Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:54, 20 January 2016

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.

12 Years a Slave

There's been a dispute going on in the article White savior narrative in film which revolvers around the inclusion of the film 12 Years a Slave. This dispute involves myself, 70.190.188.48, Erik, and Betty Logan. We've taken this to WP:DRN, where it was more or less agreed that this was the right venue to take the dispute after it turned out that the dispute revolved mainly around the sources. The sources in question are presented here (see agreement on sources , ) and a RfC is humbly requested, as per . Apologies if anything is unclear.

Dschslava (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently I can't make a proper collapse box properly. Unfortunately, I have to go, but do note that the discussion is not closed. Dschslava (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Dschslava (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

When the dispute started, the film 12 Years a Slave was listed at white savior narrative in film with three sources. I added a fourth source, an academic publication that identified the criticism in retrospect. None of these satisfied the IP editor. I went on and found many more sources (listed above, after the first four) that identified the white savior in 12 Years a Slave and reinforces its inclusion. We as editors need to cite reliable sources and not our personal opinions, which do not override such sources. We can implement counter-arguments from such sources (such as Oyelowo's statement that the film does not have a white savior throughout), but there are many sources discussing how Brad Pitt's character is perceived as a white savior. I see no grounds for excluding 12 Years a Slave in its entirety from the article. Erik (talk | contrib) 00:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd first like to commend Dschslava for a neutrally worded post. I had no idea who was on which side of the argument until I read Erik's post. That being said, there are clearly numerous reliable sources that discuss 12 years a slave as a movie with a "white savior" aspect. I see no reason for it not to be included in the article. Even Oyelowo's statement doesn't contradict what's being said here. Just because there wasn't a white savior throughout the film, doesn't mean there wasn't one at all. Here's a peer reviewed source, "The White Savior Film: Content, Critics, and Consumption by Matthew W. Hughey" by Kocurek that also mentions 12 Years a Slave: "In the concluding chapter, Hughey turns to the larger cultural frame of the white savior film and in particular the genre’s implications in contemporary culture. Pointing to the critic James Hoberman’s question of when we might see “an Obama-inflected Hollywood cinema” (165), Hughey argues that this cinema, marked by films like 12 Years a Slave (2013), Belle (2013), and The Keeping Room (2013) has already emerged; its key characteristic is a desire to look backward to our racist past in part to subtly frame our present with a certain hopefulness."Scoobydunk (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Wait, where did you get "12 Years a Slave is a white savior film" from that quote? 70.190.188.48 (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the IP editor that the Hughey statement does not apply here (I have the book). He does not comment on 12 Years a Slave directly. I would definitely be interested in hearing what he has to say, but I did not find any commentary from him anywhere about the film. Erik (talk | contrib) 04:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Kocurek clearly explains how Hughly refers to 12 Years a Slave as one of the "Obama-inflected Hollywood cinema" which Kocurek believes is part of the larger cultural frame of the "white savior" narrative. Note that I didn't quote Hughly, I quoted Kocurek who has a scholarly analysis of Hughly's work.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at this passage, it looks to be about racial films vs. post-racial films. Will quote the passage at length here: "In 2012 film critic James Hoberman of the New York Review of Books wrote, 'I've been wondering for a while now when we were going to see an Obama-inflected Hollywood cinema.' While Hoberman wrote that he expected such cinema to circulate around color-blind themes of community organizers and messengers of abstract qualities such as hope and change, I take a different tack. Coinciding with Obama's reelection, such inflected films might be better understood as stories that highlight the racist past to make our racial present seem hopeful and progressive simply by comparison. For example, 2012-2013 bears witness to the release of at least nine films on the question of slavery: 12 Years a Slave (2013, directed by Steven McQueen), Belle (2013, directed by Amma Asante), The Keeping Room (2013, directed by Daniel Barber), The North Star (2013, directed by Thomas K. Phillips, Something Whispered (2013, directed by Peter Cousens), Tula (2013, directed by Jereon Leinders), Savannah (2012, directed by Annette Haywood-Carter), and the aforementioned Lincoln (2012) and Django Unchained (2013). Never before has Hollywood embraced this theme, and at the sesquicentenntial of the emancipation proclamation (and Obama's embrace of the iamge of Lincoln), these films trade on belief in the racial and national mythology of linear progress." Hughey analyzed Lincoln and Django Unchained in the book, hence him saying "the aforementioned" films. I don't find that Hughey is talking about any of the others as white savior films because at the start of the next paragraph, he says, "Moreover, Lincoln and Django Unchained fall within the genre of white savior cinema." I would love to have Hughey's insight on 12 Years a Slave (as well as these other films), but I don't find that this commentary applies. I think we need to look at the more timely sources instead. Erik (talk | contrib) 12:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow, for once we actually agree on something. Thanks for backing me up. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

And thanks for staying quite civil guys :P Dschslava (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem here is that it seems you're quoting Hughey, when the source I supplied is Kocurek. The misunderstanding might be part of my mistake because I didn't include "a review" at the end of the title I gave. However, even looking at the Hughey source, in the preceding section titled "An Iron First in a Velvet Glove: The White Savior in a Postracial World" Hughey lists 5 characteristics of the cultural frame in which white savior films are produced. The first one is "prevalent hope and desire for a societal change" and thus, the following section is titled "Hope and Change: Toward a Racial Utopia". So this following section directly pertains to the first characteristic of the white savior film. You can continue down the list because each following section follows the characteristics in the same order. The second characteristic is the "embrace of individualist explanations and solutions" and the second following section starts with "Second, the discourse of a postracial society is now marked by individualist explanations for the causes of, and solutions to, racial inequality." The third characteristic is "belief in the cultural or moral dysfunctions of people of color" and the 3rd following section starts with "The third aspect of the postracial worldview is the belief in cultural dysfunctions of people of color." Each of the following sections correlate to the 5 characteristics of white savior films that Hughey outlines. This is probably the reason why the scholarly review of Hughey's work done by Carly Kocurek lists "12 Years a Slave" as one of the examples of the white savior film. I'm not the one making this interpretation, a scholarly peer reviewed source is making this interpretation and it's accurate, though it's none of my business to comment on such. I will say that there might be some ambiguity in what Kocurek says, as it's not clear if the author is directly referring to the white savior film, or the larger cultural frame in which white savior films exist. So, if you don't want to use it, that's fine. However, I think the passage could be read either way. Scoobydunk (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the entirely of the sources listed above, I see no reason to exclude this film from that article. Gamaliel (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Transcription of YouTube video

At Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, an editor has added a statement ascribed to a speech by Hillary Clinton. The citation for this is a one-hour long video posted on YouTube by something called "PSB Satellite News". I can find no information about this body, its structure, funding, or editorial policy, and I question whether it can be accepted as a reliable source. Further, there is no link to a transcription of this speech, nor any indication as to when the words in question were used, and the only way in which editors and readers could confirm that the words have been accurately transcribed and cited in context is by listening to the entire hour. Is a personal transcription of part of a YouTube video ever acceptable as a reliable source? RolandR (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is a ref to a printed version of Hillary's remarks. I had to tweak the grammar of some of the text inserted in the article before google turned it up. (Demonizing >> demonizes) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

From which it can be seen that the transcription in the article is inaccurate. A clause alleging a rise in antisemitism in Europe, which does not appear in any form in the transcript you offer, has been added, as has a side comment about no nation being above criticism. This adds weight to my second point: is a personal transcription of part of a YouTube video ever acceptable as a reliable source? RolandR (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Good question; just to be clear, I have not studied the underlying article/edit/reversion, and have no opinion on that. Was just trying to be helpful with a good link; happy consensus seeking, all. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@RolandR: you bring up a good point. I can see both sides of the argument. There is no doubt that if an individual was video recorded making statements, that is sufficient proof. However, who has the time to sit through an hour + long video to confirm if in fact the statements were accurately transcribed. I have a feeling this issue has come up and been addressed before on RSN and is archived. Meatsgains (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Since I can find no information about the source of this video, PSB Satellite News, I am reluctant to accept it as a reliable source. How can we be sure that the recording has not been tampered with? And surely, if a personal transcript of an hour long video is to be acceptable, then the editor must be required to state at what time the words were uttered, in order that others can check this. RolandR (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The immediate issue has been resolved, since someone has come up with a reliable transcription. But my original question still remains unanswered, and could easily arise another page: is a personal transcription of part of a YouTube video ever acceptable as a reliable source? RolandR (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it not similar to other types of cases, for example texts on blogs that claim to be written by someone but might not be? So for example a video not posted by the person being quoted, and not posted by someone with a known reputation like a media organization, is just like a text being posted on a personal website. (And sometimes these are of concern.) I do think it is a good idea to demand cite time in the video, just as when we demand page numbers sometimes. Not sure if we can make it a totally strict rule, but anyone posting something that others have doubts about can in any case understand that if other editors doubt it, they may well remove it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Albanian nationalist sites

Are Malsia.eu and Albaniapress.com reliable sources? They are openly Albanian nationalist, using Greater Albania and Kosovo Liberation Army in their banners, articles cites no sources, no author, and are used by an user, Albanian Historian (talk · contribs · count), in several articles. --Zoupan 09:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment::I actually use http://www.elsie.de, a Canadian writer and author. Other sources: http://www.radiokosovaelire.com/?nav=70,2&id=14011 , An Albanian source for example referring to Zhuj Selmani article. For Plava and Gucia-article, i use mentioned articles and also journalist pages such as http://koha.net/?id=27&l=13602 "Time". This as well: http://www.zeriamerikes.com/media/video/2981252.html "Expulsion of Albanians from Gucia and Plava". These pages are not nationalist, they write about the albanian history. There is nothing irredentist or nationalist about this. I've provided sources and authors in my articles. --Albanian Historian (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment:So i don't flood this page about interests and stuff, send me a message on my talkpage. You seem to be interested in topics that also interest me and can discuss sources etc. Look at my userpage to see if your interests overlap with with mine. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment - The Albaniapress.com has a folkloric dance scene, Mother Teresa, and a image of Tirana as well on its banner. It is a portal for Albanian diaspora and they publish articles from Albanian media worldwide. The article you refer is in the "History" section and has an author: Jeton Ahmeti (as I mentioned, this article was initially published elsewhere). There is not necessary anything wrong with the article. Of course it sees things on the Albanian point of view, but any emotional color can be easily removed. That's for the article. The portal includes a vast number of articles on today's events, politics, culture, literature, etc, not necessary an unreliable source. Depends what you are looking for. Since it is a portal for Albanian diaspora, it has the KLA flag on it, but the articles' authors are not the portals admins and vice versa. Also, we have to see the context. The article is not about KLA or any other recent event.
The Malsia.eu section has short biographies for key Albanian participants from the League of Prizren, focused on the ones hailing from today's Montenegro and eastern Kosovo. It is ok as far as it is used for less important biographies. For sure it can be not used in sensitive articles, or the ones that need precise academic sources, i.e the Origin of Albanians or Scanderbeg. But for the biography of a local Albanian chieftain it shouldn't be an issue, unless someone has better sources which contradict.--Mondiad (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

May I ask you who this Jeton Ahmeti is? Is he reliable? No. The question here is if the sites and their publications are reliable, not what their subject is.--Zoupan 13:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment:I'll take care of the Luma page. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Resnjari: care to comment on the actual thread? Are these sources reliable?--Zoupan 15:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment:I personally would not use those sites to reference the article. I do agree with Mondiad that at least some of these articles were published in other sources, and as is often the case that Albanian websites and media outlets often don't care about copyright or permission from authors to publish. I suggest that better sources, or the academic sources from where some of those articles where originally published be cited. As for the article per se, i have placed in there wp:reliable and wp:secondary regarding the uprising and massacres. There is no doubt that a uprising took place in Luma in 1913 and that the Serb army undertook a reprisal campaign that was scorch earth resulting in mass massacres of the population. That part i cited in the article which is the controversial part. What the article lacks (and it is on the onus of other editors who began the article) is to place proper references regarding the events on when the uprising began until its conclusion that gave way to the massacres. For the time being, tags for references should be placed next to the appropriate sentences needing them before any deletion occurs so editors know what to look for over some time. The article is still very new and probably should go on noticeboards of the various wikiprojects for better editor input.Resnjari (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not talking about an article. I am talking about sources that the user uses in several articles. Please concentrate on the thread, the subject being these sites.--Zoupan 20:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I personally would not use those sites. Also i don't know if those articles on those websites were printed in an academic journal/s o\r a chapter in a a edited academic book in Albania or Kosovo and then people from those sites just took it upon themselves to "publish" it. Like i said, the onus is on the editor who has used those sites to vouch for these articles (if printed in another wp:reliable and wp:secondary source and place the reference accordingly. Of all the sources available to me, ironically it is mainly Albanian ones that i lack access too so i cannot check outright. Like i said, the onus is on the editor who used the sources in the first place. Otherwise, the article may be in need of a overhaul. Check to see if you come across stuff in Serbian sources on the Luma thing. I tried looking for stuff (i typed Ljuma, ustanak, bitka, 1913 etc to see if stuff came up even in Cyrillic. You may know better keywords to look for information.Resnjari (talk) 05:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I have never mentioned Battle of Lumë. That article is not the subject of this thread. Again, I am not talking about an or any article — I am talking about reliable sources. The thread was made with the intention to stop the inclusion of such sources in WP, as I believe them to be highly unreliable; I have listed these two above. The problematic sources are/were used in copyvio "The Expulsion of Albanians" (deleted), Gusinje (see diff), Plav (see diff), AfD The Defense of Plava and Gucia, and linked in Çun Mula. Can we safely conclude that these are not reliable sources?--Zoupan 07:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Albanian Historian: needs to give details about where some of those articles come from (or pinched from academic sources in those websites). Were those articles based in academic publications and can their source/s be located? In general though i would not use those websites as they are not wp:reliable and wp:secondary. On a related though separate matter, I am curious now about a deleted article you cite there called "The Expulsion of Albanians". What was it about (contents etc) ? When was it deleted and which Admin did it? And what was the reason for it being deleted?Resnjari (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Resnjari: Copyright violation of Miloš Jagodić, see his talk page.--Zoupan 15:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, i looked into it and from what i gather on the editor's talkpage he was warned about plagiarizing. Still the events of 1878 regarding the Albanians of Nish Sanjak could have been revamped instead of the article being deleted. Jagodic is not the only source for those events. I know the scholarship very about Ottoman Muslims and their persecution. Anyway that will have to wait. Since the editor regarding the issues her ehas not replied, its most likely the Luma article will need a trim. First off before that is done, place tags at sentences which you think need sources. Like this other editors can know what to look for regarding sources to at least fill in some of that gap.Resnjari (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Albanian nationalist websites are of course not reliable sources and should never be used anywhere on wikipedia. This whole debate is surreal. WP:RS is very clear: reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Albanian nationalist websites, as all nationalist websites, are not third-party, they are self-published, and they most certainly do not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", in fact the opposite. The fact that some users are actually trying to defend these websites shows there is something deeply wrong with their understanding of what a reliable source is, whether intentionally or not. Athenean (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Just so everyone is clear i do not defend such websites. I have noted that such websites also do copyright violations of Albanian academia by publishing their works at times (almost always without permission). My question to the editor who placed those sources is can the original publication be located and referenced as such to the author. So far no reply has been given and some trimming will most likely order for the Luma article. Please do not call other peoples understanding "deeply wrong". See: wp:civil. Just point out the polices for them to have a look like i did. The editor using those sites is new. I had to clean up earlier last year in the history section, plagiarism (for the Roudmentof source) and the use of nationalist websites(well copied and pasted from without it being cited from Serbianna.com, though i located it in the end) for the Chams Albanian page. That stuff had been left to fester for more than two years and had been missed by experienced editors who are the first to point out some Albanian sources are an issue. For now a reply is need from the editor who used those sources and to address the questions i have placed to him. Absent that, the Luma article will need some rewriting.Resnjari (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

artsome.co

ArtSome was recently blacklisted because it has been spammed (Most recent spam discussion), but is currently used as a reference in three articles. Anyone think it is reliable source? --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• In Jagath Weerasinghe it is used to verify the subject's education:

  He obtained a Bachelor of Fine Arts with Honours in Painting at the Institute of Aesthetic Studies, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka in 1981. In 1985 he received a Conservation of Wall Paintings, International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) in Rome, which was followed in 1988 by a Conservation of Rock Art from the Getty Conservation Institute in Los Angeles.

In 1991 Weerasinghe obtained a Master of Fine Arts in Painting at the American University, Washington, D.C.

• In Jitish Kallat (a rather poor article) it is used to verify what types of art Kallat has produced:

  Kallat's work includes painting, photography, collage, sculptures, installations and multimedia works.

• In Manu Parekh, it is used to introduce the subject and establish notability:

  Manu Parekh is an Indian painter, known for his several paintings on the city of Varanasi.

  and verify personal information:

  Parekh is married to Madhvi and the couple has been living in New Delhi ever since his move from Kolkata in 1974.

Looking at the www.artsome.co/aboutus.asp and www.artsome.co/our-contributors.asp , it looks like a collaborative project. I'm leaning to saying it is not reliable for BLPs, and poor for anything else. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

refs for this thread

References

1. ^ . ArtSome. Retrieved 19 May 2015. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
2. www.artsome.co/Jitish_Kallat
3. ^ . Art Some. 2015. Retrieved October 10, 2015. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)

I was not aware of this thread beforehand, but have removed this reference already as blacklisted spammed site. Most of the sourced information is either covered by a second, non-spamming source and redundant, or the information is basic biographic knowledge, that should be uncontroversial and/or easy to replace. I think, all articles can do without this questionable source. GermanJoe (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Lovearth.net, again

...among others. National City Lines uses it as a reliable source, as well as worldcarfree.net, which has its own issues. Anmccaff (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Not RS - this should, hopefully, be blatantly obvious. LavaBaron (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yupp, but not to some other editors there, and I'd prefer a third party opinion or three to an edit war. Anmccaff (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Unreliable. "Lovearth is an environmental organization". The "Network" is a crazy mash-up of "479 EcoHumanePolitical Websites, 148 Spiritual And Educational Websites, 462 Celebrity Websites".--Zoupan 07:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Raw Story

The online Raw Story has its own wiki article and has been discussed on this board, most recently (I think) in this thread found in the archives. The suggestion was to provide a diff so a more focused discussion could take place. Today, in an entirely different context, I have the same question. Specifically, what do ya'll think of the RS quality of the article/post/whatever titled

"Oregon militants keeping women and children around at standoff despite threats to kill or be killed"?

Is that RS? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

PS Eds at the article where I might wish to propose we use this source were were alerted to this question here, and friends and foes of The Raw Story itself were alerted hereNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Not RS - While I personally enjoy RawStory, it is essentially a left-leaning version of Breitbart or Newsmax (basically like ThinkProgress which we have previously determined is also non-RS). Specifically: (a) opinion statements are often intertwined with hard news reporting, (b) the site sometimes republishes content originating from other sources, meaning categorizing RawStory as "blanket RS" is a suicide pact with non-RawStory originated sources, (c) there are not clear editorial controls - in the past the site has hosted user-generated content and it currently provides no information about editors, publishers, or any staff other than its contributors , (d) it does not have a physical address. LavaBaron (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Lava, Since you've reverted most of my work and characterized some of it as vandalism, I especially would like to hear from non-aligned experts on our neutrality rules. In general, I partially agree with you though. Any "blanket RS" findings for these sorts of sites are dangerous. On the flip side, however, you have applied a blanket NON rs, which is harder to accept since we're on opposite sides in the content dispute. Hence my interest in outside input. Anyone? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I see the purpose of this query now. NewsAndEventsGuy - it appears you've made somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 edits of which I reverted four (hardly "most of it"), including twice when you blanked pages and once when you used Russia Today as a source. Please don't use noticeboards as a mixing bowl to stir-up drama. But if that's not what you're doing, and you are legitimately inquiring about RawStory, just keep in mind that a public noticeboard is not the best place to pose closed questions restricted to certain editors - personal Talk pages are probably better. LavaBaron (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I rest my case. We could use outside opinion please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. So anyway, back to your original question, we don't typically assess individual articles for RS, to do so would be OR. We have to make determinations based on factors that are not usually self-evidencing in single units of analysis. The source you originally used for your "human shields" edit, which I removed, was to Russia Today, not RawStory.

Ultimately, I think you're confused about what you're asking. Simply finding a source, RS or not, that uses an emotive term like "human shield" does not constitute a "gotcha!" moment where you can resume peppering "human shields" throughout the article; you need to look at whether the bulk of RS is using that specific terminology, among other factors. So whether or not RawStory is RS is probably secondary to what it seems you're really trying to achieve here. A better place to get a green-light to start making "human shield" edits is probably the article Talk page itself. Hope that helps - LavaBaron (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Later we can debate the USE of this source at an appropriate venue, which this isn't. I confess I lacked the discipline to refrain from talking about WEIGHT and so forth in anticipation of your comments, but I had the discipline to delete it before posting my reliable sources question on this reliable sources board. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem, apology accepted. LavaBaron (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

None was made, and the question is.... Do other eds think this Raw Story reference is RS? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, again, I don't think you quite understand RS. Individual articles aren't "reliable sources." WP doesn't have standards to evaluate single articles, our standards (editorial control, fact-checking process, referencing by other RS) don't make sense as a basis of comparison against single articles. I guess you can keep demanding someone tell you whether this one article is reliable or not, you're not really disrupting anything by doing that, it just seems unusual and I hate to see you waste your energy.LavaBaron (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Unusual situation with a source

I have a link here which is used as a source in the article Argument from authority. Now, the attributed author is a respected scientist, but I haven't been able to confirm his authorship of the piece, and the actual location of the source is someone's former geocities website, stored on web.archive.org. Basically, I'm looking for some more opinions on this than my own. I personally find it to be a highly unreliable source (in fact, the majority of online citations to it seem to be from creationist web sites), but given that it is attributed to a reliable author, I'm unsure. Note, the article is sometimes claimed to have been originally published in BBC Focus, issue 2, but I cannot confirm this as their online back catalog only extends as far back as issue 182. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The author may be reputable but if we cannot confirm that he actually wrote the article, we can't use the link. Not sure how one could argue the link in question is reliable. Also, you noted that the citations used are from creationist web sites, however, I can't seem to find any citations for support. Meatsgains (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The real author appears to be BBC science correspondent Robert Matthews: http://www.robertmatthews.org/mediaCV.html. BBC science correspondent sounds reliable for use. 98.185.18.251 (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

A BBC reporter would normally be considered reliable. My first question is whether we would normally feel the need to confirm that somebody wrote an article when this is attributed to them (this is a genuine question as it may differ between spheres of editing)? The second question (again genuine) is whether web.archive.org. is generally considered RS? The piece actually looks like a blog to me and therefore would not be RS unless we can prove the author is an expert in that area. Has anyone thought of contacting the reporter?DrChrissy 17:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'm gonna reply to everything in one comment, I hope this isn't too confusing.
@Meatsgains: What I meant when I said it was cited by creationists, is that when I searched google for the title of the piece, what I found was a large number of creationist web pages, making creationist arguments citing this piece as evidence that science cannot be trusted. I couldn't find a good, reputable source making reference to this piece, and each creationist source linked back to the original geocities address, when it did so at all.

@Perfect Orange Sphere: Thank you for that. A couple of the creationist pages I found mentioned him being a physicist, likely due to the sharing of the name. Not knowing this guy, I ran with that. Either way though, the author's reliability isn't the question, it's the veracity of the piece itself.

@DrChrissy:My first question is whether we would normally feel the need to confirm that somebody wrote an article when this is attributed to them (this is a genuine question as it may differ between spheres of editing)?
Normally, I would say no. Usually such works are published by reputable publishers whose word we can trust that the attributed author is -in fact- the actual author. However, in this case there was an issue with the original publication of the link, as you can see in the next paragraph.
Regarding the web.archive.org address, I would like to point out that what this site does is archive old web pages, allowing them to be read after they were taken offline. Their reliability is not really a question to my mind, because what they do is simply the preservation of content, not the generation of it. The real question of reliability hinges upon the only record of this piece being found on an archived version of a geocities web site, a 'notorious hive of scum and villainy' (if you will pardon the expression) for the self-published nature of all of its contents. Anyone could have written an essay, post it to geocities and attributed it to some reputable source.

All in all, I am sensing pretty much the same hesitation in you all that I have myself, and when it comes to RS's, I'm of the opinion that "when it doubt, leave it out." applies. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The cited link is http://web.archive.org/web/20110514011452/http:/www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/cromsome.html. The site archived scientific publications. It has lots of others that are authentic (such as http://web.archive.org/web/20110605073646/http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/algo.html). Saying this one is a fraud is conspiracy-level thinking, especially when what this source reports fits with other accounts of the situation that the page used to cite. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

With regards to the geocities account, the ability to correctly reproduce one work (which it does in the case of the Holland article, though I should point out that this is not a scholarly source) does not establish its reliability as a source. For instance, in reviewing the original link again, I found a citation, which attributed the original article to the May 14th, 2000 Edition of the Sunday Telegraph. The Telegraph is fully online searchable, so I thought I'd found the answer which would establish it as a reliable source (I would really rather prefer it were, as it would make for a good example), but when I searched their archives, I found nothing. Now, this isn't definitive, but it's about as close to it as you can get. The Telegraph was fully computerized, and had a web presence by May of 2000, so there's no reason to suspect they wouldn't archive an article like that, but they don't have any record of it. If you can find a good citation for this article, I'm all for it. I really am. I think this would contribute to the WP article quite a bit. But this particular source is just too fishy. It's too likely to be challenged and removed, and if so, I wouldn't be able to make a good case for keeping it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I just want to add that I do think the article is faithfully reproduced on that website. I do think the article was written by that author. I posted here to see what other editors thought about using it, and except for Orange, you seem to be opposed. I have to agree with that judgement, I'm afraid, contrary to my own desire. That being said, if anyone can find a good source for this piece (or which notes a fallacious appeal to authority being used to justify asserting that humans have 48 chromosomes during the early parts of the 20th century), please, please share at the article's talk page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• If you look at the bottom of the page, it attributes the article to the Sunday Telegraph, 14 May 2000. David Orrell cites an article of the same title for the same date and publication in the bibliography of The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction (2008). It's possible that Orrell got it from this webpage, because it's plenty old enough. If someone could check the Telegraph we could readily clear this up; sitting here this instant I cannot do that, I'm afraid. Mangoe (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

If you read my second most recent comment above, you'll see that I did that. While they have articles from that time period archived, that particular article doesn't appear at all. About the only way left to verify the attribution is to find a physical copy of that particular newspaper, which is exceedingly unlikely. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyriac K. Puliapally regarding caste

Source- https://books.google.com/books?id=xNAI9F8IBOgC&pg=PA28#v=onepage&q=Nairs&f=false

publisher- Brill

Author- various, but the portion regarding Puliapally specifically

Date-1976

page number- Mainly pg 28, but a few pages around as well.

Article - https://en.wikipedia.org/Nair

Content:Indian caste articles are typically very controversial in nature. Theories of origin for caste cannot be speculative, and this one caught my attention as it happens to base itself of off theory after theory. In the text for example, it relies heavily upon a mix of legends and the controversial Aryan Invasion theory (one which has not reached consensus among scientists and historians). Puliapally may be reliable for other different types of material (I have yet to check those), but regarding castes, stating theories to be included on caste origins must be given the utmost level of caution. Rabt man (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Zhou Youguang

Zhou Youguang's birthdate had not been verified and yet everyone wants to include it anyways.

His age is supported by three citations: , , and . That's enough for WP:V, which is the only verification that Misplaced Pages should care about. clpo13_(talk) 00:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

even with those citation his claim is classified as unverified so it fails WP:V. 166.170.47.24 (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not what WP:V means. From the very first sentence: In Misplaced Pages, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. There are three reliable sources that anyone can check and see that the claims made in the article are supported. There's nothing there about your interpretation of "verified" (namely that the GRG should have its say). clpo13_(talk) 00:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if relevant or not but the IP address that started this thread is actually topic banned from Longevity articles (See here ). Not 100% sure if that means they can't post here or not but they shouldn't be editing anything to do with longevity at least. CommanderLinx (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The Jakarta Post

Specifically the use of in the peranakan Laksa dish article. Background. There are editors who claim that the origins of this dish is only Malaysia, but as explained in the section of the article, there are many different conflicting claims. If you see the article's history page, the infobox used to include Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore ] as countries of origin. When additional sources like this was added to prove that there are conflicting claims, the "Pro-Malaysia-Only" editors keep removing it as vandalism or unverified in order strengthen their prefered version where Malaysia holds the sole claim. I had suggested bringing the source here as Talk Page and RFC was getting nowhere. FYI the quoted scholar Myra Sidharta is a knownd scholar who is an expert on Indonesian Peranakan history/culture and has written substantially on that topic. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think this is a question of reliability (the JP tends to rank highly among Indonesian newspapers for reliability) but nationalist disputes. It's... not unusual for Indonesia and Malaysia to get up in arms over something like this. Best course of action is to report the different versions without taking sides, like we do at Potato chip. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on this, Chris. I was trying to recall a similar example to explain to the other editor but it escaped me back then. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This might be surplus, but I agree completely with Chris. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Harriet A. Hall criticizing Michael Greger

The following lines are present in the article about physician Michael Greger:

Greger's promotion of veganism has been criticized for including exaggerated claims of health benefits not backed by sound medical evidence.

Physician and skeptic Harriet A. Hall analyzed one of Greger's videos, and found that many of the claims made were based on cherry-picked, poor-quality or insubstantial research. Hall wrote that while it was already generally accepted that plant-based diets conferred health benefits, the evidence for them "is nowhere near as impressive or definitive as the true believers think".

All of the above is supported by this link alone: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-as-a-foodborne-illness-curable-by-veganism/

This information was added by Alexbrn and the use of this source and whether similar wording is appropriate were discussed on the talk page for the article veganism here and here. As the result, the source was not kept in the article. --Rose (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand this. The Hall source is in the article, and quite rightly. (more) is your problem about the Gregor article, per the heading, or the veganism article?-Roxy the dog™ woof 09:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I want to know if the link is appropriate for use in the article about Michael Greger, in the context provided. --Rose (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. -Roxy the dog™ woof 09:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

So glad you asked about this source, BloodyRose. No, the Science-Based Medicine blog, and Skeptics™ in general are axe-grinding ideological sources. They are not a reliable source of mainstream science (it's not even science) nor of mainstream philosophical views. It's like quoting an Ayn Rand society publication on economics. It's a fringe viewpoint. SageRad (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

So would you then also say that the parts I quoted above shouldn't be in the article at all or do you think it's in line with the rules of Misplaced Pages to rewrite them and provide as simply the opinion of another physician backed up with the source? --Rose (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Skeptic and similar sources?

I have noted how widely Skeptic™ sources have been being pushed into articles. This includes articles from CSICOP and Skeptic and associated websites like Dr Gorski's Science-Based Medicine and Steven Novella's websites/writings, and the like. These are pervasive in Misplaced Pages, and yet they're not pervasive in the world at large. It's like a subculture has been having an undue influence on Misplaced Pages in general, to very detrimental effect on the state of the encyclopedia. I see these sources as interesting subculture publications, sort of like Ayn Rand followers' subculture of "objectivist philosophers" or like any other very small but ideologically oriented subculture. And yet, these sources are being added across the board on Misplaced Pages, and used to transform good articles into attack pieces on their subjects. It's a serious thing happening here, and i do not think it serves the readers. Skepticism is great. I am a deep skeptic about everything. However, the Skeptic™ subculture is not as skeptical as it claims to be. It's more a grouping of ideological suppositions with a subtle political agenda. I do not think being a "skeptic" in that sense is a professional title equivalent to "physicist" or "historian", and it does not deserve prominence in being cited in numerous articles all over Misplaced Pages. This pattern is distorting human knowledge. We need to discuss whether Skeptic magazine and all related Skeptic™ publications are really reliable sources on all the topics about which they write. I hold that they're generally only reliable sources about the ideological positions of the Skeptic™ movement itself, as they're generally POV-pushing tracts. SageRad (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If they're so widespread on Misplaced Pages, has there never been a discussion about whether they should be used? --Rose (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I would have thought so, but it appears not really. This in 2009 and this in 2008 but otherwise, not really much on this noticeboard that comes from a search on "Skeptic" before those links. I would think it needs a pretty serious and nuanced discussion. SageRad (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Not very familiar with this magazine but the tendencies described remind me quite a lot of a period where I tried to work on topics connected to Intelligent Design after I discovered it was one of the only philosophy articles with an FA status. I like to edit on history of science and philosophy topics. Going to look, I found that it was a poor article, not a valid FA, where there was almost constant debate which was keeping discussions of the obvious links to philosophical topics out of it in order to protect our readers from getting a too positive feeling about Intelligent Design by letting it for example be associated with Aristotle or "normal" Christianity (even though it clearly is in reliable sources). This is stated openly on occasion on the talk page, along with a lot of other things that seem completely opposed to the Misplaced Pages "way". It has put me off Misplaced Pages editing quite a lot when I realized that Misplaced Pages has no real defense mechanism on such editors, as long as they play the system. So yes, I do think that the difficulty people have distinguishing between using the reliable sources, and taking a "scientific" side in popular culture wars, looks like it may be a growing cancer in Misplaced Pages. We do not seem to have come up with the right ways of discussing this. There are obviously a lot of Wikipedians who feel they can best serve by being foot soldiers for science, though they do not understand how it works.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm struggling to find sources for any "Skeptic™ movement". Any chance of being specific and not so sweeping? Which articles use what sources for what purposes? Doug Weller talk 13:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources associated with what you describe as the "Skeptic Movement" are pretty reliable. The philosophical backbone of these sources, including ScienceBasedMedicine.org and publications by the Center for Inquiry, is based on evaluating the evidence available, considering scientific plausibility, and demanded evidence for remarkable claims. I'd say they essentially reflect WP:FRINGE. The Skeptical Inquirer is one such publication that has a peer review process as described by its editorial board:

The Skeptical Inquirer must be a source of authoritative, responsible scientific information and perspective. The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers. The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective. We advise having knowledgeable colleagues review drafts before submission. Our Editorial Board, CSI Fellows, and Scientific Consultants lists also include many experts who may be able to preview your manuscript.

The list of fellows and staff is impressive. I understand that these publications are at least as good as major news sources if not better as they provide an emphasis on scientific consensus and fair balance, rather than false balance that is often seen in news. Delta13C (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can claim to be reliable. We need to evaluate if they are indeed reliable. We also need to evaluate whether they have a particular point of view to be aware of.

That quote shows a call to authors to be reliable, but it doesn't show a peer review process per se, as far as I can tell.

Most importantly, though, I hold that the website has an ideological bent and it's publications are ideologically loaded generally. Sure, they make many good points, but they also lack balance and nuance. It's as if an Ayn Rand "objectivist" publication were being used throughout Misplaced Pages as a mainsteam reliable source, and not attributed as subcultural thing it would actually be. SageRad (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Their 'ideological bent' is an ideology which is perfectly parallel with that of WP: reliable sources, verifiability and transparency. Besides which, skeptics align themselves with the scientific consensus (for the same reasons that scientists come to a consensus). For articles on subjects about which skeptical sources routinely write, they may be in the minority among popular publications, but they represent a summary of expert opinions, meaning that excising them due to the movement's relatively small size would be an exercise in lending undue weight to a number of fringe theories. Finally, there's the fact that many scientists and physicians are drawn to, and write for the movement, making their works reliable on the basis of their expertise, regardless of medium. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Any source can be good for something, so we need to look at the case. That is the established position of this message board, but leaves open the real concern I think was being made. This is probably the wrong forum for this discussion, but part of the problem is that we have none on WP? The comments of User:Delta13C are not necessarily wrong, but missing the point. There is a difference between taking a position and reporting one. Misplaced Pages is supposed to do the second. (That is the mission we set ourselves.) We can report opinions as opinions, but if we use opinion sources but report them as if expert consensus, because they are on the "side" of science, we are making a mistake in our understanding of science (and knowledge) as well as WP policy. In the example I mentioned above, WP has tended to use weak pro-science sources, such as an essay by a young biologist who had not yet published anything else, as a source for a history of science position. But as the talk page shows, the biologist was chosen because editors believe WP needs be part of the fight. It was openly stated that statements by better quality sources concerning Intelligent Design having a pedigree should be avoided in order not to let it look more legitimate, because connected to something old. Searching the editing of related articles and the editors who prowl them was very depressing, showing that this is a widely accepted approach now on WP. The core content policies tell us what to do, but no one is doing it in these specific types of cases (where science is seen as having a side). A lot of Misplaced Pages editors simply can't easily understand in many of these cases, and they are pushing the wrong way. That is in any case the point I understood was being made.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This is an important and subtle conversation. Yes, Misplaced Pages is "aligned" with science in that science produces a great amount of reliable sources about the nature of reality. However, Skeptic subculture often uses the language of science without the necessary depth and subtlety, to push an agenda, and without the necessary expertise in the various subjects, and without the same level of peer review and all the rest. To use science as a reliable source, cite science. We don't need to cite Skeptic blogs. If some editors use Skeptic sources as guides in thinking and finding reliable sources, so be it, but they are not necessarily reliable sources in themselves any more than my grandma's blog. Note that I am a skeptic too. Just not that kind. SageRad (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

If some editors use Skeptic sources as guides in thinking and finding reliable sources, so be it, but they are not necessarily reliable sources in themselves any more than my grandma's blog. Many skeptical sources (such as Skeptic Magazine) would be a far more reliable source than your grandmother's blog. That being said, I agree that a source which identifies itself as a skeptical source is not necessarily reliable.

To use science as a reliable source, cite science. This, I agree with wholeheartedly. But the implication that skeptical sources are pushing an agenda which isn't necessarily aligned with the science is completely wrong. Their agenda is that science is the most accurate means of establishing knowledge, a position which WP shares. For established skeptical sources such as the magazine I mentioned above, the effort to verify that the skeptic is aligned with science is pointless, because the answer will be yes in each case. However, if someone is citing the blog of a well-known, but un-credentialed skeptic, I think the effort might be worth it. Dr. Gorski, for example, might be a reliable source when it comes to surgical oncology, but if he writes a blog post about ghosts and ESP, citing him would be in error. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I've just read the Information for Authors of the Skeptical Inquirer. It contains the following.The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers. The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective. I find this rather worrying as it suggests peer-review is not routine.DrChrissy 16:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Follow up: Regarding blogs, The Skeptic states Once familiar with our systems, regular contributors will be able to self-publish blog posts. This suggests to me that there is no editorial input whatsoever for these blogs. I can find no mention that contributions are peer-reviewed.DrChrissy 16:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You don't know how insightful my grandma can be.  :) SageRad (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad: You don't know how insightful my grandma can be.  :) lol Touche. And if she has the credentials, then she's as reliable as any other expert.

@DrChrissy: You are correct about that. Claims that Skeptic or Skeptical Inquirer are peer reviewed are spurious, and a misunderstanding of the peer review process as it is used in scientific publications. I'm fairly certain there are some scientific journals devoted to skeptical inquiry into fringe science claims, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. The sources we've been discussing are all either expert blogs, or journalistic in nature. They need to be approached and considered as such. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Ping:MjolnirPants Hm. "This, I agree with wholeheartedly. But the implication that skeptical sources are pushing an agenda which isn't necessarily aligned with the science is completely wrong." Logically not true. Being sceptical would more or less mean not pushing an agenda, let alone be any kind of guarantee of pushing some kind of "science agenda". Indeed, real science, as part of the nature of what science is, does not push an agenda? Sceptics who fight for science are not at that time practicing science. And this is even wrong on a third level, because those people not practicing science when they fight for it are not even helping science if they effectively demand faith in someone's idea of science. This is where WP sometimes seems to go. So it is not even clear what a "science agenda" would look like, except on trivial matters. (Please note I am a very sceptical and pro science atheist by the way.) Separate point: this should not just be about science, but about expertise generally. Note my example about a biologist opinion piece being cited concerning a history of ideas subject. But subjects even touching science have the problem I am referring to: crude thinking on WP about this leads to it being easy to game the system if you paint yourself as pro-science, and anyone you disagree with as being soft on "fringe", even if the subject is, say, Aristotle or the history of religion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to make things even more interesting, The Skeptical Inquirer lists on its members of staff, the highly respected academics Susan Blackmore and Richard Dawkins. Both these have supported Memetics, a subject which is actually on our List of topics characterized as pseudoscience! Does this mean Blackmore and Dawkins are/were pro-pseudoscience, or perhaps memetics should not be on the list?DrChrissy 17:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: Being sceptical would more or less mean not pushing an agenda, let alone be any kind of guarantee of pushing some kind of "science agenda". Actually, you can read the statements made by a number of these magazines, and see that they do have an agenda. That agenda is invariably something along the lines of "We, as a society and as individuals, should make our decisions based on facts and evidence, not superstition and intuition." That is an agenda, even if it is a laudable and valuable one.

And this is even wrong on a third level, because those people not practicing science when they fight for it are not even helping science if they effectively demand faith in someone's idea of science. I am unaware of any insistence on the part of any respected skeptic or writer for a respected skeptical publication who has ever insisted that we have faith in one particular person's ideas of science. In fact, skepticism is quite the opposite insistence. Skepticism, in fact, relies upon taking the word of others only when one's knowledge is not sufficient to make a determination on one's own, when the other in question is an acknowledged expert in the subject and when the claims of the expert in question are uncontroversial and generally accepted by other experts. For instance, skepticism generally asserts that those without medical expertise listen to the advice of their doctors, but no reputable skeptic would insist that Dr. Oz is thus a reliable source for medical information.

@DrChrissy:Just to make things even more interesting, The Skeptical Inquirer lists on its members of staff, the highly respected academics Susan Blackmore and Richard Dawkins. Memetics is currently a controversial theory with no clear scientific consensus on its validity (that I am aware of). Basic principles of informal logic mean that while we may accept Dawkins' and Blackmore's expertise in their relevant fields, we should not accept as fact anything they (or their opponents) state about memetics, until such time as a scientific consensus has been achieved. We cannot dismiss science and scientists simply because they are not in complete lockstep agreement. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, please don't take my comment regarding Dawkins and Blackmore too seriously. I was simply pointing to a rather whimsical incongruence that using WP's interpretation of pseudoscience, one of the foremost biologists of modern times could be labeled as a pseudoscientist.DrChrissy 18:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: Duly noted. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

E.G.H. Publishing

The article Espen Gaarder Haug raises questions about the reliability of a source used to support a presentation of Haug's physical theory, which itself seems to be a fringe theory. The source in question is Haug's book Unified Revolution: New Fundamental Physics. Oslo: E.G.H. Publishing. 2014. ISBN 978-829-99703-03.. The book is not found at all in WorldCat's listing of books by Haug, who has published chiefly on quantitative economics. The web page of the publisher (E.G.H. Publishing) does not mention any books other than that one by the author. It seems that E.G.H. Publishing is named for Espen Gaarder Haug and has only published his book.

I recently deleted that section and the reference from the article; subsequently these edits were reverted with the comment "Please could someone else than Mr Steve McCluskey consider this, he thinks he has monopoly on wikipedia." I agree that there should be other eyes on this, so could we have some comments on the reliability of this source as documentation of discussion of Haug's physical theory.

Prior discussion is at the article's talk page. --01:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMcCluskey (talk • contribs)

I have just restored this section which was deleted by new editor Authorsrights. Relevant to this behavior I note that Authorsrights (talk · contribs) and Green2Ocean (talk · contribs) have only contributed to the Espen Gaarder Haug article and discussions related to it. --14:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMcCluskey (talk • contribs)

His book is a "reliable source" as to his opinions only, and is not a reliable source concerning validity of any theories he might hold. SPS sources are valid sources for the author's own opinions, as a rule. As a source about Physics - not. Collect (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Is the Huffington Post (original content) a reliable source? (2016)

So in Archive 129 there was a bit of a discussion on how HP won the Pulitzer prize in 2012 and whether we can really consider it a self-published source (especially since the last RSN discussions about HP's reliability were from 2008). I think it is time for an update to this matter circa 2016. HP is not being used as a source in the context of a BLP, rather, as a way to source popular opinions of academics and activists on white privilege. Recently, an editor has disputed HP as a reliable source. Could I solicit the consensus over HP's reliability in both this local and global context please? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Huffington Post has many types of articles. That piece on white privilege is an opinion piece, an essay similar to an op-ed in a newspaper. There may be some level of editorial oversight, or selection, but it may also be somewhat self-published. That piece is reliable for the opinions of its author, and it certainly has made the rounds and been widely read. SageRad (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not think it is possible or practical to make a general rule about a big source like this. It is clearly a good source for some types of things. We would need to discuss real examples.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As ever, most sources are reliable for their own opinions cited and presented as opinions. Many parts of HuffPo are not then reliable for claims of fact presented as fact. This is also true of any "reliable source" presenting editorials and commentary columns. Collect (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster. The problem is that there are some unwritten rules out there about such large sources. Have you ever tried using the Daily Mail as a source? I did once. Just the once. The reaction was was one of the biggest ****-storms I have ever been involved in. It is clear that many editors find it totally unsuitable as a source for anything, but the naive editor does not know this until it is too late. I actually think it is practical and advantageous to have a WP-list of newspapers graded according to their overall acceptability, although I am aware many others are opposed to this.DrChrissy 14:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that sources like Forbes also have blog sections that are only sufficient for sourcing the opinions of the authors, as well. I think this is actually violated quite often in Misplaced Pages due to the impressive weight of the Forbes brand, even though many opinion pieces published under the name are essentially blog entries and not subject to editorial discretion. So it's not only HuffPo. Note also that many pieces on HuffPo are edited and therefore some more reliability weight. SageRad (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Making it even more confusing are NewsBlogs, and when I study their associated legalese in Terms and Conditions some of them look like RS-news, and others just like BLOGS. Thank god for WP:Dispute resolution and eds willing to use it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps our citation style should indicate this, e.g. A. Author, (2016). New citation styles (newsblog). Huffington Post. This makes it clear that the newspaper may not actually support the statements made.DrChrissy 14:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not think the HP is anywhere near the case of the DM, but even the DM can be used for some things, as has been discussed here many times. I do think it sounds like a good idea to mention when a blog is being used, as opposed to a more moderated part of a media website.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

My preliminary take is that flagging sources blog or newsblog or blogsomething is a cop-out when we are unwilling to engage in the hard work required to vet such sources under our RS policy. Unless there's a compelling reason to see the proposal in a different light, I'd be opposed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why this is a cop-out. It is simply identifying to readers that a source may have been through a different editorial process. After all, it might be a highly informed piece by an expert in the subject area.DrChrissy 15:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

While different Misplaced Pages:Citation templates start "cite news" or "cite book" those do not generate labeling flags that the reader sees. If there is a reason to create a "NewBlog" citation template for as an editing tool, OK. But you're talking about putting some sort of flag on the bibliographic reference that will be visible to the reader, right? Do we do that for any other type of reference material? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No we don't. Put perhaps we should for blogs specifically. I for one am a little fed up of seeing content apparently attributed to a respectable publishing organisation only to find that when I chase the reference, it is clearly an opinion piece or a blog. I do not see any harm in labeling a source as such.DrChrissy 23:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick injection of WP:RS - Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

• When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability.
• The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.
• If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.
• Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces

Carry on. Atsme 03:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Can the Express Tribune be considered a RS?

Express Tribune is a self-admitted censored newspaper. , Should the following article be considered reliable? The photo shows an unfinished hospital but the article claims it is treating children. There is no author, and the person who provided the interview was the project coordinator. This is a photo of the hospital taken October 2015 . I'm of the mind that claims made in the Faisalabad article about it being open now, and that it is the 2nd largest children's hospital in the world are noncompliant with WP:V and possibly bordering on puffery until such information can be verified using RS. Correct? Atsme 22:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Need check on 80grados.net

1. Source: http://www.80grados.net/las-preferencias-de-estatus-politico-en-2014-soberanistas-independentistas-y-los-no-afiliados/
2. Article: Sovereigntism (Puerto Rico)
3. Content: "Locally, the term soberanista (lit. "sovereignty supporter") refers to someone that supports reclaiming and employing the archipelago's sovereignty to eliminate any applicability of the territorial clause of the United States Constitution." and "The term soberanista is mostly used in reference to those that support a compact of free association or a variation of this formula "

I have yet to find a reputable publication that uses 80grados.net as a reliable source. I need an assessment on this website as it's known as a highly politicized publication with socialist and Puerto Rican pro-independence tendencies. The only two references that I could find were from NotiCel and from Claridad . Claridad happens to be highly politicized as well with the same inclinations and doesn't seem to be a reliable source either.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The source is authored by a rather large number of PhD authors (entire list here), including mainstream journalists (some of which work radio or even other written sources, such as El Nuevo Día, the largest local newspaper) and a number of PhD professors, before deciding its reliability based on a Google search, I request that whoever reviews this contacts them here for a better idea of their credentials: ochentagrados@gmail.com; Also of note is that the ideological range of the authors goes from far left to center-left, a number of them are affiliated with the PPD which is far from socialist or pro-independence and moderately conservative. Another note is that the user decided to bring the reference here after it was added likely because he felt that using the word "juvenile" was offensive, eventually taking the matter to AN/I, so I am arguing that Ahnoneemoos is already aware of the mainstream work of these authors and pursuing some sort of vindictive retribution for my "offense". El Alternativo (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution