Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:RSN" redirects here. For "Wikipedia will be ready real soon now", see meta:Eventualism.
Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please be sure to include the following information, if available:
  • Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [].
  • Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].
  • Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".
While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174

Current large scale clean-up efforts[edit]

Large scale clean-ups/[edit]

Large scale clean-ups/[edit]

Large scale clean-ups/[edit]

Large scale clean-ups/[edit]

Can we use blogs to show that a subject is discussed in cyberspace?[edit]

User:TrueChinaHistory. who clearly has strong feelings about the issue of Chinese Muslims, insists that it is ok to use blogs because "These web links have to be added because they represent the public's view towards some scholar's opinion. I gave a clear indication that these sources are from non-academic citizens." The article is Chang Yuchun and there is a dispute over whether Chang Yuchun was Muslim or not. I've got no opinion but have been trying to keep this and related articles NPOV and present both sides. The actual edit that I reverted and has been reinstated is: "This issue is also discussed on Chinese cyberspace. Some network users complain Muslim scholars' conclusion is unreliable<ref>{{cite web|title=常遇春的民族怎么不是汉族|url=|website=百度贴吧}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=有些扯吧,常遇春是回族人?|url=|website=天涯论坛}}</ref>, while others insist Chang was a Muslim." Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This comes up in fringe topics pretty often where a single person is being quoted. It's definitely slippery ground, so giving WP:USESPS a read could help. Typically blogs in the sense you are using them are primary sources, and are not preferred. The only time I've really seen blogs allowed is in the very narrow sense of saying that notable person X said Y, and only that they made the statement. That also keeps in mind that the source needs to be verifiable as coming from the person in question. This works for content about a specific person, but the unreliability factor goes up as you're talking about more general topics. So the question I'd ask is whether the primary source is reliable for the content (usually it's not). From what I see though in this example, a blog post cannot be used to "represent the public's view towards some scholar's opinion." We cannot know that the primary source actually represents the public's view (we need a secondary source to come out and say that) otherwise it would be synthesis and original research. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
What someone says on a blog is a reliable source for what they say. However it is original research to conclude from blog postings that there individuals disagreeing with academics. You need a secondary source that draws that conclusion. TFD (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

User:DougwellerI Apologize to you if I hurt your feeling. This is my first time changing a wiki page and I'm lack of knowledge about everything. Please forgive me and tell me how to improve. In this sentence, I just want to demonstrate there are civilians disagree with scholars' conclusion. I haven't find any academic material discussing the public's reaction, but there are many Internet materials focusing on this topic. They also argue with evidence from reliable books and history facts. So I wonder if I could conserve these content, by changing expression or other ways? Please help me.(By the way, these two links are not blogs but BBS with discussion on them.)TrueChinaHistory (talk)

A Wikipedia editor isn't considered qualified to survey the content of the Internet and conclude that a significant number of people hold a particular position. We shouldn't try to say that a significant number of people hold a particular position unless we can find a reliable source that says that. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
TrueChinaHistory, I appreciate your response and assure you my feelings aren't hurt at all. But Jc3s5h is correct. We'd need a source meeting our criteria at WP:RS to make such a statement. We don't normally use blogs (except in articles about themselves, those with editorial supervision such as major newspaper blogs, etc) or forums including bulletin boards. Dougweller (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Dougweller,I deleted this sentence. Hope more scholars notice this issue.TrueChinaHistory (talk)

The real issue here is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. It may be true that lots of people on the internet share an opinion... but unless a reliable source has noted this fact and commented upon it... then mentioning their view at all can give their view UNDUE weight. Blueboar (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I see blogs used as sources elsewhere -- but to me it seems more that having the dispute or even his religion mentioned is what is out of place. Unless the dispute or religion is a major portion of materials about the man or has the significance to his history put forward to make it relevant, why have that section at all ? Markbassett (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Personal blogs cannot be used as a reliable source for facts unless it is the subjects personal blog and the content is about them only and non contentious content like date of birth, place of birth etc. and yes...their religion. Newsblogs may be used to source facts as a reliable source as long as the blog is in fact from a reputable news agency and is not opinion or an editorial. In that case the blog is used to source the opinion of the writer with attribution in the text of the article such as: "John Smith of the Washington Post states......."--Mark Miller (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of reviews of scientific literature put out by advocacy groups?[edit]

When dealing with scientific literature, we have a strong preference for secondary literature. However, there's some gray area as to what is called a good secondary source or review here. When government scientific agencies put out review (e.g. USDA, EPA, etc.) we typically consider them reliable sources. How should advocacy groups doing the same be handled though? I've seen multiple articles using such sources that aren't obviously problematic at first glance, but I haven't been sure of if they've just slipped through the cracks, or there has been some general consensus that they hold weight of a typical reliable secondary source. One example I've been looking at is this source [1] that is currently used over at Neonicotinoid, with the content: "In March 2013, the American Bird Conservancy published a review of 200 studies on neonicotinoids including industry research obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act, calling for a ban on neonicotinoid use as seed treatments because of their toxicity to birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife."

I don't have any edits in mind for that particular content right now, but the source is what made me pose the question above. It seems to fail WP:NOTGOODSOURCE, especially for self-publishing, conflict of interest, lack of peer-review, editorial oversight, etc. It would seem to me that a source like this ranks very low on the reliability spectrum as a review for addressing scientific content, consensus, etc. (although fine for saying the group called for a ban as a primary source). What are other folks thoughts on how sources like these should (or shouldn't) be used in the context of scientific content? It would seem to me a source like this wouldn't be reliable for scientific content as a review, but I wanted to get a feel for now others may have handled such sources in the past. So again, not a question on the specific content in the article, but more about where the general lines of reliability are drawn for such sources. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

One does have to realize that scientists can disagree as much as anyone else. If there is a question about such sources, I would suggest treating them as opinion pieces. Ie they can be considered reliable for attributed statements as to what the author's opinion on a topic... but not necessarily reliable for an unattributed statement of fact.
Also - Note that phrasing something as an opinion does not guarantee inclusion of that opinion... that depends on DUE WEIGHT. Blueboar (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
If we treat the source as an "opinion" piece, than we would not accept it as a source whatsoever, per WP:NEWSORG. Reading the introduction to the report, the advocacy element comes off quite strong. I agree with the OP that the source is not reliable, unless supplemented by secondary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 01:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
You would have to look at the credentials of the scientist(s) carrying out the review as well as the advocacy organisation that published it. The American Bird Conservancy is hardly an extremist organisation and the idea that neonicotinoids can be toxic in the environment isn't new. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm -- advocacy group input should not be taken as unbiased since they will be in good faith to their mission using wording and selectively framing things to help their mission. But there's two buts I think make it acceptable if not ideal. First, the advocacy group input may be significant to the topic -- e.g. what AARP says about social security is due some weight in the topic and is part of the factors, and ABC may be the only such report out there. Second is that it's all shades of grey with nobody perfectly reliable so just try to get the best you can and to get more than one source. Your USDA and EPA, or college and scientific orgs have their own agendas and put their spin on things and may be using what lobbyists gave them as either a shortcut or in some cases because they are their future employers. All sources have motives for doing such study in the first place. Seems to me that motives for ABC are apparent, and that likely it stayed within reputable word-choice+spin versus flat-out lying. Maybe acceptable but not ideal so use with care. Markbassett (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Flong paper and Hurcott Mill[edit]

The largest manufacturers of flong paper making were L S Dixon Group in Hurcott Paper Mills near Kidderminster. They supplied all the British Newspapers during the two world wars. There had been a paper mill on the site since 1635. It was owned by the Earl of Dudley and paper was made there by monks.

FARS News Agency (Iranian news source)[edit]

On its about page it calls itself "Iran's leading independent news agency, covering a wide variety of subjects in different, political, economic, cultural, social, legal, sports, military and other areas with the most up-to-date, independent, unbiased and reliable news and reports in Persian and English." I wouldn't put it up there with the AP or Reuters, and of course there's going to be a political/editorial slant, however I don't see any reason to declare it unreliable off the bat. - Technophant (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

With alignments to the Revolutionary Guard and a history of really bad reporting, I don't see how we can consider this reliable for anything. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I, for one, thoroughly intend to use it to blow the lid off the US-Alien-Hitler conspiracy that other sources have been concealing from Wikipedia for far too long. --GRuban (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll stop you with my time travel device. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable for most purposes, especially for non-contentious Iran-related fact. For international politics treat as biased. Not reliable for science and treat with caution even for science-related news. You will get more useful comments from this board if you ask about a particular case. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Itsmejudith, generally. Because the reliability of a source is hard to estimate universally - i.e. in all instances - here is a link to the article in question, from this discussion on the ISIS/ISIL wiki page. Fars news cites Vyacheslav Matuzov on VoR, perhaps this interview? It's not clear that Matuzov said what Fars quotes him as saying. -Darouet (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That particular piece is no use at all. Matuzov may have said in the radio interview what's attributed but Voice of Russia should be the source. This is at best commentary rather than news, at worst, just propaganda. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hans Sachs (poster collector)[edit]

Hans Sachs (poster collector) exists today, but I'd like to lengthen it considerably.

I have a source that might present issues. It is an unpublished note written by Sachs that is reprinted in an recent auction catalogue.

The Hans Sachs Poster Collection, Part I, New York: Guernsey's, 2012, pp. 7-26 (German with English translation)

By and large, the details of Sachs's life are in newspaper articles, probably lifted from this source without attribution. I could cite the newspaper articles, and it would take some effort to discover that not everything came from them.

Henry Townsend 22:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Warship captain's "Report of Proceedings/CO Reports"... reliable source?[edit]

A week or so ago, a new user, User:Taylmw added information to several Royal Australian Navy ship articles. Some of the content was cited to reliable sources, but other bits were attributed to a "Report of Proceedings" or a "CO Report". Is someone able to tell me if such documents count as reliable, published sources for verifiability purposes (I think not, because I think these documents, as high-end internal reports by ship captains for their superiors, are not published) but I'm A Bloody Civilian, and would request more opinions.

The affected articles (and relevant edits) are HMAS Gladstone (FCPB 216) [2], HMAS Wollongong (ACPB 92) [3], and HMAS Bendigo (FCPB 211) [4]. -- saberwyn 12:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If the reports are in an archive that members of the public can access, then they are considered "Published". However, such documents are primary sources... Primary sources can be reliable, but their reliability is limited. I have not looked at how these specific primary sources are actually used in the articles in question, so I won't comment on whether they are used appropriately or not. Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Yann Richard, "Shiite Islam", Wiley-Blackwell publication[edit]

I am wondering if this book is reliable to use in Muhammad al-Mahdi article. I ran into this review published in the Canadian Journal of History that has some serious criticism about the book despite respecting the work overall:

It is unfortunate that such legends continue to be repeated, especially after the recent increase of scholarship on the topic. It is certainly unfortunate that such misrepresentations are allowed to mar what is otherwise a perfectly fme and in some respects quite excellent work.

.--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on the reviews in the amazon link you give, this looks like a potentially very good source for articles related to Shia Islam. No source is necessarily always reliable for any statement, though, so it depends on what content it is used to support. Formerip (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Notre Dame University trustees[edit]

Is John Cornwell, Breaking Faith, p. 131 a reliable source for the statement that the trustees of Notre Dame University "believed that framing non-discrimination as a civil right conflicted with the church's teachings on homosexuality"? The claim is made here (third paragraph) and has been discussed here. In my view, the claim is an over-simplification to the point of serious distortion. Esoglou (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

This and your succeeding posts all appear to show the "eternal problem" on Wikipedia of how to deal with religious tenets and current social issues - in the case at hand, it appears that the positions of editors are possibly interfering with the primary non-negotiable policy of "neutral point of view" in favour of "the Catholic Church is wrong and must be asserted to be wrong about homosexuality." "Reliable source" is not the actual issue - rather the issue is "should sources with possible discernable points of view about a topic be used where the goal of NPOV is then compromised?" An issue worthy of far more discussion than is likely to occur here. Collect (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I fully agree about the problem you mention. These are claims about what was actually said, not evaluations of the rightness or wrongness of what was said. Rightness or wrongness is much more difficult to write about neutrally. But what exactly someone said should be verifiable. So, are these claims about observable facts supported by the sources adduced? Nobody is asking here for a value judgement on the facts. Esoglou (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Interpretation of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith statement[edit]

Can the document On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons be taken as a reliable source for the statement that the document "said that any culpability that pertains to homosexual sexual activity is not mitigated by natural orientation"? The claim is made here (first paragraph) and has been discussed here.

The relevant part of the document (section 11) is: "It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable. Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well."

To my mind, the document explicitly excludes any such generalization as is expressed in the claim. Esoglou (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Description of generically mentioned organizations[edit]

Are this book (p. 223) and this document (section 17) reliable sources for the statement that the document "warned bishops to be on guard against, and not to support, Catholic organizations not upholding the Church's doctrine on homosexuality, groups which the letter said were not really Catholic" (emphasis added)? The claim is made here (paragraph 2) and has been discussed here.

The text of the document related to the claim is:

"With this in mind, this Congregation wishes to ask the Bishops to be especially cautious of any programmes which may seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so. A careful examination of their public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity by which they attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful. For example, they may present the teaching of the Magisterium, but only as if it were an optional source for the formation of one's conscience. Its specific authority is not recognized. Some of these groups will use the word "Catholic" to describe either the organization or its intended members, yet they do not defend and promote the teaching of the Magisterium; indeed, they even openly attack it. While their members may claim a desire to conform their lives to the teaching of Jesus, in fact they abandon the teaching of his Church. This contradictory action should not have the support of the Bishops in any way" (section 14 of the document).

There seems to be no basis for the claim that the organizations spoken of are exclusively Catholic. The document says that some, not all, present themselves as Catholic, and only implicitly suggests, not states, that their self-presentation is false. Esoglou (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Blame for persistence in spite of mortality[edit]

Is this document (section 17) a reliable source for the statement that the document "blamed these organizations ["Catholic organizations not upholding the Church's doctrine on homosexuality, groups which the letter said were not really Catholic"] for continuing to advocate for gay rights even when, it claimed, homosexuality threatened the lives of many people" (emphasis added)? The claim is made here (paragraph 2) and has been discussed here.

The advocating that, at the time of the AIDS epidemic, the document disapproved of was the advocating of "the practice of homosexuality", not the advocating for "gay rights" (whatever the document might conceivably have meant by this). It also did not say that "homosexuality", without distinction between homosexual orientation and homogenital activity, threatened the lives of many people. The relevant sentence is: "Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved." One may indeed ask what is "its" other than a reference to "the practice of homosexuality".

The context is: "There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved. The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy" (section 9 of the document). Esoglou (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[edit]

While the HBO series Game of Thrones is on seasonal hiatus, I wanted to get some input on the reliability of Westeros.Org. I've come across it being used to cite plot bits here and there, but Westeros is a self-proclaimed fansite. Unless we are talking about a reference to an exclusive interview with someone from the cast and/or crew from the series, its usually not usable. Would that be a correct assessment? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

False Memory Syndrome Foundation[edit]

The False Memory Syndrome Foundation [5] is being used as a reliable source on The Courage to Heal Wikipedia page, even though it is not.

On The Courage to Heal page, it is used as a valid critique:

A 2009 newsletter from the American branch of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) criticizes the 20th anniversary edition, saying "No book did more to spread false memory syndrome". The book was described as vicious, and filled with factual errors about the FMSF and the nature of memory, though the anniversary edition is described as better, without the outrageous features of earlier publications and that in the new edition, the FMSF is not mentioned in the book's index. The book is still dedicated to recovering memories, and does not warn the reader of the doubts scientists have about its premises. The book's final case study is still a depiction of satanic ritual abuse, without noting the FBI's report that concluded there was no evidence for the phenomenon.[8] The third edition of the book, published in 1994, included a chapter entitled "Honoring the Truth," in which the authors respond to the book’s critics. The FMSF criticized the chapter about their organization as filled with factual errors and written by a man who had no known credentials and no scientific publications in the relevant fields; the discussion of the FMSF was removed from the 20th anniversary edition.[8]

This is done despite the fact that on the False Memory Syndrome Foundation wiki, it states (using reliable peer reviewed sources) that:

The claims made by the FMSF for the incidence and prevalence of false memories have been criticized for lacking any evidence, and disseminating inaccurate statistics about the alleged extent of the problem.[2] Despite claiming to offer scientific evidence for the existence of FMS, the FMSF has no criteria for one of the primary features of the proposed syndrome – how to determine whether the accusation is true or false. Most of the reports by the FMSF are anecdotal, and the studies cited to support the contention that false memories can be easily created are often based on experiments that bear little resemblance to memories of actual sexual abuse. In addition, though the FMSF claims false memories are due to dubious therapeutic practices, the organization presents no data to demonstrate these practices are widespread or form an organized treatment modality.[21][22] Within the anecdotes used by the FMSF to support their contention that faulty therapy causes false memories, some include examples of people who recovered their memories outside of therapy.[2]

femmebot 22:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magsmacaulay (talkcontribs)

Wikipedia is, ironically, not a reliable source.
My view is that the FMSF is a major player in the recovered memory/repressed memory/false memory debate, staffed by experts, and represents a viable parity source for a completely unscientific, unscholarly, harmful book like The Courage to Heal. Basically no scholars of relevant expertise have anything good to say about the book, particularly since the false memory debate has died down and it turned out that the problem with memories of abuse are their intrusiveness, not their absence. It's not a scholarly volume, therefore nonscholarly sources are usable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. I followed the instructions that asked me to include specific quotes. What I don't understand is why your view trumps the 3 scholarly sources critiquing the credibility of the FMSF on their own page. If the FMSF is so reliable, prove it. Attacking other points of view for not being credible doesn't make yours more credible. What are the credentials of its researchers? The significance and merit of their work? From the scholarly, peer-reviewed critiques, their science is pretty shoddy.femmebot 23:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magsmacaulay (talkcontribs)

Ironical for your advocacy against gender bias inside Wikipedia, Elizabeth Loftus, member of FMSF board, is considered the most influential female psychologist of the 20th century, see e.g. David W. Martin's TTC course Psychology of Human Behavior. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. So where is the evidence that her presence on the FMSF makes it credible? Nobody has explained why 3 independent critiques of FMSF have uncovered significant methodological problems in their research. Also, this is about the reliability of a source, not my position on feminism or what you consider 'ironical'. Here is a journalistic piece that would give a fair-minded reader a reason to be suspicious: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magsmacaulay (talkcontribs) 21:31, July 26, 2014

Magsmacaulay, you don't appear to understand the rules about reliable sources. Advocacy groups are not generally considered as reliable sources of fact regarding the subject of their advocacy, but this only means you can't make an unattributed statement of fact and cite it to FMSF. It doesn't mean that the opinion of FMSF can't be given in the article and cited to their publications. FMSF is certainly a reliable source for what their opinion is, which is all that WP:V demands for something presented as their opinion. So if mention of them in the article is careful in attributing their opinion to them, there is no case to make on the basis of reliability. Your only chance is to argue that FMSF is insignificant and can be removed on the basis of WP:WEIGHT. However, if I understand the article, the book even used to have a chapter on FMSF, which makes an argument based on weight completely unsustainable. In conclusion you don't have a case for excluding FMSF altogether. You can try arguing about the relative prominence of the mention, the accuracy of the mention (i.e. whether FMSF's opinions are presented correctly), and things like that. Not on this noticeboard though. Zerotalk 02:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, as far as I am aware, while there are reliable sources that criticize the FMSF in general (which can and should be used on the FMSF article itself), I've yet to see any such sources that point to errors in the FMSF's discussion of The Courage to Heal. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Sabrang Communications[edit]

Is [] Sabrang Communications a reliable source? As already discussed here, the Committee might comprise of retired judges and been cited in some books, but are those reports scrutinised? Do those reports go through fact-finding and editorial reviews as in case of books or journal or newspaper publishing? Who verifies the information displayed in this site, other than two Human Rights members? - Vatsan34 (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict[edit]

Is the following source RS for being used in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict as a source showing the quietness of the region?

The Israeli State Security (Shabak) Mhhossein (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It is not for Wikipedia to pass a judgment. "The Israeli State Security (Shabak) data show that" should be changed to "According to the Israeli State Security (Shabak) data," or the like. Esoglou (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure I agree with the first bit. It is for Wikipedia to pass a judgment. Sources that the community decide are unreliable in a specific context shouldn't be used and that's especially important in the WP:ARBPIA topic area where very poor source are plentiful, as are editors who will use them without hesitation. This isn't one of those sources though. I assume this case refers to the statement "The Israeli State Security (Shabak) data show that 2013 had been one of the quietest years since 2000, and that rocket attacks from Gaza continued to be at a background level until April 2014.(ref)Israeli Security Agency(/ref)" in which case I agree with Esoglou that it should say something like "According to the Israeli State Security (Shabak) data, 2013 was one of the quietest years since 2000 and rocket attacks from Gaza continued to be at a background level until April 2014." Sean.hoyland - talk 13:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I should have written: "It is not necessary for Wikipedia to pass a judgment". In some cases it is, but not here. Esoglou (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I guess it's possible that Mhhossein may not have expressed their concerns as clearly as is probably required in this case. I can't see the source cited right now so I don't know what the statement in the article is based on precisely, but I can imagine that the statement might need something along the lines of the bit in italics based on whatever the source says - "According to the Israeli State Security (Shabak) data, 2013 was one of the quietest years since 2000 in terms of <something, probably rocket attacks or perhaps numbers of people killed, not sure>, and that rocket attacks from Gaza continued to be at a background level until April 2014". Perhaps Mhhossein is objecting the notion of "quiet" given that about 40 people were killed in the conflict in 2013. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I can see the cited source now but since it's a statement about the whole of 2013 and beyond, that URL can't be right. There's a 2013 Annual Summary which does "show that 2013 had been one of the quietest years since 2000" I guess but only if a Wikipedia editor makes that assessment. Shabak don't make any statements like that. I haven't looked at the 2014 data with respect to the "background level" statement but perhaps what is happening here is that an editor is doing some WP:OR or they have cited the primary source rather than the secondary. Or perhaps there is another Shabak page that supports these statements. If the Shabak data is to be used the statements in the article will have to be purely factual and/or stick closer to what Shabak says rather than use words like quietness and background level. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[edit]

Anyone know the situation with this site? It was owned by UGO Networks before its closure, and all its sites bought by Ziff Davis, but I can't see any mention of it on the site. The site itself has a lot of good interviews for old school games which don't seem to exist elsewhere, like this one, so if anyone knows if it is reliable, it'd be really useful. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert Parry again[edit]

Robert Parry and his has come up before on this noticeboard, but perhaps we could consider him on a claim by claim basis. At current issue is this claim:

What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.
--Brian Dell (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No, not reliable. No, not usable. No, not a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Blog-based gossip at best. In the blog itself, it even says that its position is different than all mainstream sources. Definition of a fringe viewpoint.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
What ELAQUEATE said.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Is The Blaze a WP:RS for America (2014 film)[edit]

A dicusion at the talk page for America (2014 film) is becoming heated over including the Blaze as a WP:RS for that movie. There needs to be some outside input into the issue. Please look at the context and give your opinion on rather the source should or should not be used. The discussion can be found here. Casprings (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to what the particulars are. While we see 1. Source and 2. Article, we do not see 3. Content. The instructions (above) ask for "the exact statement{s) or other content in the article." (As it stands, the thread is WP:TLDR.) Putting the exact content question aside, this is more of an opinion type source than factual one. My solution is to link TheBlaze piece as a further reading or external link in the article. – S. Rich (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
[6] is an example of a disputed edit. In sum, the blaze provides some meaning to a movie rating based on audience polling.Casprings (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It catenates two claims - that only 52 films have received A+ ratings is presumably an empirical fact. Empirical facts are not generally a problem for editors to accept in claims - indeed it appears the statement is ascertainably true that 52 films have had that rating. What is opinion, moreover, it that such a rating is "incredibly rare", and the term "rare" should only be used if it is expressed as an ascribed opinion. The empirical total of all rated films would be an empirical fact, and thus would not be stated as opinion. What is left is:
'The Blaze' noted that the film is one of 52 films with an A+ rating from CinemaScore out of N total rated films.
Such a claim would be subject to empirical verification and would not be a statement of opinion about which editors should have disputes. Collect (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
That Blaze thing is still an editorial opinion. It's an RS for its own opinion, but is not a RS for what a rating "means". Random Blaze editorials have no reputation for cinema knowledge. Both refs could be replaced with this, which confirms the basic fact of the film receiving the rating.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
In what sense are empirically observable number "opinions"? Clearly we can link to the organization which has such ratings, and even refer to what the rating "means", but the simple statement of empirical fact is not "opinion" here. The CNN source does not give any numbers, which limits its utility for much of any claim. [7] uses the term "select few movies." [8] Breitbart is also available. [9] Pajiba is likely a source for " An A+ is very rare while an F is even more rare." Still -- sticking to actual countable numbers is not in the realm of "opinion" AFAICT. Collect (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, here's where straying from reliable sources for hard numbers is so problematic. If it's an unreliable source it can still misreport "actual countable numbers". The Blaze does say that "In the last 29 years, only 52 films have received an A+". They say this in 2014. The Hollywood Reporter article they cite is from 2011, where it says that (as of 2011) only 52 films have received an A+, and also that roughly two films a year on average receive that score. Take a moment and do the math. (That was the moment both opinion writers didn't take.) "Sticking to actual countable numbers is not in the realm of "opinion"" is a fine sentiment, but you still need to source those numbers from RS that have a reputation for getting their numbers right. TheBlaze clearly didn't do that, they don't have a reputation for doing that, and they reported the "empirically observable number" incorrectly (as in, not the right number). I don't think TheBlaze (or Breitbart) can be considered a good, reliable, or usable source for a "solid number" they both misinterpreted and reported incorrectly. Basically, being outright wrong limits their utility for any numeric claim here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The cavil is that the number is 53 and not 52 and this then makes a source irredeemably bad? Really? Sorry -- that added snipe at a source fails -- the NYT can give a wrong number where the difference is trivial without making it unusable for statements of empirical fact. "Outright wrong" is a tad of an overstatement in this case. And the "rare" opinion can be now sourced to absolute reliable sources per the examples given above. Collect (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, you didn't do the math correctly again. It's clearly not 53 either. We don't know how many films have currently received an A+ rating, because we don't have a RS for that information. The Blaze reports the 2011 number as if it's current for 2014, when we know the number has changed, but we don't know how much. 52 (and 53) is clearly outdated information, as movies like 42 and the Avengers and some unknown and unreported number of other films have gotten the rating in the meantime. TheBlaze, in it's excitement over how exclusive this ratings club is, misreported an old number as if it was current. That makes their claim to know how many movies have received the rating unreliable. A small error, and not a huge problem, except that that information is exactly the information you want to use them for. I don't think it's a strange idea to not use a certain source for an "empirical number" that was reported incorrectly in their article. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
And as a second issue beyond the fact of TheBlaze and Breitbart failing at accurate quotation, it turns out the number in the Hollywood Reporter has its own problems. in 2013, CinemaScore's Harold Mintz said he "estimates that less than 50 films have rated an "A+" since CinemaScore began grading.". This is in 2013, two years after the Hollywood Reporter stated that exactly 52 A+'s had occurred, and after interviews with the very same employee. I don't think there is a reliable source for any specific claims about "total A+'s". In any case, there's no point using theBlaze or Breitbart as a citation to "verify" a reported number that is inconsistent with better and more reliable sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The Hollywood Reporter actually counts and lists the 52 films that received an A+ grade from 1982-2011, which trumps some on the spot guestimation off the top of Mintz's head. The Blaze piece directly cites and links to the THR article. The NY Times and other media outlets frequently slightly misquote or muddily summarize items, so The Blaze saying "In the last 29 years" as opposed to something like "In its first 29 years" is a poor excuse to reject the entire source outright. It's essentially a typo, and arguably not even that since the intent could have been to convey "the last 29 years studied". It's also irrelevant to this inclusion, since the segment in question doesn't quote The Blaze, and correctly relays The Hollywood Reporter time period and count The Blaze references. The Blaze's utility as a source in this case is in noting that the film America now joins that exclusive A+ club. This edit should be considered routine and uncontroversial. VictorD7 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
For the record, the proposed edit would simply read (following the pat statement about the movie's CinemaScore rating)... "From 1982 to 2011 only 52 movies received an A+ score from CinemaScore."...and would be accompanied by two sources, The Blaze and The Hollywood Reporter. VictorD7 (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
And still no reason to cite the Blaze, since you admit it doesn't directly support the statement offered. The Blaze simply does not have a reputation for fact-checking. (And it is still problematic that you want to add a cite to it when it distorts the exact fact you want to use it for. Saying the piece includes a link to the other cite is unconvincing and does not speak to the Blaze's reliability.) The main point is that numbers require reliable sourcing if it involves a claim that's even slightly extraordinary. If the question was "How many children does the subject have?" I'd expect a citation to an agreed-upon reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, rather than a source we have no reason to trust, even if it concerns a simple number. Even if the Blaze hadn't loused up the actual facts, I don't see an argument that we would use it as a reliable source for interpreting cinema ratings. Since America isn't a movie from 1982 to 2011, it's arguably OR to include a factoid about that, unless you're trying to say that the Blaze specifically is somehow a reliable source for its relevance. I don't think you'll find a consensus that it is.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't oppose just using the THR piece to support the segment, which would certainly not be "OR" since the segment reflects the source almost word for word (you'd have to find another rationale for opposing it). However,I support using The Blaze piece too since it explicitly ties the grade's rarity to the article topic, and it does directly support the segment by showing a second, published news source covering the facts presented in the THR article. The Blaze did not "louse up" the facts about the grade being very rare, only 52 films receiving it in a 29 year period, or the various movies it cites whose exclusive company the America documentary has now joined. All that is worthwhile reading for those interested enough to click on the link for additional information. The direct link to the THR mitigates the fuzziness over the precise time period. I comment on the "fact checking" claim below, but The Blaze employs editors and reporters with many years of news experience. The bottom line is that one confusedly worded segment with only a trivial impact that isn't quoted in the proposed edit anyway shouldn't be seized on as an excuse for rejecting the whole thing. News stories frequently contain typos or slight inaccuracies but are still used as Wikipedia sources all the time. Certainly the grade's historical rarity merits mentioning in the article, and shouldn't fall victim to perceived technicalities or Wikilawyering to keep it out.VictorD7 (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It's super simple. You want to add the Blaze because it explicitly ties the grade's rarity to the article topic. That means you find their judgement reliable. Most others don't. Most find it questionable. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves. That means not using a questionable source for facts about the movie or facts about CinemaScore. I can see that their reputation for fact-checking is good with you personally. That's fine, live and let live. I don't see that reputation represented in the larger world. "The NY Times makes mistakes too" is never going to be seen as a valid argument on this board as a substitute for a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". (And as far as Mintz goes, he seems to have give three or four answers over the years about how many films received an A+. You seem to think the one the Blaze and Brietbart latched onto must be the only possible correct one, but if the original source is giving contradictory answers, I don't see how we can elevate one over the others in Wikipedia's voice. None of the estimates were given out in a RS in connection to this particular article's subject, of course.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not about their "judgment". The movie is tied to the historical stat about the grade because it received the grade. Both the historical stat and this movie's grade are established facts. The Blaze simply reports this undisputed connection. It's unclear what you mean by "most find it questionable", given The Blaze's extreme popularity and the support from numerous editors this particular inclusion has. Regarding the historical fact, perhaps you missed my post observing that THR actually listed all the movies that had earned an A+ grade, doing their own count (which you're free to verify; I did). They didn't ask Mintz to give a number. You've presented no legitimate reason for excluding the segment. It would be disingenuous to pretend that there's some dispute or doubt that the grade is extremely rare. The truth is known here, and it belongs in the article. At most editors should be suggesting slight tweaks, not blanket exclusion. VictorD7 (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves The onus is on the editor suggesting the change to convince other editors a source is not questionable. I do not see you doing that, although I'm sure you believe in the source yourself. Horoscopes also have "extreme popularity", but they are not RS. "Established facts" should be cited to RS, not cited to non-RS. If a source has a dodgy reputation it generally shouldn't be used even to cite a claim that the sun is bigger than the earth, the truth notwithstanding. I also suggested a CNN citation for the A+ grade, but looking at the article, that information is already there and sourced. If you want to add something like "rare" or "uncommon" there are better sources for that judgement and if you want to outline how empirically rare the nomination is, you have to do better than handwaving contradictory sources about the material away. CinemaScore is a private marketing business; it is in their interest (and the specific movies involved) to inflate people's ideas of how "rare" a result is and how important an indicator it is regarding a movie's achievements. That's why we require reliable sources to help ensure NPOV and avoid repeating marketing or cheerleader-style distortions.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
So now you're also attacking The Hollywood Reporter's credibility as a source? There isn't a meaningful contradiction on the empirical point. THR listed every movie to earn an A+ grade. Period. A later story citing a CinemaScore exec who didn't have the numbers in front of him, who was merely vaguely estimating off the top of his head, and who still landed in the correct ballpark doesn't constitute a "contradiction". If anything, his slightly lower "estimate" of "less than 50" would mark the grade as even rarer anyway. I haven't seen anyone but partisan, left leaning editors label The Blaze as "dodgy". It's mostly a mix of verifiable, well referenced facts and opinion pieces. The segment it would be used to source here (which could include both the proposed sentence and the existing previous one citing the grade, for people who don't want to scroll down to hunt for it on the Box Office Mojo page) isn't in meaningful dispute. It's ironic that in the same post you cite CNN as a reliable source, when (among other journalistic scandals) its former Chief News Director Eason Jordan publicly confessed that for many years the network had a functioning deal with Saddam Hussein to bury atrocities in exchange for greater access. Partisan convenience isn't a legitimate criteria for embracing some sources while excluding others. Indeed such one sided censorship is an unacceptable NPOV violation. Even if one stipulates that CNN is a preferable source to The Blaze, that doesn't mean the latter should never be used for anything but its own opinion, as the site does employ editorial oversight. And if you want to dismiss CinemaScore as a self aggrandizing "private marketing business" (so?), perhaps you should argue to have Wikipedia's explicit endorsement of the outfit's use in articles removed from the MOS guidelines.
"Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner, such as CinemaScore, may be used." If CinemaScore grades are noteworthy, as the guidelines say, then the historical rarity of earning the top grade is inherently noteworthy too. VictorD7 (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The "CinemaScore exec" is Harold Mintz, son of the founder, and the same source used for all stories related to this company from the past ten years. I didn't dismiss them, but references to them should be reliably sourced. I'm not "attacking" the Hollywood Reporter, I'm pointing out that the same person gave same contradictory info in different venues. You can embrace the Harold Mintz of 2011 and bemoan the dissolute Harold Mintz of 2013, but they're the same guy. When reliable sources contradict, you're not supposed to just pick whatever you think agrees with you, as hard as that may be to do. Again, maybe it is rarer; my skepticism about your sources is not because I want to argue for a specific number that shames or flatters. If reliably sourced positive news is there, it should be included. My point is that the source needs to be verifiable and not considered questionable by most editors. You have one source that doesn't mention the subject of the article and one source that most editors find unusable. If you can't convince editors that there's a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that's more significant than what's been found in the past, then you won't have much success citing non-opinion material to it. (Hint: you need more to prove something has a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy than "it has editors" or personal assertions that it's full of facts.) Until then, Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I know who Mintz is. You keep missing the fact that THR didn't quote him as a source, but, through their research, documented and listed every film to receive an A+ ranking. Unless you're attacking that source's reliability too, the empirical historical fact is solid. Again, your description of The Blaze as being "questionable" is just a personal assertion. I don't expect to convince any editors involved in this dispute since opinions on the source's use have broken down roughly evenly in number and completely along party lines. I do intend to continue shaming blatantly POV positions seeking to ban any use of conservative sites while accepting liberal ones whenever such positions rear their head, so that such bias at least doesn't go unchallenged and in the hope of planting seeds in the minds of lurkers who may be more open and fair minded. VictorD7 (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @VictorD7: The Blaze ain't the New York Times. Implying that these two outlets are comparable because they both make a non-zero number of errors is just silly. The Blaze is a hyperpartisan website run by an ideologue with a notoriously spotty record when it comes to objective reality. The site lacks a generally recognized reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which is the central criterion for assessing reliability. As such, we should not be using this website as a source in a serious encyclopedia, except in very limited, circumscribed, and unusual situations. MastCell Talk 21:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The Blaze has never employed disastrous, long running journalistic frauds like Jayson Blair and Walter Duranty, and the NY Times has been credibly accused of hyperpartisanship for decades. Simply repeating that the news site doesn't have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy doesn't make it so. Regardless of whether you place it on par with the NY Times or not, The Blaze does employ editors and reporters, and its facts are usually accurate. Accusations of bias are also irrelevant here, since policy clearly states that sources aren't disqualified for being biased, though I'll point out that Politifact is widely (correctly) seen as possessing a leftist bias. I'll also point out that your link is about Glenn Beck personally (covering his opinion commentary in various venues), not The Blaze per se, and that, regardless, Politifact itself states that it shouldn't be used to comparatively judge outlets ([10]): "We avoid comparisons between the networks. We do not check every statement made on every network, so true comparisons would be difficult. We use our news judgment to decide what we want to fact-check. Also, the networks don’t carry the same amount of political or news programming. CBS, for instance, does not have a 24-hour cable news partner, while Fox and NBC do". VictorD7 (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it's pretty obvious that the New York Times is widely viewed as a reputable, solid journalistic outfit while The Blaze is not. Are you seriously disputing either of those propositions? Let's be real for a minute, and suppose you stopped a dozen people on the street and told them you were trying to build a serious, respectable reference work. If you told those people you were using the New York Times as a source, they'd probably nod in agreement, or at least understanding. If you told them that you were using Glenn Beck's website The Blaze as a source, they'd probably look at you like you were insane, or else up to no good. MastCell Talk 22:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you need to get out more and meet a more diverse crowd. Most people I interact with are more likely to mock than praise the NY Times, and they can back up their criticism with facts, as I have here. Of course I'm not the one trying to disqualify it or other ideological sources that disagree with me from Wikipedia. VictorD7 (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
A reporter who reported in the 30s and 40s and another reporter they fired for misconduct does not represent the "facts" of the institution. Part of maintaining an institution that does value honesty and objectivity is policing your own house. Firing Blair and having a practice of issuing corrections as soon as possible shows this.Casprings (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
That they employed him for so long without catching him doesn't speak highly of their "editorial oversight" at all, nor does hiring him despite his checkered past speak well of their hiring practices. The Blaze has never had such a scandal, where a writer simply made up story after story. As for Duranty, the NY Times still proudly lists him among their "Pulitzer Prize winning" reporters, but I cited him to show that journalistic malfeasance at the paper is nothing new. I could list countless other examples of NY Times bias and dishonesty, but that would be getting off topic. VictorD7 (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
While a debate about the NY Times would be off topic, you do point to another important factor in thinking the Blaze is not a WP:RS. That would be professional respect among its peers. Have they won anything like a Pulitzer? Casprings (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The Pulitzer Prize is one of the garbage awards leftists use to congratulate each other. Even within that context it has less to do with journalistic quality than making a splash, like the awards The Guardian and Washington Post just got for a story Snowden dumped in their laps. Its meaninglessness is underscored by the fact that you were reminded of it by my mention of Pulitzer Prize winning journalistic fraud Walter Duranty.VictorD7 (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
That is a fine opinion. It does go against the general consensus here.Casprings (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
It's a non issue, since nowhere in policy does it state that Pulitzer Prizes are required for a source to be usable. VictorD7 (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
That's pretty much sums up the issue here. What multiple editors have tried to explain to Victor is that these are the criteria used by Wikipedia to evaluate reliable sources. Victor disagrees with them. Sometimes I disagree with them. Our disagreement isn't evidence that Wikipedia is some hotbed of ideological bias desperately in need of his "shaming", it just means that we disagree with Wikipedia policy. The appropriate response for Victor would be to engage in civil discussion on the relevant policy pages and campaign for change, not to use Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND to "shame" his ideological opponents. Gamaliel (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed, the editors are roughly evenly split on this issue, and I, not you, have been the one citing pertinent policy and guidelines in these discussions. I don't disagree with the policies, just their misinterpretation. And I spoke of shaming positions (specifically POV positions that are contrary to policy), not people. You were the one who engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics by replying to a reasonable, crucial question with nonsense pictures (in fairness you later said you regretted doing that), and ultimately threw a temper tantrum consisting of nothing but baseless personal attacks that culminated in you claiming that you would disengage from the discussion. I guess you're back now. The appropriate response for you, Gamaliel, would be for you to civilly campaign on the relevant pages to change the meaning of Wikipedia concepts like "fringe" or "vandalism" to something more to your liking. VictorD7 (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
What does this have to do with WP:RS? Please don't bring your ideological war here. I'm not going to respond to this pack of lies and attacks because that would just give you an excuse to use yet another forum as your WP:BATTLEGROUND, but I will request that some other administrator strike this nonsense from this page as inaccurate, uncivil, and irrelevant to this page. Gamaliel (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Both your posts were entirely ad hominem. They didn't address the substance of this thread at all. Everything I said was accurate, so your charge of "lies" is garbage. Do you want me to link to your childish pictures or your promise to take a break from the discussion after your previous personal attack WP:BATTLEGROUND spree? VictorD7 (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
So what does this have to do with WP:RS again? Gamaliel (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Nothing. Please refrain from perpetuating this ad hominem tangent. VictorD7 (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What a waste of time and digits. I asked for "the exact statement{s) or other content in the article." (as per the talk page instructions), but nothing worthwhile gets posted. Instead we have silly debates about how wonderful or unreliable the NYT is compared to other sources. If I hadn't posted earlier, thereby making myself an "involved editor", I would have shut this down as a distractive (read "disruptive") thread. We already have the talk page discussion and the NPOVN discussion. This is just more nonsensical icing on the cake. (In fact, I may do so because I only asked for a clarification. I did not contribute to the garbage pile.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC) and - reliable sources?[edit]

Are and considered reliable sources? I'd say they're more WP:SPS. AdventurousMe (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[edit]

In the article T. B. Joshua I would like to to use the watchblog in order so stress that Joshua is a highly controversial figure. I want one paragraph to read as follows:

T. B. Joshua has many critics [1] with the watchblog TB Joshua Watch [2] being one of the most vocal critical voices. In this blog it is claimed that many prophecy videos from T.B. Joshua have been edited after a certain event happened in order to create the impression that he was actually predicting the incidents or that facts surrounding the alleged prophecies have been altered afterwards.

Any opinions on that are highly appreciated. Thank you very much. Gromobir (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

My personal objection to this use is I can not see how, in any form, this anonymous blog can be considered a respected journalistic source. If I were to write paragraphs quoting positive yet equally anonymous blogs (which I can do) I would expect immediate objections and removals.

Furthermore, aside from information the user Gromobir wishes to quote, this blog is the source and propagator of a number of anonymous, evidenceless and slanderous stories of various sexual and physical abuse stories. This is extremely serious, and must immediately disqualify it from consideration as a reliable and respected source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandernathan (talkcontribs)

The blog and its contents should not be mentioned unless there is some coverage of those things in reputable, mainstream media. Everyone has critics, but not every critic is important enough to be documented. Anybody can start a WordPress blog, but not everybody's WordPress blog should be cited in an encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Blog author exception criteria--met or unmet?[edit]

This article [11] has been proposed as support for this statement [12] in the article about the Game of Thrones episode "Oathkeeper":

"Content from this episode is also found in A Storm of Swords chapters 61, 68, 71, and 72 (Sansa V, Sansa VI, Daenerys VI, Jaime IX)."

Although the article is a literary analysis, it is not being cited for the writer's interpretation but rather for facts about which events occurred when in the episode and novel. In summary, it tells the reader which parts of the books appeared in the episode.

All parties concur that this site should be considered a blog and/or fansite. The dispute involves whether the exception criteria have been met or not: One user states that this article is acceptable for the statement made per WP:USERG; the author is a named member of the site's staff rather than an anonymous contributor, and credentials are listed [13]. Other users state that her credentials are not sufficient per WP:BLOGS, stating that the author is not an established expert. The first user also cites WP:CONTEXTMATTERS conceding that the author would not be considered an expert for literary analysis but should be considered so for the specific text in question.

The accuracy of the facts cited is not in question. They have been corroborated in several other primary and secondary sources including but not limited the following (though other objections have been raised to each of these): [3][4] [5] [6][7] The material is also found on the fansite [14], among others. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Datu Wata Eduardo Lihao Danda,[edit]

Datu Wata Eduardo T. Danda, (March 22, 1920 – May 02, 2014 ) was a guerrilla on World War II, Call of duty 42-Medical Detachment 106th Infantry USAFFE last January 3, 1942 with rank of Private First Class , May 15 1942 captured by Japanese Royal Army detained in Camp 78 Davao Del Sur Philippines, September 1, 1943 escaped and hide in benders zamboanga, September 14, 1944 rejoined the 45-Medical Detachment 121st Infantry 10ND USAFFE in Curuan Zamboanga Philippines under the command of Capt. Castillo. After WWII he integrated to Philippines Constabulary and retired in Sept. 1971. Married to Ms. Aquilina Pandac Dapat, he fall in love in first sight the 17 years old pretty girl daughter of Mr. Francisco Laure Dapat and Mrs. Antonieta Pandac from Misamis city, Mrs Aquilina D. Danda bored 15 children. Datu Wata Eduardo Lihao Danda, he is the youngest son of Thimuay Danda Antanao and Thalina Lihao Danda, he has bother Datu Lamparan Lihao Danda , Andrenico Lihao Danda and sister Ghintanah Lihao Danda, and the Thimuay Danda Antanao re-married to youngest sister of Thalimah she died at early age, The sister of Thalima Lihao Danda with name of Ghenisay Lihao married to Thimuay Danda Antanao bored children Filixberto Lihao Danda, Maria Lihao Danda, Arturo Lihao Danda, Josefa Lihao Danda and Solomon Lihao Danda, Datu Wata Eduardo Lihao Danda, during his teen age days he very adventurer and went to rain forest of kabasalan 4km from road with his 1st cousin Mindal Sanglad and mark the land want too. Thimauy Danda Antanao one of the prominent family and aborigin in Manucipality of KabasalanHe sent Datu Lamparan and Datu Wata Eduardo Danda in Brent School of Zamboanga city, 250km from ho,e town in 1942 up to grade 7[edit]

I have no idea whether is considered a reliable source or not. If it is, will this report ([15]) contribute to establish Minetest's notability?-- (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ "10 things you didn't know about T B Joshua and his SCOAN ministry". 2014-07-25. 
  2. ^ "TB Joshua Watch". 2014-07-25. 
  3. ^ Martin, George (2000). A Storm of Swords. U.K.: Voyager Books. ISBN 0-00-224586-8. 
  4. ^ "Oathkeeper Watch Game of Thrones Season 4 Episode 4". Prince Albert. Retrieved June 23, 2014. 
  5. ^ "Game of Thrones Season 4: the Casting and Plot Expectations". ObservationDeck. Dec 28, 2013. Retrieved June 22, 2014. 
  6. ^ "Oathkeeper". Global Episode Opinion Survey. June 2, 2014. Retrieved June 26, 2014. 
  7. ^ Hickey, Walt (May 4, 2014). "How Much Source Material Does HBO’s ‘Game of Thrones’ Have Left to Work With?". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved May 10, 2014.