Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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. Additional notes: 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. Start a new discussion

Necroshine

Source: [1]

Article: Necroshine

Content:

Overkill "Necroshine" 20,585

Also a link claiming they got it from Soundscan [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caughtinmosh88 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 January 2013

Undiscovered Scotland

• Source. Undiscovered Scotland web site
• Article. Symbister House
• Content.

  Ghost stories are also narrated to this place, including that of an old sailor who was murdered for arguing with the gardener of the house during a game of cards.

  — Symbister House

In Template:Did you know nominations/Symbister, Symbister House, the web site Undiscovered Scotland is used as a source for the hook: "... that Symbister House (pictured) in Symbister, on the island of Whalsay in Shetland Islands, is reputed to be haunted by an old sailor who was murdered by the gardener during a game of cards?"; specifically the page: "WhalsayUndiscovered Scotland: The Ultimate Online Guide". Undiscovered Scotland. Retrieved 1 February 2013. I contend that Undiscovered Scotland's articles are paid-for placements and are thus not eligible as reliable sources. Please advise linking to policy and/or guidelines where appropriate --Senra (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say not reliable for the claim - That said the claim itself can be reliably sources Church Records from 1867 record it as haunted but no detail [3], Page 96 of "The Folklore of Orkney and Shetland" 1975 Marwick [4] give it as haunted by a seaman murdered by the gardener. There may be other reasonable references I'm missing. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Thank you for your response. DYK issue cleared using your source. --Senra (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

While your specific Query was resolved it worried me that Dr Blofeld made the claim "Ask WP:Scotland, it's a top website on Scottish subjects which is used as a source for hundreds of articles on here." so I did a check and we have something like 578 articles using this as a reference. This is problematic undiscoveredscotland.co.uk gives no detail as to the reliability of any of its claims at best it's a tertiary source which makes no reference to its secondary sources, at worst its a mess of otherwise unverifiable material that if it can be verified should be sourced to the source of that verification not undiscovered Scotland. The material gives no credit to the author and may be in some cases either commercial in nature or the author may not be a reliable expert in the fields of local history/geography/Travel or may even be user added. As Senra notes above it is fully advertising orientated, and while the design is standards compliant it is rather dated giving the real concern that the content itself may also be dated. Generally these add up to a number of failures of WP:ELNO and WP:SOURCES and I feel that use of the site as a source should be discontinued with all existing pages amended to use other more reliable sites. Is this likewise the feeling of other WP:RSN editors? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Further to above, I note that it's been flagged as Spam on several occasions over the years but that no action has been taken to clean up these references like the following Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archive_56#undiscoveredscotland.co.uk_advertising_spamming_-_please_help_halt Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/undiscoveredscotland.co.uk annoyingly it's also been given as a suitable source in a Peer Review and as a reason for notability in several AfDs. As such I've embarked on a bold clear-up having completed removal of it as an External Link, and now removing occasions where it's used as a reference despite better reference texts already being cited, I'll leave it in temporarily where it stands as a sole source for cited material until someone can verify whether better sources exist to replace it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

In addition to above several fatual errors in the source are now clear, a street in falkirk recorded as the shortest in the UK (which it was once but not for decades), Casualty figures for George Monck's sacking of Dundee that agree with no scholarly source, claims regarding settlements at the extremities of the UK that aren't as far east west or north as other settlements listed within Wikipedia, I even found a BLP issue where a family was reported to have died out only for a family freind to had edited the article to state that burkes peerage shows two of them still alive and living locally. I'm doing my best to sort these out where I can, but sometimes they could be the only source in the whole article and impossible to replace. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that.

The website doesn't name its authors—but authors' names are not required.

The website doesn't name its sources—but a list of sources is not required.

The website contains advertising—but ads are normal for many types of good sources.

I agree that it's pointless in cases where better refs are named, but depending on the exact claim being made, it might be strong enough to support the claim. So I think Stuart's work is probably striking the right balance: remove it if it's redundant, and leave it as "probably better than nothing (for now)" in the other cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem isn't that it's authors names aren't mentioned (it's Ken and Maureen Lussey) or that it doesn't name its sources (even though it Close-Paraphrases some of them) - the real problem lies in the fact that because of both of these it falls into the exact area and problems of a Self- Published source - showing no real evidence of expertise (Ken Lussey wrote a book on hitchhiking in the early 80s but the site covers and is cited in areas such as history and geography and natural sciences in a way that requires more expert interpretation than that of a travel writer. He also appears to have worked as a civil servant rather than writer since then.), and no strong evidence of editorial standards or fact checking - after a removal on Barry Mill was reverted by an Editor (I believed that a source in the article covered the material, but I was wrong) I worked out the source which the Lusseys had used, ordered it and went on to find multiple errors in the transfer from the secondary source to their tertiary source at least two of which made their way into our work. In another article I found the name of a hill was wrong in their article leading to another error here. As with any SPS we should be using it only in limited occasions with rigorous checking of the claim being made - if the claim is significant or substantial and can't be sourced to any other reliable/scholarly source it should really be removed (or as I've been doing commented out) until a significantly better source can be found that allows the claim to be traced.

The Web Advertising, issue I see as more of a problem when the site is used as an External Link - we're driving traffic there not because particular claims need verified but because additional unverified claims are made there, this in turn gives them hits to sell. In short I feel doing this fails point 2,4,5, and 11 of our External Links to be avoided policy. I did originally think that there had been a deliberate attempt pre-2006 to insert these links into wikipedia for that purpose, however I later came across Ken Lussey's own account and it has very few edits or changes. The majority of insertions were carried out by early wikipedians in the days when sourcing requirements were much lighter and it's use was seen as acceptable - many of these editors stopped editing by the time it was reported as linkspam in 2006 although a few are still here.

There are some articles that are going to be trouble - geographical gazetteer articles often have it sourcing some non-controversial fact or fact that isn't directly related to the article. Take Portuairk for instance, it's used to source the fact that Kilchoan is the most westerly village on mainland UK (non-controversial) but it's the only source in the whole article even though it doesn't mention Portuairk. Another I'm looking at just now is Gourdon, Aberdeenshire where it's used to source the adjective "natural" when discussing the village harbour, no one else uses this adjective but geographically it's likely to be true. Is it non-controversial enough to leave, insignificant enough to remove, or one where it should be left despite the significant likelihood nothing better will ever come along? RoRo ferries also seem to be problematic at replacing the sources and the deletionist in me actually wonders why we're covering these at all but I have a hard enough time trying to delete non-notable bus articles that I don't want to start the same with insignificant ferries. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Democracy Now! in general

I don't know where to ask if a source is reliable in general. Please disregard if posting here is inappropriate.

• Website: Democracy Now!

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Checking WP:RS, I believe it is: "...reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective...Sometimes 'non-neutral' sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." All the best, Miniapolis 03:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Political magazine or news aggregator. Look at the writer's credentials and whether the piece is commentary, reportage or investigative journalism. Most of the factual information can be found in other sources. Bias is not the main factor. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both. Very informative.

• I'm not convinced of their reliability (or objectivity for that matter.). Niteshift36 (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of "news aggregator", would you say The American Bazaar is such? You don't have to answer this one, as it is a bit off topic, but I see lots of stories there attributed to "Bureau report". Many of these stories are not written by American Bazaar. This, for example, is a PR Newswire bit, but no attribution. Is that allowed? If the same bit isn't found elsewhere, should that source be considered unreliable? Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It's best for us to look at specific cases rather than giving general rulings. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a reliable souce for news. TFD (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about Democracy Now or The American Bazaar, TFD? If you are addressing Democracy Now, it's acceptable only if it is attributed to them. Democracy Now is no more an objective and reliable source than any other hyperpartisan source (such as WND or CNS), and I agree with Itsmejudith that it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Democracy Now often buries news in a heavy dose of editorializing, and if it's only available through Democracy Now, it's likely that WP:UNDUE needs to be considered; bias is only a secondary issue, not the primary reason for exclusion.

As for The American Bazaar, if it is displaying PR Newswire releases as "bureau reports", I'd tend to think that it is useless as a reliable source. PR releases, unless identified as such, do not meet the reliability threshold, since they are very selective in their presentation. A source that presents news releases as straight news is problematic at best. Horologium (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Very informative and useful feedback. Thank you all for the thoughful response. It's appreciated. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to Democracy Now! which is the subject of the discussion thread. The fact that you disagree with their editorial policies does not mean their facts are wrong. Reliability and partisanship are two separate concepts covered by two separate policies. As for American Bazaar, articles in reliable media do not have to be signed in order to be reliable. Most news reports are not signed, but are considered reliable because the source has a reputation for accuracy. TFD (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said, regardless of their editorial stance, the main concern is undue weight, not factual accuracy. Something which is only covered by Democracy Now! is likely to be of marginal notability (especially in a BLP) as is anything that is only covered by a single strongly partisan source, even one which exercises editorial oversight and fact-checking. The original request was for an overarching "generally reliable" ruling; I suggested that it needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis instead, with a careful look at avoiding an introduction of undue weight or coatracks into articles. My suggestion to attribute it is to clarify the source of the statement, which is something that I support with any overtly partisan organization, whatever their affiliation. As for making coatracks, you can see an elaborate version at User:Horologium/BLP, which was actually in the biography of a (marginally) notable living person. WP:COATRACK may still be only an essay, but it's widely cited, and the concern behind the essay is relevant, especially in BLP cases (the essay predates our BLP policy).

The problem with the American Bazaar is that it is presenting PR pieces as news, without disclosing that they are PR pieces. There is a reason that we generally do not allow PR releases on BLP pages; they are essentially self-published and either unduly promote the individual who wrote the piece, or they serve to attack another person, which is absolutely forbidden. The specific piece Anna linked to above is a positive one, so it's less damaging than an attack PR piece, but it's a bit too efffusive, and there is no indication that it is a PR piece, not a straight news item. Sources which don't make that distinction should not be generally considered to be reliable. It's not because it is unsigned (almost nothing in The Economist, which is unquestionably reliable, is signed), it's that it is a PR puff piece masquerading as news. Horologium (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The question was posted here not WP:NPOVN. Information that has received little coverage may have little significance, but that depends on the notability of the subject. I do not see however that their news reporting differs from other news sources.[5] TFD (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Max Müller

A debate has arisen on the Max Müller talk page about whether his middle name should be Max or Maximilian. All reliable secondary sources, including Müller's own writings and the biography written by his wife state that his middle name was "Max". There is a blog at which has documents alleged to be from Leipsig university (I have tried and failed to access this page. it just freezes on me [6]). User:Vacarme says that Muller's name appears as Maximilian on his marriage certificate (see (user talk:Vacarme). There may be many reasons why some documents say "Maximilian" - perhaps Max was not considered a "real" name for some institutions, or clerks just assumed it was an abbreviation, writing out what they thought was the correct full name.

This is what I originally wrote: "An ip editor has been persistently changing his middle name to the "correct" version, which is, according to him/her Maximillian [sic. should have one "I"]. All the best sources I know give his middle name as Max. His wife says the name was taken from the central character in Der Freischütz. See the opening pages of her biography of her husband, The Life and Letters of the Right Honourable Friedrich Max Müller (1902) [7]. This is how his name is given in the most authoritative sources, including the published Collected Works Of The Right Hon. F. Max Muller. This is how is name is spelled in biographies of him. This is how his name is spelled in the official archive of his papers [8]. This is how the E.B. spells his name [9]. Against this we have some potboiler short biography in something called "The New Student's Reference Work" [10]. I think it's clear which name should be preferred."

Paul B (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The New Student's Reference Work is a tertiary source, aimed at undergraduates or school students, 100 years old, and never authoritative. We have no reason to prefer it over reliable secondary sources: we have no reason even to cite it if reliable sources show it to be wrong. Andrew Dalby 13:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The marriage certificate is of course a primary source, and likewise to be avoided by us if secondary sources contradict it. (Agreed, errors in certificates often occur for just the reason you give.) Andrew Dalby 13:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I can see the blog page with the University of Leipzig documents just fine, and I don't doubt their legitimacy, but establishing the subject's "real name" from primary sources carries a whiff of original research. - Cal Engime (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You are overlooking the fact that the secondary sources might not agree with the primary source because the authors of the former are or were simply unaware of the latter, which is entirely different to saying that (in full knowledge of the facts) they "contradict it". Also, to dismiss a marriage certificate, officially registered with the GRO, as "original research" is perverse. I'm well aware that there are errors in such documents, but in this particular case the implication that Muller, supposedly born Max, decided to sign himself Maximilian on his marriage certificate, or that the marriage registrar took it upon himself/herself to change his name to Maximilian, or that a clerk(s) subsequently transcribed 'Max' as 'Maximilian' in the official registers and/or databases, either accidentally or deliberately, is simply not credible. Primary, secondary and tertiary sources are all very well, but sometimes you have to use a bit of common-sense. Vacarme (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have not seen this document. I do not find it at all incredible that such a document should be in error. On your talk page you write that his first name is "Frederich(k)". This is rather odd. How is it in fact spelled on the document? And does it spell his surname Muller, Müller or Mueller? WP:PRIMARY is absolutely clear that we do not use promary sources to contradict the clear consensus of secondary sources. Yes, maybe you know something they didn't, but maybe they know something you don't. And they are the experts. Paul B (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The 'Frederich(k) was my clumsy attempt to indicate that in German sources he's Frederich but in English ones such as the marriage certificate he's Frederick, so please ignore. To be clear about the latter document, I am alluding to the transcription available in FreeMBD database (also reproduced by Ancestry.com). I haven't got a copy of the original certificate, but one could easily be obtained. However, you can view a copy of an image of the (handwritten) register for yourself from which the database information has been derived. Go to FreeBMB and just type in the relevant information. Vacarme (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

So they misspelled his first name on the certificate, and this is the document you want us to accept as authoritative for his middle name! Paul B (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and taken together with the Leipzig documents, not forgetting the Vanity Fair cartoon, I would say it makes a compelling case. Does it not at least make you pause for thought? If Muller was an ancestor of mine, for example, and I was delving into the family history, I would be seriously questioning whether grt grt grt grt grandpa Max was really Maximilian and dig deeper! Birth certificate?? The EB biographer Gregory Alles (one of your "experts") seems to be alive still, so perhaps I'll email him and and see what he makes of it. ;-) Vacarme (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, I can just repeat that policy is absolutely clear on this. We go by what the consensus of reliable secondary sources state - that includes the Encyclopedia Britannica for heaven's sake. We do not use primary sources to override authoritative secondary ones, especially as we also have many primary sources that say "Max". Paul B (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

We have at least a few biograpical articles about people whose birth date is subject to dispute which have the widely recognized by independent reliable sources/semi-"official" birthdate included in the lede, with a footnote indicating that there are some sources which seem to dispute that and what they say. So far as I can tell, "Max" is the effective equivalent of that semi-official birthdate for this instance, but I can and do see that maybe adding a footnote indicating the apparently not-really-serious "controversy" about the name. John Carter (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems western scholars are too scared to look at the primary documents. Of course, those scholars who have looked at the primary documents have correctly noted his name as Friedrich Maximilian Muller. (Max Muller, a lifelong masquerade by Brahm Datt Bharti (1992);Lies With Long Legs - Discoveries, Scholars, Science, Enlightenment Documentary Narration by Prodosh Aich (2004)))

Ah, now you're talking. If a recent biography (e.g. the one by Brahm Datt Bharti) argues that his name was "Maximilian", that's probably worth footnoting in the article. Andrew Dalby 10:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No, these are both books by extremist Hindutvadis who have next to no value as reliable sources. What has not been mentioned is that the anonymous author who initiated this is part of a faction in India who have developed a hatred of Muller based on a very confused account of his role in Imperial British culture. All sorts of preposterous accusations are made against him by Brahm Datt Bharti and Prodosh Aich. The later is particularly bizarre, claiming that this world-renowned professor at Oxfoerd University had made up his qualifications and could not speak Sanskrit. To use these as sources would be like using Jack Chick as a source on the Roman Catholic Church. Paul B (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I got a whiff of an anti-Muller agenda :) I didn't see that disputing what his "real name" was moves that agenda forward, hence I was taking this issue neutrally.

There's obviously no chance that the article would be moved, because Wikipedia rather agrees with British law in this point: his "real name" is the name by which he is commonly known. There could scarcely be a more reliable source on that than his biography, written by his wife, based on his correspondence. The only issue that I could see is whether the opinion that his middle "real name" was Maximilian, evidently a small minority opinion, has enough oomph to get into one of our footnotes. Andrew Dalby 12:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm also neutral on the subject and not associated with any "faction in India", but based on an objective review of the evidence I am persuaded that Maximilian was his real middle name. I will keep applying the oomph if necessary. :-) Vacarme (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The reference to the faction in India only came up because the ip was propsing Hindutvadi sources. I am at a loss to understand how Vacarme can be so persuaded when the consensus of reliable secondary sources is so overwhelming and the reasons why such documents can contain errors are so obvious. In any case, there are numerous primary sources in which his name is given as Max. Paul B (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Paul, I'm persuaded because I'm looking at the evidence. Here's a secondary source for you - an obituary - that begins "Friedrich Maximilian Muller, generally called Max Muller..." in a reputable publication written in 1900 by a retired Bengal civil servant: Charles Johnston (1900) An Estimate of Max Muller (1823-1900). The American Monthly Review of Reviews. Vol XXII, July-December. The Review of Reviews Company: New York, pp.703-706. I've only been looking a few days and the evidence is popping up all over the place! Vacarme (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Surely, there must be thousands of such references( which shows his real name) available . really funny to see 'PaulB' the self declared 'victorianist' is busy defending the 'hindootwavaadis'.85.154.175.142 (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's my take as a German: Germany is rather strict about first names, and I guess has long been so. You can't just make first names up, they must have a tradition. Nowadays you can give your child an abbreviated first name such as "Max" or "Fritz", but this was not always so. Even a few decades ago, the general assumption would have been that every Max, Fritz or Tina/Tine is officially called Maximilian, Friedrich or Christina/Christine. Only for some names such as Rolf (Rudolf) and Hans (Johannes), people would feel a need to ask whether the long form or the abbreviation was in the birth certificate. For the former category of names though, long form and abbreviation were essentially considered equivalent. (For some names such as Sepp = Josef/Joseph this is still true today.) See Sepp Herberger for an example. I guess this is because so many Germans had the long forms of these names but used the short forms instead. They got the long form from parents who were thinking of Maximilian I Joseph of Bavaria or Friedrich der Große (often referred to as "der alte Fritz") or of a submissive and religious daughter; or they copied an uncle's or greatparent's name to please them. And then these names didn't fit and got abbreviated.

Expanding the name Max to Maximilian on official documents is the default for a German born in 1823. So much so, that even if the parents absolutely wanted the name to be Max, it could still have ended up on the birth certificate as Maximilian. It could even have been "Friedrich Max Müller" in the parish register and the original birth certificate, and "Friedrich Maximilian Müller" on duplicates of the birth certificate issued later. That's because the later scribe would have assumed that their predecessor had a habit of abbreviating middle names and that the dot after it just wasn't visible. And he might well have been correct. It's even possible that he was officially Friedrich Max Müller, but signed Friedrich Maximilian Müller in certain situations because that looked more prestigious and averted enquiries from bureaucrats.

I am not a historian, and all of this is just original research. But it explains why I would be very cautious with every old source that uses the default version Maximilian of the middle name. It also explains why the word Maximilian does not occur anywhere on de:Friedrich Max Müller or the associated talk page. The editors there instinctively understand the problem. I suggest that we here follow their lead but add a footnote, e.g.: "Friedrich Max [footnote: in some sources: Maximilian] Müller". Hans Adler 06:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I did some research too, just now, and it turns out that plenty of students graduated from Leipzig in the 19th century called Max as opposed to Maximilian (lots of them too). Here are a few examples from the archive:

• Forker, Max Arthur Dr. jur (geb. in Neustadt) promoviert 1869
• Hartenstein, Max Albrecht Dr. med. (geb. in Plauen) promoviert 1868
• Blum, Johann Georg Maximilian Dr. jur (geb. in Leipzig) promoviert 1865
• Friedlaender, Max Dr. med. (geb. in Leipzig) promoviert 1864
• Huppert, Max Oscar Dr. med. (geb. in Marienberg) promoviert 1864

Are you going to argue that in their cases the clerk was careless and didn't write Maximilian? You can't have it both ways. To me there is sufficient evidence that his middle name was Maximilian and this should be stated up front, not in footnote. Vacarme (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Who cares what the clerks at Leipzig were writing 20 years after Müller left? Recent, reliable secondary sources overwhelmingly say that his full name was Max, so that is what the article should say. - Cal Engime (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

So, how do you explain that his middle name is shown as Maximilian on his marriage certificate? Max forgot his own name? The registrar thought Maximilian sounded nicer and changed it? A little implausible don't you think? Before anyone says that the certificate is a primary source, don't forget that it's the original (signed) certificate that is the primary, subsequently transcribed once or twice before ending up in the GRO database, which counts as a reliable secondary source. Vacarme (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Read WP:LINKSINACHAIN. Copies of a primary source are still primary, no matter how many times you copy them. Wikipedia doesn't follow the most restrictive approach of assuming that only original documents are primary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I read it. I also read below "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense", not merely mindless, knee-jerk reactions to classification of a source as "primary" or "secondary"....Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Worth remembering. Vacarme (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they can be, but not when they are being used to contradict the overwheming consensus of specialist secondary sources. You are clearly wrong on this. Paul B (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Read spanish wikipedia on muller - "Friedrich Maximilian Müller nació en Dessau como hijo del poeta romántico Wilhelm Müller, amigo de Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy; Carl Maria von Weber fue su padrino." (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Muller)62.231.238.58 (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia no es una fuente fiable. - Cal Engime (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Friends, it seems Even some 'books' got published by him had 'this name' which was later disowned by his 'expert-biographers' as well as his fans. See http://books.google.com/books?id=NzpNAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=friedrich+maximilian+muller&redir_esc=y . - 'Lecture on Buddhist Nihilism

By Friedrich Maximilian Müller'. The word 'Maximilian' is printed in the book multiple times ( more than 5 in any case).62.231.238.58 (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, not "printed in the book". We've always said when the question arises that Google Books is not a reliable source (it is of course a convenience link for facsimiles of books we want to cite: no problem there). But this is an extremely odd version of the book. Someone filled in the author's name as Maximilian, though on the title page, which is visible, it is of course Max. And when you do a word search, you don't, as usual, get snippets of real pages, you get lots of OCR nonsense, into which the words "Friedrich Maximilian Müller" have been liberally inserted (others, try this and you'll see what I mean). Well, anyone can get stuff on to Google Books, as we already know. So, OK, I have to accept it now: for whatever insane reason, there really is a Maximilian conspiracy. Andrew Dalby 12:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Apart from out Hindutvadi troll, every single editor has rejected the arguments put forward by Vacarme. It is surely time that we reverted to the proper form of his name, as acknowledged in all serious secondary and tertiary sources and all other versions of Wikipedia. It is not the province of individual editors to personally choose to override the views of experts and the clear statements of the man himself and his family. Paul B (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed: as in all serious reference books and in full accord with reliable sources, the name should appear as "Max". Andrew Dalby 12:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think you're wrong, but with no wish to prolong the tedium, I defer democratically to the majority. However, neither you nor any other editor has actually provided a good explanation as to why his name has appears as Maximilian is the various cited sources (university register, marriage certificate, French Académie honour, Vanity Fair cartoon etc). If you do revert the article I expect you to acknowledge this glaring anomaly. Thank you. Vacarme (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's fair enough: there are sufficient real sources that the view that his real name was Maximilian should appear on the page. The proper way to do it, on wikipedia, is not to build an argument out of primary sources -- in fact not to build an argument at all, which is why, please forgive me saying so, the above has been a bit of a waste of time :) Wikipedia won't proclaim as a fact what the great majority of reliable sources deny is a fact. It just isn't our aim. But Wikipedia can perfectly well say that "Maximilian" is given as his middle name by some published sources: if a Vanity Fair cartoon did it (I haven't looked) that would definitely be one to cite. Andrew Dalby 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The ease with which western apologist 'paulB' makes such libelous statements such as" both books by extremist Hindutvadis" is both laughable and objectionable. The persons being referred to here are B.D.Bharti & Prodosh Aich , the former was a Political Activist and the latter a life long Academician (still living). Both of them have not involved themselves in any 'sort of extremist activities'. Unless PaulB has some sort of evidence that they are extremists, he should retract these irresponsible comments. 82.178.255.172 (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

They represent extremist ideological views. I made no allegation that they were involved "extremist activities", whatever that may mean. Paul B (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

However hard PaulB tries to hide 'Maxmilian', evidences keep coming up. See this review (which appeared in 'The Journal of Religion';

D. E. Mungello, The Journal of Religion, Volume 83, Issue 4, Pages 585-592

) of Norman Girardot's work 'The Victorian Translation of China: James Legge's Oriental Pilgrimage' From this - "Girardot is fascinated by the contrasting lives of Muller and Legge. Whereas Legge was the quiet, misunderstood, and underrated mission- ary-scholar who lived an austere life, Muller was one of the academic stars of his age, constantly in the limelight and a well-connected "prolific aca- demic entrepreneur" (p. 2). Friedrich Maximilian Muller was born in Dessau the son of a German poet, published a work on Sanskrit fables at the precocious age of twenty-one, studied at Paris, and arrived in England in 1846 to edit Sanskrit manuscripts preserved in London and at the Bodleian Library in Oxford.- Hope PaulB & other Muller fanboys are satisfied with this SECONDARY SOURCE ( this being a western source)62.61.160.57 (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It has already been established that Girardot uses "Maximilian", and that Jon Stone, editor of The Essential Max Müller, criticised him for doing so. Simply thrashing about looking for examples anywhere you can does not help. The point is that the most authoritative and expert sources use Max, the man himself used it, and so do his family. I have great respect for the sincere efforts of Vacarme to identify authoritative primary sources, but it is the clear policy of Wikipedia that we do not override the best secondary sources with our own research. Your own efforts, in contrast, are simply cherry-picking. Please read WP:RS and WP:V. Paul B (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Till now User:paulB was crying aloud that only primary sources were available for the middle name 'Maximilian' and thus unacceptable for WP. But now you have a review in a 'reputed journal' where one published work is being reviewed and name of Muller is correctly given as 'Friedrich Maximilian Muller'. after seeing PaulB's suggestions to read WP:RS , WP:V, I stumbled across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles , - 'Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about – perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it's just your hobby. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.Once you have posted it to Wikipedia, you cannot stop anyone from editing text you have written. As each edit page clearly states:Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone.' 62.61.188.138 (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I said no such thing. In fact you started off with a secondary source, remember? The encyclopedia article. You don't just thrash about looking for any source, no matter how obscure, that supports your viewpoint while ignoring altogether all those that don't, which is what you are doing. As for possessiveness, I brought this issue to this board for outside opinion. Paul B (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Maximilian is his middle name.You just cannot wish it away. There are at least 3 published books and another important book review that asserts that view, in addition to many primary sources such as Marriage certificate, Matriculation at leipzig etc.82.178.178.32 (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I shouldn't even have to ask, but...

Are these reliable sources? They are being used in the article Very Serious People

[11] is being used for the original research. "Digby at Hullabaloo"

Nope. Personal blog.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

[12] is being used IMO for original research via the following statement. "The term has been in use since at least 2006"

Still nope. Another personal blog.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

[13] is being used for the following statement. "Atrios defined it as "The idiotic assholes who rule us," in response to a video of Senator Alan Simpson with regards to the Bowles-Simpson Commission." - Which may be true, but I don't believe that it is a reliable source.

Same source as above. Personal blog.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

[14] is being used for the following original research. "By 2007 it was in use by liberal bloggers Matt Stoller at MYDD". This one is boarderline I must admit. Is opednews a reliable source? Arzel (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Now, this last one is a bit more comlicated, but it seems to be an actual news organisation, although it aggriagtes its news form other sources. This article is basicly a news blog as the site appears to have proper editorial oversite but would have to be attributed to the author and publication. The author is an established jounalist who's credibility is not in question. [15].--Amadscientist (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Arzel (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say that dated posts on Atrios's personal blog are a reliable source for Atrios's own use of the term, which Paul Krugman's post establishes as notable. - Cal Engime (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope. You cannot use it from there as that isn't considered a primary source unless mentioned in a secondary, previously published RS. It is a personal blog which is not an acceptable source for even opinion. You may be thinking of an official webpage for referencing information about the subject itself. Thats not what this is. I have a blog on that site...anyone can have one.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Digby and Atrios are both reliable sources and valid per WP:NEWSBLOG. To primary sources:

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

In this case what is being said by them is not in dispute, (ie that Atrios said x). CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS - unless restricted by another policy... --Onorem♠Dil 01:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Claims that these sources use the term "Very Serious People" are, in accordance with WP:PRIMARY, "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." Any source has to be reliable in context, and while a blog may not be a reliable source for scientific, historical, medical, etc. information, it is a perfectly reliable sources for what words appeared on that blog. - Cal Engime (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

As a self-published source, it could be used in an article about the blog or the blogger, but typically not elsewhere. Such a source can never be used for information or opinion about a living person, though. WP:BLPSPS. Yworo (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS says that self-published sources are acceptable for information about their author (with conditions), and I don't see what living person this information reflects on other than Atrios. - Cal Engime (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If it could be proven with some sources that Atrios is the originator of the term, rather than Krugman's statement that got it from him, and the phrase was attributed to him, I could see it being OK to use his blog as a source for the definition. However, this is not the case. In fact, as per the talk page, the phrase is likely to have been in used long before being used by Atrios. At the very least, I think we can agree that we cannot use the date on his blog as a form of OR to determine the history of the phrase. Arzel (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that's sort of moot now. Collect showed at Talk:Very Serious People that the phrase dates to the early 20th century and gave an example, which I quote: see G. K. Chesterton in The Well and the Shadows [16] flippancies of this sort are only used by a very serious person, and Mr. Bernard Shaw is a very serious person. Yworo (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue is very simple. As a personal blog it cannot be used as a primary source because it is a self published blog. If there were mention in a secondary, reliable source about the material it could be seen and used to illustrate the point as a primary source to that information as previously published in an RS. The use of self published material is very limited. Here we are simply trying to source a claim or statement made by a figure who, while notable as a blogger, is not notable, or has expert experiance in a particular field that would make the inclusion encyclopedic.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition, to go looking for examples of a phrase in order to build an article about the phrase would be original research. Andrew Dalby 09:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I think everyone is agreeing in practice, but I find Amadscientist's explanation a bit confusing myself, and I am not sure I agree with that explanation. Primary sources can be used and blogs can be used, in particular situation. This blog can be used as a source about the opinions of the writer for example, but I understand that is not the case here. I think the point is that this blog does not appear to be reliable for non-obvious "research", which is how I would categorize a statement about word use history.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry Andrew but you are incorrect. Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (bolding added for emphasis):

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited

as well as:

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.

A personal blog may be used to source material about the figure:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves

However, a personal blog cannot be used to promote or summarise the authors opinion as that is unduley self serving and promotional. But the fact is, the first two uses of Atrios are being used as the primary source to claim a fact and is not even attributed. This is not appropriate use of a primary source. This requires secondary reliable sourcing. The second use (ref 8) is a BLP violation and should be removed immediatly as it uses the personal blog to involve claims about third parties (Alan Simpson).

Atrios is simply a personal blog and should not be used to source facts (even the fact that he may have mentioned something in that blog), or source his opinion of third parties.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think your explanation is a bit confused about what is wrong here. It is hard to connect the different citations you make into any logical argument. For example just summarising a blog author's opinion is not by definition contrary to WP:RS because a person's opinion is not necessarily self serving, and the parenthesis in your concluding sentence is wrong. But in this case I suppose that is irrelevant. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I got what is wrong here correct, but I would say that my opinion of what is promotional may be opinion, however I would question the use of a personal blog to mention any opinion to be primary sourcing and without a secondary source mention it shouldn't be used. Regardeless, the blog is being used in the manner I mentioned.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That is closer to how I would put it. Thing is that the need for a secondary source which you mention is really more to do with fulfilling the needs of other policies such as WP:NOTE and WP:DUE. Personal blogs are normally RELIABLE sources for what specific personal blog writers have written. But the personal blogs need to be noteworthy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to ask again, but a couple of editors are pushing the issue in order to save the article.

Unpublished working paper which doesn't even use the phrase "Very Serious People" in order to give weight to the personal blog posting which mentions the phrase. This has to be pushing the bounds of WP:TE. Arzel (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Is a person's own CV a reliable source, particulalry for BLP?

Is a CV generally considered a reliable source? It does not in any way seem to fit the definition. I assume this discussion has been done before, and I hope someone can point me in the right direction? Thank you, -00:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It depends what it's referencing, but I can't see it being a reliable source for much. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS would permit such a source if "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" and it is "not unduly self-serving." - Cal Engime (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

By its nature, there is reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; studies show that the percentage of people who lie on their CVs is rather high, in the 40 to greater than 50% range. Why would Wikipedia consider an inherently falsifiable self-serving document as a reliable source? Resumes are unduly self-serving, that is why people lie on them. Thanks for taking time to reply. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Our major problem with BLPs is inaccurate or unsourced negatives about a person. CVs don't contain negatives, so they won't be a problem on that front. But the positives may be a little exaggerated. HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

A secondary problem with BLPs is people using Wikipedia to sell themselves or their product through their biographies. A policy that allows sourcing to CVs can only help this second problem along. CVs are inherently unreliable sources; there should be no slack in theis area, imo. And, while hate pages are easy to catch, Wikipedia continues to have a problem allowing people to misuse their own articles to promote themselves. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It's slightly odd, though, to accept a personal website as potentially usable (on the subject of that person) and never to accept a CV. The issues are the same, it seems to me. I suggest, for example, if other reliable sources provide a fact (e.g. a professorship), and the CV adds dates, I would cite the dates from the CV. Andrew Dalby 09:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

But I think that personal websites are the same issue, and Wikipedia overuses them. If this information is found nowhere else, maybe it is due to lack of notability. Wikipedia keeps lowering the bar on notability, like the recent Wikipedia editor whose article was mostly tied to blog posts. I think Wikipedia has turned into a closed and limited social networking club that makes self-serving decisions, but that is another discussion, as this has moved on to. I might be okay with using dates from a CV to support an otherwise reliably sourced fact, but that was not the case here, a DYK hook sourced entirely, and badly, to a CV. Thanks for the input. -166.137.210.21 (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

They are fine for purely factual information about the person but some judgment is required. Things like professional name, work history (as long as it is not treated as complete), birth information (although birth date for actors is sometimes faked if given at all). For bio articles WP:BLPPRIVACY says we need some indication that the article subject is OK with the release of some key birth data and a CV would meet that requirement if that data is given there. Not everything a person says about themselves is "unduly" self seroving. It should be fairly obvious which parts of a given CV are unduly self-serving and should not be used. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with most of the commenters here. You may use it, and you should treat it just like a person's own website. Also, given that the subject's own website is the usual published source for the CVs, it would be silly to say "You can cite this web page to say she went to this university, but this other web page, which looks a CV and contains the same information, is not reliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It does depend on who the person is. A mayor of a major city is quite unlikely to lie about their date of birth. It's not impossible that they would, but no source is infallible. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Birthdates are not standard on CVs, although this is US. The information most likely to be inflated and to require interpretation is job skills. There are too many good reasons not to use them that have already been addressed. Most allowable information is either available elsewhere, or if not, should raise questions of notability anyhow. Birthdates are not standard on resumes because of the illegality of asking the question for a job. No source is infallible, but the information available shows that resumes are likely to contain false information up to or more than half the time. This is more than not infallible, it is like using sensationalist newsrags to weigh the information in a BLP. If you know the source has high fallibility, it should not be considered reliable. Resumes are inherently unreliable. -166.137.210.19 (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Birth date was an example. Another would be educational institutions attended. There are many categories of notable people who are unlikely to lie about such simple facts. We need to apply commonsense and disregard claims that are just puffing up. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can only go with the information that I have studies that show that Americans have a high percentage of falsification on their resumes, including politicians and academicians. You now suggest that we should have editors individually evaluate the reliability of a source? It seems to me that CVs are the example of the type of material we should not be using on Wikipedia. If we can only get their academic records from their resumes, maybe that information itself is not so noteworthy. Maybe the person is not so noteworthy. Deciding that applying common sense is the way to go with Wikipedia editors is kinda like saying, well, our community consensus on reliable sources is not worth much, so just decide yourself. The community consensus on reliable sources on Wikipedia is solid, imo; so it should not be diluted to "common sense," a value judgement. Not all information is available from reliable sources. That information should simply be excluded from Wikipedia, rather than having to decided individually what you can about the reliability of a CV. -15:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Let's cut to the chase. These kinds of questions are impossible to answer without the following information, which is lacking in this query: (i) what is the article we are talking about here? (ii) where exactly is the CV published? On someone's website, or social media site, or on some third-party site like their employer or a conference host? Provide a link. (iii) what information from the CV do you propose to include in the Wikipedia article? I can't comment intelligently on the request until I have all that information. Fladrif (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I was posting here for the information about CVs in general. Does it matter what information we get from a CV? A couple people seem to be saying it can be considered a reliable source for some information, but not for other information, in spite of resumes being shown by studies to be often unreliable. The National Enquirer probably has some factual information in it. Should editors be deciding what is factual and using it in Wikipedia articles cited to the tabloid? That seems like nonsense. Because I have read studies (and you can do a google scholar search and find them) that show that resumes and CVs are often inflated and inaccurate, I questioned the use of a CV to establish facts in a BLP, and I asked for general information about using CVs. However, because the article of interest is a BLP, and I am questioning generally the reliability of CVs without reference to a specific living person's BLP, I deem it inappropriate to tie this question in general to a specific BLP on this noticeboard. What purpose would that serve? They're either reliable or they're not. And, like blogs, not should be the standard. My opinion. -150.135.210.79 (talk)

Anyway, this is just a noticeboard, and I thank those who posted for taking the time to provide me with links and background. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

If the cv is posted on the person's website then treat it like anything else posted there. If it is not, e.g., if they send you a copy, then ignore it. TFD (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

If we use a subject's website or CV, then the article text should attribute the text sourced to the website or CV, not just cite it as people often ignore citations. Dougweller (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case

• Article New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case
• Content/Sources (emphasis added)

In September 2012, the Daily Caller reported that they had obtained emails showing that staff members of Eric Holder's communication staff worked with Media Matters to criticize coverage of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation incident. The emails were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

The central issue of the disputed text is the question of the reliability of the Daily Caller (TDC) to provide analysis of emails they obtained and subsequently published via a FOIA request. The Daily Caller claims to be a 24-hour news publication providing its audience with original reporting, in-depth investigations, thought-provoking commentary and breaking news. They exhibit editorial oversight publish corrections. The article in question has a byline and the author attended journalism school.

The relevant text from the Daily Caller states:

Internal Department of Justice emails obtained by The Daily Caller show Attorney General Eric Holder’s communications staff has collaborated with the left-wing advocacy group Media Matters for America in an attempt to quell news stories about scandals plaguing Holder and America’s top law enforcement agency.

Dozens of pages of emails between DOJ Office of Public Affairs Director Tracy Schmaler and Media Matters staffers show Schmaler, Holder’s top press defender, working with Media Matters to attack reporters covering DOJ scandals. TheDC obtained the emails through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Emails sent in September and November 2010 show Schmaler working with Media Matters staffer Jeremy Holden on attacking news coverage of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation scandal.

No one is seriously questioning whether or not TDC obtained DOJ emails via a FOIA request, but rather wither TDC is competent to provide analysis (and the text is clear on the attribution) that DOJ staff members coordinated with Media Matters to criticize coverage of, inter alia, the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. Clearly TDC should be a reliable source for their attributed analysis.

Ad-hominem criticism of TDC notwithstanding, which should be irrelevant because this specific source is either reliable or it is not, we have corroboration of TDC's analysis from Fox News article titled Emails show Justice working with Media Matters on stories that target critics of which the lede states Newly published emails show the top spokeswoman at the U.S. Justice Department regularly collaborating with the liberal advocacy group Media Matters on stories that slam the administration's critics. which is a clear endorsement of the analysis performed by TDC. The article further mentions TNBPP case stating (emphasis added) Emails from late 2010 also reportedly showed Schmaler sending Media Matters information to help challenge claims that the department dealt lightly with New Black Panther members who allegedly intimidated voters in Philadelphia in 2008.. Fox is indeed commenting on TDC's analysis, and short of any negative critique (there is none) this supports the endorsement found in the lede.

Now let's be candid. Executive branches often leak information to friendly news sources (though usually we aren't privy to such machinations) so this isn't earth shattering stuff, but it is relevant to this specific article. As we should evaluate sources on a case by case basis, in this case is no credible evidence that TDC is not reliable. Their sole source is documents produced by the DOJ. No anonymous sources or tipsters.

So, I ask the folks at RSN to comment on whether or not the sources presented are reliable for the provided text.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Note Some editors have expressed a concern that including this text violates BLP policy. While this might be a discussion that is needed, this is not the appropriate venue for that discussion.

Comments by others

According to Teavanigelicals, a book sympathetic to conservative media (Brody, D. Zondervan, 2012, pp. 199-200), "The Daily Caller is a 24-hour online news site cofounded by conservative commentator Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel, a former policy advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney." Matt Gertz, the deputy research director at Media Matters for America, a "progressive" watchdog on conservative media, accused Matthew Boyle, the author of the report, of "shoddy journalism", called his writing "conspiracy-minded" and says it "has involved inventing congressional testimony and pushing claims for which he admits he has no evidence." According to Gertz, Boyle left his job at the Daily Caller after they "had all but retracted one of his stories."[17] A representative of Reuters said they refused to pick up its series on Media Matters, which is the source in question, because it was "bad journalism and lame propaganda." (Race-baiter, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, pp. 57-61.[18])

Although Fox News reported that the Daily Caller published the story, they did not corroborate it. Other than Fox News, the only media that covered it were other conservative sources, such as Glenn Beck's The Blaze. Therefore I see no reason to consider the story to be reliable or the analysis valid. While it could be argued that the Daily Caller is a reliable source for its opinions, they would not meet WP:WEIGHT. That is, the opinions expressed by the Daily Caller are so insignificant that they should not be presented.

There is also the issue of the relevance of the Daily Caller article to the Wikipedia article on the allegations against the 'New Black Panthers. The challenged text says "staff members of [U.S. Attorney General] Eric Holder's communication staff worked with Media Matters to criticize coverage of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation incident."[19]

TFD (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Let me correct TFD, as the source in this instance was not part of the MMfA series. Moreover, is it surprising that the subject of the series (MMfA) would dismiss critiscm of their organization? The critiscm from Reuters is a different issue. Their objection to the MMfA series was based upon TDC relying on anonymous sources and tipsters, something that is clearly not done with this source.
• As for Fox corroborating TDC's analysis, the title of the article and the lede speak for itself.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer 
• Additionally, the text in question is

In September 2012, the Daily Caller reported that they had obtained emails showing that staff members of Eric Holder's communication staff worked with Media Matters to criticize coverage of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation incident. The emails were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Media headlines and titles of articles and books are not reliable sources, one needs to actually read their text. Your comment that we cannot rely on MMfA because they have been been criticized by the Daily Caller is disingenuous, because it assumes parity of sources. Watchdog groups always attract the animosity of groups they watch. MMfA is not critical of the Daily Caller because it is critical of them but vice versa. It is similar to saying that we cannot accept scientific sources that debunk pseudoscience because the pseudoscientists disagree with their debunkers. TFD (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of WP:BLUDGEONing the process, article titles (in this case from Fox) are acceptable for characterizing a source. Using the lede of an article is even better. At issue however is the article entitled Emails reveal Justice Dept. regularly enlists Media Matters to spin press, of which to date there are no critical responses from MMfA, Reuters or for that matter anyone else. That some articles from TDC may be considered unreliable depends upon ones standards of journalism; One swallow does not a summer make, otherwise we would disqulify sources like the NYT, WashPost, NYT, Newsweek, CBS, etc. In other words the only issue at hand is the specific articles mentioned.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec)MMfA is not in the same league as scientific publications, nor is politics a science. The analogy is pure Jabberwocky. NYT: Media Matters for America, an organization that seeks to monitor and expose what it sees as conservative misinformation. seems to assign a POV to that organisation. [20] Each of these moments might have slipped into the broadcast ether but for the efforts of Media Matters for America, the nonprofit, highly partisan research organization that was founded four years ago by David Brock, a formerly conservative author who has since gone liberal. [21]. [22] Media Matters, a progressive media monitoring group, said that Mr. Castellanos “is responsible for placing, beginning October 11, more than $1 million of AHIP advertising in five states.” (one of the MMfA commentators was paid to work for an insurance industry advocacy group). (Castellano was mentioned as "one of its commentators" with a problematic antedendent - TFD correctly notes that the "its" referred to CNN - but their writing was very sloppy indeed) Sorry TFD -- trying to assert that MMfA is anything remotely like a neutral scientific organisation does not fly. Collect (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC) (emended "its")Collect (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the comparison between The Daily Caller, a partisan news operation, and Media Matters, an organization that doesn't engage in journalism at all? It seems like it's two separate issues. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting that you call the Daily Called a "partisan news operation", but leave the "partisan" part off of Media Matters. Subtle. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• No subtlety intended: I'm actually against using MMfA in all but select situations, as it's not really a journalistic enterprise. TDC is closer to Salon in my mind. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Collect does not appear to understand the difference between a source being neutral and being reliable. None of the sources question the accuracy of MMfA's reporting, and you have garbled the story. CNN's commentator Alex Castellanos was paid to work for an insurance industry advocacy group (AHIP) and CNN decided to disclose his relationship after the MMfA report. The difference is that while MMfA reports inaccuracies in conservative media, the Daily Caller publishes inaccurate information. That the Daily Caller is partisan is irrelevant to its accuracy or inaccurary. Odd too that Collect, who believes MMfA is inaccurate because it is partisan, believes that the Daily Caller is accurate. If partisanship discredits a source, then it would discredit the Daily Caller. little green rosetta, your comments on article titles show a surprising lack of care for accuracy. TFD (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh? When in doubt - attack the editor? I most certainly do know the difference, and that a reliable source may not always be neutral. What I pointed out is that a source stated to be a POV source by reliable sources (NYT etc.) is not' the same as a scientific journal by a few thousand miles, and your assertion that it was, was errant. Nor did I say the Caller was "accurate" but I am now inured to such absurd claims. I ask you most politiely to read my damn posts and not make claims which are not rationally present in them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Reuters has been caught doctoring photos. The New Republic has been caught in multiple journalistic scandals. Both are still reliable sources. MMfA is a bad source because its entire existence is predicated not on journalism or truth-telling, but partisanship. It, like Newsbusters or FAIR or AIM, are not journalistic endeavors but political ones. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Your arguments against TDC are ad hominem with a side of red herring. Nothing you have said here (or on the talk page) addresses the article in question. Ordinarily I wouldn’t ask anyone if they have read a source, but since you acknowledged quite recently that you had not, I was wondering if you have had an opportunity to correct the situation. This will go a long way towards having a meaningful discussion. I will ask you or anyone else outright to state what is the basis that makes this article unreliable? And regarding article titles; A title of an article (we are talking journalism here) is a short summary of what is in the article – usually a phrase to describe the lede. The lede is of course a summary of the most important facets of an article. I doubt you would find many that disagree with those statements.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If the author has, according to a reliable source, a history of misrepresenting records for partisanship then it is not reliable and there is no need to read it. I get my information from reliable sources. If Reuters, the NYT, etc. think it is not worth reporting then I must agree with them. Thargor Orlando, does your argument mean that we cannot use the Daily Caller? TFD (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen much evidence that TDC has this history you speak of. If the mainstream media ignores a story, but secondary media (whether it be Salon or TDC or something similar) covers it, we shouldn't be against using it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The complete opposite is true. If the mainstream media doesn't cover a story but minor sources do, we tend not to cover the story on Wikipedia per notability, undue, fringe, and other related policies and guidelines. In fact, the lack of mainstream coverage is a good indication that Wikipedia should not discuss it. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You're confusing "mainstream" and "noteworthy." Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't confused anything. TDC's article exists in a conservative echo chamber. It is neither corroborated, relevant, noteworthy, accurate, or reliable. As a result, it is what we call a questionable source and cannot be used. End of discussion. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not questionable because of those things. TDC is not a "conservative echo chamber" any more than Salon or The New Republic are a liberal echo chamber: both are viable, useful entities. Whether the story is appropriate for use in the encyclopedia is one thing, but the reliability of TDC is another. There isn't a good argument against using it that cannot be applied to any ideological news organization. I agree that we should probably only be using it in specific instances, but TDC's journalistic credibility (as compared to, say, WorldNetDaily or NewsMax) is on a significantly higher level than what you're giving it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It's ridiculous that we have to have this argument over and over again, but it seems some editors have a constant freakout about the idea of openly stated point of view, while others want to use it as a way of keeping certain unflattering information out of articles. MMFA probably employs more actual professional journalists than that scandal sheet the Daily Caller, and its accuracy and usefulness are not in any serious question. Mainstream media is certainly preferable, though sometimes only because it stops these silly arguments from happening. There are plenty of mainstream media outlets that are unquestioned as reliable sources that openly state a point of view. Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are Republican shills, Politico and the Washington Post openly push center-right Beltway groupthink as "conventional wisdom", etc. Gamaliel (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, discussions in the past regarding MMfA in particular have not really shown any consensus in either direction regarding its usefulness. Its accuracy is absolutely in question, but I suspect most of those protests are from partisan sectors and not really based in actual research. The difference, however, between something like MMfA (which isn't journalism and professes a point of view) and Fox or Politico (which are journalistic endeavors and at least talk about objectivity) (and how you get the WSJ on the right, I don't know: the opinion page certainly is, but not their reporting) is significant. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I disregard most of the comments in those previous discussions as I don't think most editors even addressed that issue at all, they just concurred with the simple formulation that openly stated point of view = inaccurate or useless. Anyone who would put MMFA in the same category as Newsbusters hasn't taken thirty seconds to examine either one. Also, I agree with you on the WSJ pre-Murdock. Gamaliel (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd disagree re: Newsbusters/MMfA, as they serve the same purpose. It would be nice to have a wide-ranging discussion someday about the use of partisan, non-journalistic endeavors as sources to finally put it to rest, though. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the issue was not one of "purpose", it was accuracy and usefulness. As far as purpose, you could argue that the "purpose" of Fox News was to advocate conservative causes and candidates and put it in the same category. Anyway, you've just illustrated the point of my previous comment, which was that most editors have not seriously examined the issue of accuracy and usefulness in this case. Gamaliel (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd personally caution the danger in assuming that those who disagree with you do so because they haven't done the homework. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

A fair point. They can disagree for whatever reason they like, but it's fair game to point out when their comments completely ignore a significant aspect of the issue. Gamaliel (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That works both ways, but this is sliding off topic now. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The question here should not be whether a source has a stated POV (which is common in mainstream reliable sources in the United Kingdom and elsewhere), the question really is this story by the Daily Caller a reliable source, and is its use in the article in question appropriate?

It is my humble opinion, given that they have openly made available the Emails received through the FOIA request for all to see (save that they have placed a watermark on those emails), that if attributed it is appropriate for use. It is corroborated by another RS, Fox News. If there are reliable sources that refute the content of the Daily Source article which is the subject of this discussion, I would like to see it. It would create a more complete and accurate section of the article that verifies that the DoJ worked with the MMfA in coverage of the subject in question. So far, I haven't seen any, just (in this post) general attacks against the Daily Caller that it is a partisan source.

So yes, it is my opinion (and should be since I am the one who initially added the content), that the Daily Caller is a reliable source, just as much as Salon, the Atlantic, and Huffington Post are. All the aforementioned last three lean left on the U.S. political scale, that does not make them any less a reliable source; same can be said about the New York Times.

I would have preferred to use multiple corroborating reliable sources, but I cannot answer why other reliable sources did not report on the story. I am not in their news rooms, I do not have a direct line to their editors in chief. But that is besides the point.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editorial discretion - I personally use the rule of thumb of if secondary reliable published sources do not include the information that I have found only at one location (publication), then that information may-be —by definition—not important enough to include.Moxy (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Some of you might like to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated_sources. Sources are not required to be neutral. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It also says, "editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources." Clearly the article in Daily Caller does not because MMfA has explained the author has a long record of writing false information and misrepresenting sources. RCLC says we can rely on the e-mails being accurate and use them, but the problem is that the source providing the e-mails has, according to MMfA, falsified information and therefore we do not know if they accurately represented what was provided to them. Even if they did, they would be primary sources and we would need a secondary source to interpret them.

Also, the crux of the story is that a DOJ spokesperson allegedly provided evidence of inaccurate reporting by conservative media to a factchecking group that monitors conservative media. What significance does that have to the article?

TFD (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

So because a partisan outfit with a history of publishing bad information believes the author of an article has a history of bad information, we shouldn't use it? What? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

What? The DOJ falsified documents provided under a FOIA request? That is an extraordinary claim, of which there is no extraordinary evidence, much less any evidence. As to what significance these emails have is open for debate, but the statement merely presents the case that the DOJ was coordinating a PR campaign with MMFA with respect to the NBPP, which is highly relevant to this article. However this argument is another red herring, because this forum is used to determine reliability of specific sources to specific claims. So far no one has presented any credible rationale that this article is not reliable for the proposed text.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The burden of proof requires you to prove that the article is reliable as a source, not for others to show that it is not reliable. Based on this discussion, there is no credible rationale for us to use this article as a source, and this conclusion is supported by the weight of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Finally, there is no reason to keep discussing this because others don't like this conclusion or because others can't find an equivalent source. As long as editors cannot show this source is reliable and lacks authority, relevance, and accuracy, we are not required to use it. Therefore, please focus your efforts on finding additional sources or conceding your argument. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If you read this thread, the plurality of editors have commented that the TDC is reliable, wheras those against have made no rational argument. You yourself haven't even made an arguement. Your only purposes seems to be needless confrontation. Some might consider your actions to be hounding.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many editors say "X is reliable", what matters is the quality of their arguments, their ability to persuade others, and the formation of a consensus backed by solid arguments based on policy. Since you have none of that, we can't use your preferred source. I'm sorry that you see this as "hounding" but it's time for you to put the stick down. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, your argument amounts to "one group says they aren't accurate, so we're going to go with it." Your argument could be used toward a variety of ideological sources, and we shouldn't limit TDC any more than we should Mother Jones or The Nation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A very small group discussion on a noticeboard where most of that group are involved parties does not make a consensus that a particular source meets RS requirements. Gamaliel (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Nor does it make a consensus that it doesn't. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Are most of the parties involved participants? I'm aware of 3, counting yourself, but i havent checked the history. Viriditas does make one valid point, the quality of the aruguments should prevail. I find it odd that he sees any merit in the sole arguement presented here that the source is not reliable because MMfA says it isn't. But Gamaliel, what is your opinion? You are now editing the article, perhaps you would care to discuss the source? If there is an argument that I'm not hearing, I'd much rather hear it now and move on to something else. I'm open to persuasion.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've not edited the article to my knowledge, and don't intend to get involved beyond my commentary here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say that MMfA was marginal (in the same group as Newsbusters, doing the same kind of work) before they stated that their objective is to destroy FNC. It is one thing to be openly partisan, but it is entirely different to be actively trying to destroy FNC. Right now, they are simply not a reliable source for anything. All of this is largely irrelevant anyway. If something is important that they are reporting on, it will be within a mainstream source precluding the need to use MMfA in the first place. Arzel (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Where and when did they state that they objective was to "destroy FNC"? Or is "objective to destroy FNC" your hyperbolic way of saying they linked to form letters encouraging advertisers to stop advertising on Fox? Whether or not you disagree with their commentary, MMfA is scrupulously accurate in presenting facts. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

In 2011Here you go. You may want to change your mind regarding their objective as they have taken on an activist agenda.

The liberal group Media Matters has quietly transformed itself in preparation for what its founder, David Brock, described in an interview as an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel.

. Arzel (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you asked. In general I think that TDC is an unreliable scandal sheet and shouldn't be used in any articles. Even if you disagree with this, TDCTFD has presented compelling evidence that this particular article should not be used, evidence that should give anyone serious concerns. I also think that it's the height of lunacy to dismiss MMFA as unreliable because they have an openly expressed point of view while at the same time saying TDC is a reliable source despite the fact that they do the very same thing and their "journalism" is much shoddier and openly partisan. Gamaliel (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

TDC has presented compelling evidence that this particular source should not be used. Huh?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! So many acronyms... Gamaliel (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes a difference. But upon reading this [23] for a third time, it is anything but compelling. It is a rant that does nothing to discredit this article and is full of chicanery. Every link in the MMfA critique is points to another MMfA article that is downright decietful itself. Case in point; The article from MMfA claims that Boyle was "involved [in] inventing congressional testimoy", which is hyperlinked to another article titled "Daily Caller Reporter Invents Congressional Testimony In Crusade Against Attorney General Holder". Reading the article one learns Boyle specfically said:

"I can't remember the exact quote off the top of my head -- but he said something like that, "It's unfathomable that the Attorney General was unaware of this when everybody who works for him was."

Misquoting with a caveat is now fabrication? On what planet? And the comment from Boyle is, though strong, backs up the written testimony -- something MMfA left out. Now I'm not saying that there are reasons not to impeach this article -- in fact DGG makes probably the best case yet below -- but using MMfA's self-serving and intentionally deceptive analysis is not one of them.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at it for the first time, and counting the political bias of the stories there, so it does show its unreliability on the very face of it. I'm not sure i would accept it for routine facts, since it seems to make no attempt in any story to present alternative views, but just orients them so that readers of a particular slant will find their prejudices confirmed. I would never use them for political analysis, except if we are doing a comparison of what sources from everywhere in the relevant political spectrum and need someone from their end of things & can't find anything more competently done,such as Fox. . DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

little green rosetta, did you read the link you provided? Boyle said Horowitz "said something like that, "It's unfathomable that the Attorney General was unaware of this when everybody who works for him was."" In fact Horowitz said nothing at all like that. True Boyle said, "I can't remember the exact quote off the top of my head." But that does not excuse the gross inaccuracy of his paraphrasing. It's like saying "I can't remember the exact quote off the top of my head - but Obama said something like he was born in Kenya." Is that the standard of reliability you find acceptable? TFD (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I read it, did you read the General's submitted written testimony, which pretty much confirms that all the principles knew or should have known (according to the General) about the operation. "Unfathomable" is a bit over the top, to be generous, but it doesn't change the basis of the testimony.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not whether Holder knew about what was happening but whether Horowitz said he was. Boyle falsified Horowitz's testimony, which is bad journalism. TFD (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You should read Horowitz's written testimony, which is quite different than the selected quote that MMfA used to bolster their "manufactured" theory.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the Daily Caller's involvement in a scam designed to slander a US Senator, I am troubled that any editor would think TDC is a reliable source. Gamaliel (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you find sources like CBS and the NYT to be unreliable because they published stories that they willfully manufactured?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Professional institutions make mistakes sometimes, sure, and sometimes they employ people who have an agenda or game the system. But TDC has a long way to go before it even meets the bar of "professional", much less one of "mostly reliable professional outlet that has dropped the ball occasionally". Gamaliel (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what this proves. Also, your thoughts of Truthout as a source? After all, wouldn't their "reporting" regarding Karl Rove in 2005 be just as bad? Again, if we're going to make a claim regarding partisan media, let's do it. I'd hope very few would complain. But if we're going to allow partisan media in most cases, TDC makes the cut as well as any other at its level. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

What level is that? The gutter? I'm stunned that editors are still defending this rag. Gamaliel (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm stunned you think MMfA provided compelling evidence as you stated above. So lets recover from our mutual shock and move on.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement

• Source: (as reported in the article, now) Tea Party Doesn't Need Votes to Win U.S. Elections; Albert Hunt in New York Times; September 26, 2010
• Article: Tea Party movement
• Content: It's not supporting anything in particular in the first paragraph of the "Agenda" section, any more. I think, perhaps only "nationalistic". The previous 3 sources are clearly reliable, and adequate to support the material.
• Reason: It's not an article. It's a guest column reprinted from the International Herald Tribune, now owned by the New York Times. The author may be a recognized expert, but probably an extremely biased one. We should not use a biased SPS (or "commentary" piece) without counterbalencing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That isn't what balance means on Wikipedia. I see nothing on the source making me believe it is an opinion piece. If it isn't being used at all, just remove it. If it is referencing something, leave it.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

He would seem to be a notable journalist, and that is probably why he is invited to contribute pieces as a "guest". I don't see how that detracts from the status of his commentary as an expert being published in a reliable secondary source.

The piece itself is not overtly polemical, though it does contain some information that TPM advocates might find objectionable, as it contradicts the self-projected image that many advocates seem intent on promulgating.--Ubikwit (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If the source is commentary, or an opinion piece, it should be attributed as such. This noticeboard isn't about weight of content in the article space, but whether the source is reliable or not. I do not see why an article republished by the NYT is not a reliable source. That being said if it is commentary or an opinion piece the source should be treated as such, with proper attribution.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

IMO, the source is an invited column. That does not make it an "article", nor does it indicate it is subject to the NYT's or IHT's normal editorial policies. If it were established that Hunt is an expert in the field, which is political science, rather than political journalism, the column would be a reliable source, per WP:SPS. If not, then I see no reason why it should be considered reliable. Unless it is either subject to editorial review, or Hunt is an expert in political science, it is a notable opinion, and would only be a reliable source if attributed in the text. I still don't think it's being used, but the section it's in has already been reverted 6 times today by different people, so I'm not going to remove it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that we accept the NYT as a reliable source your attempt to distinguish political journalism from political science smacks a little of desperation. The column is in the news section not the opinion section as well which clearly indicates how the NYT sees it. Its also worth noting that you are arguing to remove the one third party source there, everything else is tea party original material that you have edit warred to reinsert----Snowded ^TALK 20:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've read the (paper) New York Times. There are, quite often, columns marked "opinion" or "commentary" in the news section. I don't consider those "reliable", and I don't know how those markings translate into the online paper. "Columns", even in the news section, are clearly the opinion of the author, and are not fact-checked; guest columns, even more opinion and less checked. But, perhaps this discussion should be more in WT:RS than in WP:RSN. We know editorials and op-eds are only reliable for notability and for the opinions of the authors; I don't see why "columns" should be different.

And it's no longer the one third-party source. As I said at the top of this section, I don't know what this source supports, now that the three news articles are there. I have a doubt about the American Enterprise Institute and strong doubts about American Majority as reliable sources, as well, but balance requires that some conservative sources be listed, even though you have edit-warred to remove the relevant primary sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the piece as opinion or commentary, and it is not marked as either, so I concur with Amadscientist on that point. The article is under the U.S. news section and presents an overview of notable facts and statements related to the TPM, from across the political spectrum.

The piece is one of a continual series of articles contributed by Hunt, many of which are attributed to Bloomberg, with by-lines such as the following returned in the search for "LETTER FROM WASHINGTON":

By ALBERT R. HUNT - U.S. / Politics - Article

By ALBERT R. HUNT | BLOOMBERG NEWS - U.S. - Article

He has in fact contributed several articles on the Tea Party, as shown below in chronological order:

• June 13, 2010 - By ALBERT R. HUNT - U.S. - Article - Print Headline: "Republican Party's Biggest Fight Is With Itself"
• September 26, 2010 - By ALBERT R. HUNT - U.S. - Article - Print Headline: "Tea Party Doesn't Need Votes to Win U.S. Elections"
• June 13, 2011 - By ALBERT R. HUNT | BLOOMBERG NEWS - U.S. - Article - Print Headline: "Fragments Split the Tea Party"
• August 5, 2012 - By ALBERT R. HUNT | BLOOMBERG NEWS - U.S. - Article - Print Headline: "Tea Party Holding Firm for Round 2"

Search 1: [24]

Search 2:[25]Ubikwit (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks reliable to me. I'm not sure what the problem is here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that it's a column, rather than an article. There seems to be no objective way of distinguishing columns intended (by the publisher) to be news, and columns intended to be commentary; if there were, we could all see that these columns are commentary. It may be easier to distinguish news articles from commentary. I don't see any rational way that these columns could be considered other than Hunt's commentary. If consensus is against me, I'll abide by it, no matter how irrational it may be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be making a distinction on the basis of a formalistic point that is based on the assumption that a "column" is necessarily an opinion piece based on the irrational emotional proclivities of a non-expert author.

It seems to me, on the other hand, that the columns in question are of a more periodical nature written in correspondence to events having a time frame longer than a single day.

The piece that has been the object of dispute on the TPM Talk page (I haven't read the other related pieces found in the search of the NYT website) is, as I have stated, an overview piece that attempts to put the TPM into context for the reading public in a balanced manner.Ubikwit (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agree that Al Hunt, a 4-decade veteran news reporter and political journalist, is a reliable source for the assertion of fact, especially on matters of politics. The NYT/IHT (it's the same company, using the shared website -www.nytimes.com-, with quality editorial oversight) article by Hunt linked above doesn't make any extraordinary claims, and is further corroborated by several additional reliable sources. While I find this assertion by Auther Rubin revealing, ("As an aside, the NYT is left-of-center amoung major US publications; adding sources from the WSJ would provide evidence of balance." --Arthur Rubin), I am in agreement with his more recent conclusion about Hunt: ("I'd have to say that, assuming our Wikipedia article on him is correct, he is almost certain an expert on politics." --Arthur Rubin) The source is reliable. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'll check to make sure it's attributed to Hunt, rather than the NYT/IHT. In addtion, the NYT and IHT weren't under the same management in 2010, so it would be important to attribute it to the appropriate source. So, at this point, I agree that it is reliable (but not BLP-reliable), but needs to be properly attributed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

thejoekorner.com

There are edit wars going on R62 and R62a pages, and I said that since this article is self-published, it should not b considered a reliable source. Also, this is impossible to edit. We should put back (in curly brackets) NYCS-bull-small|X for each individual route so that if we think one is wrong, we can easily removeit without having to change a template, because the template is likned to this website.

OK. So I see we are talking about subway cars. The source in question is a self-published source. Whether it can be used or not is governed by WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Taking a quick trip around Google, it appears to me that there is some recognition in various sources that the author, Joseph D. Korman, has some reputation as a train/subway buff, and has occasionally been interviewed and quoted in various news sources on the general subject matter. But, as near as I can tell, he has never been previously published by reliable third party sources within the relevant field. It does appear that he co-authored (last person listed) a technical paper on transportation traffic patterns when he first started his career,over 40 years ago, but nothing since and even that would be on a different subject matter. Thus, even if regarded as meeting the first requirement, this source fails on the second prong of the two-prong, bright-line test for a SPS. Sorry, this website can't be used as a source. As for the template issue, that is for some other messageboard. Fladrif (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The template is not and cannot be linked to any website. It is only used because there is another article, New York City Subway rolling stock, that shows the same assignments. If one of them changes, both articles have to reflect that. Vcohen (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Don Mangus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Mangus

This article seems largely unsourced and unworthy of wikipedia. I suggest it be deleted.

Not a RSN issue. Take it to WP:AFD Fladrif (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Ezekiel 16:48-50 on Sodom

An unproductive discussion has long continued about whether there are reliable sources for the existence of more than one view on Ezekiel 16:50. The view contested is that this passage of Ezekiel includes among the wrongdoings for which Sodom was destroyed its townsmen's sexual behaviour (see this edit). The most discussed source cited in support of the existence of this view is a book by Robert A. Gagnon, which states:

1. "the evidence indicates that the singular tô‛ebâ in Ezek 16:50 refers to the (attempted) commission of atrocious sexual immorality at Sodom, probably the homosexual intercourse proscribed in Lev 18:22; 20:13" (source).
2. "Ezekiel thought that the inhabitants of the city became 'prideful' and 'haughty' as a result of the city's prosperity, and in their prosperity they both neglected the poor and committed a particularly abominable act of sexual immorality. The two evils are linked by a flagrant disregard of God's own priorities, putting the human self at the center of the cosmos. In Ezekiel's view the overarching rubric for the sin of Sodom is not inhospitality or homosexual behavior but human arrogance in relation to God. The focus is theocentric" (source explicitly saying that there was more than one element in the sin of Sodom).
3. More generically, in relation to references to what various writers (not Ezekiel alone) say about different elements of the sinfulness of Sodom, Gagnon says that "some of the other applications of the Sodom story (arrogance, inhospitality, social injustice) were not necessarily made to an exclusion of homosexual intercourse" (source).

Other sources that have been cited for the existence of the view that Ezekiel included sexual misbehaviour among the elements in Sodom's wrongdoing are:

1. Richard M. Davidson echoes Gagnon here, and sees "the attempted homosexual activity of the men of Sodom recorded in Gen 19" as alluded to in Ezekiel 16:48-50 (source).
2. Dennis P. Hollinger reports: "Sodom in other biblical texts is certainly judged for a number of sins and injustices, but it is very difficult to maintain that sexual and homosexual sin is not among them. In the above Ezekiel text the word that is translated 'detestable things' or 'abominations' is not grammatically linked to failure to attending to the poor and needy. Moreover, 'Since the Hebrew word for "abomination" (toeba) is the same word used in the Levitical prohibitions for homosexual intercourse, it is conceivable that Ezekiel is alluding to the same'" (source).
3. Norman L. Geisler states: "The sin of Sodom was not merely selfishness, but also homosexuality. This is made plain by several facts. First, as just noted, the context of Genesis 19 reveals that their perversion was sexual. Furthermore, the selfishness mentioned in Ezekiel 16:49 does not exclude homosexuality. Actually, sexual sins are a form of selfishness, a satisfaction of fleshly desires. The very next verses of Ezekiel (vv 50-51 RSV) indicate that their sins were sexual by calling them 'abominations.' This is the same word used to describe homosexual sins in Leviticus 18:22" (source).
4. James B. DeYoung says: "If someone should protest that Ezekiel 16 does not specifically use the term homosexuality, the reply is that the concept is clearly present" (source).

One editor is insistently deleting from Wikipedia recognition of the existence of the view that Ezekiel 16:50 includes sexual sin among the wrongdoings of Sodom, a view that these sources surely show to be notable. Esoglou (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this a source reliability question, or a question of how to find a balanced wording?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It has been a question of outright exclusion of any wording whatever of the view that sexual behaviour was a component. The editor simply deleted all proposed wordings: this, deleted with edit summary "and rv poor edits, per talk"; and this, deleted with edit summary "No. The trick is to try to incorporate Gagnon without completely contradicting the much, much better source of Crompton"; and this, deleted with edit summary "no, you don't have consensus for this inflation of a worse source". The edit summaries seem to be claims that the cited sources are worthless in comparison to an expression of the view that sexuality had nothing to do with it. Esoglou (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

As Andrew says, this strikes me as a discussion on undue bias being given to one viewpoint not an actual discussion on the reliability of sources. To actually answer your question these sources are only reliable for the fact that their authors believe or made the claims given; they are not reliable for the fact that God (presuming his existence) acted for the reasons these authors say he did (which seems to be the question you are asking). I'm surprised given that this really is an undue bias issue that there is no mention of the oft cited counterargument that lust for angels not lust for men (who happened to be angels) is mentioned at all.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I am by no means asking about what God actually did. The sources cited are not about what God did: they are only statements of a view about what Ezekiel said. Did Ezekiel attribute the destruction of Sodom to reasons that included the sexual behaviour of the men of Sodom? These sources say he did. The undue bias is that by which another editor wants Wikipedia to register no view other than that Ezekiel attributed the destruction to other factors alone. But these are reliable sources for the existence of a view other than that championed by that editor. Or are they not? Perhaps you have already answered by saying: "These sources are only reliable for the fact that their authors believe or made the claims given" - the claims given not being about what God did, but about what Ezekiel said.

In case I am again misunderstood, perhaps I should also state that I am not arguing about which view is correct. Perhaps the view that excludes all thought of sexuality from what was in Ezekiel's mind is true. But the view that Ezekiel did have sexuality in mind (along with other factors), even if it should happen not to be true, is a well-sourced view and for that reason should not be excluded from Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried proposing using an "attribution" style of statement ("according to...")?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Not only have I proposed it: I have done it. See here ("except perhaps in the case of Ezekiel, whom some see as including sexual misconduct among the transgressions") and here ("resulting according to one interpretation of Ezekiel 16:50 in both lack of charity and abominable sexual behavior"). In both cases my edit was deleted out of hand, without any step towards proposing an agreed wording. Esoglou (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I also tried using an "attribution" style for the opinion that the other editor wishes to present as the only one in existence. With regard to the word "abomination" used by Ezekiel, I wrote, citing Gagnon and DeYoung as sources in addition to the one source cited as proof that Ezekiel in no way took sexual misconduct into consideration: "Some interpret the abomination in this context as in other parts of the Bible to refer to various forms of idolatry and other undesirable actions, while others interpret the word, when used in the singular in this context and in Leviticus 18 and 20, as referring specifically to homosexual acts." The other editor reverted this edit too, declared invalid the sources I cited, denied the existence of any view other than the view she prefers, and in addition accused me of bad faith: "Maybe it's just me but it seems normal to ask for proof of other views before inserting 'in one view' in an attempt to weaken scholarly sources. Rv misunderstanding of 'abomination' and probably deliberate misquoting of sources." So the dispute is about the reliability of the sources cited for the existence of a view that Ezekiel did include sexuality among the reasons for the storied destruction of Sodom. That is the question I have asked here. Are they reliable sources for the existence of that view? Esoglou (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Two sources are cited in support of the statement now in the article: "The sin of Sodom was not interpreted by Jewish prophets as sexual but rather as pride or lack of charity." The two are Crompton and Gagnon. I am now asking about the reliability of these two sources for the statement that the other editor insists on having in the article. Is the cited passage of Crompton (pp. 37-39) a reliable source for the statement "The sin of Sodom was not interpreted by Jewish prophets as sexual but rather as pride or lack of charity", rather than for a statement such as "According to some writers, the sin of Sodom was not interpreted by Jewish prophets as sexual but rather as pride or lack of charity"? Is the cited passage of Gagnon a reliable source for the statement "The sin of Sodom was not interpreted by Jewish prophets as sexual but rather as pride or lack of charity", rather than for a statement such as "According to some writers, the sin of Sodom was not interpreted by Jewish prophets as sexual but rather as pride or lack of charity"? Esoglou (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's an opinion. They are reliable sources but they both happen to approach the issue of what Ezekiel meant from the angle of the academic study of homosexuality. Hence, since the controversy is on this very point (was he talking about homosexual acts or not?), they are not neutral enough to serve us on their own. It would be better to have additional viewpoints. If these are to be cited, and no other sources approaching the question from any other viewpoint are to be cited, then they suffice for us to say, e.g. "[some] historians of homosexuality say that Ezekiel intended ...": they do not suffice for us to say "Ezekiel intended". Andrew Dalby 10:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Andrew. The sources that the other editor cites are not reliable for the statement she has put in Wikipedia: that Ezekiel interpreted the sin of Sodom as not sexual. They would be reliable for a statement that that view exists. The same holds for the sources I cited above. As I have already declared, I do not cite them as proof of what Ezekiel intended, but only as proof that there is a view that Ezekiel did interpret the sin of Sodom as involving, among other factors, a sexual element. They are reliable sources for a Wikipedia statement that this view of what Ezekiel said exists. So it is wrong to make Wikipedia present the other view as the only one existing, and doubly wrong to present it not just as an existing view but as an objective fact. Esoglou (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The editor who has hitherto insisted on deleting any reference whatever to the existence of the view supported by the sources mentioned above now wants those sources to be referred to as "religious opponents of LGBT rights". That characterization is, at an extreme best, a synthesis. To avoid having to undertake a discussion on the article's talk page as long and unfruitful as this one was, I make bold to request comments here. Esoglou (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps my suggestion "some historians of homosexuality" gave the impression that it's open hunting season for characterising scholarly schools. I was merely extrapolating from the book titles, but it's much better just to say "some": that's not weaselly if the names are in the text or footnote. Better for us not to divide up scholars offhand. Mea culpa! Andrew Dalby 09:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is not a reliable source

Source: [26]

Article: Bob Menendez

Content: According to an English translation provided to The Daily Caller by a native Spanish speaker, it is reported that a young Dominican woman wrote nine months ago that she slept with 59-year-old New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez at a series of sex parties organized by Dr. Salomon Melgen, a Menendez campaign donor. “That senator also likes the youngest and newest girls,” the woman wrote on April 21, 2012, according to the same translation.

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."

The Daily Caller is very partisan in nature. Its prostitution allegation on Bob Menendez is based entirely on anonymous sources (prostitutes). Furthermore, ABC News has talked to the same sources, but concluded that it is not news because it doesn't pass the smell test. ABC News also said the meeting was arranged by anonymous Republican operatives, clearly a partisan effort.

According to the Washington Post: one of the prostitutes later told Dominican authorities that she never meet Menendez, but was paid to make allegations against him.

The Daily Caller claim that that prostitute is the wrong prostitute, because her name and age doesn't match. The Daily Caller has not verify that the prostitutes use their real names and age.

Illegal Operation (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• This discussion above has addressed this at length. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say it is a reliable source, it has editorial oversight, and although it has made its mistakes, as has many major reliable sources who publish on a daily basis (there are some who have disparaged CNN as a non-reliable source at the Fort Hood Shooting article), that doesn't mean that it isn't reliable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

For instance, CBS News made its mistakes as well, but they are still a reliable source. Additionally, multiple reliable sources are covering the Daily Sources contention of the WaPo article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

−

I think it is usually reliable, but this particular item reads very poorly, like tabloid trivia. Can we please have the links to the ABC and Washington Post reports? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. [27] [28] [29] [30] Illegal Operation (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say TDC is non-RS for statements of fact, in the same way that salon.com is non-RS for statements of fact. It is a tabloid that sometimes does real journalism, but the unevenness and lack of day-to-day fact-based reporting (unlike CNN, CBS, or other outlets who do make mistakes but because of their output we can see that they are outliers) make it unreliable. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 21:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The story is notable and should be covered using all the news reports. TDC, Washington Post, ABC, also Forbes, Mother Jones and the Guardian have mentioned it. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The story is notable, but that doesn't mean that every website is covering it is a reliable source. Also, Matt Boyle who broke the original "scandal" moved to breitbart.com. Illegal Operation (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Nor is there any requirement to use all reliable sources in any case. The best should be used, obviously, but having many citations after a single fact is discouraged as it looks like synthesis. Just use the single best (most reliable) source for the fact. Yworo (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That's why I've been saying. There are plenty of reliable sources: ABC News, Washington Past, etc. Also, Wikipedia's policy is: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". Illegal Operation (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll second Yworo. The Daily Caller's coverage shouldn't be treated as fact in this case, but their coverage can be described, along with conflicting coverage in ABC and the Washington Post. It's also important to keep in mind that this is a biography of a living person. Biographies should reflect a person's career holistically, rather than becoming a catalog of tabloid-ready controversies. Need to be very careful about how we present possibly defamatory allegations, and how much weight to give them. TheBlueCanoe 06:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all these last three posts. When I said use all the sources, I meant, all the mainstream news sources that have something to say. Those like ABC and Forbes that aren't part of the story itself should be particularly useful. The original TDC reports can still be linked, as that would be an appropriate use of primary sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is the one making the statement opposing the reporting originating from Washington Post. For their reply, it could be said the article where they dispute the Washington Post article is a primary source for their own comment. I do not see with providing the direct source for their comment. This meets WP:ATTRIBUTE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Let's be clear: this is a story in which prostitutes were paid to lie about having contact with a U.S. Senator ([31]). It was picked up and promoted heavily by partisan media (i.e. the Daily Caller) for rather obvious reasons, although more reputable media wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole because it was so obviously dubious and lacking credibility ("ABC News did not broadcast or initially report on the claims because of doubts about the women's veracity and identity."). Seriously - even the New York Post wouldn't risk its journalistic credibility, such as it is, on this crap ([32]). We've really beclowned ourselves by creating a standalone section in someone's biography about this.

  If WP:BLP has any meaning, then we should be very circumspect when someone is accused of a crime with absolutely no credible evidence and no charges filed. We should be even more circumspect when the accusations are so obviously sustained by one-sided partisan media.

  I'm not saying we shouldn't mention these allegations. But if we do, then the coverage needs to be based on independent, reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking, care, and accuracy - not on dubious partisan media. Such coverage would read, in essence: "The Daily Caller, a conservative website, featured accusations that Menendez had patronized underage prostitutes in the DR. The accusations were unsubstantiated, and multiple other news outlets, including tabloids such as the New York Post, declined to publish them given their lack of credibility. Subsequently, one of the accusers stated that she had been paid to falsely implicate Menendez and had never actually met him. The Daily Caller nonetheless continued to promote the claims ([33])."

  Seriously, folks. This episode is actually exhibit A as to why the Daily Caller is not a reliable source, and shouldn't be allowed within 10 miles of a BLP. MastCell ^Talk 22:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • The problem there is that you're actively taking a side on the matter. You've passed judgement on TDC without enough evidence to do so, you're assuming one group's word over another when both have a reputation for care, fact-checking, and accuracy, and then presenting the information not neutrally, but with a bias against a source simply because you do not believe the findings. The question is not whether TDC is reliable: it clearly is. The question about whether the claims are appropriate enough to list is another discussion altogether. This situation got coverage in a number of places, so you simply put it, at this point, as "The Daily Caller claimed that Menendez X. Washington Post, in a subsequent investigation, found someone who disputes X. TDC responded with Y." That's about all we can do neutrally. TDC isn't ThinkProgress or Media Matters, isn't WND or NewsMax. It's closer to Salon, we should treat it as such. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    • You're the one who is pushing the evidence-free assertions here. Nobody in serious mainstream journalism takes The Daily Caller seriously as serious mainstream journalism. We should not either. To put up a recently created hack partisan outlet as a he said/she said equivalent of the widely-respected 135-year-old newspaper is lunacy. Gamaliel (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
      • You present an interesting contridiction. While I would not use TDC as a primary source for an event (much like HuffPo), Tucker Carlson, of TDC is considered a journalist and appears on FNC regularly along with other journalists. Now I suppose if you don't consider FNC as serious MS journalism, than your premise holds true. However, in that case what you appear to really mean, is that no one in left-leaning journalism views TDC as serious journalism, which is probably not too suprising as TDC takes a partisan stance, at least they are honest about it. Arzel (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The scope of this forum is whether the source can be considered a reliable source in the context of the content. Can the Daily Caller be a source for the content it is used to site. Let us look what it used to verify:

In an article[111] by The Daily Caller

“That senator also likes the youngest and newest girls,” the woman wrote on April 21, 2012, according to the same translation

The Daily Caller can be used to verify what itself stated, but the content can fall under WP:BLPCRIME, but that is not for this noticeboard that is for WP:BLPN. The article is about emails from CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) Here is a link directly from CREW of their initial release and the non-redacted version of the email exchange. Here is a link to the redacted emails which is linked in the article which is the subject of this discussion. The Daily Caller content is further verified by this Daily Mail article.

Therefore, the question is not is the Daily Caller article a reliable source for the content, but is the Daily Caller the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and Daily Mail reliable sources to verify this content?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the question in my mind is whether editors who view the Washington Post and the Daily Caller as equally appropriate sources should be allowed anywhere near a BLP. You're seriously advocating that we repeat a totally unsubstantiated and apparently false claim that a living person "likes the youngest and newest girls" at a brothel? A claim so defamatory and lacking in credibility that no reputable news source - not even the New York Post - would touch it with a 10-foot pole? A claim promoted solely by a dubious partisan website? Don't turf that the to BLP noticeboard - I'd like an answer here. This is frankly pretty disgraceful, and should disqualify several of you from ever editing a political BLP again. MastCell ^Talk 18:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA. Additionally arguments against myself are fallacious. I can agree to civilly disagree with MastCell.

This is not a noticeboard for discussion of BLP guidelines/policy, nor is this a noticeboard about content. This is a noticeboard about whether a source is a reliable source or not.

As the source has been corroborated by another reliable source, and I have linked the original content which both sources write about, we now have a clearer understanding of the sources in question.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That a story is repeated by the Daily Mail is no indication of its truth. Please write the section up, with bare facts only, from the uninvolved mainstream press, mentioning how the allegations were in TDC but denied by W. Post. No editorialising. Double check the wording with BLPN. Do not feel obliged to include all detail. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Judith, to be clear, the allegations were not denied by the Washington Post. Rather, they were investigated by the FBI and found to be totally baseless, a fact reported in the Washington Post ([34]). This confusion is unfortunately perpetuated by a number of the comments above, which seek to frame the issue as a he-said-she-said between the Daily Caller and the lib'rul mainstream media.

Instead, this is a case where someone was paid to fabricate salacious allegations against a living person, and those allegations continue to be promoted by a partisan website despite a universally appreciated lack of credibility. We should handle such situations with extreme care, but instead we seem to be committed to doing the opposite. MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

We're not committed to doing anything except for following our own policies. TDC seems to be reliable as a rule but in this case it has become part of the story, so is a primary source. The Washington Post too - note I do not say that their roles are in any way parallel. There is plenty of coverage in the rest of the mainstream press (ABC, CNN, Forbes, NYT, AP), use that. Links to the primary sources may help the reader, but they must not be the main sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This source has been disputed and removed from men's rights movement without discussion

The source is here http://www.malestudies.org/4-7transcript.pdf The website is is http://www.malestudies.org

The article is men's rights movement

The wiki page text is below and the page in the source that justifies it is after in question are as follows:

"The men's rights movement explicitly rejects a number of feminist concepts including patriarchy theory and gender as a social construct." This source is meant for the gender construct remark. It can be found on page 5 and on page 27

Second "For example, Men's rights activists argue that statistical disparities in fields such as engineering aren't due to social practice and discrimination, but represent real biological differences." page 27

The first point is is this source reliable enough to be used in the men's rights movement page? The purpose of this page is to detail MRM opinions and positions on various subjects. I believe that since this transcript comes from a conference hosted by a foundation ran by and acknowledged academic that it provides a much needed primary source perspective. Remember that this is a page supposed to be conveying the opinions of the movement, not whether or not these positions are right or wrong. I would like to know if this source is acceptable generally regardless of whether or not these two statements are acceptable.

Pending the acceptance of this source, I am certainly open to suggestions on how it could be rephrased to better represent the source if the above statements are deemed not suitable or in need of improvement. Though I think they do represent the source accurately in their current form.Yhwhsks (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

My questions would be:

1. Is there anything to suggest that this website is authoritative in terms of Male Studies, other than its name?
2. Are there no other scholarly sources to support these assertions?
3. Why does this need to be in the lead paragraph, rather than a section on activism or activist groups?

-- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 22:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note that "men's rights" is actually mentioned only once in the source. The source makes no statements about the men's rights movement as such. The source relies exclusively on rumors and personal opinions, no research is cited, and it's unclear who's responsible for the transcription. Yhwhsks took one speaker's personal opinion that "feminists" (like the whole bunch of 'em or something) believe that gender is a social construct and turned it into "The men's rights movement explicitly rejects..." The speaker doesn't even mention the men's rights movement, let alone what they reject or embrace. The same goes for the "statistical disparities" bit. What we have here is a highly questionable source that doesn't say anything about men's rights activists beyond that they have a "sense of anger or a sense of grievance" (p. 14).

Moreover, the source has been used for what I consider coatracking such as "For example, hardliner feminists oppose men's studies departments capable of balancing women's studies due to this perception". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. and i note, in reviewing the posting more thoroughly, the mention of a "much needed primary source perspective", which makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Why would this article need a primary source perspective, anyhow, when one of the core ideas behind WP:RS is the use, to the extent possible, of secondary sources?

I would agree that this is probably indicative of WP:COATRACKing. My suggestion would be to leave the source out entirely. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 00:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Edward M. Stephens, who runs the organization that hosted this conference is regularly mentioned in third party sources as being important to the men's rights movement including the new york times, below is just 4 but more could be found:

[35], [36], [37]

[38]

He is also well credentialed making his statements have more weight http://www.malestudies.org/directors.html

Remember that the assertion being supported is not necessarily what the consensus on the truth is, but on what stance the MRM takes on an issue. This source supports that a certain opinion is taken. it is not meant to support "gender isn't a social construct" as a factual statement. This is not the gender page but the MRM page. This source is adequate to say whether or not the MRM as a group has an opinion, and that is the only thing I am attempting to do with it. Yhwhsks (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

To answer your last question, it belongs in the lead section because this page is about an activist movement, not an issue which an activist group take a position on.Yhwhsks (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The source you provided says nothing about what stance the men's rights movement takes. "Men's rights" is mentioned only once, in passing, on page 14 when a speaker states his personal opinion that men's rights' activists (among other groups) have a "sense of anger or a sense of grievance". Add the highly questionable reliability and you have an unreliable source that does not discuss the men's rights movement, which makes it doubly useless for the men's rights movement article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Multiple third party sources identify edward stephen's as a prominent leader figure for the men's rights movement. As such, statements made at conferences organized by him and his colleagues are representative of the views taken by the broader men's rights movement. Even if the source needs to be qualified by identifying him specifically, it is still a reliable source and can be placed in one form or another on the MRM page. Yhwhsks (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering what is gained by including this source in the lead para if, as you have asserted, more independent sources can be found. I also note that the only one in that list that is WP:RS is the last one, from the NYT.

Again, I think these statements (and perhaps the refs, if secondary ones cannot be found) would only be appropriate in a section on Stephens and his organization, within the article. They seem to me to be pretty clearly inappropriate for the lead para. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 21:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The NYT source does not even mention the men's rights movement, let alone identify Stephens as a leader of the men's rights movement. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The new york times article highlights the prominence of the people who make up the foundation of male's studies. It also indicates that male studies is on a continuum with MRM by labeling the avoiceformen website (clearly an MRM organisation) as within male studies. The second sentence actually is not in the first paragraph but in the section called "relation to feminism." So please weigh in on that as well.

Just to be clear, it is my understanding that you are saying that this source actually does meet relevant guidelines so long as the specific organization is mentioned as originating this claim rather than being representative of the entire movement? I can live with that. I think that it could be in the relation to feminism section as long as the statement is shown to be that of the foundation of male studies. Can you explicitly state this in an unambiguous way such that those disagreeing on this point on the talk page will accept it when I bring this back over? Also for your consideration, please look at the following

"Last spring, there was a scholarly symposium at Wagner College on Staten Island, intended to raise the movement’s profile and attract funds for a department with a tenured chair on some campus. A number of prominent scholars attended, including Lionel Tiger, an emeritus anthropology professor at Rutgers, who invented the term “male bonding,” and Paul Nathanson, a religious studies scholar at McGill University, who specializes in the study of misandry, the flip side of misogyny. Both are on the advisory board of the Foundation for Male Studies, which Dr. Stephens founded last year.

There will be a second conference in April at the New York Academy of Medicine — right on the heels, as it happens, of the annual conference of the American Men’s Studies Association — and the two groups have already begun jousting. "

It also discusses the gender as a social construct:

The male studies people, on the other had, are what their critics call “essentialists” and believe that male behavior is in large part biologically determined. Men think and act differently from how women think and act because that’s how evolution shaped them.

the website A voice for men, which clearly identifies as a men's rights movement, is described as being part of male studies. This demonstrates that male studies and the men's rights movement are synonymous and exchangeable when writing. At the very least it is part of the same continuum. That is male's studies is part of the men's rights movement and represents the opinion of that group.

Lurking around the edges of the male studies movement, moreover, in Web sites like Paul Elam’s A Voice for Men, is a certain amount of anti-feminist hostility, if not outright misogyny.

I think this is ample evidence for the inclusion in this article as evidence of the opinions taken by the MRM Yhwhsks (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it is your unsourced assertion that "male studies is on a continuum with MRM". In fact, here is a reasonably reliable source stating that "Male Studies does not ally itself with men's rights movements". The consortium transcript is of questionable reliability: exclusive reliance on personal opinions, no sources cited, no fact checking, etc. More importantly, the speakers did not discuss the men's rights movement. Please accept that articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I am convinced by Sonicyouth86's argument that these are separate entities, and should not be conflated. I have struck my earlier statement about including Stephens' statements in this article, as you can see above. The primary source that has been removed is non-RS and should probably not be mentioned at all in the article. It's a bit of a WP:COATRACK already, tbqh. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 22:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Was that really huge enough?

• Source: An essay published by Autostraddle
• Articles: Adventure Time, Marceline the Vampire Queen, Adventure Time (season 3), List of Adventure Time characters and possibly other related articles.
• Content: Regarding a relationship between Marceline and Princess Bubblegum in the episode "What Was Missing", as well as the episode itself.

An opinion piece from a college newspaper describing a relationship between MLP: FIM fandom and 4Chan was recently removed from relevant articles. So I think it's time to think about the Autostraddle essay again.

I believe that the essay is full of personal opinion which is against the reliable sources policy here so should be removed. I also think the related controversy was not huge enough to shake the entire USA; it's hard to find any relevant reliable news reports beside that one. I also remember the user who cited that source even tried to cite TV Tropes wiki entry, also against the policy. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 08:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Cheers (season 6)

I'm still expanding this page. Recently, I found this, first reported by GQ magazine. It says that the cast found their relaxing times by fooling each other around. I'm not sure if it violates WP:BLP or WP:RS, but should I include it there? --George Ho (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Muppet Wiki

There is currently a dispute at the Labyrinth film article as to whether the Muppet Wiki (http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Muppet_Wiki) is considered a reliable source. The person who has removed the two refs. that use this site has also removed the ext. link to the Wiki, but ext. links fall under a different set of standards than references, correct? I would like some feedback on this matter. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Refs fall under WP:USERG, external links under WP:ELNO (which is a different discussion). Open wikis as sources have been discussed previously and rejected. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Right. The way to consider whether a wiki might be a special "non open" case is to ask a few questions such as:

• is there any evidence of a moderating or editorial control, apart from the individual authors themselves?
• is there any sign that reliable sources cite this wiki or treat it as reliable?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The Gallant Defender by A R Darshi

The Gallant Defender is a book on Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale by A R Darshi. Its status as a worthy source has been disputed by multiple editors, but one particular editor keeps on adding to the article Operation Blue Star.

The book explicitly names the author as a publisher (along with another individual), and in the foreword the author says "Now I am prompted to publish it". So, it is clearly a self-published. However, subsequently, it has been published by pro-Khalistani/Sikh nationalist sources like Sikh Students Federation.

Even if it were not a self-published source, it seems to me a blatant hagiography of Bhindranwale, devoid of any objectivity and full of conspiracy theories. Some quotes:

• "The Indian government led by Brahmanicial Hindus knew well that the Sikhs were the only martial race in India which has inexhaustible energy, determination and courage to fight for their just rights."
• "The fanatic Hindus slyly smiled and gleefully rejoiced at the pitiable plight of the Sikhs in Punjab."
• "This was the wicked mental frame of the Hindu leaders who ruthlessly con­ducted and monitored the brutal military operation."
• "Bibi Amarjit Kaur, Chief of Akhand Kirtani Jatha and patron of Babar Khalsa, who had dubbed Sant Bhindranwale as a cow­ard, had also hid herself in the same room where other paper tigers had huddled themselves together [...] These shameless traitors of the Khalsa Panth deserve examplary punishment as they have not only betrayed the Panth but also broken the Ardas so sacred to the Sikh religion."
• "All this naked barbarity, brutality and monsterity brazenly displayed by the fanatic Hindus in carrying out the genocide of the Sikhs is not a new development in their character and culture viz a viz the non Hindus. They have inherited this criminal and outrageous element of character from their remote ancestors, the Indo-Aryans who had invaded the Indo-Pak subcontinent in about 1500 B.C.. conquered it and made it their homeland."

I pretty much classify this as a bad source, but would like others' opinion on it, since the person who keeps adding this source refuses to discuss it on the article's talk page. utcursch | talk 14:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's an extremist source. Not usable for anything (except if necessary to show the ideas that some extremists hold). Editors adding it and refusing to discuss are disrupting Wikipedia, and a report to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents is called for. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Unsupported statements on a biography: William M. Windsor

William M. Windsor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This concerns the biography of William M. Windsor. He has established a Wikipedia page that makes many unsubstantiated claims about himself. Every external link he has given to support his claims about his business career and current activities, takes you to a self-written article that is unsupported by any outside source.

He lists 12 references to support his biography. References 2-11 are undisputed, but they do not address Windsor’s claims about his business background or current activities. The following two links, take you to self written information:

1. ^ http://universaldomainexchange.com/whoswho/bill-windsor/ This link takes you to a self written bio on an unvetted website!

12. ^ http://www.firstpost.com/topic/place/georgia-bill-windsor-platform-candidate-for-us-house-of-representatives-georgia-video-QcTmAjKixcA-517-1.html This link takes you to a video of Windsor, made by Windsor, claiming he is running for the House of Representatives.

Windsor’s external links include the following:

http://www.LawlessAmerica.com This is a web site owned and operated by Windsor himself.

http://www.NiagaraFallsBid.net This link is dead.

http://www.RoundAmerica.com This is Windsor’s website about a book he planned to write in 2002. No book has ever been written.

http://www.BillWindsor.com This is a dead link.

http://business.highbeam.com/496/article-1G1-83805787/birth-imprinted- This link takes you to a site that re-printed an article from a magazine OWNED by Windsor. The claims of Windsor’s accomplishments as stated in that article, are unsubstantiated.

http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/apparel-accessory-stores/4444104-1.html This is a dead link.

http://www.google.com/profiles/109895709324497417823 This is another self written unsubstantiated biography

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Windsor_William_-726700.aspx Another self written profile.

http://www.firstinthemindandheart.com/ This take you to a site selling a book that has no apparent connection to Windsor.

While an inflated biography might not be of great importance in many cases, it is important here. Mr. Windsor has established a political party and is taking donations for that cause. https://www.facebook.com/TheRevolutionaryParty?fref=ts

He has also established a judicial reform group, Lawless America, which takes donations.

People look at your page and consider him "vetted". It is important to remove the unsubstantiated information.

Specific facts in his bio that are mere puffery include:

Mr. Windsor refers to himself as a publishing magnate. There is no evidence to support that inflated definition of his career. There is no evidence that he ever owned or operated over 100 magazines as his bio claims. There is no evidence he has ever written a book and he does not offer any information re. a title, etc.

There is no evidence "He is considered by many to be the father of the multi-billion dollar "imprinted sportswear industry"" and in fact, you have a page that names other people as the pioneers of that industry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-shirt

Windsor provides no citation to the claim: "Windsor is considered by Canadians to be one of the two key people who exposed the corruption".

There is no organization called GRIP and you will note Windsor does not provide any citation to show that there is.

Thank you so much for all that you do to maintain Wikipedia. You provide an invaluable service to all of us!

Susan Harbison — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanharbison (talk • contribs) 22:09, 11 March 2013‎ (UTC)

It looks like you have taken care of most of this yourself. External link concerns can be addressed at WP:ELN. Location (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Great Commission church movement

Great Commission church movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following statements have been added to the article citing correspondence with Great Commission Churches as posted on the website of that organization. Please comment on their reliability:

• "However, Ronald Enroth no longer has concerns about Great Commission Churches."

cites this webpage

• "However William Watson, a cult expert, questioned the reliability of a newspaper report that classified GCI as a cult."

cites another page from gccweb.org

Thank you in advance for your comments. ClaudeReigns (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I say "no". In this instance, WP:COI, WP:SPS, and WP:PRIMARY are intertwined and present problems for the inclusion of this information with these sources. If a statement of opinion about GCC was published in a reliable source independent of GCC, I think that the retraction of that opinion should also be published in a reliable source independent of GCC. Location (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That's about what I figured, and worth noting that William Watson's original statement in "A Concise Dictionary of Religion and Cults" had not been included as a reliable source regardless. I'll wait a while longer to see if anyone else has a different take on this. ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wix.com

Is this source a reliable source?
It has been used to verify this content:

Was the only man standing, acts of gallantry and intrepidity, for actions in suppressing the enemy while under heavy fire, personally eliminated multiple enemy-controlled weapon positions, preventing the enemy from overrunning the American troops at Qal'at Dizha, Rayat, border Iraq

It appears to be a self published source, as wix.com title page says:

Create your free stunning website

A search for Ricardo Massa Special Forces does not appear to provide any reliable sources. Additionally I could not find any army sources for Ricardo Massa.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I find no article named Ricardo Massa. The source, as you say, is crap. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the article in question is Distinguished Service Cross (United States), where the content had existed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Globalizing Cricket

There has been some discussion as to whether this is a reliable source: Dominic Malcolm, Globalizing Cricket: Englishness, Empire and Identity (London: Bloomsbury, 2012).

Personally, I see no reason whatsoever why this is not a reliable source. It certainly qualifies under WP:SCHOLARSHIP: as a book published by a reputable academic press, it will have been peer-reviewed and so vetted by the scholarly community. Its author is Senior Lecturer (equivalent to Associate or even Full Professor in North America) in the Sociology of Sport at Loughborough University.

Your thoughts are welcomed on this matter. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Assuming the statements provided by Murray are factual, the source is as reliable as any. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Malcolm's book meets the requirements of a "reliable source," and I'd also like to suggest a review of two other works in dispute for this same discussion. The question about Malcolm's book arises from his referencing of other works, specifically: Cricket: A History of its Growth and Development by Rowland Bowen. The discussion is happening over here: Talk:History of cricket to 1725.--Oline73 (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)