Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nick-D (talk | contribs) at 03:56, 23 December 2013 (→CelebrityNetWorth.com and TheRichest.org/TheRichest.com: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

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

TellyChakkar.com

The website www.tellychakkar.com is a website on Indian television entertainment. Its reliability has been questioned at times in various AfDs and edit wars. The site is used in more than 350 article on en.wiki. It also has a editorial team. My experience of having seen it's various articles and used them here calls it a WP:RS. But due to constant questioning by other editors i thought it better to bring it here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

from the About us "Apart from conceiving and executing promotional campaigns targeted at the Media, Marketing & Television Trade online, it also offers similar services offline, thus providing clients with a 360 degree media service and marketing solution. ... The exclusive peppery online destination for the hottest news on TV shows and movies, tete-a-tetes with TV and Bollywood stars, spicy gossips and much more. TellyChakkar, an Indiantelevision.com initiative was launched in 2005. Since its inception TellyChakkar has enjoyed a special place in the hearts of television and Bollywood fans across the globe and has recently launched print editions as well. This light-hearted, easy-read, entertaining and naughty website focuses on the ultimate TV and 70mm fan as well as the entertainment industry. "

They promote their "spicy gossip" and "executing promotional campaigns", but not their pledge to accuracy and fact checking.

It does not appear that they have a reputation for such either, (based on the redlink status of TellyChakkar.com, they dont have any reputation at all) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Its a television entertainment website. Why will they write about microbiological inventions? And redlinks don't mean non-notability. We don't have to tell that. Also, the website presents New Talent Awards to TV actors. Prof. Shoma Munshi, (Division Head -- Social Sciences, and Professor of Anthropology at the American University of Kuwait.) calls the Tellychakkar.com and its co-website IndianTelevision.com "mines of information and handy tools for anyone researching, or simply reading about television industry in India." (Ref: Prime Time Soap Operas on Indian Television, ISBN 1136516190, Routledge, 2012.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

re "Its a television entertainment website. Why will they write about microbiological inventions? " I dont expect a television / entertainment website to write about microbiology. But I do expect any sources that we deem reliable place as their primary concerns fact checking and accuracy and not promotion of clients or spreading gossip both of which are pretty much antithetical to being reliable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think they don't report facts? You mean they say X plays a certain role in a TV show when actually Y is doing that? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Because of the reasons I stated above - their "About Us" page highlights their promotional aspects and their spicy gossip and not their accuracy and fact checking. And the fact that no third party sources have commented upon their accuracy and fact checking.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe they are modest about what that. No garlands for us. have you found many many things in the website that aren't useful for us? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

we dont grant sites reliable status based soley on the fact that they might be shy about the fact that they fact check but are not shy about the fact that they will promote your content and spread gossip. thats just silly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Munshi's mention is a point in its favour, but I don't see it as enough for us to rule this as RS. You could say the same about IMDB and we don't regard that as reliable. We specifically rule out gossip, and this site is focused mainly on gossip,, as it says itself. Perhaps we can use it as a supplementary source, or even as the main source for completely uncontroversial factual information, but that would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "completely uncontroversial factual information"? Can you give some examples of where you would use it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps that a particular actor has appeared in a specific role in a specific program broadcast on a given date? DES 21:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

So, can the article 2013 - Vivacious Vamps of the Year be used to source that a certain actor played a certain role? Can Birthday greetings to Sidharth, Sambhavna, Aasiya and Prachee be used to source the birthdates of these people? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Also, the website does segregate their articles in various sections like News, Lifestyle, Behind the lens, Features, Gossip, Interviews, Releases, Star Gazing. Of which Gossip and Star Gazing are of no use to us but rest all are useful. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with User:Itsmejudith, User:DESiegel and User:Dharmadhyaksha: the site could be used as a source for uncontroversial factual information (a particular actor has appeared in a specific role in a specific program), but it cannot be acceptable as a tool for further spreading of gossip. This should be decided on a case-by-case basis. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Could we decide such that certain sections are good for us? The ones i mentioned above? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Knock knock! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The non controversial fact that someone is in a particular show or film is almost always going to be verifiable through a more reliable source and we dont dive to the worst source possible. The issue was brought here because of an AfD to establish notability of an actor. Given the sites self stated "about us" to be promotional, the site surely should not be valid source for that use. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Links to the AfD mentioned by User:TheRedPenOfDoom + problematic articles by TellyChakkar deleted from the article by the same editor:
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anushka Sen
• "Anushka Sen to play young Parvati in Devon Ke Dev...Mahadev". TellyChakkar.com. Retrieved 10 December 2013.
• "Jyoti Gauba and Anushka Sen in Mahadev". TellyChakkar.com. 27 August 2012. Retrieved 10 December 2013.
• --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Whats the conclusion? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Is Astrodatabank reliable?

In 2011, there was a discussion whether Astro-Databank (ADB) was a reliable source, see here. I want to clarify (as an editor of ADB), that the project claims reliability for the birth data section, i.e. birth date, birth time and location. Each entry is rated with the Rodden Rating system, and each entry contains precise source notes naming the source of the birth data information. Many entries carry the AA rating, which means that an original birth record or birth certificate was either in the hands of the editor, or quoted by another data collector of high reputation.

The astrological charts shown in ADB are reliably computed.

Other information found on an ADB page, for example biography text and category classifications reflects the personal knowledge and opinion of the respective author/editor. For newer entries, biography information is often copied from Misplaced Pages. These parts of ADB claim no special reliability.

Defining Movement and Shwebomin

The Shwebomin claimed to be a pretender of Burmese Throne. I have never heard of his existence before. His name is never mentioned in official genealogy nor in any Burmese history book. The source cited is an interview on a talk show, "Defining Movement". I have never heard of that show before. Could it be a good source for BLP? SWH 16:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

No. We need to have reliable sources, independent of him, about his origin and the claim he makes in order to create an article about him. It's a matter of notability also: if someone has reacted publicly to his claim, in reliable sources that we can cite, that might help to make him notable; if there's no such reaction, it suggests he isn't. Andrew Dalby 09:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for comment. Yes, I believe neutrality would be impossibly difficult to obtain if all information is based on interviews and his official site. I guess we should delete it until someone, a historian or researcher reacts in RS. 03:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The reliability of the interview is not in question, the questions are (1) for what information can the interview be reliably cited, and (2) does an interview, together with other sources, constitute coverage of an individual? The answer to the first is at WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source and WP:SELFPUB#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves, and the answer to the second is yes. --Bejnar (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Malmesbury.com and their expertise on analyzing death statistics

http://www.malmesbury.com/malmesbury-history/961-hannah-twynnoy.html categorizes the death of Hannah Twynnoy as "unusual". I can find no reliable sources that make that characterization, not even the indirect source used in the article, http://www.athelstanmuseum.org.uk/people_hannah_twynnoy.html. Can a community directory be considered a reliable source for categorizing deaths as "unusual" pursuant to them being included in List of unusual deaths?—Kww(talk) 02:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The community site has a vested interest in hyping potential tourist attractions in the town. Their position as a neutral third party in describing their offerings places them as a questionable source at best. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I doubt they'd use the word "unusual" just to somehow make it a tourist attraction. Doesn't make a lot of sense. The girl died in 1703. A major newspaper says of her, "historians believe was probably the first person in Britain to be killed by a tiger." So it is usual, being the first. Dream Focus 16:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Highlighting things as "unique" and "unusual" and "one of a kind" are EXACTLY what tourism boards and PR firms do to draw visitors. Show me one campaign "Visit Delradia, its just like everywhere else! There's nothing here you haven't seen before!'" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

If the Telegraph and/or BBC call it an unusual death too, I'm happy to go along with it. Even if tigers were later to become a routine cause of death in England, the first case would still be worth highlighting. bobrayner (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"First" is not a synonym for "unusual", so the BBC article wouldn't qualify for inclusion at List of unusual deaths. The question here is not about the BBC article, the question here is whether malmesbury.com can be treated as a reliable source for purposes of declaring a death unusual.—Kww(talk) 18:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The title of the piece is "BBC reveals Britain's most unusual epitaphs" so I think it's reasonable for a list of unusual deaths. I'm more wary of the Mamlesbury.com source. bobrayner (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not good logic: if someone was killed while doing something mundane and someone wrote a witty epitaph, the unusual epitaph would not make the death itself unusual.—Kww(talk) 19:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)There is quite a significant distinction between an epitaph and a death. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with that point, of course; but the article seems more focused on the nature of her death. A poem on a headstone is hardly unusual. bobrayner (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It would still be improper to jump from the fact that they titled the article "Unusual Epitaphs" but because they are talking about the death in the article they actually meant "unusual deaths". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:37, 17 December 2013 List of unusual deaths?&mda(UTC)

1 tiger in 300 years would seem "unusual" by any reasonable standard. I'm not aware that the tourist board installed the headstone. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

only if you limit your tiger deaths to england. the article is not "Unusual deaths in England". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Why wouldn't I limit it to England? Or at least, to "Places where tigers are not endemic". Tiger attacks in India are obviously not unusual, but that's like claiming that a death by frostbite in Namibia can't be "unusual" because it's a common cause of death in Greenland. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This argument is precisely why we only care about what reliable sources have deemed to be unusual deaths, not what individual editors believe, and why the discussion on this noticeboard should be about whether the Malmesbury Tourist Board should be considered a reliable source in the context of mortality statistics.—Kww(talk) 03:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Any "expertise in analyzing death statistics" surely has nothing whatever to do with whether or nor a source is WP:RS, although a full discussion of this belongs not here at all but at List of unusual deaths. What's the next entry going to be over there ... death by concussion from repeated and unexpected moving of goalposts? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS / WP:V / WP:NPOV are goalposts that have not been moved. Does the source have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? Does the source have a suitable background to be making the claims they are making? Are we presenting their claims in the same context that they were originally presented and not using their words in other contexts to support positions in our article that they were not actually making in the context in which they wrote them? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

What has this to do with "expertise in analyzing death statistics"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

As pointed out in the policies - "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources.", and

The word "source" in Misplaced Pages has three meanings: 1) the type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book) 2) the creator of the work (for example, the writer) 3) the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability."

When determining whether something is a reliable source for calling a death unusual, we look for some sort of expertise related to the subject of the article. An "expertise in analyzing death statistics" would be a basis for indicating appropriate sourcing for determining an "unusual death" - "expertise in tourism promotion" would not be. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The consensus at the recent RfD seemed to be that a WP:RS source was sufficient, not one with "expertise in analyzing death statistics"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This is about determining what makes a reliable source as per policy. and per WP:RS, Malmesbury.com fails both Misplaced Pages:SCHOLARSHIP#Scholarship and Misplaced Pages:BIASED#Biased_or_opinionated_sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Not all RS are reliable for all claims. A tourist website is obviously not reliable for claims of uniqueness or unusualness of occurrences in that region. Many tourist websites claim "This forest is the most beautiful forest in the world" or "This waterfall is the tallest waterfall in the world* _{that was discovered by an Irish pub owner}". Thus, not reliable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Then your Www's section heading here is very misleading. Or are you now saying that we can't use the BBC or The Daily Telegraph as sources for the article, as they do not have "expertise in analyzing death statistics"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

what exactly would have been a non-misleading heading for a discussion about whether Malmesbury.com is a reliable expert source for analyzing death statistics? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no moving of the goalposts, Martin: sources are reliable within their area of expertise. Try sourcing material about subatomic particles to The Ladies Home Journal sometime and see whether people agree that it is a reliable source on the topic. The Malmesbury tourist board is an organization dedicated to advertising Malmesbury, not a source usable for analyzing whether a death is unusual or not.—Kww(talk) 02:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that if any of the ladies died an unusual death, we could use their journal as a source, even though they don't have that expertise you seem to demand demanded. But do RS claims have to be "true" (in terms of mortality rates) or just verifiable? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It's worth observing, possibly, that some of this discussion seems predicated on the idea that list of unusual deaths has high sourcing standards and this site doesn't meet them. In fact, the list defines itself as unique or extremely rare circumstances of death recorded throughout history, noted as being unusual by multiple sources. But a lot (most?) of the entries have only one source, and a sampling suggests not all of these have any sources explicitly addressing unusualness. By the actual standards of the list (as opposed to the proclaimed standards), the site (Athelstan Museum , not malmesbury.com, which is just echoing it) is a perfectly adequate source for what is clearly an unusual event, if we characterise it as an example of the type "death by a dangerous species in a place where the species is not endemic". On a related note: the list would be a lot more digestible if some attempt at organisation was made, instead of just dumping entries which make the grade by some apparently fairly arbitrary standard into a chronological list. Categorisation by eg, location of death, deaths by cause of death, etc. Podiaebba (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Your argument neglects to notice that the seven AFDs and associated DRVs have come to the conclusion that while the list is in sad shape, it is potentially repairable. You can't use the current state of the article as a justification for not repairing it. By the way, athelstanmuseum.org.uk makes no claim that the death was unusual.—Kww(talk) 02:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we have differing ideas of what "repairing" means. I think insisting that multiple sources specifically describe a death as unusual is too high a standard, and also that the plain chronological order is a bit useless. Instead, if the list is reorganised by types of unusual death (with similarities in the unusualness, if you see what I mean, like "unusual death by animal species" - species A, species B, species C), then editorial judgement can be used whether a death falls within that type. Multiple sources can much more easily be found to support the idea of a type of death being unusual. You'd probably end up with a "miscellaneous" category, for which the current standard should be applied to prevent it ballooning indefinitely. Anyway, I have no dog in this fight: I'm just suggesting consistency. If the Malmesbury case is to be excluded (barring better sourcing), then let's take it as a prompt to dump everything else that doesn't meet the proclaimed standards, moving them to the talk page in case someone wants to do further research. Podiaebba (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

if you can start grouping them into similar types, you are going a long way to proving they are not actually all that unusual. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I wholly agree with you, Podiaebba. I used to have a dog in this fight, but he was, rather unusually, killed by a falling goalpost.. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Any "moving goalposts" have simply been the move so that the standard Misplaced Pages content requirements were moved to include this article. The criteria of multiple reliable sources is in place because of the entirely subjective nature of the condition "unusual". Multiple sources making such an assessment is method of ensuring that we are closer representing a widely held view and not merely the loose usage of a single word by Joe Schmoe reporter to pad his submission length. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I would happily erase the article and move it to the talk page until people find reliable sources, but people would probably class that as disruptive. People have dismissed the argument that seven AFDs over poor sourcing were adequate demonstration that people couldn't find adequate sources. The DRV came to the conclusion that it was somehow better to carry on this argument for another decade, dragging each and every item through RFCs and discussion boards in the face of editors that resist efforts to remove poorly sourced material. It befuddled me that anyone thought that was better than simply deleting the article, but here we are. One item at a time, giving people that believe that there are reliable sources for an item an opportunity to find them. It would be nice if they actually did that instead of arguing that reliable sources aren't necessary.—Kww(talk) 12:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked into that history. But as long as the article is there, the problem persists. There's really two ways to handle it: (i) remove everything that can't be sourced to one of those books in Further Reading, unless it has multiple sources attesting unusualness; (ii) create subarticles that focus on particular types of unusual deaths, eg List of unusual deaths caused by animals, which covers quite a few of the entries. I think such focussing by subject would not only be more useful in itself, but make it easier to handle sourcing issues, by making it easier to compare entries. Podiaebba (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Creating list articles that are based on objective criteria would eliminate much of the problem. The key problem here is that "unusual" is such a subjective term that finding reliable sources to substantiate the characterization is nearly impossible.—Kww(talk) 17:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Creating sub-articles might be a good idea, except that the whole article as it stands is not that big. Yes, I think to "erase the article" would be disruptive - no probability involved; "giving people that believe that there are reliable sources for an item an opportunity to find them" sounds reasonable. But how long does that "opportunity" last? Who decides on a suitable time limit? And do items go to the holding pen or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Several websites as reliable sources for information on cryptocurrency

The article is Dogecoin.
The sources being used are the following:

• A Heavy.com article: Dogecoin: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know.
• A Daily Dot article: With its own cryptocurrency, Doge has officially conquered 2013
• A CoinDesk article: Patent Nonsense, Coinbase Futures, and Who’s a Good Doggie? You Are!
• A Geekosystem article: Dogecoin, A Cryptocurrency For Doges, Is Now A Thing
• A Slashgear article: Dogecoin digital currency takes on Bitcoin with a bit of meme flair
• A Digital Trends article: Wow. Dogecoin is the most Internet thing to happen, ever.
• A geek.com article: Dogecoin: Not a viable alternative to Bitcoin, but possibly the best invention on the internet

Other than links to non-reliable source cryptocurrency related websites (coin exchanges and whatnot, not news sites), these are the only sources for the article. Are any of these sources reliable enough to base an article on? The subject of the article has not received significant coverage in any mainstream news source, other than a mention in a list of cryptocurrencies in a column in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes they're notable, as we're talking about million dollar operations here with sizable staffing levels and huge level of daily traffic, certainly far outstripping many small town newspapers for instance. A number of them such as Slashgear and Digital Trends I'd count as quite mainstream too. Mathmo 09:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably better to get input from someone who isn't already involved in the deletion discussion, unless the same arguments there are supposed to spill over here. Breadblade (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice: Please see this subsequent deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Dogecoin. Several users have raised concerns that the nominator (who also started this discussion) also has a potential conflict of interest with Dogecoin. 21:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice: This discussion has also been linked to on 4chan; see here. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice: The allegations of COIN have been dubious at best, beyond calling the nominator a troll and linking to his activity on reddit and SomethingAwful Breadblade (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice: The discussion has been flooded by single-purpose accounts and IP edits with spurious "me too!" votes; anyone attempting to post there should keep in mind the extremely low signal-to-noise ratio. Ruling out the posts which propose a keep/delete with absolutely no basis in WP policy, there are not many actual arguments I can see besides "but a Reddit userpage is totally third-party verifiable evidence of notability". The actual issue of the debate is whether the coverage in tech blogs actually counts, due to the fact that the Dogecoin articles are mostly in the "fluffier" sections of the publications listed. ZigSaw 22:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

NOTICE: Most of the delete votes, including Ziggy's are mostly due to alienation by the recent meatpuppetry that has occurred in the discussion. Since then, many more sources, including ones from clearly established sources such as as Business Insider, The Verge, Wired, the Washington Examiner, and International Business Times, which isn't even scrapping the top of the milkshake, have emerged. Another discussion started for the main article on the meme itself shows Ziggy making deletion arguments mostly based on what sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF (both interchangeable for both deletion discussions), with extremely vague notability claims thrown in there to try and cover facts. Most (not counting the meatpuppets) are in agreement that the sources provided here and the others that have came out do meet WP:GNG. I'm not trying to discredit any comment made by Ziggy or others, but the majority of these "deleters" and "mergers" give off the impression of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF. 19:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to add six more sources to the boat of links. By this time, it's starting to catch on in other countries, so some of these are going to be in different languages, and may require translation.

• A Verge article (this is likely the biggest one to report on it to-date): Bitcoin is so 2013: Dogecoin is the new cryptocurrency on the block
• A Complex Tech article (I don't know much about this one): Move Over Bitcoin: Dogecoin is Here
• A Qore article (Note that it's Spanish, and I don't know much about this one either.): Dogecoin podria desplazar a Bitcoin
• An Adrenaline.com.br (operated by Universo Online, Brazil's largest Internet provider): Wow, such profit: Depois da Bitcoin, surge a Dogecoin como nova "cripto-moeda"
• An Adevărul article (Major Romanian news source): Dogecoin: o nouă criptomonedă a luat naştere pe Reddit şi Tumblr Wow, such profit: Depois da Bitcoin, surge a Dogecoin como nova "cripto-moeda"
• Finally, we have a Russian source by Slon.ru (this one, I also don't know much about): Dogecoin: первая криптовалюта, основанная на меме
• Direct comparisons to Bitcoin, equally notable. http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/bitcoin-drops-500-china-ban/

Just adding to the workload, guys! 12:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Series Now

Is seriesnow.com considered reliable? It looks like IMDB, which I know has been judged to be unreliable. There doesn't seem to be any info at the website as to who owns it, who edits, or anything else to be used as a guide as to quality. Is used at Ricardo Chávez, and about 64 other articles . — Brianhe (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Since there is no indication of who is responsible for SeriesNow, it looks unreliable to me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of general blogs reporting specific scientific info without references

Source : Guardian.co.uk blog http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/apr/18/athletics.comment

Article: Carl Lewis

Content:

but recognized by some experts as a combination of drugs used as masking agents for anabolic steroids

I am disputing with another editor (User_talk:BearMan998) the use of a blog-like comment on the Guardian.co.uk to assess the truth of certain claims related to the field of medicine. First of all the guardian blog vaguely reports that

...tested positive for the same combination of drugs, which some experts believe can mask more serious drugs such as anabolic steroids

and that significantly differs from what is reported in the wikipedia article as in one case there is a supposition ("believe", "can") and in the other a proper assertion ("recognized", "used as"). Second and most important, the author of the blog in the Guardian reports quite a vague statement on the use of stimulants as masking agents. He doesn't cite who the experts are or any related work, or a case study that can lead to a verifiable scientific source. That said I can't find any evidence or hint among scientific publications or dissertations about such claims. Stimulants and masking agents are two distinct categories in doping medicine and it seems to me there is nowhere consensus or knowledge that certain stimulants or a combination of them can result into the effects of a masking agent for steroids. I asked the other editor if he can corroborate with other reliable sources what is claimed in the Guardian blog but didn't give me any hint. He asked me to provide a source that counterclaims that in the context of the Lewis Guardian blog, which seems to me not a sensible request as nobody in the world of science would in any case bother to disprove something that is not proven. He is willing to accept the statement of the blog, whose author has not a reputation in the field of medicine I guess, as a reliable source of scientific consensus/awareness over the relationship between stimulants and masking agents. To my experience vague statements like "someone believes that..." are unacceptable sources of truth and are not worth mention in an encyclopedia. Moreover in the field of science even blank suppositions without any specific motivation are worthless. Since the statement in the Guardian sounds like an isolated rumor rather than an objective verifiable fact I feel it shouldn't be reported on any page in the Misplaced Pages to support a certain thesis. What is your take? JJCasual 23:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to chime in, the cited source is not a blog as claimed above, but a sports article written in the The Guardian. As seen on Talk Page, in my discussions with JJCasual, I noted that the article never states that all stimulants are masking agents, it instead states that the particular combination of chemicals found in Lewis has potential to mask more serious drugs. From that statement, JJ is making the blanket conclusion that the author of the article was stating that all stimulants are masking agents, which the article never states. And from the argument I saw, it was mainly a combination of taking that incorrect conclusion and combining it with links on stimulants with nothing to do with the Lewis case which I found faulty and appeared to be WP:SYN more than anything else. Additionally, I stated that if JJ can find a source that refutes the author's statement in the article, that it can be freely added as a counterpoint. BearMan998 (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If you read the link above the Guardian page reports "athletics.comment". So we could classify it more like a mere "comment" rather than a blog or article or whatever we like. In any case, being a blog or not doesn't change its reputation as source of such specific scientific info. The same statement of "combination" is ambiguous in the article. Because "combination" is used to say that those 3 specific stimulants where also found together in his teammates. The "which" that follows is unclear if it is related to the "drugs" alone or to the "combination of drugs". Just to show one more time how vague things are here, the author, a few days later, made the same claim, without referring to the "combination" in another article:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/apr/24/athletics.duncanmackay

That said I also dispute the assertion that the particular combination has got that potential because I can't find any evidence or hint anywhere else out of the Guardian. To my view if someone is the only one merely reporting that "some expert believe an apple + a pear + a banana combined may result into a vegetable" doesn't mean this must be considered reliable and worth an encyclopedia until we have found a source that explains "No they do not combine to a vegetable". Disproving unproven truths is not the methodology adopted in science and it is never the starting point of a research. Here the problem is that we can't find proof or a background or a link for that Guardian remark in scientific literature. Something that is not discussed in scientific literature is something that has no consensus. JJCasual 09:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

At first I was going to be of the opinion that the source was fine for the claim, but then I dug a little deeper, and I'm curious to where the writer of that article/comment/blog/whatever got the idea. He certainly didn't come up with it himself (or shouldn't have, anyway). When I look at the literature (yes, there is such a thing for the subject of doping in sports) there is literally no shortage of articles about the use of these specific drugs amongst athletes, alongside discussion of the use of anabolic steroids, alongside the use of masking agents. And never, ever, did I see any scientific publication mention the use of Pseudophedrin etc. as masking agents. So I'm curious as to whether this is a significant opinion, or something the reporter made up, or something one doctor told him. It's always possible there are more obvious reliable sources for this claim and I just didn't find them, but it's hard to track down when a reporter uses such annoyingly weasely statements as "some believe". Someguy1221 (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Since you are a PhD student in biology I presume you review/write scientific publications (as I did when I was a PhD) and you are aware such statements ("some believe") have little to no value in a scientific context. I am glad anyway you are a guy from such field, so that can help us with a take from within that specific scientific ground. Presumably you also have a better access to journals and conferences databases so that you can search deeper than me and come out with something better than a mere "someone believes that it can...". I would dispute also about the overall quality (and neutrality as it has subtle hints USOC covered up while the sentence of the Denver federal court dismissed such claims) of the Guardian article as it lacks so much important information about the Carl Lewis stimulant case that it results really in a poor read. But that's not the main concern. Would you then help us in assessing the truth around the stimulant/masking agent remark in the Guardian? And would the opinion of a single doctor notable anyway? As far as I know isolated opinions (which are not followed by proofs, case studies, experiments or serious motivation or background), whether they came from a scientist or not, are still poor sources to do a certain claim. Would you agree? Thanks JJCasual (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG applies. This source should in principle be reliable for sports news. It is of course not reliable at all for any medical claims. This is why we have the guideline WP:MEDRS. Even the very best sports journalist isn't an expert on medicine. Please ensure that all medical claims are backed by a source that meets MEDRS. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitely. That should also be the policy to follow for claims in other scientific fields like physics, electronics, geology etc. It is crystal clear that the Guardian articles do not meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS. Since at the moment it is very hard to find any reliable source nowhere near to back their claim, this is indisputably not worth mention in an encyclopedia. JJCasual (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Internet Broadway Database

Is Internet Broadway Database a WP:RS?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, looks good for information as to when a show ran, in which theatre, etc., also for signed reviews. Take care with anything that might be controversial. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Itsmejudith. Also in support of the IBDB's reliability is the fact that it is sponsored by The Broadway League, the trade association for Broadway theatre which also co-sponsors the Tony Awards. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan

The lead of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan contained the following line:

"One of India's most influential scholars of comparative religion and philosophy, Radhakrishnan built a bridge between the East and the West by showing how the philosophical systems of each tradition are comprehensible within the terms of the other."

The following two "sources" were given for this line:

• Study-guide

"One of India's most influential scholars of comparative religion and philosophy, Radhakrishnan is considered through his efforts built a bridge between East and West by having shown the philosophical systems of each tradition to be comprehensible within the terms of the other."

• Dillip Kumar Behura (2010), The Great Indian Philosopher: Dr. Radhakrishnan mirror

"One of India􀂶s most influential scholars of comparative religion and philosophy, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan is considerd through his efforts to have built a bridge between the East and the West by showing that the philosophical systems of each tradition are comprehensible within the terms of the other."

Unfortunately, those two sources are almost exact copies of the Misplaced Pages-article. The Misplaced Pages-lead got changed to this specific text in 2007;

"One of the foremost scholars of comparative religion and philosophy in his day, he built a bridge between Eastern and Western thought showing each to be comprehensible in the terms of the other. "

Behura's article is from 2010; the Study Guide is from 2012. So, these sources are not WP:RS, IMO. This has been discussed at Talk:Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan#Lead (continued). Comments are welcome. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Clearly unreliable circular sources (and I say that even while maintaining that the wikipedia sentence is fine and reliably sourceable using sources such as these))

Another indication that we should be very wary using these govt of Orissa publications as sources on wkipedia. See earlier comments and discussion here, here and at Talk:Jayadeva. Also pinging @Dougweller, RegentsPark, and Sitush: who have been active at that last page and perhaps should be aware of this additional evidence of source "quality". Abecedare (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we replace sources then? Whatever is written, seems pretty common to me, and that page of Radhakrishnan has multiple issues right now. I will check it soon. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Cram101 should never be used as a source. I'll start a new thread on it. Orissa goverment publications are also dubious and need to be carefully used. I've seen them used to make factual assertions that certain historical events have been proven when that is simply a pov and contradicted by other scholarly sources. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Cram101

This was mentioned above but I want to start a separate thread on this. Cram101 is a publisher of e-text study guides, and should not be used as a source although it is used at the moment in several articles.. This review by an academic of the study guide for his textbook points out that they are written by computer. In this case it failed to pick up vital points, defined (in a textbook on economics) 'monopoly' as a board game, and to avoid copyright violations picked up definitions from a number of websites, including Misplaced Pages. Another quote from the review, "here's how "attitude" is defined: "In heraldry, an attitude is the position in which an animal, fictional beast, mythical creature, human or human-like being is emblazoned as a charge, supporter or crest." Other sites call it a scam. Ripoff Report says "You can look at any book on the site and cross-reference the Chapter 1 "notes" with Misplaced Pages. It's clear that some script just pulls keywords and then links the corresponding Misplaced Pages article. " Kill on sight. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and have killed some of these, but there are still a few more left. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

PS not all occurrences of this use the string "Cram101". Others to look for are "e-study guide", "Cram 101", and "Content Technologies". —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's useful to know. Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Corporate tax incidence sources for United States graph inclusion questions

Would someone please provide a third party opinion at Talk:United States#Quality of sources on corporate tax incidence as it pertains to the content change at and proposed at Talk:United States#Tax incidence? Thanks in advance. EllenCT (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Anyone? Hello? EllenCT (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ashok Sundari

In the article Ashok Sundari none of the sources being used seem reliable. They are proiding wrong information. These are the websites:

• http://www.mid-day.com/columnists/2012/dec/091212-Daughters-of-Shiva-Devdutt-Pattanaik-Opinion.htm
• http://www.speakingtree.in/spiritual-articles/mysticism/shivas-girl-child

These sources say

The story of Ashoka Sundari is found in Padma Purana. She is born when Shiva and Parvati encounter the wish-fulfilling tree and Parvati asks for a daughter, who will give her company when she is alone in Kailash. The wish is instantly granted. She is called Ashoka as she got rid of Parvati’s shok or sorrow and Sundari because she is beautiful.

Ashoka Sundari was destined to marry Nahusha, grandson of Yayati of the lunar dynasty. There is reference to a demon who tries to abduct her but she escapes and curses the demon that he will be killed by her husband. Ashoka Sundari and Nahusha marry in the hermitage of Sage Vashisht.

Ashoka Sundari’s story also comes from the vrat-kathas of Gujarat.

However I cannot find anywhere that she is either mentioned in Padma Purana or any Vrat-kathas of Gujrat. Also they are also providing wrong information. They say that Ashok SUndari married Nahusha and he was the grandson of Yayati. However Nahusha actually maried Viraja, the daughter of Pitrs. Also Yaytai was son of Nahusha not his grandfather. This is mentioned in these sources which are scholary sources:

• http://www.mythfolklore.net/india/encyclopedia/yayati.htm which mentions about Yayati
• http://books.google.co.in/books?id=2BRjkE385ScC&q=Viraja#v=onepage&q=Viraja&f=false which mentions Viraja was wife of Nahusha
• http://www.mythfolklore.net/india/encyclopedia/nahusha.htm which mentions about Nahusha
• http://books.google.co.in/books?id=PwsYAAAAYAAJ&q=Yayati+Nahusha#v=snippet&q=Yayati%20Nahusha&f=false which mentions Yayati is son of Nahusha

Also here is a short translation of Padma Purana which does mention Nahusha and Yayati as his son but does not mention any Ashok Sundari:

• http://hinduonline.co/Scriptures/Puranas/PadmaPurana.html

Mythological articles are scholary articles and only that information should be added which has scholarly consensus according to WP:RS. The sources used in the article Ashok Sundari are providing wrong information. Therefore, they are probably unreliable or their reliabilty cannot be established. This Ashok Sundari appeared in TV show Devon Ke Dev...Mahadev and from there probably some people got an idea she existed in real. Actually she is just a character in a play by Shambuprasad Dunghel. I can not find any scholary source which says that she exists in Hindu mythology and also there is no scholarly consensus on her at all. I think this article is more based on personal opinion rather than reliable sources. I would like to ask other users and administrators whether those sources used in this article Ashok Sundari are reliable at all and whether they should be removed. Thank you. MythoEditor (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ballotpedia

Is Ballotpedia a reliable source? I see it used both for election information and for general details about BLPs. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Verifying reliability of a source for Christian terrorism

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/tripura/terrorist_outfits/NLFT.HTM

Seems reliable to me, but it has been pointed by one user to be unreliable, kindly have a look at the talk pages too, and recent edits. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: The page is created by the Institute for Conflict Management, and the bios of the faculty, (including notable people such as Ajai Sahni and Kanwar Pal Singh Gill) is available here:. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Amazing finding by Bryonmorrigan, but one user is certainly disagreeing with such reliable source. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That will be User:Collect. Hopefully he'll provide his rationale here now. It may depend on what it is being used for. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

A source misused for a claim is not a reliable source for that claim. Below are just a few of the worst misuses of sources -- where a source says nothing at all related to the claim it is supposed to support it does not support that claim and is not WP:RS for that claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

from SATP is used as a source for the claims:

It is classified by the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism as one of the ten most active terrorist groups in the world, and has been accused of forcefully converting people to Christianity

The state government reports that the Baptist Church of Tripura supplies arms and gives financial support to the NLFT

I can not find anything in that link remotely supporting any part of those claims.

is used as a claim for a group being "Christian terrorists" while no such claim is made or inferred by the source at all. The source, in fact, quotes the JMB as calling themselves "soldiers of Allah" and that it seeks "to establish Islamic rule." I suggest that it is being misused as a source in "Christian terrorism."

is used for the claim:

The NLFT is currently proscribed as a terrorist organization in India

Where the source makes no such claim - it is simply the Indian statute.

is used as a source for the claim:

It is classified by the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism as one of the ten most active terrorist groups in the world, and has been accused of forcefully converting people to Christianity

That source refers to Christianity as being a reason for a split in a group -- not ascribing it as a primary focus of anything ("lavish lifestyles" outrank religion as a reason for the split per the source)

is apparently a government press release run by the BBC ised to support:

In April 2000, the secretary of the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura, Nagmanlal Halam, was arrested with a large quantity of explosives. He confessed to illegally buying and supplying explosives to the NLFT for two years

Which is not found in this source.

also appears to be a press release used for:

In April 2000, the secretary of the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura, Nagmanlal Halam, was arrested with a large quantity of explosives. He confessed to illegally buying and supplying explosives to the NLFT for two years

Amazingly enough, iterating a misused cite does not make the second use valid.

is used for:

The NLFT has threatened to kill Hindus celebrating the annual five-day religious festival of Durga Puja and other religious celebrations

Problem is that the source makes no claim of "terrorism" at all, and it states In a statement, the NLFT said it wanted all tribespeople in Tripura to become Christians because the practice of Hinduism has led to them being marginalised by people of Bengali origin living in the state. This appears to be more of a religious issue than one of "Christian terrorism."

Rediff is used for the claim:

At least 20 Hindus in Tripura have been killed by the NLFT in two years for resisting forced conversion to Christianity. A leader of the Jamatia tribe, Rampada Jamatia, said that armed NLFT militants were forcibly converting tribal villagers to Christianity, which he said was a serious threat to Hinduism. It is believed that as many as 5,000 tribal villagers were converted over two years

Problem is that the article lead states

Tribal Hindus in Tripura have formed vigilante groups to thwart attempts by separatist militants to convert people to Christianity at gunpoint, community leaders said on Thursday.

And also

Church leaders, however, deny any forcible conversions in Tripura

Radical Hindu religious groups in the region have all along been accusing Christian missionaries of forceful conversions.

When one uses a source, one well ought not misrepresent what the source says in order to promote single sentences mined from it. Cheers -- tired of going through all the misused, abused and non-reliable sources given here. Collect (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Seriously not enough evidence for proving that the source is unreliable, BTW, can we know why you removed the other person's comments recently?Bladesmulti (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Collect explained this: they saw the comments as a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know if this was such an "amazing" find, but hey. The two people listed may well be notable, but that doesn't make their website a reliable source. I'm bothered by the fact that this does appear to be a kind of two-person outfit, these two people being listed prominently on the front page. In addition, I cannot find anything in the way of an editorial statement or an editorial board, and that leads me to have some doubts about the objectivity of the site--note that Gill is hardly an uncontroversial figure, especially in the area of human rights. Nor do individual articles (well, the ones I looked at) have anything in the way of a bibliography.

  For now, unless I see third-party sources that verity the site's trustworthiness and neutrality (or even their fact checking) I personally will not accept this as a reliable source. Editors are urged to find the reliable sources in published media that verify facts in the article; after all, one would assume that the SATP likewise uses reliably sourced information to write up their articles. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Signed articles on the website are probably reliable. Primary documents are just that, primary. All sources must of course be correctly reflected. The last sentence quoted by Collect, the one starting "Radical Hindu…" is lifted directly from the rediff site. Copyright violation again, Bladesmulti? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Is Bladesmulti the person who added "with a large quantity of explosives" and other unquoted direct quotations to the article? Will whoever lifted that from the source and copied it into the article PLEASE learn how to properly paraphrase? Unless, of course, you want me to come in with my admin powers and blank that whole section and revdel it from the history. Sheesh, there's a lot of inept editing going on in here: misreading, misinterpreting, misattributing, copyvios... Holy moly. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Rediff is not actually a subject here, the subject is Satp.org, about which the other user is not even talking about, but editing anything without even knowing(removing other's talk, removing sourced materials, making multiple sections in same noticeboard), if he has problem with mis-interpretation, he can simply edit the page, but instead, he would blank. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Collect, I just spot checked some of the links. The first three links do not appear to support the text you say they are being used for, but after that they appear to pan out.

In general, this site is a reliable source but, as with any source, shouldn't be relied on too heavily to support large sections of text on it own. And, of course, nothing is a reliable source for information it doesn't contain.

@Drmies: There do appear to be more than two people involved in the site: Formerip (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I saw that list: I'm pointing out what the front page suggests. I checked the first four of Collect's points and have found Collect to be utterly correct in those instances: there are basic errors (a Muslim club's article used to verify info on a Christian club, gross misrepresentation of what a source says, etc.). I have edited the article accordingly with copious edit summaries--these matters need to be taken care of swiftly. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

But I don't think we can use any unsigned documents from the site because it isn't clear who authored them and what status they have. They may just be reprints of other texts and we would have to be 100% that they weren't copyright violations. That makes the fourth citation in Collect's list problematic too. The two BBC reports do seem to support the text, but they are very old news reports. One would expect there to be academic sources by now for events that occurred in 2000. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There are some academic sources, (which are cited in the article) but there are two major "issues" with the topic, which have caused problems on this section: (1) We're talking about India, where not all of the articles/academic sources are necessarily available in English; and (2) It's not a topic that is widely discussed outside of India. And frankly, if Collect thinks that Indian sources are inherently "suspect", I'd warrant that there is a somewhat racist element to that belief. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeppers -- call me "racist" and everyone will see the "value" of your posts. I affirm that my edits have absolutely nothing to do with the racism alleged by BryonMorrigan whatsoever. That strong enough? Collect (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No Drmies, i didn't! That was done years ago, i think in 2011, anyways thanks for removing whatever you found to be unreferenced. Hope we are back to original issue regarding Satp.org's reliability now. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

FTR: New editors to the page moved around some of the citations, and Collect made a big, crazy, multi-section edit that could not be "undone", so it caused some chaos when I tried to add the sources back to the article. I'm extremely busy today, and can't spend all the time it takes to constantly "police" Collect's disruption of that page. I fail to see your (off-topic) points regarding the BBC articles. For example, many of the statements above in regards to them are patently false, as the BBC articles DO back up the allegations. ; . --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Good sources can be in any language. We can get them translated if necessary. The allegation of racism was completely uncalled for and I hope when you have thought about it you will apologise to Collect, Bryonmorrigan. Collect, it's best if from now on you make smaller edits and feel free to bring sources here again. One source at a time will get best results. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• I went through all the points raised by Collect and agree mostly with Former IP, I suppose: Collect is correct on a bunch of them, but I don't see much of a problem with the latter two. Reliability of Indian newspapers is a separate matter: it is well-known that some of the papers have a better reputation than others, but that's not really for here. The edits I just made to the article, I will fight tooth and nail for them, with the caveat that there may well be much more, and more problematic, passages. In general, of course, the detail (about a 2000 threat, etc.) probably shouldn't be in this article, but in the main articles on the outfits: this article should summarize and list, if necessary, notable events, notable on a large scale. I may do that shortly; a bomb-carrying priest shouldn't be in here.

  This does not solve the problem of the SATP site. If an article is signed, one could suppose it's more acceptable as a reliable source; I don't really see that. I don't accept such a portal/club unless their reliability is verified (like, for instance, in the case of the SPLC, even if that site can be argued to have a POV) and, barring such independent credentials, we should be very wary of accepting the conclusions drawn in their article, even of the primary facts it reports. After all (I think Itsmejudith said that too?), those facts ought to be found in other sources as well, English or not.

  One more thing: Collect may not have been 100% spot-on in their assessment, but they were pretty good at it, and the larger point here is that we should edit carefully and conservatively in such contentious subjects: excision is to be preferred over careless and/or poorly references inclusion. That is my opinion as an administrator as well as an editor. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• I reviewed some of the links provided by Collect, and agreed that they were problematic. I agree with Itsmejudith that it would be better to make smaller edits, so that if some deserve revision, while others do not, it is easier to fix. I'll also echo the notion that the "racism" charge was unwarranted, deserves redaction and apology.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Collect writes " is apparently a government press release run by the BBC ised(sic) to support:

In April 2000, the secretary of the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura, Nagmanlal Halam, was arrested with a large quantity of explosives. He confessed to illegally buying and supplying explosives to the NLFT for two years Which is not found in this source. First, I see no evidence to call this a press release run by the BBC. It looks to me like an interview (eg "Mr Sarkar told the BBC") by the BBC's East India correspondent. It says "Nagmanlal Halam, secretary of the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura, was arrested late on Monday with a large quantity of explosives." and "The chief minister said that Mr Halam confessed to buying and supplying explosives to the NLFT for the past two years." Collect, why are you saying it is not found in this source? You could argue that we should attribute the last statement to the government minister, but that's not the same as saying it isn't in the source. Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• I noted that too, Dougweller--thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • So you did, thanks. And thanks for your edits. I found which is an archived official government statement that labels the NLFT a terrorist organisation, and a more recent document after the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Dougweller (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• NOTE: I retract my statement about Collect being "racist". I had confused him with another editor (Student7), who made a racist comment in 2011 that alleged that Indian newspapers were inherently "unreliable". --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • As an aside, I'm not sure you can reword "with a large quantity of explosives" very easily, and it's only 6 words, so I'm not to excited about it and see no need to mention the editor who added it. I would chase it up if it were obvious copyvi. Dougweller (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, it wasn't the only instance, and since Bladesmulti said they didn't do it I'm fine with their response. It's reworded now, and moved. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• I just want to say "thank you" to the editors who are now paying attention to the page, where fresh eyes, without POV agendas, would be very welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Old newspaper articles as sources

Hello there!

I am new to Misplaced Pages, and have started an article about a public person from my country. There is not a lot of (reliable) information on the internet, BUT I have a lot of newspaper artciles about this person.

The information in those articles is of great value, and I would like to wikify my entry using these sources.

A) What's the copyright policy for newspaper articles ranging from 1940-1970? B) If I can use those, how do I link them to the reference-part? Should I take pictures of said articles, upload them onto an image-board (e.g. imgur,...) and then link the source to the picture?

Thank you a lot for you help,

Ezekwail

• Hi Ezekwail: in short, no--don't do it. For those articles it's most likely a copyright violation. Remember that sources don't have to be online to be included as references in an article. I assume you cut these articles from the paper and archived them? Perhaps looking around on the net may give you a couple of hits. Try news.google.com/newspapers. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• I agree. If you provide date, title, newspaper name, and page number, and perhaps a quote (using quote= if you use the {{cite news}} template) that is sufficient to use the newspaper in a citation. There will be no copyright issue if it is done that way. Of course if you can find an online copy that is not a copyvio, tha tis a plus. Of course whether a given paper is reliable for a given use is a different question. DES 22:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• You can always photograph or scan them for your own reference (eg if someone wants more information in a discussion it may be much easier to check a digital version), and you can share those photos/scans via email if someone asks - but not post them publicly. I'm not sure which country you're talking about - countries have different copyright laws and it may be that some of the articles are out of copyright... but probably not, and it's probably a complicated mess not worth getting into. Podiaebba (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Press websites/videos

Are news sights as in wetpaint.com acceptable not like the fan based ones where anyone can write anything and not the tabloids that spread roumors but the reliable ones that use quotes and real live interviews that also cite their own sources they got their information from?

• There is no one single easy answer for that. Wetpaint is called "Celebrity Gossip", and since we're an encyclopedia and not a site that rehashes gossip news we shouldn't be using it in the first place: it is unlikely that the site will verify an encyclopedic fact that can't be gotten from a better outlet.

  In addition, it's important to look and see if a site has editorial control, that articles are vetted and that it is independent of commercial and other interests that might interfere with their "reporting", if that's what it is. Now, Wetpaint, like most such sites, has an "About" section, at http://www.wetpaint-inc.com/about/. Read it--I just did, and I lost all confidence in that site's reliability. The only interest there is money: "Our test and measurement system delivers real-time audience insights on what they desire, coupled with targeted recommendations to program the right content, at the right time, for each target audience. These insights and recommendations are all driven by cutting-edge analytical methods applied to massive amounts of data ingested into our platform." A real news organization gives the people what is true and verified and important, not "what they want".

  So this one, no. The next one? Look to see what they're trying to do and how they try to do it. I hope I'm not aiming too high. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Their "tips" section also doesn't enspire confidence. Bloggers wanted. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

world's largest media? (and no rebuttal). why remove?

this edit,,,,,, small mortars and rockets

Mass media reported:

ITAR-TASS official text of the ,, ,

and Russia-24 (TV channel) free copyright *Syrian diary* *the battle for Syria* official video documentary *Syrian diary* official video documentary and the official text of the *the battle for Syria* video documentary Russian, but with English subtitles: *Syrian diary* *the battle for Syria*

and Russia-1 (TV channel) free copyright *truth of the war* official video documentary *truth of the war*

• For more than two years, there are frequent shelling of peaceful neighborhoods throughout Syria Syrian opposition forces or controlled-Syrian opposition territory. There are other sources of talking or present confirming that the shelling is frequent and widespread throughout the country phenomenon.

and NTV (Russia) all of the shooting from the territory of the opposition, official video documentary *The territory of AK* free copyright *The territory of AK* : all this also claim (interview) commanders of the opposition (several different groups). In summary. Syrian opposition is fighting against Assad, and against *not Islamic* laws of religion. And against anything, not named (other troops Syrian opposition), but these groups are officially recognized by terrorists, but they do not give interviews and they are also part of the opposition.

sources ITAR-TASS Russia-24 (TV channel) Russia-1 (TV channel) look. if you are against such a contribution (if you are against this editing). please. detailed answer why.

this edit removed, said - Undoing pov pushing and use of unreliable sources. I changed the edits. now there is no such problem? pov? unreliable sources - it is impossible. all sources is very authoritative media, they work *news*, worldwide, many years. if you do not have a source that ITAR-TASS's a lie (specifically those articles that I used), if you have no source (*battle for Syria* it's a lie). you can't delete my edits. it is outside the rules. in addition, I give the translation. I give references are free from copyright. in addition, the recording of TV ether (news release) this is the authoritative source. this is a verifiable source. moreover, *the battle for Syria* is a documentary film. other sources (if there are sources without translation tell me and I mend). but you can't simply delete all at once. my sources have become in Misplaced Pages. you can read about them that is large media (news).Rqasd (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

"It's Psychedelic Baby" Magazine

I'd really like to use this in Earthless discography (it's the only source I can find that says anything about a split album I want to add to the article). Problem is, it's a Blogger website, and as far as I know, blogs in general (especially Blogger blogs) are not considered acceptable. Or is this to be determined on a case-by-case basis? Anyway, here's the link: http://psychedelicbaby.blogspot.com/2011/04/earthless-my-interview-with-isaiah.html LazyBastardGuy 19:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

if the editor of that blog has been previously published in standard book form or regular articles in a music magazine on the subject of X type of music, then as a recognized expert, their blog posts about X type of music can generally be considered a reliable source.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case; he has only appeared in a handful of other places, themselves reliable but not enough to establish his own reliability as a source... On the upside it may not take long for a good, usable citation to turn up, since the band give interviews every so often and discuss things like this all the time, so I can wait. LazyBastardGuy 16:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

White Latin American

There is currently a mini-edit war at White Latin American about the figure used for the Colombia in the pop box. The original ref s;ays 17.5M and is Colombia: A Country Study 5th edition (2010). This is being changed to 11.2 from the same study's 1st edition (1990). A second ref for the lower figure was also added in the latest revert - an anonymous and undated Google doc titled "EL HABITAT Y EL SER HUMANOL: Etnográfica de Colombia"

There has been some discussion on the article talk page and on my personal talk page which is getting nowhere and we are both approaching WP:3RR. It seems obvious to me, but just in case I'm wrong can somebody please confirm a) which edition of the Colombia study we should be using - 1990 or 2010 and b) if the Google doc is WP:RS in this instance.

Tobus (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It might be wise to seek-out a third source altogether that is more recent and up-to-date. It seems obvious to me that the new edition of that reference book would be the one you ought to defer to, but the very idea that someone would insist otherwise is fishy to me and makes me wonder how reliable that book is, in their eyes.

After a quick skim of the Google document, I would say not to use it. Not, obviously, because it's not in English, but because it cites no sources of its own nor has an author attached. All being said I would say use the fifth edition of that book, or again if consensus cannot establish that it should be used, a brand new source not previously introduced. LazyBastardGuy 16:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Referencing an unpublished Google document is inappropriate, it does not meet WP reliable source criteria and the reference should be removed from the article. You should use the more up-to-date version of the text Colombia: A Country Study (2010) the figures in which are based on the latest census data (2005). Could you elaborate for me on how you've arrived at the figures of 17.5m and 11.2m from the details in the respective editions of the country study text? FiachraByrne (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. The population figures come from the %age of "white" people reported in the source multiplied by the total population. The 1990 report states the white population is 25% (first para) and the 2010 states 37% (page 178 of the PDF, numbered "87"). Using the population of 45.3M from the 2010 paper this gives 11.3M and 16.7M respectively. I suspect the 17.5M figure used in the article has come from a typo in the calculation as it represents of 37% of 47.3, not 45.3. Tobus (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Strode family

Is this book , written by three authors two of which have PhDs, a reliable source for biographies that we already have on members of the Strode family?Camelbinky (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Mil-Mac publishers seems to exclusively publish texts by David C. McMurty and looks like his own imprint (the address for Mil-Mac appears to be McMurty's personal address), thereby falling foul of WP's rules on self-published sources. You'd have to establish McMurty's status as an expert (genealogist) to use this source, I think. The only thesis I can find for a David C. McMurty is one dating from 1966 titled 'Business-economic education in the secondary schools of Kentucky : an appraisal' which, given the date, is likely by a different author in any case. For what it's worth, I suspect that McMurty's genealogical work is probably reliable but I don't see any obvious way to include it on WP unless one could establish his expertise in some other manner. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Godfrey Bloom

Are the current sources sufficient to support the statement "Bloom worked as a financial economist"? The first is his profile as an MEP, which presumably he wrote himself. The page won't download for me. The second is a short BBC report that simply has "an economist". BLP; the material is not negative about the subject. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It does download for me: his CV contains 3 words, "Financial economist (retired)", headed by a disclaimer (which evidently appears on all such pages) that the CV is provided by the subject and not guaranteed by the European Parliament.

If it were a matter of controversy whether he was ever a financial economist or not, this wouldn't be enough on its own. But since he clearly is or recently was a hands-on director of an investment company, he must have been, mustn't he? There's no strict definition of the term ... If we wanted to be really cagey we could say that he "describes himself as a retired financial economist". I would in any case make this the first sentence of the following paragraph (not a paragraph on its own) because those following details give some general support and clarification. Andrew Dalby 10:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't we need a bit more for "economist" even if qualified with "financial"? A director of an investment company could have various backgrounds, but "economist" implies some knowledge of broad economic processes. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Tyrone Hayes

I am looking for consensus whether the following source is considered reliable.

Freaky Frog Friday at Foxnews.com. The link is here. There are several comments in the article which oppose certain research findings and methodology of the subject Tyrone Hayes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The author of the source is publisher of a website, JunkScience.com. However this material is covered under news at Foxnews. An example of the material includes:

The most dubious part of Hayes' experiment is the claim that frogs exposed to the lower concentration of atrazine (0.1 ppb) actually had triple the rate of deformities of those exposed to the higher concentration (25 ppb). That violates a basic law of toxicology that the higher the dose the greater the rate and severity of toxic effects.

These comments are echoed by others too but this source seems strongest. Similar material is found in an op-ed at Forbes magazine online. JodyB _talk 11:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I would think that a rant by an anti-environmentalist without biological qualifications is an easy WP:BLP failure for an article on a living scientist. Zero 12:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not reliable. A news source cannot be used to discredit peer reviewed science published in Nature. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Charles Lindbergh

has been repeatedly added to this high profile biography.

The claim made is Lindbergh's outspoken isolationism led to surveillance and investigation by the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover. A Bureau report in June 1941 discredited Lindbergh with unsubstantiated statements that he associated with pimps and prostitutes and flew bootleg whisky from Canada to Montana. Jeffreys-Jones, Rhodri. "Cloak and Dollar: A History of American Secret Intelligence" Yale University Press (2003) p. 97

The source continues: 'Hoover knew how to increase and exploit the unpopularity of his targets in order to enhance the FBI's power and budget.

The query is - is this source properly used for the direct implication that Lindbergh did consort with "pimps, prostitutes and bootleggers" where the actual source makes clear that the allegations were unfounded and based on Hoover's misuse of power to help the FBI's power and budget? . IOW, ought unfounded allegations about a dead person be added to a biography where the source is not specifically about that person at all, but presents it as an example of poor investigations? I rather think the source, in fact, is more about the misuse of the FBI than about the sins of Lindbergh. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the problem. The claim, as you quote it, includes the words "unsubstantiated statements that ...", telling us that there was no proper evidence. If a significant number at that time believed the claims, and this affected the general perception of Lindbergh, then it seems reasonable to mention it in his biography (I agree, it's part of the history of the FBI as well).

The term "discredited" is misleading if the FBI claims were not widely believed -- then we should say "tried to discredit" -- but if they were widely believed, "discredited" is correct. Andrew Dalby 09:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The source was not about Lindbergh, but about Hoover specifically. It is anecdotal about Lindbergh at best, and eliding the gist -- that it was Hoover who did it, is misleading to readers, and leaves them with the impression that the campaign might have been true. It appears that the source is stating that they had no basis in fact, and therefore should not be used to tar Lindbergh now -- any more than if a person called him a "rapist" and attributed it to an FBI spread rumour. Unsubstantiated allegations are bad enough in any article -- but where the source itself says they had no basis, then Misplaced Pages ought not spread calumnies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The question I can see is whether these allegations had any publicity, and any resulting effect, at the time. If they did, we may think them notable and they probably do belong to his biography. If they were in an internal FBI document, and no one made them public at the time, the word "discredited" is an error: in that case they belong, at the most, in a footnote in the Lindbergh biography. That's my view: others may well disagree :) Andrew Dalby 10:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Searching the NYT archives finds zero articles making any such reference at all. Zero. And the NYT would likely have covered any major scandals. The searches show that the NYT did cover criticism of Lindbergh, but did not publish the unfounded accusations. The only actual Google hit on the topic ... is this Misplaced Pages article <g>. The only book making the allegation is the single source, whose point is anti-Hoover if one cares to read what it actually says. So --no evidence for the stories ever getting into any reliable sources at all (I can not search the wartime tabloids as they basically stopped publication AFAICT) and of at best quinternary significance to the person. Questia also finds zero results for any claims using any of those words at all ... and it is pretty thorough. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for doing that work. If the claims never got into the public domain at the time -- so no one could have acted on them and Lindbergh himself may never have known of them -- then they aren't relevant to his life.

I now see the force of your point that the source is not "about Lindbergh". Unless any Lindbergh biographer has shown an interest in this topic since 2003, when the material was published, there seems no justification for mentioning it on the Lindbergh page. It belongs to the Hoover/FBI story. Andrew Dalby 14:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

CelebrityNetWorth.com and TheRichest.org/TheRichest.com

Do CelebrityNetWorth.com and TheRichest.org/TheRichest.com qualify as reliable sources?

Both sites carry disclaimers disclaiming reliability for their sites' information, and their articles don't contain any sources or explanations for their assertions. Trivialist (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you've answered your own question to me ;) Is there a reason you're raising this here when this appears to be a clear-cut matter? Nick-D (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

1. http://www.itar-tass.com/c11/918839.html
2. http://www.itar-tass.com/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/756476
3. http://www.itar-tass.com/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/756476
4. http://www.itar-tass.com/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/696072
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V9i9kMjlF04#!
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX9C1bGRB8Y&list=PLJfzZCO0xwHlrOEhrq_0uYhruuLpzeWsr#!
7. http://www.vesti.ru/videos?vid=475233
8. http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=908640
9. http://www.people.su/youtube_video-syrian-diary-sirijjskijj-dnevnik
10. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iAnhGCaG6s&feature=youtu.be
11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQulbxcKbK0
12. http://russia.tv/video/show/brand_id/3957/episode_id/630948
13. http://syrianews.ru/node/4991
14. http://www.ntv.ru/peredacha/professiya_reportyor/m720/o164377/
15. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuasfPqdMpU
16. http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=908640

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution