Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:15, 1 August 2014

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

Westeros.org?

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

Westeros.org is unquestionably a fansite, but it has its uses. Specifically, I've used it to look up phrasings that I can plug into search engines and so find other sources that support the same material. ("Ah, the fandom refers to 'chapter 72' as 'Jaime IX': Google, Bing, bring me that magazine article!" "Hey, there's a quote from one of the writers in here; verbatim web search, away!") Still, actually using it in an article would depend on what it's being used to support. I don't see straight facts about the Song of Ice and Fire novels and the Game of Thrones TV show as anything to get in a twist about, especially if it is used as a corroborating source rather than alone, but literary analysis and fan theories are probably out. Its ideal place on Misplaced Pages is probably the external links list.

Full disclosure: Jack and I are both involved in a few disputes regarding sourcing for articles about the Game of Thrones TV show. For that reason, like Westeros.org, my take on this matter should not be used alone, but it might be useful for corroboration. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Fuller disclosure: Jack and Darkfrog and many others are involved in this dispute. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

False Memory Syndrome Foundation

The False Memory Syndrome Foundation is being used as a reliable source on The Courage to Heal Misplaced Pages page, even though it is not.

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

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

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

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

femmebot 22:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages is, ironically, not a reliable source.

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

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

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

Sigh. So where is the evidence that her presence on the FMSF makes it credible? Nobody has explained why 3 independent critiques of FMSF have uncovered significant methodological problems in their research. Also, this is about the reliability of a source, not my position on feminism or what you consider 'ironical'. Here is a journalistic piece that would give a fair-minded reader a reason to be suspicious: http://web.archive.org/web/20071216011151/http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/97/4/memory.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magsmacaulay (talk • contribs) 21:31, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Sabrang Communications

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

sabrang.com is clearly not an RS because it is just an activists' web site. However Communalism Combat can be regarded as a primary source just as Manushi or Hinduism Today. But they are not mainstream "news outlets" and what is contained in them cannot be reported as a statement of fact unless backed up other RS. An in-line attribution would be needed to quote material from any of them. Uday Reddy (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict

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

The Israeli State Security (Shabak) Mhhossein (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not for Misplaced Pages to pass a judgment. "The Israeli State Security (Shabak) data show that" should be changed to "According to the Israeli State Security (Shabak) data," or the like. Esoglou (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with the first bit. It is for Misplaced Pages to pass a judgment. Sources that the community decide are unreliable in a specific context shouldn't be used and that's especially important in the WP:ARBPIA topic area where very poor source are plentiful, as are editors who will use them without hesitation. This isn't one of those sources though. I assume this case refers to the statement "The Israeli State Security (Shabak) data show that 2013 had been one of the quietest years since 2000, and that rocket attacks from Gaza continued to be at a background level until April 2014.(ref)Israeli Security Agency(/ref)" in which case I agree with Esoglou that it should say something like "According to the Israeli State Security (Shabak) data, 2013 was one of the quietest years since 2000 and rocket attacks from Gaza continued to be at a background level until April 2014." Sean.hoyland - talk 13:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I should have written: "It is not necessary for Misplaced Pages to pass a judgment". In some cases it is, but not here. Esoglou (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess it's possible that Mhhossein may not have expressed their concerns as clearly as is probably required in this case. I can't see the source cited right now so I don't know what the statement in the article is based on precisely, but I can imagine that the statement might need something along the lines of the bit in italics based on whatever the source says - "According to the Israeli State Security (Shabak) data, 2013 was one of the quietest years since 2000 in terms of <something, probably rocket attacks or perhaps numbers of people killed, not sure>, and that rocket attacks from Gaza continued to be at a background level until April 2014". Perhaps Mhhossein is objecting the notion of "quiet" given that about 40 people were killed in the conflict in 2013. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I can see the cited source now but since it's a statement about the whole of 2013 and beyond, that URL can't be right. There's a 2013 Annual Summary which does "show that 2013 had been one of the quietest years since 2000" I guess but only if a Misplaced Pages editor makes that assessment. Shabak don't make any statements like that. I haven't looked at the 2014 data with respect to the "background level" statement but perhaps what is happening here is that an editor is doing some WP:OR or they have cited the primary source rather than the secondary. Or perhaps there is another Shabak page that supports these statements. If the Shabak data is to be used the statements in the article will have to be purely factual and/or stick closer to what Shabak says rather than use words like quietness and background level. Sean.hoyland - ] 19:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not original reseach, I do not see a reason to negate the information issued by the Israeli government in the Shabak site. . Where else would you find how many rockets were shot into Israel? If you look at the numbers in the monthly reports, you will see that they match the graph.05:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)gever_tov (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you read WP:NOTADVOCATE and explicitly state that you are not here to advocate on behalf of Israel and that you will not make a single edit to advocate on behalf of Israel. Please confirm that you understand that you are not allowed to do that and you will not do that. Then you should carefully re-read the discussion above. There is nothing there about the graph. This is not about the graph. It's about statements that cite the shabak URL http://www.shabak.gov.il/English/EnTerrorData/Reports/Pages/default.aspx that are not directly supported by that web page. See WP:V. Cited sources have to support Misplaced Pages content. The graph itself is not WP:OR. A simple graph based on shabak data or any reliable source's data that does not involve any interpretation of the data by an editor is not original research. It's just a graph. An editor interpreting the graph or the source data and adding their analysis to the article is original research. Whether this graph should be included in the article is a different question that should be resolved on the article talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I will say something about the graph though.

• 63 rockets were launched by Palestinians in 2013, fortunately resulting in no deaths.
• 36 Palestinians were killed by the IDF and 2 Israelis were killed by Palestinians in 2013.

Something is wrong if editors can only see one of those pieces of information as important enough to highlight with a graph. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

1. "Israeli Shin Bet (Security Agency) - monthly report".
2. "Israeli Shin Bet (Security Agency) - monthly report".

GameBanshee.com

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

Robert Parry again

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

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

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

What ELAQUEATE said.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Can you be more specific as to what the particulars are. While we see 1. Source and 2. Article, we do not see 3. Content. The instructions (above) ask for "the exact statement{s) or other content in the article." (As it stands, the thread is WP:TLDR.) Putting the exact content question aside, this is more of an opinion type source than factual one. My solution is to link TheBlaze piece as a further reading or external link in the article. – S. Rich (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

is an example of a disputed edit. In sum, the blaze provides some meaning to a movie rating based on audience polling.Casprings (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It catenates two claims - that only 52 films have received A+ ratings is presumably an empirical fact. Empirical facts are not generally a problem for editors to accept in claims - indeed it appears the statement is ascertainably true that 52 films have had that rating. What is opinion, moreover, it that such a rating is "incredibly rare", and the term "rare" should only be used if it is expressed as an ascribed opinion. The empirical total of all rated films would be an empirical fact, and thus would not be stated as opinion. What is left is:

'The Blaze' noted that the film is one of 52 films with an A+ rating from CinemaScore out of N total rated films.

Such a claim would be subject to empirical verification and would not be a statement of opinion about which editors should have disputes. Collect (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

That Blaze thing is still an editorial opinion. It's an RS for its own opinion, but is not a RS for what a rating "means". Random Blaze editorials have no reputation for cinema knowledge. Both refs could be replaced with this, which confirms the basic fact of the film receiving the rating.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

In what sense are empirically observable number "opinions"? Clearly we can link to the organization which has such ratings, and even refer to what the rating "means", but the simple statement of empirical fact is not "opinion" here. The CNN source does not give any numbers, which limits its utility for much of any claim. uses the term "select few movies." Breitbart is also available. Pajiba is likely a source for " An A+ is very rare while an F is even more rare." Still -- sticking to actual countable numbers is not in the realm of "opinion" AFAICT. Collect (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, here's where straying from reliable sources for hard numbers is so problematic. If it's an unreliable source it can still misreport "actual countable numbers". The Blaze does say that "In the last 29 years, only 52 films have received an A+". They say this in 2014. The Hollywood Reporter article they cite is from 2011, where it says that (as of 2011) only 52 films have received an A+, and also that roughly two films a year on average receive that score. Take a moment and do the math. (That was the moment both opinion writers didn't take.) "Sticking to actual countable numbers is not in the realm of "opinion"" is a fine sentiment, but you still need to source those numbers from RS that have a reputation for getting their numbers right. TheBlaze clearly didn't do that, they don't have a reputation for doing that, and they reported the "empirically observable number" incorrectly (as in, not the right number). I don't think TheBlaze (or Breitbart) can be considered a good, reliable, or usable source for a "solid number" they both misinterpreted and reported incorrectly. Basically, being outright wrong limits their utility for any numeric claim here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The cavil is that the number is 53 and not 52 and this then makes a source irredeemably bad? Really? Sorry -- that added snipe at a source fails -- the NYT can give a wrong number where the difference is trivial without making it unusable for statements of empirical fact. "Outright wrong" is a tad of an overstatement in this case. And the "rare" opinion can be now sourced to absolute reliable sources per the examples given above. Collect (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you didn't do the math correctly again. It's clearly not 53 either. We don't know how many films have currently received an A+ rating, because we don't have a RS for that information. The Blaze reports the 2011 number as if it's current for 2014, when we know the number has changed, but we don't know how much. 52 (and 53) is clearly outdated information, as movies like 42 and the Avengers and some unknown and unreported number of other films have gotten the rating in the meantime. TheBlaze, in it's excitement over how exclusive this ratings club is, misreported an old number as if it was current. That makes their claim to know how many movies have received the rating unreliable. A small error, and not a huge problem, except that that information is exactly the information you want to use them for. I don't think it's a strange idea to not use a certain source for an "empirical number" that was reported incorrectly in their article. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

And as a second issue beyond the fact of TheBlaze and Breitbart failing at accurate quotation, it turns out the number in the Hollywood Reporter has its own problems. in 2013, CinemaScore's Harold Mintz said he "estimates that less than 50 films have rated an "A+" since CinemaScore began grading.". This is in 2013, two years after the Hollywood Reporter stated that exactly 52 A+'s had occurred, and after interviews with the very same employee. I don't think there is a reliable source for any specific claims about "total A+'s". In any case, there's no point using theBlaze or Breitbart as a citation to "verify" a reported number that is inconsistent with better and more reliable sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter actually counts and lists the 52 films that received an A+ grade from 1982-2011, which trumps some on the spot guestimation off the top of Mintz's head. The Blaze piece directly cites and links to the THR article. The NY Times and other media outlets frequently slightly misquote or muddily summarize items, so The Blaze saying "In the last 29 years" as opposed to something like "In its first 29 years" is a poor excuse to reject the entire source outright. It's essentially a typo, and arguably not even that since the intent could have been to convey "the last 29 years studied". It's also irrelevant to this inclusion, since the segment in question doesn't quote The Blaze, and correctly relays The Hollywood Reporter time period and count The Blaze references. The Blaze's utility as a source in this case is in noting that the film America now joins that exclusive A+ club. This edit should be considered routine and uncontroversial. VictorD7 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the proposed edit would simply read (following the pat statement about the movie's CinemaScore rating)... "From 1982 to 2011 only 52 movies received an A+ score from CinemaScore."...and would be accompanied by two sources, The Blaze and The Hollywood Reporter. VictorD7 (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

And still no reason to cite the Blaze, since you admit it doesn't directly support the statement offered. The Blaze simply does not have a reputation for fact-checking. (And it is still problematic that you want to add a cite to it when it distorts the exact fact you want to use it for. Saying the piece includes a link to the other cite is unconvincing and does not speak to the Blaze's reliability.) The main point is that numbers require reliable sourcing if it involves a claim that's even slightly extraordinary. If the question was "How many children does the subject have?" I'd expect a citation to an agreed-upon reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, rather than a source we have no reason to trust, even if it concerns a simple number. Even if the Blaze hadn't loused up the actual facts, I don't see an argument that we would use it as a reliable source for interpreting cinema ratings. Since America isn't a movie from 1982 to 2011, it's arguably OR to include a factoid about that, unless you're trying to say that the Blaze specifically is somehow a reliable source for its relevance. I don't think you'll find a consensus that it is.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose just using the THR piece to support the segment, which would certainly not be "OR" since the segment reflects the source almost word for word (you'd have to find another rationale for opposing it). However,I support using The Blaze piece too since it explicitly ties the grade's rarity to the article topic, and it does directly support the segment by showing a second, published news source covering the facts presented in the THR article. The Blaze did not "louse up" the facts about the grade being very rare, only 52 films receiving it in a 29 year period, or the various movies it cites whose exclusive company the America documentary has now joined. All that is worthwhile reading for those interested enough to click on the link for additional information. The direct link to the THR mitigates the fuzziness over the precise time period. I comment on the "fact checking" claim below, but The Blaze employs editors and reporters with many years of news experience. The bottom line is that one confusedly worded segment with only a trivial impact that isn't quoted in the proposed edit anyway shouldn't be seized on as an excuse for rejecting the whole thing. News stories frequently contain typos or slight inaccuracies but are still used as Misplaced Pages sources all the time. Certainly the grade's historical rarity merits mentioning in the article, and shouldn't fall victim to perceived technicalities or Wikilawyering to keep it out.VictorD7 (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It's super simple. You want to add the Blaze because it explicitly ties the grade's rarity to the article topic. That means you find their judgement reliable. Most others don't. Most find it questionable. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves. That means not using a questionable source for facts about the movie or facts about CinemaScore. I can see that their reputation for fact-checking is good with you personally. That's fine, live and let live. I don't see that reputation represented in the larger world. "The NY Times makes mistakes too" is never going to be seen as a valid argument on this board as a substitute for a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". (And as far as Mintz goes, he seems to have give three or four answers over the years about how many films received an A+. You seem to think the one the Blaze and Brietbart latched onto must be the only possible correct one, but if the original source is giving contradictory answers, I don't see how we can elevate one over the others in Misplaced Pages's voice. None of the estimates were given out in a RS in connection to this particular article's subject, of course.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not about their "judgment". The movie is tied to the historical stat about the grade because it received the grade. Both the historical stat and this movie's grade are established facts. The Blaze simply reports this undisputed connection. It's unclear what you mean by "most find it questionable", given The Blaze's extreme popularity and the support from numerous editors this particular inclusion has. Regarding the historical fact, perhaps you missed my post observing that THR actually listed all the movies that had earned an A+ grade, doing their own count (which you're free to verify; I did). They didn't ask Mintz to give a number. You've presented no legitimate reason for excluding the segment. It would be disingenuous to pretend that there's some dispute or doubt that the grade is extremely rare. The truth is known here, and it belongs in the article. At most editors should be suggesting slight tweaks, not blanket exclusion. VictorD7 (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves The onus is on the editor suggesting the change to convince other editors a source is not questionable. I do not see you doing that, although I'm sure you believe in the source yourself. Horoscopes also have "extreme popularity", but they are not RS. "Established facts" should be cited to RS, not cited to non-RS. If a source has a dodgy reputation it generally shouldn't be used even to cite a claim that the sun is bigger than the earth, the truth notwithstanding. I also suggested a CNN citation for the A+ grade, but looking at the article, that information is already there and sourced. If you want to add something like "rare" or "uncommon" there are better sources for that judgement and if you want to outline how empirically rare the nomination is, you have to do better than handwaving contradictory sources about the material away. CinemaScore is a private marketing business; it is in their interest (and the specific movies involved) to inflate people's ideas of how "rare" a result is and how important an indicator it is regarding a movie's achievements. That's why we require reliable sources to help ensure NPOV and avoid repeating marketing or cheerleader-style distortions.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

So now you're also attacking The Hollywood Reporter's credibility as a source? There isn't a meaningful contradiction on the empirical point. THR listed every movie to earn an A+ grade. Period. A later story citing a CinemaScore exec who didn't have the numbers in front of him, who was merely vaguely estimating off the top of his head, and who still landed in the correct ballpark doesn't constitute a "contradiction". If anything, his slightly lower "estimate" of "less than 50" would mark the grade as even rarer anyway. I haven't seen anyone but partisan, left leaning editors label The Blaze as "dodgy". It's mostly a mix of verifiable, well referenced facts and opinion pieces. The segment it would be used to source here (which could include both the proposed sentence and the existing previous one citing the grade, for people who don't want to scroll down to hunt for it on the Box Office Mojo page) isn't in meaningful dispute. It's ironic that in the same post you cite CNN as a reliable source, when (among other journalistic scandals) its former Chief News Director Eason Jordan publicly confessed that for many years the network had a functioning deal with Saddam Hussein to bury atrocities in exchange for greater access. Partisan convenience isn't a legitimate criteria for embracing some sources while excluding others. Indeed such one sided censorship is an unacceptable NPOV violation. Even if one stipulates that CNN is a preferable source to The Blaze, that doesn't mean the latter should never be used for anything but its own opinion, as the site does employ editorial oversight. And if you want to dismiss CinemaScore as a self aggrandizing "private marketing business" (so?), perhaps you should argue to have Misplaced Pages's explicit endorsement of the outfit's use in articles removed from the MOS guidelines.

"Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner, such as CinemaScore, may be used." If CinemaScore grades are noteworthy, as the guidelines say, then the historical rarity of earning the top grade is inherently noteworthy too. VictorD7 (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The "CinemaScore exec" is Harold Mintz, son of the founder, and the same source used for all stories related to this company from the past ten years. I didn't dismiss them, but references to them should be reliably sourced. I'm not "attacking" the Hollywood Reporter, I'm pointing out that the same person gave same contradictory info in different venues. You can embrace the Harold Mintz of 2011 and bemoan the dissolute Harold Mintz of 2013, but they're the same guy. When reliable sources contradict, you're not supposed to just pick whatever you think agrees with you, as hard as that may be to do. Again, maybe it is rarer; my skepticism about your sources is not because I want to argue for a specific number that shames or flatters. If reliably sourced positive news is there, it should be included. My point is that the source needs to be verifiable and not considered questionable by most editors. You have one source that doesn't mention the subject of the article and one source that most editors find unusable. If you can't convince editors that there's a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that's more significant than what's been found in the past, then you won't have much success citing non-opinion material to it. (Hint: you need more to prove something has a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy than "it has editors" or personal assertions that it's full of facts.) Until then, Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I know who Mintz is. You keep missing the fact that THR didn't quote him as a source, but, through their research, documented and listed every film to receive an A+ ranking. Unless you're attacking that source's reliability too, the empirical historical fact is solid. Again, your description of The Blaze as being "questionable" is just a personal assertion. I don't expect to convince any editors involved in this dispute since opinions on the source's use have broken down roughly evenly in number and completely along party lines. I do intend to continue shaming blatantly POV positions seeking to ban any use of conservative sites while accepting liberal ones whenever such positions rear their head, so that such bias at least doesn't go unchallenged and in the hope of planting seeds in the minds of lurkers who may be more open and fair minded. VictorD7 (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @VictorD7: The Blaze ain't the New York Times. Implying that these two outlets are comparable because they both make a non-zero number of errors is just silly. The Blaze is a hyperpartisan website run by an ideologue with a notoriously spotty record when it comes to objective reality. The site lacks a generally recognized reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which is the central criterion for assessing reliability. As such, we should not be using this website as a source in a serious encyclopedia, except in very limited, circumscribed, and unusual situations. MastCell  21:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The Blaze has never employed disastrous, long running journalistic frauds like Jayson Blair and Walter Duranty, and the NY Times has been credibly accused of hyperpartisanship for decades. Simply repeating that the news site doesn't have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy doesn't make it so. Regardless of whether you place it on par with the NY Times or not, The Blaze does employ editors and reporters, and its facts are usually accurate. Accusations of bias are also irrelevant here, since policy clearly states that sources aren't disqualified for being biased, though I'll point out that Politifact is widely (correctly) seen as possessing a leftist bias. I'll also point out that your link is about Glenn Beck personally (covering his opinion commentary in various venues), not The Blaze per se, and that, regardless, Politifact itself states that it shouldn't be used to comparatively judge outlets (): "We avoid comparisons between the networks. We do not check every statement made on every network, so true comparisons would be difficult. We use our news judgment to decide what we want to fact-check. Also, the networks don’t carry the same amount of political or news programming. CBS, for instance, does not have a 24-hour cable news partner, while Fox and NBC do". VictorD7 (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that the New York Times is widely viewed as a reputable, solid journalistic outfit while The Blaze is not. Are you seriously disputing either of those propositions? Let's be real for a minute, and suppose you stopped a dozen people on the street and told them you were trying to build a serious, respectable reference work. If you told those people you were using the New York Times as a source, they'd probably nod in agreement, or at least understanding. If you told them that you were using Glenn Beck's website The Blaze as a source, they'd probably look at you like you were insane, or else up to no good. MastCell  22:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you need to get out more and meet a more diverse crowd. Most people I interact with are more likely to mock than praise the NY Times, and they can back up their criticism with facts, as I have here. Of course I'm not the one trying to disqualify it or other ideological sources that disagree with me from Misplaced Pages. VictorD7 (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A reporter who reported in the 30s and 40s and another reporter they fired for misconduct does not represent the "facts" of the institution. Part of maintaining an institution that does value honesty and objectivity is policing your own house. Firing Blair and having a practice of issuing corrections as soon as possible shows this.Casprings (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That they employed him for so long without catching him doesn't speak highly of their "editorial oversight" at all, nor does hiring him despite his checkered past speak well of their hiring practices. The Blaze has never had such a scandal, where a writer simply made up story after story. As for Duranty, the NY Times still proudly lists him among their "Pulitzer Prize winning" reporters, but I cited him to show that journalistic malfeasance at the paper is nothing new. I could list countless other examples of NY Times bias and dishonesty, but that would be getting off topic. VictorD7 (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

While a debate about the NY Times would be off topic, you do point to another important factor in thinking the Blaze is not a WP:RS. That would be professional respect among its peers. Have they won anything like a Pulitzer? Casprings (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The Pulitzer Prize is one of the garbage awards leftists use to congratulate each other. Even within that context it has less to do with journalistic quality than making a splash, like the awards The Guardian and Washington Post just got for a story Snowden dumped in their laps. Its meaninglessness is underscored by the fact that you were reminded of it by my mention of Pulitzer Prize winning journalistic fraud Walter Duranty.VictorD7 (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That is a fine opinion. It does go against the general consensus here.Casprings (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a non issue, since nowhere in policy does it state that Pulitzer Prizes are required for a source to be usable. VictorD7 (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty much sums up the issue here. What multiple editors have tried to explain to Victor is that these are the criteria used by Misplaced Pages to evaluate reliable sources. Victor disagrees with them. Sometimes I disagree with them. Our disagreement isn't evidence that Misplaced Pages is some hotbed of ideological bias desperately in need of his "shaming", it just means that we disagree with Misplaced Pages policy. The appropriate response for Victor would be to engage in civil discussion on the relevant policy pages and campaign for change, not to use Misplaced Pages as a WP:BATTLEGROUND to "shame" his ideological opponents. Gamaliel (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, the editors are roughly evenly split on this issue, and I, not you, have been the one citing pertinent policy and guidelines in these discussions. I don't disagree with the policies, just their misinterpretation. And I spoke of shaming positions (specifically POV positions that are contrary to policy), not people. You were the one who engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics by replying to a reasonable, crucial question with nonsense pictures (in fairness you later said you regretted doing that), and ultimately threw a temper tantrum consisting of nothing but baseless personal attacks that culminated in you claiming that you would disengage from the discussion. I guess you're back now. The appropriate response for you, Gamaliel, would be for you to civilly campaign on the relevant pages to change the meaning of Misplaced Pages concepts like "fringe" or "vandalism" to something more to your liking. VictorD7 (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

What does this have to do with WP:RS? Please don't bring your ideological war here. I'm not going to respond to this pack of lies and attacks because that would just give you an excuse to use yet another forum as your WP:BATTLEGROUND, but I will request that some other administrator strike this nonsense from this page as inaccurate, uncivil, and irrelevant to this page. Gamaliel (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Both your posts were entirely ad hominem. They didn't address the substance of this thread at all. Everything I said was accurate, so your charge of "lies" is garbage. Do you want me to link to your childish pictures or your promise to take a break from the discussion after your previous personal attack WP:BATTLEGROUND spree? VictorD7 (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

So what does this have to do with WP:RS again? Gamaliel (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing. Please refrain from perpetuating this ad hominem tangent. VictorD7 (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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

We have had input from serveral editors who were previously uninvolved on the article talk page. They offered their views. I find this helpful in understanding what the community thinks about the issue and it also matches up with what one is supposed to do to resolve conflicts. Get outside opinions.Casprings (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Gadling.com and Transitionsabroad.com - reliable sources?

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

• Gadling is not RS. "Gadling is the world’s top travel blog, written and edited by passionate travelers and writers." . There is no indication of whether particular bloggers are experts (e.g., published by reliable third parties). Transistions, on the other hand, may be. Per their about us page, they indicate editorial control and are a publisher. Even so, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS for their material. – S. Rich (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

http://tbjoshuawatch.wordpress.com/

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

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

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

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

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

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

There seem to be plenty of mainstream, reliable sources you can use to support that point, so I wouldn't cite a definitionally biased SPS. AdventurousMe (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

1. "10 things you didn't know about T B Joshua and his SCOAN ministry". 2014-07-25.
2. "TB Joshua Watch". 2014-07-25.

Blog author exception criteria--met or unmet?

This article has been proposed as support for this statement in the article about the Game of Thrones episode "Oathkeeper." (Game of Thrones is an HBO television adaptation of the Song of Ice and Fire books by George Martin. A Storm of Swords is the third book in the series.)

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

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

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

The accuracy of the facts cited is not in question. They have been corroborated in several other primary and secondary sources including but not limited the following (though other objections have been raised to each of these): The source novel A Storm of Swords by George Martin, Watch Game of Thrones Season 4 Episode 4 paNOW, Observation Deck, GEOS, FiveThrityEight. The material is also found on the fansite Westeros.Org, among others. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The sources in question are fairly hotly contested within the discussion page for the Game of Thrones episode "Oathkeeper", hence the recommendation to widen the circle on the problem to here. However, there appear to be a few mistakes/mischaracterizations of the problem.

The problem with the sources listed are as follows:

• The initial source is a Brazilian fansite, and the writer is not a member of the staff, and has no connection with the production of the program. If memory serves, the writer in question is a musical harp student at university who happens to be a fan, as per her own Twitter page.
• The other links provided are Watch Game of Thrones Season 4 Episode 4 a fake link, now deleted at the source, a fan forum, another fan forum and a fansite for which a previous request had been submitted.

As per USERG, none of these sources are usable. None of the authors are notable. All of the sources are either fan forums, fansites or fake, dead links.

The problem here is that the blockquote above contains information not found in any usable source. While there are' some reliable secondary sources that contain a reference to a single chapter usage, those have been incorporated (using prose) into the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• The writer of the article in question, Ana Carol, is listed on the site's staff page, as per the link I provided . Considering that she is writing about a general-audience book and television show, her credentials, tertiary student, are sufficient to consider her reliable for straight facts that are readily observable by any reader/viewer without specialist knowledge. She's perfectly capable of reading the book and saying, "Jaime hands Brienne a sword named 'Oathkeeper' in chapter 72." (EDIT: I think I see what Jack's talking about now. Ana Carol is on the staff of the web site, per WP:USERG; she is not an employee of HBO.)
• The Prince Albert article is not a fake link; though it has gone dead since it was first uploaded. It linked to a non-article page in a newspaper containing what appeared to be product information. Per WP:BADLINK just because the link has gone dead does not mean that the source automatically becomes unusable.
• The other sources are listed here to show any new contributors that the material is factually accurate. I am not proposing that we use Westeros.org as a source. GEOS could work, though. It does collect user-provided surveys, but that's not the part of the GEOS article that's cited; the staff-supplied description of the episode is. In fact, at the time of access, no user-generated content had yet been provided for Oathkeeper. The i09 article is an article, not a forum comment.
• But on Misplaced Pages, it's not only about accuracy, it's also about verifiability: The blockquote contains information that is readily verifiable by any person capable of 1. watching the episode and 2. reading the book, and the book is among the sources offered. While the novel is certainly verifiable and reliable, it has been argued that it cannot, alone, establish that the content is sufficiently notable. I feel that the article suggested here does that. The novel renders verifiability a non-issue. Now we need something to go with it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian and I are two of the participants in this dispute. We are here seeking further comment on this issue from a neutral party or parties. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I am just one of many editors in that article that disagree with Darkfrog24. Sidestepping the drah-mah of that user seeking to reframe the problem, she is fundamentally wrong in her assessment of these sources.

Gameofthrones.Br is a fansite. We rarely use those, unless citing an interview of someone connected to the cast, crew or author. The reference does not do that, instead offering a blogger a forum to post their take on the ep.

The PrinceAlbertNOW reference is fake. It was dressed up to appear as if it were an authentic article in the outlet, but was actually created within their Free Classifieds section. It bears pointing out that Darkfrog24 added the reference shortly after it was created, and it was deleted by the paNOW's editorial staff after I emailed them about its authorship. It isn't a ref that we can use.

GEOS cites Misplaced Pages as a source for its information (circular referencing) and is a fansite. It does not cite a member of the cast or crew; it is therefore the product of someone without notability.

io9 is a legitimate fansite; however, the reference comes from a fan-created article (called Observation Deck) in io9's user-created space. Hell, I could create an article there.

A DRN and RfC concluded that the primary source of the book could not be used independently. We could cite the primary source of the book, when referring to the fact that the episode was taken from the book. We needed explicit secondary references for individual chapters. Without them, it is a single editor drawing conclusions without reliable references. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

1. I'm not the only editor supporting this text; there are multiple voices on both sides of this issue. Anyone who feels the need can go to talk:Oathkeeper and talk:Breaker of Chains and do their own headcount. 2. I'm not drawing conclusions, just making observations.

No one is contesting that Gameofthrones.Br is a blog. It is one. While the article includes the blogger's take on the ep, you will notice the proposed text does not. It only includes straight observations about which chapters ended up in the episode.

The issue is whether the exception criteria have been met or not. We've got 1. author is a named member of the site staff, check; 2. credentials are provided, check; 3. are those credentials sufficient for the text in question: Ladies and gentlemen of Misplaced Pages, your take on this matter, please!

The PrinceAlbert site is NOT fake. If you look at the original reference tag, you will see that the page went up around June 20 and I didn't find it until weeks later. It was exactly as I have described it: product information. Someone was trying to sell access to GoT episodes and posted a description of them, including which chapters the episode was based on. I'd call this source comparable to reading product stats off a box. ...and you're saying the link went dead because you asked someone to kill it? That's not good. Now other Wikieditors can't see it for themselves.

Jack, I checked the GEOS article on Oathkeeper before I used it as a source, and GEOS did not cite Misplaced Pages. But I'm human and I might have missed something. I've asked you this before and you didn't answer, but if you know where GEOS says "We copied this information from Misplaced Pages," please show us.

Do not refer to a source as a forum if it is not a forum. Describe sources accurately or you may confuse newcomers.

The primary source is usable right here in this thread to confirm that the Ana Carol article is accurate. I don't agree with the results of the RfC, but I'm not contesting them either. And yes, we can also look at individual chapters and observe that they contain the same events as in the episode. Just because an RfC has deemed that a source is not usable alone does not mean that have to pretend that it isn't there. In this case, we can use the novel as a yardstick to evaluate other sources. I put eyes to the source myself, and the author of this article did get her facts straight.

If we keep going back and forth on this, there's going to be a big wall of text and no one else is going to want to weigh in. I'll commit to a no-repeating-myself policy here on out for this thread if you guys will. You in? Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

If a Misplaced Pages editor can "kill an article" at a reliable source, then it probably wasn't a citable article to begin with. Only editorial staff at the reliable source can kill legitimate articles. Therefore, the "article" was probably killed because it wasn't legitimate. DonQuixote (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

DonQuixote is also a longstanding participant in this dispute. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I searched the archives of this noticeboard, recalling that I'd heard and asked about io9's Observation Deck forum before: here and here.

GEOS labels itself as "GEOS is fan-owned, and fan-run." The linked content is not usable in this instance.
The paNow article was indeed fake. All I did was ask about the source. They said it was "masquerading as a genuine article" (their words, not mine), and pulled it from adspace. As it was constructed shortly before being added (for no apparent reason) by an anon geolocating out of New York, near Cornell U, it is undoubtedly fake.
I agree with your estimate about people not wanting to get involved in a wall of text. I initially responded here as you had misrepresented the sources. You had not needed to keep responding after that. Follow your own advice: be quiet and let others contribute. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Jack, no the PaNow page was not fake; it was product information; quit it, and please quit repeating your points.

As for GEOS, there is precedent for its use on Misplaced Pages, and being fan-run doesn't mean it's inaccurate. While I certainly see it as a usable source, it is offered here to corroborate the source under discussion, to show that the Ana Carol article is accurate.

It occurred to me that there's no way for you to know this, but I pass over lots of sources for reasons like reliability and accuracy. Just yesterday I found an educational website that looked like it would fit the bill, but it didn't get the numbers right.

No, Jack, I did not misrepresent the sources, and you are out of line to say that I did. Actually look at what I actually posted: . I referred to them as "primary and secondary" and provided their ref tag information. I even stated that objections had been raised to each, which is not to my position's advantage. I did not otherwise describe them in any way. You referred to the i09 article as a forum, and it's not. You said that Ana Carol wasn't a member of the staff, and she is. That is misrepresentation.

As for the two links you posted, one of them has no discussion and the other has no link. There's no way for that other person to tell what you're talking about. Maybe i09 also has a forum, but the two i09 sources that were mentioned for Oathkeeper were both articles. They have authors and paragraphs and are non-interactive. Describing either as a forum is extremely misleading.

While I'm down for a no-repeat-points policy if it applies to all of us equally, for God's sake, no, you don't get to call me a liar and then say I should shut up about it! Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

And to everyone else, we would still like a neutral, disinterested, previously uninvolved party to weigh in on the source, please. Thanks~ Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

linuxgamenews.com

I have no idea whether linuxgamenews.com is considered a reliable source or not. If it is, will this report () contribute to establish Minetest's notability?--180.172.239.231 (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Nor do I. But it looks like it's been chucked up on a free Wordpress theme, there are no credited authors and no evidence of editorial oversight, so it's clearly a WP:SPS, and shouldn't be used for notability, or anything else.. AdventurousMe (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

SPS material for Vani Hari

1. Source: Vani Hari's webpage Foodbabe: "Should I get the Flu Shot?"
2. Article: Vani Hari#Flu shot
3. Content:

   In October 2011, Hari posted an article on her blog titled "Should I get the Flu Shot?" in which she claimed that seasonal influenza vaccines are both harmful and ineffective, and urged her readers to consider avoiding them. In her post, Hari claimed that common constituents in flu shots including aluminum, thimerosal, formaldehyde, egg products, and sucrose would cause adverse reactions in users. She stated that she would never ingest any of the aforementioned ingredients herself, claiming that the medical community endorses them due to "corruption" and "greed." Mark Crislip, an infectious disease doctor and contributor to the "Science-Based Medicine" blog, wrote a response piece entitled "Scam Stud" in which he sharply criticized Hari's claims.

See the initial discussion at Talk:Vani Hari#Microwaves and flu vaccinations. The Content was removed, but was recently restored. It is my contention that this paragraph is not RS because it comes from Hari's personal, self-published webpage. – S. Rich (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That's all right as far as the RS goes. It's a primary source that Hari made the given statement, so fine in an article about her, which this is. The question should be - so what? If merely one other blog responded to this statement, I'm not sure that makes it particularly notable. I'm guessing lots of her blog posts have at least one other blog responding. What makes this particular statement and response more worthwhile of space in our article about her than the others? --GRuban (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply, by OP. The problem is her webpage is WP:SPS and she is not an expert about the flu (or microwaves). She goes beyond WP:ABOUTSELF because she goes beyond what she is doing and into the dangers/effectiveness of the vaccination. Most importantly, her comments are exceptional claims. Lastly, she is commenting about third parties, e.g., the medical community and drug companies. Couching her comments with "she claims" undermines SPS policy. That is, if we allowed any blog posting to be placed on WP with "s/he claims..." or "s/he says..." or "his/her opinion is..." this would allow any and all such statements to be placed in articles. (WP should not be used as a vehicle for such material.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

To address a few things, I think my comments in the talk page and Gruban's are broadly similar, so I won't repeat them here as you probably rightly encouraged me to do, but I will address this. The page is not making any claims about the flu, it is making neutral claims about Hari's statements. If this were an article about the flu, or you removed the "she claims" portion of the sentence, then obviously it would be inappropriate and her blog would not serve as a source, but this is the article about her and in some sense about her views. I don't really see why a discussion of her views on a subject would ever give anyone the impression that Misplaced Pages endorses those views. The page about David Duke mentions that "Duke claimed that Jewish extremists are responsible for undermining the morality of America and are attempting to 'wash the world in blood.'" I don't think anyone is claiming that Duke is an expert in anthropology or whatever subject that would be, nor does anyone think that just because we're somehow sneaking those things into the article by cleverly putting them in Duke's mouth. It's the article on David Duke, it's about his life and views, so it's appropriate there. Putting his comments into the article on Judaism or American Jews would be giving his comments undue weight, so they would definitely not belong there.0x0077BE 18:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The difference is we have secondary sources reporting on what Duke said. We do not have Duke's blog as the reference for what he said. Posting a Duke blog posting that repeated his statements would be improper. – S. Rich (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This is about sourcing, and the David Duke stuff is not going to be helpful here. The material you talk about is sourced to the Anti-Defamation League not to David Duke. If the only threshold was that a person could be verified to have said something on their blog, then Misplaced Pages articles could contain the entire contents of people's blogs, prefaced by "The subject said,". When using self-published sources they need to at minimum not run afoul of the five points outlined in Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources. Claims involving influenza vaccines in general would have problems with at least the first four of those. Those points are that the claims involved must be compatible with:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

Tacking on a "she says" or "she believes" does not inoculate the material from being about problematic claims that she is presenting as reality not personal belief. Does this mean the article can't describe her notable beliefs? No, the article can talk about her beliefs but they must be filtered through a non-SPS source and not sourced directly to her website. The policy is there to ensure that some independent RS has something to do with it and has supplied some context and NPOV, rather than listing everything she's ever published on her word alone. The material is "about" what she asserts about flu vaccines; that is clearly "about" what she feels about third party material, which means that it certainly involves claims about third parties. We have to cite it to other sources, such as The Charlotte Observer or another reliable and independent secondary source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

More briefly, if a source says on their blog "Cars were invented in Antarctica." you can say it is primarily about the writer's belief about the invention of the car, but you can't say that it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. Material that involves her claims about what happens during flu vaccines is material that involves claims about events not directly related to Vani Hari herself, whether it also speaks to her beliefs or not. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you missed my point, which is that the reliability of the source depends on the context. I've said earlier that the inclusion of this flu stuff would be contingent upon sources indicating the weight of the statements, but that is irrelevant to the reliability of this particular source. If you establish that this is a noteworthy aspect of a person's life or views, you can use primary sources to cite factual content (such as the fact that she made these claims). Whether or not she's making ridiculous and unscientific claims (as David Duke is making above), is also completely irrelevant, because the article is about her and her views, so we just need to establish that we're not giving undue weight to this particular blog post. See WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD.

I strongly disagree with the "extraordinary claims" analysis - that would only apply when covering the subject of the claims, not when covering the person's views on the subject of the claims, there's a strong distinction there. If someone is a noteworthy UFOlogist, you can use primary sources for facts about their beliefs regardless of whether or not they are an "expert", but you can't use them to establish "notability" (obviously the notability standard doesn't apply, the "undue weight" standard is what applies, but they're broadly speaking similar in quality). The standard would be exactly the same if we were trying to show that she likes peas or a specific brand of shoe - we want to reflect the content in the sources, and the secondary sources sort out what is relevant content to include and what's not. Either way, the reliability of this particular source is clearly not an issue - no one is disputing that it's a reliable source of her claims, and no one is claiming that it's a reliable source for the truth of her claims. That's a totally different question as to whether those claims should be included in the article about her.0x0077BE 01:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with whether we include claims about a subject's beliefs (we do) or whether we sometimes use primary sources (we do). It has everything to do with whether we use SPS as a source when they involve certain conditions. This material fails the five points outlined in Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources and that means we don't source it from primary SPS and there are good reasons for that.
Take David Duke. Let's agree he hates an incredible amount of x. The article mentions those beliefs, but avoids sourcing that x-hate to SPS, even though it would be the same kind of verifiable and reliable as what you're suggesting here. This is because a secondary, independent source is a much more reliable source for Misplaced Pages to point to than David Duke himself, for David Duke's own opinions! A secondary source is considered more reliable for proving to Misplaced Pages whether a statement is significant, and whether we are interpreting the meaning of a primary text correctly without WP:OR creeping in. These are good boundaries; without them, more politicians' pages would be lists of direct quotes about their beliefs, sourced only to their own campaigns, because they would also be "verifiable self-published beliefs", instead of secondary sources sifting through all the promises and saying which were dubious, or significant.
And yes, primary sources are not bad...but it has to be for information directly involving the subject, not involving third parties or events, and not involving extreme claims that could ever be reasonably doubted. Involving! Saying someone believes an x, involves a claim about x. A claim that a person believes an unusual thing shouldn't be sourced to a SPS. That may seem counterintuitive to you, but it's basically, "If the claim is wild or it involves the subject talking about events far outside of themselves, we need that statement cited to a secondary source that had an opportunity to evaluate it somehow." There would be little problem sourcing a self-published statement that she got a flu shot five years ago, with that statement attributed to her in the article. That's because it's reasonably believable, directly about her personal activities. A simple claim from a UFOlogist that they moved to Germany in 1982 to study UFOs is fine sourced to an SPS. A complex claim from a UFOlogist that UFOs are all painted green, have three wheels, two windows and a bell, should not be sourced to a SPS in a Misplaced Pages article, even if you can verify they said it by pointing to a primary source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That whole block of text shouldn't be included without some indication the blog post was somehow significant and noted, from an independent RS (and not another blog). Otherwise we could list a mention of every individual blog post anyone's ever done, sourced to the blogs they appeared on (eg "On Aug 2, she made a comment on her notice board, sourced to her notice board"). If an RS has noted her opinions on vaccines, a statement about her holding those views could be included, but sourced to that independent RS. Otherwise people are using the article to document bloggy back-and-forth.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The five points you refer to are for when a self-published source is used as a claim about themselves, which is not what's happening here. The "extraordinary claims" it refers to would be about themselves like, "I was born on Mars in the year 2039" - you can't put "Birthplace: Mars" in their[REDACTED] page and cite a self-published primary source for that. The whole point of WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD is that primary sources are OK for things like verifying the content of statements, so the main question here is not about the reliability of the source. It's not a question of the reliability of the source - no one is suggesting that there's any chance that the things she publishes on her own blog are written by someone else or don't reflect her views on the subject. Do you not see that this is not a question of the reliability of the source? It's a question of whether or not it's essentially WP:OR to include this source without a secondary source indicating that these statements are important or that anyone cares about them.0x0077BE 16:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

To S. Rich, you can see if the edit I made addresses your concerns. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It does. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

To be even-handed, I have to point out that some of the criticism that is both sourced solely to blogs and that also somehow makes a claim about her personally (not strictly her claims) should also come out, even though I completely respect the expertise of some of the bloggers involved, per WP:UGC, which states Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer. The worst example is that Forbes non-journalist-written blog piece that titles her a "fool". There's a line between rightfully debunking non-scientifically recognized claims (good work) and commenting about the qualities of a living person (not allowed per WP:UGC}. SPS are arguably okay to address the substance of a claim, but not the person. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your even handed approach. The Forbes piece may be acceptable as a NEWSBLOG. As the experts are commenting on the claims about how flu vaccines work, it seems they are not writing about Hari as a person. In any event, this portion of the thread may be best discussed on the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The Forbes one is a "contributor" blog, which is a fascinating RS problem all by itself. Contributor blogs are user-generated-content unless it says "staff writer" under the writer's name. I removed it to be safe on both RS and BLP grounds without prejudice to the idea that there are strong and compelling criticisms of the substance of her claims. I think it gets into disputable territory when the headlines call her fool or idiot as to whether including the citation is also including a personal claim. There are many sources of criticism for her, and I think the article is best served by including those most clearly focussed on the claims or are most clearly not SPS.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Black

(Pinging some users to participate @SNUGGUMS, WikiRedactor, Adabow, Retrohead, and JennKR:)

• Source: An interview by Black magazine to a singer.
• Article: Trouble (Natalia Kills album)

The source given above links to an interview by Black magazine to singer Natalia Kills. I haven't seen it being before on Misplaced Pages, but it seems like it is reliable: according to their about page, they're a New Zealand biannual print magazine which is "commission-based and team oriented" and does not accept submissions for the printed version. The online blog (which is more or less WP:NEWSBLOG-style) may accept them, which is not a problem for the interview as it is included in the magazine itself. Keep in mind that it would be used in a future featured article candidate. pedro | talk 16:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• I read through the about page that you pointed out, and the fact that they monitor reader submissions is a plus (in my eyes) in regards to quality control. I don't see any reason why the source can't be trusted. WikiRedactor (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• I can't find any problems either. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 18:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Looks good to me! —JennKR | ☎ 18:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

io9's Observation Deck

I am rechecking for a bit more clarification: While io9 is indeed a reliable source of information, does its subset forum area, called Observation Deck also qualify as a reliable source? I note that this has come up before in (Archive 172 and commented upon by admin Shii, and Archive 174, entitled "Self-published blogs run by Gawker Media".
I think that there remains some confusion about io9 (which seems fairly legit-y) and Observation Deck, which seems to be a user-created forum. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Jack and I and a few others are involved in a dispute in which this article from i09 was used as a source for which events happen in which chapters of the novel A Storm of Swords. Misplaced Pages article text in question: . Source article in question: . Hit CTRL-F "Jaime IX" and "Sansa VI," etc. and you will see the exact lines used.

It's pretty clear that this source is not a forum, though if you scroll down too quickly you'll miss the article and end up in the comments section, which does look like a forum. (No one has proposed using the comments as sources.) The content has an author, is structured in paragraphs and is non-interactive, so it's an article. The question is whether it's a sufficiently reliable article. Your perspectives on this matter are desired by all involved parties. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hakirah (journal) and Megilas HaMegila

Please see Talk:Islamization_of_the_Temple_Mount#Synagogue_on_the_Temple_Mount for a discussion between a fellow editor and me about the reliability of a certain modern source, itself quoting a medieval source, and the reliability of that medieval source as well. The discussion took place over December 4-7, 2013, and then was dormant. Recently, my opponent in that discussion made an edit based on his opinion that the sources are not reliable for the statement they come to support, which I reverted, based on my opinion that the sources are reliable for that statement. Your comments on the issue will be appreciated. I suggest to comment there, to avoid repeating arguments that have already been made or that already have been countered. Debresser (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Is PopDust a reliable source?

1.Source - PopDust 2.Aricle - 4x4 (song) 3.Content - I was thinking if the above source is enough for the song to be mentioned as a single here. There is also a source confirming a music video being directed. No matter how obvious it might be, there should be consensus. So please comment.--219.90.98.28 (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Notre Dame University trustees

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

This and your succeeding posts all appear to show the "eternal problem" on Misplaced Pages of how to deal with religious tenets and current social issues - in the case at hand, it appears that the positions of editors are possibly interfering with the primary non-negotiable policy of "neutral point of view" in favour of "the Catholic Church is wrong and must be asserted to be wrong about homosexuality." "Reliable source" is not the actual issue - rather the issue is "should sources with possible discernable points of view about a topic be used where the goal of NPOV is then compromised?" An issue worthy of far more discussion than is likely to occur here. Collect (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree about the problem you mention. These are claims about what was actually said, not evaluations of the rightness or wrongness of what was said. Rightness or wrongness is much more difficult to write about neutrally. But what exactly someone said should be verifiable. So, are these claims about observable facts supported by the sources adduced? Nobody is asking here for a value judgement on the facts. Esoglou (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must post this again. After it had been archived, Roscelese has commented on the article's talk page: "Your post deliberately misrepresented the source and any 'result' that came about is therefore useless. The question is not whether Cornwell accurately interpreted the events, but whether he accurately quoted the trustees. It is easy to verify that he did, as their statement is quoted in many other sources. Your persistent refusal to believe that any other Catholic or any other source could disagree with your personal opinions is resulting in disruption to the article." I still believe that the citation is not a reliable source for her claim that the trustees "believed that framing non-discrimination as a civil right conflicted with the church's teaching on homosexuality". Is Roscelese right or wrong? Esoglou (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Interpretation of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith statement

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

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

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

I'm sorry, I must post this again. After it had been archived, Roscelese has commented on the article's talk page: "You deliberately misrepresented the issue (I mean, literally the phrase you quoted as the article text is not the article text) and still didn't get anyone agreeing that any source was unreliable or being misused." This again is the article text that I questioned: "The letter said that any culpability that pertains to homosexual sexual activity is not mitigated by natural orientation" (copied and pasted from here). I don't understand how it can be said to be "not the article text". Esoglou (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Based on the text quoted above, I would say the document does not say that any culpability is not mitigated. The text clearly says that "certain circumstances may reduce or remove culpability" but that one should not assume that homosexual behavior is always compulsive. That clearly allows that sometimes it may be, and therefore the characterization as asked is not backed by the source. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Description of generically mentioned organizations

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

The text of the document related to the claim is:

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

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

I'm sorry, I must post this again. After it had been archived, Roscelese has commented on the article's talk page: "No one agreed with you that the source was being misrepresented, in spite of your obviously deliberate failure to mention the secondary sources which discussed these Catholic organizations. If you can't get any support for your position even when you deliberately leave out the sources that disagree with it, how can you possibly claim it is the consensus position?" I left out no source that was cited in support of the statement that I questioned, so I fail to see on what grounds I am being chided for an "obviously deliberate" failure to mention some unspecified secondary sources. Esoglou (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Blame for persistence in spite of mortality

Is this document (section 17) a reliable source for the statement that the document "blamed these organizations for continuing to advocate for gay rights even when, it claimed, homosexuality threatened the lives of many people" (emphasis added)? The claim is made here (paragraph 2) and has been discussed here.

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

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

I'm sorry, I must post this again. After it had been archived, Roscelese has simply restored the questioned text without making any comment even on the article's talk page to defend it. Esoglou (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Israel/Gaza RFC

The following RFC could use additional input and may be of interest to the members of this noticeboard Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#RFC Gaijin42 (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution