train of though. BOZ (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is a small example of the kind of thing I would want to do with these articles. This page says that "Gygax says that the G-series modules were inspired by the "heroic adventuring" of The Incomplete Enchanter by Fletcher Pratt and L. Sprague deCamp." This is the sort of interesting fact that I would like to add to Against the Giants, which I am hoping to raise to FA one day. What this whole thing boils down to, is, how big of a problem would it be to use this as a source? BOZ (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Another example. This page states that Ravenloft (module) was called "Vampyr" before it was produced - that is a fact which the article currently does not state, but probably should. There are probably very many things I could glean from these histories; he is still writing them at this time, so who knows how much more I will be able to get out of them when he is finished. BOZ (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

First, let me just caution you that I don't know anything about Dungeons and Dragons or RPGnet. What I am saying is that the websites that you have listed are, generally speaking, not considered reliable sources. However, if you really want to use them, your best argument is that Appelcline is an established published expert which is allowed by WP:SPS. However, this argument is on thinner ice. IOW, this is a gray area. There is no definitive authority about whether a source is reliable or not. Ultimately, it comes down to what other editors think. Some editors might object; other editors might not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I get what you are saying. If someone challenges whether Appelcline is an expert on the subject matter or not, I guess I will have to address that when the time comes. I have already used other works of his quite a bit, so that may come up in the future regardless of whether I use the "dndclassics.com" pages as sources or not. So I guess that comes back to my original question then - is linking to the pages themselves, given that they are on a very clearly commercial website, allowed by Wikipedia's guidelines even if Appelcline could be considered an expert in the subject matter? BOZ (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to give you a second opinion... I think what AQFK says is right. The fact that these are commercial sources does not necessarily disqualify them... but it does make them questionable. Essentially its a judgement call... with the commercial nature of the website being somewhat off-set by the expertize of the author (Appelcline). If challenged, don't insist on useing them... explain why you used them, and then follow consensus of other editors. That said... I do have a suggestion: This is the kind of thing that I would use in text attribution for. Don't just say "Gygax was inspired by Pratt and deCamp. <cite drivethru>" ... say something along the lines of "According to RPG historian Shannon Appelcline, Gygax was inspired by Pratt and deCamp. <cite drivethru> "). That makes it a statement about what Appelcline says... not a statement about what Gygax actually did. Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

All sources are questionable. It depends on various factors. With a commercial site, you have the usual problem of (probable) lack of fact-checking you find with any small publication. With commercial sites you also have the problem of incentive to lie in order to make sales. I would not use a commercial site to reference "One of the best-written examples of its type". I would use a commercial site to reference "Was originally published in 1973" since there's no incentive to lie about that. (They could still be unintentionally wrong about that though, of course.) "Gygax was inspired by Pratt and deCamp" is kind of in the middle there. In theory the writer could be saying that in order to goose sales. Against that you have that the author is named and is an actual expert with a reputation to uphold, so realistically this is not what's happening here. Since there's no fact-checking (probably) -- no editor saying "Wait, how do you know that? Let's see your source" -- she could be wrong. Maybe she heard somebody say that Gygax said that but the person got it wrong; maybe she got Pratt confused with Anderson; whatever. Against that you have that the author is named and is an actual expert with a reputation for knowing this stuff so this is vanishingly unlikely. IMO it's quite acceptable. But as noted above you may run into editors who think differently. You may run into editors of the mind "Commercial site? Not allowed, period" without thinking much beyond that. There are all kinds of people here and some are black-and-white regarding their thinking on matters like this. So you might have to push back sometimes. It's worth it to improve the article, though, and BTW thank you for your initiative to do so. Herostratus (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everybody, I will keep all of this in mind.  :) I think it would also be a good idea for me to make and keep a list of wherever I wind up using such citations, so that when/if the histories are republished elsewhere on the internet or finally on paper, I can switch them out to something that people are less likely to object to. Appelcline appears to be trusted in the gaming community, but if it helps his reliability, in the back of Designers & Dragons he has listed (at least) a full page of sources he researched, including other previously published non-fiction books about RPGs and the industry and trade magazines, and a list of the dozens of industry professionals and insiders who fact-checked his work before he published it. Although he doesn't cite any sources in these product histories, since they are written in the same style and contain similar sorts of information as to what I have seen in the book, so I think it is fair to assume that the same sources are being used. No one is unimpeachable of course, and all people make mistakes, but until someone exposes him as being noticeably inaccurate or some kind of fraud, I consider him trustworthy. BOZ (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of possibly partisan sources about Muhammad Ilyas Qadri

Article: Muhammad Ilyas Qadri

Content: Summations wants to add the statement

"Many Great Sunni Muslim Ulma E Kiraam of the world like Kaukab Noorani Okarvi , Allama Hashmi Miyan , Mufti Faiz Ahmed Owaisi , Arshadul Qaudri , Muhammad Muneeb ur Rehman , Allamah Syed Irfan Shah Mashhadi ETC consider Ilyas Qadri is great Leader of Muslim Ummah"

Sources: For this statement the user initally cited:

• http://www.dawateislami.net/books/bookslibrary.do#!section:onlineRead_366.2.64 and
• http://www.scribd.com/doc/147949604/dawat-e-islami-ulma-e-ahle-sunnat-ki-nzr-main-mufti-faiz-ahmmad-owasi

and on being challanged, added

• http://www.dawateislami.net/books/bookslibrary.do#!section:onlineRead_366.2.2 and
• http://www.dawateislami.net/books/bookslibrary.do#!section:onlineRead_366.2.102

Other editors have argued that these sources are not indiependant of the indvidual Muhammad Ilyas Qadri and are from small publishers with no apparent editorial control.

Discussion: see Talk:Muhammad Ilyas Qadri#Views of Ulma E Ahlesunnat about Muhammad Ilyas Qadri for previous discussion of this matter. DES ^(talk) 21:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention , I have commented following in that discussion :- what are you saying and why are you not understanding and answering my questions? this is not only matter of sources my dear please read my previous comment... yes one book are from "Maktaba Tul Madina - Official Publishers of Dawat e Islami" but what written in that book? do you read? and what written in that book have video proof too in many videos website which I already given too... just for example in book suppose there in written that scholar Kaukab Noorani Okarvi said ilyas qadri is great leader , in book there is written proof but same u can see Kaukab Noorani Okarvi saying same in videos too that, then how and why this information not added? and I have mention other book too which are not from Official Publishers of Dawat e Islami , and please read that book because there not only written but there are mentioned original sources too , sources of old news papers , interviews etc... so please don't take it as personal/ego it is just information which people should knw. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summations (talk • contribs) 00:09, 6 January 2014‎

Summations, I am saying that I am not sure those sources are reliable sources to support that statement in a Wikipedia article (in line with the verifiability policy), and so I am asking here for other opinions. I have not commented further on the talk page because until I get a response from an uninvolved and knowledgeable editor her I have no further useful comment to make. (By the way, while I am sure it is intended as a gesture of friendship, some editors would prefer not to be addressed as "my dear" by a person that they do not know well.) DES ^(talk) 16:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

"Many Great Sunni Muslim Ulma E Kiraam of the world like" is a quick fail of WP:PEACOCK regardless of sources.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

DESiegel, Okay if you are not sure thn plz refer some knowledgeable editors to solve this matter... and about my dear , yes you are right agree with your though will be care in future...

And " Great Sunni Muslim Ulma E Kiraam " , yes agreed and got your point , but this should be edit mean word "great" can be removed but whole adding/editing should be mention for public information... I am waiting for u guys response . thanks --Summations (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

waiting for your ans........ --Summations (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Fan and Chen study

This is a request for opinions about the reliability of this study by Fan Lizhu and Chen na, which is cited in several articles about Chinese religions. It is the only reference for Bao ying, Yuan fen, Ming yun, Heilongdawang Temple, and Wu (Chinese religion). On Talk:Chinese folk religion I asked the user to provide publication citations but none have been given. Based upon the second paragraph's "this chapter" it appears to be an unpublished draft. Keahapana (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It is published as part of the series China Watch, by the Fudan-UC Centre for China Studies [5]. So it is self-published (since Fan is part of the Centre), but certainly Fan is an established expert. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This looks reliable, but I agree that multiple articles cited to a single source is not great. Perhaps the articles should be merged to Chinese folk religion or elsewhere. Formerip (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Passport

Jasmine Waltz has her age sourced by her passport. This contains a picture of it, but it's usually an unreliable source. Can I include it?--Launchballer 14:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you can't use a passport for personal details such date of birth regarding a living person. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT issue, as the source is still the Mirror. If you're saying it's unreliable then they cannot be trusted to report what her passport says. Mangoe (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

In this particular example, the source is the newspaper (a secondary source) that is itself referencing a primary source (a passport). How else to we source a birthdate? --Iantresman (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

But I have seen it - the article contains a scan of it!--Launchballer 17:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It makes no difference whether Launchballer has seen the passport (that is, held the passport in Launchballer's hands, tilted it to see all the holographic color changes, etc.). Launchballer is not a reliable source (nor is any other Wikipedia editor) so Launchballer's report of seeing the passport is unusable. What we do have is a newspaper website, the Mirror, that decided that the purported passport scan they obtained was reliable enough to publish. If Mirror were a reliable newspaper, like The Times (London) or the Washington Post, we could use the report in Wikipedia. I'm not familiar with the Mirror (but what I've seen so far doesn't raise my hopes). Jc3s5h (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That's what I meant, I've seen it through the Mirror article. I know I'm not a reliable source, I even wrote the essay Wikipedia:You are not a reliable source! Why I wasn't sure is because the Mirror is an unreliable source. Thanks anyway.--Launchballer 17:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd be hesitant to cite the Mirror for any sort of contentious material. The time the Mirror came up at RSN, editors didn't seem too impressed with it.[6] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Reporters can look up primary documents and report facts about a person's date of birth. Then we would have a reliable secondary source. But the Mirror article does not do that. It merely says that Waltz provided what she said was a copy of her passport that said she was born in 1979. TFD (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If there was no controversy over the date and nothing serious riding on it except to get the facts right in the article, I'd say that this source is sufficient. However in this case a newspaper which is not exactly the New York Times (understatement of the week) is making a claim in order to disprove information provided by the subject herself. The weak reputation of the newspaper means that you can't just present the newspaper's claim as fact. However, you might be able to get away with using the subject's given date in the lead, then later in the article or as footnote write something like "however, the Mirror newspaper published what it claimed was her passport showing the earlier date XXX". Even the Mirror is a reliable source for what the Mirror contains. Zero^talk 02:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

On second thoughts, even that might be a violation of WP:BLP. You could ask at WP:BLPN. Zero^talk 02:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Pindi Bhattian

Pindi Bhattian, a historical town of mid east of punjab has alway been the pivotal place of DULLE DI BAR. Pindi Bhattian is situated along the bank of the chenab at a distance of 110 km on the motorway from lahore. The town is surrounded by districts, nankana, sheikhupura, jhang, faisalabad and sargodha,whereas its own distt. headquarter hafizabad lies to its north 59km away. It situatet 622 ft above the see level.Its population 50,000. This historical town was established 800 years ago by the bhatties, migrated from jaisalmir, rajputana, india. Before them the hanjras were the landlords of this areas,but with the passage of time bhatties dominated. During the regime of mughal king Akber, Dulla Bhatti was a famous hero of this tribe. Stories of his bravery can read in the book Dulle-di-bar by historian and writer Prof. Asad Saleem Sheikh.

Pindi Bhattian's economy also mostly depends upon agriculture. The town has tehsil offices, judicial complex, THQ hospital, veternary hospital, boys and girls Degree Colleges, Technical College, vocational institute, 2 boys high and 1 girls higher secondary school and many other Govt and Private middle and primary schools,Also 2 bazaars,1 main and other Aaqal bazaar,many adjusent markets,rice and ice factories, A big taxtile unit Cresent Bahuman. It has mostly English medium institutions for education. All the secondary and intermediate educational institutions are affiliated with BISE Gujranwala. (REFERENCE;DULLE-DI-BAR BY ASAD SALEEM SHEIKH IZHAR SONS URDU BAZAAR LAHORE) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.187.22.237 (talk • contribs)

We do have an article on Pindi Bhattian. This posting may actually contain a reference to a source relevant to the article, i.e."Dulle-di-bar by historian and writer Prof.Asad Saleem Sheikh" if anyone has a moment to search for it. It doesn't have to be in English to be usable. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Intelius.com

This is a free people search engine used to source a lot of biographies, see [7]. Besides being pretty obviously not a reliable source, the ones I checked simply came up with a search enginge page with no data. Needs a clearup. Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. I recently had this conversation in a BLP when someone was trying to use it as a source for a birthdate. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Do we have a bot that can insert an {{unreliable source?}} template into these articles? Maybe leave a note on the talk page explaining why the tag was added? Let editors of each article decide if and how best to fix the issue? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Archaeology and Language

Is the following source reliable?

Source: Lamberg-Karlovsky, Carl C. (February 2002). Archaeology and Language: The Indo-Iranians (PDF). The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. pp. 63–84.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: year (link)

Article: Andronovo culture

Content:

Carl C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, a Professor of Archaeology and Ethnology, writes that the identification of the Andronovo cultural horizon is comprised by many different ethnological components, in particular by Indo-Iranian, Finno-Ugric, Proto-Turkic & Proto-Mongolic.

--Radosfrester (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Why give a wrong link and then tell us not to use it? I edited your text to use a working link. This seems to be an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal, so it meets WP:RS comfortably. You can check it's a a real article rather than a fake here. Zero^talk 02:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. --Radosfrester ^{talk to me} 22:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Removal of material with Ludwig von Mises Institute connections

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Here removal of material from Prof. Leland B. Yeager re: Jesus Huerta de Soto with relevant edit summary this reference, published by Mises Inst, where both are affiliated is not RS for noteworthiness (Huerta de Soto, a professor in Spain, also is a fellow; Yeager an author "Associated Scholar"- (later correction))
• Here removal of quotes from Yeager, Jörg Guido Hülsman and Ron Paul with edit summary: Delete praise from affiliates and colleagues at Mises Institute -- undue.) (Hulsman has spoken and written for the Institute; Ron Paul is a "Distinguished Counselor")
• Here delete material from Huerta de Soto with commentary on it by Gary North (economist) with edit summary: Delete material relating solely to intramural discussion within Mises Institute and its "fellows" and with no indication of public noteworthiness from independent RS unaffiliated parties (North is an Associated Scholar.)
• I reverted the material removed by User:SPECIFICO back writing revert back material; there is no general wikipedia consensus this material is not notable and some of this has already gone through long discussions and 12/29/13 User:MilesMoney reverted it back again here, pointing to his talk page entry which is called: "Removal of incestuous shoulder-patting/LvMI-related sources". Despite my reply, neither editor bothered to further defend their removal of the material.
  

So are they right and nothing from professors or notable figures who have some loose tie to the Ludwig von Mises Institute is ever allowed on Wikipedia? (Note that they did leave in criticism from another author published by the Institute, Larry J. Sechrest, whose criticism they evidently liked.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Since all the authors are "fellows" of the Mises Institute, the reference to "loose ties" does not apply to these individuals. The former Hulsmann article was deleted from English WP. There's no requirement for consensus prior to revert of BLP material. SPECIFICO talk 02:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This is all in relation to he BLP of an Austrian School economist, Jesus Huerta de Soto. The article doesn't currently say anything in the lead about why he is notable. It seems to me that editing the Spanish translation of Hayek does meet the notability requirement for an economist, so that needs to go into the lead. The source can be the Hayek books themselves. Then in the body of the article, when it discusses his other work, the emphasis should be on reviews of his books in academic journals, so that we can see how they have been received in the economics community. Spats on blogs with other Austrian School economists are unlikely to be of interest. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Itsmejudith for noting that the Hayek book connection is notable; we had a heck of a time keeping that in at all. I'm have a feeling there are a raft of academic journals that I can't find on the web and those who deal with the article and may have access haven't provided any info. But maybe it's time for me to learn how to use WP:The Wikipedia Library! :-)

Note that only Gary North was a blog, so I guess that can go (it was added originally by SPECIFICO anyway). The other two are from Journals or books. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith -Hello. In an earlier version of the article, there was additional detail about de Soto's contribution to the apparently aborted Spanish Hayek edition, of which only seven volumes were actually published. De Soto was responsible for footnotes, bibliographies and introductions. These are not chores of an economist but of an editor. De Soto is not credited with the translations. If editorial prep work is a mark of WP Notability, then tens of thousands of clerical workers at publishers around the world would be WP Notable. Moreover, the article currently presents [insert correction Hayek] De Soto as an economist, not an editor. The sources for this are primary source. Nothing to indicate it's been noted in independent WP:RS. However, the notability issue is peripheral to the question raised here by @Carolmooredc:. The deleted material referenced by Carolmooredc is all internecine praise from the walls of the Mises Insitute, not independent, and not noteworthy stuff to boot. Carolmooredc, it would be great if you could dig up some independent, peer reviewed journals -- independent of the Mises Institute -- or other independent RS about de Soto the economist. I encourage you to ply your efforts, but we can't use "editors' intuition" to support WP article text. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO may want to downgrade through his own comments and interpretation the importance of Huerta de Soto being chosen for the role of editor by the U of Chicago Press, but he still was and that is a fact. Actually, I just looked at my "add file" on Huerta de Soto and I see there are several items I'd found and hadn't gotten around to adding before I had to run off to deal with some new Austrian economics BLP where dubious, inflammatory or worse material was being added or perfectly good RS removed. Sigh. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's all stick to the subject of this thread??? Ron Paul, et al. Thx. SPECIFICO talk

Excuse me, you said it would be great if I added material and I merely replied I found some I forgot about and why I'd failed to add it (i.e., not just laziness; only so many hours budgeted for editing). No badgering, please. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

University Laudatio RS for BLP facts?

At this diff I rewrote the sentence on Huerta de Soto's role as "Spanish language" editor of The Collected Works of F.A. Hayek to conform with the sources and also used this ref: LAUDATIO in honour of Professor Jesús Huerta de SOTO from Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid on the occasion of the Doctor Honoris Causa Award Ceremony (10/22/10). It is a 20 page document written by several professors at the University which provides lots of details about Huerta de Soto. I'm sure I'll be challenged on any use of that document, so as long as this is open might as well check. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stay on topic here and at such time as it is appropriate, consider opening a separate thread for the Roumanian reference (which does not appear to have been peer-reviewed or otherwise vetted by an academic publication review.) SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It is on topic since another editor brought up moving this factoid (once properly described) to the lead. And since when are only "peer-reviewed or otherwise vetted by an academic publication" allowed in factoids about people for their bios? Off topic is your constant false claims of "off topic." (This whole Editor of Spanish edition was discussed ad nauseam on the talk page previously here and here.)Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI - I started Talk:Jesús_Huerta_de_Soto#Hayek_Spanish_Edition_revisted and have noted that this English language version of one of the Hayek collection books clearly states: Editor of the Spanish Edition: Jesus Huerta de Soto, which is more explicit than the listing in the seven Spanish language books currently used as references.

I was assuming that the role we were talking about was scholarly editing. As in Piero Sraffa editing the works of David Ricardo. If that was the role that de Soto played in relation to Hayek in Spanish, that meets WP:PROF. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

De Soto's role does not appear to have been original scholarly editing of historic texts such as you cite wrt Ricardo. De Soto was responsible for footnotes, bibliographies, and intros. SPECIFICO talk 23:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Cite for that claim please? Collect (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

His cv. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

His c.v. says he only does intros and footnotes? Interesting. Collect (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Jesús Huerta de Soto website, see Curriculum Vitae, Labor Editorial which reads: Editor of the Spanish edition: Jesus Huerta de Soto The work of the editor of the Spanish edition is to coordinate and manage the entire collection, specifically to engage translators, proofread the text, realize the pagination of the footnotes for the Spanish text, and write forewords and prefatory notes to the volumes in the Series.

Now the issue of the difference between a "scholarly" editor and any other kind of editor had not been brought up before so it seemed like SPECIFICO's wanting to add a description of what he did as editor was just an attempt to diminish and mock his role as editor. Obviously the fact that Huerta de Soto was chosen for the role at all in a notable collection is of some note on the notability scale. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you know that kitty litter is of some note on the radioactivity scale? Some, but not very much. By stating exactly how de Soto describes his participation we can obviate dispute as to its noteworthiness. On the other hand, Prof. Sraffa's Ricardo edition, cited by @Iselilja: was a much heralded scholarly achievement and a noteworthy contribution to the worldwide study of the history of economic thought. SPECIFICO talk 03:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Why not just say that only Nobel Prize winners in economics and incredibly noteworthy individuals like this should have articles. See Wikipedia is not a scientific journal or textbook. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I've seen nothing to indicate that this wasn't scholarly editing. Writing footnotes and intros is a key part of that role. The Laudatio is reliable for bibliographical facts. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

What's your basis for this evaluation, "The Laudatio is reliable for bibliographical facts"? More "relaiable" than de Soto's own cv on his personal website? What's scholarly about compiling references bibliographies and footnotes? Are all of us, WP editors, notable scholars? There should be some independent published source which would unambiguously refer to the noteworthiness of de Soto's work on the translation of the U Chicago books into Spanish. Hiring the translator really doesn't seem noteworthy to me. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The question in this thread is "University Laudatio RS for BLP facts?" WP:CONTEXTMATTERS applies (in all RS discussions) and there is nothing anywhere noway nohow to suggest that University Laudatio is not RS. 'Noteworthiness' of particular facts is a weight question, not an RS issue. – S. Rich (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Laudatio could have been taken from googling, recopying unidentified non-factchecked sources, published or word of mouth, or by Ouija board. Please demonstrate that it's reliable for these facts. Nobody's conflating the RS and noteworthy issues. Why not rely instead on de Soto's own statements about himself? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The source is identified. It is the webpage for this university: [10]. It is not word of mouth or a ouiji board. Googling is the method we use to find sources. Fact-checking applies to periodicals and this source is not a periodical. Not every source needs a "fact-check" process because context matters. Because the fact presented by UAIC serves to confirm his CV, it serves to verify the SPS material that de Soto provides. – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, I would like to ask those who comment here to refer to WP:RS and cite the specific provisions of WP policy which they believe apply to the Romanian university document. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources which defines what reliable source are, i.e., a "document" with authoritative "writers" that has been published online by a reputable institution. Certainly reliable enough for verifying this factoid and probably any other factoids. If it should be used for some extra-ordinary claim in the future, feel free to bring it to the talk page or here. I see some factoids there I had not seen before, but now that I know they exist, I certainly would look for other verification as well. The more RS the merrier. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS, not only WP:V. Please read it. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The Laudatio is signed by a dean of faculty of economics. That's pretty good sourcing. We read past the fact that it is promotional and full of peacock terms and just use it for bare facts. The article subject is clearly notable. The article now needs more information about the subject's writings and how they have been received in academia. It must always bear in mind that the Austrian School is considered heterodox. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the Laudatio is a good source and can be treated as RS. Andrew Dalby 20:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Please share the reason(s) for your agreement. I see (in the googled translation of) the document that de Soto studied Austrian theory in the actuarial MBA program at Stanford University. Does anybody think that's accurate or true? I also see some language in the document which appears to have been copied from an earlier version of de Soto's Wikipedia article. Who is making these remarks? A notable economist? SPECIFICO talk 21:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

One more note on this off-topic section. The section was opened when CMDC removed, not added facts about de Soto, namely his particular responsibilities in the Hayek edition, as he himself stated them on his website. The Romanian Laudatio did not deny those facts, so the Laudatio is irrelevant to the removal of those facts, as is this section, per my initial comment in it above. Let's get back to the original section topic, if anybody cares. SPECIFICO talk 03:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The removal of text, the original issue raised here, was excessive and done for inadequate reasons. It would slant the article against Mises Institute-related material. Wikipedia shouldn't be slanted for or against. The choice of this scholar, by a university press, as an editor/translator of a multi-volume standard work, is notable enough to include in his biography. To use the excuse that this is a BLP to remove information that individual editors don't like would be babyish. The discussion is unnecessarily long, I think. Andrew Dalby 09:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby:: It's not a matter of slanting anything. It's a matter of using independent RS references. The deleted material is not encyclopedia-worthy. Please review the statements in Soto's CV regarding his services as editor. He was not the translator. He was engaged to hire the translator. He was an editor, not a researcher, translator, or scholar. His role was similar to the role of tens of thousands of editors around the world. That role, by itself, would not establish his WP-notability. However this isn't his AfD so I'm not sure that matters here. Please don't use loaded words such as "excuse" which disparage the motives of other editors. I earnestly hope you'll review the article and its associated talk pages before posting here again. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

"Only an editor" is not what you seem to think with regard to scholarly works. He was not a mere spillchucker which is what too many folks think is the "job" of an editor. Most, nay essentially all, editors of scholarly works are acutally scholars. Amazing, but true, not even a Ripley comment. And thus your argument fails. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This thread shouldn't be the place to discuss de Soto's notability or lack thereof. The article doesn't comment on his duties, it merely repeats the description he himself provides on his CV. The topic of this thread, with respect to WP:RS is stated at the top of the first section. SPECIFICO talk 14:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying issues

• Just to clarify, since some issues have gotten mixed up. The initial thread is about removal of three pieces of sourced info. Per another editor's comment, I have no problem with removing the North blog info. And it looks like other editors disagree with SPECIFICO's view that just because professors happen to be associated with the Mises Institute, their writings in books and scholarly journals never can be used as references.

Notability might be relevant because SPECIFICO recently put a notability tag on the article writing After many months additional editing since the AfD got a reprieve, notability is still not evident - this a week before he removed the 3 pieces of info under discussion and refused to discuss the issue on the talk page despite my request.

• The second is about the use of the Laudito for non-extraordinary factoids which I assumed would be reverted and has been. (My removal of what I thought was excessive detail was not the reason I brought the issue here, so SPECIFICO seems to be getting confused.)

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

side comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment. SPECIFICO, to be blunt your behavior here is less than optimal for two reasons. The first is you appear to be trying to diminish the subject of a BLP, and the second is you appear to be following carol to articles in order to mix it up. As to my first point, knock it off. Your argument is borderline ridiculous.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC) @Two kinds of pork: - I've been editing the de Soto article since 6 months before @Carolmooredc:'s first edit, so you're mistaken. You're also mistaken about my intention in this thread. In the future, please make personal comments on my talk page rather than on Noticeboards such as this. If you have a view as to the article content issue which Carolmooredc stated in her initial post above, I'll respond here. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Your actions speak louder than words. I'm not the first person in here to note that you appear to be trivializing someone's career. And as to you following Carol around, why did your first edit to Stanley Fischer appear only right after she edited it?Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC) I don't think there's any reason to carry on a conversation here any longer, but please feel free to come back with any further sources you want to use in that article or related ones. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested formal closure

Here, FYI. Because Because so many WP:BLP talk page discussions are about this issue over and over again, and variations on it have been brought to WP:Reliable Sources Noticebaord repeatedly - and because the articles all are under Austrian economics/General sanctions. Note it's not a discussion link; that happens here or perhaps elsewhere. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Joshuaproject.net

I'm involved in a dispute over whether this evangelism website is a reliable source that there are 5,100 Russians in Venezuela. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a better source to replace it: the Venezuelan census asked about foreign-born population in 2001 but no figure was given for Russia (and anyway this wouldn't include Russian descendants born in Venezuela), I couldn't find anywhere that the 2011 census asks about ethnic background (which makes you wonder where exactly Joshua Project could be getting these numbers from, since they certainly don't conduct their own censuses!), and from web searches I could only find vague historical information like that 300 families of Russians came to Venezuela in the mid-20th century.

Some background: Joshua Project is used in about 600 Wikipedia articles, mostly as a source for population figures. (IMO it is unreliable for all of those uses and should be subject to mass removal & blacklisting.) It has previously been discussed on RSN (e.g. Feb. 2009, Sep. 2010, Nov. 2010) with mixed opinions; some said that even if they have an obvious POV due to their religious mission it wouldn't cause them to distort population figures, while others have said even if the Joshua Project got their information from reliable sources then we should be citing those sources themselves and not an aggressively POV intermediary.

Editors from WikiProject Ethnic groups generally have a much more negative opinion on reliability: that even if Joshua Project is getting their underlying data from a reliable source, they don't say what source that is, and additionally they make egregious errors of interpretation both in delineating ethnic groups (relevant discussion from an AfD many years ago on a purported ethnic group which was really just a region) and in giving statistics about them (e.g. this discussion from 2008, particularly comments by User:Caniago and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise). Even Christian academics have described the Joshua Project in rather unfavourable terms, e.g. [11]: "The Joshua Project attempts to define ethnic groups, but they are about a century behind in their thinking and their terminology."

Any outside opinions appreciated. Thanks, 61.10.165.33 (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Does Joshua Project gather its statistics like this?

Looking back at those other discussions, some argue based on the idea that they wouldn't have any reason to give inaccurate figures. This isn't a useful argument. There's also strong opposition to using them as a source. According to their list of data sources, a solid majority of their sources are just other evangelical groups, singling out this one in particular. They shouldn't be ranked beside census counts as equivalent, as they are in Russian diaspora, etc. They should be considered unusable due to a lack of verifiable methodology and recognition for statistical or academic contribution, even when setting aside all questions of advocacy and bias. __ E L A Q U E A T E 11:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

We have no idea where they get their data, it's not part of their primary mission, and there's no significant penalty to them for errors, so I see no reason to consider them as a reliable source for population statistics. Mangoe (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Even though it's a very interesting website, I cannot see anything on there about their quality control. For example statistics on India come from "India - Omid / South Asia engineer". Not reliable. Zero^talk 02:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not rs and should not be used. TFD (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of the Daily Mail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I fear you conflate WP:RS meaning "published with editors who do some fact checking and corrections as needed" with reliable as in "always correct." The NYT does corrections on a regular basis -- the Guardian was caught in an error which got the ire of the PCC. [12] Nonetheless, the three items had contained "serious overstatements, presented as fact" on the nature of the complainant's role. Noting that this was a "particularly concerning case [because] the inaccuracies were central to the reporting; they appeared across all three items; and they directly contributed to the newspaper's criticisms of the nature of the complainant's role and his personal suitability to fill it", the Commission upheld the complaint. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment In my personal opinion, the daily mail is for the most part unreliable for several reasons; it is among the most sensationalist media out there, it does not do a lot of fact-checking, plus it sometimes permits some of its columnists to write racist columns. We can surely do much better than that? Pass a Method talk 12:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • it does not do a lot of fact-checking - I think editors tend to be vastly overoptimistic in terms of how much fact-checking any media sources do, in the sense of systematic independent checking of journalists' work by another employee. Exceptions would tend to be major investigative stories where legal liability is likely to be an issue. Beyond that, it's basically a form of the "smell test" with editors reading stories and looking for things that sound dubious, and asking the journalist to confirm, and maybe leaving it out. The idea that media sources, even at the top end, routinely have a "fact-checking" process something akin to academic peer review was always a myth, but in the 21st century, commercial imperatives have reduced this even further (eg by removing experienced specialist sub-editors from the process, who provided an extra layer of smell-testing in the past). (Also, let's not forget that fact-checking sometimes fails when it is done - vide the Sunday Times' infamous Hitler Diaries episode.) Podiaebba (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Has become a cause celebre for some erstwhile editors, and rightly so, I think. However, it does sometimes publish excellent photographs, as I noted when Ravi Shankar died back in 2012: [13] - don't see any problem with using that as an excellent source. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think I would aim for a higher standard of sourcing though. It isn't that often we would need to source what time a show broadcasts; we'd likely be more interested in the critical response and I take the point above about arts critics. I like the idea of having a cleanup of overused Mail sources; I've been removing them from BLP articles for a good while now and it'd be good to have some help, and to widen the scope. --John (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

To see what a cleanup would involve, I searched for the string dailymail and have gone through the first twenty results. These seem to be the articles that use the phrase "dailymail" (one word, which corresponds to the website) most often. The results fall into different groups. Daily Mail is one obviously OK one, as well as the article about its website, one about the Charleston Daily Mail, and Liz Jones, a journalist at the Mail. Then there are a number of football articles and a tennis one. It would be useful to talk to WikiProject Football about that. In the case of Mario Balotelli some of it looks very like gossip and may have to be removed as a BLP violation. Another group of articles is about X Factor and in one case Big Brother. A lot of that looks to me like tat, but then again I don't have much to do with that area. Then there are some more serious cases. 2010s in fashion was the worst, and a dreadful article anyway. It extrapolated from Mail articles to imply that named celebs dress like chavs or Essex girls. (Of course the insult could go in either direction, unacceptable, anyway.) Then there are the articles on Heather Mills and Victoria Beckham. I took out a load of stuff about Heather Mills' houses, with purchase and sales prices. It looks like we really do need to pay a lot of attention to the use of the DM in BLPs. A lot of work, difficult to use automated tools. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like you've found some good examples of generally bad Wikipedia content, but that doesn't really have much to with the reliability of the DM. The DM probably is a reliable source for the prices of Heather Mills' homes - it's just that the information probably doesn't belong in her article. I'd be willing to believe that the DM is frequently misused on WP, but that's really a separate issue to its reliability. Formerip (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I've opined enough about the DM's reliability in the abstract. I wanted to see whether it really is overused, and how. The sampling showed that it is used a lot in sports and TV articles, so that's where further examination could be useful. It's usually political questions that are brought here. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, that Heather Mills article was a mess. I went a bit further than Itsmejudith. We already have a blanket prohibition for tabloid journalism on BLPs and I encourage people to take out these bad sources and material sourced to them on sight. --John (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I would happily see a blanket ban on all DM stories being used as sources, it simply cannot be trusted. GiantSnowman 10:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I am tending in that direction. --John (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I strongly object to a blanket ban... for any media source. Reliability is always contextual (we must ask whether the source is reliable for a specific statement, presented in a specific article). A source can be reliable in one context, and unreliable in another. There is no such thing as a source that is "always reliable"... nor is there such a thing as a source that is "always unreliable". It is fine to consider some media sources to be more reliable than others (and we would prefer these more reliable sources over the less reliable ones)... but there is a huge difference between "less reliable" and "unreliable". Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

while "reliability" is contextual, a more reliable source than the Daily Mail is almost always available for anything we would want to include in an encyclopedia I do not see how a de facto ban with WP:IAR for the few occasions when it might be appropriate would not itself be an improvement to the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

IAR can not be used as a means of erasing a policy -- and we use a great many sources with far worse records overall (including not a few sources from very-POV publishers which make quite astounding claims). Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

i am not certain what you mean about "erasing a policy". Wikipedia:NPOV#Good_research is a policy. Applying policy through the "banning" of Daily Mail because it is almost never even close to the best source is not "erasing a policy". In the few potential occasions where DM would be the best reliable source for particular content in a particular article we can certainly use it- ignoring the ban based on WP:IAR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I am with TheRedPenOfDoom on this. I would challenge Blueboar or anyone else opposing the proposed ban to think of a real example of where we would want to use a source from the Mail (or the Sun) in a way which would actually improve an article. Arts reviews have been mentioned as a possible area, but no concrete examples have been given. Sports coverage I am even more dubious about. Nonetheless, bring out your positive examples and we can discuss them, as we have seen two recent awful examples (Heather Mills and Victoria Beckham) where the Mail and other poor sources were being used in a way which was not only unethical and counter to policy, but also probably illegal. --John (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's say that we want to cite the fact that Great Britain won 29 gold medals in the last Olympic games... It happens that the DM supports this information. It is a reliable source for this information.

Now, let's say that the Times also reported that England won 29 gold medals in the last Olympics (likely), then I have no problem with saying "the Times is a better source" and citing the Times instead (we have no rule that prevents us from choosing between sources, or replacing one source with another source we consider better).

My point is this... the fact that the Times might be considered more reliable than the DM does not mean the DM is unreliable for this information. When it comes to reporting how many gold medals GB won, The DM is acceptable... even if it is not the best. Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly right. If anyone wants to go through Wikipedia replacing cites to the Daily Mail with cites to the Guardian, please knock yourself out. But I don't think it will be time well spent. Formerip (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

England does not compete in the Olympics and never has! Apart from that minor confusion, I don't understand the point you are making here. Are you arguing that it is ok to use the DM to support material, so long as a better source is also available? I wouldn't see the point in that. I repeat my challenge; find me one decent instance of the DM being used to support something that is not available in a better source, and where the existence of that info so sourced is of benefit to Wikipedia. I suspect you can't do it and I will be impressed if you can. --John (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the Mail is a great source for match reports, but when it comes to sports broadcasting their reporting as good, if not better than most. Charlie Sale is arguably the best in the business. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• The Daily Mail is a high-budget British newspaper, subject to British libel law - some of the most onerous in the world. As such, nearly every "fact" it reports will be legally defensible for accuracy and defensibility from libel. That said, it's relentlessly trivial and obsessed with fatuous celebrity trivia. Nearly anything in the DM is simply irrelevant for an encyclopedia. Worst of all though, the DM's editorial standpoint is probably the most partisan of any UK mass circulation newspaper.

We can trust the DM, as far as any other UK paper, for basic reporting of established facts. No more. We can't touch it for anything involving interpretation or editorial comment. We might sometimes use it as a primary source (where permissible) for examples of the DM itself or the political position of the UK right wing media. If we wished to know Heather Mills' house price it might even be adequate for that sort of tittle-tattle (the DM does only prints things that it sees a no more than acceptable risk of court action, which is better than many of our RS achieve), but then we're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a gossip column, so how often would we care?

Overall though, I see no real reason to change policy re the DM. These issues are no worse than for Fox News or for a variety of major, but agendaed, sources. We should be generally conscientious and observant in our editing, not specifically policy-bound. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to set a general rule that we must never cite the Daily Mail. I agree that it's not a good source in many cases - many editors seem to agree on that - but that's all we need. Instead of hunting for exceptions to the rule in advance, we can deal with exceptions when we find them. bobrayner (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It also has one of the worst records on press complaints and libel settlements of any british newspaper so it should be used with extreme caution ----Snowded ^TALK 16:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Andy, I wouldn't trust Fox News for a political report which didn't appear elsewhere either. OTHERCRAPEXISTS simply means we have other bad sources to deal with as well. Mangoe (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this discussion going anywhere? Is there a serious idea to either blacklist (surely not) or "brownlist" the DM? "Brownlisting" a source would be some sort of "OK uses are (i) articles about or related to the source itself (ii) named topics X, Y, Z. Use with caution otherwise: check if better sources are available and whether information only available here really merits inclusion.". Podiaebba (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with WP:RSMED, but in response to one of the early comments, surely it will have something recommending that an extraordinary medical claim should never be backed up by any newspaper article? The problem with the Daily Mail is not its fact checking (which is no worse than several other media sources that we don't bat an eyelid at using), but the sheer extent to which it manipulates those facts to tie into the editorial line. So extreme caution yes, and by all means spell out what "extreme caution" means if you must. But a blanket ban would be absurd, and would only lend credibility to the perception that Wikipedia is not neutral. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 18:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I could compromise on blacklisting and "brownlist" instead. Something like "The Daily Mail is an unreliable source and should be used with great caution. It can never be used on BLPs, and should generally be avoided except when sourcing its own opinions or for exception 1 or exception 2, where discussion page consensus supports it." In fact I think that's where we have got to so far with this discussion, and we now merely need to find what the exceptions are, if any. The two suggestions I am aware of where we could take the Mail seriously as a source, would be sports and arts coverage. I remain to be convinced on both, but probably could be if the right examples were forthcoming. I am still waiting for specific positive examples of where the Mail is used as a source to the project's benefit. I am not saying such examples do not exist, but there comes a time in any discussion when, the proponents having failed to come up with examples, the force of their argument silently evaporates. I fear we are close to that point now. --John (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I dont agree we need a reliability statement that mentions the "Daily Mail" in particularly, sure a general warning about tabloids but I cant see any reason to be specific. To be neutral we would have to list what can and cant be used from every newspaper which is clearly a daft idea. As has been said like all such newspapers sources they can be dealt with as they come up and any specific statement doesnt really help. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

If we were going to start blacklisting sources, I'd start with others that are much nastier than the Daily Mail. bobrayner (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

A lot of editors are using feelings without much fact. Blanket banning the Daily Mail as a source is as WFC says absurd, we could go after The Guardian and the BBC equally both have had complaints upheld against them doesn't mean they are not a generally reliable source. A site RFC would be needed to show clear consensus to do so as banning a big newspaper as a source is certainly not neutral, when weighed up against other national UK newspapers. Also comments such as i don't see the Daily Mail being beneficial to the encyclopaedia is in my opinion unhelpful without damm good evidence to back that up. Users need to start citing evidence to back up statements, as so far there has been very little provided that would justify any type of ban.Blethering Scot 23:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the story that started this thread off? Are there similar stories about the Guardian or the BBC? Would it be possible to compile a list like this one on the Guardian or the BBC? I'd in turn ask for evidence if you said yes to that. No, the Mail is uniquely bad; not really a newspaper at all but more of a scandal sheet a la The Sun, but even the real knuckle draggers are generally aware that we can't use The Sun to source our articles here. Though you might be surprised; I took Sun sources off a high-profile BLP just the other day. But the Mail is worse for our purposes because I suppose to some people it is ambiguous and might appear to be a decent source. As a tabloid, it is already beyond the pale for BLPs; I would love to see a clear consensus here that it should also generally be avoided for all articles. If you disagree, I would once again challenge you to come up with an example of a case where a Mail source benefits a Wikipedia article. Just one. Failing that, we can almost default to the common sense position that the Mail is generally a poor source, as most people here agree. --John (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

So is this discussion going anywhere? Andrew Dalby 09:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, a large-scale cleanup would help to ensure that BLPs are free of gossip. Our existing large-scale cleanups have been abandoned, though, because the sheer scale seems so daunting (to me, at least). Itsmejudith (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Generally if one is editing an article about a story in the news, which is the major reason for using newspapers, one may google the topic and choose a relevant article in any major newspaper. The trend toward paywalls may be one reason to use it. TFD (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, maybe that should be the major reason for using newspapers, but my quick trawl shows that it probably isn't. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A request for opinion as to the Mail's football-related reliability was made at the football WikiProject. My personal view is that I'd be happy to rely on broadsheets to source factual content relating to what happened in matches, whether players have scored or set up a goal and how they did it, whether they've served a suspension or broken a leg. If there's a more generally reliable alternative for sourcing a particular item, I wouldn't use the Mail or any other tabloid. But the broadsheets cover football below the Premier League only sporadically. If Wikipedia is to write about lower-level football and its players, and the notability criteria suggest that it should, we need non-broadsheet sources. In context of factual football-related content, I haven't found the Mail any less reliable than other sources. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for coming over to give your opinion. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems reasonable then to say that "the DM may be used as a reliable source for sports results and the like, but should be avoided for other purposes and especially for (a) material only it reports, and (b) BLP claims." Mangoe (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that. --John (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Except, of course, that would exclude it from exactly the way that Struway says it is useful, since (a) the entire point is that only it is reporting this material, and (b) that a player has served a suspension is a BLP claim. So you're not actually in agreement, you're actually contradicting what he is saying, you're saying it specifically shouldn't be used for that. --GRuban (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is a good test case. Laurence Graff#Personal life, British billionaire, under Personal life. Can we use The Daily Mail for details of the name and professions of his children (which I would deem reasonable since the Daily mail would have no reason to distort these facts). Secondarily, can we use the Daily Mail to indicate that he fathered a child out of wedlock.Patapsco913 (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"Graff also fathered a child with jeweller Josephine Daniel, 34 years his junior, in 2009", cited to "£2bn diamond dealer, 71, fathers lovechild by 37-year-old former PA (...but, generously, his wife is standing by him)", in a BLP? No. Absolutely not. If there isn't a better source for details about his children, then it doesn't belong, period. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Well you leave out half of the equation: The webpage also states: "They have three children: Francois (b. 1967), who runs the London branch of his father’s company, Stephane (b. 1968), an artist, and a daughter Kristelle (b. 1980)" cited to £2bn diamond dealer, 71, fathers lovechild by 37-year-old former PA (...but, generously, his wife is standing by him)" The Daily Mail is being used to show who his children are and what they are doing. I think the Daily mail would be good for that information.Patapsco913 (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As the rest of the conversation above should make clear, a gossip article from the Daily Mail is not an appropriate source for a BLP. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is used a source in 1000s of articles on Wikipedia. So the question is whether is it reliable in some instances or reliable in no instances. If it is not, then we have to remove it from every instance on Wikipedia. Also, a question for the British editors, is the UK subject to strict libel laws or are they relatively weak which would make it unreliable to use anything but the top British publications as reliable sources. In the USA, source such as the New York Post and People magazine are considered reliable even though considered to be Tabloid.Patapsco913 (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

English libel laws are much stricter than the U.S. Whereas in the U.S. plaintiffs must prove actual malice, in the U.K. they do not. TFD (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• IMO, whether we like tabloids or not, the DM is a mainstream, established British newspaper and therefore citations to it would generally meet RS. However, I would proceed with caution in the case of any of the information in the paper is considered possibly unreliable and prefix any Wikipedia references with 'According to the Daily Mail...' . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Miscellaneous name sites as sources

I'm having problems at Rehal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Rahal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and now Channy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with an editor, Aqua 33 (talk · contribs) who thinks that [14] and [ http://houseofnames.com/] are adequate sources. I cannot find any reliable sources for this, nor does it seem at all likely if you look at the actual names of the people listed. This relates to a discussion I'm having at Wikionary.[15]. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with AncientFaces or [16] but AncientFaces appears to be some kind of social networking site targeted and genealogy. houseofnames.com appears to be some kind of commercial website. Unless someone can provide evidence that either of these sources have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, not reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Given that the editor reverted me with an edit summary "Rahal and Rehal are Anglo Norman surnames (if someone lacks knowledge I can't help" I'm not optimistic this is going to be settled easily, but maybe they will take part in this discussion tomorrow. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Fortean Times as "recommended reading"

A no brainer question, but [17]

Should Wikipedia list in a section of "recommended reading" books published by the Fortean Times? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

As just a little review of WP:RSN or Talk:Fortean Times would show you, the general opinion of the FT is rather at variance with your claim, "to "recommend" books by fortean press is an unacceptable dereliction of duty". The Fortean Times repeatedly puts forward its own position, echoing the words of Charles Fort: It should be inclusive, but skeptical. It should report accurately, with traceable citations and without embroidery. This is not far from WP's own position: we report on the paranormal, on pseudoscience and on psychoceramics, but we neither take a subjective editorial position as if we "believe" in such things, nor do we invent upon them. In general, the FT is full of other people's lunacies, but they're clearly presented as such. The FT will not run a story "space aliens ate my hamster", but it will report in unsensationalised detail on the "Church of the hamster-eating space aliens", who do believe in such a thing.

I suspect I already know the answer to this, but have you ever even seen a copy of the FT? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a sourcing question; it's an external links question. Given that the article in question is essentially on Forteana/believe-it-or-not material, I find it hard to argue against such a link without arguing for the deletion of the article in the first place. Mangoe (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You bring up a whole nuther kettle of fish that by mutual agreement has been put on hold for another 6 months at least. But I would hate to think that we begin to stoop to "The article sucks so we don't care about the reliability of the information we include in it" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

To be precise, they are listed under "further reading" (well, maybe that implies a recommendation). I don't know why there are external links to Google Books. Google Books is handy when it mirrors the text of books we want to cite, but that's not the case here, and it isn't a reliable source. If we're going to cite these books under "further reading", we need to get publication details from a reliable source (Library of Congress catalogue, British Library catalogue, that kind of thing). Andrew Dalby 13:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

There is guidance about what qualifies as a "reliable source" for internal article content. There are guidelines for what external links are appropriate as external links, but is there anything to provide guidance when there is a "Further reading" / "Suggested reading" section? In the past when I went to the external links boards for guidance on "Suggested reading", I got a "not our department" response, so when Andy's revert was "take it to RSN", I did. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of the Daily Telegraph?

Re article Mr Whoppit Continuing from Wikipedia:RSN#Reliability of the Daily Mail

TheRedPenOfDoom was one of those most scathing about the reliability of the Daily Mail, or "Daily Fail" as he refers to it in edit summaries, when replacing it with that paragon of respectability, the Huffington Post website.

He now seems to be taking a similar line with the Daily Telegraph. PRODing an article with 9 sources, Mr Whoppit as "all the "sources" are of absolutely non reliable kind". These sources include two robust books and also the Daily Telegraph. He has since AfDed the article (now with 12 sources, as almost every book on Donald Campbell mentions his superstitious obsession with his mascot) under GNG, again for having inadequate sources. Clearly Red Pen is lumping the Daily Telegraph in with the Daily Mail as "absolutely non reliable ", a view that wasn't unanimous here for the Mail and is far from the case for the Telegraph. Red Pen, and his friendly admin Kww, have described the Telegraph in the past as a "red top", shorthand for an unreliable UK tabloid and used this as a reason for removing content sourced by it. To clarify though: having the word "Daily" in the title does not mean that a UK paper is an unreliable tabloid.

The Telegraph's politics are not mine. However I would have to recognise that it is a well-written and broadly accurate newspaper (and factual reporting still isn't the same thing as a subjective editorial position), meeting WP:RS as much as any newspaper of record.

Do we consider the Telegraph to be acceptable as a source? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Every newspaper will have some form of bias, that fact is unavoidable. it appears that Pen in focussing on the papers that are more conservative leaning but I would like to know what his view of The Guardian is because that is a left leaning paper but is on the same level as the Telegraph. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The same parallel immediately came to mind as I was reading the above. I've used both as reliable sources for facts with the most contentious articles and never had their status as RS questioned. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any newspapers should be used for reports on medical, scientific or historical matters unless they are uncontroversial. I've seen far too many distorted, garbled and downright false stories in even the most reliable newspapers. The politics of the paper may be relevant to the types of distortion that occur in such cases (e.g. the Telegraph's past support of AIDS denialism). But that's a separate issue. This is not controversial stuff at all. Paul B (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why we need an article on someone's teddy bear, but then I'm not a teddy bear aficionado. I see no reason why the Telegraph should not be reliable for Whoppit-related facts. There is an article in The Independent (December 9, 1995) which discusses Whoppit too, and some local newpapers, with fascinating facts such as "In the 1990s, Merrythought re-issued a limited edition replica of Mr Whoppit, with his original red jacket sporting the Bluebird motif." ("Bears with Rich History" Middlesborough Evening Gazette, April 18, 2012). We should be able to use such sources for uncontroversial material such as this. We are supposed to be building an encyclopedia after all, not tearing one down. Though he "survived" the crash which killed his owner, I don't think Mr. Whoppit is covered by WP:BLP. Paul B (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• I would consider The Telegraph/Daily Telegraph to be one of the most reliable newspapers of the lot, and I can't see why you would claim it was totally and utterly unreliable. I agree with the campaign to get rid of all Mirror/Sun/Mail references, but not the Telegraph. I definitely second Paul's point about general-purpose newspapers being unsuitable for scientific information. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisting of major newspapers is silly -- each has items where they are stronger and where they are weaker, but the meaning of "RS" is not "this is a true source" as that policy makes clear. I find almost no sources, including the BBC, are good for contentious claims in BLPs where rumours are concerned. Almost all are good for sports stats - so I find this sort of query pretty much useless. And I disagree that any source should be excised from Wikipedia because an editor hates it. We even use Pravda as a source, so why we should be so opposed to what are mainstream western journals is absurd. Collect (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW, "Huffington Post" is not very useful for any BLP claims, especially where it links to a video. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• The Telegraph is a more than reliable Broadsheet newspapers, it is not a tabloid source. I object to blacklisting any newspaper that can be used to back non contentious subjects however the Telepraph isn't even in the realm of The Sun & The Mirror which makes this a silly assertion. The issue with that article is obviously notability and not a source one.Blethering Scot 15:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the Telegraph is RS for anything that you'd expect to source to a national newspaper. I say nothing about teddy bears :) Andrew Dalby 15:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliable as a national newspaper. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

As reliable as the vast majority of major, mainstream newspapers. It can be a little star-struck but it's rarely sensationalist on other topics and doesn't grind much of an editorial axe in the news sections. Particular strengths would include politics, business, military/defence affairs, and (British) history. Barnabypage (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This can probably be closed. The article is at AfD and it is unlikely that anything here will impact that discussion. This is really just part of Andy's spree [18] [19] [20] and I am sorry that he has wasted your time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

HarperCollins Canada - are reliable publisher?

http://www.harpercollins.ca/

And book like this one:-

http://books.google.com/books?ei=tJbWUu2nFs3MrQez2ICQCA&id=MwdXAAAAYAAJ Bladesmulti (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

HarperCollins is as reliable as any of the big mass-market publishing imprints (Random House, Penguin etc.). An individual book could be reliable in context. It depends on what claim the book is being used to support. (A popular history book might not be reliable regarding a specific technological claim, while a cook book wouldn't be great support for an historical claim.) What is the context? __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Reliable for what? Reliability depends on WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Which article do you want to use this source for and what content are you using it to support? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The specific book linked to was originally published by the University of Virginia Press, so it has a good chance of being considered generally reliable, but it still depends on the claim it is intended to support. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for presenting your opinions. Remember, wikipedia is not limited with this website only. There is a quote, goes like "In India I found a race of mortals living upon the Earth, but not adhering to it. Inhabiting cities, but not being fixed to them, possessing everything but possessed by nothing." Popular quote though, multiple reliable sources, but I was confirming if this publisher is reliable or not, and the book, so I could have more sources to present if I ever face a dispute. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a quote attributed to Apollonius of Tyana. The only source is Philostratus's biography of him, the Life of Apollonius of Tyana. This is a second-hand quote (made generations after it was said to be uttered) and probably always will be, barring an archeological discovery. If you wanted to use it somewhere seriously, you should have some mention that it came from Philostratus's book, as it's not considered a completely reliable account.[21] There are many reliable sources that will confirm "Philostratus says that Apollonius said..." but there are no current reliable sources that say "Apollonius said..." without qualification. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Guess it was best suggestion. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

And specific to your question, the book from HarperCollins that you originally asked about has nothing to do with the quote and shouldn't be used for anything to do with it. It only uses the quote on the dedication page and makes no claim about its historical accuracy. Not a bad book, but it has nothing useful to say about the quote, good or bad. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I dug up a copy of Life of Apollonius of Tyana and it's not in there. The only mention of it seems to be in some Hindu religious blogs with no attribution of where it was written. I can't find a scholarly source. If there's no source for it, it shouldn't be used. And you absolutely shouldn't use a modern-era business book about marketing to support a quote from antiquity. You say you have multiple reliable sources, but I don't see them and you haven't referenced them anywhere. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Business books are notorious for picking up quotations and attributing them to some random famous person, preferably of venerable antiquity. Often the the quotation is found to be modern - as with the Charlton Ogburn quotation attributed to Petronius, or appears to come from some obscure source but then to have been attibuted to a more venerable figure (e.g. Ruskin. See Common law of business balance). Business books also like obscure scientific "facts" such as the boiling frog tale. I suspect that Business books are not reliable for anything much. Especially anything to do with business. Paul B (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a real quotation. No blame to anyone for not finding it: everything depends on the translation you use and what words you search for. Here's a link to the Loeb Classical Library translation of Philostratus: Life of Apollonius of Tyana. See vol. 2 p. 49 (middle of the page).

I would quote it from this translation, which I think others would agree is reliable. It's a primary source, but I see no reason not to use it. Clearly it is much better to cite this than to cite a modern book on some tangential subject: all those modern sources just copy the quote from one another and don't even remember that (as Elaqueate rightly says) it is Philostratus, not Apollonius, who is being quoted here. So, I'd say, cite this edition, quoting its precise words, and make it clear that these are words attributed by Philostratus, the biographer, to Apollonius of Tyana. Andrew Dalby 18:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That's perfect. Thank you. I thought it was there but was second-guessing myself when I couldn't find it. Your suggestions are the best way to go on this. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Well obviously, why we will use a business book for citing historical event. But anyways Thanks Andrew Dalby for getting it straight. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliability check

Mr. Dingley [22] apparently needs to be publicly trouted for presenting any of these as reliable sources and then ignoring WP:BURDEN to reinsert them. we have

• a blogspot post (note the clever formatting so the xlink bot does not capture it as part of the blacklist)
• user generated content from hubpost (again, speshully formatted to fool the system into not realizing that it is a blacklisted site)
• a user post on a forum
• and a picture from flikr

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Can an unreliable source become reliable when reported by a reliable source?

At Talk:Stockton Beach there is a discussion underway about sources. One of the sources is a December 2013 opinion piece from The Newcastle Herald.[23] While the newspaper is a reliable source, the opinion piece seems to be the result of a complaint by a disgruntled, indefinitely blocked Wikipedia sockpuppeteer who was blocked because of disruptive editing at Stockton Beach. The piece appeared in the newspaper 2 days after he was initially blocked and since then, he has returned to the article as sockpuppets. Another source in the opinion piece is the owner of http://www.madmaxmovies.com, a self acknowledged fansite. As a fansite it is not regarded as a reliable source. Given the primary sources in the opinion piece are both non-reliable, can the opinion piece be regarded as reliable? I don't think so but another editor does not agree,[24] so I thought I'd ask for opinions here. I can't see how an article based on unreliable sources could possibly be regarded as reliable. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:IRS states that "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact", so an opinion piece, even if published in a "reliable" paper, isn't a reliable source unless the writer is reliable for the information in his own right. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Nation

Is the Encyclopedia of Nations a reliable source? StudiesWorld (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

context matters, what claim, what article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Sudans is the article. StudiesWorld (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Unpublished/non-peer Reviewed Study by Media Matters

This study by Media Matters for America is self-published, not peer-reviewed, and not in any journal. It is presented as a study reporting media bias in a manner which implies that it has some scientific validity. There is simply no way this can be considered a reliable source. Arzel (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Arzel, if you were on the side of the 97% of published climate scientists who confirm that anthropogenic global warming were a reality, you would certainly see this differently, but as a climate change denialist, you really can't stand the inclusion of anything which challenges your 3% POV. That the source is biased is irrelevant. It's a notable RS which presents a POV you don't like. That's not a reason for not using it.

BTW, it's a basic survey of the news coverage, not a scientific study of the type one sees in peer reviewed scientific literature about disease, treatment, atomic structures, etc.. You need to learn the difference. Don't let the word "study" confuse you. Peer review is not expected for this type of thing. If you would spend less time objecting to everything which is against your POV, and actually study the RS presented here, like this study, you might learn and change your real world POV. Since you seem incapable of doing that, I really question your objectivity and competence to work here as an editor. We are expected to learn and change our real world POV according to what RS inform us. That's what reasonable people do. POV warriors don't do that, and we don't need them obstructing progress here. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I would remind BullRangifer to stick to the point. This study is un-published and not peer reviewed. I would also remind BullRangifer to avoid the personal attacks. Arzel (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Try reading what I wrote. This is content from a RS. It is not scientific research in the usual sense. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Try reading the section I linked to. All of the studies, except this one, are actual studies. It is quite apparent that you have done no actual analysis of the article and simply followed me there in order to WP:BAIT me like you did on my talk page. Arzel (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Arzel, you state that "There is simply no way this can be considered a reliable source". Why "no way"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It is being presented as a scientific study, but it is not peer-reviewed. We have never accepted this kind of self-published research as a reliable source in this manner. Arzel (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

How is it being presented as a 'scientific study'? Which 'science' would such a survey come under? The attribution to Media Matters for America seems clear enough to me, and I think our readers can figure out from the name alone that MMfA isn't an academic journal. Are there any particular grounds for doubting what their study reports? And if there is a problem with it being 'primary' (as opposed to 'self-published' - a media watchdog that didn't publish things would be a strange sort of organisation), perhaps a secondary source reporting on the findings might be worth including: [25] (see also [26]). AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::Since Bullrangifer has been part of the discussion at ANI where you accused him of stalking at ANI over this, I'm not surprised he's come here. I believe calling someone a stalker as you did is a personal attack so you really shouldn't be complaining when he comments on your editing. Back to the issue. It is called a study. Your comment on my talk page about WP:Scholarship is irrelevant as no one is suggesting it is an academic study. It doesn't need to be peer-reviewed to be used so long as it's attributed. It was published on their website. If you read WP:SPS you will see it's not meant to cover organisations such as this - or Fox News itself for that matter. We've discussed MMfA over and over here, it gets tiresome and clearly political, which shouldn't enter into these discussions. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I only called him that because he is following me around. You as an admin should know better, and don't seem to care. Yet you say that I have a personal attack against him for stating it? Don't bring up the political angle to me, when you see me using highly biased sources to trash others you might have a point. The only political angle here is haters of FNC. You seem to be ok with them using WP to push their point of view. I thought Admins were supposed to follow WP core policies like NPOV and Weight. Arzel (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Reliable. Arzel does not like the source, so he does his best to undermine its credibility. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Actually everyone is supposed to follow WP:NPOV. Arzel, you seem to be skipping around our policies and guidelines. Exactly how does it fail WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT? Of course, this isn't NPOVN so if you are now agreeing it's a RS and are arguing on NPOV grounds we can close this. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: There is another source that reported what MMfA said. QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see this study is widely cited by various news and advocacy organizations. I suppose one might want to object to its neutrality given the source organization, but it's clearly widely taken as an authoritative report. Mangoe (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like MMA comes up a lot at WP:RSN search. Since it's a report on their content analysis of media stories, are its reports on such things generally WP:RS or not? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

MMfA is not a science organization, and does not present itself as such -- its opinions on science are citable as opinions - but it does not have any standing as a science journal or science publisher. Collect (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

We can't make a blanket ruling on it, as the sorts of things it covers and the types of story are too varied. I certainly wouldn't rule out use of its authored investigative stories. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Media Matters is a reliable source for accuracy in the media. In this case they are not writing about climate science, but how a scientific report was covered in the media. Arzel would have us believe that since they arguing that the media provided undue coverage to fringe views, they cannot be reliable. It is a cynical view of the world to think that everyone falsifies facts in order to support positions. Rational writers examine the facts and draw conclusions from them. TFD (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Media Matters for America is an advocacy organization. If our article on this organization is accurate, they are "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation". Advocacy organizations are obviously not independent of the subject and should be treated as a primary source. In general, advocacy organizations are not reliable for anything but their opinion in articles about or related to themselves. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with this. It's really not reliable for anything on its own, and should probably be avoided as a source. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• A Quest For Knowledge's post jams together phrases from WP:V but does not accurately reflect that policy. Since Media Matters works by analyzing published reports, it is a secondary source. Also, the sources that are "not reliable for anything but their opinion in articles about or related to themselves" are self-published and questionable sources. Media Matters is neither questionable nor self-pubished, as those terms are used in WP:V. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Really? So you're saying that advocacy organizations are independent of the subject in which they advocate and therefore should be treated a third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject? If not, I'm pretty sure that's what I said. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe you should go back and read WP:V. You don't seem to remember what it says very well. "Third-party" is a crap term and I reject it. I acknowledge that an advocacy organization is not independent on topics that they advocate for. But sources do not have to be neutral and independent to be reliable sources on topics other than themselves. They just have to avoid being self-published (and even then, there are exceptions) and not have a conflict of interest. Merely advocating a position does not create a conflict of interest. The kinds of conflicts of interest that would make a source questionable are described in footnote 8 of WP:V and are along the lines of having financial interests that are promoted by the source, writing that tries to sway litigation, and the like. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't remember where it says that "Third-party" is a "crap term" and should be rejected. Can you please point everyone to which sections of WP:V say this? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• I reaffirm my rejection of the term third-party, but that term is not really relevant to this discussion. The only uses of that term are:

1. "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Later, the "Notability" section states "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Taken together, this means that topics for which no third-party sources can be found shouldn't have an article about them in Wikipedia. It does not mean that every single claim in the article must be supported by a third-party source.
2. The term is used in the Self-published sources section, but since Media Matters isn't a self-published source, that's irrelevant. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• You can reaffirm whatever you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it's clearly stated in What_counts_as_a_reliable_source.[27] If you disagree with Wikipedia policy, you are free to open up an RfC. If you are unwilling to do so, would you like me to open it for you? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• So, since the President of the United States and the Supreme Court are paid by the United States, they are not third parties, and cannot be considered reliable sources for anything except their own opinions? Have I got that right? Jc3s5h (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• No. The reliability of a source greatly depends on the content and the context in which it is used. A source that may be reliable in one context may be unreliable in another context. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• That's 'third party', as in not linked with the subject of the article. Or are you suggesting that MMfA is affiliated to Fox? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia the second party of the three? TFD (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

As for 'weight' issues, see for example [28], [29], [30]. Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Another example

I have turned up this article in the Columbia Journalism Review making similar but more specific claims along the same lines, in this case about changes in coverage at Reuters. Mangoe (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Since multiple RS have commented on this matter, I suggest that they be added as sources to the content on the FNCc article, thus ensuring that anymore attempts to whitewash the article of reliably sourced content by Arzel, nearly the only type of activity performed by this user, doesn't happen again. The next time Arzel does such a thing anywhere on Wikipedia, it needs to be treated as vandalism. Their whitewashing campaign has gone on for far too long and they need a topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

AQFK, policy on this site anyway does not say that any source that opposes or does not endorse U.S. conservatism is unacceptable. TFD (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Correct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• As others have pointed out, better reliable sources are available supporting the point in question (that Fox News, among other conservative media outlets, gives disproportionate airtime to climate-change "skeptics"). Since we should always strive to use the best available sources, why not table the Media-Matters question and utilize the the higher-quality sources instead (e.g. [31], [32])? MastCell ^Talk 07:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Of course we can use those, but that's not a good reason not to use MMfA for their opinion/analysis. I still maintain that for this it meets our RS criteria and any 'weight' or significance issues. Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Except that I'm not sure they reach the level of consistent accuracy necessary for a reliable source. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Since their POV and agenda are known, it would be reasonable to attribute cited statements, and in the case where there are other RS to minimalize presentation of MMfA's statements, but having a partisan POV is not grounds for a blanket dismissal as RS per se.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Not reliable. While global warming"(or whatever is the preferred term) is most certainly real, this study appears to be focused on media coverage. And even that is besides the point. This study could have been covering the media coverage of the Kardashians and it would still be just as unreliable. Media Matters is or course a partisan operation and so they should be scrutinized for their reliability overall. There is no way we should be passing off this "study" as an academic study.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I give up. It appears this is going to be discussed in two sections. No one is passing this off as an academic study. It is the opinion of MMfA and their opinion has enough significance to be used. So long as we attribute it the fact that it is partisan is irrelevant, we frequently use partisan sources - that's the way NPOV works. And of course this is focused on media coverage - that's the whole point. No one is suggesting we add scientific studies to this section on global warming. Dougweller (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The use of the word "study" does imply academic or scientific analysis, and that is how it appears in the article (or did a few hours ago IIRC). As to your point about attribution to MMfA and the analysis being their opinion, I agree completely. That they are focused on media is relevant. Everything they produce is opinion, as opposed to lets say the poly sci department of McGill doing a peer reviewed study on global warming skeptics in the media which should be considered factual.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Reliable. The ratio of pro/anti climate change coverage which was published by MMfA is interesting and relevant. The argument that MMfA is not peer reviewed is a red herring; we do not require media watchdogs to be peer reviewed, when commenting on media trends. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Reliable, this discussion needs to focus on policy, not a partisan dismissal of a source because it is associated with the position of the opposing party in the political spectrum.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• In regards to Media Matters, I don't think partisanship is the real issue. All sources have a bias. The Washington Post tends to have a liberal bias and the Washington Times tends to have a conservative bias. That doesn't make them unreliable. See WP:BIASED. But, I see two very real problems. First, this is a primary source. While primary sources are acceptable in certain, limited situations, secondary sources are preferred. Second, Media Matters is a special interest group. Special interest groups are obviously not independent of their special interest. Instead, we should be relying on secondary, third-party reliable sources which are independent of the subject. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• There's also the basic issue of accuracy, which people seem to want to avoid. The comparisons to Fox News aren't apt, because they're more like a NewsBusters/Media Research Center type of group. We should consider whether their take on something is accurate as well as those concerns you provide above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Reliable The issue is the coverage of global warming rather than global warming itself. TFD (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Reliable cited as opinion on MMfA The definition of favourable or unfavourable coverage is clearly a matter of opinion -- and the CJR only uses the MMfA data and does not provide data on its own, and only covers Reuters' coverage. Thus all CJR can be used for is "Media Matters for America states that Reuters total coverage of global warming had fewer mentions when Paul Ingrassia was editor than under prior editors". Nit a very major claim, but all that the CJR article can support. Collect (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Reliable. How many times are we going to re-litigate this issue? If we accept the arguments against MMFA, then that also disqualifies Fox News. Gamaliel (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Reliable. Now we even have Senators Urge Broadcast Networks To Increase Climate Coverage. "A group of senators is asking for more broadcast coverage on climate change, following a Media Matters analysis which found that Sunday shows aired only scant coverage on the issue last year." Here is the letter from the Senators to download. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Film websites: Kinowelt International, DVD Talk, and Film-Reference

Are these considered RSes? I am not sure of the publishing standard of these:

• http://www.kinowelt-international.de/detail_v3.php?lang=en&kid=005617_1_1
• http://www.filmreference.com/Directors-Ri-Sc/Sanders-Brahms-Helma.html
• http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s2641emil.html

They are used in The Future of Emily Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliable to source what exactly? It seems they are primarily used in the reception section as reviews/critics of the movie. In that case it isn't really question of reliability but more of notability/relevance. So question is whether the reviews on these sites can be considered notable enough to mentioned in the article. As a crude guideline reviews in newspapers or movie magazine by professional critics are usually considered notable and so reviews by well known academics or in academic (film) journals. But reviews posted by arbitrary individuals on (community) movie sites are not.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Book review article

I'm about to be writing an article about one of the archaeological sites in the Green River Shell Middens Archeological District, and my main source is Claassen, Cheryl. Feasting with Shellfish in the Southern Ohio Valley: Archaic Sacred Sites and Rituals. Knoxville: U of Tennessee P, 2010. Definitely a reliable source: a university scholar being published by an academic press. However, Claassen's theoretical approach to these sites is substantially different from that of most scholars (she says they were ceremonial; most others say they were the result of normal life), meaning that a reliance just on her will not be WP:NPOV compliant, so I'd like to bring in an outside source discussing the difference between her approach and that of previous authors.

With this in mind, is this article from Current Anthropology appropriate for discussing that difference? It's functionally a book review, meaning that I'm hesitant on WP:NEWSORG grounds, because it suggests that we should be wary about analysis/opinion pieces. However, it's definitely a scholarly review and radically different from something like the "The government should do X" stuff you'll find on the editorial page of the newspaper — the author of this article, also a university scholar, approaches Claassen to analyse her against other scholars, neutrally discussing her arguments in contrast to those of other scholars. My ideal is to use Claassen as the main source for undisputed facts (e.g. the size of the site, artifacts found there, its location, etc), with some input from sources that give it less coverage; but when it comes to site interpretations, I'll say "Claassen says ___", but since I don't have any comparable works from other scholars, I'll bring in the Current Anthropology article to say "Claassen's perspective differs from previous scholars, most of whom say ___". This is the functional question: would this article be a good source for this kind of NPOV improvement? Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good but it's probably a good idea to attribute the criticism if it's only been leveled by one person. ElKevbo (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

As you say, the factual information is reliable. As a scholarly book, the author explains other interpretations, for example pp. 164ff. You can use her book to determine the degree of acceptance of different views. The book review is behind a paywall, so I cannot read it. Book reviews, even in reliable sources, can be highly opinionated and the danger of using them is that you don't know if the author's criticisms represent the views of most scholars. The other problem is that since you are writing about one site, you would need to be clear that the reviewer was talking about that site. It could be that the one site you chose to write about is generally accepted as ceremonial. TFD (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Scholarly book reviews don't fall into WP:NEWSORG but are part of scholarship. They aren't peer-reviewed but the authors are experts commissioned by reviews editors of journals. As ElKevbo and TFD say, they only represent the view of one scholar, so you probably need to attribute. Current Anthropology is a well-regarded journal. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Book Published in 1827, is this a reliable source

Weddell, James, A Voyage Towards the South Pole, London, Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, 1827

James Weddell was an early antarctic explorer from the early 19th Century, his work is a well known historical account from that period. I recently added it as a cite to David Jewett in response to a {{cn}} tag. The cite supports the text in the article perfectly. The addition of a citation has been removed by an editor [33] claiming that this is not a reliable source as the author is not a historian and claiming it is a primary source. I see nothing in WP:PRIMARY that would preclude the use of this as a source for an eye witness account of those events. I also see nothing in WP:RS that asserts I can only use works written by professional historians.

See also Talk:History of the Falkland Islands#RfC: Did Vernet seek and obtain British permission before settling?. The same editor tried to make the same arguments there to justify removing sources. BedsBookworm (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The sentences in dispute seem to be guesses at motivations, not statements of fact or claims attributed to Weddell. I think his account could be used to state what Weddell thought or said he saw, if correctly attributed to Weddell, but it shouldn't be used to support speculation about what "may have" happened, which seems an admission that there is no source for the claim. The sentences contain "would have probably"'s and "may have"'s. If it's a claim beyond what's in the book, and is only being tangentially supported by what Weddell said, it's Original Research. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Having now read Weddell's account of his encounter with Jewett, I see that the sentences are not supported as written. According to Weddell, he was told twice by Jewett that he was on a mission to claim the Islands. Wedell noted that he his crew first needed refreshing, as they were dying, but makes no claim that he didn't believe that Jewett was acting on behalf of South America. Weddell goes on to say the declaration was made: "In a few days, he took formal possession of these islands for the patriot government of Buenos Ayres, read a declaration under their colours, planted on a port in ruins, and fired a salute of twenty-one guns." The article currently has speculative claims about Weddell's opinions that are not in Weddell's account. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS vs RS

I'm trying to explain to a user that claims directly about what a charity says is not "biomedical information". The discussion is at Talk:Breast self-examination#POV_Check. The statement is "Some charitable organizations, whose donations depend on promoting fear of breast cancer, still promote this technique..." and the source is a scholarly book by an academic, published by Oxford University Press, that has many chapters about breast cancer charities, their motivations, and how they operate. (NB that it's not a minority opinion; we can cite many other sources that say the same thing.)

The (inexperienced) editor thinks that statements:

1. about what a charity says, e.g., on its website, and
2. what incentives a charity has to say those things,

are:

1. opinions (really? We can all have different, equally valid opinions about whether web pages like http://www.nationalbreastcancer.org/breast-self-exam exist?)—and so should be omitted entirely—and
2. somehow "biomedical information"—therefore should be sourced to medical journal articles instead of to sociological books.

I suspect that the real problem is just disagreeing with the content (it does not cast "life-saving" breast cancer charities in a favorable light), but I would appreciate it if someone else could please explain the difference between WP:MEDRS's scope (biomedical information) and WP:RS's scope (everything). I would really appreciate it if all comments were over there. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Validating reliable sources

A book could be considered a reliable source, if supported by independent reviews, whether it is a text book, and whether it is used as a source itself, especially with no dissenting comments. But if another editor suggests that the same source is not reliable, is there any onus on them to provide supporting evidence, or does their opinion trump facts (verifiable sources)?

For example, Fred Hoyle wrote many books and peer-reviewed papers. Can I dismiss them all as unreliable because of his rejection of the Big Bang, even though some of his book are critically well received, and even published by university publishers? --Iantresman (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you can't. Andrew Dalby 22:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that someone supports a theory that is not widely accepted or is later invalidated has no bearing on the reliability of their writing. Generally though one should use recent writing, so much of his earlier writing should probably not be used. Also, the fact that a writer is published in the academic mainstream does not mean that their writing outside the mainstream is reliable. TFD (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Irene Mahoney, reliable source for 16th century France?

Is the book, Madame Catherine, by Irene Mahoney a reliable source? My search for Irene Mahoney's credentials garnered this:

• Taught English at a college in Taiwan[34][35]
• Masters in Victorian poetry and Doctorate in Melville?[36]
  

What I am not seeing is any specialization in the time period in question nor any formal education in the field of history, especially for 16th century France.[37][38] Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

In that case, all would depend on what scholars thought of the book. It was published in 1975, with a German translation in 1977. I can find two mentions via JSTOR: these are the urls if you can use JSTOR, a review, in German, a couple of sentences in English on p. 54 of this article. Both of them say it is more like a historical novel than a biography, that it repeats legends uncritically, and that it doesn't engage with recent scholarship. So I'd say the answer is no. Andrew Dalby 16:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Television Programs

I know that T.V. programs can be treated as primary sources for their plots. Would this be allowed for a musical performance show? Specifically, I'm wanting to say which songs Lee DeWyze performed while on the T.V. show AXS Live. I'm hesitant because I don't think that the show ever has repeats and I'm pretty sure that it's never been released on DVD. So generally, it would be hard for someone to verify the details of what happened in any individual episode. However, in this case, the episode that I'm wanting to use as a reference has been uploaded to YouTube. That said, I'm not sure that I could actually link to the YouTube video, since it wasn't uploaded by anyone affiliated with the series. --Jpcase (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think we even have to determine if the source is reliable because if the only source is one video then I don't see how it possibly passes the due weight test. ElKevbo (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The "Due and undue weight" section only discusses viewpoints. I'm not wanting to discuss a viewpoint; I'm wanting to discuss a fact. If you meant to link to the "Balancing aspects" section, then that's sort of applicable here, but I don't feel that it should really be much of an obstacle. All I'm wanting to have is one sentence in the "Promotion" section of Frames (Lee DeWyze album), to show that DeWyze performed two songs from that album on a T.V. show. That sort of thing probably isn't going to be written about in professional sources very often, but I feel that it's notable enough for a brief mention in this article, especially since the album received a fairly small release and didn't get lots of promotion. This source [39] actually does mention that DeWyze performed on the show; it just doesn't specify which songs he sang. The policy on balancing aspects warns against giving a disproportionate amount of coverage to a topic - A single sentence about a promotional T.V. appearance, in a section devoted to the promotion of the album, shouldn't be too much coverage. --Jpcase (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I just found this source, [40] which specifies which songs he sung on the show, and which seems to be reliable. Still, it would be good for future reference to determine whether a T.V. episode of this sort could be used as a primary source. --Jpcase (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at this and particularly Template:Cite episode. A television episode can be cited as a source, even if it's not available on the internet. Also see Wikipedia:VIDEOLINK. The actual inclusion of the content could still be challenged on other grounds, such as Weight etc., but the show itself is generally considered a reliable source for what happened on the show itself. (Not an interpretation of what happened, such as whether a performance was "good", of course, but for unlikely-to-be challenged facts, such as this person hosted on a particular night, etc.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

And the other link you provided looks like a kind of sel-published entertainment blog with no sense of editorial control, so it might actually be less useful than citing directly. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the help Elaqueate! As for the website that I linked to (cartermatt.com), the "Contact Us" section lists Matt Carter as the Editor-in-Chief, Jessica Carter as the Associate Editor, and refers to the website as an "organization" - unlike most unprofessional blogs, the website is not a part of blogspot.com or wordpress. Would this make it an acceptable reference? --Jpcase (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

A blog probably needs to have more to it than self-identifying as somehow professional. "Reliable" means that there's some secondary evidence that people can rely on it. The blog is probably run by perfectly lovely people, but I don't think it's visibly more reliable for TV opinion than any other self-organized blog. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

No, my point is that if only one or two minor sources have discussed something then no matter how true it is we probably shouldn't include it in an encyclopedia article because it's probably so minor or trivial as to be unimportant. Just because something is true and supported by reliable sources we don't have to include it. ElKevbo (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Trivial things from minor sources can be considered unimportant, but what about when an important thing from a single expert source is significant? I think deciding which is which will necessarily be a content question for case-by-case consensus. That wasn't what was being asked here, which was whether a TV program could ever be considered a reliable source. The answer's a qualified yes as for other sources. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Demographia: World Urban Areas

Note - Previous discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_161#demographia.com TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

After consultation with users TheOriginalSoni and Anna Frodesiak, I restart discussion about the source Demographia: World Urban Areas, because previously noticed irregularities. Previous discussion is here. Source of Demographia: World Urban Areas is currently used in >250 pages in Wikipedia, few articles based on the source (as primary/main source). Demographia: World Urban Areas is the main source on Wikipedia concerning urban areas. Must to be strong consensus to exclude this source from Wikipedia. The previous discussion has not given any serious arguments against this source (according to me); also some posts were nonsensical, confusing administrative city limits, urban area, metropolitan area and urban agglomeration and users who know the topic has not been informed of the discussions. The (currently) discussion is particularly important because the outcome of this discussion may result in the removal of few articles based on this source and verification other similarly sources, including UN, OECD, WorldGazetteer, CityPopulation etc; which have exactly the same disadvantages as Demographia: World Urban Areas. So, what we do in this case? Subtropical-man (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC) (en-2)

Not reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Why exactly according to you is not reliable? Also please give an example of source about urban areas that you think is reliable. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC) (en-2)

It's not a reliable source. However, I'm more concerned about the addition of large volumes of listcruft which has no source at all. bobrayner (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Generally, RS/N is not page for votes, this is page for discussions and consensuses. If anyone thinks that this source is not reliable, please proof or/and explain why. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not reliable because there is no reputation for fact-checking. There are better sources available such as the UN and the OECD. I am aware that they do not use the methodology that you would prefer, but sorry, that is the state of knowledge at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• (ec) Hi Subtropical-man,

Sources will be presumed unreliable unless there is definite reason to show that it's not. In this case, we even had editors discussing why it was not reliable during the previous discussion.

• The first one from TFD said "It is run by Wendell Cox's company, and its objective is to promote automobile use and road construction."
• Yet another statement from Qwyrxian said - "I pointed to a number of reasons on User Talk: Jl2047a, foremost among them being there is clearly no editorial oversight with a history of fact-checking. The grammatical quality of the document indicates a non-professional production. And it is known that the author is an advocate for a very specific form on city planning which presumably would/could be affected by population statistics. Finally, there is no reason to believe that Cox's definition of the urban area is equivalent to Wikipedia definition, especially since he explicitly states that he's making his own decisions based on satellite imagery."

I could go about listing all of them, but as the editor re-opening a discussion that went in favour of removing the source, YOU are expected to provide proof that the source is reliable and address issues raised in the previous discussion.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, So you did not give any serious arguments against this source. Also, UN and the OECD is not sources about urban areas. I asked earlier: "please give an example of source about urban areas that you think is reliable" (if there).

TheOriginalSoni, maybe Wendell Cox's have activities in road constructions etc, but United Nations (UN) is intergovernmental organisation to promote international cooperation (per Wikipedia), OECD is Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and have own range of activities and the same - other sources about urban areas, metropolitan areas and urban agglomerations. Your second argument is only Qwyrxian's susceptive private opinion (with words type "presumably would/could be"). These are only his private thoughts/reflections, I have a different. Everyone has the right to a subjective opinion. Subtropical-man (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure you have a right to your own opinion. You came here to get opinions from editors who are interested in sourcing. I gave you my opinion and you also had one from TFD. You may not get any further ones, I'm afraid. On the specific question about how we source a figure for an urban area, we can often get that from a national government source. I am aware that then we don't have consistency from one country to another. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"...national government source. I am aware that then we don't have consistency from one country to another" - so, will be a mess and also national government sources is not reliable source to urban areas, this is reliable source to city limits/county/region. Subtropical-man (talk) (en-2) 12:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Data by Demographia: World Urban Areas is correct, now is the best source about urban areas. There is no other (better) sources about urban areas, the only alternative is government sources but will be a mess and also national government sources is not reliable source to urban areas, this is reliable source to city limits/county/region. Subtropical-man (talk) (en-2) 21:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of allkpop

Note: I'm putting this here since I don't know where else I can take this. WP:KO did not reply, the K-pop article is inappropriate for this kind of discussion, and there is no K-pop project page. Please move this if you know a better place for it. Thanks! -KJ ^{click here} 01:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Background: Allkpop is an English, US-based K-pop blog published by 6Theory Media, LLC. Despite its disclaimer that it is a 'celebrity gossip site which publishes rumors and conjecture in addition to accurately reported facts' as self-proclaimed here, it is also the most trafficked English based K-pop news site in the world, with over 6 million monthly readers worldwide and 100 million pageviews per month, according to its website. There has been previous discussions about the validity of this site as a source, at the reliable sources noticeboard, best represented by the discussions: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_121#allkpop.com and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_125#Allkpop_and_Soompi, mostly with a consensus that it's unreliable. However, Wikipedians seems to trust and use allkpop as a reliable source. There is a somewhat significant usage of allkpop as a source, as seen in the following articles: A Pink showing 28 out of 67 sources; Sistar showing 28 out of 50; Miss A showing 39 out of 63.

Thus, I believe that allkpop should be considered a reliable source if the information cited is more than one month old. Please discuss below.

• My Opinion: Following WP:SOURCE, the information on the site must be 'reliable, third-party, published... with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.' For reliability, it's a translation of Korean news article. The website is a third party site, and the information is published online. Concerning its accuracy, allkpop appears to be a mostly reliable source despite the aforementioned disclaimer and the previous discussions on the noticeboard. I have been cross-referencing the information with the information on Korean news sites as I was adding the references to the article 4Minute, and I found the information to be mostly reliable. The disclaimer looks more like a way of avoiding lawsuits than a claim that its information is unreliable. The only problem with accuracy may be rumors, and the one month limit should take care of the problem. Anything unconfirmed or wrong should be retracted by then. I am highly pushed by the fact that allkpop is pretty much the only English language source for Kpop. The alternative is a clean-up project to remove the information sourced for the website. Thanks! -KJ ^{click here} 01:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

gun control study, and popular media coverage thereof.

doi:10.7326/M13-1301 is a meta-analysis from the Annals of Internal Medicine that looks at risks of completed suicide or homicide on the basis of access to guns. I dont think there is any disagreement that this is a WP:RS, which states the conclusion that "Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide." however, the study (on my reading) does not quantify the level of additional risk directly (IE X times greater risk, or additional X suicides per Y guns). It does quite often state the Odds ratio (OR) which does describe the statistical strength of the association.

Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated, although published adjusted estimates were preferentially used. Summary effects were estimated using random- and fixed-effects models. Potential methodological reasons for differences in effects through subgroup analyses were explored. Data were pooled from 15 observational studies that assessed the odds of suicide or homicide, yielding pooled ORs of 3.24 (95% CI, 2.41 to 4.40) and 1.94 (CI, 1.44 to 2.93), respectively. When only studies that used interviews to determine firearm accessibility were considered, the pooled OR for suicide was 3.14 (CI, 2.29 to 4.43).

As our article on OR states, the OR is confusing, and prone to misrepresentation/exaggeration Odds_ratio#Confusion_and_exaggeration

Popular media have picked up on the study [41] for example, with statements such as "Having guns in the home triples the risk of suicide and doubles the risk of homicide, researchers reported on Monday."

I believe this to be a clear case of the confusion and exaggeration issue described in our OR article, as the study does not ever state Relative Risk (and indeed as our articles on the two types of statistics note, it is often impossible to generate such statistics, a situation which I believe applies as the study is specifically identified as involving Case-control_study ) And surely a 2-3x risk result would be prominently placed in their abstract or conclusions.

The two other major ways of quantifying association are the risk ratio (″RR″) and the absolute risk reduction (″ARR″). In clinical studies and many other settings, the parameter of greatest interest is often actually the RR, which is determined in a way that is similar to the one just described for the OR, except using probabilities instead of odds. Frequently, however, the available data only allows the computation of the OR; notably, this is so in the case of case-control studies, as explained below.

Question : Are the popular media sources reliable for statements of analysis of the study such as "Having guns in the home triples the risk of suicide and doubles the risk of homicide" Gaijin42 (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Since Gaijin has already cited one NBC report on this, I am providing these in addition for reference:

• "http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-guns-in-home-increase-suicide-homicide-risk/"
• "http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/20/study-finds-people-with-guns-more-at-risk-for-suicide-and-homicide.html"
• "http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-guns-20140121,0,1179362.story#axzz2r3SVOM6o"
• "http://www.philly.com/philly/health/topics/HealthDay684000_20140120_Easy_Access_to_Guns_Tied_to_Higher_Risk_of_Suicide__Homicide.html"
• "http://nation.time.com/2014/01/20/study-guns-in-home-raise-risk-of-suicide-murder/"
• "http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/hsn/easy-access-to-guns-tied-to-higher-risk-of-suicide-homicide"

The just-started discussion that prompted this notice is here on the talk page of this currently edit-protected article. Also, I'm having trouble formulating a response to the question, the first half of which is general and the second half is specific. All the media sources listed are reliable sources, so the question is... What? Lightbreather (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Source may be reliable in one context but not in another. The question is are these sources reliable for accurate analysis and interpretation of medical/scientific studies. Per WP:MEDRS#Popular_press the answer is quite often no.Gaijin42 (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That helps me understand your question better. If it is "Are popular media sources reliable for accurate analysis and interpretation of medical/scientific studies?" could you re-word it that way (above)? But that sounds like an overly broad question. It's almost like we have to make a decision about each source, though there are at least seven of them. I've never participated on this noticeboard before, so I guess I'll stand back and observe now. Lightbreather (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Crown Metal Products Locomotive Roster Reliability

There is disagreement on the reliability of the following source: http://www.trainweb.org/crownmetalproducts/roster.html. In sum, this website provides a table of locomotives made for small railroads located in amusement parks and theme parks, primarily in the United States, and is based on a compilation of historical essays made by a former amusement park employee found on the same website at this link: http://www.trainweb.org/parktrains/Builders/Crown%20Metals.html. An official verification of this website's reliability will be helpful. Jackdude101 (Talk) 20:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Context please? Mangoe (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This is being cited in various amusement park and railroad articles. Here are some examples: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3. The web site, trainweb.org, has listed correspondence with a former amusement park employee as its source. This correspondence – or as the web site states, "historical essays" – isn't published anywhere else, as far as I can tell. I found it suspect on the basis that anyone can start a personal website to publish personal email correspondence. Without proper editorial oversight, I don't see how we can deem this reliable. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

TrainWeb sites are as a rule self-published. We might make an exception for someone generally acknowledged as knowledgeable but by the default this should be considered fan-published material. Mangoe (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A source's source doesn't have to be publicly accessible. For example, the source for newspaper stories is often in-person conversation. We evaluate only the care taken by the source we cite to make sure the information is correct. I just took a look at http://trainweb.org and while it appears to be a site for self-publication (see WP:SPS), the section on Crown Metals indicates editorial oversight and considerable care taken in gathering their facts and getting them right. Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, it appears to me that this source is OK for the kinds of facts being cited: rail gauges, characteristics of park trains, and the like. As Mangoe said, it's basically fan-published material, but within its scope, it's probably more reliable than a typical newspaper article. Since it's produced by amateur writers and an amateur editor rather than professionals, a source that's gone through more ordinary editorial channels should be preferred when one is available. My only real concern would be using it to give undue weight to trivia, but that's a problem with professionally published sources, too. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Andrés Segovia - linking to article that possibly involves copyright violation

The article on Andrés Segovia includes a link to an interview that is hosted on a website which appears to be run by a single person. The interview was conducted by a person (Austin Prichard-Levy) different than the website owner (Ron Payne). There is evidence suggesting that the interview was originally published in a print magazine in the early 1990s; however, I do not know whether the owner of the website has acquired the rights to the interview from the original publication. Although the interview is not an essential source for the Segovia article, it does appear to include valuable information, so it would be preferable to keep the link if possible. My concern is based on WP:ELNEVER, and on WP:LINKVIO, which says, "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work" (my emphasis).
(Not sure where to report the problem. I tried posting to the Copyright Problems talk page to ask in September last year, but received no replies. The external links noticeboard says that "Concerns with links used as references should be handled at the reliable sources noticeboard".) Dezastru (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you cite the original source, the Australian Guitar Journal, (getting the citation right may in itself take some research), and do not link to the website if you suspect there may be a copyright problem. Otherwise, this may be a better page to link to. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I want to sound a note of caution about using this, as it seems it would have the very same copyright issue as the other private lesson guitar teacher with the text of the article on their site. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it wasn't a long lasting journal. The article you link to has the cover of the journal and the image file is named 1990. I can't read the specific issue number off of the cover myself. But the issue is available at one of the libraries listed here. If someone wanted to have a clean citation, they could phone or drop by one of the libraries, but otherwise I'd use the citation here so that people can see that it points to a physical holding somewhere that can be examined. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate both of your replies. Part of my question is whether it is permissible under Wikipedia policies to keep the current link. If we remove the link and simply cite the Australian Guitar Journal, most readers won't have access to that source and won't be able to see precisely what is was that John Williams, who is being interviewed in the article, actually said. Readers will just see the very brief summary provided in this article. What he said in the interview offers a deeper understanding of what he meant about his relationship with Segovia. Dezastru (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I poked around a bit more and I think Justlettersandnumbers found the better pick. [this] lists Ron Payne] as the editor/publisher of the defunct magazine, so at least he's related, and I hadn't noticed the direct connection to the project. I'd still put a citation to the original print magazine, based on the library source, and then keep a link to the text with a note. Good luck. __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. So listed at LinkedIn as well. Dezastru (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Springer are reliable publisher?

And Book like this:-

http://books.google.com/books?id=bae3LP4tfP4C Bladesmulti (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Springer publishes many scholarly journals. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, Thanks, need some suggestions about "Heart of Albion", and Inner Traditions / Bear & Co(example). Bladesmulti (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to explain what kind of suggestion you're looking for if you're connecting a scholarly work concerning astronomical atlases with a book about New Age beliefs entitled Microchakras: InnerTuning for Psychological Well-being. Please try to include all three of 1. Source, 2. Article, and 3. Content when you ask about the reliability of a source, as this would probably not be considered a useful source for supporting the verifiability of spiritual claims. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Major criteria are, if these publishers are reliable. Not sources really, for now. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not divide publishers into inherently 'reliable' and 'unreliable'. As the notice at the top of this page makes entirely clear, if you want meaningful answers regarding reliability, you need to be specific. Which text, in which publication is being used to source what material? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite true. WP:VERIFY says:

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: university-level textbooks books published by respected publishing houses magazines journals mainstream newspapers. Springer is a respected publishing house, it would be rare that you couldn't use a source from them for an article about the subject of the source. But of course it does depend on what you mean do use it for. Inner Traditions/Bear & Co is New Age/fringe etc but it might be possible to use material published by them to show a particular pov or idea held - but again, that's just a general comment, not a statement that you can use any book published by them for such a purpose. On the other hand, I'd argue that you could not use Inner Traditions published books often for factual statements or to represent a mainstream position. - Dougweller

The publisher('s reputation) is one of many criteria that can be used to establish reliability of a source. But note often more than one criteria might be needed to establish reliability (others are for instance reputation of the author, being a peer reviewed publication, sanity check of source's content and most importantly (scholarly) reviews of the source itself). Springer is mainstream publisher and actually one of the largest academic/scholarly publisher in the world (afaik 2nd biggest after elsevier). Hence his scholarly textbooks or journals can usually be considered as reliable. As far as the linked book is concerned in addition to being published by Springer the author seems to be an established academic, so as long as there are no explicit rather negative reviews of that book pointing out errors/unreliability, I'd consider it a reliable source (at first glance)--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

What about "Heart of Albion" ? Bladesmulti (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Not in the same category as Springer at all. There it would depend a lot on the author. Eg Continuity Of Worldviews In Anglo-Saxon England by Bob Trubshaw wouldn't be an RS as he has no qualifications or recognized expertise in the field. And what is happening with sinebot? Didn't sign for me above but signed when I moved a talkpage post from the top to the bottom without adding any text. Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

For argument sake, what evidence would be required to suggest that a book from an academic publisher like Springer, is not reliable? --Iantresman (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

For argument's sake, it would be if you used an otherwise reliable source to support a claim that wasn't well-covered by the source, such as using a physics book that had an anecdote about a celebrity as a source for the celebrity's biography, or using a history book as the only support for a claim about sociological or economic theory, or etc. It wouldn't mean the source wouldn't be a reliable source for other claims, but it wouldn't be a reliable source for some specific claims. It's why a high school yearbook might be considered a perfectly reliable source if the only claim is about whether a person attended a specific high school, or if they wore a hat in their photo, but would be an awful source for just about anything else. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

And as far as specifically "disproving" a specific reliable source for all purposes...? I don't think you can ever really prove certain kinds of negatives, but a source may somehow fail to gain a consensus of editors. Sources are never "proven" reliable, but some are more easily accepted by enough editors to form a consensus (and that consensus can change over time). A generally reliable publisher would have to lose the faith of enough editors, that's all. An author's scandal, enough mediocre books, new evidence, a changing of academic fashion, those are reasons. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, no source should be considered inherently "reliable" just "more reliable than others for certain kinds of claims", as people make mistakes from time to time. Which AndyTheGrump said earlier and I still can't see anything wrong with what he said, but it's all good.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Of note is that even generally 'reliable' publishers occasionally 'leak'. Springer publishes, for instance, Biological Information: New Perspectives: a collection of papers on creationism. It probably snuck into their publishing stream because the authors/editors of the book got it reviewed by Springer's Engineering and Applied Science editors rather than by their biology experts (who would have been more likely to catch the context of what was being submitted: [42]).

At a more granular level, even individual books of generally good quality and reliability can (indeed, will) contain errors and ambiguities. For any contentious statement, we should rely on a single book only with extreme caution; multiple sources would be far batter, and the conscientious editor is encouraged to go back to the book author's primary sources (follow the footnotes!) to verify that assertions really are based on accurate data. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Could we claim that a book published by Springer is unreliable, because the author (a) supports homeopathy (b) is a creation scientist? (c) believes in the Lock Ness Monster (d) is thought to be wrong by some scientists? --Iantresman (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The book may be both reliable and unreliable. It is reliable for the authors statements and beliefs, and possibly as a representative viewpoint of the wider fringe community. It is less (or not) reliable for statements of objective fact, particularly where those facts disagree with the mainstream view. It would be better to be evaluating a particular statement or type of statement that is attempting to be included using this citation to make a determinationGaijin42 (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Why would someone like Springer publish such a book. Surely if there was an issue of reliability, they wouldn't publish it, as they have their reputation to think about? --Iantresman (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Springer in general is a reliable publisher, however, that does not mean that everything they have published is guaranteed acceptable for all purposes. And yes, not only the publisher, but the author impact the status of whether content is generally acceptable and yes, the fact that the author "(a) supports homeopathy (b) is a creation scientist? (c) believes in the Lock Ness Monster (d) is thought to be wrong by some scientists" is incredibly valid rationale to bump the book from "presumed reliable" into the "use only with extreme caution and in limited circumstances". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So unqualified anonymous Wikipedia editors get to decide this, and it trumps a publisher's own due diligence? How is this not WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? For example, Einstein supported the Pole shift hypothesis, categorised as pseudoscience. Does this mean he is no longer "presumed reliable"? Common sense would suggest otherwise. --Iantresman (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Your own example (Einstein) shows that a source can be considered reliable for some claims and unreliable for other claims. At this point Einstein is a reliable source for his own assertions about Pole shift, but a preponderance of other reliable sources would advise against taking him as a reliable source for the likelihood of it being the best description of what could happen. And it's the preponderance of reliable sources that suggest he's the best of reliable sources for certain other descriptions of how things work. It's not "unqualified anonymous Wikipedia editors" in a vacuum. If most reliable sources repudiated a certain book from even the most responsible of publishers, it should probably not be taken as unquestionably reliable. But certain groups of sources can be considered generally reliable, most of the time.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If I've understood you correctly, you're suggesting that "a preponderance of other reliable sources" will help us determine whether a source or an author is satisfactory. So if I find some book reviews, they would help determine whether a book by Springer is OK, and some peer-reviewed articles will help us determine whether an author is OK? --Iantresman (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, book reviews are good, but of course no one criterion or source is going to decide reliability in every case. The goal is to reflect contemporary, mainstream scholarship in the field. One can always find people who oppose the mainstream, mistakes in otherwise credible sources, giants in one field who make mistakes outside their expertise and even within their expertise, etc. It always depends on the specifics of the topic and the sources. Please have a look at WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:FRINGE. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The key issue for me, is who decides. Do anonymous unqualified editors take precedence over independent sources? For example, consider a book published by Springer. If I have three book reviews which give no hint that the book is unreliable, and the book is also used as a source by several peer reviewed papers. Is this outweighed by editors who say that it is unreliable, but have no sources whatsoever that back up this position? --Iantresman (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Too many hypotheticals, this is really getting off track. The answer is it depends. Give us a real example of this happening and we can discuss it. Otherwise all we are doing is speculating. Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Dougweller. Springer is generally considered a publisher of reliable academic material, but as has been pointed out, there is no such thing as a publisher all of whose works will be considered reliable for everything. Springer is a HUGE publishing house and not everything they publish is reliable, see the example TenOfAllTrades provided for an example. We don't know what your specific source, article, and proposed content is, and without that, no specific article content change can be said to be supported by this discussion. Zad68 14:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Are Billboard awards appropriate sources for genres

Is Rihanna Sweeps R&B Categories At Billboard Music Awards: The singer wins three R&B awards and Top Radio Songs Artist sufficient sourcing to add R&B to the infobox of the album's article page. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If the industry recognizes her as fitting into that category, then yes, it's enough to be nominated. Winning is overkill. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

So, do you think that if the album, Unapologetic, won a Billboard award in 2013 for Top R&B Album, that an editor could add R&B to the infobox of the Wikipedia article, Unapologetic? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Subjective interpretations of creative works should be attributed to professional critiques, interpretations held by notable individuals, etc. (WP:SUBJECTIVE) That is the case in Unapologetic's Music and lyrics section. Anonymous voters in "the industry" would not be up to the standard you have requested in the past ("musicologist"?), so I'm surprised you're pursuing this. Dan56 (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you comparing a blurb in The Miami Herald to winning three Billboard awards? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you comparing a journalist's written prose to a music industry umbrella term? If readers wanted to know how the industry categorizes their music releases, they can visit iTunes. Again, I cited a guideline--WP:SUBJECTIVE. It should mean at least something. Dan56 (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this a content dispute about whether a pop album can't also be an R&B album? Is it a mutual exclusivity thing? Because it seems like there's multiple RS (including, funnily enough, RS that put it in both genres. And I think the noble cause of keeping R&B "pure" of any ambiguity or overlap with other genres became moot a while ago. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hypejar as a source for release dates for future video games, TV series, movies and gadget releases

I'm bringing this issue here because I would like to use Hypejar's (hypejar.com) collection of release date information for Wikipedia articles that contain information about future release dates. I've read the reliability guideline, but I would like to clarify that while hypejar.com is a crowd-sourced site, all information is verified by Hypejar staff before it is presented on the site. The release date information cannot appear on the site unless it is verified by Hypejar staff.

Recently I wanted to reference the release date for the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_Steel_(film)#Sequel from the Hypejar page (http://www.hypejar.com/Batman-vs-Superman), however, it was deemed an unreliable source. However, I think the editor believed the information from Hypejar to be from anyone. I'd like to simply clarify that the information is carefully examined before it is posted online by a team of Hypejar staff.

Can you please allow Hypejar to be used as a reliable source as I would like to reference release dates onto the Wikipedia. Also, it seems that a site without release date verifications, Hypebadger.com is being approved by Wikipedia currently. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Ball_Z:_Battle_of_Z#cite_note-1

Thank you.--Gqgy (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If the staff is able to verify the information provided by users, that means we should be able to find the sources they are using to verify that information and avoid the "middle man' of Hypejar. You can use Hypejar to go "Okay, they believe X will come out on Y", and then use those bits of information to search for the reliable source to confirm that, but otherwise, this is like IMDB - users can submit info, there is some editorial control, but the chain of validity is hard to check. --MASEM (t) 19:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. So if I understand correctly, if the Hypejar.com's release date is verified by a reference which is deemed reliable by Wikipedia standards, then the release date can be reference on Wikipedia? Second question is, would it be possible to know how Hypebadger is used as a reliable source on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Ball_Z:_Battle_of_Z#cite_note-1)? --Gqgy (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't make hasty assumptions -- perhaps it isn't reliable :) I can't comment further because my browser can't open any Hypebadger pages. Andrew Dalby 20:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean that again, if the Hypejar.com's release date is verified by a reference which is deemed reliable by Wikipedia standards, then the release date can be reference on Wikipedia?--Gqgy (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that the reference give is an reliable source, we can source that reference for the release date, yes. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Now would it be possible to get an answer as to how Hypebadger.com is able to source on Wikipedia?--Gqgy (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

When you say Hypebadger "sources on Wikipedia", that means to me that a wikipedian has used Hypebadger as source, rightly or wrongly. You're a wikipedian too, so if you think Hypebadger is not a reliable source, by the standards discussed on this page, you can raise the issue at the talk page where Hypebadger is used. If anyone there disagrees, you can certainly bring the problem here.

As I said above, I can't comment on the detail because I can't see Hypebadger pages, and you haven't explained yet what makes it a reliable or unreliable source. Andrew Dalby 09:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Global Vision Pub House - Are reliable?

Book link. Not sure who is the author of this book though, but it has some good theories about Buddhism, which can be used for further extending the articles. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You aren't going to get useful answers without including what text or claim (and what specific article) you want to use the source for. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueta, right now it is Page 952, chapter called "Wheel of life", for Dharmachakra. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you give the relevant quotes? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"In the Dharmic religions, (Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism) the wheel of life or dharmachakra(sanskrit:tibetan chos kyi 'khor lo;' see also the names section below) is a mandala or symbolic representation of samsara, the continuous cycle of birth, life, death. One is liberated from this endless cycle of rebirth when bodhi, englightenment, nirvana, moksha or samadhi is reached." Page 952. Similar theories backed by other sources,[43], [44], [45].Bladesmulti (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The term "Dharmic religions" makes me cautious. Also the heaping together of bodhi etc. makes me cautious. "bodhi" and "enlightenment" can equated, but are not the same as "Nirvana". Sach ("Everythin Book") is not a good source in this context; there are enough books by top-scholars. Same for Weeks ("Philosophy in Minutes"): "Many different religions [...] now collectively known as Hinduism." - ahum. Buddhism = Hinduism? Wouldn't trust this one too much. Brown ("Dvaravati Wheel") is published by BRILL; absolutely reliable! Page XXV ff? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So the first book, "Oriental Philosophy and Religion", and Publisher : "Global Vision Pub House", can be regarded as reliable? Bladesmulti (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Global Vision Publishing House is an extensive republisher of Wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Ghi#Global_Vision_Publishing_House_.28publisher.29 and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_89#Potentially_a_big_problem_with_circular_references.2C_mirroring_.26c The advice given is "Do not presume that any book from this publishing house is a reliable source". It's also a good idea to search the archives here before asking. It's used in a lot of our articles and really should be added as a cleanup above. I'm annoyed with myself because someone (one of the Paul's here I think) gave a couple of other names that are basically the same outfit. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted. I knew I'd seen that publisher before, but I didn't check the archives ... Andrew Dalby 09:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Restaurant Stakeout, Reality Blurred and TheAshleys

There was a brief discussion about the use in Restaurant Stakeout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)] of Realityblurred before[46] with just one response saying it shouldn't be used. The contested material was removed in November and replaced two days ago. I removed it again with an edit summary saying the sources weren't reliable and to go to RSN if the editor though they were, but I was reverted with the edit summary "The sources clearly provide ample fodder to question the legitimacy of the program. How is this contested? The word allegded was used." The relevant text is:

The show has come under fire for allegedly being staged. Former show participants have come clean to the press that indeed producers have hired actors, told employees how to behave, edited the time in a false manner, as well as explain to cast members how they'll be portrayed.[47] Other former show participants allege that they were asked to sign and give releases, meaning they understood the show was potentially being staged.[48] Further evidence to support the claim is that the program has had casting calls, soliciting actors to portray wait staff.[49]

I don't think that just adding 'alleged' is enough, although I will say that HuffPost uses realityblurred[50] as a source but without adding anything. It also seems to me that this is a WP:BLP issue as it reflects on William Jack "Willie" Degel who hosts the show. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to say I don't see theashleysrealityroundup.com as a source we should use here either. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Issue resolved, editor removed the section. Happy ending. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Internet Pinball Database (ipdb.org) as a reliable source

I would like to add a bunch of pages for pinball machines that do not currently exist. After adding my first one and using ipdb.org as a source, I was told this site is not a reliable source as it is an online wiki. I would like to state that the site is run and edited by a small group of experts in their field. They have published books. You can submit data but it is verified by expert staff before they accept it. They also require reference material and it is cited on each page. Is there a way to get a site approved as a reliable source? Thanks.

Internet Pinball Database

About IPDB

Through consensus here, the site could be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Although this is not a source with professional editorial oversight, those that run it are apparently experts within the industry, and therefore it should be considered reliable when used appropriately. Others will likely weigh in, but that's my opinion anyway. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of Education-related PhD thesis: School uniform "study"

The information would go in School uniform.

This is described as a "study" in the popular media, but it is an Education Leadership PhD thesis by Virginia Draa.

• "School Uniforms in Urban Public High Schools." (Archive) Youngstown State University. November 2005.

Compared to a peer-reviewed academic journal article is this reliable? Should this study be mentioned on school uniforms? There is some discussion about its reliability here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Education#Locating_pro-school_uniform_studies

The articles discussing the uniform debate in the United States use this PhD thesis as evidence for the "pro-uniforms" side and call it a "study"

A group of related documents:

• "Study says school uniforms might help attendance, graduation rates." (Archive) Associated Press at 19 Action News. 2006.
• Weiss, Jennifer. "Do Clothes Make the Student?" The New York Times. September 16, 2006.
• "YSU professor studies school uniforms." (Archive) Youngstown State University. January 11, 2006.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, of course this is a reliable source. Four members of her committee reviewed her dissertation and that certainly satisfies any elements of peer review.

As is almost always the case, the more interesting questions revolve around undue weight and whether the source should be used at all regardless of its reliability. That's beyond the purview of this noticeboard but I can't imagine anyone saying that this study - and why you slander the author by using scare quotes around the word "study" is beyond me - hasn't received prominent attention when the Grey Lady mentioned the study and quoted its author as an expert in this subject.

A minor point: I am guessing that the degree in question is an EdD and not a PhD since the title page of the dissertation says it's for a "Doctor of Education" degree and not a "Doctor of Philosophy" degree. But that has no impact on the question you've raised.

ElKevbo (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if it would count as a study in the same way if it was a PhD thesis, and Zarlan argued it wasn't a study in that way. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying. What working definition of "study" are you using? ElKevbo (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is: my interpretation of Zarlan's argument was that the PhD thesis could not be a study, and that only a peer reviewed journal article could truly be a study, and I had the impression his argument was correct and/or widely held on here. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Doctoral dissertations, whether Ed.D. or Ph.D., get a lot of editorial oversight, often from leading experts in the field, who even sign their names indicating their approval. They usually report research findings, so they count as studies in the sense used in the article. They're also usually extremely thorough, both in their research and in their review of pre-existing research. This one is no exception. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I've been through this, and no, this is not true across the board. Yes, the thesis will have been reviewed by the advisory committee and a good committee will be critical but others will be more looking at the scientific process rather than the claims of the results. As such, by default, thesis should be considered unreliable. But that said - if the committee includes a known expert in the field that might be a reason to assume reliability. And in many places, publication in peer-reviewed journals (which might become part of the thesis) is a necessary requirement, so finding a thesis of a topic of interest, one should seek out papers by that person that were part of the thesis. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I argue that we have to accept doctoral thesis as reliable because the process is designed to produce reliable studies. The requirement for a PhD is usually original research that is publishable in a professional journal. We should accept these as reliable. Reliable doesn't mean infallible. This article shows the problem [51] with much of the research that is published in academic journals. It would be preferable if one could find research that has made it into textbooks on the subject, generally several textbooks. But we have to defer to the experts despite the alarming rate of errors. (edit conflict with above) Jason from nyc (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Just as we don't consider a peer-reviewed journal article reliable just because it's peer-reviewed, a doctoral dissertation doesn't get a free pass, either. But this one is certainly a study. The new research that it reports on is WP:PRIMARY and therefore questionable, while the literature review is WP:SECONDARY and probably of high quality. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

I just took a look, and it doesn't look to me like cherry-picking. It appears that WhisperToMe is trying to put together a neutral summary of the literature supporting and opposing school uniforms. It also appears that the article is falling into the quagmire of "So-and-so argued 'quotation' and so-and-so said 'quotation'" rather than a thoughtful summary of the main facts and ideas. That might be OK—sometimes you have to make a mess before you can clean it up—but there might be an easier way. Recommendation: If possible, find a source that reviews the leading literature and summarize that. Such a source will make clear what are the most important facts and opposing ideas, along with their significance. Not only does this keep you away from WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:PRIMARY sources, often summarizing such a source is pretty straightforward: you just plod through it from beginning to end, note the highlights, and write 'em up concisely. For many topics, such sources are hard to find, but the literature summary in the above-discussed dissertation might provide just what you need. It won't include the dissertation's own research or more-recent research, but it could give you a huge running start in making this a good article. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm trying to account for all of the literature on school uniforms. A lot of proponents of school uniforms in the US have used Draa's study as proof aiding their side (you can see it if you do a google search "Draa uniform study") so I think the section has to address it somehow. Also her literature review mentions Long Beach USD's adoption of uniforms as being influential in the spread of uniforms. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Good luck on the article! —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I found a page in an earlier review http://books.google.com/books?id=eUlOtatZgmEC&pg=PA29 by one of the people who argued that the school uniform research was inconclusive. But it's from 2004 or so. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

PhD theses are rs, that is written in policy. That is a totally separate issue from whether the opinions expressed are notable. This appears to be an issue of weight. TFD (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

TFD, that isn't what our policy says. PhD theses are not automatically reliable. WP:VERIFY says:

Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.

I've certainly seen at least one PhD theses which is as unreliable as you can get (and really, really bad - but it was passed by an eastern European university for, I presume, 'political' reasons). Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that is the exception that proves the rule. In general PhD theses go through a process of review, There are however unaccredited colleges and degree mills, but in most western countries do not allow them. This PhD thesis is from an accredited university, was reviewed by academics and is publicly available. TFD (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we should be wary of using PhD theses as academic sources. If nothing hangs on it and no one objects, it should be okay, but for anything contentious it's worth bearing in mind that there's a big variation in quality between mainstream universities, and even within the same university between different departments. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Do I detect cherry-picking here? yes. And,,, should we be spending time discussing the 1 in a million PhD thesis that was passed through for political - or any other - reasons? No. Why not? Well, for the same reason that we don't allow a single dissenting example to steer the course of an article, namely, Undue weight. It boils down to this: a Master's, PhD's, etc. dissertation meets WP:RS by default, and as such is reliable unless it can be unequivocally proven that it does not meet RS. "Unequivocally proven" implies the presentation of evidence that shows, not just beyond the quincentennial "reasonable doubt" acid test, but via clear and convincing evidence to the contrary to any reasonably prudent person. "Unequivocally proven" means that the conviction that the dissertation is not RS is arrived at, not via the "preponderance of the evidence" but, again, via demonstrating thru clear and convincing evidence to any reasonably prudent person that the dissertation is not RS.

How is this done? Well, first, let's consider that the publishing of a noncompleted (unsigned) thesis is very, very, very rare for two reasons: (1) An noncompleted thesis is useless (if it hasn't been signed off by the thesis committee it is as good as a draft), and (2) the publishing of a noncompleted thesis is a self-published work (again making it useless to the academic world at large). With that said, completed dissertations are all RS unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. What does "clear and convincing evidence" mean? It means that hard evidence is available showing the thesis is not reliable. For example, a Wikipedia's claim that a thesis is not reliable (such as the "it didn't go thru a high enough level of peer review rigor" and the "it's not valid because I think it was passed thru by an eastern European university for, I presume, political reasons") is not "clear and convincing" evidence. That is, the bar to disqualify an academic thesis is set far higher than just making a claim, and far higher than just coming up with some presumption, and even far higher than just coming up with real, hard evidence, yet evidence that does not directly support the claim that the thesis is not reliable. "Clear and convincing" evidence means, for example, that a third, independent authority has concluded that the thesis was a fraud, or that it was completed without following the minimum standards of academic scholarship. The opinions of Wikipedians are, in the end, irrelevant; what is valuable in categorizing a thesis as not reliable is that other sources say so.

Additionally, if there is such and such WP policy that says such and such, well, that's beautiful. But there is also a WP policy, established as a far more fundamental policy than all the other policies, and which says ignore everything else and just go ahead and use common sense. We oftentimes seem to forget about using common sense.

Lastly, call it what you will, but a thesis, a dissertatiton, a study, or what have you, are all examples of the same thing - peer-reviewed academic documents that are the bread and butter of Wikipedia's preferred sources because of their reliability, credibility and neutrality. Mercy11 (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It's still not that simple. Another issue that can determine whether we use any peer-reviewed study is whether or not it's gained traction in academic circles. Eg one-off study on DNA 8 years ago that has been completely ignored since shouldn't be used as a source, even if it was a PhD, published paper, etc. There simply is no hard and fast rule that we can apply. And the idea that all peer-reviewed material is neutral simply is wrong. Dougweller (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You are confusing rs and weight. The thesis is a reliable secondary source for the development of school uniforms, the arguments offered for and against them, and the academic literature on them, which is the subject of the first 50 pages. It is also a reliable primary source for the study carried out and the author's conclusions. Whether or not they should be reported depends on the degree of acceptance they have. Generally we should avoid using primary sources for articles. If a study has become influential, then secondary sources will explain that.

Certainly, PhD theses will vary in quality and like any sources may contain errors. But does anyone think that a PhD thesis from a reputable university is any less reliable than an article by a journalist on the same subject?

Incidentally, peer-reviewed literature is rarely neutral, since the whole point of most academic writing is to argue for different positions. But being neutral and getting one's facts right are two different things. Neutrality is a requirement for Wikipedia articles not for sources. TFD (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't confusing rs and weight - I was commenting on using peer-reviewed studies, not whether they were RS - I guess I wasn't specific enough with my wording but I thought the point was important to make here. But I agree with everything else you've said here. Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The Hollywood Gossip

What exactly is the policy on gossip websites? Specifically, I'm wondering about thehollywoodgossip.com [52]. I don't want to use it as a news source, but rather, am thinking about citing it's opinion of a musical performance. --Jpcase (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Critical_response if the reviewer has been a professional reviewer on a major site/had their reviews previously published in a book or as a standard "expert" on major network shows, then probably usable. If the reviewer is pseudonymous random blogger from a blog that is not even itself notable, then no. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)