Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 162

Archive 155←Archive 160Archive 161Archive 162Archive 163Archive 164Archive 165

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan

The lead of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan contained the following line:

"One of India's most influential scholars of comparative religion and philosophy, Radhakrishnan built a bridge between the East and the West by showing how the philosophical systems of each tradition are comprehensible within the terms of the other."

The following two "sources" were given for this line:

"One of India's most influential scholars of comparative religion and philosophy, Radhakrishnan is considered through his efforts built a bridge between East and West by having shown the philosophical systems of each tradition to be comprehensible within the terms of the other."
"One of India􀂶s most influential scholars of comparative religion and philosophy, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan is considerd through his efforts to have built a bridge between the East and the West by showing that the philosophical systems of each tradition are comprehensible within the terms of the other."

Unfortunately, those two sources are almost exact copies of the Wikipedia-article. The Wikipedia-lead got changed to this specific text in 2007;

"One of the foremost scholars of comparative religion and philosophy in his day, he built a bridge between Eastern and Western thought showing each to be comprehensible in the terms of the other. "

Behura's article is from 2010; the Study Guide is from 2012. So, these sources are not WP:RS, IMO. This has been discussed at Talk:Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan#Lead (continued). Comments are welcome. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Clearly unreliable circular sources (and I say that even while maintaining that the wikipedia sentence is fine and reliably sourceable using sources such as these))
Another indication that we should be very wary using these govt of Orissa publications as sources on wkipedia. See earlier comments and discussion here, here and at Talk:Jayadeva. Also pinging @Dougweller, RegentsPark, and Sitush: who have been active at that last page and perhaps should be aware of this additional evidence of source "quality". Abecedare (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Can we replace sources then? Whatever is written, seems pretty common to me, and that page of Radhakrishnan has multiple issues right now. I will check it soon. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Cram101 should never be used as a source. I'll start a new thread on it. Orissa goverment publications are also dubious and need to be carefully used. I've seen them used to make factual assertions that certain historical events have been proven when that is simply a pov and contradicted by other scholarly sources. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Defining Movement and Shwebomin

The Shwebomin claimed to be a pretender of Burmese Throne. I have never heard of his existence before. His name is never mentioned in official genealogy nor in any Burmese history book. The source cited is an interview on a talk show, "Defining Movement". I have never heard of that show before. Could it be a good source for BLP? SWH® talk 16:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

No. We need to have reliable sources, independent of him, about his origin and the claim he makes in order to create an article about him. It's a matter of notability also: if someone has reacted publicly to his claim, in reliable sources that we can cite, that might help to make him notable; if there's no such reaction, it suggests he isn't. Andrew Dalby 09:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for comment. Yes, I believe neutrality would be impossibly difficult to obtain if all information is based on interviews and his official site. I guess we should delete it until someone, a historian or researcher reacts in RS. 03:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The reliability of the interview is not in question, the questions are (1) for what information can the interview be reliably cited, and (2) does an interview, together with other sources, constitute coverage of an individual? The answer to the first is at WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source and WP:SELFPUB#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves, and the answer to the second is yes. --Bejnar (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of general blogs reporting specific scientific info without references

Source : Guardian.co.uk blog http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/apr/18/athletics.comment

Article: Carl Lewis

Content:

I am disputing with another editor (User_talk:BearMan998) the use of a blog-like comment on the Guardian.co.uk to assess the truth of certain claims related to the field of medicine. First of all the guardian blog vaguely reports that

and that significantly differs from what is reported in the wikipedia article as in one case there is a supposition ("believe", "can") and in the other a proper assertion ("recognized", "used as"). Second and most important, the author of the blog in the Guardian reports quite a vague statement on the use of stimulants as masking agents. He doesn't cite who the experts are or any related work, or a case study that can lead to a verifiable scientific source. That said I can't find any evidence or hint among scientific publications or dissertations about such claims. Stimulants and masking agents are two distinct categories in doping medicine and it seems to me there is nowhere consensus or knowledge that certain stimulants or a combination of them can result into the effects of a masking agent for steroids. I asked the other editor if he can corroborate with other reliable sources what is claimed in the Guardian blog but didn't give me any hint. He asked me to provide a source that counterclaims that in the context of the Lewis Guardian blog, which seems to me not a sensible request as nobody in the world of science would in any case bother to disprove something that is not proven. He is willing to accept the statement of the blog, whose author has not a reputation in the field of medicine I guess, as a reliable source of scientific consensus/awareness over the relationship between stimulants and masking agents. To my experience vague statements like "someone believes that..." are unacceptable sources of truth and are not worth mention in an encyclopedia. Moreover in the field of science even blank suppositions without any specific motivation are worthless. Since the statement in the Guardian sounds like an isolated rumor rather than an objective verifiable fact I feel it shouldn't be reported on any page in the Wikipedia to support a certain thesis. What is your take? JJCasual 23:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to chime in, the cited source is not a blog as claimed above, but a sports article written in the The Guardian. As seen on Talk Page, in my discussions with JJCasual, I noted that the article never states that all stimulants are masking agents, it instead states that the particular combination of chemicals found in Lewis has potential to mask more serious drugs. From that statement, JJ is making the blanket conclusion that the author of the article was stating that all stimulants are masking agents, which the article never states. And from the argument I saw, it was mainly a combination of taking that incorrect conclusion and combining it with links on stimulants with nothing to do with the Lewis case which I found faulty and appeared to be WP:SYN more than anything else. Additionally, I stated that if JJ can find a source that refutes the author's statement in the article, that it can be freely added as a counterpoint. BearMan998 (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
If you read the link above the Guardian page reports "athletics.comment". So we could classify it more like a mere "comment" rather than a blog or article or whatever we like. In any case, being a blog or not doesn't change its reputation as source of such specific scientific info. The same statement of "combination" is ambiguous in the article. Because "combination" is used to say that those 3 specific stimulants where also found together in his teammates. The "which" that follows is unclear if it is related to the "drugs" alone or to the "combination of drugs". Just to show one more time how vague things are here, the author, a few days later, made the same claim, without referring to the "combination" in another article:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/apr/24/athletics.duncanmackay
That said I also dispute the assertion that the particular combination has got that potential because I can't find any evidence or hint anywhere else out of the Guardian. To my view if someone is the only one merely reporting that "some expert believe an apple + a pear + a banana combined may result into a vegetable" doesn't mean this must be considered reliable and worth an encyclopedia until we have found a source that explains "No they do not combine to a vegetable". Disproving unproven truths is not the methodology adopted in science and it is never the starting point of a research. Here the problem is that we can't find proof or a background or a link for that Guardian remark in scientific literature. Something that is not discussed in scientific literature is something that has no consensus. JJCasual 09:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
At first I was going to be of the opinion that the source was fine for the claim, but then I dug a little deeper, and I'm curious to where the writer of that article/comment/blog/whatever got the idea. He certainly didn't come up with it himself (or shouldn't have, anyway). When I look at the literature (yes, there is such a thing for the subject of doping in sports) there is literally no shortage of articles about the use of these specific drugs amongst athletes, alongside discussion of the use of anabolic steroids, alongside the use of masking agents. And never, ever, did I see any scientific publication mention the use of Pseudophedrin etc. as masking agents. So I'm curious as to whether this is a significant opinion, or something the reporter made up, or something one doctor told him. It's always possible there are more obvious reliable sources for this claim and I just didn't find them, but it's hard to track down when a reporter uses such annoyingly weasely statements as "some believe". Someguy1221 (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. Since you are a PhD student in biology I presume you review/write scientific publications (as I did when I was a PhD) and you are aware such statements ("some believe") have little to no value in a scientific context. I am glad anyway you are a guy from such field, so that can help us with a take from within that specific scientific ground. Presumably you also have a better access to journals and conferences databases so that you can search deeper than me and come out with something better than a mere "someone believes that it can...". I would dispute also about the overall quality (and neutrality as it has subtle hints USOC covered up while the sentence of the Denver federal court dismissed such claims) of the Guardian article as it lacks so much important information about the Carl Lewis stimulant case that it results really in a poor read. But that's not the main concern. Would you then help us in assessing the truth around the stimulant/masking agent remark in the Guardian? And would the opinion of a single doctor notable anyway? As far as I know isolated opinions (which are not followed by proofs, case studies, experiments or serious motivation or background), whether they came from a scientist or not, are still poor sources to do a certain claim. Would you agree? Thanks JJCasual (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:NEWSBLOG applies. This source should in principle be reliable for sports news. It is of course not reliable at all for any medical claims. This is why we have the guideline WP:MEDRS. Even the very best sports journalist isn't an expert on medicine. Please ensure that all medical claims are backed by a source that meets MEDRS. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Definitely. That should also be the policy to follow for claims in other scientific fields like physics, electronics, geology etc. It is crystal clear that the Guardian articles do not meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS. Since at the moment it is very hard to find any reliable source nowhere near to back their claim, this is indisputably not worth mention in an encyclopedia. JJCasual (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Series Now

Is seriesnow.com considered reliable? It looks like IMDB, which I know has been judged to be unreliable. There doesn't seem to be any info at the website as to who owns it, who edits, or anything else to be used as a guide as to quality. Is used at Ricardo Chávez, and about 64 other articles [1]. — Brianhe (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Internet Broadway Database

Is Internet Broadway Database a WP:RS?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, looks good for information as to when a show ran, in which theatre, etc., also for signed reviews. Take care with anything that might be controversial. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Itsmejudith. Also in support of the IBDB's reliability is the fact that it is sponsored by The Broadway League, the trade association for Broadway theatre which also co-sponsors the Tony Awards. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ashok Sundari

In the article Ashok Sundari none of the sources being used seem reliable. They are proiding wrong information. These are the websites:

These sources say

However I cannot find anywhere that she is either mentioned in Padma Purana or any Vrat-kathas of Gujrat. Also they are also providing wrong information. They say that Ashok SUndari married Nahusha and he was the grandson of Yayati. However Nahusha actually maried Viraja, the daughter of Pitrs. Also Yaytai was son of Nahusha not his grandfather. This is mentioned in these sources which are scholary sources:

Also here is a short translation of Padma Purana which does mention Nahusha and Yayati as his son but does not mention any Ashok Sundari:

Mythological articles are scholary articles and only that information should be added which has scholarly consensus according to WP:RS. The sources used in the article Ashok Sundari are providing wrong information. Therefore, they are probably unreliable or their reliabilty cannot be established. This Ashok Sundari appeared in TV show Devon Ke Dev...Mahadev and from there probably some people got an idea she existed in real. Actually she is just a character in a play by Shambuprasad Dunghel. I can not find any scholary source which says that she exists in Hindu mythology and also there is no scholarly consensus on her at all. I think this article is more based on personal opinion rather than reliable sources. I would like to ask other users and administrators whether those sources used in this article Ashok Sundari are reliable at all and whether they should be removed. Thank you. MythoEditor (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ballotpedia

Is Ballotpedia a reliable source? I see it used both for election information and for general details about BLPs. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Verifying reliability of a source for Christian terrorism

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/tripura/terrorist_outfits/NLFT.HTM

Seems reliable to me, but it has been pointed by one user to be unreliable, kindly have a look at the talk pages too, and recent edits. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: The page is created by the Institute for Conflict Management, and the bios of the faculty, (including notable people such as Ajai Sahni and Kanwar Pal Singh Gill) is available here:[2]. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Amazing finding by Bryonmorrigan, but one user is certainly disagreeing with such reliable source. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
That will be User:Collect. Hopefully he'll provide his rationale here now. It may depend on what it is being used for. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
A source misused for a claim is not a reliable source for that claim. Below are just a few of the worst misuses of sources -- where a source says nothing at all related to the claim it is supposed to support it does not support that claim and is not WP:RS for that claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

[3] from SATP is used as a source for the claims:

It is classified by the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism as one of the ten most active terrorist groups in the world, and has been accused of forcefully converting people to Christianity
The state government reports that the Baptist Church of Tripura supplies arms and gives financial support to the NLFT

I can not find anything in that link remotely supporting any part of those claims.

[4] is used as a claim for a group being "Christian terrorists" while no such claim is made or inferred by the source at all. The source, in fact, quotes the JMB as calling themselves "soldiers of Allah" and that it seeks "to establish Islamic rule." I suggest that it is being misused as a source in "Christian terrorism."

[5] is used for the claim:

The NLFT is currently proscribed as a terrorist organization in India

Where the source makes no such claim - it is simply the Indian statute.

[6] is used as a source for the claim:

It is classified by the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism as one of the ten most active terrorist groups in the world, and has been accused of forcefully converting people to Christianity

That source refers to Christianity as being a reason for a split in a group -- not ascribing it as a primary focus of anything ("lavish lifestyles" outrank religion as a reason for the split per the source)

[7] is apparently a government press release run by the BBC ised to support:

In April 2000, the secretary of the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura, Nagmanlal Halam, was arrested with a large quantity of explosives. He confessed to illegally buying and supplying explosives to the NLFT for two years

Which is not found in this source.

[8] also appears to be a press release used for:

In April 2000, the secretary of the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura, Nagmanlal Halam, was arrested with a large quantity of explosives. He confessed to illegally buying and supplying explosives to the NLFT for two years

Amazingly enough, iterating a misused cite does not make the second use valid.

[9] is used for:

The NLFT has threatened to kill Hindus celebrating the annual five-day religious festival of Durga Puja and other religious celebrations

Problem is that the source makes no claim of "terrorism" at all, and it states In a statement, the NLFT said it wanted all tribespeople in Tripura to become Christians because the practice of Hinduism has led to them being marginalised by people of Bengali origin living in the state. This appears to be more of a religious issue than one of "Christian terrorism."

[10] Rediff is used for the claim:

At least 20 Hindus in Tripura have been killed by the NLFT in two years for resisting forced conversion to Christianity.[18] A leader of the Jamatia tribe, Rampada Jamatia, said that armed NLFT militants were forcibly converting tribal villagers to Christianity, which he said was a serious threat to Hinduism.[18] It is believed that as many as 5,000 tribal villagers were converted over two years

Problem is that the article lead states

Tribal Hindus in Tripura have formed vigilante groups to thwart attempts by separatist militants to convert people to Christianity at gunpoint, community leaders said on Thursday.

And also

Church leaders, however, deny any forcible conversions in Tripura
Radical Hindu religious groups in the region have all along been accusing Christian missionaries of forceful conversions.

When one uses a source, one well ought not misrepresent what the source says in order to promote single sentences mined from it. Cheers -- tired of going through all the misused, abused and non-reliable sources given here. Collect (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Seriously not enough evidence for proving that the source is unreliable, BTW, can we know why you removed the other person's comments recently?Bladesmulti (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Collect explained this: they saw the comments as a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know if this was such an "amazing" find, but hey. The two people listed may well be notable, but that doesn't make their website a reliable source. I'm bothered by the fact that this does appear to be a kind of two-person outfit, these two people being listed prominently on the front page. In addition, I cannot find anything in the way of an editorial statement or an editorial board, and that leads me to have some doubts about the objectivity of the site--note that Gill is hardly an uncontroversial figure, especially in the area of human rights. Nor do individual articles (well, the ones I looked at) have anything in the way of a bibliography.

    For now, unless I see third-party sources that verity the site's trustworthiness and neutrality (or even their fact checking) I personally will not accept this as a reliable source. Editors are urged to find the reliable sources in published media that verify facts in the article; after all, one would assume that the SATP likewise uses reliably sourced information to write up their articles. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Signed articles on the website are probably reliable. Primary documents are just that, primary. All sources must of course be correctly reflected. The last sentence quoted by Collect, the one starting "Radical Hindu…" is lifted directly from the rediff site. Copyright violation again, Bladesmulti? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Is Bladesmulti the person who added "with a large quantity of explosives" and other unquoted direct quotations to the article? Will whoever lifted that from the source and copied it into the article PLEASE learn how to properly paraphrase? Unless, of course, you want me to come in with my admin powers and blank that whole section and revdel it from the history. Sheesh, there's a lot of inept editing going on in here: misreading, misinterpreting, misattributing, copyvios... Holy moly. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Rediff is not actually a subject here, the subject is Satp.org, about which the other user is not even talking about, but editing anything without even knowing(removing other's talk, removing sourced materials, making multiple sections in same noticeboard), if he has problem with mis-interpretation, he can simply edit the page, but instead, he would blank. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Collect, I just spot checked some of the links. The first three links do not appear to support the text you say they are being used for, but after that they appear to pan out.
In general, this site is a reliable source but, as with any source, shouldn't be relied on too heavily to support large sections of text on it own. And, of course, nothing is a reliable source for information it doesn't contain.
@Drmies: There do appear to be more than two people involved in the site: [11] Formerip (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I saw that list: I'm pointing out what the front page suggests. I checked the first four of Collect's points and have found Collect to be utterly correct in those instances: there are basic errors (a Muslim club's article used to verify info on a Christian club, gross misrepresentation of what a source says, etc.). I have edited the article accordingly with copious edit summaries--these matters need to be taken care of swiftly. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
But I don't think we can use any unsigned documents from the site because it isn't clear who authored them and what status they have. They may just be reprints of other texts and we would have to be 100% that they weren't copyright violations. That makes the fourth citation in Collect's list problematic too. The two BBC reports do seem to support the text, but they are very old news reports. One would expect there to be academic sources by now for events that occurred in 2000. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
There are some academic sources, (which are cited in the article) but there are two major "issues" with the topic, which have caused problems on this section: (1) We're talking about India, where not all of the articles/academic sources are necessarily available in English; and (2) It's not a topic that is widely discussed outside of India. And frankly, if Collect thinks that Indian sources are inherently "suspect", I'd warrant that there is a somewhat racist element to that belief. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeppers -- call me "racist" and everyone will see the "value" of your posts. I affirm that my edits have absolutely nothing to do with the racism alleged by BryonMorrigan whatsoever. That strong enough? Collect (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
No Drmies, i didn't! That was done years ago, i think in 2011, anyways thanks for removing whatever you found to be unreferenced. Hope we are back to original issue regarding Satp.org's reliability now. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
FTR: New editors to the page moved around some of the citations, and Collect made a big, crazy, multi-section edit that could not be "undone", so it caused some chaos when I tried to add the sources back to the article. I'm extremely busy today, and can't spend all the time it takes to constantly "police" Collect's disruption of that page. I fail to see your (off-topic) points regarding the BBC articles. For example, many of the statements above in regards to them are patently false, as the BBC articles DO back up the allegations. [12]; [13]. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Good sources can be in any language. We can get them translated if necessary. The allegation of racism was completely uncalled for and I hope when you have thought about it you will apologise to Collect, Bryonmorrigan. Collect, it's best if from now on you make smaller edits and feel free to bring sources here again. One source at a time will get best results. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I went through all the points raised by Collect and agree mostly with Former IP, I suppose: Collect is correct on a bunch of them, but I don't see much of a problem with the latter two. Reliability of Indian newspapers is a separate matter: it is well-known that some of the papers have a better reputation than others, but that's not really for here. The edits I just made to the article, I will fight tooth and nail for them, with the caveat that there may well be much more, and more problematic, passages. In general, of course, the detail (about a 2000 threat, etc.) probably shouldn't be in this article, but in the main articles on the outfits: this article should summarize and list, if necessary, notable events, notable on a large scale. I may do that shortly; a bomb-carrying priest shouldn't be in here.

    This does not solve the problem of the SATP site. If an article is signed, one could suppose it's more acceptable as a reliable source; I don't really see that. I don't accept such a portal/club unless their reliability is verified (like, for instance, in the case of the SPLC, even if that site can be argued to have a POV) and, barring such independent credentials, we should be very wary of accepting the conclusions drawn in their article, even of the primary facts it reports. After all (I think Itsmejudith said that too?), those facts ought to be found in other sources as well, English or not.

    One more thing: Collect may not have been 100% spot-on in their assessment, but they were pretty good at it, and the larger point here is that we should edit carefully and conservatively in such contentious subjects: excision is to be preferred over careless and/or poorly references inclusion. That is my opinion as an administrator as well as an editor. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I reviewed some of the links provided by Collect, and agreed that they were problematic. I agree with Itsmejudith that it would be better to make smaller edits, so that if some deserve revision, while others do not, it is easier to fix. I'll also echo the notion that the "racism" charge was unwarranted, deserves redaction and apology.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Collect writes "[14] is apparently a government press release run by the BBC ised(sic) to support:

In April 2000, the secretary of the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura, Nagmanlal Halam, was arrested with a large quantity of explosives. He confessed to illegally buying and supplying explosives to the NLFT for two years Which is not found in this source. First, I see no evidence to call this a press release run by the BBC. It looks to me like an interview (eg "Mr Sarkar told the BBC") by the BBC's East India correspondent. It says "Nagmanlal Halam, secretary of the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura, was arrested late on Monday with a large quantity of explosives." and "The chief minister said that Mr Halam confessed to buying and supplying explosives to the NLFT for the past two years." Collect, why are you saying it is not found in this source? You could argue that we should attribute the last statement to the government minister, but that's not the same as saying it isn't in the source. Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Press websites/videos

Are news sights as in wetpaint.com acceptable not like the fan based ones where anyone can write anything and not the tabloids that spread roumors but the reliable ones that use quotes and real live interviews that also cite their own sources they got their information from?

  • There is no one single easy answer for that. Wetpaint is called "Celebrity Gossip", and since we're an encyclopedia and not a site that rehashes gossip news we shouldn't be using it in the first place: it is unlikely that the site will verify an encyclopedic fact that can't be gotten from a better outlet.

    In addition, it's important to look and see if a site has editorial control, that articles are vetted and that it is independent of commercial and other interests that might interfere with their "reporting", if that's what it is. Now, Wetpaint, like most such sites, has an "About" section, at http://www.wetpaint-inc.com/about/. Read it--I just did, and I lost all confidence in that site's reliability. The only interest there is money: "Our test and measurement system delivers real-time audience insights on what they desire, coupled with targeted recommendations to program the right content, at the right time, for each target audience. These insights and recommendations are all driven by cutting-edge analytical methods applied to massive amounts of data ingested into our platform." A real news organization gives the people what is true and verified and important, not "what they want".

    So this one, no. The next one? Look to see what they're trying to do and how they try to do it. I hope I'm not aiming too high. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Their "tips" section also doesn't enspire confidence. Bloggers wanted. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

world's largest media? (and no rebuttal). why remove?

this edit,,,,,, small mortars and rockets

Mass media reported:

ITAR-TASS official text of the ,, ,

and Russia-24 (TV channel) free copyright *Syrian diary* *the battle for Syria* official video documentary *Syrian diary* official video documentary and the official text of the *the battle for Syria* video documentary Russian, but with English subtitles: *Syrian diary* *the battle for Syria*

and Russia-1 (TV channel) free copyright *truth of the war* official video documentary *truth of the war*


  • For more than two years, there are frequent shelling of peaceful neighborhoods throughout Syria Syrian opposition forces or controlled-Syrian opposition territory. There are other sources of talking or present confirming that the shelling is frequent and widespread throughout the country phenomenon.

and NTV (Russia) all of the shooting from the territory of the opposition, official video documentary *The territory of AK* free copyright *The territory of AK* : all this also claim (interview) commanders of the opposition (several different groups). In summary. Syrian opposition is fighting against Assad, and against *not Islamic* laws of religion. And against anything, not named (other troops Syrian opposition), but these groups are officially recognized by terrorists, but they do not give interviews and they are also part of the opposition.

sources ITAR-TASS Russia-24 (TV channel) Russia-1 (TV channel) look. if you are against such a contribution (if you are against this editing). please. detailed answer why.

this edit removed, said - Undoing pov pushing and use of unreliable sources. I changed the edits. now there is no such problem? pov? unreliable sources - it is impossible. all sources is very authoritative media, they work *news*, worldwide, many years. if you do not have a source that ITAR-TASS's a lie (specifically those articles that I used), if you have no source (*battle for Syria* it's a lie). you can't delete my edits. it is outside the rules. in addition, I give the translation. I give references are free from copyright. in addition, the recording of TV ether (news release) this is the authoritative source. this is a verifiable source. moreover, *the battle for Syria* is a documentary film. other sources (if there are sources without translation tell me and I mend). but you can't simply delete all at once. my sources have become in Wikipedia. you can read about them that is large media (news).Rqasd (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

TellyChakkar.com

The website www.tellychakkar.com is a website on Indian television entertainment. Its reliability has been questioned at times in various AfDs and edit wars. The site is used in more than 350 article on en.wiki. It also has a editorial team. My experience of having seen it's various articles and used them here calls it a WP:RS. But due to constant questioning by other editors i thought it better to bring it here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

from the About us "Apart from conceiving and executing promotional campaigns targeted at the Media, Marketing & Television Trade online, it also offers similar services offline, thus providing clients with a 360 degree media service and marketing solution. ... The exclusive peppery online destination for the hottest news on TV shows and movies, tete-a-tetes with TV and Bollywood stars, spicy gossips and much more. TellyChakkar, an Indiantelevision.com initiative was launched in 2005. Since its inception TellyChakkar has enjoyed a special place in the hearts of television and Bollywood fans across the globe and has recently launched print editions as well. This light-hearted, easy-read, entertaining and naughty website focuses on the ultimate TV and 70mm fan as well as the entertainment industry. "
They promote their "spicy gossip" and "executing promotional campaigns", but not their pledge to accuracy and fact checking.
It does not appear that they have a reputation for such either, (based on the redlink status of TellyChakkar.com, they dont have any reputation at all) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Its a television entertainment website. Why will they write about microbiological inventions? And redlinks don't mean non-notability. We don't have to tell that. Also, the website presents New Talent Awards [17] to TV actors. Prof. Shoma Munshi, (Division Head -- Social Sciences, and Professor of Anthropology at the American University of Kuwait.)[18] calls the Tellychakkar.com and its co-website IndianTelevision.com "mines of information and handy tools for anyone researching, or simply reading about television industry in India." (Ref: Prime Time Soap Operas on Indian Television,ISBN 1136516190, Routledge, 2012.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
re "Its a television entertainment website. Why will they write about microbiological inventions? " I dont expect a television / entertainment website to write about microbiology. But I do expect any sources that we deem reliable place as their primary concerns fact checking and accuracy and not promotion of clients or spreading gossip both of which are pretty much antithetical to being reliable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Why do you think they don't report facts? You mean they say X plays a certain role in a TV show when actually Y is doing that? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Because of the reasons I stated above - their "About Us" page highlights their promotional aspects and their spicy gossip and not their accuracy and fact checking. And the fact that no third party sources have commented upon their accuracy and fact checking.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Maybe they are modest about what that. No garlands for us. have you found many many things in the website that aren't useful for us? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
we dont grant sites reliable status based soley on the fact that they might be shy about the fact that they fact check but are not shy about the fact that they will promote your content and spread gossip. thats just silly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Munshi's mention is a point in its favour, but I don't see it as enough for us to rule this as RS. You could say the same about IMDB and we don't regard that as reliable. We specifically rule out gossip, and this site is focused mainly on gossip,, as it says itself. Perhaps we can use it as a supplementary source, or even as the main source for completely uncontroversial factual information, but that would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean by "completely uncontroversial factual information"? Can you give some examples of where you would use it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps that a particular actor has appeared in a specific role in a specific program broadcast on a given date? DES (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
So, can the article 2013 - Vivacious Vamps of the Year be used to source that a certain actor played a certain role? Can Birthday greetings to Sidharth, Sambhavna, Aasiya and Prachee be used to source the birthdates of these people? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Could we decide such that certain sections are good for us? The ones i mentioned above? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Knock knock! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The non controversial fact that someone is in a particular show or film is almost always going to be verifiable through a more reliable source and we dont dive to the worst source possible. The issue was brought here because of an AfD to establish notability of an actor. Given the sites self stated "about us" to be promotional, the site surely should not be valid source for that use. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Whats the conclusion? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Cram101

This was mentioned above but I want to start a separate thread on this. Cram101 is a publisher of e-text study guides, and should not be used as a source although it is used at the moment in several articles.[19]. This review by an academic of the study guide for his textbook points out that they are written by computer. In this case it failed to pick up vital points, defined (in a textbook on economics) 'monopoly' as a board game, and to avoid copyright violations picked up definitions from a number of websites, including Wikipedia. Another quote from the review, "here's how "attitude" is defined: "In heraldry, an attitude is the position in which an animal, fictional beast, mythical creature, human or human-like being is emblazoned as a charge, supporter or crest." Other sites call it a scam. Ripoff Report says[20] "You can look at any book on the site and cross-reference the Chapter 1 "notes" with Wikipedia. It's clear that some script just pulls keywords and then links the corresponding Wikipedia article. " Kill on sight. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and have killed some of these, but there are still a few more left. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
PS not all occurrences of this use the string "Cram101". Others to look for are "e-study guide", "Cram 101", and "Content Technologies". —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that's useful to know. Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Strode family

Is this book [21], written by three authors two of which have PhDs, a reliable source for biographies that we already have on members of the Strode family?Camelbinky (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Mil-Mac publishers seems to exclusively publish texts by David C. McMurty and looks like his own imprint (the address for Mil-Mac appears to be McMurty's personal address), thereby falling foul of WP's rules on self-published sources. You'd have to establish McMurty's status as an expert (genealogist) to use this source, I think. The only thesis I can find for a David C. McMurty is one dating from 1966 titled 'Business-economic education in the secondary schools of Kentucky : an appraisal' which, given the date, is likely by a different author in any case. For what it's worth, I suspect that McMurty's genealogical work is probably reliable but I don't see any obvious way to include it on WP unless one could establish his expertise in some other manner. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Malmesbury.com and their expertise on analyzing death statistics

http://www.malmesbury.com/malmesbury-history/961-hannah-twynnoy.html categorizes the death of Hannah Twynnoy as "unusual". I can find no reliable sources that make that characterization, not even the indirect source used in the article, http://www.athelstanmuseum.org.uk/people_hannah_twynnoy.html. Can a community directory be considered a reliable source for categorizing deaths as "unusual" pursuant to them being included in List of unusual deaths?—Kww(talk) 02:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The community site has a vested interest in hyping potential tourist attractions in the town. Their position as a neutral third party in describing their offerings places them as a questionable source at best. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I doubt they'd use the word "unusual" just to somehow make it a tourist attraction. Doesn't make a lot of sense. The girl died in 1703. A major newspaper says of her, "historians believe was probably the first person in Britain to be killed by a tiger." [22] So it is usual, being the first. Dream Focus 16:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Highlighting things as "unique" and "unusual" and "one of a kind" are EXACTLY what tourism boards and PR firms do to draw visitors. Show me one campaign "Visit Delradia, its just like everywhere else! There's nothing here you haven't seen before!'" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
If the Telegraph and/or BBC call it an unusual death too, I'm happy to go along with it. Even if tigers were later to become a routine cause of death in England, the first case would still be worth highlighting. bobrayner (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
"First" is not a synonym for "unusual", so the BBC article wouldn't qualify for inclusion at List of unusual deaths. The question here is not about the BBC article, the question here is whether malmesbury.com can be treated as a reliable source for purposes of declaring a death unusual.—Kww(talk) 18:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The title of the piece is "BBC reveals Britain's most unusual epitaphs" so I think it's reasonable for a list of unusual deaths. I'm more wary of the Mamlesbury.com source. bobrayner (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
That's not good logic: if someone was killed while doing something mundane and someone wrote a witty epitaph, the unusual epitaph would not make the death itself unusual.—Kww(talk) 19:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
(e/c)There is quite a significant distinction between an epitaph and a death. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with that point, of course; but the article seems more focused on the nature of her death. A poem on a headstone is hardly unusual. bobrayner (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
It would still be improper to jump from the fact that they titled the article "Unusual Epitaphs" but because they are talking about the death in the article they actually meant "unusual deaths". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:37, 17 December 2013 List of unusual deaths?&mda(UTC)
1 tiger in 300 years would seem "unusual" by any reasonable standard. I'm not aware that the tourist board installed the headstone. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
only if you limit your tiger deaths to england. the article is not "Unusual deaths in England". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Why wouldn't I limit it to England? Or at least, to "Places where tigers are not endemic". Tiger attacks in India are obviously not unusual, but that's like claiming that a death by frostbite in Namibia can't be "unusual" because it's a common cause of death in Greenland. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
This argument is precisely why we only care about what reliable sources have deemed to be unusual deaths, not what individual editors believe, and why the discussion on this noticeboard should be about whether the Malmesbury Tourist Board should be considered a reliable source in the context of mortality statistics.—Kww(talk) 03:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Any "expertise in analyzing death statistics" surely has nothing whatever to do with whether or nor a source is WP:RS, although a full discussion of this belongs not here at all but at List of unusual deaths. What's the next entry going to be over there ... death by concussion from repeated and unexpected moving of goalposts? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:RS / WP:V / WP:NPOV are goalposts that have not been moved. Does the source have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? Does the source have a suitable background to be making the claims they are making? Are we presenting their claims in the same context that they were originally presented and not using their words in other contexts to support positions in our article that they were not actually making in the context in which they wrote them? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
What has this to do with "expertise in analyzing death statistics"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
As pointed out in the policies - "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources.", and
The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: 1) the type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book) 2) the creator of the work (for example, the writer) 3) the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability."
When determining whether something is a reliable source for calling a death unusual, we look for some sort of expertise related to the subject of the article. An "expertise in analyzing death statistics" would be a basis for indicating appropriate sourcing for determining an "unusual death" - "expertise in tourism promotion" would not be. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The consensus at the recent RfD seemed to be that a WP:RS source was sufficient, not one with "expertise in analyzing death statistics"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
This is about determining what makes a reliable source as per policy. and per WP:RS, Malmesbury.com fails both Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP#Scholarship and Wikipedia:BIASED#Biased_or_opinionated_sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Not all RS are reliable for all claims. A tourist website is obviously not reliable for claims of uniqueness or unusualness of occurrences in that region. Many tourist websites claim "This forest is the most beautiful forest in the world" or "This waterfall is the tallest waterfall in the world* that was discovered by an Irish pub owner". Thus, not reliable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Then your Www's section heading here is very misleading. Or are you now saying that we can't use the BBC or The Daily Telegraph as sources for the article, as they do not have "expertise in analyzing death statistics"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
what exactly would have been a non-misleading heading for a discussion about whether Malmesbury.com is a reliable expert source for analyzing death statistics? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
There's no moving of the goalposts, Martin: sources are reliable within their area of expertise. Try sourcing material about subatomic particles to The Ladies Home Journal sometime and see whether people agree that it is a reliable source on the topic. The Malmesbury tourist board is an organization dedicated to advertising Malmesbury, not a source usable for analyzing whether a death is unusual or not.—Kww(talk) 02:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure that if any of the ladies died an unusual death, we could use their journal as a source, even though they don't have that expertise you seem to demand demanded. But do RS claims have to be "true" (in terms of mortality rates) or just verifiable? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It's worth observing, possibly, that some of this discussion seems predicated on the idea that list of unusual deaths has high sourcing standards and this site doesn't meet them. In fact, the list defines itself as unique or extremely rare circumstances of death recorded throughout history, noted as being unusual by multiple sources. But a lot (most?) of the entries have only one source, and a sampling suggests not all of these have any sources explicitly addressing unusualness. By the actual standards of the list (as opposed to the proclaimed standards), the site (Athelstan Museum [23], not malmesbury.com, which is just echoing it) is a perfectly adequate source for what is clearly an unusual event, if we characterise it as an example of the type "death by a dangerous species in a place where the species is not endemic". On a related note: the list would be a lot more digestible if some attempt at organisation was made, instead of just dumping entries which make the grade by some apparently fairly arbitrary standard into a chronological list. Categorisation by eg, location of death, deaths by cause of death, etc. Podiaebba (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Your argument neglects to notice that the seven AFDs and associated DRVs have come to the conclusion that while the list is in sad shape, it is potentially repairable. You can't use the current state of the article as a justification for not repairing it. By the way, athelstanmuseum.org.uk makes no claim that the death was unusual.—Kww(talk) 02:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we have differing ideas of what "repairing" means. I think insisting that multiple sources specifically describe a death as unusual is too high a standard, and also that the plain chronological order is a bit useless. Instead, if the list is reorganised by types of unusual death (with similarities in the unusualness, if you see what I mean, like "unusual death by animal species" - species A, species B, species C), then editorial judgement can be used whether a death falls within that type. Multiple sources can much more easily be found to support the idea of a type of death being unusual. You'd probably end up with a "miscellaneous" category, for which the current standard should be applied to prevent it ballooning indefinitely. Anyway, I have no dog in this fight: I'm just suggesting consistency. If the Malmesbury case is to be excluded (barring better sourcing), then let's take it as a prompt to dump everything else that doesn't meet the proclaimed standards, moving them to the talk page in case someone wants to do further research. Podiaebba (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
if you can start grouping them into similar types, you are going a long way to proving they are not actually all that unusual. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I wholly agree with you, Podiaebba. I used to have a dog in this fight, but he was, rather unusually, killed by a falling goalpost.. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Any "moving goalposts" have simply been the move so that the standard Wikipedia content requirements were moved to include this article. The criteria of multiple reliable sources is in place because of the entirely subjective nature of the condition "unusual". Multiple sources making such an assessment is method of ensuring that we are closer representing a widely held view and not merely the loose usage of a single word by Joe Schmoe reporter to pad his submission length. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I would happily erase the article and move it to the talk page until people find reliable sources, but people would probably class that as disruptive. People have dismissed the argument that seven AFDs over poor sourcing were adequate demonstration that people couldn't find adequate sources. The DRV came to the conclusion that it was somehow better to carry on this argument for another decade, dragging each and every item through RFCs and discussion boards in the face of editors that resist efforts to remove poorly sourced material. It befuddled me that anyone thought that was better than simply deleting the article, but here we are. One item at a time, giving people that believe that there are reliable sources for an item an opportunity to find them. It would be nice if they actually did that instead of arguing that reliable sources aren't necessary.—Kww(talk) 12:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I haven't looked into that history. But as long as the article is there, the problem persists. There's really two ways to handle it: (i) remove everything that can't be sourced to one of those books in Further Reading, unless it has multiple sources attesting unusualness; (ii) create subarticles that focus on particular types of unusual deaths, eg List of unusual deaths caused by animals, which covers quite a few of the entries. I think such focussing by subject would not only be more useful in itself, but make it easier to handle sourcing issues, by making it easier to compare entries. Podiaebba (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Creating list articles that are based on objective criteria would eliminate much of the problem. The key problem here is that "unusual" is such a subjective term that finding reliable sources to substantiate the characterization is nearly impossible.—Kww(talk) 17:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Creating sub-articles might be a good idea, except that the whole article as it stands is not that big. Yes, I think to "erase the article" would be disruptive - no probability involved; "giving people that believe that there are reliable sources for an item an opportunity to find them" sounds reasonable. But how long does that "opportunity" last? Who decides on a suitable time limit? And do items go to the holding pen or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Tyrone Hayes

I am looking for consensus whether the following source is considered reliable.

Freaky Frog Friday at Foxnews.com. The link is here. There are several comments in the article which oppose certain research findings and methodology of the subject Tyrone Hayes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The author of the source is publisher of a website, JunkScience.com. However this material is covered under news at Foxnews. An example of the material includes:

These comments are echoed by others too but this source seems strongest. Similar material is found in an op-ed at Forbes magazine online. JodyB talk 11:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I would think that a rant by an anti-environmentalist without biological qualifications is an easy WP:BLP failure for an article on a living scientist. Zerotalk 12:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely not reliable. A news source cannot be used to discredit peer reviewed science published in Nature. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

White Latin American

There is currently a mini-edit war at White Latin American about the figure used for the Colombia in the pop box. The original ref s;ays 17.5M and is Colombia: A Country Study 5th edition (2010)[24]. This is being changed to 11.2 from the same study's 1st edition (1990)[25]. A second ref for the lower figure was also added in the latest revert - an anonymous and undated Google doc titled "EL HABITAT Y EL SER HUMANOL: Etnográfica de Colombia"[26]

There has been some discussion on the article talk page[27] and on my personal talk page[28] which is getting nowhere and we are both approaching WP:3RR. It seems obvious to me, but just in case I'm wrong can somebody please confirm a) which edition of the Colombia study we should be using - 1990 or 2010 and b) if the Google doc is WP:RS in this instance.

Tobus (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It might be wise to seek-out a third source altogether that is more recent and up-to-date. It seems obvious to me that the new edition of that reference book would be the one you ought to defer to, but the very idea that someone would insist otherwise is fishy to me and makes me wonder how reliable that book is, in their eyes.
After a quick skim of the Google document, I would say not to use it. Not, obviously, because it's not in English, but because it cites no sources of its own nor has an author attached. All being said I would say use the fifth edition of that book, or again if consensus cannot establish that it should be used, a brand new source not previously introduced. LazyBastardGuy 16:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Referencing an unpublished Google document is inappropriate, it does not meet WP reliable source criteria and the reference should be removed from the article. You should use the more up-to-date version of the text Colombia: A Country Study (2010) the figures in which are based on the latest census data (2005). Could you elaborate for me on how you've arrived at the figures of 17.5m and 11.2m from the details in the respective editions of the country study text? FiachraByrne (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both for your comments. The population figures come from the %age of "white" people reported in the source multiplied by the total population. The 1990 report states the white population is 25% (first para) and the 2010 states 37% (page 178 of the PDF, numbered "87"). Using the population of 45.3M from the 2010 paper this gives 11.3M and 16.7M respectively. I suspect the 17.5M figure used in the article has come from a typo in the calculation as it represents of 37% of 47.3, not 45.3. Tobus (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Several websites as reliable sources for information on cryptocurrency

The article is Dogecoin.
The sources being used are the following:


Other than links to non-reliable source cryptocurrency related websites (coin exchanges and whatnot, not news sites), these are the only sources for the article. Are any of these sources reliable enough to base an article on? The subject of the article has not received significant coverage in any mainstream news source, other than a mention in a list of cryptocurrencies in a column in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes they're notable, as we're talking about million dollar operations here with sizable staffing levels and huge level of daily traffic, certainly far outstripping many small town newspapers for instance. A number of them such as Slashgear and Digital Trends I'd count as quite mainstream too. Mathmo Talk 09:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Probably better to get input from someone who isn't already involved in the deletion discussion, unless the same arguments there are supposed to spill over here. Breadblade (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Notice: Please see this subsequent deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dogecoin. Several users have raised concerns that the nominator (who also started this discussion) also has a potential conflict of interest with Dogecoin. [citation needed] 21:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Notice: This discussion has also been linked to on 4chan; see here. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Notice: The allegations of COIN have been dubious at best, beyond calling the nominator a troll and linking to his activity on reddit and SomethingAwful Breadblade (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Notice: The discussion has been flooded by single-purpose accounts and IP edits with spurious "me too!" votes; anyone attempting to post there should keep in mind the extremely low signal-to-noise ratio. Ruling out the posts which propose a keep/delete with absolutely no basis in WP policy, there are not many actual arguments I can see besides "but a Reddit userpage is totally third-party verifiable evidence of notability". The actual issue of the debate is whether the coverage in tech blogs actually counts, due to the fact that the Dogecoin articles are mostly in the "fluffier" sections of the publications listed. ZigSaw 22:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
NOTICE: Most of the delete votes, including Ziggy's are mostly due to alienation by the recent meatpuppetry that has occurred in the discussion. Since then, many more sources, including ones from clearly established sources such as as Business Insider, The Verge, Wired, the Washington Examiner, and International Business Times, which isn't even scrapping the top of the milkshake, have emerged. Another discussion started for the main article on the meme itself shows Ziggy making deletion arguments mostly based on what sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF (both interchangeable for both deletion discussions), with extremely vague notability claims thrown in there to try and cover facts. Most (not counting the meatpuppets) are in agreement that the sources provided here and the others that have came out do meet WP:GNG. I'm not trying to discredit any comment made by Ziggy or others, but the majority of these "deleters" and "mergers" give off the impression of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF. [citation needed] 19:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to add six more sources to the boat of links. By this time, it's starting to catch on in other countries, so some of these are going to be in different languages, and may require translation.

Just adding to the workload, guys! [citation needed] 12:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Charles Lindbergh

[29] has been repeatedly added to this high profile biography.

The claim made is Lindbergh's outspoken isolationism led to surveillance and investigation by the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover. A Bureau report in June 1941 discredited Lindbergh with unsubstantiated statements that he associated with pimps and prostitutes and flew bootleg whisky from Canada to Montana. Jeffreys-Jones, Rhodri. "Cloak and Dollar: A History of American Secret Intelligence" Yale University Press (2003) p. 97

The source continues: 'Hoover knew how to increase and exploit the unpopularity of his targets in order to enhance the FBI's power and budget.


The query is - is this source properly used for the direct implication that Lindbergh did consort with "pimps, prostitutes and bootleggers" where the actual source makes clear that the allegations were unfounded and based on Hoover's misuse of power to help the FBI's power and budget? . IOW, ought unfounded allegations about a dead person be added to a biography where the source is not specifically about that person at all, but presents it as an example of poor investigations? I rather think the source, in fact, is more about the misuse of the FBI than about the sins of Lindbergh. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the problem. The claim, as you quote it, includes the words "unsubstantiated statements that ...", telling us that there was no proper evidence. If a significant number at that time believed the claims, and this affected the general perception of Lindbergh, then it seems reasonable to mention it in his biography (I agree, it's part of the history of the FBI as well).
The term "discredited" is misleading if the FBI claims were not widely believed -- then we should say "tried to discredit" -- but if they were widely believed, "discredited" is correct. Andrew Dalby 09:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The source was not about Lindbergh, but about Hoover specifically. It is anecdotal about Lindbergh at best, and eliding the gist -- that it was Hoover who did it, is misleading to readers, and leaves them with the impression that the campaign might have been true. It appears that the source is stating that they had no basis in fact, and therefore should not be used to tar Lindbergh now -- any more than if a person called him a "rapist" and attributed it to an FBI spread rumour. Unsubstantiated allegations are bad enough in any article -- but where the source itself says they had no basis, then Wikipedia ought not spread calumnies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The question I can see is whether these allegations had any publicity, and any resulting effect, at the time. If they did, we may think them notable and they probably do belong to his biography. If they were in an internal FBI document, and no one made them public at the time, the word "discredited" is an error: in that case they belong, at the most, in a footnote in the Lindbergh biography. That's my view: others may well disagree :) Andrew Dalby 10:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Searching the NYT archives finds zero articles [30] [31] making any such reference at all. Zero. And the NYT would likely have covered any major scandals. The searches show [32] that the NYT did cover criticism of Lindbergh, but did not publish the unfounded accusations. The only actual Google hit on the topic ... is this Wikipedia article <g>. The only book making the allegation is the single source, whose point is anti-Hoover if one cares to read what it actually says. So --no evidence for the stories ever getting into any reliable sources at all (I can not search the wartime tabloids as they basically stopped publication AFAICT) and of at best quinternary significance to the person. Questia also finds zero results for any claims using any of those words at all ... and it is pretty thorough. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks for doing that work. If the claims never got into the public domain at the time -- so no one could have acted on them and Lindbergh himself may never have known of them -- then they aren't relevant to his life.
I now see the force of your point that the source is not "about Lindbergh". Unless any Lindbergh biographer has shown an interest in this topic since 2003, when the material was published, there seems no justification for mentioning it on the Lindbergh page. It belongs to the Hoover/FBI story. Andrew Dalby 14:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

"It's Psychedelic Baby" Magazine

I'd really like to use this in Earthless discography (it's the only source I can find that says anything about a split album I want to add to the article). Problem is, it's a Blogger website, and as far as I know, blogs in general (especially Blogger blogs) are not considered acceptable. Or is this to be determined on a case-by-case basis? Anyway, here's the link: http://psychedelicbaby.blogspot.com/2011/04/earthless-my-interview-with-isaiah.html LazyBastardGuy 19:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

if the editor of that blog has been previously published in standard book form or regular articles in a music magazine on the subject of X type of music, then as a recognized expert, their blog posts about X type of music can generally be considered a reliable source.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case; he has only appeared in a handful of other places, themselves reliable but not enough to establish his own reliability as a source... On the upside it may not take long for a good, usable citation to turn up, since the band give interviews every so often and discuss things like this all the time, so I can wait. LazyBastardGuy 16:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Corporate tax incidence sources for United States graph inclusion questions

Would someone please provide a third party opinion at Talk:United States#Quality of sources on corporate tax incidence as it pertains to the content change at [33] and proposed at Talk:United States#Tax incidence? Thanks in advance. EllenCT (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Anyone? Hello? EllenCT (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Old newspaper articles as sources

Hello there!

I am new to Wikipedia, and have started an article about a public person from my country. There is not a lot of (reliable) information on the internet, BUT I have a lot of newspaper artciles about this person.

The information in those articles is of great value, and I would like to wikify my entry using these sources.

A) What's the copyright policy for newspaper articles ranging from 1940-1970? B) If I can use those, how do I link them to the reference-part? Should I take pictures of said articles, upload them onto an image-board (e.g. imgur,...) and then link the source to the picture?

Thank you a lot for you help,

Ezekwail

  • Hi Ezekwail: in short, no--don't do it. For those articles it's most likely a copyright violation. Remember that sources don't have to be online to be included as references in an article. I assume you cut these articles from the paper and archived them? Perhaps looking around on the net may give you a couple of hits. Try news.google.com/newspapers. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree. If you provide date, title, newspaper name, and page number, and perhaps a quote (using quote= if you use the {{cite news}} template) that is sufficient to use the newspaper in a citation. There will be no copyright issue if it is done that way. Of course if you can find an online copy that is not a copyvio, tha tis a plus. Of course whether a given paper is reliable for a given use is a different question. DES (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You can always photograph or scan them for your own reference (eg if someone wants more information in a discussion it may be much easier to check a digital version), and you can share those photos/scans via email if someone asks - but not post them publicly. I'm not sure which country you're talking about - countries have different copyright laws and it may be that some of the articles are out of copyright... but probably not, and it's probably a complicated mess not worth getting into. Podiaebba (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
It is a bad idea to use old newspapers as sources except in a few special circumstances. If no other information can be found then it is likely the person is not notable. Information may be out of date and it is difficult to determine the weight to provide for information about the subject. TFD (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I recommend scanning the articles and posting the citation information on the talk page of the article with the note that you'd be happy to share them with anyone who wants to work on the article. Then e-mail them to people. Old newspaper articles can be a terrific source for long-forgotten subjects. For example, my first good article, the Ambrose Channel pilot cable, has almost no coverage on the Internet and relied on decades-old publications. My major caveat is that you should make sure that the newspapers are big enough and that the coverage is substantial enough to warrant an article. In my example, there was coverage in the New York Times, LA Times, etc. Let me know on my talk page if you would like help. Andrew327 08:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

CelebrityNetWorth.com and TheRichest.org/TheRichest.com

Do CelebrityNetWorth.com and TheRichest.org/TheRichest.com qualify as reliable sources?

Both sites carry disclaimers [34] [35] disclaiming reliability for their sites' information, and their articles don't contain any sources or explanations for their assertions. Trivialist (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you've answered your own question to me ;) Is there a reason you're raising this here when this appears to be a clear-cut matter? Nick-D (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Part of being a reliable source is about whether they do any editing or fact checking. All websites, books, magazine or published media worth anything has disclaimers so that not relevant. Blackash have a chat 04:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • CelebrityNetWorth.com claim they check the facts here about us and has editors. So I would think this would be ok as reliable source.
  • TheRichest.org/TheRichest.com I'm going to treat these the same as they seem to be set up by the same people. They both state that the writer will have a team editor, but it seems that editor may only do the per-approval of the article the author would like to write. TheRichest.com So I would think this would be ok as a supporting source, but not to use it on it's own. Also if the same fact comes up on both sites by different authors worded differently to each others articles, then it would lead greater creditability to that fact. Blackash have a chat 04:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The value of these sources to Wikipedia is greatly less than our value to them. WP:REFSPAM most likely applies. Remove, and if people edit-war (with no history of edits other than promoting these sites) you'll have your answer :-) Guy (Help!) 20:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Nick-D: I just wanted to be absolutely sure. Also, I started deleting links to the sites and another editor suggested that I was acting unilaterally and without consensus, so I thought I'd double-check. Trivialist (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Godfrey Bloom

Are the current sources sufficient to support the statement "Bloom worked as a financial economist"? The first is his profile as an MEP, which presumably he wrote himself. The page won't download for me. The second is a short BBC report that simply has "an economist". BLP; the material is not negative about the subject. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It does download for me: his CV contains 3 words, "Financial economist (retired)", headed by a disclaimer (which evidently appears on all such pages) that the CV is provided by the subject and not guaranteed by the European Parliament.
If it were a matter of controversy whether he was ever a financial economist or not, this wouldn't be enough on its own. But since he clearly is or recently was a hands-on director of an investment company, he must have been, mustn't he? There's no strict definition of the term ... If we wanted to be really cagey we could say that he "describes himself as a retired financial economist". I would in any case make this the first sentence of the following paragraph (not a paragraph on its own) because those following details give some general support and clarification. Andrew Dalby 10:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Don't we need a bit more for "economist" even if qualified with "financial"? A director of an investment company could have various backgrounds, but "economist" implies some knowledge of broad economic processes. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I was sort of hoping someone else would have a more confident answer, hence I'm slow to reply ... Our redirect "Financial economist" goes to "Financial economics", which describes some of the things Bloom must have done in that investment company. So I didn't feel too worried about this, and still don't, really.
My father was an "economist" in the sense of "someone who taught economics and eventually got an academic qualification himself in the subject". On the other hand, the journal The Economist is directed (I'd say) at people who are hands-on in politics and economics, without necessarily having had anything to do with teaching or studying the subject. I never heard my father complain that The Economist was mis-titled. I see the word as covering a range of activities, academic and non-academic, including some of what Bloom surely used to do. Andrew Dalby 10:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

BibleGateway

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but I caught an IP adding links to BibleGateway.com to a few articles this afternoon. Doing a search it seems like it's used quite a bit for whatever reason. It just seems like one of those sites that harvests searches for ad revenue, should we really be encouraging its use? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

That appears to be a comprehensive, 20-year old (!) website so I'm not seeing any particular problems with it. Is there a specific instance to which you object? ElKevbo (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems to be simply a commercial site for religious products that happen to have individual pages for verses. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

politicalcompass.org being used to define the British National Party as authoritarian, not far-right

See [36] and Talk:British National Party#Far-right? Right-wing populism which had 2 sources that look RS has also been removed. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

A highly-questionable source. There are multiple reliable sources which describe the BNP as far right - including much directly-relevant academic material. The opinion of a single website with no established credibility cannot possibly be used in such a manner to contradict them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree that more sources, with more authority, describe the BNP as far-right. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
There may well be sufficient sources to allow us to describe the BNP as authoritarian in addition to describing it as far-right. But far-right isn't going anywhere. MilesMoney (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. "Far right" is very, very well established by the best possible sources.Routledge, Verso, SAGE, Polity, Oxford and Cambridge. Nothing is going to budge that. Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Not a reliable source. It is synthesis anyway because the source does not address whether the BNP is a far right party. TFD (talk) 08:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

http://tiananmenstremendousachievements.wordpress.com/

This is being used at List of aircraft carriers in service. I believe this is a blog.

Reliable... yes? no? Thank - theWOLFchild 07:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is a blog. Everything on WordPress should be treated with suspicion. I would consider that unreliable unless there is some special reason to consider the blog or its author, Chan Kai Yee, trustworthy. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
There is some reason to believe that Chan Kai Yee might be a good source but this construction is reported elsewhere (e.g. at news.com.au. More problematic is the fact that this is not that widely reported, suggesting that the primary insider sources for these news reports may not be reliable themselves. This is after all the sort of thing that would be reported everywhere if it were true. On a WP:NOTNEWS basis I would tend to suppress this until it had a wider corroboration. Mangoe (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibly WP:SPS sources used on Coat of arms of the London Borough of Haringey

I note that the following sites are used as sources for the history of the Coat of arms of the London Borough of Haringey. None of these sources are being used to cite a specific statement, however the content of the article appears to be broadly consistent with the content of these sources. -

In favor of these sources, even the wiki site does appear to have some kind of editorial policy. The blog is by a notable local politician who who may be an expert on the history of her borough. They all appear to be honest attempts to document local history, and there are no obvious contradictions between these sources. However they are all obviously self-published.

Question: In light of the above claims, can we make a case for considering the above sources to be reliable enough in this context? --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Civic Heraldry appears to be compiled by a knowledgeable enthusiast, probably very good, but not easily allowed under RS. Good for an external link.
There'd be a case for regarding the former mayor of Haringey as an expert on this subject. But there is also an official source here which could surely be cited. Andrew Dalby 12:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Official report of the arms as granted is to be preferred as a source. Mangoe (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Is a citation to a web based news account article that has not been maintained still considered a "reliable source"?

I know that a source does not need to be available on the web to be used as a reliable source; but if the source was only on the web, and the web page is now not locatable on the host website, is it still an acceptable source? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

That seems to fundamentally violate WP:V, one of our core policies. It's outside the purview of this noticeboard but it might also be pertinent to examine whether it's placing undue weight on a fact that is only reported in one source. ElKevbo (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
It can be verified through internet archives, but you do raise a good point about weight. Gamaliel (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Good catch; its presence on the Internet Archive meets WP:V. That, of course, doesn't really answer the primary question of this noticeboard which is whether it's published in a reliable source. Is that in question? ElKevbo (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
For some articles news on the Discovery Channel would be a reasonable source, so the question of whether it appeared elsewhere may not come up. TFD (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
One may also note that Discovery channel is not absolutely fact-based in its entertainment programming at all, and does not always make clear where facts stop and speculation begins. [37] shows its current focus is on such stuff as "aliens" and "JFK assassination" theories. Any use must avoid the idea that since CBS News is RS, that quoting from entertainment shows on CBS is also RS for facts about science or news. "Discovery News" has such scientific articles as "How to choose the perfect gift" so I do not consider it totally hard news [38] Collect (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I suppose if one were writing about aliens investigators those articles could be sources for their biographical details and what they claim. But even major news sources run those types of stories. Even Edward R. Murrow made a video about flying saucers. TFD (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the Webarchive link. (And yes, the UNDUE is a matter that will need to be addressed, but it has been an uphill battle to get the editors to understand and agree that WP:V and WP:OR and WP:RS apply - the sophistication necessary for them to understand and begin to apply WP:UNDUE is a battle for another day.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Tamil-Brahmi

Dispute over whether the info box should date it to the 2nd c. BC, per 2ary sources, or to the 5th c. BC, per 1ary sources and The Hindu newspaper. — kwami (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll give an opinion over there, for what it's worth. Andrew Dalby 09:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Son of the Bronx

I'm getting some seriously mixed signals when it comes to the site "Son of the Bronx". It's a site that details Nielsen ratings for a lot of cable shows. Strikes against it: it's a Blogspot, and its editor isn't /super notable. Tallies for it: the information is cited to Nielsen itself, its editor worked for TV Media Insights (also here), and from what cross-referencing I can do, it seems that the info checks out. It's being used on several pages to cite information, and I'd love to use it to cite the missing info for List of Adventure Time episodes that TV by the Numbers and the Futon Critic et al have not provided. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

About.com

Have we, as a community, come to a consensus on whether About.com is a reliable source or not? – Quadell (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Other than it's one source for reading, it's not used as a source. Can you add, which page you or other editor has/is adding the about.com? Bladesmulti (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm assisting a Good Article nomination review of Heartland rock, which uses this as a source in several places. I don't have any conflict with this user; I merely want to know if it's reliable or not so that I can know if the article passes our GA criteria. – Quadell (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

One user has opined that we should never use About.com as a source. If anyone disagrees, please speak up. – Quadell (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Check the archives. If I recall correctly, we've had previous discussions on how about.com can be usable under WP:SPS, depending on the author. Siawase (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the general presumption should be "Don't use About.com". but there can be exceptions. In the unlikely event that we actually want to cite the opinions of one of About's content-writers, as an SPS, that could be a exception. It's not quite a curate's egg, but some bits are better than others.
It's not totally relevant, but just for fun here is an about.com page with predictions for 2013. Very little has actually come true yet; there will have to be some drastic changes in the world in the next few days... bobrayner (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Ask for better source than About, as the writer is not really notable. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Some of the articles, such as those signed by experts, meet rs, but I would not use it because it is a tertiary source. TFD (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Past discussions of about.com have been mixed, and (from my reading) seem to indicate that the result depends strongly on whether there is some other reason for viewing the author of an article there as an expert on the subject (much like WP:SPS). See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Huffington Post, Gawker and About.com, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22#About.com, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 27#About.com. (I looked these up for a discussion in Talk:Tartine that also involves reliability of an about.com source.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Our Campaigns

Thousands of articles are citing Our Campaigns which, while not strictly an open wiki per this page, seems unambiguously unreliable per WP:SPS. This has been brought up on here a couple of times before with little to no response. I don't know how one gets started or what the criteria are but I think a large-scale cleanup might be necessary? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm showing no more than 2,666 uses so far, which is quite a sizable cleanup that needs to happen here. I tend to agree that it would fail as a self-published source lacking enough editorial oversight to be used here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
The 2,666 number might be inflated since some of those will be external links rather than references, which I think are okay per WP:ELYES #3 and WP:ELMAYBE #4. Without checking though, I'd imagine a substantial majority will be references. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
The large-scale cleanups haven't succeeded as a strategy, unfortunately. It is a bit daunting to consider cleaning up 2,666 articles all at once. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Even 66 is daunting, unfortunately. It's too bad there hasn't been some sort of wikiproject of people interested in these sorts of cleanup. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

DNA Tribes Used As Supporting Source To Two Peer-Reviewed Studies Regarding Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy, DNA History of Egypt, Population History of Egypt

In regards to Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy and related Talk:DNA history of Egypt and Talk:Population history of Egypt, There was an earlier discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_141#DNA_Tribes.2C_a_private_genetics_company.2C_being_used_as_a_source

The Rameses peer-reviewed study:http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e8268 The Rameses DNA Tribes running the data from the peer-reviewed study:http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-02-01.pdf The Amarna peer-reviewed study: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393 The Amarna DNA Tribes running the data from the peer-reviewed study:http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

These studies are being used for this content:

" Recent DNA studies of Ancient Egyptian mummies of a New Kingdom dynasty have confirmed Sub-Saharan African origins for notable New Kingdom pharoahs from both the Rameses III (from 1186 B.C.) and Amarna (from 1353 B.C.) lineages: In December 2012, Zahi Hawass, the former Egyptian Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs and his research team released DNA studies of Rameses III (who historically is assumed to have usurped the throne and as such may not represent earlier lineages) and his son have found he carried the Sub-Saharan African Haplogroup E1b1a, and as a result clustered most closely with Africans from the African Great Lakes (335.1), Southern Africa (266.0) and Tropical West Africa (241.7) and not Europeans (1.4), Middle Easterners (14.3) or peoples from the Horn of Africa (114.0).

Earlier studies from January 2012 of the Amarna mummies had reached similar conclusions with the average affiliations of the mummies found to be Southern African (326.94), Great Lakes African (323.76) and Tropical West African (83.74) and not Middle Eastern (6.92), European (5.21) or with peoples from the Horn of Africa (14.79). As no other studies of other Ancient Egyptian mummies are available, the questions as to the genetic affiliations of other pharaohs and figures (such as Cleopatra VII, the last pharaoh of Egypt from 51 B.C. following the Greek Conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great in 300 B.C.) is yet undetermined."

Regarding the use of DNA tribes as a source due to the fact that it is a private company. Is it fine to use as a supporting source to the two peer-reviewed studies it is based on? The idea is that DNA Tribes took the data from the two peer reviewed studies which are cited in Ancient Egyptian race controversy, DNA history of Egypt and Population history of Egypt and ran it through to create the genetic distance information. Is it then okay to add the DNA tribes article as an additional source? This is an issue that arises with most scientific studies because most individuals are not sophisticated enough to read and understand the tables themselves. Using a supplementary study is useful if no arguments have been made as to fraud in the running of the supplied data. Thoughts are welcome, especially in light of the historically sensitive nature of this topic. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

From what I can see here, neither of these two sources attempted to determine or conclude upon the race of the kings in question, and actually addressed a completely different issue. A non-reliable source then "interpreted" some data from these articles to support a different conclusion of their own. Is that correct, or have I perhaps missed something? Wdford (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree, and don't see that anything has changed since the last discussion where I and 3 other editors including User:Moxy wrote "If reliable published sources do not include the information that is found only at DNA Tribes, then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include or may constitute original research" (and criticised DNATribes specifically) and User:Andrew Lancaster agreed. As do I. When scholarly sources start to use the DNATribes material, then we can quote those sources. There is another issue often ignored. The subsection where this was added has a main article, and thus should follow WP:SUMMARY - any new material should be introduced first in the main article. Too often summaries verge widely from the main article. Dougweller (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, but my actual point is that the two articles supposedly quoted by DNA-Tribes don't seem to be discussing race at all, so it seems that DNA-Tribes is extrapolating from studies that did not address that actual issue? Wdford (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be great to get some other voices from editors who were not involved in the previous discussion to get an unbiased perspective. Andajara120000 (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC) How does one bring in other editors? I am new to this--or do editors come in voluntarily once they are alerted to this page. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe what DNA Tribes did was run the data provided in the peer reviewed studies to determine genetic affiliations. As such the crux of the matter is the reliability of the running of the data. My opinion is unless there is some evidence of fraud in the use of the data in the peer reviewed studies that DNA Tribes should be treated as any other source. The special status that DNA Tribes is getting seems strange to me. DNA Tribes is just like any researcher evaluating the data provided and giving its viewpoint- just like an author of a book or article evaluates the data presented and provides their analysis. What exactly is the difference? That has not yet been articulated in this discussion. We have the two peer-reviewed genetic studies at hand, we have the two analyses by DNA Tribes based on those genetic studies---none of the editors have provided any sources as to why the analyses by DNA Tribes are suspect. Perhaps a note can be placed as to any concerns with the analysis, just like in DNA history of Egypt or Population history of Egypt there are disclaimers as to the R1b findings for King Tut (including that the genetic researchers may not have even used King Tut's remains) but the info still remains for the readers to evaluate. I don't think any such claims have been made in regards to DNA Tribes. That is my take but other voices are very welcome. Regards Andajara120000 (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


What I found on Wikipedia:BIASED

Shortcut: WP:BIASED seems to support including DNA Tribes and placing a disclaimer and NOT deleting it altogether. Am I missing something?? "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are good sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. On the other hand, an opinion in a reliable source is still an opinion, rather than a fact. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd..." or "According to the opera critic Tom Sutcliffe..."

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 12:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I think what had been argued earlier was that there might a financial bias of the source---is that still the argument? If so a disclaimer as to the financial bias should do the trick or am I missing something? Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

DNA Tribes has been used as a source in the following diverse Wikipedia articles:

Maghrebis Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas Tunisia Asian people Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Coming fresh to this, and having just looked through the two papers and two pdfs, I don't think that Wikipedia should use the analysis by DNA Tribes as a reliable source. It is a commercial company, not a scholarly organization, and the pdfs don't give any link to academically-checkable details of how they reached their conclusions nor of whether there is a scholarly consensus that their methods are valid. They do have a commercial interest in providing exciting results.
Supposing that their results were published and their conclusions accepted as valid, as may happen, we should be extremely careful about how we present them. In particular, I'd strongly suggest using the word race is extremely unwise unless and until we can show a strong consensus that it's appropriate to whatever specific use we may propose to make of it. DNA Tribes more cautiously say that "This provides additional, independent evidence of Sub-Saharan African ancestry (possibly among several ancestral components) for pharaonic families of ancient Egypt." and, if their work becomes acceptably reliable or that conclusion is produced independently by more reliable sources, we could use some such wording. I hope that helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no dispute that Egyptians have "sub-Saharan" ancestry. So do Europeans, of course. As for specific pharaohs, it was common for pharaohs to have wives from the royal families of surrounding communities, both to the south and the north, so it's no more surprising that pharaohs will be linked ancestrally to sub-Saharans than it is that they will also be linked to levantines. None of this is in any really sense an issue. It's just that this whole "debate" is locked into US-centric ways of categorising "race". There is also the problem that lineage is consistently being mixed up with race. Millions of white Americans have sub-Saharan lineage (i.e, an ancestor from way-back), but tells us next to nothing about how they are categorised in terms of race. Also, why should we trust a source that says he "historically is assumed to have usurped the throne and as such may not represent earlier lineages"? He was the son of the previous king, Setnakhte. Paul B (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I think this may be more of a WP:UNDUE issue than a reliability issue. DNA Tribes has apparently analyzed some data and reached certain conclusions... OK... the next question is to determine how much weight should be given to that analysis and those conclusions? Given the commercial nature of DNA Tribes, I don't think we should give it a lot of weight... at least not yet. That would change if other sources comment upon what DNA Tribes has said (either for or against). Waiting for other sources to take note of and comment upon what DNA Tribes says will also reduce the potential for Original Research... we (Wikipedia editors) certainly should not state (or imply) that their analysis means X or Y. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that DNA Tribes seems to be getting special and unfavorable treatment. Frequently, articles from newspaper websites are used as sources in Wiki articles. News companies are also for profit companies with a commercial interest in publishing (in print and on their website) "exciting" articles. That doesn't prevent these news articles from being used as sources in Wiki articles. Furthermore, it would be much more commercially viable to publish that the Amarna mummy's DNA clustered with Europeans due to the incredible amount of wealth that has become accumulated in Europe and its offshoots (USA, Australia, etc.). Also, are not most independent authors essentially private companies writing about a topic for commercial gain?
This has long been an "exciting" and controversial topic. However, without any evidence of misconduct or fraud, we can't label every organization writing on the race of the Ancient Egyptians as untrustworthy and unfit for use in a Wiki article.Rod (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

As this issue keeps coming up I have struck through the edits of a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnjohnjames - as the sockmaster is not allowed to edit, edits by their socks can be reverted or struck through where appropriate. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


Haymarket Books

[39] is being cited in a discussion at Talk:Pamela Geller as a reliable source for calling her "right wing" in Wikipedia's voice in a BLP. I think it possible that the publisher does not meet Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources, that the book is not peer-reviewed, that the source appears to be possibly less academic in value than has been asserted on the talk page, and that there are many statements in the book which might indicate it is of little value in making contentious claims about living people. What say ye all? Collect (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree. While I believe that the Kumar book is reliable (remember, neutrality is not required for reliability), we have even better sources, so we can just let this drop. MilesMoney (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how many editors involved in this discussion actually read this book? Or did you simply perform a some Google search and this was one of the results? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

when has reading the book ever been a requirement for determining whether or not it is a reliable source? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Isn't the debate about whether to call Geller "far right" in Wikipedia's voice? To me, it is much better to attribute such pejorative judgments to the opinions expressed by high-quality sources, rather than stating such a judgment in Wikipedia's own voice. Of course, such assessments should be balanced by other assessments by other sources. To answer A Quest For Knowledge, I haven't read this book, and have no plans to. That is not a negative assessment of the book at all. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
No it is about calling her "right wing." "Far right" came up earlier, and sources do not support that. TFD (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom:I don't think I said that it was. But reading the book may be requirement in understanding what it says. I take it from this discussion that nobody has bothered reading the book. I'd also go on to suggest that we may be writing the article backwards. We should start with the sources and then determine what the article should say. We should not start with what we want the article to say and then find sources to support it (which appears to be the case here). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll also go on to state that we should not be looking at isolated sources but instead look for consensus in sources. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean that it belongs in a Wikipedia article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
We have plenty of sources, which is why we know it belongs. We're just looking for more that will resist concerted attacks by POV pushers and other busybodies. MilesMoney (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Haymarket Books can have a pro-labor mission and still publish reliable books. The books should be judged individually. Since Kumar is writing outside of scholarly circles but within the area of expertise, we should allow the source with attribution. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Gun control

Do sources cited at gun control need to mention gun control? I just removed a cited (highly biased) source which never mentions gun control.[40]

  • Rummel, R. J. (1994). Death by government. New Brunswick, N.J: Transactions Publishers.ISBN 9781412821292[41]

My edit was reverted by North8000 with the edit summary: Undid revision Goethean (talk) Undid removal of reference. The reference is supporting the material which cited, your claim that it it must include other terminology has no basis[42] Rummel is being cited in order to support material about Nazism in the gun control article, despite the fact that no reputable historian has been cited who contends that Nazism is a significant part of the topic of gun control, and despite the fact that some of the sources don't even mention gun control. — goethean 17:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I received no notice that I was mentioned, but have RSN watched.. Let's direct & specific.
  • First, here is the statement which it (plus other sources) is being used to source.
"Among the anti-Semitic laws, regulations, and acts of civil violence enacted by the Nazi regime against Germans whom it considered Jewish were restrictions of weapon ownership,and these were used by Hitler's government to disarm the Jewish population."
  • Second, while the offer was made several times to take any material that there is a sourcing question on to this noticeboard, neither Goethean or others has cared to do so.
  • Third, the edit discussed was to remove the source, not to remove the material, and the grounds given was that the source did not mention the title of the article.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Rummel's works are not reliable for the history of Nazism. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that the three relevant questions are:
  1. Is the statement in the article sufficiently sourced to satisfy policy. (this question has not yet been presented here, such would require the other sources)
  2. Is there a policy basis for removal of the source
  3. Secondarily (as it is one of several cites) Is Rummel reliable for the statement which used it as a reference
Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
This is yet another instance of North8000's WP:ICANTHEARYOU. When faced with logic for which he has no answer, he refuses to listen. This is becoming a serious behavioral issue. — goethean 18:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I've had a hard time finding non-blog reviews (and I'm not keen on appealing to the Cato Institute either) but GScholar shows 700+ citations of the book. That said, it's really more worthwhile to look at discussion of the idea of Nazi gun control rather than trying to seize upon one slam-dunk reference that vetoes any contrary ideas. Mangoe (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Have any sources picked up on his findings about the 1938 act? No. So his opinion on this issue anyway is insignificant. TFD (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Source quoted for singer-songwriter Tina Arena's wealth - is it reliable?

Hello, this is my first time here, my query is about a reference used in the article about the singer-songwriter Tina Arena. I'm trying to establish if The Richest website data (http://www.therichest.com) is regarded as reliable.

On 26 December 2013, an editor used this site as a source for a statement in the lead section, that

A recent Australian Rich List of entertainers, including singers (BRW Rich 50) doesn't list her at all, although that may be because she lives in France these days. She does not appear on the BRW Australian Rich 200 (BRW Rich 200). Both those lists are very well regarded and regularly quoted by all mainstream Australian media outlets.I cannot be definitive, but I do not recall seeing her name on other Australian rich lists either (I am Australian) and an amount of $245 million would qualify her to top such lists.

I believe she has sold around eight million records (The Artist’s Story:Tina Arena) and is a busy live performer but the amount (subjectively) seems very high, therefore I am wondering if The Richest website is reliable (I'm not saying it isn't, but I have not heard of it before). Any comments appreciated. Thanks. Melbourne3163 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

A recent discussion here judged that website to probably not be reliable: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 162#CelebrityNetWorth.com and TheRichest.org/TheRichest.com. I hope that's helpful for you. Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
In addition to the post above, I would have to say that the site is unreliable. BRW Rich List is much more reliable and covers Aussie artists who are based oversees. There is no information in the article to explain the basis of the estimation which is most likely done by some kind of formula. I would use that reference.Flat Out let's discuss it 23:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your speedy responses. I have now read the discussion you highlighted and both your comments. This is most helpful and I have removed the unreliable reference (put there in good faith by another editor). Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Would this "report" be considered a reliable source?

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

It is not reliable. Groups like the CPS exist in order to publish reports defending ideas that cannot be supported in academic journals, because no reasonable assessment of available evidence would lead to those conclusions. TFD (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Context: Here's the link to the discussion of this report, at Talk:Hydraulic fracturing.
And here is the version of the paragraph in that article, deleted by Smm201`0 from the Hydraulic fracturing article; diff

Public-health benefits of hydraulic fracturing

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

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

Comment, One other editor Martin Hogbin has agreed. I didn't agree or disagree, I offered a suggestion of how to move forward. Blackash have a chat 02:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
If the source does misrepresent it's own references, that of course reflects back onto the writers. Lowering their credibility, if it is also true that Muller is being criticized for conflict of interest because of his financial ties to shale, then this lowers it further. I would suggest don't use this as a standalone ref, only use this a supporting ref. Or better yet use the sources from Why Every Serious Environmentalist Should Favour Fracking.pdf directly as refs for the fracking article. Blackash have a chat 02:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Muller's upfront about the connection -- he posted a link from http://www.chinashalefund.com/ to this report. If RS disputes/rebuttals to Mullers report were available , I think Smm201`0 would have posted them. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
My question for the RS discussion board was whether the source for the statement was reliable. That is the focus of that board. As I mentioned, there were other issues, like conflict of interest, and misconstruing sources within the report, but the focus of that board is the credibility/reliability of sources. So for instance, a report published by the New York Times and Washington Post would be considered an RS, but a report issued by a stand alone lobbying group would not, based on the publication in which it is published. There are critiques of Muller's work, but the RS issue/argument was more to the point. Smm201`0 (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I think there may be some confusion regarding what an "RS" is. My understanding is that it doesn't refer to how clearly or consistently a report states a fact, but on the nature of the publication or web site in which it appears. For more information, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smm201`0 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 29 December 2013
See "Questionable sources": "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be...promotional.... Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves...." The fact that the author is a scholar does not matter. If the article had been published in an academic journal it would be different. Also, his opinions are not significant unless that can be shown in secondary sources. TFD (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we've seen any evidence that this is a Questionable source. Just some unsupported personal comments from the OP, so far. The OP appears to believe that Muller has a financial interest in shale gas, but hasn't yet presented any evidence of this. Muller has fully disclosed his position at China Shale Fund, as indicated above. Pete Tillman (talk) 07:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
The co-author, Elizabeth A. Muller, is "founder and Managing Director of the China Shale Fund, an investment fund that brings together the best geological minds for innovation in shale gas in China," according to the note on the final page. Richard A. Muller is Chief Scientist of Muller & Associates, an international consulting group specializing in energy-related issues, and counts at least one major energy company as a client. None of this would matter if the paper had been peer-reviewed. However, the publisher, CPS, is a think tank that advises the Thatcherite wing of the Tory Party. They do not disclose their funding, but they were prominent in climate change skepticism. TFD (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Having looked further into this source I think is should only be used as a supporting ref if then. Blackash have a chat 09:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll rewrite with that in mind. As I mentioned at Talk:Hydrofrac, the meat of the post -- coal smoke kills millions of people every year, and NG is far cleaner -- is available from such peer-reviewed sources as The Lancet. Or, as Prof. Muller would say, "Every Serious Environmentalist Should Favour Fracking," Might be a day or two. Thanks to all for their interest & cmts, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

In general "reliable source" is not the same as "infallible source." All WP:RS requires is a reasonable belief that the publisher of a claim has engaged in fact-checking, or peer-review, of the material presented. If there is a determinable majority view of a fact, then that can be stated, and any minority views should be presented with weight reasonably in proportion to the prevalence of the opinion. This does mean, in fact, that Wikipedia articles can have "conflicting claims" even within a single paragraph, and with proper sourcing for each, in keeping with WP:NPOV. Collect (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'm struggling to find the words to adequately describe the problem, and didn't want my opinion to leak into this discussion, hence being a bit vague. To outline the problem, in Deus ex machina there is a section listing examples of DEM in literature, film, etc. Some of the examples seem inappropriate to me. The Lord of the Rings is one such example. The article states (in WP's voice) that the ending of LOTR is DEM, yet there are many reliable sources online which claim that it isn't. It seems superfluous to me, in an article about Deus ex machina, to give an example of DEM, followed by an explanation as to why that example isn't considered DEM (in accordance with NPOV). It would be simpler to just find a better example, would it not? Sorry if this is in the wrong place. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
if there are multiple typically reliable sources that say different things, we present all major views in proportion that they are held by current mainstream academia. WP:UNDUE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, this is not an article about The Lord of the Rings, it's an article about Deus ex machina. There is no requirement to mention LOTR at all. So to hold LOTR up as an example of DEM, and then digress into explaining why it might not be DEM (in order to satisfy NPOV), seems pointless and off-topic. Unfortunately I seem to have come across as attempting to defend J.R.R. Tolkien's 'good name', when in fact I don't really care who's right or wrong, I just would prefer better (ie, unambiguous) examples within the DEM article. The reason I came here is because another editor is conflating the issues by using sources to back up his stance. As in, lots of people say it, therefore it must be true. nagualdesign (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
sorry i was edit conflicted and didnt fully read your post before i responded the first time. I think that you are correct and that the issue is not the WP:RS , it is the WP:UNDUE weight. Wikipedia:V#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion and as an item about which the (semi) reliable sources do not agree, it is Wikipedia:IPC#Good_and_bad_popular_culture_references probably not a good example to include. Although if you get meta, and have the proper source, it could be used as a example to show that there are disagreements about interpretations of DEM appearances. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Literary criticism involves stating opinons rather than facts. When these opinions have overwhelming acceptance, such as saying that Hamlet was a tragedy, we treat is as a fact. In other cases, different critics may offer different views, in which case we should follow the policy of "Neutrality". The best approach would be to find a reliable source that discussed the two views and explained which had more acceptance. TFD (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

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

I think everyone is missing an important factor here... Even if X is a legitimate example of Y, noting says that X must be mentioned as an example in our Y article. It is perfectly acceptable to choose A, B, or C as examples of Y instead. While Hamlet is a tragedy... nothing says we have to use Hamlet as an example in our article on Tragedy. There are lots of other well known tragedies that could be used instead. That is an editorial decision.
So... in the case Nagualdesign presents to us, the question isn't whether LOTR is a valid example of Deus ex machina... the question is: do we want to use LOTR as an example. Since there is appartently debate about it, it probably isn't the best example... so... omit it, even if it is valid... use something else instead. Blueboar (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Uncited literary trope examples should be deleted on sight; the LotR example was completely uncited, so the question of whether it is a good example is moot for now, because it must be considered not an example at all. Mangoe (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Fundoofun.com

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

Spammers:

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

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

See also: Wikipedia article Fundoofun.com

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

Youtube source

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

Oh, and the reason a YouTube source is needed is that User:Juzumaru, when presented with the two other print sources that say the same thing, refused to accept them because they can't be seen for free online. The other IP user's proposed solution to this problem is to post a more obscure, and apparently less relevant, print source instead of the one Stanford/Levy/YouTube source, leaving us with three print sources, each more unnecessary than the last, and the one source that actually solves the (admittedly quite silly) problem being dismissed precisely because it is available for free via a video-sharing site. 182.249.240.16 (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
According to WP:NOYT, "official [YouTube] channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be trace [sic] to a reliable publisher. Videos may also be used as a convenience link for material originally published elsewhere. In all cases, care should be undertaken to ensure that the video is genuinely authorised by the copyright holder." I watch StanfordUniversity lectures all the time. That's the official channel. nagualdesign (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no requirement that sources be available on line. In fact that requirement would seriously limit what could appear in Wikipedia. TFD (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Privately uploaded videos are not the same as one officially uploaded by a major institution - if there is a contention that it is being misquoted or misused from even a single editor, then a transcript would help, but in this specific case that does not appear to be the issue, as long as it is not a "single source." And TFD is correct - Wikipedia does not require that sources be found online - however if someone finds such a source was misused or, worse yet, misquoted, then the editor using it is likely to be chastised.Collect (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Pamela Geller source

The New Religious Intolerance: Overcoming the Politics of Fear in an Anxious Age Martha C. Nussbaum Harvard University Press p 195. is proffered as a source for asserting in Wikipedia's voice that Pamela Geller is "right wing." Is it properly used therefore? [43]

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

Unrelated to the discussion of THIS proposed source
This is forum-shopping by Collect, who already shopped this issue to WP:BLPN but didn't get his way. Boring. MilesMoney (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a very interesting (and comical) allegation, Miles, considering that it was YOU who originally started the discussion at BLPN. [44] Roccodrift (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Collect already fought to whitewash the article on BLPN. That didn't work, so he came here. That's what I call forum-shopping. Now, if I had filed this report, you might have a point instead of yet another distraction. MilesMoney (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
For Christ's sake, STOP your incessant bickering with EVERYONE who happens to disagree with you. You are personally responsible for filling up these talk pages with unnecessary pages of gibber gabber. Does that make you feel good? It annoys the crap out of me and I suspect many others.
And then there is this [45] to consider as well, from the article talk page: " If you want to go to RSN over that, feel free." In light of what you've said now that we're here, this seems like it may have been said in bad faith. Roccodrift (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
He's free to do whatever he wishes. He's not free to ignore the consequences. You should understand the difference now that your block is over. MilesMoney (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Well-known philosopher, published by top academic press. Highly reliable. Any sources of similar standing that disagree must also be referred to. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
(ec multiply)The issue is whether a first person book presented the claim as an opinion or as a fact which can be used in the lead of a BLP. BTW, the "whitewash" claim is simply attacking editors who actually follow WP:BLP on all persons equally. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
We also have sources calling Geller a blogger. Is that also an opinion? Other sources say she's a woman. Is that an opinion, too? MilesMoney (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
She is self-identified as a "blogger" per multiple sources, including SPS (which is allowable for such a claim), Village Voice, New York Times and multiple other sources found without googlemining exercises. As you are certainly aware, self-identification means a lot for any BLP claim. As for your "say she's a woman" such a sexist connotation is ill-placed on any noticeboard. Collect (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Your memory seems a bit selective. She also states that her opponents are leftists which makes her... oh, I don't know. Then there's her bio on her blog, where she collects praise, including "heroine of the right wing". She does not hide her right-wing orientation. That's something for her fans to do on Wikipedia. MilesMoney (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Your argument betrays deep ignorance about Nussbaum's qualifications. There's this little site I like to use to look these things up. I don't know if you've heard of it, but it's called Wikipedia. Anyhow, here's what it says about her:
Martha Craven Nussbaum (born May 6, 1947) is an American philosopher and the current Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago, a chair that includes appointments in the philosophy department and the law school. She has a particular interest in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, political philosophy, feminism, and ethics, including animal rights.
She also holds associate appointments in classics, divinity and political science, is a member of the Committee on Southern Asian Studies, and a board member of the Human Rights Program. She previously taught at Harvard and Brown.[1]
So, do you really doubt that she's qualified to recognize a right-winger? MilesMoney (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Your appeal to authority isn't very convincing. This isn't a book on law or on classical antiquity, and there is no feature of the dispute that even approaches animal rights. Roccodrift (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Problem is that she is specifically "libertarian", "pro-LGBT rights" and "pro-choice" from RS sources ... which them also should be in the lead if I read the policies correctly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to WP:RSN, where we get feedback on source reliability but refrain from carrying on the debate. Which part didn't you get? MilesMoney (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Martha Nussbaum is a well respected philosopher and one of the main developers of the Capabilities approach. I've read the above book and have a problem with using the book with respect to the BLP in question. I don't have the book in front of me but as I remember Nussbaum says she has done no research on Geller but defers to either the SPLC or ADL on the matter. Thus Nussbaum is a WP:TERTIARY reference and we have many secondary references that we can draw from directly. I think Nussbaum voice is an important on matters of opinion and philosophy but as to the facts of a BLP, I would recommend against. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that we should support this citation with citations to the SPLC and ADL? I'm fine with that. MilesMoney (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
We already use the SPLC and ADL. We should examine their discussion on the matter in the talk pages of the BLP in question. Let' re-read them and review. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Would you please keep out of this, MilesMoney. Jason, I demur from your assessment of this as tertiary. I can access the book through a Google preview, searchable of course, and can't find her anywhere saying that she relies on SPLC or ADL for this information. And even if she did, I would suggest that a "tertiary source" is just that, a whole source. It seems strange to take one statement and call it "tertiary". Itsmejudith (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry I don't have the book in front of me and I can only get some of the pages on Google preview. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know. Let me see if I can get hold of the book. I was under the impression that her whole assessment of Geller was via SPLC or ADL. By the way, I just re-read the ADL study and it is a sober critical treatment focusing on the main points. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I've only got the Google preview, same as you, so if you want to double-check that would be very helpful. She does mention that SPLC has described Geller and Spencer's group as a "hate group", but otherwise doesn't seem to be reliant on SPLC or ADL. I am OK in principle about sourcing to SPLC and/or ADL. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Even if she was reliant on those secondary sources (which isn't clear to me, either), it doesn't diminish her value as a tertiary source who evaluates and endorses the secondaries. This is why I suggested earlier that we can avoid a lot of haggling by citing the three in tandem. MilesMoney (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
We already have the "hate group" bit in the BLP -- the issue is that the other sources do not specify that she is "right wing" and we do not include the reliable sources making clear that her position is pretty much simply "libertarian" as the Village Voice and NYT articles aver. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Not that I want to jump into a can of worms, but if someone is saying The Village Voice and The New York Times are not RSs pretty much 100% of the time, I'd be concerned about their reasoning and possible biases. It's only extreme right-wingers who denigrate the Times as "The Jew York Times" and the like and don't consider it RS. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Album sales figures/WP:SYNTH

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

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

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

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

WantChinaTimes

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

I haven't looked closely enough to form much of an opinion on reliability, but the site seems - rather bizarrely - to be operated by Want_Want. So, not a lone operator, but possibly not much better. Barnabypage (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The BBC seems to refer to them in their "monitoring" piece and also elsewhere: 1 2 so the site probably doesn't deserve to be written off entirely. Of course, the perspectives may be specifically Taiwanese so depending on the content being sourced caution would be advisable, in detail if the content contains editorial views or opinions of Taiwan's position, say, vis-a-vis the PRC. --Dailycare (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

NOW News

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

Not alone. "How would they know?" is the first question to ponder, if this is being approached purely as a matter of reliability. Anyway, as a BLP, there are other major issues here beside reliability. Andrew Dalby 09:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Also see posting at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#As.27ad_AbuKhalil. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is a link to the article. It is posted as "commentary" and hence not reliable for facts. The claim is highly dubious. A journalist who works for a pro-government paper in Kuwait writes in a pro-American newspaper that a left-wing critic of U.S. policy, teaching in the U.S., is secretly working for the CIA, based on copies of documents found on the internet. If the story were worth repeating, mainstream U.S. media would have picked up on it. Here is a response to the story in Jadaliyya. TFD (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Not even a remotely close call. The claim is contentious, and requires more than single sourcing in the first place. Adding such material is an abuse of Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Not even two years in existence. Alternative website of unknown standards. No. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Trayvon Martin

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

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

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

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

www.stringbandrecord.com

The site in question is a self-published "labor of love", "compiled by Brian Maher". (Maher, apparently, is a former Mummer.) At issue (currently) is a claim on Aqua String Band. Maher states Aqua missed three parades, but does not explain how he determined this. (Most likely, he reviewed newspaper reports from the three years in question, 1927-9, and did not see Aqua listed.) The band's website states, "The Band has never missed a New Year's Day Parade..."[46] Other bands in the parade also claim to have the longest uninterrupted string of marches.

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

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

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

Yes, the self-published source states what you say. Aqua states they have never missed a parade, since 1920: "The Band has never missed a New Year's Day Parade since the time they first stepped onto “The Street” (1920)..."[47] Ferko states they have never missed a parade, since 1923: "From its first Mummers Parade in 1923, the band's history of prize-winning mirrors such perennial greats as the New York Yankees and the Dallas Cowboys. This internationally known string band has appeared in every parade since its inception."[48] That's "competing claims". None of these are reliable sources. One guy searched through old newspapers, made his own decisions about years with only unofficial parades, came to conclusions based on what he did not find and put his conclusions on his personal website. That is not a reliable source. We do not report original research. We do not use unreliable sources. We do not assume that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. (Your back and forth last year, eventual page protection and return to it after the protection, culminated in you saying "as long as those two lies are kept out of this Wiki on the Aqua String Band, I will be satisfied." Now that you aren't satisfied, we're here to resolve the issue.) - SummerPhD (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

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

While the individual newspapers probably qualify as reliable sources themselves, none of them has been presented as the source for the claim. The claim is being made by the creator of the website who does not meet the criteria of a WP:RS, ie someone whose work has been reviewed by an authoritative editorial board or peer review etc. its just some guy who posted some stuff.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The "individual newspapers" are what makes up the String Band Record. If you are stating that they are reliable sources, the String Band Record must be allowed. If individual newspapers are NOT considered reliable resources, we would need a consensus (not just one other person...) to go along with this, which would, I'm sure, turn a few other Wikis into question.StringBandDivisionThesis (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I am, also, still waiting for a "consensus" within the Wiki community in regards to my source....StringBandDivisionThesis (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The String Band Record is NOT the individual newspapers, it is research based on those papers. The newspapers do not say that Aqua did not march in those three years. The String Band Record says that. You haven't yet explained how you feel the String Band Record meets the criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. You have stated that you believe it is "reliable", that various people use it for various things, etc. None of these have anything to do with whether or not it is a "reliable source" as Wikipedia uses the term. The consensus of experienced editors here is pretty clear: It is a [[WP:SPS|self-published source and is not a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
and if that "some guy" who created the website is you, you should be aware of the conflict of interest policy in promoting the value and appearance of the website as a source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Last year StringBand stated that Maher was a friend of his from school. Not quite the same degree, but he clearly has personal feelings about the site, Mummers, etc. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I made a page for myself

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

cheers

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

Welcome to Wikipeida, Tony. Note that there is a difference between a "User page" and an "Article". You don't need to provide references to verify what you say on your user page ... you do need to provide references to reliable sources if you want to add information to an article.
As for how to do stuff... start by reading the basic Core Policies (WP:Verifiability, WP: Neutral point of view, and WP:No original research) then go to WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:Citing sources. That should give you the basics. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Chinese Source sino.com + Google translate

I'm looking at this as a source for local/regional Chinese technology-related information.

Mission: http://corp.sina.com.cn/eng/sina_prod_eng.htm (They plan to make money by inserting ads into a variety of media channels which they run ... As do aol, cnn, yahoo ...) "SINA’s portal network consists of four destination websites dedicated to the Chinese communities across the globe: Mainland China (www.sina.com.cn), Taiwan (www.sina.com.tw), Hong Kong (www.sina.com.hk), and overseas Chinese in North America (www.sina.com). "

English version : http://english.sina.com/index.html

and an example of local content, in Chinese : http://hebei.sina.com.cn/bd/focus/2013-09-27/08011242.html -- with a google-translate of the first paragraph :

Baoding Sino-US Science and Technology Innovation Park project held a signing ceremony
September 17, Sino-US Science and Technology Innovation Park project signing ceremony was held in Baoding, Hebei Province Vice Governor Xu Ning, Provincial Science and Technology Department Director Jia Hongxing, Nierui Ping Baoding Municipal Committee, Mayor Ma Yufeng, U.S. representative Tom Darden Cherokee Fund The Chairman and the Ministry of Science and the responsible personnel attended the ceremony. Provincial Science and Technology Department and Baoding relevant departments attended the signing ceremony. Before the signing ceremony, Xu Ning, vice governor cordially met with U.S. representatives.

Obviously a human-translation would be better, but the basic information is clear enough. Alanf777 (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Are police reports reliable sources?

This is related to a discussion on Talk:Zwarte Piet. I contend that if the report is not vetted via a trial it is essentially a self-published, primary source and should not have any weight in a discussion. There are other editors who feel otherwise. I look to both the police report and testimony involved in the Robert Dziekański Taser incident as an example why police reports should not be used as RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

A police report is about as primary as it gets and therefore would not be an acceptable source. Mangoe (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your conclusion, but not with the way it is reached. WP:PRIMARY says "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." and WP:BLPPRIMARY says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." So primary sources are not automatically unacceptable, but police reports generally are, and pretty much always in BLP situations. DES (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
"That has been reliably published" implies "only as quoted in reliable secondary sources." Using them to report details that secondary sources do not ratify, for instance, isn't acceptable. Mangoe (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
If something has not been reported in a reliable secondary source, then it normally fails "Weight". TFD (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Can videos be RS in a BLP?

YouTube as dominant Ref in BLP Marques Brownlee I could be wrong. But I do not believe any notable person needs to substantiate anything about themselves using a YouTube video that they posted. The article mention depends on YouTube videos posted by the very same person the page is about. One editor is saying they are allowed. I have searched and a. Not seen anyone notable using them as RS. 2. Not seen any documentation that a BLP can have YouTube links. I accept that if the statement is "He has a YouTube page" then obviously a link to that page makes sense. But beyond that...--Inayity (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The subject of this BLP is notable for … his hundreds of YouTube videos on his YouTube channel. I had already agreed to detail each source on the talk page but the other user really wants to be here so …
Disputed sources, removed here and replaced with "citation needed" flags

1. Interview with Marques Brownlee!. As the title suggests this is an interview with Brownlee conducted by Martin Shervington, and posted to Shervington channel. This 30-minute interview unsurprisingly covers a lot of ground, and is used as a general source as they do confirm many basic points that article raises, and they also noted about Browlee that Vic Gundotra, Senior Vice President of Google Social, calls him the "best technology reviewer on the planet right now." This source, among others was removed and a "citation needed" flag was added in its place.

The source also confirms the statements; He currently is a marketing student at Stevens Institute of Technology. He is majoring in business and technology, while minoring in Information systems, and marketing. And Other than producing content and school, he plays golf, and is a former professional ultimate frisbee player with the New Jersey Hammerheads. And His first several hundred videos were primarily hardware tutorials, and freeware. And He was later approached by companies to demonstrate their paid software and hardware, but only reviews products that would be of interest to his audience of technology enthusiasts.

2. The statement "The channel is said to be one of the fastest growing channels and one of the most subscribed-to in the technology industry." was also removed, this too can be attributed to the first source and I will accept it was an error not to have it with a source. The same user who deleted several sources then added a "citation needed" flag, didn't flag this statement but just removed it.

3. Management team – Company – Google. Is the website of Google management confirming that Vic Gundotra is indeed who we say he is, the Senior Vice President of Google Social. This was the second of three sources removed and replaced with one "citation needed" flag.

4. Vic Gundotra - Google+ - New MKBHD Video is live! I spend a lot of time in thought…. Is Vic Gundotra's own post confirming that what we said he said is accurate and verifiable. This was the third of three sources removed and replaced with one "citation needed" flag.

5. Pocketnow VIP, episode 3: meet Marques Brownlee from MKBHD! | Pocketnow. This is another online interview with Browlee that confirms a lot of basic, non-exceptional information in the article. It was removed as a source for the statement: He is majoring in business and technology, while minoring in Information systems, and marketing.

6. G Flex Self Healing Demo. This is one of Browlee's hundreds of videos, and the only one that is presently mentioned in the article, about someone who is notable for making YouTube videos. It is a demo of a particular product and is used to source " As of Dec 2013, the video has over 3,032,947 views." This source was also removed and replaced by a "citation needed" flag.

All in all these are not questionable sources and I think they fairly support the claims they are referencing. I think it would be nice to have more sources but this is also a new article, a short article, and until these sources were removed, most of the exceptional statements were easily verifiable. I think it can all be restored and I don't see any BLP violations as has been suggested but maybe someone can make it more clear what they are. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I also just saw WP:YOUTUBE, and WP:VIDEOLINK. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Failing to understand the issue is YouTube is Not Marques. Makes no difference how you verify anything. Because the issue is Notable people should not need a YouTube CHannel to confirm why they are notable on Wikipedia. to verify the BLP. --Inayity (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:YOUTUBE is for external Links. We are talking about RS for a BLP!--Inayity (talk) 08:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you're not seeing that even online videos can be reliable sources, and even for a BLP. I've just found about a dozen more sources, and I'll post them below for others to see. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
First, there is no blanket rule that states that all YouTube videos are reliable or that all YouTube videos are unreliable. It depends on the situation. BBC News, for example, has an official YouTube channel.[49] These videos should be treated no different than news reports on their website. IOW, generally speaking, YouTube videos uploaded by the BBC to their official YouTube channel are reliable sources. On the other hand, if somebody records a BBC newscast and uploads the video to YouTube, it is not considered reliable because there's no guarantee that the video hasn't been altered (not to mention it's probably a copyright violation).
Second, self-published YouTube videos may be considered reliable in articles about or related to the subject. So, with this particular article, YouTube videos that Marques Brownlee uploads themselves may be reliable when used in the Marques Brownlee article. See WP:SPS for more information.
Third, notability and reliability are two different things. In order to be notable, there needs to be significant coverage by third-party reliable sources which are independent of the subject. So while self-published sources might be reliable for this article, but they do not establish notability.
Fourth, while self-published sources can be acceptable for an article, articles should not be based primarily on self-published sources.
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I do think this might be an exceptional situation as this person is notable for his YouTube career, and has seemingly not sought out print publications to bolster himself. He does interviews with other YouTube channel producers also on the frontier of technology, and social media. The vast majority of sourcing will also be online, and likely focussing on video. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Motorola CEO talks about Project Ara, wearable devices, and Moto X. Here's one that helps demonstrate his prominence in this field. I'm not how it can be used in the article but it does show his real world influence. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Primary sources used by a subject may be used for non-controversial information about them or as a source for their views. Mostly they are helpful for death of birth, address, etc. But generally articles should use secondary sources. If someone is notable because they have a lot of youtube postings, we can say that. But that does not justify our adding content from those videos. If no secondary source has found their contents significant enough to report, then neither should we. TFD (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
That's the point, except for Brownlee's own video used only to cite how many views his most watched video has, they are media that he does not control, they are interviews with him, or do we dismiss everything out of hand when someone is interviewed? Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I found a couple more

I'll keep looking. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a ref from a Place like one of the major tech mags, like Engadget, or CNET, or CNN technology, PC Mag, Wired. B/c the links you provided are tiny blogs. Hardly RS. What this means to quality control is anyone with a YouTube channel can now start a Wikipedia page and use their own (and their mates) videos to establish their notability. And that is quiet frankly a problem. --Inayity (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I will look. These are his direct competition I'm not sure how likely it is they will give him free exposure. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Engadget.com has a few reports that it ran because of tweets MKBHD sent out, but that just confirms they site him as a source; There is this, this, this, and several in other languages which are likely translations of these listed. The others only have trivial mention, but again, they are his direct competition. So just to clarify you think Brownlee, when asked a question about himself in an interview, is not a reliable source for his own article? Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Saharareporters.com

I've recently reverted a negative BLP edit made to Stella Oduah-Ogiemwonyi that referred back to SaharaReporters.com as its source. Sahara Reporters describes itself as "an online community of international reporters and social advocates dedicated to bringing you commentaries, features, news reports from a Nigerian-African perspective" whose "core members are unapologetic practitioners of advocacy journalism", which makes it sound closer to a forum or blog. On the other hand, their description of their editorial policy is more promising: "Although most of our stories are sourced through ordinary citizens, we adhere to strict standards of verification in order to present authentic and evidence-based reports to our readers." The contradiction of the two ideas was enough to put me on the fence about the reliability of the source, and thus to make me revert pending discussion, but now that I have, I'd like to get more informed input about whether the source is reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Not good for the claim made in that BLP. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources about the Pantheism and Shintoism

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

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

Picken, Katu and Clark (in Cooper and Palme) are appropriate sources for the Pantheism article. Picken and Katu are reliable for Shintoism. What they are not reliable for is a bland statement "Shintoism is pantheism". The sources have to be summarised properly with regard for the many nuances they insist upon. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This has been discussed at length, and this editor is fishing for sources to justify what he already "knows". I have presented various other sources which say just the opposite, e.g. : "Nor is Shinto pantheistic for Shinto does not regard an omnipotent logical principle as identifying itself with the universe, but sees divine spirit as living reality self-creating itself as the universe."Mason, J.W.T. (2006). The Meaning of Shinto. Trafford Publishing. p. 78. Retrieved 2014-01-01. Mason is one of the classic western analysts of Shinto (his papers are collected at Columbia) so this a very authoritative source.
Part of the problem (besides the willy-nilly search for anything that juxtaposes "Shinto" and "pantheism") is that a lot of these sources don't seem to understand the latter term and use it as a synonym for nature worship (which isn't a great explanation of Shinto either) or confuse it with animism (which all good sources agree is found to some degree in Shinto). This is a field where there is no substitute for knowledge of the material, because there are so many superficial analyses of what is really a very difficult anthropological and ethnographic puzzle; Shinto doesn't fit western religious categories very well and a lot of authorities would object to it being called "a religion" at all. I have tried at length to get this editor to understand this, but I've had to address the same small set of sources (most of which are patently unsuitable) over and over. I've also had to address the much more blatantly false assertion that Zoroastrianism is pantheistic when any even vaguely competent source says exactly the opposite. This article is plagued by editors who want to see pantheism in every religion, when really it appears only as an element in some of the Indian religions (and yes, we're having a big fight over sourcing that too). Mangoe
This is Reliable source noticeboard, not content dispute, your comment is largely unrelated here. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you, Mangoe, that we see research being done in the wrong way, by trawling through Google Books. The sources that I have said are reliable are difficult philosophical texts and you can't cherry-pick from them. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Would be much better if you give a try too. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Interesting that Mason is self-published, I wonder why? Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Doug, that's a reprint of a collection of older materials. I'm not sure why I don't find older editions but Mason was mostly active before the early 1940s. Mangoe (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I see an original date of 1935. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Nearly every RS discussion has a content dispute behind it, and this is no exception. Mangoe (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely. When this board works well we can move content disputes forward by concentrating on the sourcing aspect of encyclopaedic quality. In this particular case I think the page could also benefit from some input from experts in comparative religion, theology or philosophy. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyways, how many were reliable of these. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Of those listed above, the first is a book on urban design and the second is a book on the immigrant experience, as I have said at least three times now. They are obviously out of their field of expertise. The third is quoting another work we have discussed on the talk page, and that work proposes a modern reinterpretation of Shinto, and the passage lays out a path of how the author thinks Shinto should develop; it's not useful as a description of Shinto now. The source work has also been discussed on the talk page. The fifth and sixth are newly introduced to the discussion, but works on Christianity and environmentalist spirituality are also works of inferior authority.
That leaves the fourth work, which is specifically on Shinto. Its problem, as we've also frequently seen in other sources which have been proffered, is that it doesn't understand the distinctions well. Further down the same page Genchi writes, "The theme of the last quoted stanza at once reminds us of the striking expression of St. Paul, 'We live and move, and have our being in Him' (Acts, XVII, 28), in which we can see a germ of pantheism in the Pauline Christianity." Well, this is incorrect: the doctrine expressed is panentheism. We also have been over a lot of other sources which confuse animism and pantheism or which equate the latter with "nature worship" as a whole. As a final note on Genchi's text it's extremely important that it was published in 1926, when Shinto's political meaning was paramount; Genchi starts right off by making the key distinction between sect Shinto and state Shinto. I haven't read the whole work but it is very possibly an apologia for what westerners saw as the co-option of religion by the state in the pre-war period.
We are still at the other problem here that we have other references which specifically deny that it is pantheistic. I'm getting a bit fed up now, first that we are having to address works which are patently inadequate, but more so that we've had to address these same bad sources over and over. I'm going through some of the sources I have at home, and it's evident to me at least that this whole question of pantheism in Shinto is complicated. Mangoe (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Only scholarly sources should be used for this topic. Some of the books on the list don't meet that criteria, but neither does John Warren Teets Mason (1879 to 1941) was an American journalist who published several works on eastern spiritual traditions.
Like the religion of Ancient Greece, Shinto would definitely be "polytheistic" in a comparative religions sense, but the term "kami" in Japanese is not equivalent to deity. Accordingly, I agree that it is necessary to attribute statements from RS that make one characterization or another. Shinto has evolved since prehistoric times (before it was called "Shinto", which is a Chinese term found in the I'Ching as one class of religion), and State Shinto was influenced by the need to further institutionalize religions in building a modern nation state as a result of the opening to the West. It has strong Confucian influences, and assumed the role of the Buddhist temples in the Edo period of acting as local registries for citizens--like a parish system, etc. The editors of this book Shinto in History: Ways of the Kami are a couple of academics with some prominence in the field at present.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Referencing "There's a [ building /public place ] named after [notable person]"

We are discussing either a passage like

  • In Ponce, there is public housing complex named in his memory.

needs a reference. While I think it does, a fellow editor argued that, since it can be checked on a PC with google maps, it does not.

I'm open to be enlightened about what's the common practice on such cases. Thanks, --damiens.rf 16:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It really should have a reference, because we have no idea if the name of that place was specifically picked after the person of interest or another one with the same name (even with a obscure name like the one here) The reference would make it clear which person was the intended honoree of the naming. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Maps can be sources too; why not? A map is a published collection of information about a specific topic. It might not be a particularly strong source though. Is there anything controversial or unusual about this claim, or does it affect a BLP in some way, or is there any reason to disbelieve it? If so, I would seek stronger sourcing. bobrayner (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
A map is only going to say "A building named X is located here." It says nothing why it was named X, and that's the issue. Even if X is a very uncommon name, we cannot presume that a building named "The X building" was named for that specific person named X. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, maps are hardly ever sources on the history of buildings or places. (Not that they are unreliable as such, they simply don't provide that kind of information.) Local histories and local newspaper archives are more likely to be fruitful. If there is a plaque or similar on the building itself then I think that, unless there is actual disagreement, that could be an adequate source too. And then there are a few sites, such as John F. Kennedy International Airport, where the origin of the naming is so patently obvious that though - yes - it should be sourced at some point, that really needn't be a top priority. Barnabypage (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The issue is not whether Maps are or are not RS. The issue is whether the statement requries a citation and I argue it does not. Not everything in Wikipedia requires a citation. Mercy11 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, all content challenged or likely to be challenged DOES require a source, and this content HAS been challenged and therefore DOES require a source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but always within reason. For example, if I go to sky, is it reasonable to expect to put to work (read: disrupt) every editor there by demanding a citation for "The sky is blue"? No. You consider the request, and in this case you consider the requester and his motive, who in this case (as explained below) likely comes with a hidden agenda. Mercy11 (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Given that you have been told at ANI that you aren't assuming good faith, you need to ignore whatever motive you think Damien has, and you need to address the base issue. The reason we don't need to source "the sky is blue" is that it is a plainly obvious fact to everyone. The fact that a single building in a single location is named after a local notable person is not plainly obvious to everyone and requires a source. --MASEM (t) 01:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I am the fellow editor Damiens refers to, and I am not arguing that "it needs a reference [because] it can be checked on a PC with google maps" as he states.
To begin with, no editor should come to this section unaware of the background, so they can make intelligent statements rather than in a vacuum and play into Damiens hands. Damines has been, Of Recent, targeting Puerto Rico articles with what can be called malice. Just like you can discriminate against an ethnic group, you can discriminate by purposely targeting a certain group, and only a certain group of articles. And this is what he is doing.
With that said, now Damiens is targeting every minor thing he can think of in various PR articles - Particularly biographies and the like. He is, BTW, under investigation HERE right now.
This controversy rises in this light. He started tagging PR articles in retaliation for someone reporting him there (WP:ANI), a reporting that, BTW, he hasn't cared to respond to.
Mercy11 (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Irregardless of the larger conflict (and whomever is right or wrong), the point is that maps can't be used to verify things that would be of historical note, such as why a building was named a certain way. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
You are missing the point, I am afraid. I suggested he can look at a map because he is obviously not familiar with Ponce, so he can get his "thirst" satisfied, and bring an end to his objection. The issue is not whether Maps are or are not RS. The issue is whether the statement requries a citation and I argue it does not. Not everything in Wikipedia requires a citation. Mercy11 (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
If it requires a reference, then obviously it would require a RS, so the point re maps is not altogether irrelevant. But I agree with you that unless there is something that throws the naming of this particular building into question, and there is real doubt that it is named after the Raúl_Gándara_Cartagena of the article, a citation for it is hardly a high priority. Barnabypage (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
In my position, I was coming more or less from the direction that User:Bobrayner above states. If Damiens, non-maliciously, was asking for a CN becuase he has reason to know that there is no hosuing project by that name there, then that's OK. But to come with unclean hands (see above) and tag something that he has not investigated first, that is not dubious, that is not known to him to be -for a fact- different than stated, and tag it with a CN tag, that's a problem because he is basically pitting WP:OR against the fact that he can go to any PR housing government site, verify the information and move on becasue it is not controversial. Again, his goal is not the WP:V, but he comes in with unclean hands and a more ulterior motive. IAE, there nothing controversial or unusual about this claim, it does it affect a BLP in any way, nor is there any reason to disbelieve it is as stated. Mercy11 (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you know some PR housing government site? That would work as a reference. --damiens.rf 20:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately for you, Damiens, this is not about what I know, but about your behavior. Together with other editors I have become quite familiar with your style to Disrupt without getting caught. It includes starting up issues in noticeboards and then not showing up to comment until you are, well, cornered. It involves tagging a multitude of articles --and even scores (yes, 20 times some factor) of images-- at a time and then leaving the dirty work to others. It includes targeting others when they happen to cross paths with you. In general, rather than contributing to the development of the encyclopedia, your goal is indicative of someone who wants to make Wikipedia look bad with giant flashy tags at the top of articles and CN and other tags all over - in particular when the articles are Puerto Rico related.
Feel free, however, to ask for proof of all of my accusations about you above which I will gladly provide everyone here. Mercy11 (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks User:Ahnoneemoos, it is named after his brother, José N. Gándara, and I have already added your cite to the other article(José N. Gándara). This resolves this matter as far as I am concerned. Mercy11 (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Ahnoneemoos! Great work. And thanks to everyone that took part on this discussion.
In regard to the general question, is it a consensus that: (1) Maps themselves can't base a claim that an existing place was named after someone, and (2) whenever challenged, statements like "there's a street named after Jimbo Wales" must provide a reference.? --damiens.rf 11:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a reference is needed. It's pretty common that streets etc. are named after someone else of the same name. Mangoe (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Disagree. You cannot compare requiring a citation for a plain "street" named after someone (unless happens to be a major thorougfare, like the FDR Drive, and most streets are not) with requiring a citation for a US federal government housing development. A street may simply need to be defined in a "legacy" section of a biography as being situated in a certain X neighborhood and crossed by certain Y and Z (better-known) thoroughfares, and then leave it to someone FAMILIAR with the local geographic area to challenge that fact. Housing developments, schools, hospitals are different because a much larger number of LOCALS will be familiar with the truth of falsity of such claim. So, IMO, neither requires a citation, but for diferent reasons (I am not saying don't put a citation if you have it; I am ttalking about it being requried). In addition, when someone unfamiliar with the area, like Damiens, challenges that type of Legacy section claim, and only for Puerto Rico-related biographies and only while under the threat of the ongoing discussion about him as I linked to above, you can't help by consider his true ulterior motives in bringing the matter to this discussion. Mercy11 (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If it is only something that is readily known in local lore, then absolutely a citation is needed for a worldwide encyclopedia, even though this can easily come from a local reliable source to validate the fact. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Would any other worldwide encyclopedia cite to that level? And Wikipedia is no exception. That's why we don't require everything to be cited. IAE, I invite you to check my edit history, if there is anyone that provides citations here, at Wikipedia, and for this worldwide encyclopedia, it is I. But citing to the core as you are implying is not warranted. Especially when the motivation is dubious. Mercy11 (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Until shown otherwise, you must assume good faith that this is a proper question to ask. And yes, local lore is highly suspect, particularly if it is not documented anywhere. Word-of-mouth - which is what you are saying exists - that only extends in a small local area is not sufficient sourcing for our encyclopedia, and likely wouldn't be sufficient for the other ones either if they covered topics to the level of detail we do. From what you've said, it should not be hard to find a source here, even if it is one documented in a city registar or an old newspaper, we just need that to make that claim. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Where did I ever say that, as far as the Dr. Gandara housing complex word-of-mouth is what I am saying exists? I never said that. In fact, not only is there the Documented cited source Abnoneemoos provided above, but there are also these other rock solid sources: (1)SENADO DE PUERTO RICO, RESOLUCION CONJUNTA R. C. del S. 898. Senator Seilhamer Rodríguez. Gobierno de Puerto Rico. 16ta Asamblea, 6ta Sesión Legislativa Ordinaria. Senado de Puerto Rico. R. C. del S. 898. 5 October 2011. and (2) Sunny A. Cabrera Salcedo. Hacia un Estudio Integral de la Toponimia del Municipio de Ponce, Puerto Rico. Ph. D. dissertation. May 1999. University of Massachusetts Amherst. Graduate School. Department of Spanish and Portuguese. Page 165.
But this discussion is not just about the specific case of the houuing development named after Dr. Gandara, but about the greater question of whether a cite is mandatory or else for Legacy sections in biographies that say things like "There is a X building in the town of Y named after person Z" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercy11 (talk • contribs)
  • We require a source for information that is likely going to be challenged. I would be complete amiss to state that a local building was named for a local celebrity and not expect someone on the opposite of the world to question that, so I would supply a source for that. It's common sense with respect to our verification policy. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Local lore is well-known as a source for spurious naming legends. Really, if I were being sufficiently hard-nosed I would insist upon a trail of sources back to a primary source at the time of naming. But some source of decent repute is required. Mangoe (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Does it matter? If you are asking is to trust you, rather than a published source, I don't care what you call it - I will ask for a proper citation. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Have you read this entire thread? I am not against citations and there is probably no one in Wikipedia that provides them for every single fact more than I do. Check my edit history.
So, no, I am not asking anyone to trust me. You are missing the point. The issue here is that the enormous majority of editors at Wikipedia would not ask for a cite unless they had a reason to. Right? For example, would you ask for a citation for everything and anything that's not cite, including for "the sky is blue" and for "there is a park in Jakarta, Indonesia named Pin Jun Xant" and for "there is street in Malboro, Massachusetts, named Someguy1221 "? Get it? My point is we normally ask for citations about stuff we didn't know, we find curious, or we find dubious - not the rest if it seems to make sense. Now, how would a "There is residentail complex in Ponce, Puerto Rico, named after some-famous-doctor-that worked there" not make sense and, thus, require a citation, unless you either were familiar with Ponce, Puerto Rico, or had some other ulterior motive --hidden agenda-- to ask for such cite. Disagree? Mercy11 (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I did not miss the point. I chose to address the policy issue, rather than your complete inability to assume good faith. I would challenge that myself, since in my own experience on Wikipedia (nay, Earth) people will lie about anything for any reason (or simply be wrong and refuse to admit it). If you want to cast aspersions on another editor, you should come up with a better reason than "I can't believe anyone would doubt this!" Someguy1221 (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

(←)You did say above that you, too, wouldn't just "trust me over a published source". So no matter how we slice it, fact is when we don't know someone we throw AGF aside and we demand "OK, show me the 'money'". On the other hand, I never said we should not -ever- ask for a citation. In certain cases it's not needed ("the sky is blue"), in others it's mandatory ("The US has 317 million inhabitants"). I was simply observing that the majority of editors do not ask for a citation except under very specific certain circumstances. Case in point, you seem to be accusing me of a "complete inability to assume good faith" and yet you also stated "I would challenge [Dr. Gandara having a housing complex named after him] myself, since in my own experience on Wikipedia (nay, Earth) people will lie about anything for any reason", which gives evidence of your own lack of AGF. However, we don't need to reconcile those two seemingly contradictory statements. The fact is that, in the end, we are all guilty of lacking AGF (even if we refuse to admit it) - but we lack AGF because there is reason: namely, our prior experiences about others lying, etc. So, no, policy issues (the question about whether or not a citation in the Dr. Gandara case should be deemed mandatory) cannot be dealt with in a void; there is always an element of personal perspective involved when someone's character is under question as you have shown above. Mercy11 (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I usually assume good faith. I do not assume either accuracy or intelligence. There is quite a difference. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, I'm uh, not going to try again to explain this to you. If you really take it this personally whenever someone challenges an addition you make, that's just something you'll have to find a way to deal with. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Mercy11, You are correct that we not dealing in a void. We are dealing in an area covered explicitly by policy - challenged content REQUIRES a source, not "challenged content requires a source unless i think the person is challenging it in bad faith." whether or not you are assuming bad faith or even if you can prove bad faith, when challenged, content needs to be sourced. and if it is in fact "obvious as 'the sky is blue'", then sourcing it will obviously be a trivial exercise which will in fact leave the encyclopedia in a better position than it was previously. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Archeoastronomy and the "Double Project Proposal" of Giulio Magli

There was a new section added here and also here regarding a pyramid-building theory by Giulio Magli.

The whole thing seems sourced to this document, which looks academic on first blush, but then it looks like it's just the proposal, no obvious peer review., submitted by the author himself. Am I right to think that no academic process has actually taken place with this proposal?

And is this person a reliable source by himself for theories about building the pyramids? (The book he has written seems to be from an academic self-publisher.)

Arxiv is a preprint service. While it tries to filter out obvious crank papers, papers there are not peer-reviewed. This source should be treated as an unpublished paper and is thus unreliable because there has been no independent review. --Mark viking (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I looked a little more and this author has a newer book on the pyramids published with Cambridge University Press here, but there are also published articles in places like this from the Journal of Cosmology. This seemed like rehashed pyramidology and "supposedly-science" but the Cambridge source confuses me. Maybe other editors with a stronger background in this than me will notice it all. Thanks!__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we can use the Arxiv source, although we probably could use, attributed, his books. See this review[51] of one of his books - not from a RS but from someone who had Magli as an examiner for his PhD and whose opinions I respect. But I am struggling with this I admit. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
(Hmm, even that connected source didn't think much of the pyramid theory.) I would tend to place "This is why the pyramids were built" in the field of extraordinary claims. And in the sense of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", I'm having trouble judging if this individual theory is more notable than all of the theories we don't have in the article, or how to give it appropriate weight. But at that point it's not really a reliable source issue, it's one of whether Undue Weight applies, I suppose. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Huffington Post article for Janet Jackson's religion

Resolved

Is this article in The Huffington Post reliable for adding the statement that Janet Jackson is Muslim to the Janet Jackson and List of American Muslims articles? Nightscream (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't say she has adopted Islam as her religion, it says she has been studying the Qur'an. So does the Harper's interview it links. I think the two together would constitute a reliable source for the statement that she has been studying the Qur'an, or at least that she has said that she is doing so. That does not make her a Muslim. I have studied the Qur'an at times, Just as I have studied the Christian scriptures for various purposes, and I am neither Christian nor Islamic. DES (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)In this particular case, I would say definitely no. The sourcing is weak. Even if you accept that the Huffington Post as a reliable source, this particular article isn't even about Janet Jackson. Jackson is only mentioned in passing. And the fact that the author says "reportedly also practice Islam" indicates that even the author is unwilling to stand by this claim. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Quite true, but the linked Harpers article is entirely about Jackson, and it contains a quote from Jackson on the subject. That, I think, can be cited for the lesser claim that it supports. DES (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC) Horrid error, I confused the two celebs, A Quest For Knowledge is quite correct above. This would need a better source. DES (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I did some Googling around and there's definitely rumors and speculation about this, but it's being reported as exactly that: rumors and speculation. For example.[52] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

"Rumours" about religion do not belong in any BLP IMO. Collect (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

"Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question," -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I would not use a source that mentions someone in passing as an article about that person. When writing about a topic, the correct way is to find relevant sources and reflect what they say, not look for sources that support what one wants to say. NPOV is a more relevant policy. If articles about Jackson fail to mention she is a Muslim, then it is unimportant to her article, whether true or not. TFD (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_162&oldid=1144851613"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 162, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.