Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:18, 5 December 2014

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.

Known issues section of Nexus 5

The known issues section of Nexus 5 was removed because none of the sources are considered valid. could an independent party check them one by one?

Association football club size

http://www.kicker.de/news/fussball/bundesliga/startseite/616467/artikel_bayern-mitglieder-feiern-abwesenden-hoeness.html was used to support the statement that FC Bayern Munich has "over 251,000 members" and therefore is considered "the biggest club in the world". First some background. Not all football clubs have memberships. So some clubs may have more supporters, or rank higher on Forbes' list of most successful sports franchises. This is only about members. Second, one fan of a club that doesn't keep accurate records, Portuguese club Benfica, has taken offence to the change. He claims that UEFA doesn't support that statement, but doesn't offer any proof from the organization. He claims that Guiness World Records doesn't support it, but again, no support. I believe that even if they offered contradicting claims, it doesn't nullify the new RS and their claims may need to be updated. Also, even if they contradict, it's not incorrect to use the source unless it's not reliable. We add additional statements with the countering claims. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It's FIFA, not UEFA (my mistake). Do you have proof that the club doesn't keep accurate records? Benfica will recount the number of members in 2015 (source). I don't claim FIFA doesn't support the statement, I claim that Bayern itself is not neutral to say they have more members. I have a reliable and neutral source which compares many clubs and shows that Benfica is the biggest club by membership: http://www.fifa.com/mm//Document/AF-Magazine/FIFAWeekly/02/27/86/02/LowRes_eng_Woche07_2014_Neutral.PDF page 29. SLBedit (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that source.

1. It is from July. The new one is from November.
2. That source indicates that Benfica has 235,000. The new source indicates that Bayern has 251,000, which is more

In short, is the kicker.de reliable? Can it be used to support the statement that the club is now the largest in the world? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz said this to me on a discussion: "Don't bother posting another word here". SLBedit (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that was only part of what I wrote. The exact phrase was: "In other words, if you can't find a reliable source that states that your club has more than 251,000 members your old sources are no longer relevant and I'm done talking with you. Seriously. Don't bother posting another word here unless it's a RS that supports that claim." Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Is "Speaking of Science" at the Washington Post a WP:NEWSBLOG?

I am currently in a dispute with another editor (who seems to have walked away from the discussion) over whether the quote from Rachel Feltman in the "Shirt controversy" section of the Matt Taylor article is from a newsblog at The Washington Post or from The Washington Post itself. I maintain that the text "Rachel Feltman runs The Post's Speaking of Science blog." at the end of the Washington Post article clearly identifies that Speaking of Science is a newsblog and not the Washington Post itself. The other editor responded here that the format of the URL indicates that it is not a blog, but part of The Washington Post's news reporting.

It is obvious that we have a disagreement and I am bringing the issue here to get someone else to look at it, since no one else has commented in the discussion. The discussion is at the article talk page 70.133.154.32 (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It's listed as a blog on the Washington Post website here. ElKevbo (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece. "Newsblog" means the newspaper is hosting an opinion writer, and it can generally be used the same as another opinion piece published by the paper. WP:NEWSBLOG means that you treat newsblogs as slightly more reliable than non-newsblogs (regular blogs), but that you attribute the statements to the opinion writer, still connected to the paper somehow. "Newsblogs" offer viewpoints from a more reliable source; it doesn't mean they should not be used in an article. It's the same substantive type of opinion piece as the "Daily Telegraph" opinion piece that's used just after it... __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Basically, a Washington Post newsblog is not somehow less reliable for informed opinion than a Guardian "Commentisfree" opinion piece, or a Daily Telegraph editorial opinion piece. If you're using those in that article, then this piece is at least as acceptable.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

But nor is it somehow more reliable, and all of the other opinions cited in the article are simply attributed to individuals. The Feltman quote is, at least partially, attributed to The Washington Post, and the justification for that attribution that had been given when I challenged it was "Speaking of Science is not a WP:NEWSBLOG — it is specifically a part of The Washington Post's regular news coverage and is reported and edited as such" which is what brought me here to ask if it is a newsblog. How we use opinion pieces is also important. None of the other sources are being used to support a one-word quote like the one in which she described as "sexist" just prior to the long quote from Feltman's piece. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The discussion here pointed the way to an "olive branch" solution that seems to have worked. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

EMDR - "Other Applications"

Hello, If I am correctly understanding, this noticeboard serves to check the authenticity of a particular source used in an Misplaced Pages article. The source in question is: Brown KW, McGoldrick T, Buchanan R (1997). "Body dysmorphic disorder: Seven cases treated with eye movement desensitization and reprocessing". Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 25 (02): 203–207. The reference is being used in its entirety simply to demonstrate one of a number of psychological conditions other than Post-traumatic Stress Disorder under investigation with EMDR therapy. Thank You Saturn Explorer (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're questioning whether the cited source even exists at all, the resource exchange board is probably what you want. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The context is use in the Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing article, so I suspect this is more a question of whether this is a proper source for the way it will be used. To judge that, we need to see an example of how it will be used. Saturn Explorer, please provide the content you'd like to add using this as a source. Just place it in this thread and we can then judge if it is a proper way to use the source. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you BullRangifer. Here is the usage of the aforementioned reference. As you can see, reference #32 was tagged: "Although controlled research has concentrated on the application of EMDR to PTSD, a number of studies have investigated EMDR therapy’s efficacy with other disorders, such as borderline personality disorder, anxiety disorders, somatic disorders such as phantom limb pain, body dysmorphic disorder, depression and psychosis.Although controlled research has concentrated on the application of EMDR to PTSD, a number of studies have investigated EMDR therapy’s efficacy with other disorders, such as borderline personality disorder, anxiety disorders, somatic disorders such as phantom limb pain, body dysmorphic disorder, depression and psychosis."Saturn Explorer (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed that reference #29 has very recently been tagged as well: Gauvreau P, Bouchard S (2008). "Preliminary evidence for the efficacy of EMDR in treating generalized anxiety disorder". Journal of EMDR Practice and Research 2 (1): 26–40. doi:10.1891/1933-3196.2.1.26. Thanks you, again.Saturn Explorer (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You are likely running into conflict with our WP:MEDRS guideline. Our sourcing demands for biomedical claims in any article are even stricter than for other types of information. The result is that we demand better sources for such information in our articles than even scientific and medical journals do for their articles! That's a pretty high standard, and is likely part of the explanation for why most MDs now use Misplaced Pages articles before medical textbooks.

We don't normally allow "preliminary" or "inconclusive" sources. Why? Experience has taught scientists that 95% (a guestimate) of all research ends up not panning out, even though it started with preliminary "positive" results. That's why we don't trust research until it has been confirmed by multiple, independent, researchers who also publish their results. If that process confirms the results, then things really start to happen. It becomes exciting. Such results start to influence policies and guidelines, and that's when we too, here at Misplaced Pages, start allowing those results to be used as sources.

That's why we prefer reviews of multiple research projects published in high profile, reputable journals, and the Journal of EMDR Practice and Research is a junk journal, akin to chiropractic's Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research. The starting premise for both journals is pseudoscientific. They are in house journals, preaching to the choir. They don't have any credibility in the wider scientific and medical communities. EMDR researchers need to publish their research in major, high impact, journals.

We don't want our articles cluttered with the 95% speculative and temporary results. Any editor can engage in original research and synthesis violations by cherry picking the results they like out of those 95%, and we don't allow that practice. It only encourages pushers of fringe POV to load long lists of junk results into articles. The homeopathy article is a place where such attempts happen all the time. The talk page history and archives are loaded with hundreds of such sources which we don't allow in the article.

So, be careful about sourcing. Follow the MEDRS guideline, and when in doubt, you can float your ideas here. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. Thank you BullRangifer.Saturn Explorer (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I should say this makes sense from the perspective of matured scientific publishing and from a perspective that seeks to both inform and protect the public from misunderstanding or even inadvertently misleadking implications. This is the venerable perspective of Misplaced Pages and the whole reason for your comments. However, I would refrain from blanket labeling JEMDR as "junk science." JEMDR has many serious contributors and it is peer reviewed. True, it does not react the level of excellence of a JAMA or Nature, etc., but it's intent extends beyond self-promotion. I rather think of JEMDR as a laboratory for a variety of contributors and contributions exploring a serious subject of both science and healing art, shich has already shown very significant effectiveness, at a relativel early phase of that subject.Saturn Explorer (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"Editor Reviews" and affiliate marketing (on CNET)

We're currently discussing Yet Another Cleaner and its pending deletion and the only so-called reliable source we have mentioning this (IMO Rogue) software is an "Editor's Review" by CNET Staff. Unfortunately, I can't agree that this would constitute a reliable source because of the fact that the article contains affiliate links, meaning that for every purchase this article promotes, CNET makes a commission.

Examples: "Get Winzip Standard" , "MS Office for $139.99" , "Upgrade to YAC Anti-Malware Premium for only $20.00"

These are all clearly affiliate links which earn CNET financial reward for virtually any software it praises. I find it hard to believe that these would be considered good things to cite, let alone being the deciding factor on why obscure software should have its own article on WP. Opinions? - JakobusVP (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Newspapers, magazines, TV shows, etc. take advertising money from companies they sometimes cover. For example, the "Wheels" section of the local paper is full of ads for cars. That's how the section is financially justifiable. That doesn't mean the reviews can't be reliable sources, your piped link notwithstanding. Reputable media companies have a wall between content and advertising. --NeilN 18:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

NealN is right. CNET is generally a respected source. If it's notable, it gets to have an article. I don't know if that's the case here, but CNET would be a good source. If the software is still too obscure to be noticed in multiple RS, then it can wait. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

JacobusVP, the case you seem to be making for the unreliability of CNET is that they've been corrupted by what they're paid to review a product. But unless you know for sure that some reviewers aren't paid for doing so, according to you all reviewers of software must be judged as unreliable on similar grounds of corruptibility.

What if anything do you see as distinguishing CNET from other reviewers of software, that would would make CNET any less reliable than those other reviewers? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Online dictionaries

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/New%20World?s=t

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/new%20world

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/new-world?q=New+World

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/the-new-world#the-new-world_1

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/New-World?q=New+World

Another editor has accused these sources of being unreliable in the context of the New World article. Are they?

Thanks! --Whattheheyhey (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that, as far as I know, you're correct in your assertion that the New World refers to the Americas, those are all reliable. Bromley86 (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

They are all WP:TERTIARY: good to get a general sense from a general summary, but shouldn't be heavily relied on for content in place of better secondary reliable sources. These definitions are simplified summaries that may not reflect what is found in more substantive and authoritative sources. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. Looking at WP:TERTIARY I think the usage was appropriate. --Whattheheyhey (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The article currently outlines how the term changed over time, evolving in scope and nuance, and that it didn't have a single universal set meaning. A dictionary definition is not going to reflect the level of historical detail attempted in that article. We have to use better sources and not build articles about history and sociology out of dictionary entries, __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wholehearted agreement with ELAQUEATE above. Dictionaries provide a good snapshot definition of a term, but in most cases, with perhaps exceptions for the Oxford English Dictionary and a few others, that's all they do. On articles like this, where the definition of the term has changed over time, other sources are probably preferable. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not being more specific. The issue at hand was a question of current usage. Another user wanted to add Australia to the New World, refused to provide any source, and instead demanded that I find sources stating that New World means the Americas. When I did, the user claimed the sources were "unreliable." --Whattheheyhey (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. In that event, it probably would not be unreasonable to use these sources as at least a current snapshot of the definition of the term, and it would seem to be incumbent on that other editor to meet WP:BURDEN requirements and provide good sources which specifically support his alternate definition and, apparently, alternate criteria for inclusion. John Carter (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Thanks! --Whattheheyhey (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Newspaper sources

These sources are actually reliable for claiming Pakistan's victory during the Battle of Chawinda?

Until the introduction of these sources, the result parameter was referred as "Stalemate" due to the UN mandated ceasefire.,, But I really doubt if other two are reliable enough for claiming the results, since they are outdated and they cannot overlap the sources that are dated and have enough expertise in the field. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

They are reliable sources. As to whether they're suitable or not, that's a different question that also needs to be applied to the other cites currently in use. I.e. is the diary of an Indian minister, which might not give a balanced view; even then, the language it uses (lack of initiative of Indian commanders, Pakistanis reinforcing strong defences) indicates that the Pakistanis may have been achiving their aims in a defensive battle. A quick read of 138-9 of makes me think it's fairly pro-Indian in its language (not least, it frequently refers to the Pakistani side as the enemy). Even then, those pages indicate, to me anyway, that India did not achieve it's aims in the battle of Chawinda. Therefore, they lost. And has a single sentence on it; there must be more authoritative sources than that. Bromley86 (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bromley86: I know that each of them are reliable sources and the tone may differ, I had mentioned those 3(google books source) just for suggesting that how "Stalemate" was result. I have just edited by main comment, and clarified that I was actually asking about the 2 sources that I had mentioned from start. Are they reliable enough for claiming "victory" for Pakistan? Since first one is just an image and 2nd is based on what a military commander{WP:PRIMARY} had told. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The first one is a news source, the image is of the news clipping left there as a courtesy to you (but not required).. see WP:SOURCEACCESS. It's a news source not an image. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Images cannot be used as WP:RS, especially when they are hosted on a unreliable source. When you search "Biggest Tank Battle since World War II: Pakistani Victory", you find 5 results that are WP:SELFPUB blogs or forums. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not an image... you need to know the difference between citation link and the source. The citation link has an image of the source (the newspaper). If I remove the 'image' of the source, it will still be a complete reference as far as wikipedia is concerned. So if you want.. you can ignore what the image says and only read the reference (ofcourse you'll need to verify what the source says yourself per WP:SOURCEACCESS). --lTopGunl (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It is just an image, with no reference on any WP:RS. Now that's being said. WP:SOURCEACCESS applies only on those sources that have some base, or they are actually possible to find out. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the source ""Confidence" (The Canberra Times (ACT : 1926 - 1995)). Canberra Times. AAP-Reuter. 16 September 1966. Retrieved 2 November 2014." A complete citation per se. I can not believe you would just turn any source to any image by taking a screen shot or scanned copy of it. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

When I was referring to "Biggest Tank Battle since World War II: Pakistani Victory", I was referring to this reference , and the other one I had referred as the representation of a WP:PRIMARY, so either you are WP:TROLLING or just lacking the competence to follow up discussion. So once again, how a image could be considered as a credible one, when it is hosted on a WP:SELFPUBLISHED site and the named title has no sources? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I gave the first source cited in the article... though you've changed the order, it doesn't change anything. The first source in your links in original post is ""Biggest Tank Battle since World War II: Pakistani Victory". The Australian (364). 14 September 1965. p. 1." (this is the source, what does it have to do with link that gives a copy of it? it is just a courtesy scanned copy). So, my question still stands... why would you call a scanned copy of a source an image source... that's just bad behaviour in addition to lack of assuming good faith above. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Read from start. is not referring to any kind of "Biggest Tank Battle since World War II: Pakistani Victory", it is . A completely different URL that has no mention other than the en.wiki article and some forums, social networking sites, totaling only 6 mentions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, for one last time, I'll try to be clearer assuming that you really have no clue of the way it is referenced. The source in question is ""Biggest Tank Battle since World War II: Pakistani Victory". The Australian (364). 14 September 1965. p. 1.". It is a complete source (ideally it should have had no link / url to it but I added one from a talkpage discussion as a courtesy so that people may read if they do not have that 50 years old newspaper in their library). The nativepakistan link (that you copied from this mentioned source), the second one in your above comment, has a scanned copy of the same and has nothing to do with its own credibility because it is not the source rather just a copy of it for verification. Is that easy enough to get? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I already know that. What I originally suggesting that the image link had to be backed by a WP:RS or same report should have been mentioned on any other WP:RS. While (from 16 September 1965) is hosted on a WP:RS, (from 14 September 1965) doesn't seem to be. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. The Australian is backing the image (as clearly the image is linked to the citation - rather the image is off The Australian). Isn't The Australian an RS for you? URLs are not sources.. they are just links for verification. With or without the image, the source is complete. I'll let you have WP:LASTWORD on it.. because I can not believe you can't understand this. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It cannot be completed or usable over here until it has been backed by a WP:RS, otherwise we should be using any images from self published blogs as sources. Even charts and maps have to be backed by a WP:RS. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The second source you mention (from nla.gov.au) is borderline. That would support that Pakistan has claimed victory "Pakistan troops were reported confident today of scoring a major victory..." I did some brief google searches, hoping I'd find something from the US Army War College or a similar organization that would be a strong review of the battle. I didn't see anything like that, but I found several analysis articles that seemed to be from the Pakistan perspective. The difficult part on saying victory one way or the other is the UN ceasefire which essentially ended the battle. Ravensfire (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Since it is not providing any evidence of the victory, and it has only based its view on the statement that was made by a commander from start, "Pakistani commander at Sialkot claimed", it is reliable enough for claiming Pakistani victory? Especially when the author is unknown and it has only reprinted what a Pakistan' military men{WP:PRIMARY) had said, including his claim of 150 - 200 tank losses, not supported by any other sources. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

There appears to be a distinct paucity of reliable, secondary, third party sources. I'd suggest reliance should be sources such as this and this. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Kindly do not confuse the 'stalemate' of the war at large with the 'Pakistani victory' of this last battle in the 65 war. They are two different things. While the war was concluded as a stalemate, this battle in specific was a Pakistani victory as reported by multiple WP:RS (and neutral ones such as the aus news paper). --lTopGunl (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• One newspaper report from 1965 that has parroted a military commander, with attribution is not reliable enough for claiming "victory", neither is an image of a newspaper that is hosted on a unreliable blog. You haven't read the sources, "and another at Chawinda involving over 600 tanks, the outcome of which was inconclusive". It is actually reliable, not a WP:PRIMARY source that you are referring to. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said, the image is a courtesy, you can verify the news paper from a library if you want as the source here is the newspaper (an RS) not the site. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

What about the credibility? There are only 6 sources for "Biggest Tank Battle since World War II: Pakistani Victory" including Battle of Chawinda, and others being forums, social networking sites. If you can find a scholarly source that has attributed it as a Pakistani victory, then only it can be used. Read WP:PRIMARY carefully, any column of a newspaper that has represented and attributed the view of a WP:PRIMARY is not reliable enough for claiming overall results. Above two sources that has been referred by peacemaker67 only refer it as Pakistan's halting of Indian invasion. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ever heard of WP:OVERKILL? If it is a reliable source, it's credible. We are talking about the Australian newspaper here (again so that you do not confuse), the image can just as well be an email from me to you just so that you can see that it actually is in the newspaper (hope that clarifies the difference). --lTopGunl (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you were successful in verifying that the sources were WP:RS which is the scope of this noticeboard, would you follow up on the dispute at the talkpage on what to use? The split discussion is becoming difficult. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I find it much better to say that it is not WP:RS for claiming anything about this particular article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - If the image has been supported by a reliable source, then it would be actually proper to refer to it, but as usual, if whole article was available it could have been much easier to verify. At this case, it must not be referred. Newspaper that has cited the opinion of a military men can be reliable for the biographical article about the person itself, but not about the military conflict. VandVictory (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, the full citation of the source is present in the article (""Biggest Tank Battle since World War II: Pakistani Victory". The Australian (364). 14 September 1965. p. 1.")... I know it is feels easy to us editors (and even readers) when sources are online, but they are not required to be online to be reliable. The snapshot in the image shows the newspaper to be a headline / conclusion by the publisher and not cited as an opinion. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't said that the source doesn't exists, I am not actually sure, I am only saying that none of them are reliable sources as they are not even dated. In these contentious matters, you required to have relevant and scholarly references. VandVictory (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ofcourse they are dated, see the source in bracket in my comment above (14 September 1965). --lTopGunl (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@VandVictory... Sources do not necessarily need to be scholarly... they simply need to reliably verify what is said. Different kinds of statements can be reliably verified by different kinds of sources. For coverage of events, contemporary newspaper accounts (primary sources) can reliably verify that the event took place and what occured ... but are not really reliable for analysis of what those events meant in the long term (what the impact of the event was). That kind of statement needs reasonably scholarly sources (ie secondary sources). In other words... the type of sources that are considered reliable depends on what is being stated in the article. Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Librarian as source for history at Madoc

Some time ago one Ellen Pugh was added to Madoc. At the time I wrote "In a rather odd footnote, an editor writes " Ellen Pugh career: Western Reserve University (now Case Western Reserve University), Cleveland, OH, cataloger, 1943-45; Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, cataloger, 1945-47; Cincinnati Public Library, Cincinnati, OH, branch librarian, 1955-58; University of Nebraska, Lincoln, order librarian, 1958-63; University of Oregon, Eugene, cataloger, 1963-65; University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, cataloger, 1965-68; Washington State University, Pullman, serials librarian, 1969-" - she was also described as a Welsh historian, although she obviously isn't. She was a librarian with evidently no training in history. Emory & Henry College emeritus professor of history Eugene L. Rasor said of her that she "speculated about Prince Madoc but not convincingly". I can't see any way that she can be a reliable source for anything historical. Dougweller (talk) 11:59 am, 15 April 2013, Monday (1 year, 7 months, 18 days ago) (UTC+1)"

She was removed and has now been replaced, and another editor on the talk page considers her sufficiently "credentialed". She is used as a source for "" A Flemish writer called Willem, in around 1250 to 1255, identifies himself in his poem Van den Vos Reinaerde as "Willem die Madocke maecte" (Willem, the author of Madoc, a/k/a "Willem the Minstrel". She isn't qualified in this field and shouldn't be used as a source, but since 2 editors disagree it seems, I've brought it here. Note that this is a fringe article. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I honestly can't see any basis for saying that a serials librarian, whose job is to basically maintain newspapers, journals, etc., at a library, is necessarily a reliable source for material relating to a 13-century Flemish poet. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see her as a reliable source for anything controversial, but the statement itself is surely uncontroversial. Of course that also means it can be easily sourced elsewhere. As it happens, I created the article on "Willem die Madocke maecte". As a source for that particular fact, I used André De Vries, Flanders: A Cultural History, Oxford University Press, New York, 2007, p.100. Paul B (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at the edit , the editor in question seems to be adding Pugh to cite the assertion that Willem is also known as "Willem the Minstrel". I never came across this designation when I was looking up material for the Willem die Madocke maecte article, and in any case it seems to have no relevance to the Madoc article at all, just adding pointless verbiage unrelated to the topic. I strongly suspect that the useless information that Willem was also known as "Willem the Minstrel" is being added soley to justify the inclusion of the Pugh source in the citations. Paul B (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I provided the source that Pugh got her material from, who is Zella Armstrong (an authority on Madoc). I provided also the exact wording of Armstrong from her book "Who Discovered America, the Amazing Story of Madoc" of page 3.I also provided the wording from the encyclopedia Britannica reference concerning Willem the Minstrel. This would be a good additional reference for Paul's article. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If Willem is also referred to as "Willem the Minstrel", I can see why it would be relevant to the Williem article. I can see no point to it whatever in the Madoc article. Describing Chattanoogan amateur and self-published historian Zella Armstrong as "an authority" on Madoc is somewhat problematic. She is certainly no authority on Middle Dutch literature. Paul B (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"William the Minstel" seems to be a romantic label for the poet that now only circulates in Madocite literature, which is full of fantastical claims such as this and this. I never came across the term in recent scholarship on Willem. It seems to derive from the 1911 Britannica . Paul B (talk) 12:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Had you obtained Pugh's book from the library like I did, then you would know that some of her sources she used for reference material were the Library of Congress, Smithsonian, Yale University, National Library of Wales in Aberystwyth, Missouri State Historical Society, Chattanooga News-Free Press, and the curator of Fort Morgan, Alabama. Didn't list all her sources for her book on The Story of Prince Madog of Wales and His Discovery of America in 1170 as it is quite extensive.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Had you read WP:RS you would know that what you have just said is utterly irrelevant. It does not matter how many sources she says she has used. A long bibliography does not turn fringe into mainstream, or an amateur into an established scholar. Fringe writers are just as capable of going to libraries and listing sources as anyone else. Paul B (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And after her list of sources, Pugh acknowledges her publisher: Those who encouraged me are too numerous to cite, but one person must be named - my non-Welsh but enthusiastic editor at Dodd, Mead and Company, Joe Ann Daly. Her interest in this project sustained me through many frustrating hours, and I wish to express my appreciation publicly.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Doug, I know you are not new here, so why are you persisting is listing things that have no relevance whatever to the question of reliability? On what planet do you think a personal acknowledgements page has anything to do with determining the reliability of a source? Not this one. Your responses to issues raised are actually unresponsive. Paul B (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The above shows that the acknowledgements of her sources were done by her publisher. It obvious you don't have and have never had her book in hand. Pugh's ancestry line is from Wales. Her husband's family line is also that from Wales. In 1967 as a research project from the University of Rochester she spent four months in Wales researching Madog. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

None of that, unfortunately, says anything about whether this individual meets the standards of reliable sources for this particular topic. I am assuming that the general topic under discussion here has been discussed in at least a few recent reference sources, hopefully since her book came out. Is that so, and, if it is, have the articles in those sources given much weight to her ideas, or included her in their bibliographies? John Carter (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for acknowledging that I am an experienced editor. I have set a few records, as my User Page shows. Under my picture I have videos on how I do research with the extensive use of actual hard copy books for reference material. Some of my DYKs get thousands of views. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

That's great, but it's still pretty clear that Pugh doesn't meet our sourcing policy. Also, being from Wales does not make one a reliable source on Welsh medieval literature. And it's not just Pugh, it's also Zella Armstrong who you added to a related article you created, Cronica Walliae. She's not a specialist in the area and she published the book you use. I also see at Talk:Cronica Walliae that you have a pending DYK, nominated by another editor, at Template:Did you know nominations/Cronica Walliae. It says "that according to Humphrey Llwyd's 1559 history manuscript Cronica Walliae Prince Madoc had already made two trips to America from Wales in the year 1170, long before Columbus?". I've edited the actual article to remove the 'long before Columbus' and the suggestion that Prince Madoc was real. As it stands the DYK is pushing a fringe position because it is written in an NPOV fashion. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Journal of Experimental Psychopathology

This ejournal resembles the Journal of Experimental Psychology in title. It claims PsycInfo listed, but does not appear there, nor in PubMed. Is it credible as a MEDRS? LeadSongDog come howl! 13:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I had read this particular reference before. Links may dead now, there are no available archives so at least for now it would be better to just avoid. VandVictory (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with access to the archives back to 2010 which is when the journal started http://jep.textrum.com/index.php?mi=7 . It is listed under PsycInfo http://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psycinfo/coverage-full.aspx but doesn't appear to have any cites as LeadSongDog pointed out. It has an impressive editorial board http://jep.textrum.com/index.php?mi=3 however Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Also the EMDR article in question is available full text at http://jep.textrum.com/index.php?art_id=113#.VH5bRdyUd8F Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

WorldCat shows only 8 locations, mostly in Europe. On the other hand, most of the articles are from reputable people. MA van den Hout, the senior author of the article, has a distinguished career. The article itself has only 12 citations in GScholar. 10 other articles from various issues checked have similar or lower citations. EMDR in G Scholar gives many articles with many hundred cites from APA journals. I agree with ((U|VandVictory}} that it should be possible to do better. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

thank you all, especially Woody for spotting my error re PsycInfo. It is indeed listed there--not sure how I missed it. Still, the low citation rate is problematic. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this a reliable professional source?

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pop-in-eur.asp Is this source legit for academic or professional purposes, and how can I check if it's up to date? (N0n3up (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC))

The website sources the information to a book from 1972, and the webpage appears to date from 1996, so clearly it is not up to date, but then again the evidence may not have changed drastically since then. In other respects I see no problem with the website or the source uesed. Paul B (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I would look for a newer source. Such estimates are based in large part on archeology, and the archeology of medieval Europe is enormously more detailed now than it was in 1972. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you intend to do with the info? It is a primary source, so it has limited use. TFD (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Paul Barlow:, @DGG:, @The Four Deuces: I've tried to look for more up-to-date sources but had a hard time finding one. The article of Medieval demography in regards to population is mostly based in this website, thus I wanted to look for a more up-to-date, if not, more reliable source. More specifically, a source that explains the population of medieval region, for example England, Germany, Italy, Spain. (N0n3up (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC))

Or what about this?: http://www.paolomalanima.it/default_file/Papers/MEDIEVAL_GROWTH.pdf Even though it was probably from 2010, it might serve as a better or a recent source. Then again in the population section, I don't know how to tell exactly the population numbers. (N0n3up (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC))

I find the best and easiest approach to articles is to let the secondary sources drive the article. In this case, find sources about medieval demography and summarize what they say. Primary sources are good for correcting earlier estimates or inclusion as a link or as a source for a table illustrating demographic change. But you can't really comment on it because of synthesis, for example saying that the population declined because of the Black Death. TFD (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Right, but I was looking for a more general info in the population of medieval countries, specially Italy and Flander, whose info in here say that Italy and Flanders the most urbanised regions, and for example, the population of Italy seems similar from the two sources provided here (N0n3up (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC))

@Paul Barlow:, @DGG:, @The Four Deuces:, by the way, Fordham University deleted the first out-of-date source from their homepage. (N0n3up (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC))

Deletion of devicespecifications.com references

I noticed User:McGeddon recently removed all references to the website http://devicespecifications.com in at least the MediaTek article, because this user believes the site is not a reliable source because of the disclaimer about accuracy it displays. An earlier discussion about this is present in the archives Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_179#.22Not_responsible_for_inaccuracies_or_other_errors.22. In the previous discussion, several people made the point that such disclaimers are common and do not suggest that the information on the website is inaccurate.

While the website seems to be a fairly anonymous, large collection of information about smartphone models and there are likely to be a few errors on the website, I believe the site is generally accurate with regard to the information about processor chips used in smartphones, for which it was used as a reference in the MediaTek article amongst others, although I understand that better references such as manufacturer's websites would be preferable.

While one could question whether the exhaustive lists of devices in, for example, the MediaTek article are a good idea, I don't think the references should be deleted because the Misplaced Pages Reliable Sources guideline does not apply in this case. Calamites (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious, why do you think WP:RS does not apply? It looks like the website isn't just fairly anonymous, it looks like it's completely anonymous. There's no indication who's responsible for publishing it, and a quick look at the sources for reviews show basic links to Russian commerce sites or cellphone manufacturers. It should probably be removed if it's an anonymous link-farm. At best it's a purely amateur database, at worst it's a clickjacking malware site. Unless you can show it has an actual author or reputation, it should go.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I was looking just at how accurate the information on the site is. The site seems to be relatively accurate with respect to the information that it has been referenced for (the SoC chips used inside smartphone models).

While I agree that the site appears to be anonymous and is one of the type that collates links and information from different sources, it not entirely clear to me that this completely disqualifies the site according to WP:RS. I don't think it is likely to be a "clickjacking malware site". Ideally better sites should be used as references for the chips used in smartphone models, but I guess it was just convenient for the user (User:Datasupplier) to add the device lists with all references to the DeviceSpecifications website. Obviously providing the best references for each model in a long list would be a lot of work. There are other websites such as http://PDAbd.net that is of a somewhat similar nature but more professional, less anonymous and probably more reliable in most respects, but covers a smaller amount of smartphone models.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Calamites (talk • contribs)

This is a completely unusable source. There's no way to show any verifiability with a completely anonymous source, even if you think some percentage of it is accurate. This is also true of material you're adding sourced to self-published websites of no reputation like this one you added here. User:McGeddon was absolutely correct to remove this. WP:V means that someone can go to our citations and see that a reliable source backs up our article material. If the source gives no indication it can be trusted or has been trusted by others, then it's not a reliable source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: You wrote, "the site seems to be relatively accurate." How do you know this? If it's because you confirmed it in another (reliable) source, then we should probably use that other source. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

As suggested by my edit summaries, I removed it on the strength of the entire linked conversation, not just my initial question over the disclaimer. That if devicespecifications.com is taking its data from manufacturer websites and manuals, we can and should just use those sources instead; that there's no indication of who operates the site or how much editorial control is exerted; and that all links were added by the WP:SPA account User:Datasupplier who occasionally used an accidental http://localhost/cmvc/public_html/devicespecifications URL (suggesting that devicespecifications.com is a site that's running on their own machine). --McGeddon (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Given your arguments, I can now see why references to the site are unwanted, that User:Datasupplier has been practicing self-promotion and that better references are appropriate. Calamites (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Usage of TechWhirl as a source for basic information on related articles

I couldn't find anything in the archives on TechWhirl, so I wanted to open a discussion here before using it. The site has some basic information about Content management, Technical writing and Technical communication. The site's History page provides information about its founding and ownership, and the articles published there are written by experts in the field, but there doesn't seem to be any information about editorial policies. The information they provide is accurate, but I understand that my assurance of that isn't a valid means of proving a source's reliability; I'm just one editor and that's just my personal opinion. Does anyone see any potential problems with using this as a source? Or will it pass? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I was initially a little wary of it, as this and this say that they take articles from the general public (as you can see from the large number of different author names for their articles). Still, they do have an editor and an editorial policy, the bios for their contributors are generally pretty impressive and the contributors that I looked at were not single-article contributors.

I'd use it. Bromley86 (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing on Electronic cigarette

It has been proposed on electronic cigarette that the following text be added:

"A 2014 review stated that tobacco and e-cigarette companies interact with consumers for their policy agenda. The companies use websites, social media, and marketing to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws. This is similar to tobacco industry activity going back to the 1980s, showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers. It was concluded that the companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013."

based on the following source:

1. ^ Grana, R; Benowitz, N; Glantz, SA (13 May 2014). "E-cigarettes: a scientific review". Circulation. 129 (19): 1972–86. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667. PMC 4018182. PMID 24821826.

Convenience link to PDF here; relevant material in first paragraph of page 1982. It is published in the medical journal (Circulation, probably one of the top two or three most read and respected cardiology journals in the world). A question of reliability of this as a source has been raised that since this is a medical source and the text being added is not strictly medical in nature. Comments on the reliability of this source for this text is appreciated! Yobol (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• It's a review article in a peer-reviewed journal. You can't really get higher quality in terms of reliability for content in general. It would seem kind of odd if someone is opposing this because it's in a medical journal. It appears the paragraph you mention is not based solely on author opinion as they are citing examples and documenting some occurrences, so it would seem this could be place pretty solidly as content based on a high quality secondary source. If it appeared to be more just the unsourced opinion of the authors, then I would call that content based on a primary source (within the review), but that doesn't not appear to be the case here. Seems pretty cut and dry that it should be fine. While the journal may be medical, it is commenting on a related topic and is nothing like a sociology journal commenting on astrophysics where we'd say the scope of the journal isn't in a relevant field either. I don't see any issues here in terms of reliability. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The question is dealing with this section link The overall consensus of the editors who are discussing it is against inclusion because the medical journal is being used to make claims outside its expertise. Per WP:RS/MC a medical journal article is only a reliable source when making medical claims. WP:MEDSCI tells us to "Be careful of material published in a journal.... that reports material in a different field.". A side note of concern is that some the sources the review used to come to these opinions are studies by the authors of the review. If this had WEIGHT suitable, non medical sources should be easy to find. AlbinoFerret 21:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Except this is a related field, which is what I was commenting on above. It is often the job of scientists to be a sort of balance against industry when they're out of line in a respective field. As an example in my area, if a pesticide company was pushing a particular unneeded pesticide formulation on farmers, we'd not only report in an agricultural journal that it wasn't needed, but also what tactics were being used that are problematic in pushing it. That's what scientists do. In this case, a journal like this would be the venue to discuss such things. It's not directly on medical information, but it's within the scope of such a journal and such a review. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I still have concerns that the medical journal is basing its opinions of medical studies by the authors of the review. I would like a different source. That would also prove it has sufficient weight. AlbinoFerret 21:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Every source is good for supporting some kind of content; no source is a "blank check" for all kinds of content. In my view the source you bring is very reliable for anything health-related. But the content you want to write is about politics, and this source is no better, and possibly worse, than high quality news sources like WSJ, NY Times, etc. As an aside, I find it bizarre that anybody would be challenging the statement much less its sourcing. This is like "the sky is blue". Everybody lobbies, even Mr Rogers. And that includes astroturfing. the sad state of the e-cig article, i guess. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I should clarify that I'm talking about reliability above. In isolation, the proposed text is fine with the source, but including it within the larger article becomes a question of weight where there could be more of a political tinge to a section rather than scientific. Weight's not the purpose of this noticeboard and isn't really something I'd like to delve into in the e-cig article at all either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• • more sources for same content: NY Times, NPR, WaPo, Bloomberg, public interest groups like center for public integrity... so many! the sky is blue. Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• This entire text is arbitrary and prejudiced WP:FRINGE opinion by a well-known anti-tobacco activist and does not belong on Misplaced Pages in any article. Particularly, the statement "showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers" is nothing more than magical thinking and has no factual support. None of the proposed text is medical - so WP:MEDRS is irrelevant. Rather, it's unsubstantiated propaganda and in violation of multiple items in WP:ISNOT, in particular, WP:SOAPBOX. This statement is clearly WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG and has no place in any WP article. In addition, extensive discussion has occurred on the article’s talk page here, and I’m concerned that the opening of this discussion here without informing the original participants is dangerously close to WP:CAN. Mihaister (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution