Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:30, 12 March 2015

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

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

Can someone please respond to this?

Wow, this section was just archived because nobody responded. Can someone please respond?

Source: http://www.technologytell.com/gaming/132814/hatoful-boyfriend-gets-azami-ending/

The technology news website Technology Tell has a lot of articles on Hatoful Boyfriend in their gaming section, all of which seem to have been written by their official gaming editor. I want to make sure this site counts as a reliable source for use in the article. Silverseren 06:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? Silverseren 02:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with the website but will make a few observations: First, they describe themselves as a "blog" which is not a strong indicator of reliability. On the other hand, this page lists editorial staff, which is a good sign. I will let others comment on how professional that staff is, and whether they have a good reputation for fact checking and correcting errors. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

According to their About page, they are "published by the Consumer Technology Publishing Group (CTPG), a division of NAPCO Media. CTPG also publishes leading consumer technology industry trade magazines Dealerscope and Technology Integrator." Silverseren 00:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find where Technology Tell calls themselves a "blog". Not saying it isn't there, just wasn't able to find it. Also, just being published by Consumer Technology Publishing Group doesn't automatically deem Technology Tell as an RS. It seems credible but back to what Cullen stated, we'd need other users to research the editors and whether or not they fact check. Meatsgains (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

From WP:USERG, "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." That seems to be the case here, and the claim being made is not contentious. In the absence of any specific indicator that the source is WP:INACCURATE or WP:QUESTIONABLE, there's no reason to consider it unreliable. Rhoark (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! If it helps, the gaming editor in question that wrote the articles, Jenni Lada, also writes for Cheat Code Central, Siliconera, and GeekParty. Silverseren 21:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Is an article by Moign Khawaja on foreignpolicyjournal.com an RS?

The statement "Comparisons with the Warsaw Ghetto and the wartime uprising there are not uncommon" was added to Gaza Strip based on this source. (see - added by --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC))

It's 'About page reads the following "Foreign Policy Journal is an online publication dedicated to providing critical news, analysis, and commentary on U.S. foreign policy and international affairs. Its purpose is to challenge the narratives and narrow framework for discussion presented by the U.S. mainstream media that serve to manufacture consent for government policy. FPJ offers information and perspectives all too lacking in the public debate on key foreign policy issues." and is owned by Jeremy Hammond, a hacker that was sentenced to 10 years (it may actually makes it more reliable :).

The author himself, Moign Khawaja, write this about himself on his blog.

foreignpolicyjournal.com seems to be a blog which might be RS if the author had credibility but a glance at his portfolio doesn't show any major publications. I will appreciate any input. Ashtul (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Still can't refrain from following me around, huh? It was one of the conditions for suspending your topic ban set by HJMitchell.

What you leave out is that the article is not by Moigne Khawaja but by Mark LeVine professor of history at the University of California, and a regional specialist with a command of all of those languages. Moign Khawaja merely introduces the topic.

There is nothing controversial about the analogy. The earliest analogy was made by a Captain in the IDF, who said this;:

In order to prepare properly for the next campaign, one of the Israeli officers in the territories said not long ago, it's justified and in fact essential to learn from every possible source. If the mission will be to seize a densely populated refugee camp, or take over the casbah in Nablus, and if the commander's obligation is to try to execute the mission without casualties on either side, then he must first analyze and internalize the lessons of earlier battles - even, however shocking it may sound, even how the German army fought in the Warsaw ghetto.'(Amir Oren, 'At the gates of Yassergrad,' 25 January, 2002 )Nishidani (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That is the earliest example I know. A senior staff officer planning war strategies with regard to the Gaza Strip, imagined the study of Nazi strategy against the Jews of Warsaw's ghetto might provide some hints as to how to fix the Palestinians, That was picked up by Norman Finkelstein, and after that, fed into the news world, and into books. The only positive thing about it was that it made a lot of Arabs look up the history of what the Jews suffered in Warsaw under Nazism. But the responsibility lies with that staff officer.

LeVine doesn't agree with the analogy by the way, but he remarks on its frequency of its use after the 2008 military destruction of Gaza. Nishidani (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a legitimate RSN request.

The officer mantions dealing with terrorist the same way the Germans did in Warsaw. Not that the siege on Gaza is similar to Warsaw. Ashtul (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(1:LeVine)A 1943 photograph of Jews in a ghetto in Warsaw, Poland. Israeli forces and Jewish settlers withdrew in 2005, turning the 41 kilometer long strip literally into the world’s largest prison. Around the world people are beginning to compare Israel’s attack on Gaza to the Jewish uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto.' Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(2=Officer)In order to prepare properly for the next campaign, one of the Israeli officers in the territories said not long ago, it's justified and in fact essential to learn from every possible source. If the mission will be to seize a densely populated refugee camp, or take over the casbah in Nablus, and if the commander's obligation is to try to execute the mission without casualties on either side, then he must first analyze and internalize the lessons of earlier battles - even, however shocking it may sound, even how the German army fought in the Warsaw ghetto.The officer indeed succeeded in shocking others, not least because he is not alone in taking this approach. Many of his comrades agree that in order to save Israelis now, it is right to make use of knowledge that originated in that terrible war, whose victims were their kin. The Warsaw ghetto serves them only as an extreme example, not linked to the strategic dialogue that the defense establishments of Israel and Germany will hold next month.

You also get the officer wrong. He is not reported as 'dealing with terrorist the same way the Germans did in Warsaw.'

He is raising the idea of dealing with Palestinians along the lines of the way Nazis dealt with Jews in the Warsaw ghetto.

Please read texts precisely, and do not misconstrue them.Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(1 LeVine) The question whether the source is RS is viable. Not sure why you write such an essay.

(2 Officer) He speaks about dealing with Palestinian terrorists years before the blockade. Putting his words into the context as you did is WP:OR at best or completely wrong.

Now, please allow uninvolved editors to comment. Ashtul (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The source is irrelevant. Mark LeVine is an eminent historian specializing in the Middle East. It doesn't matter what venue he chooses to publish his views in.

The officer does not speak of Palestinian terrorists. The WP:OR was to construe it that way, as you did. Now, I'd be happy to listen to what third parties say, since your misrepresentations of the sources have been clarified.Nishidani (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• "one of the Israeli officers in the territories said..." - is it RS at all?

Moreover, in 2nd, more full your quote one may read: "The Warsaw ghetto serves them only as an extreme example..." So?

I'd remind you that we're already talking about such "comparisons" and your willing to equate Israel with Nazis. Now you do the same thing (as well as using & reverting Ewawer here) based on such pro-Hamas propaganda "source" netto as Khawaja and on Mark LeVine whose opinion isn't so NPOV. What else are you willing to bring to Wiki?

I'm glad to see that you've erased Khawaja's one from the article after my tags and have exchanged it by LeVine's original in Al Jazeera

But as I've already mentioned, his Al Jazeera's article cannot be considered as an academic secondary RS because itself has no appropriate sources and tells us only about LeVine's own opinion.

And you by youself have referenced here Philip Seib's book where he not only wrote about LeVine's contradiction to such comparison, but describes its Hamas, Al Jazeera, Assad's, etc. origins :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

See also my remark to your next usage of Khawaja in Gaza War (2008–09): "November 4 incident: 'rs'; does this quote really correspond to ITIC's report?", as well as such tag here. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, both Khawaja's & LeVine's articles aren't RS

because both they made false use of the source(/s?) mentioned in their articles.
See appropriate :( Nishidani's edit, 16:03, 2 March 2015, based on them ((what is interesting else here that Nishidani uses here the same ITIC, what he so criticized before :):

The assault, according to Mark LeVine was unprovoked, and several Hamas members were killed. The following day, the siege of the Gaza Strip intensified.

• as well as their text : Khawaja:

The Israeli government’s argument that this is a purely defensive war, launched only after Hamas broke a five-month old ceasefire has been challenged by observers and think tanks alike...

Meanwhile, center-right Israeli think tank, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, published a report titled “Six Months of the Lull Arrangement Intelligence Report” on 31 December confirming that the violation of 19 June truce occurred after Israel killed half a dozen Hamas members on 4 November without provocation and then placed the entire Strip under even more intensive siege the next day

• LeVine:

The argument that this is a purely defensive war, launched only after Hamas broke a six-month ceasefire has been challenged, not just by observers in the know such as Jimmy Carter, the former US president who helped facilitate the truce, but by centre-right Israeli intelligence think tanks.

The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, whose December 31 report titled "Six Months of the Lull Arrangement Intelligence Report," confirmed that the June 19 truce was only "sporadically violated, and then not by Hamas but instead by ... "rogue terrorist organisations".

Instead, "the escalation and erosion of the lull arrangement" occurred after Israel killed six Hamas members on November 4 without provocation and then placed the entire Strip under an even more intensive siege the next day.

Now let's see what ITIC really wrote in its report:

ii) The escalation and erosion of the lull arrangement, November 4 to the time of this writing, December 17 2: On November 4 the IDF carried out a military action close to the border security fence on the Gazan side to prevent an abduction planned by Hamas, which had dug a tunnel under the fence to that purpose. Seven Hamas terrorist operatives were killed during the action. In retaliation, Hamas and the other terrorist organizations attacked Israel with a massive barrage of rockets. Since then, 191 rockets and 138 mortar shells have been fired...

--Igorp_lj (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• You haven't noticed that I no longer use Khawaja. I use Mark Levine's original article in Al Jazeera. My minimalist use of LeVine is perfectly consonant with the source text, which is, in my view, mostly unreliable but in the view of editors with a different POV wonderful because it sees terrorists everywhere, and disagrees with everyone else about the statistical breakdown of civilians/'terrorists' in the recent Gaza war.Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Not correct: I have noticed :

• (see "I'm glad to see that you've erased Khawaja's one from the article after my tags and have exchanged it by LeVine's original in Al Jazeera...", 5 March 2015 above),

as well as you've used it in other articles

• ("See also my remark to your next usage of Khawaja in Gaza War (2008–09): "November 4 incident: 'rs'; does this quote really correspond to ITIC's report?", as well as such tag here", 5 March 2015)

(::) --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

????????????????Nishidani (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

? --Igorp_lj (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

foreignpolicyjournal.com is obviously WP:BIASED and possible WP:QUESTIONABLE, but there's also WP:USEBYOTHERS. I would treat it as offering a significant minority viewpoint and use/attribute it as WP:RSOPINION. So for example it could be reliable for Khawaja's opinion that Gaza is analogous to the Warsaw Ghetto, but not reliable for saying this is a common opinion. It's a separate matter whether Khawaja's opinion is WP:DUE. LeVine's writing in Al Jazeera is specifically tagged as opinion, so the situation is pretty much the same. His credentials make it a little more likely to be WP:DUE. Seib is reliable for the factual claim that Al Jazeera published LeVine's comparison of Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto; however, it would be WP:CHERRYPICKING to cite him for this without also mentioning that Seib calls Al Jazeera's coverage ridiculous, outrageous, absurd, and inaccurate. Rhoark (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Not only Rhoark, please pay attention for the next discussion of this issue initiated by Nishidani: Talk:Gaza War (2008–09)#Clarity. --Igorp_lj (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

With dueling sources, just report what each says and don't try to litigate the truth. Rhoark (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Rhoark. Moign Khawaja and Foreign Policy Journal have been removed and replaced some time ago, so this part of the argument is dead. LeVine is a major scholar of the area. Articles are optimally based on such sources. We very rarely paraphrase each of such sources with attribution. LeVine did not make the Warsaw Uprising/Ghetto like Gaza Strip analogy. He stated that that analogy is frequently made. LeVine even might not concur with that analogy (one source says as much), but he does note what any googler can rake up in seconds, that this analogy is frequent. Since the topic is the Gaza Strip, and the analogy is attested as one made with regard to it commonly, there should be no difficulty in adding it. I have refrained from overegging the pud by adding RS that attribute to, for example, an IDF officer the idea that Israel should learn from how Nazis handled the Warsaw Ghetto in order to see if they can get pointers on how to handle the Gaza Strip. Too specific, but since that was stated in 2000, it has entered discourse, and one duly notes it.Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, this his article doesn't approve at all that "LeVine is a major scholar of the area". --Igorp_lj (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

We are all entitled to our opinions, but they shouldn't affect editorial judgement. There's not a skerrick of doubt to challenge his qualifications.Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If he has work in a peer-reviewed journal that appears to be academic consensus, it's okay to WP:ASSERT. In the context of an interview or public speech, an expert status makes his opinions potentially worthwhile, but does not remove the need for inline attribution. Rhoark (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

1. ^ Moign Khawaja, Mark LeVine. (January 19, 2009). "Who will save Israel from itself?". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2015-03-07. Meanwhile, center-right Israeli think tank, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, published a report titled "Six Months of the Lull Arrangement Intelligence Report" on 31 December confirming that the violation of 19 June truce occurred after Israel killed half a dozen Hamas members on 4 November without provocation and then placed the entire Strip under even more intensive siege the next day
2. ^ Mark LeVine, Who will save Israel from itself?,' Al Jazeera 27 December 2009.
3. Seib, Philip (2012). Al Jazeera English: Global News in a Changing World. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 153. ISBN 1137015748.
4. "The Six Months of the Lull Arrangement" (PDF). Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC). December 2008. Retrieved 2015-03-07.

Rappler

Is Rappler a reliable source? It is presently used to "verify" a partner of the deceased Zulkifli Abdhir. Here is the website being used, and it is being used to verify the name "Zainab Dongon".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say no. The facebook origin, the focus on "news and action site" , the reliance on social voting for stories all lead to the reputation of a publisher with a focus on clickbait rather than fact checking and accuracy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You're ignoring that Rappler.com is made and run by award winning journalist Maria Ressa and is very often cited as a legitimate source of news from the Philippines. It's voting emotion system is no more than a streamlined comment section which is widely used on other websites despite their established credibility. True, the source in question may not be the exact one referring to Zainab Dongon which is http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/83258-marwan-ties-family-global-terrorism which is also linked on the page. In conclusion calling Rappler.com an unreliable source of information is entirely ridiculous when compared to other "reliable" sources that have been used on this site, such as Fox News for instance. Breckham101 (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

So what if the what if the editor is notable, so is the editor of The Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson, but that doesn't change it in the eyes of most here as it being a reliable source (which I may disagree with). Also how is it "often cited" what other news sources that are generally considered reliable relying on Rappler like they do say Associated Press or United Press International? Please provide examples.

And just because Fox News is a reliable source, doesn't automatically make Rappler a reliable source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not my job to prove that this is a reliable source, it's your job to prove otherwise. You were the one initially making the claim that Rappler.com is an unreliable source based solely off of attention grabbing article names (which tons of other "reliable sources" do much worse than Rappler. i.e. Fox News, again.) and the emotion setting, which I have argued is nothing more than an experimental alternative to the comment section on news articles on sites such as The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, and many others. This is, in my opinion, a preferable alternative to the vile idiocy left in news comment sections. Furthermore, Tucker Carlson is a political pundit, who IS NOT notable for actual journalism. Your arguments are invalid. Breckham101 (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, in fact it is the other way around. Presently there is a consensus that it is not a reliable source, only a single user says it is. Furthermore, I marked it as not a reliable source not based on "attention grabbing article names", as I have been accused of (please stop), but because it doesn't meet WP:IRS. Therefore, the above statement by Breckham101 holds no weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Based on WP:IRS, I do think that Rappler, being prima facie a news organization (albeit having only an online presence), can be considered as a reliable source for their news articles. The only reason we Wikipedians can consider a news organization to be unreliable is because the organization is known to consistently fabricate or misrepresent facts, or is widely considered to be part of yellow journalism. I have not seen any discussion here on Misplaced Pages or elsewhere that says Rappler is unreliable. —seav (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Now it's two against two. As with all ongoing discussions there is not a consensus until such a consensus has actually been reached. Please stop acting as though the opinions of two users can undermine one of the forefront new publications in the Philippines for all of Misplaced Pages. Breckham101 (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've used Rappler as a reliable source for things such as WP:DYK. I've gone lazy on creating WP:GAs for a while now (far longer than right after Rappler started), so I don't know if it can be accepted as such on that level, but considering GAs can become DYKs lately, that means de facto it can be accepted. No one has raised questions on using that website as a source on the articles that I've written. The fact that people had accepted it as a reliable source for DYK means it's good to go for most articles which aren't being rated. –HTD 17:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

http://www.rappler.com/bulletin-board/41751-corrections Reliable. Rhoark (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of encyclopedia as source for statement that humorism is pseudoscience

• Article: Humorism
• Content and source:

Today, humourism is described as pseudoscience.

References

1. Williams, William F. (December 3, 2013). Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy. Routledge. ISBN 1135955298.

Jayaguru-Shishya removed this from the article:

• first with edit note, "We need something better than a source on extraterrestrials", which is a bullshit reason, then:
• then again; with edit note: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages"

I asked for a valid reason to reject the content and source, and JS responded with: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." (WP:TERTIARY)"

He offered no actual discussion, except to restate that quote from RS... which is no discussion at all. So, here we are. Is the content and source OK? Maybe not, but I am looking for actual, thoughtful input. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Source is not a fringe source, it is a reliable source about fringe topics (very important distinction). Secondary sources can trump tertiary sources, but the high-value that secondary sources holds does not mean that we cannot use tertiary sources. The bit about discussion does not mean that every tertiary source has to be discussed on the talk page before being added, it means that if he can bring in some sources that counter the contested source, we should downplay or avoid the contested source. WP:PSTS also says "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog. First of all, I opened the discussion at Talk:Humorism#Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy, so I am pretty surprised to hear that I "offered no actual discussion". Second, calling another editor's comment "a bullshit reason" is hardly WP:CIVIL nor constructive, in my opinion. And third, as you already said yourself, WP:TERTIARY goes as follows (emphasis added):

Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.

Did you discuss at the article Talk Page before re-inserting the source? No. Instead, I said that "we should strongly favor reliable secondary sources instead of some tertiary sources, such as encyclopedias". This seems to be in line with WP:TERTIARY. I hope this helped to clarify. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Favoring secondary sources is not a reason to remove a tertiary source. It would be a reason to replace it with a secondary source for a specific point, but tertiary sources are better for "providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." Please follow the spirit of the policy instead of just hanging on a single out-of-context portion. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Ian.thomson. Indeed, I launched the discussion at the article Talk Page, and not until now I got a reasonable answer. I am hoping, though, that user Jytdog will control his emotions better in the future, and restrain himself from calling other users' comments as "bullshit" or such. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

i tried to discuss with you JS and all you did was offer nonsense ("source about extraterrestrials") and repeat a quote from RS three times, which is not actual discussion. Which is still all you are doing (now for the 4th and 5th times). I am looking forward to hearing from others, which is why I posted here. If you have something thoughtful to say, I look forward to hearing it. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• The source is perfectly acceptable for the claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm the one who inserted it and I thought it was a perfectly acceptable WP:RS too. Kindzmarauli (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Of course there is no problem with the source. It's not the 'ideal' source, but the fact that modern use of the theory of humours is pseudoscience should be uncontroversial, though I think the statement itself could be rephrased to emphasise that it is the continued use of humour theory that is pseudoscience. The theory was science (i.e. "knowledge") when it was dominant within medicine. Jayaguru-Shishya, User:Jytdog is correct that the mere fact that you quote a passage from WP:RS does not constitute a 'discussion', since the passage does not say encyclopedias cannot be used. If it were a "source about extraterrestrials" you might have a point, but it isn't and you don't. Paul B (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There has been some criticism of the source regarding whether the specific content of specific articles is reliable. But, as with most encyclopedias, the reliability of any individual article does not relate to the matter of article selection. It is not necessarily an ideal source, as Paul says, and I can honestly see that, but I haven't seen anything which indicates that there has been any significant question regarding the subjects chosen for inclusion in that source. The exact phrasing of the content might be open to question, but I can't see any good reason to remove any such mention based on that source entirely. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• question - Jayaguru-Shishya this is, right now, a snow close. We have 4 new voices, plus the editor who posted it, plus me, who all think the source is fine for the content (with a small tweak to the content, perhaps). You yourself have not even provided a reason for "no" - just cited a guideline that says a secondary source would be better. In the absence of any actual "no" here, do you see a need to take up more of the community's time with this? Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy (ISBN 0-8160-3351-X) is an unreliable source that fails WP:MEDRS. It is neither a widely recognised medical textbook nor a scientific review article and its reliability has been seriously questioned by the skeptic community. The Skeptical Inquirer review of the book says that, ".. errors, major and minor, can be found throughout.", "It reads more like a collection of opinions", " contain material that is both correct and objective. Unfortunately, this tome fails on both counts." Please refrain from using this source in all medical articles. -A1candidate 00:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• I believe the above editor should read User talk:SandyGeorgia#MEDRS and pseudoscience. The apparent opinion of what may well be more knowledgeable editors about that source is that the above claim is a bit of a logical fallacy. As indicated there, what is being discussed here is whether the subject is a "pseudoscience". That, however, seems to have no bearing on whether it is or is not medically accurate. And as someone familiar with that review, as I said in my last comment above, there is nothing indicating that the subjects selected for inclusion in the encyclopedia are not legitimately included. I rather strongly urge the above editor to perhaps realize that there is in no way a clear and obvious equivalence of the terms "medicine" and "pseudoscience," despite his or her seemingly absolute conviction regarding that point. John Carter (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Webster's New World Medical Dictionary describes humorism as "definitively demolished" since the 1800s. Dismissing the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience as flawed is one thing, but asking for a MEDRS to cite for the statement "humorism is now regarded as pseudoscience" seriously makes as much sense as demanding MEDRSs for similar statements about astrology, alchemy, or the Nine Herbs Charm. Humorism was totally disproven before the 20th century and its absence is a rather distinguishing feature of modern medicine. WP:COMMONSENSE would dictate that we do not need a MEDRS to dismiss humorism, but that a MEDRS would be needed to say that humorism is not a pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention WP:PARITY supports use of this source in this context. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Unreliable The source in question starts by explaining the various difficulties of using the term pseudoscience and, amusingly, invalidates itself, "The word 'pseudoscience' is not itself a scientific term. Insofar as it connotes a rigor it does not in reality possess, one might even call it a pseudoscientific term." Looking at the entries for A, these include atomism, Agassiz, Age of the Earth, antimatter, aphrodisiac and Avebury. As these all seem to be reasonably respectable topics, the source should not be used indiscriminately to tag any such subject as pseudoscience. Andrew D. (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The term is difficult and POV-pushers for fringe theories love to endlessly discuss the demarcation problem. Sure there are boundary problems, but red is not blue and the argument becomes idiocy after a while. And there are pseudoscientific aspects to all those topics you just cited. The proposed content clearly limits application of the term to modern proponents of humorism. Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wholehearted agreement with Jytdog here. The articles linked to by Andrew Davidson bear the same titles as those in the encyclopedia, but it is also true that each of those links is to a topic which is rather broader than humorism. For instance, we all know Avebury exists, and that cannot be said to make it pseudoscientific. the article however deals with the pseudoscientific nature of some of the claims made about it. Humorism however is a much narrower topic, and the EoP article seems to be dealing with, basically, the same topic as our own article, so, on that basis, the claim, reasonable in some other cases, that the similarity of article names does not necessarily indicate the similarity of article subjects does not seem valid here. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Humorism seems quite a wide topic in that such ideas dominated medicine for thousands of years. Even now, the idea that trouble may be caused by such imbalances is still prevalent; we just have a more detailed understanding of the components of which we might have an excess or deficiency - cholesterol, iron, serotonin, vitamins, &c. And our current understanding still seems quite limited in some ways. For example, a recent blood test indicates that my lipid level is higher than the doctor might like. But can she tell me whether I actually have incipient atherosclerosis or not? There doesn't seem to be a good test for this and so uncertain risk factors are used instead. These risk factors seem quite like the broad stereotypes of the humoural sort but instead of being choleric say, you might have a high BMI and type-A personality. Plus ça change... Andrew D. (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

OR claim that's akin to saying alchemy isn't necessarily a pseudoscience because gold, silver, and lead are on the periodic table. Your doctor would hopefully be using the risk factors based on previous documented connection, not because of magical stereotypes. Humorism is specifically the belief in blood, phlegm, and black and yellow biles, not other bodily fluids.

Geocentrism and Astrology dominated astronomy for thousands of years as well, but we still describe them as pseudoscience (if not outright superstition). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

To me this does not look like a normal RSN question? It is easy to find sources saying all kinds of things, but then we need to discuss due weight, which is more of an editing discussion. What are the editing concerns that lead to the discussion? I have noticed in the past around Misplaced Pages that the term "pseudoscience", whether it is a clear term or not, is more common on Misplaced Pages than in outside publications, and this seems to be linked to interest in Misplaced Pages's own policies, whereby articles involving "pseudoscience" come under the martial law of "discretionary sanctions" (which seems to derive from historical debates about climate change articles, but has had some mission creep by my reading). Is that playing a role here? I note remark above that there might be a difference between science which has been historically found wrong, and "pseudoscience" and that seems correct. Pseudoscience is not normally a term used to apply to Aristotle for example and I don't think we should have articles about classical science, philosophy and medicine coming under discretionary sanctions just because there are still proponents today.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew L, this is indeed not a normal RSN question. I agree with others; the source given is reliable for the specific use proposed. Additionally humorism is pretty valueless as an aid to understanding the human body. Discussion of our, perhaps over-inclusive, use of the term "pseudoscience" and our possible over-eagerness to use it repeatedly to disparage out-of-date attempts to understand the world, is best had elsewhere. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster and Richard Keatinge on the face of it, this is a straight up and very obvious RSN case. The content and sourcing were objected to, based on the source. Consensus is clear that they are fine. We can guess that JS's actual objection was use of the term "pseudoscience" but our guesses about other editors' motivations have no place in WP. Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The historical practice of now-outdated science is by no means pseudoscience, just early science -- but the continued advocacy of those ideas once they've been disproven to the point of sorcery is pseudoscience. Ptolemy is not classified as a pseudoscientist, but a modern advocate of Ptolomaic cosmology would be an astrologer (and so the only way for them to not be a pseudoscientist would be openly admitting they're practicing magic, not science). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson, as an editor with a long history on working on history of science and philosophy I am increasingly seeing these types of definitions of pseudoscience on Misplaced Pages, but not elsewhere in outside reliable sources. In fact the term is not even common outside Misplaced Pages, and to the extent that some blogs and journalists are starting to use it more, Misplaced Pages may even be the reason. It seems to be a Wikipedian definition? It seems to be a sort of mission creep thing coming from the history some years back of debate on climate change articles wherein pseudoscience became a critical term for giving admins special power, right? Anyway, for example can you find any source which says that Thomism is pseudoscience for example? Thomists, or at least some of them, follow the arguments of Aristotle, who argued against the style of philosophy which rebooted in modern times and which we now call science. So they fit your definition.

@Jytdog, yes I do recognize that in theory we can point to a sources question, but it is a rather difficult question to get worked up about. Encyclopedias can be used on Misplaced Pages, although in some contexts they are considered weak sources. It becomes a question of due weight, and due weight is generally a topic for article talk pages, although for sure there is nothing wrong with coming here for some extra opinions. OTOH your reply seems to confirm that it is really all about this term which is important for Wikipedians: pseudoscience? There is also seems to be a questioning of motives on both sides. I have not looked closely at the case, but it seems that the accusation is that the word is being forced into the article, using a weak source. Is that a fair summary? I do not see that the replies here have given any arguments for or against that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not questioning anybody's motives; I will not delve beyond the surface of the objection that was actually raised. Which has now been well addressed in the appropriate forum. If you want to explore the use of the term "pseudoscience" generally, WT:FRINGE is thataway, and if you want to discuss whether the term is appropriate to use in the humorism article, Talk:humorism is thataway. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thomism doesn't exactly make empirically testable claims, but humorism and astrology do. Our article doesn't refer to Thomism as pseudoscience, and neither did I. Young Earth Creationism would be a better example, and we do refer to attempts to make empirical claims supporting YEC as pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes Ian.thomson but this definition of pseudo-science is again rather Wikipedian as far as I know and the language you are referring to in those example Misplaced Pages articles will have been placed there by Wikipedians, just like in the case under discussion. I am aware that there is quite a lot of discussion going on around Misplaced Pages about making sure that certain articles are seen as connecting to "pseudo-science", or not connecting to it, because that term then connects to the "martial law" of discretionary sanctions etc. In some cases I have personally seen very controversial efforts being made to twist the wording of articles quite far from what the sources say, in order to make sure that a big black line is drawn between a "history of science subject" (in the example I came into contact with this was teleological argument) and a "pseudo-science subject" (in my example "intelligent design", which NB is supposedly not the article for the intelligent design movement). Problem there is that not one source draws such a big black line. One practical result of long term debate on this apparent wiki-OR, is that the word pseudoscience has been added to the first line and definition of the topic of that article, although there are very few sources that use the word, and no sources at all which say this is a defining characteristic of intelligent design. The arguments given for justifying this include wikipedian definitions of pseudoscience much like the one you give. Is there any chance that the case in hand was similar? In any case, it is important, if you want feedback to be useable, to explain the context of the disagreement. Just coming here asking "can we ever use this source?" is actually not the correct way to use this forum. See the instructions at the top.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

In my original post i named the article, and provided the content and source, and asked if the source was an RS for the content. look at it. nobody asked any general questions. I think this thread is done. Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I mean that you have not wanted to mention what was controversial about using the source. As gets said over and over on this forum, almost every source is good for something. What is clear from the feedback you have received is that it is apparently a weak source. The implication of this is that if there are debates about the weight it is being given, it might be problematic. There has also been a question raised about whether we are using the source beyond its own intentions, because I see the remark above given that the source itself questions the exactness of the term, whereas apparently some of the controversy here is about using the source to make a very black/white type of comment?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Composed of, in political union, within political framework?

• Sources.

1. "The American federation is composed of … the Northern Marianas.” p.296. Ellis Katz, “Overview of the American Federation” in “Distribution of Powers and Responsibilities in Federal Countries”, Majeed, Watts and Brown, eds., 2006, McGill-Queen’s Press,

2. Northern Mariana Islands became additional U.S. territory on November 3, 1986, when it joined “in political union with the United States of America”. p. 2 State Department 7 FAM 1120 Acquisition of U.S. Nationality in U.S. Territories and Possessions. (2013)

3. Non-state Northern Marianas, like Washington, DC, is “within the political framework of the United States.” (item 27). State Department report to the U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011. .

• Article. Talk:United States#Infobox, “Current composition” error

• Content. The “Current composition” date in the U.S. info box is the admission of Hawaii. I would like a confirmation of my three sources as reliable arguments that the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI, Northern Marianas) was admitted as a territory of the United States, — and because it is within the U.S. "political framework” as is DC, as sourced,

The “Current composition” Info box date of the U.S. should be dated from November 3, 1986, the entry of the Northern Marianas (CNMI).

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of sources say something like, "The Supreme Court concluded, in a series of decisions known as the Insular Cases, that are dependent lands and are neither "foreign" countries nor "part of the United States."" (Ediberto Romn, Citizenship and Its Exclusions, NYU Press, 2010, p. 97). Searching for sources that appear to contradict the mainstream view is cherry-picking. Using terminology such as "within the political framework of" to imply without actually stating that the territories have been incorporated into the U.S. is misleading. TFD (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Referring to the Insular Cases a century ago for modern territorial status is misleading. Romn's treatment of the "Insular Cases" of 1901-1922 does not contradict Katz "the U.S. is composed of " in 2011. Territories remain "unincorporated" for the limited purpose of federal taxes and tariffs. Congress has expanded self-governance and protections, GAO rept. Jon M. Van Dyke in the Hawaii Law Review (1992) includes the five major territories by name as "a part of the United States" .

- The District of Columbia is a part of the United States though it too is not a state, but "within the political framework of the United States" as sourced, so are the territories politically. Congress has politically, --- not economically---, incorporated territory, see Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review (2009). Puerto Rico is the paradigm of an modern "incorporated" territory as modern jurisprudence understands the term. p. 1175 .

- Insular Cases in 1901 and 1922 do not speak to the sourced political union of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in 1986, the point of the request here as sourced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The Ninth Circuit Court determined in Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands v Atalig 1984 that the Insular Cases applied to CNMI. As a result, the guarantee of jury trials in the United States does not apply there. OTOH, the CNMI has a Covenant with the U.S. under which U.S. federal law does not apply there unless (1) it specifically mentions CMNI and (2) the CMNI approves. You can read more about the relationship between the United States and its territories in Defining Status: A Comprehensive Analysis of United States Territorial Relations

DC is a strawman argument. Indeed it is possible for territories to be part of the U.S. without being states. But in that case, as in D.C., the constitution applies in full.

TFD (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Leibowitz in his “Defining status” (1989) notes that the CNMI is in “Political Union” with the United States (p. 520), and it “made more explicit the mutuality of consent principle. The Covenant...was approved in a U.N. observed vote in the Northern Marianas” (p.67). The Mann act is applied in DC and Puerto Rico in the same manner, unlike in states. (p.364) Reliable sources to date reinforce those posted in this Noticeboard request.

TFD has followed me contradicting the subject sources without a scholarly source to support non sequiturs. He asserts in error that the constitution applies in full in DC without a source -- it has a delegate Member of Congress, Congress reviews DC legislation before it takes effect. The State department source says DC and CNMI are alike "within the framework of the United States", -- DC is not a straw man to dismiss, another non sequitur, the reliable source supports DC and Northern Marianas constitutional equivalence in an international context.

Domestic economic "unincorporation" for federal taxes and tariffs is a non sequitur to territorial "political union" as sourced. No territories in U.S. history have had either uniform privileges nor full constitutional privileges of statehood until admission to statehood, that is a non sequitur to territorial status in "political union" as sourced. "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." TFD comments are to date disruptive of the purpose here.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Mail Online

Just wanted to mention one journalist's account of how Mail Online articles are put together . Not sure if any ramifications for WP --Cedders 14:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources, particularly news media are frequently wrong. However errors are corrected. If one wants to explain what happened today in articles, then these are the only possible sources. TFD (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• I know its been discussed before, but the Daily Mail is just about the bottom feeder of "mainstream" news sources. If a better source is available, use it instead. If the Daily Mail is the only source reporting something, it should be treated with extra skepticism.--Milowent • 19:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I would avoid almost every source (even the NYT) for contentious claims about "celebrities." For basic nes, the MailOnline is fine and meets WP:RS. And if it is an opinion - it should always be cited as an opinion, ascribed to the person holding it. Collect (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The part about headlines sometimes being misleading is true of pretty much all newspapers - they are written by headline writers whose task is to grab readers. Collect (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Vicious Candy

Is Vicious Candy considered a reliable source, either generally or for birth date/place of a living person? Since the full birthdate and birthplace of Ashley Hinshaw appears in no journalistic cite but only on IMDb, which this appears to copy, I'm not sure and would like other editors' opinions: http://www.viciouscandy.com/happy-birthday-ashley-hinshaw/ . (I had first posted this at WP:IRS, where an editor suggested I post here instead.) --Tenebrae (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't look reliable to me. There are a number of other sites with the same birthday, for example www.famousbirthdays.com. Which doesn't look any more reliable, but at least it's a better name than Vicious Candy. What I would do with either of these or IMDb is put a {{better source}} tag in the footnote, so that someone could replace it if a better source is found. Apparently she's engaged to be married. Journalistic coverage of the wedding might mention her birthdate. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

This website seems utterly unreliable to me. It is mostly photos of scantily clad female models, with a few photos of expensive sports cars thrown in. I see no evidence of professional editorial control, or a reputation for accuracy, fact checking and correcting errors. It is just another online clickbait site, as I see it. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Cullen's appraisal of this site. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, all! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The Dead Rock Stars Club

I came across this site being used as reference for the death of the original drummer of the band Umphrey's McGee. I then searched Misplaced Pages and noticed that the same website is being cited in quite a few articles in a similar manner. I searched the RSN archives and found no menton of the site, so I am not sure if has been discussed before. Anyway, the site bills itself as "a list of dead rock musicians and singers, dead people associated with rock and dead people whose music helped influence and create rock (which I feel includes Jazz and Country artists), sorted by the date of their demise. This is a tribute to them." and it seems to be a personal website or database, but I can't find out any more about it. It also seems to be a repository for various links to official artist/band pages as well as other sites including Misplaced Pages. I'm not too sure how accurate the information is because no sources are being cited to support the information provided in individual entries thus making it hard to verify. For example, the entry for Jimi Hendrix links to Jimihendrix.com which is a dead link while the entry for John Lennon links to Misplaced Pages. Finding reliable sources which discuss the deaths of very famous musicians like Hendrix and Lennon is probably not a big deal, but this site looks like it's being used on Misplaced Pages for less famous types like the drummer of Umphrey's McGee. It doesn't seem very reliable to me at all, but I'd like to hear what others think. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Marchjuly. I picked a page from that website at random, and clicked on ten musician's names, to see how the information about the death was referenced. In every case, Misplaced Pages was the reference. Accordingly, I conclude that this is not a reliable source. They base their accuracy to a large extent on linking to Misplaced Pages. It would be unacceptably circular for us to cite them as a reliable source. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for checking Cullen328. These musicians no longer techncially fall under WP:BLP since they are dead (not recently dead at least in many cases), right? Should the cite just be removed and replaced with a {{citation needed}} tag or should the both the information and the cite be removed? Would the relevant policy be WP:UNSOURCED, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:CIRCULAR or something else? Thanks again. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I recommend removing any references to this website, searching for a better reference, and if one is not available, placing a citation needed tag. I think all the pages you link to are relevant to this matter. Accuracy of dates of death is a BLP issue, unless the person was born over 130 years ago. If somebody digs up an obituary of a person with the same name, and we incorrectly report the BLP as dead, that can cause major problems for an elderly musician's comeback tour, among other things. Cullen Let's discuss it 17:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again Cullen328. I've cleaned up a few pages and tried to added reliable sources where I could (at least I hope they are reliable), but I noticed that there are literally hundreds of pages citing this website. That's a monumental clean up job for dozens of editors, let alone a single person. Anyway, since this site is being used so often, it seems to me that there should be someplace somewhere on Misplaced Pages that says something such as "Don't use this website because it's not reliable" like they have for WP:EL/P, WP:YOUTUBE, etc. Any suggestions on how best to bring this to the attention of others besides the two of us and post to make such a suggestion? The Village Pump perhaps? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Just came across this thread. Having used DeadRockStars to check information on many occasions (probably hundreds of times), I would say that it is highly reliable as well as being constantly maintained. In fact, I personally can't recall finding any errors there, in terms of death dates - which contrasts with almost all other sites I have used regularly, such as Joel Whitburn's books or Allmusic. The links it provides to WP pages are, I believe, not the sources of the death dates or details - they are simply links to additional biographical information. The sources for the death details are, I believe, not set out in the database itself - which I accept is a flaw. It should always be checked against other sources - but it is a valuable and reliable resource. Perhaps it's fair to identify DRS citations with a warning that a better source should be found, but it would be unfair to call the site as a whole unreliable, or to remove all references to it entirely. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Ghmyrtle. I may well be guilty of utilising this site as a reference for many musicians, and their like, over my time here. In almost ten years of referring to it, I can not recall a single error therein - accepting that it must, by human nature, contain a few of them. Whether it is accuracy that we strive, or religiously sticking with some supposed 'reliable source' (many of which are often lacking in basic detail), is a matter of debate. To put it another way, is the site 'unreliable' if it is consistently accurate ? One final point - whilst removing the DRS source might be easy, if somewhat time consuming, I would be very interested to hear if such editors found copious amounts of other, more 'reliable sources', particularly for the more 'obscure' individuals covered therein.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the input Ghmyrtle and Derek R Bullmore. I understand what you both are saying, but the site has to be getting its information from somewhere, right? Isn't it better to try and find collaborating sources in newspapers or other well-established publications and use those instead. For sure, WP:UGC does say "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Is the argument then that Doc-Rock, who I guess is the owner/operator of the site, such an expert? Is the reliability of the site commented upon by third-party sources or are we just assuming it is reliable for the sake of convenience? FWIW, I've seen a few articles where the website is not only being used to cite the date of death, but also the cause of death as well as other personal and career information, which seems a little strange to me.

Finally, and this is mainly for Ghmyrtle, I'm not sure what is meant by "warning" editors that "a better source should be found". That's seems to be like saying "this source might be a little questionable, but if it's all you can find then use it, at least until something 'more reliable' is found to replace it". This seems totally contrary to WP:V and WP:RS. If the consensus is that the source is reliable, then it should be able to be used without any conditions attached; On the other hand, if the consensus is that the source is only sometimes reliable, then it shouldn't be used as a place holder until something better can be found. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

My view is that the source is, in fact, reliable - as reliable as any other source in relation to death details (not necessarily career details). No-one "assum it is reliable for the sake of convenience" - that's somewhat dismissive of those of us who use the site and (having checked) are confident of its accuracy. But whether it meets the established Misplaced Pages criteria for reliable sources may be a different matter, and if editors wish to find sources which meet those criteria better (such as, I guess, Allmusic - which I think is far less reliable, on almost all criteria, but which seems to be regarded here as generally reliable), then they should do so. As I said, it is a failing of the DRS site that it does not set out its sources, but that does not mean that its information is inaccurate. So, it is fair both to accept the DRS information as reliable, but also to flag up that sources that better meet WP criteria might be available. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: First, I didn't intend my comment about convenience to be dismissive, so I sincerely apologize if it sounded like that was my intent. The point I was trying to make is that if there's a need to check whether a particular site is accurate, then perhaps we should be using something else. The information on a site may be true and accurate, but the question is whether it can be verified or whether it can be assumed to have been verified through some sort of established editorial control. Many individuals have websites or blogs which are well-maintained, regularly updated and for the most part pretty accurate. Misplaced Pages itself seems to be pretty accurate for the most part. Yet, none of these are considered, for the most part, to be a reliable sources for use on Misplaced Pages.

How would you, techinically speaking, flag something like DRS if it was being used? Would something like {{self-published}} or {{better source}} be used? If the consensus is that a website is reliable, then we should just take it as being reliable like we do for something like a major newspaper or magazine; There should be no need to flag it. Similarly, if the consensus is that there's a need to "flag" a website in such a way right from the start, then perhaps we shouldn't be using it to begin with in my opinion. Anyway, I'm not trying to impose my will on Misplaced Pages. I'm perfectly happy to go along with whatever consensus is reached. I only removed the DRS site from a handful of articles and tried to replace it with better sources, or at least what I felt were better sources, wherever I could. If you feel my edits were unwarrranted , then please revert them and re-add the DRS cites. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

How can I verify/cite Voris Marker's dates?

So, I've been taking advantage of my new Misplaced Pages/Newspapers.com account to put together an article on Voris (designer). However, I've come across a few sources for her birth/death dates and her husband's dates that I can't verify in other sources. There is this Ancestry page but Ancestry is not considered a reliable source. I then found this site which confirms much of the information on Ancestry.com, with cited sources. There are some issues - Voris is stated to have been born in Baker, Oregon, although the reliable sources say Montana, or "near Billings, Montana" (to be more precise). In 1961, she's being reported as married to Clifford Marker, but other sources claim Clifford was divorced by 1930 (does this mean Voris was his second wife? It would explain how he managed to marry Beryl "secondly" in 1924 per the Boneshadow page, before he is supposed to have married Voris.) This page, with lots of citations, does give a fuller picture of Clifford, but sadly no info on his wife/wives, although it does note he was divorced by 1930.

Please can you advise me whether any of these sources are admissible - I think the last linked page is probably OK for Clifford's dates as it cites a lot of sources and describes the reasoning, etc; but I'm more concerned about getting Voris's dates right as she is the subject of the article. Can I use this for Voris's dates? Or are they all unreliable/inadmissible sources? Mabalu (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak to what Misplaced Pages finds reliable, but in terms of vital records, scholars find contemporary records preferable to secondary or tertiary sources. (This is not Misplaced Pages's usual position.) The marriage license of Clifford H. Marker and Voris Linthacum can be found at familysearch.org (it is Marriage License #7384 issued in the County of Flathead, State of Montana), and states that at the time the license was issued, 25 November 1936, Clifford had been previously married and divorced, and that this was the first marriage for Voris. Voris is said to be 28 and born in Baker City, Oregon. The ceremony took place on 29 November 1936 at Kalispell, Flathead Co., Montana. (For the record, it names Voris' parents as Charles E. Linthacum and Rose née Cunning). I would be inclined to say that the SSDI (the last item you linked) ought to be considered a reliable source for birth and death dates, though further judgement may be needed if it conflicts with other sources. - Nunh-huh 03:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! I must remember this resource. Mabalu (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Column on Donors Trust on (but not by) NBC

• Source: Abowd, Paul (February 14, 2013). "Koch-funded charity passes money to free-market think tanks in states". NBC News. Retrieved February 16, 2015.
• Material sourced: Donors Trust donated to X.
• Articles: Donors Trust, and a number of individual recipients.
• Reason: Article is written by a third party, not affiliated with NBC. It should be attributed either to him, alone, making it usually unreliable, or to his organization, making it reliable only if attributed in text. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Ping: Recent significant contributors and admin actions to Donors Trust; HughD, Champaign Supernova, DrFleischman, Capitalismojo, Srich32977, CambridgeBayWeather, Safehaven86, NickCT, Cwobeel

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Generally, NBC News may be sourced on WP without in-text attribution for possible bias. The publisher is clearly and unambiguously NBC News. The article is running under NBC News banner, under the category of "INVESTIGATIONS." The source is NOT flagged by NBC as "guest columnist" or "rambling round the web" or "op-ed" or any such. The source is already attributed to the author by name in the supplied, well-formatted reference. The primary organizational credential of the author is clearly declared in the source. The source is a report on an investigation of primary source documents, the federal filings of the subject of the article and its donors. The source is used in the article only for its identification of donors and recipients from those documents, not for its views or opinions. As the federal filings are publicly available, there can be little reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the identification of the donors and recipients. What is the issue here? Hugh (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, your addition of two editors to the ping both will not go through Echo, as it's an edit of an already-signed section, and is probably inappropriate ING, as neither of those editors edited Donors Trust or Talk:Donors Trust in the past month. However, they may have comment on some of the related articles; if significant contributors, the addition might not fall afoul of WP:CANVASS. It won't WP:NOTIFY, though. Thanks. NickCT, Cwobeel Hugh (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

1. The source is misidentified; it's an independent investigator posting on the NBC site. NBC has no control or verification of the investigator's work.
2. Due to the fact that it is public record, it might be reasonable for inclusion if The Center for Public Integrity has a reputation for accuracy. I haven't seen evidence for or against that. It still would provide no (not just little) indication of significance or relevance. Some of the statements which HughD has sourced to the article aren't actually in the article; for instance, he uses FreedomWorks while the source says FreedomWorks Foundation. But that's a separate issue; except in that it casts question on your additions to articles as being incorrect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The source is perfectly identified in a well-formatted reference as per WP policy and guidelines, including author and publisher. It is an investigative reporting on the NBC News website. The dependence or independence is not in evidenced in the source, in any case the financial relationship between an author and a publisher is irrelevant. The authors' organizational affiliation is irrelevant. NBC News is a gold star top shelf publisher by any reasonable assessment if there is one. Again, this investigation on the NBC News website is not flagged by NBC News as "independent" or "guest" or any such. The host for this source is http://investigations.nbcnews.com, not http://guestblog.nbc.com, for g*d's sake. NBC News has complete control over what appears on their website. You have no evidence to the contrary. Do you think NBC News was hacked? What is the issue here? Hugh (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I will thank you to please help us all focus here on the reliablity of the specific source in the OP above. Hugh (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

NBC certainly has "control or verification of the investigator's work" — if they weren't convinced of its veracity and fairness, they could have chosen not to publish it. The fact that they published it establishes it under NBC News' aegis. This is no different than the Miami Herald publishing an article from the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting or the Juneau Empire publishing an article from the Associated Press — news outlets republishing the work of shared-asset newsgathering organizations is as old as the media itself. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

News organizations also host blogs, which do not necessarily reflect their point of view or editorial control. The navigation links on NBCNews.com suggests that "Investigations" is parallel to "News", "Politics", "Sports", "Science", etc., which might very mean that it is not "News". The fact that the author of the article is given an affiliation credit suggests that it is not part of the regular News site. (HughD also uses actual blog entries at Forbes as if they were articles, so his word is not convincing to me.) I admit that I'm not good at tracking down whether a web page represents news or commentary (including gest commentary aka op-ed), but this item doesn't have many of the hallmarks of an actual news article. If you can find something at NBCNews.com which specifies what the "Investigations" section is, I would accept that. But I really don't see that article as "news", without some specific statement by the mangement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Again I ask that you please help us all focus here on the reliability of the specific source in the OP above. Thank you in advance.Hugh

Interesting use of navigation links. So the sports news is not news and the science news is not news either? Hugh (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence presented here that NBC News considers its "Investigations" section to be a "blog." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, see WP:NEWSBLOG. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable (but): This is simply a republication of this CPI article, which is reliable. CPI is a veteran journalism outlet with a strong reputation. The author is a professional journalist whose work has been published at Mother Jones, WaPo, and NBC. The fact that this article in particular was republished by NBC is further evidence of reliability. The "(but)" in my !vote is because, optimally, we should be citing the original CPI source rather than the NBC republication. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The publisher is in fact NBC News, and the publisher in the well-formatted reference in the article is NBC News, exactly as per policy and guideline. Hugh (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't an RS issue, but by sourcing to NBC we are suggesting this is an NBC story, which is technically inaccurate. Citing the original source enables readers to better assess reliability for themselves. I don't see any counterargument for why citing NBC is somehow superior to citing CPI in this instance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This is clearly and unambiguously an NBC News story. The provided ref is well-formatted and precisely accurate. NBC News is cited as the publisher because NBC News is the publisher. Hugh (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this an NBC story or a CPI story? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice try at a compromise, Doc, but I'm afraid I must ask you to please help us all focus here on the reliability of the above original post, the NBC News item. The The Center for Public Integrity article you mention is a different source. Thanks. The two sources are NOT equivalent, and you know it. One is way, WAY more noteworthy than the other. NBC News is an internationally renown news organization, and CPI is a fine, respected organization, but it ain't NBC News. The original poster above has already run around WP flagging all instances of the use of the NBC News item with "importance?." His backup plan in case the NBC News item were OMG found reliable is to run with noteworthiness. Do you support his multi-pronged approach to spiking this ref by any means necessary? Noteworthiness is key here. To take the above cogent analogy, often AP reports can be found in many venues. If the NYT held an AP report for their phat Sunday edition, would you insist on an earlier citation to the AP website? No you would not. This is no different. It's RS, no buts. Hugh (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "compromise" you think I'm proposing. I was quite explicit I think the NBC page is reliable. No buts about that. I just don't think that citing it is as informative and helpful to readers as citing the CPI page directly. Your preference for more "noteworthy" sources suggests to me you're more interested in convincing readers than informing them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Noteworthiness is a legitimate, important aspect in sourcing. An AP story, goes out on the AP wire, pops up on the AP website, but the NYT holds it for the front page on Sunda - would you insist on citation to the AP website? Hugh (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe there's any policy, guideline, or essay supporting your personal view that "noteworthiness is a legitimate, important aspect in sourcing." Yes, I do think the AP page should be used whenever possible. Likewise for other syndicated sources. This is especially important for non-traditional watchdog groups such as CPI, whose politics and journalism credentials are questioned from time to time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Noteworthiness being an important aspect of sourcing is a personal view? Wow. I will ask you a question a 3rd time that you have not answered yet: An AP story appears on the front page of the NYT and in the classifieds of the Green Acres Weekly Shopper, which do you run with bro? Hugh (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I already said. I'd cite the AP website. If it's not on the AP website, I'd link to either one, doesn't matter, but I'd list AP as the publisher. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"I don't believe there's any policy, guideline, or essay..." WP:RSVETTING "What's their circulation? Size doesn't prove anything, but it's a data point. The New England Journal of Medicine and the North Carolina Literary Review are both scholarly journals, but they're not equal. Ditto the New York Times and the Easton (Maryland) Gazette. A bigger operation means more resources for fact-checking, a bigger reputation to uphold, and greater liklihood of employing top-tier people." Hugh (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"either one, doesn't matter" Another way the two sources are not equal is agenda. WP:RSVETTING "What about the publisher? What kind of outfit are they? What's their reputation? Do they have an agenda?" We have a fellow editor below who has weighed in with concerns regarding bias in The Center for Public Integrity, no such concerns expressed for NBC News. Hugh (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

In this particular case, to claim noteworthiness doesn't matter, do you have to sort of ignore the fact that the OP above has flagged as {{importance?}} each instance of the use of the reference in dispute, as documented below WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Disputed_reference_flagged_as_importance.3F_by_OP? Hugh (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable per publication without disclaimers by NBC. I also don't find this particularly controversial (the donations may be, but the fact of the donations is not). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Reliable per DrFleischman. Lightbreather (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Reliable but use the original source per DrFleischman. He makes a solid case for using the Center for Public Integrity as the source. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of the The Center for Public Integrity, a worthy organization, I agree, though off-topic. May I ask, do you have a vote on the source which is the original topic of this RSN request, above, the NBC News investigation? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Original source only and any use should include its internal disclaimer that it, itself, receives substantial funding from a larger trust supporting liberal groups. ("The California-based Tides Foundation, which Ball calls the “ideological opposite” of Donors Trust, also operates donor-advised funds. The Center has received funding from the Tides Foundation in the past. In 2011, Tides raised $91 million and made $96 million in grants, including $26 million to overseas recipients.") Once we use a source, we, perforce, use the entire source. Collect (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Way to find room on the right we didn't know was there. Of coruse, as you know, an article by a different publisher is a different source. Please help us all here focus on the original request, above, an NBC News investigative report, which is clearly RS without qualification, if any RS is RS without qualification. You may be interested in opening an RSN request specific to The Center for Public Integrity. Thank you Hugh (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The aim is to find "best source" - the disclaimer is also found in the NBC source, so there is no "room on the right" issue at all -- just a belief that better sources should displace copies from them. The writer is not an NBC employee (By Paul Abowd, The Center for Public Integrity is moderately clear for that) so we have to identify him as his byline states. Did you perhaps think NBC actually produced the report by itself? Collect (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, NBC News generously provided the organization affiliation of the author as a credential after the byline in this reliable source. The employment relationship of an author and a publisher is irrelevant in an RS discussion. Many writers from many of our sources are not employees of their publisher. They may be employees or free lancers or other. Here the publisher is NBC News. Hugh (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll try the above, highly informative analogy from an uninvolved editor, above. An AP story may generally be found in many venues. Did you ever notice that? In such a case, would you cite the NYT or the Podunk Weekly Shopper? Hugh (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

AP stories get credited to the AP - not to the newspaper which happens to use the AP story. Same here. Collect (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Really? Rut roh! This is going to require a lot of edits! Really? An AP story appears on the front page of the NYT, you would insist we cite it to a wire service's website? Doesn't that short change noteworthiness just a tad? Hugh (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable - As I understand it, if NBC is the publisher, the material gets attributed to NBC and not to the actual author. Is there some policy that states otherwise? NickCT (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• Reliable Publisher is NBC News, a reliable source. May be used without in-text attribution. Hugh (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• The Center for Public Integrity is a WP:RS and the author of this piece. It may be used and should be attributed as such. Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The author of the disputed reference is not in dispute, it is Paul Abowd. Please help us all stay focussed here on the above RSN request for comment, for the NBC News investigation. I agree the Center for Public Integrity is a fine organization, but please open a separate RSN request for comment for the Center for Public Integrity if you so desire. Do you have an opinion on whether the NBC News investigation is a reliable source? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of positions

• NBC News reliable as published: NorthBySouthBaranof, Stephan Schulz, NickCT, HughD
• NBC News not reliable, suggest The Center for Public Integrity alternative: Dr. Fleischman, Capitalismojo
• Other: Collect

Hugh (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Not terribly comprehensive. Conveniently leaves out me as well as Lightbreather who both interestingly didn't agree with you. Huh. At least your WP:CANVASSING yielded another opinion aligned with your own. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

so add yourself Hugh (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You're not supposed to edit other peoples' talk page comments. Your attempt at "vote counting" appears incredibly disingenuous if you can't even be bothered to accurately represent the discussion, even when corrected. Zoinks. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

so, you won't add yourself, even after I asked you to, because you're too afraid I'll report you to some talk page etiquette notice board? Hugh (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Frankly I think this attempt to mischaracterize the consensus is pure disruptive bullshit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Doc, some are declaring victory over NBC News in edit summaries. Hugh (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't about "declaring victory", or it shouldn't be. Please review WP:HERE. DrFleischman made the most solid analysis on the point. I agreed with his analysis, as did Champagne, Lightbreather, Collect. Five editors from across the spectrum agreed. Then we had canvassing and a complete mischaracterization of the discussion. DrFleischman is right. This is disruptive and wrong. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably justified at this point. Regardless, two wrongs don't make a right, and your behavior here is pretty darn bad in my view. A lot worse than possibly jumping the gun on a forming consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I appear to have accidently edited this section through a software glitch. I was having trouble opening the correct section and so edited the page. The Diff is weird and shows non-contiguous deletions that it is hard to imagine I did. I apologize to the members of this discussion and could someone look at this and determine whether this material was supposed to be deleted? I think the diff is wrong, I don't see how I could have accidently made non-contiguous deletions. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Early consensus effected: NBC News not RS

Enthused by some early comments, and unwilling to wait for this RSN request for comment discussion to pan out, the OP and some fellow travellers have declared the consensus of this discussion to be that NBC News is not RS, and have been converting the NBC News reference to their much preferred, much less noteworthy version, with edit summaries citing this discussion:

• diff Donors Trust 10 March 2015 22:47 Capitalismojo: I think the discussion at RS/N suggested CPI as the ref)
• diff Donors Trust 10 March 2015 23:40 Arthur Rubin: per discussion at WP:RSN
• diff Donors Trust 11 March 2015 03:45 Champaign Supernova: Actually the apparent WP:CONSENSUS at WP:RSN is to attribute this to the original source, CPI, and not NBC

Hugh (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Gross mischaracterization of the discussion. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

More premature declaration of victory in the war against NBC News on a talk page: diff from Talk:Paul Singer: "It's mentioned trivially in one source, which is not NBC news, but the Center for Public Integrity, if you care to take a gander at the WP:CONSENSUS here . Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, I don't understand what this is doing here and I lean toward hatting it. This is a content noticeboard, designed to resolve whether a source is reliable. Once a consensus is formed, the discussion ends and may be closed. If someone is editing against a consensus formed here then the solution is to report them to a conduct noticeboard or an administrator. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Disagree on the hat; this material is germaine to the critical issue of the differential in noteworthiness of the two sources. The RSN request was hijacked from what is should be, an up/down consensus on a source, to an A/B choice. This direction on the part of some editors is an important part of the discussion. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Disputed reference flagged as importance? by OP

The OP of this RSN request for comment has flagged each occurrance of content drawn from the disputed reference as not important, in anticipation of noteworthiness discussions, once the reference is successfully knocked back from NBC News to the much less noteworthy Center for Public Integrity:

• Donors Trust
• Richard DeVos
• John M. Olin Foundation
• Castle Rock Foundation
• Philip Anschutz

Hugh (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong noticeboard. Suggest removal. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Disagree on the hat; this material is germaine to the critical issue of the differential in noteworthiness of the two sources. This RSN request was hijacked from what is should be, an up/down consensus on a source, to an A/B choice. This direction on the part of some editors is an important part of the discussion. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Content of the disputed reference: "Koch-funded charity passes money to free-market think tanks in states."

I believe that the above objection to this reference may have as much or more to do with the content of the reference than the reliability of the source, NBC News. The reference is to an NBC News investigation entitled "Koch-funded charity passes money to free-market think tanks in states." The report details findings from an examination of IRS filings, and describes the role of Donors Trust in aggregating and distributing funds while maintaining anonymity. The report names names. As the report's primary documents are publicly available, there can be little reasonable doubt as to the claims in the report; the approach then to keeping the noteworthy content of the report out of WP is to undermine the noteworthiness of the source. Hugh (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why there's an issue. No one is saying that NBC is not a reliable source. What people are saying is that this particular piece was authored and first published by CPI, then re-published by NBC, so since CPI is itself a reliable source, it makes sense to use the original source--CPI. But we can still use this article, and it's still reliable. So I'm not sure why there's a problem. Champaign Supernova (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Champaign Supernova: - re "so since CPI is itself a reliable source, it makes sense to use the original source--CPI. But we can still use this article, and it's still reliable" - Wait a second. If you're agreed that the source is reliable and that the content is verifiable, why are you still pushing to exclude the material supported by the source? NickCT (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're talking about Paul Singer (businessman), it's because the information that's been added to the article is not WP:NOTABLE and including it absent any evidence of notability is WP:UNDUE. As I've explained on that article's talk page, it's not about the reliability of the sourcing, but about whether the information is significant enough to include. I would encourage you to keep discussion about the Singer article on that article's talk page so as not to distract from the discussion happening here. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"this particular piece was authored and first published by CPI, then re-published by NBC" You have no evidence of this. There is no evidence of this in the sources. NBC News published the above RSN request for comment source on February 14, 2013. The much less noteworthy source you hope to use RSN to force a fellow editor to use instead was published the SAME DAY, February 14, 2013. So please lay off the silly order of pub argument. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The source you advocate as a substitute is not equivalent. It is not the same. It is not the "original." The two sources are very, very different in terms of noteworthiness, and that is a very important difference. Please help us all focus on whether or not the source described in the above RSN request is reliable, and please stop trying to change the subject, and please stop pretending you don't understand this. Hugh (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@HughD: - re "You have no evidence of this", "It is not the "original." " - Hugh, you do realize that they're correct in saying this is republished, right? It does actually state as much on the NBC article. It is actually the original. NickCT (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The above mentioned RSN request source NBC News does not flag their report as "republished from..." NBC News does include the author's organization affiliation as a credential in the byline. The publication date of the above mentioned RSN request source NBC News and the less noteworthy Center for Public Integrity source are the same. "Original" is ambiguous. There is no argument to be made here with respect to order of appearance. Hugh (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm.... I think by putting the author's name and affiliation in like that, they are flagging their report as "republished from...". That is common convention. Note at the bottom of the article they put in "The Center for Public Integrity is a non-profit independent investigative news outlet.". I don't think they'd put that in if it wasn't republished.

You do raise a good point though. It often isn't super clear who the original source is. NickCT (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The organizational affiliation credential in the byline, and the footer on the NBC News investigation, would read equally well had the article not appeared on the Center for Public Integrity website; the credential and the footer do not imply "republished from..." Hugh (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

With respect Hugh, I think you may have got this wrong. I'm pretty confident NBC is indicating that this is republished material. Look at the article published in the huffinton post. They attribute The Center for Public Integrity, not NBC. NickCT (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, I think NBC may consider its "Investigations" section a blog, which would make the sourcing even more tenuous. NickCT (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As fellow WP editor NorthBySouthBaranof pointed out 3 days and many thousands of words ago above: "There is no evidence presented here that NBC News considers its "Investigations" section to be a "blog." Hugh (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok Hugh. Well whatever the case, I still think the material you're trying to source with the reference is accurate, verifiable and reliable. NickCT (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

good bottom line, thanks Hugh (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree HuffPo, a news aggregator, is bringing the Center for Public Integrity source to their readers' attention, but that is very different from what NBC News did: NBC News ran content under their banner on their website under "INVESTIGATIONS," just as if Brian Williams had read it on the evening news - ok, maybe that's not such a good analogy... Hugh (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

What a pointless discussion. There is unanimous agreement the source is reliable. End of story. Move along now. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: - Still the minor point of who the source is. Is it NBC? Is it CPI? As mentioned below, I think this is a citation issue. But you're right..... Let's move on. NickCT (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Policy Discussion Started

For the record, I'm a little surprised there isn't explicit guidance on citing republished sources. I'm going to try to start a policy discussion. NickCT (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Looping in citing source talk was a great insight, perhaps even a breakthrough. Hugh (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Is The Bay Magazine usable?

Hey guys, I've got a question. I've been asked to revisit an AfD I started where people have added a lot of sources to the article. Most of them are unusable and that's not entirely why I'm asking here (although if someone wants to go behind me and look at my rationales and either back them up or point out flaws, then that'd be great). The main reason is that someone added the Bay Magazine to the article. I do see an editorial process and the article was written by a staff member, but what's stopping me is that this is a free local publication and I can't really see a whole lot out there about the magazine. I've said that it's potentially usable, so some input on that could potentially save the article. There's another link to a Boston Globe source, but my Highbeam has expired so I can't verify that it's very in-depth. If both the Boston Globe and Bay Magazine articles can be used then it might be able to save the article, although I'm not entirely comfortable with it being kept on three articles with no reviews, but still- it could be someone's chance to to a Hail Mary at the last minute. 05:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Also, if anyone wants to go in and mediate in general, I'd appreciate that. I'm not comfortable with the tone of the discussion that was going on in that thread prior to me posting about the new sources, so if anyone wants to wade in there then that'd be awesome. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's OK to count that as a RS. It may be local and free, but it is edited and they are giving some thought to their responsibilities. For example, here is the reporter who did the interview participating in a round table with other reporters for that family of publications. It doesn't quote her speaking, but she was there. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I posted in the AfD, but I'll also comment here. I don't mind free, local publications. I've seen some resistance to their use, but the vast majority of them seem fine to me. When you get into zine/fanzine territory, I think a lot more judgment is required, as these will generally fail WP:SPS or WP:RS (or both). For an established magazine like this, I'd say that it's legit. One thing to remember is The Village Voice is a free alternative weekly, and I think few people would challenge that as a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

SwitchUp - YouTube Clip

In this clip from the Malaysian SwitchUp-Channel Prem Rawat is presented with the Asia Pacific Brands Foundation BrandLaureate International Hall of Fame Lifetime Achievement Award. Can it be used as an additional secondary source for a corresponding statement in the Prem-Rawat-article? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwJdEa1TTF8--Rainer P. (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

As an official YouTube channel of "The Star", its reliability is essentially that of "The Star", so probably yes. Rhoark (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Geoengineeringwatch

An editor claims that geoengineeringwatch.org is a reliable source. I dispute that view. What do others think? Guy (Help!) 23:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: I think I know what article you are referring to, but you should let the rest of us know.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to know the article to see that the website concerned isn't going to be a reliable source for any assertions of fact - it is clearly promoting fringe conspiracy theories. If a notable proponent of such theories needs quoting, maybe it would do for that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, if it makes a difference, it's at G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where it is proposed as a source for notability and to counter the idea that he is a conspiracy theorist, because this site endorses his views on chemtrails. But I was happy to discuss it in isolation, because I cannot think of any situation in which I would use this as a source for facts. Guy (Help!) 06:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability for a proponent of fringe views is demonstrated by coverage in non-fringe sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

That's my view, too. So: you agree this site is unreliable? Guy (Help!) 10:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It has a veneer of empiricism that almost made me want to go to bat for it, but a little digging quickly got to a thick and squishy core of FRINGE. Rhoark (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see anything here that's usable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't consider this source reliable though it does provide links and documents to reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Jeff Cooper article

Two editors User talk:Hga and IP 99 who are likely the same keep putting in fringe sources from blogs to the Jeff Cooper article . They have had several years to find better sources and have not done so. Hga appears to be owning the article as well through tendentious editing. Several editors over a long period have challenged his edits but he reverts them calling them vandals. 64.134.157.208 (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The "fringe sources" are sub rosa but apparently accurate on-line copies of Cooper's Commentaries, which I'll admit are dodgy (although I can only remember myself adding one or two of these references, and the one about his rules of gun safety has, per my memory, been changed into two different ones since I fixed up that section long ago (people not trying to "improve" the rules were using corrupt texts)). But since there are now official copies available as part of a three volume set, I've got those books on order and will be fixing up all the citations to Commentaries.

But while we're here, what about Fr. Frog's bibliography of Cooper's writings? You claim that's linkspam;I don't see that, but I'll admit I have only a vague notion of what linkspam is. Hga (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

That Fr. Frog site is a terrible source. Lightbreather (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I just glanced at the bibliography, and at least the books page looks OK, and the magazine with the most references is the one where he has his longest running column, to my memory. Is there a better bibliography? Hga (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Using government sites such as the DOJ as a source

I have a broad question about the use of government sites such as , this and this The use of the final source I've included was refused on March 6, with this edit summary: Remove press release as source per WP:SELFPUB. Remove health claims lacking WP:MEDRS sourcing. Diff here I'd like some feedback about using these and similar government sites as sources. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course primary sources can be used, but without third party analysis, they are easy to misuse. A press release is a poor source for the content that you added, in my opinion, but I disagree with Formerly 98 that it violates WP:MEDRS.- MrX 15:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The source is a reliable primary, fine for the attorney general's statement. Secondaries should be sought for context. Saying pesticides are toxic is a "sky is blue" level claim, not a medical claim. It doesn't seem necessary to include though. For the purposes of that article, it would do just as well to begin the quote at "By misleading consumers about the potential dangers...". Formerly98's edit to "illegal safety claims" is vague and uninformative. Rhoark (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Formerly 98 Gandy's summary here does not properly summarize my argument and it was posted without informing me, though I am the other party in the content dispute. I would like to explain my edits here:

The exclusion of this material was based on WP:SELFPUBLISH, which is part of the Misplaced Pages POLICY WP:VERIFIABILITY. Specifically, the policy states:

"self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources."

Footenote 9 of that same article further states:

"Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases...."

The policy further elaborates the situations in which the use of self-published sources is acceptable: They may be used for non-exceptional claims about the organization that published the press release or other document but never to make claims about third parties.

This is not merely a guideline, but is part of a Misplaced Pages policy. To me it seems very clear. Formerly 98 (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you agree that Rhoark's response pretty much covers how you can apply policy in this case or does this need more discussion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Rhoark's response was also thoughtful and well reasoned, but I disagree with his statement that "Pesticides are toxic is a blue sky statement". Methoprene, for example, is recommended by WHO for addition to drinking water cisterns to control malaria mosquito breeding, as its tox is lower than many natural food components. In any case, I believe the issue of whether a source is sufficient to establish toxicity falls under MEDRS, which would clearly exclude the DOJ as a reliable source for such statements. I realize its a quote, but if we allow quotes about health effects from non MEDRS sources, I think MEDRS then becomes so easy to circumvent we open a real can of worms.

Perhaps the critical question here is this: Is the PR being used as a source for the fact that a statement was made by the AG, or is it being used as a source for an attributed statement about the toxicity of the pesticide under discussion? I would argue both, and that it therefore is excluded by MEDRS. Respectfully Formerly 98 (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that where a specific compound is concerned, its toxicity should be backed by peer-reviewed research. As for self-publishing, don't focus overmuch on the listing of press releases as an example. What matters is not the form or style of the work, but whether there is a degree of oversight or gatekeeping between the author and final dissemination of the work. The press office of a government body should have copyeditors and legal advice, so that requirement is fulfilled. The usual cautions of WP:PRIMARY and WP:BIASED still apply. Rhoark (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rhoark: Thank you for your response. According to WP:SELFPUBLISHED, the characteristic feature of self-published sources that makes them unsuitable is "the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents." Do I understand correctly that your position is that the legal advisors in the DOJ and Attorney General offices are able to provide independent review and thus overcome this issue? This is my area of concern. Respectfully, Formerly 98 (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No less independent than the relationship of a journalist and editor at the same newspaper. Rhoark (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not really a reliable source issue. In the diff the reference is used to cite a quotation, and those should get as close to the primary source as possible. I see more of an issue as to whether the quotation adds anything to the article. Rejecting government publications as a general policy isimply because they come out of the GPO is so ridiculous as to hardly merit discussion. Mangoe (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As I noted above, in my opinion Gandy miscast the issue. I never objected to the use of "Government sources". I pointed out that policy as described in WP:SELFPUBLISH prohibits the use of press releases other than for self-description.Formerly 98 (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Realizing that there are a couple of other issues here as well, I think it reasonable to point out that a press release from a private entity, like, for instance, a movie production company, is a lot different from a press release from, say, the National Institute of Health, NASA, or other governmental bodies and/or scientific research centers. The former very rarely have any sort of independent review in advance, the latter will be in general reviewed by at least the in-house lawyers immediately prior to release and will often discuss the results of scientific research which might be for the first time made available through the press releases. In general, the governmental/research center press releases might be seen by some as being more in the vague range between primary and secondary sources, as they tend to be written or at least reviewed before publication by individuals independent of the researchers and thus in a sense make them more secondary sources than primary sources. Particularly in press releases from government or research entities disclosing the results of prior research, I can't myself see any reasonable objections to using them, anymore than I would object to using academic journal articles written by the researchers about their studies. John Carter (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter:I tend to agree with you in principle, especially with respect to scientific and regulatory agencies such as NASA and the FDA. (Though I think that we need to edit WP:SELFPUBLISHED and not simply ignore it. But somehow the PRs coming out of AG offices and the DOJ seem much more political. They read like they were written by, well, prosecutors, and worse yet, ones that are explaining the importance of what they have achieved to the electorate. In the courtroom they are balanced by defense attorneys - the U.S. constitution requires that the office of judge and prosecutor be separate, and prosecutorial misconduct gets hundreds of cases dismissed every year. This is my gut feeling though it is hard to express it in a way that is easy to defend. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You're right that they are biased and primary, not to be treated as gospel. Useable, though. Rhoark (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Especially for factual details of court rulings, which is how they were being used in many of the cases. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I want to add that Formerly 98 stated that I had brought a debate here without notifying him. That was not the case at all--we were not in a debate re using government announcements, but I was aware that I have seen them widely used and have used them myself and needed to know if they are acceptable or not. Gandydancer (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This case is a misapplication of WP:SELFPUBLISH. The idea behind the policy (and the real-world concept) is that "X has paid to have his work published, and we have no reason to trust it except for the word of X him/herself", which in almost all cases is where the term is applied is not worth much. However in case of the source under consideration, its factuality is backed by the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York, which is certainly at least as credible as a generic popular publisher. Yes, there may be concerns about relative expertise, WP:PRIMARY etc, which mean that the source may need to be used with proper care and attribution. But dismissing this as a self-published source is simply not acceptable; if this is a common (mis)interpretation of the policy than it needs to be clarified, but I don't think that is the case. Abecedare (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Content removed because of link rot

I would welcome feedback both on linkrot in general and on this case specifically. Thank you.

Monsanto legal cases is a new article spun off from the original Monsanto article, in November 2012 with this this diff content was added to the Monsanto article with regard's a upheld complaint of false advertising against Monsanto, together with a response by Monsanto on its corporate website with regards the complaints against it.

On migration of pre-existing content to the new article it was discovered that the link (http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.php?uid=1875) to Monsanto's corporate response was dead, and it was tagged as such in February 2015, at about or soon after the migration of content to the new article. On 5 March, Monsanto's response together with the dead link was deleted from Monsanto legal cases because of the dead link. I undid this removal, and in the edit war that followed, the other user put forth the argument both in the edit history and on the talkpage (Talk:Monsanto_legal_cases) that since the link was dead, the content that relied upon that link was unverifiable, and should therefore be deleted in accordance Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. I countered by quoting Misplaced Pages:Link rot, namely "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online."

My questions are threefold:-

1. Is WP:Linkrot correct in saying that a reference need not now be working to be considered verifiable, just so long as it was at the time of its addition.
2. When spinning off content from one article into a new article, do we need to examine every reference afresh and treat each as a newly added reference, or can we rely on the fact that a reference was scrutinised in the past and was previously found to have no problems.
3. Does reverting a deletion because of a dead link, count as a restoration of existing content, even though the article is new. Or does it, because the article is new, count as adding new material to the article.

Thanks.KTo288 (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll just point out that the question of it being a "new" article is largely irrelevant here. That hasn't come up in discussion over the content, nor do I see anyone making justifications because the article is new. It's really just a question of the content in isolation regardless of which article it's in. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This conversation appears to be moot now that another editor found a replacement source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually I'm still interested in the validity of once working links, and whether verifiability can be grandfathered from one article to another.--KTo288 (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

the question is petty and pointy. in the exact case in hand, it took about one minute to find a valid source of the content online. the content itself was trivia. why this is worth edit warring over and going to drama boards over, is beyond me. if folks here want to theorize about angels dancing on pinheads, knock yourselves out. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Content needs to be WP:VERIFIABLE. If the link is still available in another reliable form - the Internet Archive is a good source, but there are others - replace the link and go on with life. If the link is dead, and there is no known way to get its content, it is no longer a valid reference. --GRuban (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

As KTo288 says about question 1, WP:Linkrot is quite clear about deleting dead links. It says: "Do not delete". The policy here is the same as sources in foreign language (they are OK) and offline sources (they are also OK). If you want to delete a statement supported by an offline source, then it is your responsibility to go to the library, read the source, and prove that it doesn't support the statement.

About question 2, whether sources need to be verified again when spinning off content, there was an epic, month-long thread about this recently on the Citing sources talk page. One editor staked out a position that sources always need to be re-verified when moving content, and defended it at length, with graphs. There were many editors who disagreed with him. One of them said it was a case of "unique and rather extreme opinions that diverge noticeably from the community's actual practice." If you have the time you can read the whole discussion, but the conclusion seems to be that while there are opinions on both sides, the extreme position didn't have that much support.

So my answers to KTo288's questions would be 1. Yes, WP:Linkrot is correct; 2. Yes, we can rely on the fact that a reference was scrutinized in the past; and 3. No, reverting a deletion of old content is not adding new content.

However, it's also true that this is not the best state of affairs. Look to see if the link is archived, or if another source exists. There aren't that many cases where a dead link is absolutely crucial to the article. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:VERIFIABLE is policy. WP:LINKROT ... isn't. "verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Yes, that includes having to go to the library. But if it is theoretically impossible to check that the information comes from a reliable source, then it's not verifiable, and can be deleted. It is not good enough that some other editor once added the information, claiming to have seen that link; that other editor is not a reliable source. That doesn't mean that content should be deleted immediately when a link dies, WP:LINKROT has lots of good advice on how to fix it, and the dead link can help fix it. But if the content can not be verified, then it needs to go. --GRuban (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There is clearly some judgement involved here, but in my own experience the more dubious the claim, the more likely it is to be from a source that would take hours of time or large cash expenditures to check. Realistically, I'd say anything that cannot be verified in 1 hour and with an expenditure less than $50 is effectively unverifiable Formerly 98 (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• WP:LINKROT is neither a policy nor a guideline. It is merely an essay, and can (and should) be freely ignored, particularly when BLPs are involved. Townlake (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:VERIFIABLE is policy, true. But it gives no specific guidance on the question of whether "verifiable" means "I can verify it today." Generally it doesn't mean that. Generally it means that someone can verify it. So the editor who deleted the link because he couldn't verify it yesterday was wrong. As it turns out, anyone can because the link in question was in the Wayback Machine, here, and at two other places on the web, here and here.

On the question of whether a source can be deleted because it would take over an hour and $50 to verify, that's ruled out in WP:Reliable sources/Cost. Which is an essay, true. But when the policy is silent on some specific question then a guideline or an essay that describes prevailing practice is better than someone's arbitrary interpretation of a general policy. The relevant content guideline here is WP:Citing sources#Preventing and repairing dead links, which says "5. Remove hopelessly lost web-only sources". So sure, we can follow that. But note that there are qualifications (it wasn't hopelessly lost), and that there are 4 other alternatives, and that the guideline refers editors to WP:Link rot. We have these guidelines because it's generally a good idea to follow them. It's usually not a good idea to ignore them because we think our interpretation of the policy is better. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

World Heritage Encyclopedia

I accidentally run into this super-aggregator of encyclopedias when loooking into Stevens County, Washington: the WHE page looks like a complete rip-off of ours. Two problems:

• WHE page does not have have the word "Misplaced Pages" as reference (nor vice versa :-) How is it to be handled?
• What is more interesting, this is a rip-off with all our external references removed.
• In view of the previous, their statement " Unlike many online encyclopedias, World Heritage Encyclopedia is crowd sourced, referenced and edited, making our information reliable." is clearly a blatant lie.

• Misplaced Pages has several references to WHE and the number will grow, since WHE seems to be a 2014 project. This poses a famous problem of circular referencing.

Therefore IMO WHE is of immediate interest of this noticeboard: is WHE an admissible reference in wikipedia?.

Are there any other venues to discuss the peculiarities of WHE? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the top of the Stevens County page, it says "Help to improve this article, make contributions at the Citational Source" - and the phrase "Citational Source" is a link to the revision history for our article. Clearly a mirror, and thus clearly not WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. So can I go ahead and strip wikipedia of references to WHE? If "Citational Source" leads to no-wikipedia source I have to consider releability of this redirect, right? If it is reliable, then replace the citation of WHE by the 'origin', right? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliably sourcing basic book details

What's the preferred way to source basic details about a book - publication date, ISBN, publisher etc? I mean in an article about the book or its author, not for books used as sources in other articles. Are worldcat.org or isbnsearch.org considered reliable for this? Is a link to Special:BookSources considered sufficient to source these details?

Whatever the answer, is this written down somewhere? GoldenRing (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I would use the book itself for that sort of thing, unless the information is disputed for some reason. Rhoark (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Fan-made wikia site - RS?

On the List of nuclear holocaust fiction, there is a comment made in the notes section of Mad Max 2. The comment is supported by this ref; , added after a brief discussion on this user talk page. The site is a fan-made wikia that "anyone can edit". The article cited has no references to support it's claims. Can this be used as a reliable source? Thanks - WOLFchild 02:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
note: The editor who added the comment and questionable cite has put forward another "source" on the discussion on his talk page. Could we review this now as well? (instead of later) Thanks again. - WOLFchild 02:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:USERGENERATED we don't cite Wikis "with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff", which clearly isn't the case there - and accordingly, the Wiki isn't WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a definition of "credentialed" in this context? In particular does it mean credentials with respect to the site administration or with respect to expertise on the subject matter? Rhoark (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

'Editorial staff' don't include Wiki admins. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that depends entirely on whether the admins of any particular wiki choose to exercise an editorial function. Rhoark (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As for the second source, we don't cite user-uploaded scans - we cite the source they were scanned from, provided it meets WP:RS. To assess that, we need a proper reference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll work on finding the proper reference. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Omni Screen Flights Screen Fantasies: The future according to SF cinema by Danny Peary, 1984. Thanks. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that 'GM' is George Miller, the Mad Max creator, I'd think the source would be valid: Mad Max and Mad Max 2 are "postapocalyptic", but not "postnuclear" - and accordingly, don't belong in the list of nuclear holocaust fiction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

So, in closing... it's been determined that the wikia site mentioned is not a reliable source? And likewise, an uploaded scan is also not a reliable source? That was the purpose of my enquiry. I see that the comment in question, along with the "cite" have been removed, so I am satisfied. Thanks. - WOLFchild 04:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The Wikia site isn't RS. The book the scan was from seems RS to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A side question. In a case where we are "inspired" or helped by a non RS website, leading us to better RS sources, but still for example influencing the way we list and use them, should we consider adding such a website to the external links? I have raised the concern a few times over the years that when we are helped by a source, even just for a presentation idea, we could be accused of plagiarism if we do not find a way of indicating this. (Definitions of plagiarism tend to cover a wider ground than our sourcing rules.) I have never quite understood what the answer to that concern is.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There are fairly particular guidelines on what makes an acceptable WP:EXTERNAL link. If a non-RS absolutely needs to be credited for helping locate a RS, an annotation to the RS citation seems like the best place. Rhoark (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Suitability of a source sponsoring its subjects

In the past few hours, there has been something of a dispute brewing on 2015 Formula One season over the use of the website GP Update as a source. GP Update has sponsored racing drivers and teams in the past, which I believe creates a clear conflict of interests and renders them an inappropriate source to use. The following is taken from their "About Us" page:

"Along the way, staff and readers alike have also enjoyed seeing the site’s logo in the heart of the action, thanks to sponsorship connections with F1 teams Minardi (2005), Midland (2006), Spyker (2007) and most recently 2010 debutants Hispania. A number of up and coming drivers have also been backed along the way, including Britain’s Sam Bird and Dutch GP2 race winner Giedo van der Garde."

Of specific concern to me is their sponsorship of Giedo van der Garde, as the dispute centres on content specifically relating to him as published by the site. This represents a clear conflict of interests, and another source would be more appropriate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A news site about a sort sponsors teams and drivers involved in the sport. This would be akin to claiming ESPN is biased because they give money to sports teams, leagues, and colleges.

The point was raised because an article regarding the driver Giedo van der Garde was cited using GPUpdate. The statements in the GPUpdate citation are backed by several other sources, they all state the same thing. This is changing the URL for the sake of changing the URL. Nothing in the GPUpdate article uses a POV to promote Giedo van der Garde. GPUpdate is also used as a citation for Formula One information elsewhere on Misplaced Pages not related to Giedo van der Garde. The5₉ (Talk) 09:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

So if another reliable source without any potential for conflict of interest is reporting the same thing, why do we persist in using a source with questions over its conflict in interest on the grounds that it might not have a conflict of interest? Please prove to me that van der Garde received no financial support in this instance. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the quotes used, specifically "most recently 2010..." these have NO impact on 2015. Twirlypen (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read the section more carefully:

"thanks to sponsorship connections with F1 teams Minardi (2005), Midland (2006), Spyker (2007) and most recently 2010 debutants Hispania"

The 2010 reference only refers to the site sponsoring teams. The remainder of the quotes specifically relating to sponsorship of drivers gives no dates:

"A number of up and coming drivers have also been backed along the way, including Britain’s Sam Bird and Dutch GP2 race winner Giedo van der Garde."

Please be more careful. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think such sources need to be discarded out of hand, but they shouldn't be used for contentious or unduly self-serving claims. (Self-serving is not just complimentary but also distortion, hyperbole, or deceptive omission.) Rhoark (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

And the story which use is currently being contested does not contain any such claim. It's entirely supported by what other reliable sources write about the event. Tvx1 16:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Andrew L. Simon

Is Andrew L. Simon, who wrote the book Made in Hungary: Hungarian contributions to universal culture, Simon Publications LLC, 1998, that is referred at Demographics_of_Hungary#cite_note-32, a reliable author when talkign about historical data? Apparently he is a "board-certified urologist practicing in Brick, NJ". 89.173.96.10 (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be self-pulished and is thus not a reliable source anyway. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of sources about a person under a previous name

Hi! This is possibly an unusual problem, so some advice would be great. Kate Edwards used to be known as Tom Edwards, but changed her name at some point around 2010. Accordingly, reliable sources pre-2010 use her earlier name, and sources after that use her new name. There isn't any doubt that she changed her name, and she remains very open about listing her achievements that she made under the previous name. I'd like to use some of the older sources, as they do a lot to establish notability, and they are the best independent sources for listing some of her achievements. However, the problem is that there's an argument that we can't use sources which use her old name, without an explicit source stating the name change. Can we use the older sources? - Bilby (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I really, really, really, don't particularly want to ask this question, but was the name the only thing changed here? Beyond that, personally, if there might be even one good independent source substantiating that Kate was previously known as Tom, I can't see any reasons not to include that information, provided there isn't, for instance, a separate person Tom Edwards, like maybe her brother?, who may have been involved in the earlier activity under that name. John Carter (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No, she's also changed other aspects of her life. Otherwise I'd just knock this down as the same problem when someone changes their family name after marriage. It is more complex, but other than the change in name she has been consistent in listing all of her achievements over the years. I'll see if there's something that makes mention of this, but the problem is that she wasn't as public a figure in 2010 as she is now. - Bilby (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps @Navanax: or @Tassedethe: can suggest a source or otherwise shed light on the problem. Rhoark (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Grr. A source citing the equivalence would be far better, but lacking it, I'm going to have to go with WP:IAR here. It is clear that it would be harmful to the encyclopedia if we had two unconnected articles about one person, each claiming the same items of notability. Since Kate Edwards has no compunction claiming to be the founder of Englobe, and since Tom Edwards is the founder of Englobe, it's clear it's not a deep dark secret. We're going to have to run with that. Here is the same source, the Puget Sound Business Journal, highly reliable, winner of national excellence awards saying Tom Edwards founded Englobe; saying Kate Edwards did. --GRuban (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Edwards_(geographer) shows @Navanax:'s word on it 67.188.142.154 (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that with so much circumstantial evidence, we should be able to use all the sources, but, as has been said, we don't have any policy or guideline we can point to other than WP:IAR to justify it. I'm hoping we can reach a solid consensus here that can be referred to in the future, since I'm sure this type of issue will recur. This is the second time I've been involved in such a situation. —Torchiest _edits 15:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think its ever justifiable to IAR verifiability, but as long as the article doesn't make an unsourced explicit statement about the transition, we don't have to. Synthesis is permitted for the purpose of making editorial decisions like using sources on Tom and Kate as if they are the same person. The matter can be left unexplained in the article, as it is now. Alternatively, if we can find any instance whatsoever where Kate claims to have been Tom it can be used as a WP:SELFSOURCE. Rhoark (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Moviepilot.com

Is this website considered to be reliable per WP:RS? The site's Misplaced Pages article says "While Moviepilot has an in-house staff of editors and writers, much of their content comes from fan contributors, in the “open-posting" vein of Bleacher Report or Tumblr." I've checked the RSN archives for any references to "moviepilot.com", but did not find anything.

There's a "Join as a Creator" link at the top of every subpage on the site that leads here and it seems that anyone with a Facebook account, etc. can simply sign up and start posting stuff. Moreover, the Terms of Service page seems to be written as if the site is simply acting as host for user-generated content rather than a provider of fact-checked verified content of a credentialed editorial staff. The "Scope of Use" section of the TOS page says "This news and information is provided for the user’s entertainment purposes only. You acknowledge that much of the content available through the Services (including text, photos and movie clips) is obtained from third party sources and Moviepilot is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of such information." again seems to imply that most of the content is generated by users. I'm not trying to claim that the site is unreliable strictly based upon what it's Misplaced Pages article says. It does, however, seem to primarily user-generated content with very little editorial control, if any, in place.

IMO, it is a source that should be considered to be usually unreliable per WP:V#Sources that are usually not reliable. It's probably OK to use as a primary source about itself, but I don't think it should be considered reliable as a source for other topics. Anyway, I am interested in hearing what other editors think. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

If there are stories posted by staff members, I don't see them labeled from a cursory examination. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Not reliable, as the website itself and you stated, it is a "place for fans to talk about movies". There is no fact-checking going on and is for entertainment purposes only. Seems about as reliable as IMDb... Meatsgains (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Not reliable per reasons Meatsgains stated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Not reliable as per Meatsgains. Onel5969 (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the input. I came across the site because this page was being cited as a source for the Beetlejuice#"Beetlejuice" or "Betelgeuse". My opinion is that this is nothing but self-published "OR" by a some unknown blog writer. The writer even cites an IMDB trivia page to support Burton's supposed reasons for using "Beetlejuice" over "Betelgeuse". Anyway, I just wanted to hear what other's think to see if I was missing something. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Western VS Eastern news-sources

I'm trying to see how this works. In some articles people say that state media isn't reliable. This mainly goes for state media in countries with low press freedom, almost always in the East. PressTV, Chinese newsagencies and for example Russia Today. Now I would like to ask you if you can actually substantiate this. Has it been shown by any independent review that PressTV or RussiaToday is exceedingly incorrect in its reporting compared to other news agencies.

Also in the wake of the many admissions, especially in european and US press about the involvement of intelligence assets in major newsoutlets such as BBC and Der Spiegel, should their reliability for that decrease? Does the generally false or at least regurgative reporting concerning the reasons for war in Iraq defile the reputation of almost all major newsorganisations in the west or not?

I am trying to see if we can establish a common standard for these things or not. Basically this is an open discussion with a few specific questions. What spurred my interest is an article in which basically every Eastern (excluding of course Ukranian ones) newsource is disregarded in this article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Battle_of_Ilovaisk since the start of the article. People simply claim "it's not reliable" and others are force to accept it at face value. It even includes the main news agency Ria Novosti (now reformed). This is even when Western sources contradict each other. But this should discuss the wider issue, including China, Iran and other perceied oriental sources that often stand in opposition to occidental ones in key issues.78.68.210.173 (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No News Sources are verifiable

News sources are by any account subjective observations of things. Official statements are official statements. Official reports are official reports. They can always be traced back to their source. I am splitting this part of my inquiry from the one above because it differs, even though it was recently a part of it.

It is my opinion that since there have been so many scandals in the media in the last decade that we should not use News Sources at all. If a current event can not be described without them then the event should not be described. If we absolute have to use them then a lack of consensus or at least the lack of a majority vote should trump reliability and a report should not be inlcuded if it is seen as controversial or if logical or rational arguments can be raised against it which in turn leads to a vote that shows that there is no clear majority in support of including the article. Would anyone be in favour of this as a way to resolving disputes such as the one above? 78.68.210.173 (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

IP, I readily concede that I cannot even prove that New York Times is more reliable than New York Post especially since you can counter any evidence of the form, "X says so" with, "...and what makes X reliable?" etc. However this noticeboard is not the right venue for such epistemological questions. You may be interested in reading/participating in the related discussion at the wikipedia refernce desk instead. Abecedare (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned, this is a bit split from the above one. Your answer would better fit the post above. And even then, not quite. We need to be able to establish some standards on what is reliable and what is not. Independent Media Watchdogs in the US have more or less been able to prove that Fox News tends to be less reliable than other newsoutlets or at least that the audience of Fox News tends to be less informed than the audience of any other major newsoutlet. But even this doesn't quite answer the question. Still we'd better continue this above. This post concerns the reliability of news overall. Or more precisely the impossiblity to verify a subjective reporting of anything as it completely lacks academic standards. This becomes very evident when looking at how easy it is to stage entire documentaries. Not too long ago a Norwegian journalist faked an entire mini-documentary about the sniping of children in Syria by filming it in Malta. As there is no peer-review things may be reliable but they are not verifiable and as such everything (that is cited from a newspaper) should be open to inquiry. (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-30057401). I'd like to add that ovviously news are reliable if used as a POV disseminator. So using news sources for witness reports is fine. But not as fact (in my opinion).78.68.210.173 (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No sources at all are perfectly reliable I guess. Why just pick on the media? Even peer review is a very imperfect system. So maybe Misplaced Pages can never work? On the other hand, maybe some of us are satisfied with making an ever improving encyclopedia, rather than a perfect one. The way we get around this problem is to give ourselves a more artificial aim: we at least try to make all information verifiable according to sources that have a reputation in the outside world for being accurate with respect to what we are sourcing them for. This is how our core content policies fit together.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly... there is no such thing as a 100% reliable source (any source can contain errors or omissions), nor is there such a thing as a 100% unreliable source (at a minimum, every source is reliable for a statement quoting that source). Reliability always depends on context. Thankfully, our standards don't require perfection. When it comes to media sources, first we ask: "does this media source usually report stuff like this with accuracy?" (if so, we can deem it generally reliable); but then we also have to ask "did the media source get this specific fact right?" If not, then we can deem the source unreliable for that specific fact. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution