Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:30, 17 March 2018

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.

Jeremy Bates New York Jets Quarterbacks Coach

The page for Jeremy Bates (American football) incorrectly identifies him as the Offensive Coordinator. He is listed on the official New York Jets website as the quarterbacks coach, a position he has held for about a year. On January 19, 2018 a piece was published in the New York Daily news that contained speculation that Bates would be named Offensive Coordinator for the Jets but no announcement has been forthcoming and no change has been made to the official website. There has been no verification of any kind by Bates or anyone connected with the Jets that he has been promoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.58.128 (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2018‎ (UTC)

I'll fix it in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit filter for the Daily Mail

(Formerly: Cross-post of WP:EFN discussion) A year ago, this noticeboard resolved that links to the Daily Mail would generally be banned on this project. The ban has never been technically implemented, however. A discussion was started at EFN last month to finally set the Mail filter to warn, but it fell off of the noticeboard due to lack of participation. I just rescued the discussion from the archives, and I thought that this time around I'd cross-post here, since the discussion is arguably more relevant to this board than to that one. — PinkAmpers& 14:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Make it so. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support No reason to not have this in my view. --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - This would be help a lot. We should also do this for Breitbart, and possibly others.- MrX 🖋 16:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

what picard said. Jytdog (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Unnecesary vanity tags that just waste volunteer time. --DHeyward (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Eh? This does the exact opposite, warning users of inappropriate citations before they commit, saving reversions. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't WANT them warned: he's using his comments at WP:EFN to relitigate the RFC. --Calton | Talk 03:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm reviving this discussion with the hope of coming to a conclusion. I just had to revert WP:BDP content cited to the Daily Mail. It would be nice if this filter were implemented.- MrX 🖋 19:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: Surprisingly, there still are over 27,000 articles in Misplaced Pages that cite the Daily Mail. Would it be necessary to replace these references if this filter were implemented? Jarble (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a good question Jarble. I don't know, but I doubt it. Perhaps PinkAmpersand knows.- MrX 🖋 22:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

On a technical level, no, nothing would need to be done. The filter would only catch edits adding references to the Mail; it wouldn't do anything to edits to articles with preexisting references. Also, while the support/oppose !votes here aren't unhelpful, they're just relitigating a settled issue. What needs to be decided is how to implement the RfC consensus, and I would encourage editors to comment on that matter at EFN (rather than here, since EFN has the ultimate say on this). — PinkAmpers& 23:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Technically wouldnt it flag up if someone edited a section/article with an existing DM reference? That would at least prompt people to replace it. (oh and support filter etc etc) Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

PinkAmpersand, has blacklisting been considered? I see that The Daily Mailer is blacklisted, but not the Daily Mail. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I'm not sure. That would be a good question to ask at EFN. — PinkAmpers& 15:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

PinkAmpersand, if I understand things rightly, this is probably the best place to seek a consensus on whether to move forward (not the final decision) with blacklisting a source. With a consensus in hand, then a "nomination" at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist would likely result in a blacklisting. Does that make sense? Should we start a new thread seeking an actual blacklisting, since that's different than the subject of this thread? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Ah, I see your point. I thought you were asking more of a technical question. Anyways, personally I'd be against outright blacklisting, since there's a decent number of cases where Mail links are permitted. A filter that warns but does not block seems more flexible than a spam blacklist that outright blocks. — PinkAmpers& 17:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Then I'll settle for a filter. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Only in death: No, that's not how the filter works. If you look at the source code, you'll see that it only checks whether the added text (added_lines) has a Mail link, not whether the article itself (new_wikitext) does. You can see for yourself: Go make a copy-edit to an article with a Mail link, and then check your own filter log. You shouldn't see an entry for the edit. — PinkAmpers& 15:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support its about time we do this.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support I see no valid reason that we should not warn users not to add cites to the Daily Myth.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Steven, did you mean to write "warn users to not add cites"? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• LOL, yes, a not in the wrong place, how DM of me.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Censorship is not the answer. Likewise the discussion resolved that DM is acceptable in certain circumstances. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• The C of E, you do realize this isn't a ban, but just a warning to be cautious? No one is asking for censorship. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

We "censor" things all the time. The blacklist has thousands of websites, many titles and word are blacklisted. The Daily Mail is not, by community consensus, a reliable source, so this should change nothing at all, other than saving people the annoyance of having to revert crappy sources. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If you want to revisit the decision, C of E, just start a new RFC instead of trying to hobble it by the back door. --Calton | Talk 03:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support a filter. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Seems to be a no-brainer. --Calton | Talk 03:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support As long as this is limited to a warning, and limited to the Daily Mail, then it makes perfect sense as a logical extension of the previous decision. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. A warning seems like it will save us trouble down the road without much risk of causing problems. Anyone adding a new reference to the Mail ought to be made aware of the decision regarding it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Aquillion's comment above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)
• Support. It's time we implemented a decision we have already made. Bishonen | talk 18:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC).
• Support I think this is like the third time -- we already have the consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Edit filters should be used against sites that have been blacklisted. While DM is not to be used for factual aspects, it is not blacklisted - it can and should be used if the newspaper is the center of a controversy. I see a slippery slope where a source we've claimed non-reliable is on a filter, we would start including more, and that will make the situation worse. --Masem (t) 01:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Conditional support so long as this is a warning and not a 'blacklisting', per logic of Aquillion above. Pincrete (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support, and hopefully the 1st step to a blacklisting, the Daily Fail is an unacceptable source for any content. TheValeyard (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary but I am open to convincing. I think XLinkBot would handle this just as well. That bot kicks in to revert the addition of blogspot links, and it works well (last I checked). ~Anachronist (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support I have to agree. Daily Mail is not reliable as a source. Same story with Daily Express. Both are fake news websites who posts nonsense fear mongering, such as a non existent rogue planet called Nibiru or doomsday predictions. I do think both should be banned from the project. --LovelyGirl7 talk 18:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose While some of the more modern editions may be "unreliable", what about the historic editions and context for certain subjects? Indeed we do have a number of GAs that are heavily reliant on DM so I fail to see how we should have a blind bot just go sweeping around. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm? This'll just warn editors who try to add the link, not remove all instances Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support blacklisting is separate, same with a bot that removes the links, this just is an warningand informs the editor with this template, and still allows them to add the link Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Conditional support so long as this is a warning and not a 'blacklisting'. Misplaced Pages isn't censored. At this point The Mail's unreliability places it roughly in the same place as Breitbart, use with extreme caution and not for WP:BLP. loupgarous (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Gino Gambino Bullet Club

We are currently in a heated discussion right now over the reliable sources added to Bullet Club member Gino Gambino and this user claims BLP and keeps reverting it so I was wondering if these independent sources are reliable

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKinkdomMan (talk • contribs)

Can you link to the diffs of the agreement? The last revert that I checked is not really pointing to the sources that you have linked here. Excelse (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Here’s a source that another user have provided when added Gambino — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKinkdomMan (talk • contribs)

Cagematch? I don't see how it is supporting the information of him joining Bullet Club, though the information seems authentic: Excelse (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Excelse: Suggest you check out the talk page of the Bullet Club article. All the sources given so far have been proven to be unreliable by Addicted4517 per WP:BLP. Contentious claims require independent reliable sources. None have been given yet. NotMemberofBC (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Exclusive Video but only on "generally unreliable" DailyMail Site

While attempting to add statements by Seth Rich's parents to the "Murder of Seth Rich" Talk page for eventual inclusion in the article, I was informed by an editor that "The Daily Mail is not an acceptable source on Misplaced Pages." Some research revealed this: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=764880426#Daily_Mail_RfC

So I am now inquiring about an exception, since the Daily Mail has an exclusive video interview with Seth Rich's father in which he states (on camera):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3741754/Father-murdered-DNC-staffer-reveals-son-join-Hillary-Clinton-presidential-campaign-punching-hole-ugly-rumor-Wikileaks-source.html (the video is embedded in the page, after some photos, and has a title "Seth Rich's father reveals son was joining Hillary campaign)

In the video, Seth Rich's father can be seen and simultaneously heard stating, "He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." (and then later) "He had just found out that they wanted him."

So, it appears to me that the truthfulness of the video is indisputable, the video is not available from another source, and the father of Seth Rich describes the job offer and the murder in the same sentence.

This inquiry about an exception to the "generally unreliable" vote at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=764880426#Daily_Mail_RfC is separate from any ongoing discussion to possibly include the quote in the "Murder of Seth Rich" article. So far, documentation of the job offer there has been suppressed. At the very least, it should be added as a reference.StreetSign (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The reason most editors at that page have given you for exclusion is not just that the DM is unreliable, but also that this is WP:UNDUE information that promotes a conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

But one of the reasons given was that DM is "unreliable", and that statement influenced editors. My question here is if a published video of Seth Rich's father stating "He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." (and then later) "He had just found out that they wanted him." can be a reliable source. So, can it be a reliable source? StreetSign (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. No answer you get here will change whether or not that claim is due in the article. And the Daily Mail has a reputation for photoshopping images. If they could have altered that video (which they almost certainly could have done, though how well is another question), then the fact that no-one else reported on it speaks volumes about its reliability. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean "no one else reported it"? That is deliberately deceptive. I have already reported that CNN and WashingtonPost have reported that Seth Rich's father said that Seth Rich told him that he received a job offer from the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. Many other sources have published it.

"On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign." and continued "To those who sincerely want to get to the bottom of Seth’s murder, we don’t hold this against you."

reference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.c5b01406666e

and on CNN:

"Before Rich died, he had been offered a new job on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign"

reference: https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/us/seth-rich-dnc-wikileaks-theories/index.html

Do you believe that all those sources were altered too? StreetSign (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

If it's so significant that it should be added to the article, other sources will comment on it. If nobody else cares enough about this Daily Mail interview to talk about it, then there's no point putting it in the article, reliable or not. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of a "deliberate deception" is a personal attack and is prohibited by policy. I might also point out that you, yourself admitted that it was an exclusive video. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Speaking only to the context of whether or not the source can be used and not to content issues of undue weight, the source in question is Seth Rich's father, not the Daily Mail. It is a primary source to a recorded statement made by the father. As such, all due caution must be made when using the source and any interpretation of the source must be extremely limited. It's my opinion that its reasonably sources the statement "In an interview with the Daily Mail, Seth Rich's father said his son was..." and then the verbatim quote. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Am I missing something? We shouldn't use the DM, we should be using the Washington Post and CNN. @StreetSign:, if you knew that those other sources existed before you posted here, why are you arguing we should use the DM? From what you've said, it appears that you are here not to get the text added to an article, but to get the DM used as a source. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion on who OP should or shouldn't cite; I'm not involved in the content in the article and have no desire to be. The original question was whether or not they can use the Daily Mail's video as a source and it's my opinion that they can, in a limited way, as explained above. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I have no interest in DM at all. And I have no interest in conspiracy theories. I did notice that the Seth Rich article did not contain any mention of the job offer from the Hillary Clinton campaign, even though his father spoke about it on more than one occasion with reporters, and considered it significant in some way. I posted on the Seth Rich Talk page, and was immediately accused of supporting conspiracy theories. Someone eventually even deleted my posts and those of everyone who responded. At no time did I change the actual Seth Rich article. I was informed that "The Daily Mail is not an acceptable source on Misplaced Pages." Some research revealed this: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=764880426#Daily_Mail_RfC

And after reading it I concluded that an exception was a possibility. Once again, I don't care about DM at all. I did not even know DM existed. The video itself is clearly reliable, contrary to the claim by MjolnirPants above. The video, as pointed out in another reply above, a Primary source, so it should not be excluded.

I do understand that editors do not want to promote a conspiracy theory. Neither do I. But it does not seem right to suppress the job offer on that basis. There are many examples on WP, notably the Lee Oswald article as one example, where some facts are seized upon by conspiracy theorists, but they belong in the article anyway, because they are facts that contribute to understanding the background of the story. I don't think that we want to engage in anything equivalent to editing Yezhov out of the photo with Stalin. Seth Rich's father made these statements. They have been reported. They have been deliberately excluded from the Seth Rich article, using a variety of weak excuses. The authentic nature of the video is indisputable, the video is not available from another source, the father of Seth Rich describes the job offer and the murder in the same sentence, and it is independently supported by similar statements made by the father to WashingtonPost.

"He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." (and then later in the video) "He had just found out that they wanted him."StreetSign (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

But in fact you are promoting the conspiracy theory, in your continued pushing of this topic. "Our son had a job offer at the Clinton campaign" is a small factoid, a minor detail of Seth Rich's tragically short life. It would be given no life or credence at all if it were not for the right-wing conspiracy theorists who seized upon it as a reason for his murder. There is literally no other reason to mention it, outside of the context of the whisper campaign. This is strikingly similar to those voices who pushed a few months ago mention that "Heather Heyer's mother said her daughter died of a heart attack" in the Unite the Right rally article. There's no cause to highlight that, other than to further the right-wing talking points that questioned whether the vehicular ramming caused her death. TheValeyard (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it was right-wing or seized upon by conspiracy theorists, what matters is if is mentioned by the reliable sources. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you rather smashingly failed to get the point. Seth Rich's watchband was torn in the incident, his girlfriend's name is Kelsey, whom he met at a polling firm, and Seth also Seth attended a fraternity brother's wedding the summer before. We as editors discern what is notable, what is trivial, and what is undue, the sort of disucssion that usually does, and in this case did, take place at the article talk page. The consensus was that who Seth Rich was going to work for is trivial, except for the conspracisists. TheValeyard (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Seth Rich's father did not consider it trivial. He disclosed it in separate interviews. The documented quotes are

"On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign."

"He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered."

"He had just found out that they wanted him."

I don't see you complaining that the bike rack (already in the article) is trivial. StreetSign (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me know when WP:SETHRICH'SFATHER is no longer a red link. TheValeyard (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you meant WP:INCLUDEEVERYTHINGSETHRICHSFATHERDEEMSIMPORTANT? (SCNR) Regards SoWhy 11:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

We can easily differentiate between a documented, published fact and a conspiracy theory. The fact belongs in the article. The conspiracy theories do not. Attempting to repeatedly suppress the fact with obstructive tactics is wrong. StreetSign (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me try and explain something to you: It doesnt matter if you think it is wrong or right, if the editorial consensus for an article decides that something shouldnt be in the article, it doesnt go in. It could be 100% fully sourced to a reliable secondary source in a cast iron publication - if the consensus is that the information is WP:UNDUE and should not be in the article, then it doesnt go in the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to declare the Daily Mail an unreliable source (and I think we should) we should do the same to the Daily Express

It may be a Fleet Street paper, but its website has become a mecca for conspiracy craziness:

See here.

Also here; simply typing the name of a pseudoscience conspiracy theory into Google gets three results from the Express. Serendious 08:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

No opinion one way or the other, yet, but your links only provide that the Express talks about conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories and is well trafficked. I was unaware that the Express was being treated anywhere as a reliable source to begin with. Has this been an issue? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

They don't just talk about it; the leading headlines feed into the paranoia surrounding the supposed theories. Serendious 10:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree that we should not use any of the UK tabloids as RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Trinity Mirror has just purchased the DE so it might be best to see how the buyout impacts on the content. Betty Logan (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• As I've said before: The unusual step of taking a formal RFC to produce a concrete finding that the Daily Mail is essentially always unreliable outside of being cited for opinion was unique to its particular case. The Daily Mail is definitely not the worst thing people have tried to cite in Misplaced Pages (not by a long shot); in fact, the reason it required an RFC and a formal decision was because it was exactly on the border where some people would constantly remove it on sight, while others thought it was usable. If a source is obviously unusable to virtually everyone, there's usually no need for an RFC - you can just remove it, go to WP:RSN if there's objections, and direct people to previous WP:RSN discussions if it comes up a lot. Going through the whole giant RFC process is only necessary when a source is both so bad that it can essentially never be used for facts, and has enough defenders or popularity that we need to a big centralized RFC like that to settle the question and avoid constantly wasting time and energy on it. I don't think the Daily Express requires that right now. Which isn't to say it's usable - I'm all for removing it on sight - but I think for now we can just go with "remove on sight, go to talk or WP:RSN if people object." --Aquillion (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

And Daily Express is also known for their nonsense fear mongering as well. I don’t really think it’s reliable honestly if you ask me. —LovelyGirl7 talk 21:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

How scared of snakes is Indiana Jones

Dispute at Talk:Ophidiophobia#Indiana_Jones_BRRD,_if_anyone_is_interested if the sources used are reliable in context. More views welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh em eff gee. MastCell  23:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yup... it’s confirmed... Wikipedians can argue about anything. Blueboar (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This takes lameness to a new level, someone create an entry if there isn't already one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Dispute over reliance on working paper, related to immigration

Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs), Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs), and myself are in a dispute over whether a working paper by a PhD student at York University meets our standards regarding reliable sources. The paper is from October 2015, never made it to publication, and apparently is only accessible today via Wayback Machine (an indication that the author herself abandoned it). The paper in question is here. Additionally, there is a media article based on (and explicitly referring to) this very same working paper, that Volunteer Marek thinks serves as an independent verification of the claim the original working paper was cited as source for.

In my opinion this does not meet our WP:RS standard for reliable sources. But as the dispute is bordering on an edit war now, I ask for a third opinion here. --bender235 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

For what its worth, it often takes many years for econ papers to go from WPs to published in peer-reviewed journals, in part because scholars present papers at conferences to get important feedback, and in part, because econ journals are slow as hell. So, the notion that the paper has been retracted is extremely likely. Through Google Fu, I can see that the scholar presented the paper at a conference as recently as July 2017. I don't have strong opinions as to keeping/removing working papers, but I think we should keep this one, in particular since the paper has been covered by other sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

A working paper by a PhD candidate alone should not be taken as a reliable source; without publication, its not been subject to peer-review, and without that, a relatively unknown PhD candidate is not an expert. But I would agree that if you have RSes pointing to the paper, then the conclusions of the paper as reflected by the reliable sources can be included, but one should be careful to take other aspects of the paper not mentioned by it as fact. --Masem (t) 18:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Any news site can look around for something that supports the viewpoint they want supported. That doesn't mean it should get into this encyclopedia simply because it says what some editors might want to hear. Dream Focus 18:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I said the paper should be presented through the eyes of the RS, and not taken outside of that by itself (at least, while it remains unpublished). And yes, the Bloomberg piece is opinion, so that should be even more caution on the wording. "(So and so), writing for Bloomberg, supported the need for immigration, pointing to a 20xx working paper that suggest tech sections can benefit from such an influx." (or something like that, I'm scanning the BB article). Just can't use the working paper alone without the referencing source. --Masem (t) 18:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

As close as I can tell, that paper wasn't really published in any sense of the word. It was submitted to the conference, but I didn't see any indication that it was selected. The fact that it was found through the website doesn't really indicate to me that it was published through them, and not placed there for members to review for selection. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I've done a bit more digging, and I found the paper was accepted and set to be presented on June 13th at the Druid 2016 conference. So I retract what I said about it not really being published. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Presenting a paper at a conference is not equal to publication after a peer review process. If this paper's conclusion hold under scrutiny of peer review and result in a credible journal publication, we can still add it later. We have time, we're not in the business of churnalism. --bender235 (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say it was equal to publication after a peer review process. My point is that it meets our minimum requirements for being considered published. And while I'm not a fan of low quality sources filling up Misplaced Pages, I try to limit reasons to exclude based on written policies. In this case I thought it wasn't what would be considered published, and I was wrong. This doesn't mean I support inclusion. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Pretty much in agreement with Masem. A working paper, by itself, is not sufficient sourcing (subject to change once it's formally published in the scholarly literature). If the working paper has been covered by independent, reliable secondary sources, then the material is potentially acceptable for inclusion, in the context of those reliable sources. Bloomberg is generally a reliable source, but the Bloomberg piece in question is an opinion article, not news reporting—so it should not generally be used for statements of fact. MastCell  23:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

thearda.com

• Source: http://www.thearda.com/learningcenter/religiondictionary.asp#F
• Article content: "Faith healing is the practice of prayer and gestures (such as laying on of hands) that are claimed can elicit divine intervention in spiritual and physical healing, especially the Christian practice."
• Discussion:

Discussion

The issue is whether thearda.com is a reliable source? It's moot. Several definitely reliable sources will also provide similar definitions. Here is Oxford Dictionaries: faith healing; American Heritage Dictionary faith healing. These dictionaries do not say "especially Christian" or specifically refer to laying on hands. Are they necessary to your purposes? In my search, I also found an article that appeared in Science, which is the second-most prestigious science journal in the anglosphere: "The Science of Faith Healing" Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the question is not if the definition is apt; it's whether the source is good (for the purposes of adhering to WP:V). Alexbrn (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

There is an open request for comments which relates to reliable sources and categorising faith healing as a pseudoscience that people might like to visit. This follows a previous request for comments on the same issue that was held some time ago.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Books on Demand, Norderstedt

Should books published by Books on Demand GmbH located in Norderstedt Germany, be considered a reliable source? A search shows hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles citing BOD publications as a source.

Both their website and the German article de:Books on Demand describe it as a Self-publishing platform. To my understanding, unless the author is already notable or trusted, this pretty much rules out such sources as references for most things other than themselves, per WP:SPS. Mathglot (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:MIRROR. Never use. - Sitush (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

What can be done, then, for the hundreds of articles already citing it? A bot? Get someone to let AWB go to town on them, perhaps tagging them all {{Better source}} with SPS in the reason? An edit filter to alert users going forward? Mathglot (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hundreds? Yep, hundreds. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, this:Günter Preuß is pretty bad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Buzzfeed News as a source for text on PragerU

Can this Buzzfeed News article be used as a source for the following text?:

• Much of PragerU's early funding came from the fracking billionaire Wilks brothers. The organization has a $10 million annual budget, of which it spends more than 40% on marketing.

Another editor disputes that Buzzfeed News is WP:RS and insists that this piece in particular is an "opinion article". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

This is an opinion article by Joseph Bernstein, not a news article. A better source is clearly needed. If that information is true, it needs to be supported by RELIABLE secondary sources, such as BBC, New York Times, Reuters, etc. Not "buzzfeed".--יניב הורון (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The author's description is "BuzzFeed News Reporter" and "senior technology reporter for BuzzFeed News". There's nothing to suggest that this particular article is an opinion piece. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Phrases like "And yet the Donald-sized lacuna in PragerU feels weird and denial-ish." are not signs of objective reporting but an opinion piece (From what I see, Buzzfeed has no subheader to distinguish between news and opinion, so we have to make judgement calls). Buzzfeed, while nominally an RS (but nowhere near the equivalence of NYTimes), should not be the sole source for controversial statements, and searching around, while Buzzfeed is not alone in the claim about Wilks funding PragerU, the few other sites reporting it are even less of an RS, so it definitely should be handled carefully. In this case, I would insert "According to Buzzfeed, much of PragerU's early funding came from..." to at least avoid stating it in Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 13:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The Wilks information can also be sources to Mother Jones at https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/inside-right-wing-youtube-turning-millennials-conservative-prageru-video-dennis-prager/ through https://rewire.news/article/2015/04/30/conservatives-spend-millions-proselytizing-school-children/ , and allegedly (I'm not going to do the work) through the underlying documents (990s, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax) which are filed publicly by the Heavenly Father’s Foundation and the Thirteen Foundation. Carte Rouge (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a surprisingly good article for buzzfeed, and the Mother Jones and Rewire.News articles are more than enough to demonstrate the info is reliable and due. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Use and citation of intermediate sources?

• Source A says 'In source B, Ralph wrote "Water is Wet."'
• No one has yet read source B.
• Misplaced Pages article says 'In source B, Ralph wrote "Water is Wet."' (Source: B).

I believe this is plagiarism, and Misplaced Pages should say

• 'According to source A, In source B, Ralph wrote "Water is Wet."' (Source: A) or
• 'In source B, Ralph wrote "Water is Wet."' (Source: A).

Please confirm or correct my understanding. Thanks! Carte Rouge (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT... we should both attribute and cite to source A, unless we have seen source B. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. The link is quite helpful. Best wishes. Carte Rouge (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution