Misplaced Pages

:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:47, 25 July 2013 view sourceDrgao (talk | contribs)1,581 edits Is the journal: Clinical, Cosmetic And Investigational Dermatology (published by Dove Medical Press) a reliable source?← Previous edit Revision as of 17:50, 25 July 2013 view source Drgao (talk | contribs)1,581 editsm Is the journal: Clinical, Cosmetic And Investigational Dermatology (published by Dove Medical Press) a reliable source?Next edit →
Line 593: Line 593:
:::::TO: AndyTheGrump. Well, the other issue was that wanted to learn ''why'' those sources were considered unreliable (if indeed they are), so that in future I might become a good judge myself on source reliability. But if you can't oblige on this issue, then I guess I'll have to try to learn about source reliability in some other way. Any suggestions on how welcomed. :::::TO: AndyTheGrump. Well, the other issue was that wanted to learn ''why'' those sources were considered unreliable (if indeed they are), so that in future I might become a good judge myself on source reliability. But if you can't oblige on this issue, then I guess I'll have to try to learn about source reliability in some other way. Any suggestions on how welcomed.


:::::TO: Zad68. I am abiding by the decision, and I am not discussing the issue in dispute. The dispute was about the proposal to add new content to the Morgellons article, which referenced the above studies. I am not discussing that, as I have agreed not to. I am discussing a different topic: whether the above studies are reliable sources or not; and as stated, I am interested in understanding why those sources were considered unreliable, so that I can become a good judge of this. ] (]) 17:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC) :::::TO: Zad68. I am abiding by the decision, and I am not discussing the issue in dispute. The dispute was about the proposal to add new content to the Morgellons article, which referenced the above studies. I am not discussing that, as I have agreed not to. I am discussing a different topic: whether the above studies are reliable sources or not; and as stated, I am interested in understanding why those sources were considered unreliable, so that I can become a good judge of this. I am also considering using those sources in another article, other than the Morgellons article, and so their reliability is of interest to me for that purpose too. ] (]) 17:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:50, 25 July 2013

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    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.


    Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

    List of archives , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
    10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
    20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
    30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
    40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
    50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
    60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
    70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
    80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
    90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
    100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
    110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
    120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
    130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
    140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
    150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
    160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
    170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
    180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
    190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
    200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
    210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
    220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
    230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
    240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
    250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
    260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
    270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
    280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
    290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
    300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
    310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
    320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
    330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
    340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
    350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
    360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
    370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
    380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
    390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
    400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
    410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
    420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
    430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
    440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
    450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
    460, 461, 462, 463, 464

    Additional notes:

    Shortcuts
    • 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

    Current large scale clean-up efforts

    Large scale clean-ups/answersingenesis.com

    Large scale clean-ups/evolutionnews.org

    Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com

    Large scale clean-ups/kavitakosh.org

    Sources used in Iranian presidential election, 2013

    I would like to ask a question about reliability of the sources used in the opinion polls section of the article on Iranian elections. The sources are all in Persian so I present them for non-Persian speakers.

    • This source is Rasanehiran.com and the opinion polls cited here is conducted by IRIB, State TV -which is not independent. About section of the website is empty.
    • cites a polls conducted by Tebyan.net. Tebyan is one of the website of the Islamic Ideology Dissemination Organization which is officially under the control of the Supreme Leader of Iran.
    • ie92.ir an unknown website. Here the website claims that it supports "the interests of the Islamic Republic".
    • this one: Nothing about the website. Who is behind this website?
    • iranelect.ir is not an official website and again nothing in the about section. Online survey.
    • Tebyan see above.
    • a forum.
    • alef.ir is the website of Ahmad Tavakoli, a deputy of the Parliament. The polls here is conducted by "a reliable organisation" as is presented in the news article. The name of this organisation is not mentioned.
    • Fars News Agency is another source.

    No editorial oversight has been presented in the "about" section of these websites. Noted that all of these polls were conducted online and their methods is unknown.

    Here is the disputed section:

    Poll source Date updated Ghalibaf Jalili Rezaei Rouhani Velayati Aref Haddad-Adel Gharazi Others Undecided
    Rasanehiran 11 May 2013
    21%
    10% 9% 7% 7% 5% 2% 1% 37% 1%
    Akharinnews 12 May 2013
    39.54%
    7.21% 1.75% 24.74% 2.75% 7.68% 17.39%
    Alborznews 13 May 2013
    15.08%
    1.00% 5.07% 0.05% 8.07% 1.03% 7.06% 18.06% 17.08% 9.03%
    ie92 14 May 2013
    18%
    7% 12% 8% 7% 1% 1% 4% 40% 2%
    Arnanews 15 May 2013 8.8%
    9.3%
    3.9% 0.2% 3.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 70.5% 3.1%
    Iranelect 15–16 May 2013
    47%
    21% 14% 10% 7%
    Kashanjc 16 May 2013
    43.25%
    1.25% 5.81% 1.97% 24.04% 2.21% 6.46% 4.17% 9.43%
    ie92 17 May 2013
    16%
    7% 11% 7% 6% 1% 1% 5% 44% 2%
    Iranamerica 18 May 2013
    33.33%
    11.11% 22.22% 11.11% 11.11%
    ie92 19 May 2013
    15%
    7% 10% 7% 6% 1% 1% 5% 47% 1%
    AleF 20 May 2013
    19.8%
    11.6% 4.6% 12.5% 13.2% 12.5 4.7% 1% 19.1% 1%
    Farsnews 21 May 2013
    20.1%
    13.5% 10.9% 6.6% 7.4% 3.3% 3.1% 0.2% 31.9% 3%
    ie92 22 May 2013
    31%
    17% 22% 13% 12% 1% 1% 0.1% 4%
    Fararu 23 May 2013 18.84% 9.56% 7.49% 24.36% 3.86%
    30.96%
    0.93% 4.01%
    Ghatreh 23 May 2013 17.57% 16.83% 6.38% 17.32% 6.9%
    30.87%
    1.16% 2.92%
    Seratnews 23 May 2013 22.96%
    40.47%
    4.84% 10.14% 6.93% 9.97% 0.84% 3.84%
    Ofoghnews 23 May 2013 20.00% 19.00% 6.00% 20.00% 8.00%
    23.00%
    0.1 % 4.00%

    Indian contribution to the Communist side during the Korean War

    Source: Stueck, William W. (1995), The Korean War: An International History, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, p. 196, ISBN 0691037671

    Source text: "Most nations of the Arab-Asian group were of similar mind, willing to express support for the initial action in Korea, but determined to avoid commitments that would fundamentally undermine their middle course in the East-West conflict. Eight members of the loosely knit group offered no material aid to the UN enterprise in Korea. India donated a field hospital; but then, as the war lingered on and Nehru and Rau persisted in their efforts at mediation, India sent a similar hospital to the other side as well. US resistance to Arab-Asian attempts at meditation hardened most of the governments in their determination to avoid commitment to the West."

    Supported edit: Add India to the medical support section on the Communist side in the Korean War infobox

    Current discussions on the Korean War talk page

    Other involved parties: User:Brigade Piron

    Focus of dispute:

    1. Dr. Stueck made an error by stating India sent a field hospital instead of field ambulance to the UN side. Therefore he could be wrong on the amount of aid India sent to the other side as well. Also political histories sources are notoriously poor on military details.

    My response: The source of dispute is the Indian stance and belligerence on Korean War, not the military orbat of Indian forces during the Korean War. Thus this dispute clearly falls in the area of political/diplomatic history of the Korean War, and Dr. Stueck is recognized as the leading expert in the area. Dr. Stueck may be wrong on the details of Indian aids sent to the both sides, but his point that India, as part of its foreign policy, sent an identical amount of medical aid to both side in an attempt to stay neutral does carry a lot of weight on the discussion of Indian belligerence. Finally there are other belligerents in the infobox that got included for donating a lot less aids than India (for example).

    • I dispute that any aid was given to North Korea at all. No source I've been able to find - even detailed, academic studies of the Indian role in the conflict (cf. 1, as well as general overviews 2) make no mention whatsoever of it. Unfortunately, it is not possible to prove a negative and it seems unlikely that any source will categorically state that "India provided no medical aid to the DPRK". However, even this newspaper article which specifically deals with the history of the Indian-North Korean friendship makes no mention of it, though obviously that along means nothing. (3). I would say that the same applies to the below point. Brigade Piron (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
      • My counter point: I believe "not possible to prove a negative" is not a valid argument in disqualifying a high quality source. Jim101 (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
      • My counter point #2: According to the research I currently have access to, India appears to be both pro-China and anti-North Korea during the conflict. So stating that "India did not provide support to North Korea during the war" is misleading in framing the factual basis of this dispute and characterizing the stance of Indian foreign policy. Jim101 (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

    2. No other mainstream sources were found during the discussion that repeated Dr. Stueck's claim on Indian medical contributions to the Communist side during the Korean War.

    My response: lack of multiple sources repeating Dr. Stueck does not mean Stueck's claim was widely rejected by the majority academics, given Dr. Stueck's high regard in Korean War studies. However, I am seeking community guidance on whether WP:REDFLAG applies in this case. Jim101 (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

    Am I correct that the locus is merely on the precise nature and amount of aid rather than the fact that India gave similar aid to each side? I consider the distinction, as stated, to be less than substantial enough to reject the source. Collect (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

    No, I dispute the whole premise of India giving aid to North Korea during the conflict. I cite Stueck's error in the field-hospital detail (sent to the South) as evidence of his unreliability. --Brigade Piron (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    Has anyone checked the footnote (No. 184) used to support the claim? If the source used by the book says something like India was asked for aid by N. Korea, but did not provide it then we could assume the book was wrong. On the other hand, if the source supports the statement then we can check whether other writers have referred to the same source. Other than by comparing sources with other sources, I do not think it is our role to question what sources say. This is not a red flag. It is entirely reasonable that India, which tried to be neutral in the conflict between East and West, would provide non-military assistance to North Korea.
    The policy which might challenge inclusion is weight. If this is the only source that mentions the assistance, then it cannot be important. Our brief article on the war should not mention facts that the overwhelming majority of books on the conflict fail to mention.
    TFD (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    Dr. Stueck did not provide a source for this claim. So we may have a problem there. I'm basing my trust on his reputation alone, since Stueck's book is required reading about the Korean War diplomacy.
    However, based on previous discussions, it appears that the previous consensus was to "mention facts that the overwhelming majority of books on the conflict fail to mention" in the infobox. So there is another problem too. Jim101 (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    Without better sourcing to support the claim, I would have a real issue with saying it is a "fact". As an opinion it might be worth mentioning somewhere in the main body of the article text, but even then, we should probably attribute the claim directly to Dr. Stueck, to make the reader is aware that it is simply one expert's opinion. It certainly does not rate being put into an infobox... that would give UNDUE weight to a minority opinion. Blueboar (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    I cannot access the footnote. Do you know what footnote 184 says? TFD (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    See "Operation Stole" January 1951. The CIA took action to stop a shipment of medical supplies from the Indian government to China during the Korean War. (Combat Operations of the Korean War, p. 166) Unusual Footnotes to the Korean War (2013) mentions it, but questions the story. TFD (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    Citation 184 only states the Iranian and Egyptian crisis, which is about the statement just after the cited text I provided. BTW nice find about "Operation Stole" and the US/Taiwanese interception of Indian/Norwegian medical aid to the Communist side (written by renowned Paul Edward, even better to vet for its source quality). Also, I can't see the bookmark on the second book. Which part of the story does Paul questions? Does the secret agreement between Noway, India and Communist on medical aid actually deemed plausible by Paul? Jim101 (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    I could not bookmark the second book - for some reason the page nos. do not show. Just search for "Operation Stole." TFD (talk) 06:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    After some more source tracing, I found that in Stueck's book he cited both Joseph Goulden's book Korea: The Untold Story (1982) and John Prados's book Presidents' Secret Wars: CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations from World War II Through the Iranscam (1986) in his bibliography, which matches my Google book search about Operation Stole. I think this explains where Dr. Stueck got his information about Indian medical aid from. Jim101 (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

    Okay, is there an Indian history expert that can comment on the matter? My research brought me into areas I am very unfamiliar with, like the political careers of Jawaharlal Nehru and the US-Soviet-Indian relations between 1950 to 1960s. I don't dare to disclose my understandings on those topics based on just few hours of browsing book indexes under "I" and none stop Google searches. Jim101 (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

    I found which makes clear that "Field Ambulance" does not mean a vehicle but was "(Parachute) Field Ambulance" and had 320 men (another source states 373 men). India did chair the "Neutral Nation Repatriation Commission". The CFI used that same "ambulance." page 129 states that only India and Burma outside the Communist bloc voted "nay" on the UN Resolution condemning China as the aggressor. I suggest this later use of the same forces is what is at issue? Collect (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

    Well, we are disputing whether India contributed to the Communist side more than the diplomatic supports provided at UN based on Dr. Stueck's statement. Now after both my and TFD's searches, it appears that CIA believes Indian government did provided material support due to Operation Stole, which is why Dr. Stueck concluded that India helped both sides equally in material aid (I'm still waiting for User:Brigade Piron to respond whether this counts as sufficient evidence in his opinion, since this is his condition for resolving this dispute). But then again, a lot of nations on the info box were included by just merely expressing opinions of support to one side or another, which India already crossed that threshold for both sides since it actively helped the Chinese with its Peace Initiatives. So even without the medical support, on the Korean War talk page there is still a case to be argued to whether India should be counted for supporting both UN and the Communist side in the info box due to its pro-Chinese but anti-North Korean diplomatic stance in UN. Jim101 (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    User:Brigade Piron has notified me that the dispute has been resolved. Jim101 (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    I've just reopened it: I think that Mr Stueck is wrong. Nick-D (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

    Isaiah Canaan birthday

    Check out his college website they have it correct of May 21 not May 2. Also, he is my daughter's boyfriend so I know when his birthday is, although I'm sure you can't just take my word for it.

    Grr. I can't find the college website page referred to, and ESPN gives both May 2 and May 21. --GRuban (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

    Unverifiable Self-published Sources

    On Death of Shane Todd, Theinsidefacts keeps adding references such as ] in his edits ], then claims that these were "independant report in the public domain. Under WP policy there is no requirement for a source to be referenced specifically by a news agency. The source is quite clearly the author of the report and that has been cited."]. Looking at the original source documents (even assuming it is genuine), one an clearly see that it is in fact some form of personal correspondence between the doctor and another party rather than an actual report. I also note that the document seems to have been edited to mask the identity of the party the doctor was corresponding with, which means there's no way to be sure if anything else in the document had been edited prior to uploading. Hope more senior editors and admins can help me out on this, thanks! Zhanzhao (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

    Please see http://www.simonteakettle.com/famousauthors.htm Geĸrίtzl (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    Not THAT type of self-publishing.This editor is using a document on a free hosting site which someone anonymous uploaded and treating it as if it were a valid source though, hardly the dsmr. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

    IMDB page apparently by the subject

    WP:RSN says "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. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." which is about Rick Still has Rick Still's name as the author. Do we then accept it as a RS without any verification? I removed it at UFO Phil and Rick Still but it was replaced. I've removed it again from the UFO Phil article but then thought I'd come here. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

    As an external link sure, but not as a reliable source, unless there would be a really good reason why it would be an exception to that. - SudoGhost 19:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    Doug, I gotta say, as someone who has a (minor) IMDB listing, that all their info-data has to be certified by their staff in consultation with the production companies; individual actors etc can submit material but it's not UGC, it does go through a review process, much more rigorous than Misplaced Pages's own. You can't just add episodes or credits to it, not even close, same with names/histories and such....all has to be verified. Period. I don't know where Misplaced Pages's hostility to IMDB.com has come from; in the film industry and in acting careers it has an extremely high level of credibility and is considered authoritative because everything is checked with the production company and/or the union before it actually appears on the site. I know this because it took me months to get an episode or two added to my own profile (you can email me to ask what it is).Skookum1 (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    I have to say, as someone who has used IMDb for over a decade their review process is not as vigorous as you indicate. There is no better example then the fact that they had a page for this Misplaced Pages:List of hoaxes on Misplaced Pages/Yuri Gadyukin fictitious director for a couple years and it wasn't until the hoax was discovered here at Misplaced Pages that they removed their page for him. They also had pages for his non-existent films. They also had listings for this Misplaced Pages:List of hoaxes on Misplaced Pages/Bucharest Film Festival which was also a hoax. Again the items were not removed until the hoax was discovered here. Their goofs, trivia and movie connections sections are replete with nonsense and inaccuracies. Go to almost any "memorable quotes" section and you can find the same quote listed over and over again which shows that they don't look at what is already there before adding a new submission. One last example. On their page for Barry Jackson they have his role in Kubrick's Barry Lyndon listed as "British Soldier." I have submitted, on four separate occasions, a correction for that description including the exact time on the DVD's where he is seen in the film. It is easy enough to use that information to discover that he is never seen as a soldier yet all four submissions have been ignored. Now it is a website that I will continue to use but I always take the info gained there with a large grain of salt and I would not encourage their use as a reliable source. MarnetteD | Talk 20:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)Bios or profiles, subject-written or not, are not subjected to the same kind of editorial oversight that credits are, so this type of content, at the very least, should be handled with extreme care and verified from an independent/different source that is reliable. I think some information on the website does come from the actual organization...DGA certified-directing credits, for instance, emanate from that group not from the individuals. For actors, however, the acting credits come from the individuals themselves or persons submitting on their behalf, even for union actors they do not come from SAG-AFTRA. I seem to remember that the sections that have caused problems in the past have been WP-editors using trivia sections, bio sections and other user-written content to back up assertions about living persons. I was even at a seminar once where a film director said that an actor's claimed IMDb credit in his movie was an outright lie...so, yes, that is anecdotal but mistakes can make it through IMDb's vetting process. Shearonink (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

    Don't know if this is an acceptable source where Rick Still clearly states that he plays the UFO Phil character. Comparing the photos of Rick Still and UFO Phil, it's obviously the same guy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

    Islamic Encyclopedia as a source on...well, Islam stuff

    Islamic Encyclopedia fashions itself as a non-open, privately edited encyclopedia on Islamic topics, especially biographies of Muslim notables. According to their About Us page, they publish stuff from a number of primary and secondary source books of history and mention works of respected historians like Ibn Khallikan. The thing is, those sources are reliable, but is the cite? Can it be used as a source in biographies of historical Muslim figures? MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

    See about us. Seems to be self-published by the editor and without institutional support: the presumption would therefore be that it's not RS as a whole, but individual articles may be RS if written by established experts. Andrew Dalby 08:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    From what I can tell on the about us page, none of them are established experts; they seem to be hobbyists and volunteers (though it's mainly one person). If that is the case, then given the analysis above, I'm not sure if any of the articles would be RS. That's just what's coming to me now, I could be wrong. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    Normally you have to say what exact statements one means for it to establish. So sure, it could be a reliable source for some claim somewhere on some Islamic topic. However, note it is self-published by a non-expert, and apparently has no reviews in the academic press. Here's a selection from an example article, Abdullah B Abbas :

    Some Orientalists have tried to discredit him. The Brille Edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam tries to disparage him by saying, “He was the father of Qur’anic exegesis; at a time when it was necessary to bring the Qur’an into accord with the new demand of a society which had undergone profound transformation; he appears to have been extremely skilful in accomplishing this task.” (Art., `Abdullah ibn `Abbas). The hidden meaning is: Ibn `Abbas bent the Qur’anic commentary to confirm the Qur’an with the changing demands of his time. Considering the fact that the Qur’an is a living miracle, but beyond the understanding of superficial minds, poorly educated and trained to think in materialistic terms, the above statement can be excused.

    — Islamic Encyclopedia
    What a tendentious and revealing thing to say. Brill is one of the foremost academic publishers in the world. The Encyclopedia of Islam is the foremost reference work on Islam. But there's more than one edition, but you wouldn't be able to tell from this reference. In fact, what's being cited is an early article from the second edition, published 1960, written by Laura Veccia Vaglieri. The latest work cited by the article is from 1945. There's a new article on ʿAbdallāh b. ʿAbbās in the new edition, published 2007, written by Claude Gilliot. The bibliography included is a thing to behold. Of course, this is completely neglected by the Islamic Encyclopedia article. What is that last sentence quoted suggesting? That it is an historical fact that the Qur'an is the word of God, undisputed by any real scholars, and that those people involved with the Encyclopedia of Islam have weak minds and are poorly educated? I would say that is exactly what it is insinuating. What does all of this reveal? The Islamic Encyclopedia is an apologetic work, a desperate one at that, and it has no part in the academic history of early Islam. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 09:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    Very well stated, and very good observations; we should be able to call this case closed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    I agree about this case -- it is quite clear -- but I would challenge Atethnekos's general statement about Brill. I have heard Brill described (by academics whose colleagues' work was published by Brill ...) as a vanity publisher. That's an exaggerated statement, but so is Atethnekos's. They publish some extremely good and highly scholarly material, including the Encyclopedia of Islam, and also some that's not so good because the author paid them to publish it. Andrew Dalby 08:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    Really? I haven't heard that. But fair enough. What I meant to say anyway was that Brill is a well-known academic publisher, to give some context to the misspelling. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 00:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    Certainly: no dispute. Andrew Dalby 09:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    I think that's part of the wider issue of some academics having to pay "subsidies" to get their stuff published, which has grown up in the last few years, & which we discuss somewhere else - I forget where. Too much scholarship, too few buying libraries. I agree about this lot, & generally BRILL should indicate RS. Johnbod (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

    Debka Files

    Once I came across warnings about reliable sources. So I would to ask whether or not Debka files is reliable. Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

    You need to provide us with a link, and tell us on what page, and for what information, you want to cite this source. Andrew Dalby 10:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    Not it is not reliable. Zero 09:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

    Books published through Lulu not being used as "sources" per se...

    The article on Ernest Mason Satow currently includes references to several Lulu-published books that were (apparently) originally written by the subject himself, but are probably no longer in print under their original (or any mainstream) publishers. I'm a bit concerned that the page itself was started by the editor who published through Lulu (who is a professor of English at a Japanese university) and so the references may fall under WP:ADVERTISEMENT. I'm not really concerned that the Lulu-published books are being cited as sources, because that doesn't appear to be the case. Ruxton appears to be a good scholar and a productive Wikipedian (I'm not outing him, as his official homepage openly declares Historian to be his Misplaced Pages account), seeing the name Lulu mentioned so many times in the article on a 19th-century Japanologist is off-putting. 猿丸 14:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

    Lulu is not a reliable source. All of those would fall under WP:SELFPUB. I have went ahead and removed them all as non-reliable sources and self-publications. Arzel (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    I know that much (check my recent edit history), but the problem is that they were not actually "sources" so much as listing books that had been written by the subject over a century ago and are now effectively only available through Lulu. Should we replace "Edited by Ian Ruxton, Published by Lulu Press" with the original publishers and then put the books back in? (RSN may not have been the right place for this...) 猿丸 15:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    Do we have the original publication information? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    The original publication details would be available from the Library of Congress catalog (and others).
    I guess there's no need to say, since Satow is dead, modern reprints of his work can't be self-published. He was a major scholar and anything published by him in his field of expertise would be presumed RS. But it's advertising, and a bad idea, to cite "Lulu Press" (like "Kessinger Publishing" and various others) when we need instead to give the original publication details. Andrew Dalby 08:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

    Review of short film from "Crikey"

    I found this review of Verax (film) from Crikey:

    Would Crikey be considered an RS for the purposes of posting a review of a short film? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

    Crikey has a reputation for fact-checking. It's a serious online subscription news journal. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    Awesome! If there's no further feedback... I am using the source in the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

    YouTube Video of News Channel as Reliable Source

    The Chennai_Express article has been given the following source as a you-tube video. The video is from SUN News , which is one of the big Indian media channels. The video has been officially published by the television in its News channel .

    Source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFGG8zZkGSs&list=WLo-RQ04tOAUUt9xAMVoM2R8YzX-WBtFzW Article :http://en.wikipedia.org/Chennai_Express

    Content from the source : Chennai Express Poster and Trailer that have been released in Twitter and YouTube , are criticized by some film makers of

    South India for being deliberately demeaning to Tamil Culture and Tamil Language. The accent used by Deepika resembles

    Malayalam accent rather than Tamil, according to them. There is an edit war going on , and the edit war is inappropriately tagged as vandalism with Personal comments on me , which is recorded in the talk page. Hence posting here for second opinion

    The film, Chennai Express, has not been released and a discussion about the origins of a fictional character and their accent are meaningless at this point. The character is actually Malayalam and not Tamil contrary to what Karthikeyan.pandian said. He has a habit of posting wrong information on Misplaced Pages as he previously posted a fake article about how the film was banned in Pakistan but actually that is not the case. It is releasing in that country. The YouTube video in question involves a channel that has a reputation of publishing unreliable news in India and mostly inviting people who rant and rave about Bollywood films in general. They language is crude and expresses their opinions, a random rant video involving some men is not considered as a reliable source especially since the article has not been published in any newspaper or discussed about. They are not reporting anything but just complaining about an accent of a character which is just plain ridiculous. Their information is wrong and the fact that they chose to release it on YouTube and say multiple times that the video only involves opinions makes it someone's opinion, much like that on a blog, rather than a news article giving concrete information. Opinions of random persons on YouTube and on blogs are not included in Misplaced Pages as stated in the guidelines. Blogs or video blogs are not reliable sources. The YouTube video is not a reliable source because generally YouTube videos aren't reliable sources, unless they interviews about concrete matters like foreign policy or statements that make their way into news which are spoke by important figures and world leaders. Ashermadan (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    Comment: The youtube video is a channel for Sun News which is a TV channel on Sun Network TV. The issues to resolve are 1. Is a youtube channel that replays News from Sun Network TV an appropriate source? It seems to me that that news channel of India;s largest media organisation is reliable. 2. Is the claim being made in the article supported reliably by the source? Flat Out let's discuss it 06:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    The video is from SUN News , which is a NEWS channel based in India as pointed by Flat Out . The statement in my edit 'Chennai Express Poster and Trailer that have been released in Twitter and YouTube , are criticized by some film makers of South India for being deliberately demeaning to Tamil Culture and Tamil Language. ' is true and the evidence is the video from the Youtube channel of the Television. I need a second opinion , not from the same user Ashermadan again and again , about Reliability of the source. Also would like to quote the following wiki pages Regarding Video as proof : http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Video_links#References Regarding Non english content : http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Chennai_Express#Controversies_Section Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    I tend to agree that the source is reliable. Let's wait a while to see if anyone else has a view. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    If one has reasonably strong assurance that the youtube channel is the same as the copyright owners, then it is reasonable to use as a source. However, consider that if it is replaying news that was broadcasted on television and not an original video, the better way to source is to cite the television program (including the date of broadcast) that should be known through the youtube source. The youtube video, assuming its reliable, can be added as URL for this source, but the sourcing should act as if it was a news broadcast. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks Masem that is a good point. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

    If one has reasonably strong assurance that the youtube channel is the same as the copyright owners --- yes it is

    One clarification - The channel is news channel and the program is a Debate program where some South indian Directors have opined thier thoughts. And yes its a playback .Past show's particlar episode's schedule cant be obtained but the Sun Tv website itsef has link to this program http://www.sunnetwork.in/tv-channel-details.aspx?Channelid=10&channelname=SUN%20NEWS Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

    Yeah, you should be okay, but I'd source it to the original news broadcast, using the {{Cite AV media}} template (if you are using that format), and you can then add the youtube link (since copyright owner uploaded it) can be added via the URL= field. --MASEM (t) 17:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    I think we have consensus Flat Out let's discuss it 03:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks everyone for the clarifications Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    Karthikeyan.pandianjust wait a while longer to be sure no-one else has a perspective, then I will post on the article's talk page that consensus has been reached here. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

    Is this fact tag justified in the introductory sentence defining the article?

    The article Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) begins: Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is interaction between indigenous peoples of the Americas who settled the Americas before 10,000 BC, and peoples of other continents (Africa, Asia, Europe, or Oceania), which occurred before the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Caribbean in 1492. For practical purposes, travel across the Bering Straits, or the former land bridge in the same region are excluded.

    The fact tag was added 3 times last night - I removed it twice as I didn't understand why it was added, and each time I asked that it be discussed on the talk page. The editor ignored my request and his/her 3rd edit summary asked me not to play dumb, putting the word 'confused' in scare quotes, and finally (and in the wrong place - it should have been on the talk page) asked where the number was coming from and saying that it should be in the article. That's a bit more helpful although still no excuse. It's true that "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." but that's not what's happened here. The lead "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

    The article is not about when Native Americans reached the Americas. It is about controversies concerning other groups which are alleged to have come to America before 10,000 BCE and 1492 CE. The article does not suggest when Native Americans came to America and there is no academic controversy about there being Native Americans here 12,000 years ago (see Clovis culture).

    So there should be no fact tag for 2 reasons:

    The date is part of defining the article - if there is a problem with the definition of the article that should be brought up on the talk page. I don't see how WP:LEAD can apply here, this is not a discussion of material that should appear later in the article, it is just defining the article.

    The date is not controversial except among Young Earth Creationists. Clovis culture is earlier than this date, and it is 'Clovis first which was what the now pretty much outdated academic controversy was about. WP:VERIFY doesn't seem to require a fact tag no matter where this is placed in the article, especially as it isn't saying when Native Americans arrived. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

    Agree with you, Doug. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    Yes we can as WP editors define the boundaries of our own articles. We do not always need to defer to sources on this, but on the other hand, we should be guided by them in order to ensure that our articles give due balance to what is published in a given area. For example if we would set our boundaries in a way which creates coverage which splits discussion between many stubs, that would not be good; and likewise if we would create a mega article which unites discussions of things which publications never discuss together, this might in some cases be accused of being original synthesis. In the particular case above I am wondering why the number 10,000 is so important. Is it just intended to be an early enough date to exclude peoples who have a recorded history that is not lost to us? If so then it seems a little early. What if someone argues that this or that indigenous culture arrived in their area only 9000 years ago? I wonder if it is not easier to just come up with a definition which says what it needs to say, rather than trying to turn it into a certain number of years?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    It defines the time boundaries, as our article on Settlement of the Americas discusses earlier time periods including the Solutrean hypothesis which is an academic hypothesis suggesting the Solutreans came to North America about 15000 years ago.
    Adding a source to a non-controversial statement in the opening sentence of the article, when the sentence already links to another article that provides adequate evidence, is out of the question. It clutters the prose with an unnecessary footnote, and non-creationist readers will just be confused as to why it is there. 猿丸 10:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    I think the date is there because it is non-controversial. And Andrew, I'm not sure I understand your point. At the moment, the date is fine for what it covers - the significant arguments for pre-Columbian but after Clovis contact. If you've got a better version, suggest it on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    I have not looked at the article history in detail, and it is not a field I know well, but deletion of the number implies that someone finds it controversial. I do not want to opine on whether that is reasonable and I can well imagine that it might not be.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

    I have added a reference for it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

    I can't see the page, what exactly does it say? It would have to define Pre-Columbian contact, right? Dougweller (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    To be more specific, it would have to back up "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is interaction between indigenous peoples of the Americas who settled the Americas before 10,000 BC, and peoples of other continents (Africa, Asia, Europe, or Oceania), which occurred before the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Caribbean in 1492." Please note that the date 10,000 is there to exclude anything earlier, eg the Solutrean hypothesis which is covered in the ] (it suggests that some of the indigenous people of the Americas came from Europe). I doubt very much that this is what the source says. The introduction defines the boundary of the article and there is nothing controversial in it - all academics agree that Columbus's voyage was 1492 and that there were Native Americans in the Americas before 10,000 BC. Dougweller (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    This is not about 'reliable sources' any more, but the statement 'before 10k BC' does not exclude anything earlier? Do you mean 'after 10k BC'? Rwos (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

    population data for Somalian cities sourced by Tageo.com and Worldcities.us

    The population data of Somalian cities enter the article Somalia via Template:Largest cities of Somalia. It has been complicated to find reliable sources for those (see for example Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 134#World Gazetteer). Recently 2 new sources were proposed with worldwide city data:

    • Tageo, with an "about" section saying "Geographic Area of Coverage of Tageo:Worldwide excluding Antarctica", and stating
      • This site provides a geographic coordinate database consisting :
        • 5.4 million records from the NlMA GE0net Names Server
        • 2,7 million records of cities
        • (etc)
    • World cities, stating (left lower corner): "World Cities™ provides detailed educational information for cities around the world. World city and country information is attained from government sources and is subject to change. World Cities is not liable for any misrepresented information. ",

    At Template talk:Largest cities of Somalia, user:Middayexpress and I have been trying to work out if these are reliable sources. The discussion has focussed on what are the underlying sources for the case of Somalia, and whether they are reliable (as the websites themselves are not automatically reliable sources, as they seem not to stem from a respected university, institute or government). We could use some ideas from this noticeboard! L.tak (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

    Tageo uses NIMA records for its coverage of areas "Worldwide excluding Antarctica" (which by default would include Somalia) . For its part, Worldcities.us indicates that its "world city and country information is attained from government sources" (which again by default would include Somalia) . Both sources are also widely cited on Misplaced Pages, especially Tageo; including on other city templates. Middayexpress (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    • ad Tageo: The fact that Tageo uses NIMA (as stated in your and mine ref, which are equal), does not mean that all data of Tageo stem from NIMA. We simply don't know. I checked nima, and downloaded the somalia info (here), but couldn't find population data at all (but I might have the wrong file)…
    • ad World cities stemming from "government sources" is extremely vague and not specific enough to verify the claim…
    • Again, the character of both sites (full of commercials, not backed up by a reputed institution) requires us to look at their sources and to clarify them with some certainly… L.tak (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

    Bradt Travel Guide, Falkland Islands culture

    I am currently on the process of writing the "culture" section for the Falkland Islands article improvement project (see User:MarshalN20/Sandbox4). The problem is that not much is mentioned on the culture aside from that it is essentially identical to British culture. I am wondering if the The Bradt Travel Guide on the Falkland Islands (written by Will Wagstaff) would be a reliable sources to use solely on the culture section? I have searched for prior similar cases and the consensus seems to be that each case is different. I wanted to know for sure other thoughts about this prior to using the Wagstaff source in the article. Thanks in advance.--MarshalN20 | 22:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

    I very much doubt it is "essentially identical to British culture" at all, though obviously derived from it. Sounds like you need to use Wagstaff, but since he has an article, starting "According to Will Wagstaff...." would be appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you for the reply. The phrase you quote is the conclusion I got from the one source that discussed Falklands culture. Yes, I think that Wagstaff could probably provide a better insight into the archipelago's culture (or, at least a different perspective). I'd like to hear some more thoughts on this (I will probably link this page to the FAC or GA reviews so that the reviewer knows the community had a chance at making a decision on the source). Regards.--MarshalN20 | 15:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

    Sources regarding religions

    In the page Kabaa, i am trying to clarify my edit, but one of the editor seems to be disagreeing, even though the sources 2 sources i have used, were declared to be reliable, in a noticeboard. This time, i would like to know, if any of the following sources are credible?

    • "Original God-Part III- Mystery of Original God explained", by Mukesh Chandubhai Chauhan, P. 116.
    • "India in Kurdistan", by Parameśa Caudhurī, P. 52.
    • "Gods, Sages and Kings: Vedic Secrets of Ancient Civilization" by David Frawley, P. 282
    • "The Koran and the kafir", by Arvind Ghosh, P. 166
    • "A Reconstruction of Sikh History", by Surajīta Hām̆sa, P. 207.
    • "Gods of Love and Ecstasy: The Traditions of Shiva and Dionysus", by Alain Daniélou, P. 131,

    Capitals00 (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

    These 'original God' books are crank stuff. As the author says on Amazon, "Exposed - Conspiracy and Black magic on Earth 'veil'of conspiracy to cover up the name of Original God is explained, the web of conspiracy took 14 years search to find Original God in which author’s career, life and surgery were destroyed by every kind of black magic". Parameśa Caudhurī believes that "Kashmir in India was the ancestral land of Jesus Christ and that India was the origin of Christianity.". And Frawley isn't accepted by academics for history subjects. Ghosh is self-published. I don't know who ABS Publishers (for Surajīta Hām̆sa) is, but this seems to be a very insignificant author - can't see any evidence this is reliably published or any mention of his work in reliable sources. As for Daniélou, he's the only one of all of these that might vaguely be a RS, but he's just making a throwaway comment "At Mecca, the Makeshvara of the ancient Indian geographers, the Black Stone, which is the emblem of Shiva mentioned in the Puranas, is still venerated. The Celts inherited ancient sacred places from previous peoples. The origin of the oracle near the Castalian Spring at Delphi goes back long before the Mycenaean era. Outside of Crete, there were many such sacred places in the Mediterranean world. Naxos was called Dionysias, or Dia, the Divine, and was especially sacred to Dionysus, while the wines of Naxos were famous."
    And of course when asked if a source is reliable, one question has to be "Reliable for what?" The last edit this editor made, which I reverted, said "The perceived identity of a muslim saint and a hindu diety parallels the notion, widespread in coastal central Kerala, that allah resembles Lord Shiva in being the supreme deity and that, prior to becoming a centre of muslim faith, the Kaaba in Mecca(saudi arabia) had been a bana(arrow) lingam, and therefore, it's surrounding mosque a shiva temple." The source for this simply said " British chronicles of the 18th century refer to a Hindu belief that the black stone in the Kaaba was in fact a lingham carried off by Muslims. The text itself however is copyvio from .
    Part of the problem is that this editor is edit-warring, calling experienced editors vandals (and evidently following editors around), and raised a spurious WP:SPI. Dougweller (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    Be firm Doug. Johnbod (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    A Reconstruction of Sikh History from Sikh Literature seems to be reasonably widely referred to as an authority in the field— which is a pretty small field, from what I can tell. The author is however usually given as "Surgit Hans"; I cannot explain the discrepancy. That said, without seeing the text I would be loathe to believe that it supports the kind of claims I understand are being made. Mangoe (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    By my count, it is not just *1* editor that disagrees with Capitals00 -- but 4 that he repeatedly calls sockpuppets, just because they all 4 disagree with him that a self publish book that states that some people believe something is not the same as it being a fact.... 134.161.227.70 (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    It's fairly obvious that Capitals00 is just trawling Google Books in search of anything to support his P.N. Oakish wish to claim that Islam took over a "Hindu temple" even at its inception. However, there are some real issues. The suggestion that Hindus believed the Black Stone to be a Shiva lingam dates back at least as far as More's 1810 book The Hindu Pantheon. So there is at least some evidence that this is a "story" that circulated among some Hindus. And it would not be surprising. Hindu appropriation of potentially alien or alternative traditions goes at least as far back as the claim that the Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu and the later stuff about Jesus and Muhammad in the Bhavishya Purana. And of course the very creation of "Hinduism" as a synthesis of myriad cultic traditions in India is part of that. There is also an element of legitimate syncretism, in which one tradition is seen through concepts used in another (as for example the term "Muslim saint" used above). In that case, saying that the Black Stone for Pagan Arabs was the equivalent of the Shiva lingam is, at least, meaningful in the same way that saying a venerated Muslim holy-man and a bodhisattva are both the equivalent of a "saint". In this case, I don't think the equivalence is sufficient to be very useful, though since Shiva lingams are often "black stones", it would not be a surprising link for a Hindu to make. One question is whether a "non Oakish" version of this idea can be properly cited, rather than supported by passing mentions in books only tangentally related to the topic. The other question is whether it is sufficiently significant or notable to be mentioned at all. At the moment, the sourcing is very poor and does not even establish notability. Paul B (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

    Over 9000 meme

    Dragon Ball Z is host to an unusual and popular meme known as "It's over 9000!" which is a years old cultural icon amongst its fans that has been acknowledged by Funimation itself. At the heart of the matter is sourcing for it. Originally I used a book dedicated to the topic itself, Dragon Ball Z "It's Over 9,000!" When Worldviews Collide by Derek Padula. Padula's work is a self publication with indepth coverage and analysis of the meme and its meaning, popularity and philosophy about the scene it self. While the opinion of the author is not used in any shape or form, the citation exists to accurately depict creation, origin and original media from which it spawned. Padula's work has been reviewed and praised by two other fan sources, Screwattack and Japanator. Screwattack is itself a company "ScrewAttack Entertainment LLC" which has operated for 7 years, with a good deal of popularity, I suspect a review of the book lends some credibility to it. Japanator is another source, sometimes questionable on its own for its publication of rumor as rumor, but Japanator actually interviewed the creator back in 2008 and then upon the unrelated-to-the-site release of Padula's book, did a review on it. The details of the interview did make its place into Padula's work, but it is perhaps the review of the book which is the key point for validation of it. The reviewer states, "Derek Padula has done a stunning service to those looking to turn a scholarly eye to the series to dissect comparisons between the two heroes, their similarities, and key turning points during which we could immediately discern the characters had grown both mentally and physically..." The book itself has been praised in the small quarterly Shadowland Magazine which can be found in book stores and comic shops, all the more to validate the book itself as source by acknowledgement from the community. Padula's previous book was also well received if you don't mind me pointing out.

    A second issue remains, where the actual primary source material is "not a reliable source" in the eyes of Ryulong. It is not synthesis to compare the Japanese language work and original English work and note that "Hassen ijou da!" is mistranslated because "Hassen" translates to 8000. And two English dubs from Ocean and Funimation both use the line on their respective releases. Here's where it gets complicated, due to the success of the series, two variations were made for the re-release as Dragon Ball Kai. Funimation produced the "over 9000" for TV and "over 8000" for DVD release, with the immediate lines themselves being different around it as well.

    The TV script:

    Nappa: Vegeta! Vegeta! What's wrong with you?! Tell me what his power level is! Vegeta: It's over 9000! Nappa: What?! 9000?! You've got to be kidding me, that thing's a piece of junk! - Dragon Ball Z Kai, Episode 21 on TV (Nick Toons in this case)

    The DVD script:

    Nappa: Vegeta! What does the scouter say about his power level?! Vegeta: It's over 8000! Raah! Nappa: 8000?! C'mon, that can't be right! It must be broken or something. - Dragon Ball Z Kai: "Protect the Dragon Balls! The Namekian's All-Out Attack!" Episode 21 on Funimation DVD.

    This different is not a violation of WP:SYN, anyone can look at the two versions and notice the differences. Though I can also point out that the differences in the original Z release comes on 28 of Funimation's dub versus 21 of Ocean sub. I do not see how these "primary sources" are not reliable nor how a book about it, an interview with the creator or other validations including Funimation's own actions as "unreliable". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

    Is a movie a reliable source for itself?

    I believe the editor of this document does not understand Misplaced Pages's own editorial policy or the status of a movie as a document in its own right--

    Talk:The_Life_and_Death_of_Colonel_Blimp#Portrait_of_Barbara_Wynne-Candy_used_in_The_League_of_Gentlemen

    The requested reliable source is the film referred to.

    Could someone please add their opinion on one side or other of this discussion.

    A film is acceptable as a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE for things like the plot, film credits etc, but not for general claims about the film. I believe your question relates to this edit? In this case I believe the editor who removed the claim acted accordingly. Just because the photos look identical doesn't mean the prop was reused. This is basically WP:SYNTHESIS: an original conclusion is being drawn from two sources (in this case two unrelated films) where neither source backs up the claim being made. You need a source that actually states the prop was reused, or indeed modelled on the photo form the earlier film. Aside from establishing the veracity of the claim, a secondary source also establishes the notability of the claim to avoid WP:TRIVIA concerns. Betty Logan (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    It is almost certainly original research. It is definitely off-topic. If the material could be properly sourced, it might belong in our article on The League of Gentlemen. It doesn't belong in our article on The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    It is certainly original research, no two ways about it. If the material you wish to add is significant enough to include in a WP article, it certainly would have been mentioned in reliable secondary sources. If you can't find it there, it just ain't significant as far as our policies are concerned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    Ya gotta be very careful with this type of OR. IMDB picks up this type of stuff and then authors comment on it and it becomes a circular reference. I made a edit once about what I thought was an acceptable edit using IMDB. Turns out that IMDB had picked up the information from a comment I made elsewhere on the prop (which is why IMDB is not reliable, It is user generated content). When I went to try and find a reliable source in book form, one I found was an author commenting on the IMDB information. Instead of mentioning the props (or props) the edit was changed to mention just the similarities that were mentioned in a stronger RS.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

    Maplight.org

    I would like to ask if http://maplight.org/ is a reliable source. thanks James Michael DuPont (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

    Reliability of any source depends on context, but MapLight is a well-respected non-partisan group, so I would consider them reliable in most contexts. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    Ok, and what about https://en.wikipedia.org/John_Boehner#Top_10_Organizations_Funding is this ok? OpenSecrets, Sunlight, and Follow the Money can we cite them? thanks James Michael DuPont (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

    thinkprogress.org as a generally accepted WP:RS

    This is a question on rather thinkprogress.org should generally be accepted as a WP:RS. It has won several awards and has a credentialed staff. See their about page. Casprings (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

    I can't imagine why they should be any more than we shouldn't accept NewsMax or WorldNetDaily. They're too partisan to be of value, and have a history of inaccurate reporting. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    What is there history of "inaccurate reporting". Do you have a link? Mother Jones is generally considered at WP:RS and has a clear view point. One can have a view point and still be accurate.Casprings (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    Sure, Mother Jones is a great example of a partisan source with something to offer. With ThinkProgress, plenty of blogs go into detail in debunking ThinkProgress's blog posts, such as this and this, which would not be good enough to use in an article, but provide ample demonstration of TP's inability to discern facts. We should be using them sparingly, and only for claims about themselves or their positions when necessary. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    Shouldn't the path to judging this be by independent judgements? For example, NewsTrust gives Thinkprogress a rating of 3.4 out of 5. It gives foxnews a rating of 2.6 out of 5.0. I am not saying this is the end all, be all, but there have to be organizations out there that at least try to judge sites for fairness and accuracy. The posts you put up, I think that the claims of non accuracy could be attacked. Figure out some organization that is neutral and finding their judgements would be a good path. Casprings (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    Maybe, but I'm not sure what NewsTrust is or why we should buy their claims (especially if they're putting a mainstream, credible source below a highly partisan blog with a history of errors), but I don't see the history of accuracy I think is necessary. Is there a specific reference it's trying to cite? Do we have a better, neutral source to use instead? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    Would have to explore to find something. I do find a lot of columns saying they are accurate or not accurate. However, I can say the same about Huffington Post or Fox News. I think of some note is that they have won awards from what I would consider neutral sources. For example, Official Honoree in the 2009 and 2012 Webby. Another example is that it won an award from The Sidney Hillman Foundation. Awards from neutral sources should also play into this.Casprings (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    What raised the question of ThinkProgress, then? Why is this here? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    I edit american politics articles alot and the issue often comes up. I saw it again. I decided it would be nice just to have a general consensus one way or the other.Casprings (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    You and I both. I've done my best to try and remove blatantly partisan sources wherever possible, my personal suggestion would be to avoid it unless there's no other option. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

    <- No comment on whether the blog qualifies as an RS and under what circumstances, but either way, consensus will need to deal with the reality that they appear to be used quite extensively, including for BLPs such as Doug Lamborn, where they are cited as source for a quote by a living person. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

    This might be a better link, although anything nearing 400 is nearly 400 too many. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    The original question as posed was: "This is a question on rather thinkprogress.org should generally be accepted as a WP:RS."
    The site appears to be reliably published. It has an editorial staff and a history of fact checking. As for the bias of the source and whether that effects reliability for our standards:

    Biased or opinionated sources



    Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.

    Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd..." or "According to the opera critic Tom Sutcliffe..."

    --Amadscientist (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

    I'm not convinced they have a reputation of fact checking, for the record. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    We are not here to convince editors of such. It is not necessary for you to believe it, but if you stall consensus over it, be prepared to demonstrate it or it will simply be overlooked. We all have our opinions Thargor, how much weight that is given in a discussion is only based on the strength of the argument. Not believing is not a strong argument.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    I should mention tabloid journalism. Generally speaking when a source is considered "tabloid journalism" it fails criteria for use as a source for facts. If one believes that a reference is such a source, that would require a demonstration as well and be discussed by editors to decide if use of the source is not appropriate as "tabloid journalism".--Amadscientist (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    Of course. I'm just curious as to where this supposed reputation for fact-checking comes from. And, for that matter, what it's being used for that raised the question. I suspect we can find a better source for whatever it is ThinkProgress is claiming. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    If I may, you should first consider: What specific citation in support of what specific edit? Thinkprogress? The website has a stated general bias. Some people on there do good work, some of what's on the site not so much. It, like, depends.Dan Murphy (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • One point I didn't place in the OP, but I should have. Should thinkprogress be considered, a WP:NEWSBLOG?
    • First off- no such thing as "generally accepted" RS, especially for news reports, each fact must be NPOV and non-partisan and that is why the above statement that Fox is a "mainstream and credible" source is laughable, no there not and anything on their networks which is partisan or editorializing has always found itself here and we have always said Fox news in those instances is not reliable, in general I would say we've declared Fox news non-RS more often than we've found it RS. The standard is if it is true, then in that instance of that fact which is true that particular RS is reliable. If an RS were to say Kazakhstan is in South America I don't care if that RS has been right 99.9999% of the time, it isn't reliable and we don't use it.Camelbinky (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    Actually, news organizations are generally accepted to be WP:RS. Per WP:NEWSORG,""News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). " As far as Foxnews, there was actually a discussion on it at WP:RSN. That can be found here.Casprings (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Don't see why not, within reason. We use Fox News as an RS, after all. They employ credentialed professionals and some of their coverage is first rate stuff, especially Climate Progress, which is edited by a doctorate from MIT. Gamaliel (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Reliable source Challenging their status because they are "progressive" is disingenuous. Many reputable news sources have an editorial position. The New York Times and The Guardian are liberal, The Times and The Telegraph are conservative. Reliability relates to whether the facts presented in news stories are accurate, which in this case they are. TFD (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Where is this evidence of reliability? I do want to know where that's coming from. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Various awards from neutral organizations, a credentialed staff, and a rating from a neutral organization is the current evidence. There is some. Rather it is enough, I don't know.Casprings (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure what makes NewsTrust neutral. Their funding comes significantly from ideologically-left organizations. A credentialed staff and awards doesn't tell us much either, neither of those things are especially difficult to obtain. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    There are claims the NYT is liberal. I would consider it rather neutral, as far as their news pages. Their OP pages do tend to slant liberal.Casprings (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    NewsTrust says it is reliable. NewsTrust partners include the include the Huffington Post, PBS, PolitiFact and the Washington Post. (Note: whether or not the NYT is liberal depends on how one uses the term. They are certainly more liberal than the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, which are also rs.) TFD (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    Why is NewsTrust considered a worthwhile arbiter? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    One reason is perhaps because they are partners of sources we generally consider reliable, such as PBS and the Washington Post.Casprings (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    Can you verify that? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    Here. And alot of other partners as well. Casprings (talk)
    • The problem with Think Progress and similar sources is that their choice of reporting is strongly tainted by a bias. If you read only Think Progress or NewsMax you will get a slanted presentation of the issues because they highlight only stories that support their particular point of view while ignoring or discrediting those that go against it. But from what I have seen of Think Progress, the articles do appear to check their facts and I don't see any reason to prohibit its use as a source. We just have to make sure we use Think Progress to cite verifiable information and not "The Truth". ThemFromSpace 20:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

    RFC ThinkProgress

    Please consider joining the feedback request service.
    An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

    This is a question on rather thinkprogress.org should generally be accepted as a WP:RS.Should thinkprogress be considered, a reliable WP:NEWSBLOG? It has won several awards and has a credentialed staff. See their about page. NewsTrust gives Thinkprogress a rating of 3.4 out of 5. Casprings (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

    • Only for claims attributed specifically to it, and sparingly at that. Treat it like any other highly partisan, somewhat suspect source like NewsMax or WorldNetDaily. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree with Thargor Orlando. Fundamentally, we're talking about a partisan website. Like any partisan website, it should be used sparingly and cautiously, if at all. Our default approach should be to look for better, less partisan sources wherever possible. MastCell  21:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Agreed with MastCell and Thargor Orlando. Arkon (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The comparison to NewsMax and WND is prima facie absurd. The only thing they have in common is that they are internet sites dealing with US politics from a particular orientation. We don't treat print and television media with political orientations this way, since Fox News is widely accepted as a reliable source, so we shouldn't treat a website this way. TP often produces quality work, it is staffed with professionals with solid traditional credentials who have gone on to work at many other media outlets which are unquestionably accepted as reliable sources. TP should be considered usable under the right circumstances, and certainly there's no reason that subsets of TP can't be accepted in all cases, such as Climate Progress, headed by an MIT doctorate and has little to do with the daily slugfest of partisan politics. Gamaliel (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Sure, ThinkProgress is more sober and less ridiculous than WorldNetDaily and NewsMax, which are apparently written with tinfoil hat firmly in place. That's a matter of degree, and it's why ThinkProgress may be useful sparingly whereas the other two should be avoided in all but the most extraordinary circumstances. But the fact remains that all three fall under the general category of "partisan websites", and any time we think about citing a partisan website, we should stop and look for better sources instead. If we can't find any, and if a subject is covered only by partisan websites, then we need to think seriously about whether it belongs in a Misplaced Pages article. MastCell  22:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Bais, in of itself, is not a reason for a source to not be considered WP:RS. Per WP:RS:

    Biased or opinionated sources



    Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.

    Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd..." or "According to the opera critic Tom Sutcliffe..."

    I would think there needs to be a better argument than simply bias.Casprings (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    Sure. The best argument is that they cannot be trusted to give an objective, factual account of what they report on. It's an issue of bias to a point, but the biases are so significant as to cloud what they do. Compare it to, say, Mother Jones or National Review, which are partisan/ideological publications that do not let their ideologies get in the way of presenting information in a factual way. ThinkProgress, truly, is no better than Alternet or NewsMax. In no way have they shown a fidelity to the truth, in no way have they shown themselves to be worthwhile sources for use in an online encyclopedia except in rare, specific circumstances. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    "In no way have they shown a fidelity to the truth". No way at all? Not even a little? That's an incredibly broad statement, got anything to back it up? Gamaliel (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    I second that. You do have to back up such claims.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    And yet I've asked numerous times for examples of their reliability and keep getting tossed to NewsTrust. That's strange. But to answer the question, I provided a few examples of their factual inaccuracy above, but they've also been caught making misstatements about groups like the NRA and Americans for Tax Reform, and multiple groups have noted their claims about Limbaugh advertising during the Flake situation. They're not a news organization, they're an ideological opinion provider. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    It is up to you to demonstrate that they are not reliable. As yet you have shown nothing to contradict that they are a news blog. Personal opinion aside, find us a reliable source that mentions that Thinkprogress has an issue with facts and then we can talk further. Until then you are just cherry picking.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    Isn't it up to the person who wants to include information to show how they're reliable? I've shown two instances of debunking here, and I can present links for other entries that dispute ThinkProgress if need be. They wouldn't be appropriate for articles, but they would be appropriate for showing ThinkProgress's lack of trust. I also, again, do not understand under what circumstances we'd actually need them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    An example or two hardly supports a broad statement like "In no way have they shown a fidelity to the truth". Similar examples can be found for any source widely considered an RS, certainly dozens or perhaps hundreds can be found for Fox News alone. Gamaliel (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    So you want to include them: where's the record for accuracy? Where's the proof they're what you claim they are? Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    Tou made a specific claim in this section that multiple parties have asked you to substantiate. Will you do so or will you instead retract your claim? Gamaliel (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    I've linked a few above, and can offer more if necessary. If you want to include the information, you are responsible for explaining why they're reliable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    As has been pointed out to you, a few examples hardly substantiates such a broad assertion. All parties in this discussion are responsible for backing up their claims, you have no exemption to this. Gamaliel (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    We're going around in circles. If you have evidence of TP's reliability, this is the time to present it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    Evidence has been presented elsewhere on this page, as you know. Now is the time for you to substantiate or retract your claim. We're going in circles because you made an incredibly broad assertion that you refuse to back up. Gamaliel (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    No evidence has been supported outside of a crowdsourced news aggregator and handwaving about their staff. No evidence is forthcoming, unlike the evidence I've presented thus far, so it tells me that TP probably isn't reliable until I see evidence otherwise. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    When will you present evidence backing up your assertions? You have yet to do so. Gamaliel (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    I would point out that NewsTrust rates them than foxnews. They are an organization with many partners we would consider WP:RS.
    I don't see how them asserting they're partners constitutes them actually having partnerships. Or, for that matter, how "partner" as they define it would work the same way the rest of us would. An example: the Huffington Post "partnership" consists of 12 posts tagged "NewsTrust" from over 2 years ago. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I am not prepared to make a special case out of thinkprogress as no demonstration has been made that they lack anything that puts them into a special category. It is a newsblog in the exact same vein as Huffington Post and as yet I see no evidence that they deserve to be placed outside our definition of a reliable source. I do not believe it has been shown by any editor that this site is more or less partisan than any other site or that our policies and guidelines should be ignored here to improve the project.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree with MastCell. It can be used for uncontroversial statements of fact, but in general I think we should prefer news sources with a more broad focus. I would say the same thing about several other bloggy news outlets on both the left and the right. If we can find a source that says the same thing and appears in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, etc, we might as well use that. a13ean (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    I do not agree with Mastcell who states: " Like any partisan website, it should be used sparingly and cautiously, if at all. Our default approach should be to look for better, less partisan sources wherever possible." No. Our default should be to stay within our guidelines until they are changed. To me this is like saying we have determined that we cannot trust them. Yet we have not stated why. The same thing was attempted with Huffington Post and while it is a matter of consensus it keeps coming back to this noticeboard as a point of contention. No, I am sorry, but I see nothing within guidelines and policy from Mastcell's argument to see it as a legitimate "default".--Amadscientist (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    It's a matter of basic common sense, when trying to write a serious encyclopedia article, to use partisan websites sparingly as sources and to prefer reputable non-partisan sources wherever possible. Good editors recognize that. It's a best practice; if our policies don't reflect it, they should. I'm not saying that we "can't trust" ThinkProgress—I'm saying that a neutral, reputable news outlet is a better sourcing fit for us than a partisan website in virtually all cases. MastCell  23:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    I should clarify. It isn't that I don't necessarily agree with the overall sentiment, just that it is not our current default process. I do agree with the spirit of our policy in that, even a partisan source is not unreliable merely because it is partisan.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    The question isn't to compare WP:RS. It is a question over rather a source is WP:RS. It is a different question rather a sources is WP:RS, over which source one should use in a certain article. Huffington Post is a WP:RS, but Washington Post might be a better source to use.Casprings (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    Not exactly. You see you are still making assumptions. The issue with using a partisan source is whether the source has content worth using for the referenced content. If the Huffington Post article was aggregated from another source (many times they are) then they are not even really the source. But if Huffington Post was used as an original story, written by a journalist not giving opinion, and the source is giving the take of one side that is not given in another source (for example lets use your suggestion of the Washington Post), how is the Washington Post necessarily a better choice? It really is a matter of that local consensus to determine what is the best choice in that situation.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    • They're an advocacy group, not a news organization, right? They should be used with extreme caution, especially since virtually all of their blog posts concern living people. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    • News aggregator. Treat as news aggregator. Not automatically reliable or unreliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    • After reading this discussion I think that there's no reason that TP shouldn't be considered a reliable source. Yes, they have an editorial viewpoint. Perhaps they could even be considered a "biased source." So what? Lots of news organizations have a viewpoint and could be considered biased. We use Fox News a lot for all sorts of things. And part of Misplaced Pages is about documenting controversies and I can't see any reason why it's not appropriate to use well-sourced blogs that have well-qualified staff to illustrate progressive viewpoints in political articles where that's necessary and if appropriately referenced. Finally, Mr Orlando has pointed to a couple of famous mistakes that TP has made, but really, if the standard is "perfect news source that's never made mistakes" we wouldn't have any reliable sources at all. AgnosticAphid talk 17:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

    On the NewsTrust ranking

    In doing some research on the organization to repair our article on NewsTrust, I found this, which states that "A national version of the site has been running about two years, featuring content from national publications such as The Washington Post, Wired, The Independent and the Atlantic. At the bottom of each posting is a rating, on a scale from 0-5, of the article’s quality as determined by site curators as well as visitors." Thus, these rankings we're using on reliability are at least partially, if not mostly, crowdsourced and probably should not be held as a point for or against any specific source. It was also formed in part by MoveOn.org, which at least puts into question the group's ideological independence even before we begin examining the donors. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

    This is a link to the sites methodology. It uses questions and surveys. It seems to attempt to be neutral, at least.Casprings (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    Attempt to be neutral, maybe, but the rankings are entirely crowdsourced, which means that it tells us all of nothing regarding any organization's actual accuracy. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    What is the point of the above? I really don't get it. How is this relevant to the discussion. What am I missing?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    Looks like you may be missing the introduction of the RFC by Casprings. He references Newstrust there. Arkon (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    OK, got it, but...in my defense this RFC was created in an odd manner and was originally placed over the original question to this Noticeboard and I am really beginning to lose track on what is being discussed at this point. But, with that said, exactly how does that rating effect how we look at the source. please be specific to policy and guidelines as that is the real strength to this argument...if there is one.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    The claim is made that ThinkProgress is accurate because NewsTrust gives it a reliability rating higher than Fox News. NewsTrust is merely an aggregator that has crowdsourced ranking, which means that it's not a very good source for whether something is accurate or not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    I did reference it, but it is only one data point. Casprings (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    I suppose that may mean something to some, but I don't see how that relates to how we see this source. Ratings from outside agencies seems to only be relevant to them. How is it relevant to our guidelines on seeing Thinkprogress as reliable as a newsblog?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    It goes to the fact that they are accurate. That, along with outside awards and staff with credentials was used as evidence they are WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    I am actually on the side of inclusion of the site as a news blog but a rating system doesn't seem to mean much in this argument. I would be more interested in other reliable sources discussing the credibility of the source. If you want to demonstrate that a source is a "tabloid journalism" source...a rating wont show that. If you want to counter that a source is not a tabloid journalism source, a rating would not do that. We need an actual discussion at length in other sources for verification and a true idea of the source as reliable. Without that we defer to the source as meeting our standards.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)--Amadscientist (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    You might be right. I just thought it might be relevant. If not, so be it. We should explore evidence one way or the other.Casprings (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    User:Casprings, what is it that makes them accurate? Where's the evidence? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    I guess what is the evidence that makes them not accurate? They have a staff made of a professional journalist or other professionals. For example:

    Bryce Covert is the Economic Policy Editor for ThinkProgress. She was previously editor of the Roosevelt Institute’s Next New Deal blog and a senior communications officer. She is also a contributor for The Nation and was previously a contributor for ForbesWoman. Her writing has appeared on The New York Times, The New York Daily News, The Nation, The Atlantic, The American Prospect, and others. She is also a board member of WAM!NYC, the New York Chapter of Women, Action & the Media.

    They have a staff of what I would consider reasonably credentialed. They have also won awards from what I would consider neutral third parties. This rating may not mean anything to people, but I don't see the evidence where they are not a WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    Okay, what is it about credentialing alone that makes them reliable? What is it about the awards they've won that makes them reliable? If we're going off WP:RS, and we're willing to consider them a news organziation (which I don't see much evidence of either), they would still fall under the point made there: "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Everything they "report" is editorial with news information inside of it, which tells me they fall into the latter, but even if it were the former, that puts them at "less reliable." We call it a blog in our article about them, and they're an arm of the Center for American Progress rather than a news organization. They want to be considered a news organization, but news organizations don't seem to be buying it. The non-web-based award they won is The Hillman Prize, which is designed specifically for organizations that "pursue social justice and public policy for the common good," a basically ideologically left wing point, which lessens the impact of that award. I'm looking for evidence that I'm wrong here, but the weight of the evidence is really suggesting that TP is a very poor quality source for an online encyclopedia, never mind anything else. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    The politico article doesn't say they don't buy it. Most of the article is a discussion on the robust nature of their news outlet. They do however, question their connection to liberal groups and their tax status. Do they report from a liberal perspective? Sure. However, where is the evidence, from a WP:RS, they they have a problem with accurate reporting of facts?Casprings (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    Politico says that they've had to defend their "journalistic independence and integrity" because of some of the stories they choose to take up. That's a huge hit. As for the evidence that they have a problem, we have three listed in the article for ThinkProgress and two more linked above, with plenty more available. I'll repeat myself again, however: the burden of proof is on those who want to include the information. No one is presenting any sort of real argument or evidence in favor of treating TP as a reliable source. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    You have presented partisan blogs that question how one story was reported. I can do the same for Foxnews, Huffington Post, and multiple WP:RS. That isn't terrible good evidence to me. As far as them, defending "journalistic independence and integrity", that also happens all the time. It happened with the NY Times, when they reported information leaked to them by the Bush administration during the run up to the Iraq war. The real question is, does their connection to a liberal think tank and their donor organizations tax status, preclude them from being a WP:RS?
    That's not the argument. The New Republic is funded by someone extremely liberal. Reason is an arm of the Reason Foundation. The funding isn't what makes them unreliable, it's the fact that they do not have a history of accurate reporting. No one is able to show that they have a history of accurate reporting. Those who want to include the information are not showing why it's verifiable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    Can you establish that The New Republic and Reason have "a history of accurate reporting"? What criteria do we use to establish this? Above, you cherry pick a few examples of alleged TP mistakes and claim that adds up to evidence against them. I could do the very same for Fox News. Do you think Fox News is not an RS? Why or why not? Gamaliel (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    Fox News is reliable as it is considered, unequivocally by its peers, to be a mainstream, reliable broadcaster for news. Any question of that was put to rest when the White House attempted to freeze them out a few years ago and the rest of the media pool stood up for them. Can we establish that about Reason and The New Republic? I believe we can, yes, we have decades, if not generations, of respect and reporting from them that ThinkProgress doesn't have, in part because of TP's relative age, and in part because TP is not a news organization, but is rather an ideological news commentary blog. The New Republic, in particular, has had issues with being faked out by stories in the past with Glass and Beauchamp, and is still considered high quality by both sides of the ideological divide. TP can't say that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    The idea that Fox News is widely considered reliable is laughable. Granted, TP doesn't have a long-standing reputation because of its youth, but your assertions about how well regarded it is by its peers is incorrect. We've noted repeatedly that many TP staffers have moved on to many different news outlets of varying ideological orientations that are indisputably considered reliable sources. If TP's reputation amongst its peers were as you claim, then those staffers wouldn't be getting those jobs with TP on their resume. Gamaliel (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    I don't see what "getting hired somewhere else later" has to do with TP's esteem as a news reporter, which is what we're talking about. I'm sure they have many columnists and bloggers who go onto good things. Heck, The Economist hired Megan McArdle solely based on her Jane Galt blog, and that wouldn't mean we can suddenly use her old blog as a reliable source simply because The Economist hired her back whenever. That's not how it works. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    It has everything to do with exactly what you specified: its reputation amongst its peers. If what you claim is true, this hiring simply wouldn't be happening. Gamaliel (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    You're really comparing the White House news pool with whether or not someone gets hired from TP? Come on. That's not a serious argument. That someone takes a job at a commentary site does not make them ineligible to get a real journalism job later, just like running a personal blog doesn't disqualify you from working at a magazine. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    You're the one who brought up TP's alleged reputation amongst its peers as a criteria. Now you're dismissing your own criteria. Gamaliel (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

    Climate Progress

    Just like it's silly to label all things on the internet the same just because they are websites, it would be silly to label all parts of Think Progress the same. Whatever the result of the above discussion, I don't see a reason why we can't carve out a consensus for using Climate Progress as an RS. It has a different editorial and writing staff from Think Progress. It is headed by Dr. Joseph J. Romm, an MIT doctorate and former Acting Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, an indisputable expert with an excellent reputation. Romm's WP article documents his extensive credentials and the wide amount of praise that Climate Progress has received, including from Time and the New York Times. Even if you think that TP is somehow the equivalent of Newsmax, you can't make that same absurd claim for Climate Progress. Gamaliel (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

    Looking at the front page of Climate Progress, I fail to see how this is any different than any of TP's other coverage. Joe Romm has a PhD, sure (so does Jerome Corsi, and we know how useful he is) but he's just a blogger and a think tank employee. I don't see why we should make an exception within an unreliable source simply because some people like the guy. Les Kinsolving has decades of reporting experience, but we shouldn't be using his WorldNet Daily pieces for anything. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    It appears that there is no evidence you would accept. Leading media outlets have called CP "indispensable" and called it one of the best blogs of the year. This is hardly "We like Joe." Gamaliel (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    It doesn't appear there's been any actual evidence provided. The "indispensible" quote comes from opinion columnist Tom Friedman, who is not a reporter nor a media outlet. Among other "best blogs of the year in 2010" included a blog called "Shit My Kids Ruined" and "The Daily Kitten." Notable and noteworthy? Sure. Evidence of reliability for an encyclopedia? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    Use some common sense. Clearly, they are using different criteria for news blogs than for kitten pictures. Gamaliel (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    Common sense tells me that the "best blogs of 2010" were not based on the type of criteria we need to judge this blog's reliability. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    Common sense tells me there is no evidence you will ever find acceptable. Gamaliel (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    Your dismissal in the face of a lack of an argument or evidence is noted. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

    Even more evidence: The Columbia Journalism Review, the leading journal in the field, has Climate Progress on its list of recommended resources for journalists. Gamaliel (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

    Think Progress's Staff

    One thing that is getting lost in this debate is that Think Progress has a robust staff. From Political

    The group, executives told POLITICO, now has 30 writers and researchers at ThinkProgress, its blog, which is being redesigned and relaunched in the coming weeks. The editorial staff, similar in size or larger than that of many political websites, marks the latest phase in the deliberate, decade-long construction of a liberal infrastructure for reporting, research, and hammering home a message that the right is scrambling to match.

    The point being, they have a highly credentialed and professional state. Their about page is littered with what I would call professionals, in at least some respect. For example,Alyssa Rosenberg:

    ALYSSA ROSENBERG is the Features Editor for ThinkProgress.org. She is a columnist for the XX Factor at Slate, and a correspondent for TheAtlantic.com Alyssa grew up in Massachusetts and holds a B.A. in humanities from Yale University. Before joining ThinkProgress, she was editor of Washingtonian.com and a staff correspondent at Government Executive. Her work has appeared in The Atlantic, The Daily Beast, The New Republic, Esquire.com, The Daily, The American Prospect, and National Journal.

    Are the facts given by Mrs. Rosenberg and other members at Thinkprogress, not to be seen as a WP:RS source? If I took it from the Atlantic or The New Republic, it certainly would be. To me, that is strong evidence for its WP:RS. It hires quality reporters and analysis. Casprings (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

    WorldNetDaily "hires quality reporters" as well. We would not and should not use their reporting in article in an encyclopedia. As for Rosenberg, looking at her page, it doesn't appear she does much in the way of reporting, instead offering editorial advocacy and cultural musings using editorial rather than professional language ("decades too late for middle-aged white dudes," for example). It would be one thing if she was reporting the news. She's not, nor is anyone else at TP. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    Can you show a number of members of WorldNetDaily that have had careers at WP:RS, also?Casprings (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    Yes. Their editor in chief, Joseph Farah, another editor, David Kupelian, their lead reporter, Les Kinsolving, and so on. The issue is the publication, not necessarily those who write for it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    Casprings, read the article, WorldNetDaily - they have backgrounds in mainstream media, which is why they are able to write reasonably well and turn out a publication. Thargor Orlando, your argument here and elsewhere is WorldNetDaily is partisan, it is not rs, therefore partisn sites are not rs. But partisanship has nothing to do with reliability. There are sources that say ThinkProgress is reliable and sources that say WND is a conspiracy website. TFD (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry, should have phrased my question differently. Can you show where WorldNet, isn't simply a dead end. In other words, people with careers in WP:RS, might go there. However, I have never seen them leave and go to another WP:RS. Maybe I am wrong.Casprings (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    I can't, but I don't know all that much about former reporters there, either. I fail to see that relevance, in any regard: hiring practices aren't what makes a source reliable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    It shows some amount of respectability among their peers. In other words, if a Journalist and provide article to both The atlantic and Think Progress, and the job at Think Progress has no negative consequences on their career, that would show that among journalist, it is respected. If a Journalist goes to WMD, and can only work for similar sites, that would indicate that WMD is not as respected among journalist. That is evidence of WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    As I noted above, working for a partisan commentary site does not disqualify someone from being hired elsewhere later, nor does WND perhaps having better staff retention mean that they are less qualified. Besides, I'm saying that neither organization is reliable in this instance, so. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    That's not my argument at all. My argument is not that "partisan = not reliable," because I'm arguing quite firmly in favor of other partisan sources. The argument is ThinkProgress is not reliable because it is not a news source, it is a commentary blog with a shady history of factual commentary that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Our own article highlights examples, I have above, and no one up to this point has offered a cognizant argument in favor of its use. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

    Is the journal: Clinical, Cosmetic And Investigational Dermatology (published by Dove Medical Press) a reliable source?

    I would like to know whether three studies from the peer-reviewed medical journal Clinical, Cosmetic And Investigational Dermatology published by Dove Medical Press can be used in the Misplaced Pages article on Morgellons disease.

    The three studies in question are:

    Because of a dispute among editors at the Morgellons article, dispute resolution was sought, and all editors agreed to abide by the decision made by the dispute mediator (whose username is TransporterMan). TransporterMan, the dispute mediator, decided that the Dove Medical Press articles did not even meet WP:SOURCES, let alone WP:MEDRS. You can read the dispute resolution discussion HERE — click on "show" on that page to view the discussion.

    Since I fully agreed to abide by the mediator's decision, I cannot now use these Dove Medical Press studies in the Morgellons article, and I will honor this agreement (until such time as new research is published, at which point, as per the agreement, the decision will need to be reviewed and renewed).

    However, I would still like to get a second opinion on the suitability of these three studies for use in the Morgellons article, and thus welcome any input and perspective offered on this. Many thanks for your help.

    I wanted to use these three Dove Medical Press studies to support the view that Morgellons disease is a real disease involving certain unusual skin lesions. These studies detail the nature of the skin lesions in Morgellons patients. Drgao (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

    You want a 'second opinion' on a decision you agreed would be binding? Here's one - I suggest that you withdraw your request here, before this rebounds on you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    No, that's not what I said. What said was I wanted a second opinion on whether those sources are reliable, not a second opinion on the decision itself. I do not dispute the decision, and I fully agree to abide by it. I want a second opinion on the reliability of those sources because the decision is only binding until such time as new studies are published, whence the effect of the decision expires. So when new studies are published, I might take up this issue again, and that is why I an interested in the reliability of those sources. So I cannot see that this request is unreasonable. Drgao (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    If and when new studies are published, you can ask the question (assuming that was what was agreed). For now, I suggest you abide by the decision - this notice board only answers questions of direct relevance to articles, and does not respond to hypothetical questions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    Drgao, you are not abiding by what you agreed to in the DRN discussion. In that discussion, you agreed that you "will abide by my opinion and quit discussing the issue in dispute until something changes in the real world (for example, new studies or sources being done and becoming available) which renders it inapplicable." (Emphasis added.) By raising the question here of the fitness of the exact same sources there were reviewed in the DRN discussion, you are further discussing the issue in dispute, in violation of your commitment.

    Further, the appearance of a new source would not undo the decision made on the sources reviewed at the DRN. You agreed to: "if new sources pro or con are developed, by which I mean that they are published for the first time after the decision here, then they can be raised and discussed by either side." (Emphasis in original.) What may be discussed is the new published sources.

    If this tendentious behavior continues we will discuss it at WP:ANI. Zad68 17:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

    TO: AndyTheGrump. Well, the other issue was that wanted to learn why those sources were considered unreliable (if indeed they are), so that in future I might become a good judge myself on source reliability. But if you can't oblige on this issue, then I guess I'll have to try to learn about source reliability in some other way. Any suggestions on how welcomed.
    TO: Zad68. I am abiding by the decision, and I am not discussing the issue in dispute. The dispute was about the proposal to add new content to the Morgellons article, which referenced the above studies. I am not discussing that, as I have agreed not to. I am discussing a different topic: whether the above studies are reliable sources or not; and as stated, I am interested in understanding why those sources were considered unreliable, so that I can become a good judge of this. I am also considering using those sources in another article, other than the Morgellons article, and so their reliability is of interest to me for that purpose too. Drgao (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    1. "Elections polls" (in Persian). rasanehiran. 13 May 2013. Retrieved 13 May 2013.
    2. "Results of the presidential poll". Akharin News (in Persian). 13 May 2013. Retrieved 13 May 2013.
    3. "2013 Elections polls" (in Persian). alborz news. 13 May 2013. Retrieved 13 May 2013.
    4. ^ "2013 elections poll". ie92 (in Persian). 16 May 2013. Retrieved 16 May 2013. Cite error: The named reference "ie92" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
    5. "vote online to your candidate!". Arna News (in Persian). 16 May 2013. Retrieved 16 May 2013.
    6. "Iranelect, first question: Who's the most popular between conservatives?" (in Persian). iranelect. 16 May 2013. Retrieved 16 May 2013.
    7. "Final polls" (in Persian). kashanjc. 16 May 2013. Retrieved 16 May 2013.
    8. "Polls" (in Persian). iranamerica. 18 May 2013. Retrieved 18 May 2013.
    9. ^ "Polls" (in Persian). Alef. 20 May 2013. Retrieved 20 May 2013. Cite error: The named reference "alef" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
    10. "Choise your candidate". fararu (in Persian). 23 May 2013. Retrieved 23 May 2013.
    11. نظرسنجی انتخابات ریاست جمهوری
    12. نظرسنجی
    13. انتخابات
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic