Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:16, 22 April 2010

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.

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Three questionable sources in a WP:BLP

Continuing problems on Gilad Atzmon as editor adds these three sources for a claim that some anti-Zionists criticize Atzmon.

• http://www.marxists.de/racism/antisemitism/counterpunch.htm Long rant by a political opponent on a self-published advocacy site.
• http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/01/friends-we-dont-need.html A throw-a-way accusation by a professor who does not identify self in the self-published blog posting.
• http://www.labournet.net/antiracism/0507/ongilad1.html Long rant by political opponent on a self-published advocacy site.

These were deleted before but now are used to prop up a sentence in the lead that infers that only Anti-zionists criticize Atzmon, which obviously isn't even true, as even rest of article shows. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, they're all unreliable, especially the second one, as blogs aren't considered reliable sources. As for the rest, they don't look like secondary sources to me. In this case it's the quality of the sources rather than the quantity of the sources.

Update: I removed the second reference, and marked the rest with {{Vc}}. Minimac (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Anybody else want to call for deleting the refs? CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In my view these are polemical, and therefore unsuitable for use in supporting controversial material in a WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy. Note there are a number of sources like that in the article and any attempt to include an Atzmon defense usually is deleted. Last spring an Admin deleted most of them, but they and new ones are back worse than ever. Should I bring the examples to

KMFDM FAQ

http://www.kmfdmfaq.com/faq.htm I don't think this is a reliable source (for information on KMFDM, in this specific case adding information on a single from the album Xtort here), it seems to be a fan-made site, and I don't think it has enough external control for accuracy to be reliable (whether the information is true or not). However, User:Torchiest contends that "That FAQ has been listed as a source on the main KMFDM page for four years, and it's been linked to from KMFDM.net as an official band-endorsed source of information for years as well." So instead of engaging in an edit war I felt some objective viewpoints would help solve this dilemma one way or the other. Thanks! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This does appear to be a fan site (and one that hasn't been updated in 4 years). There's no indication that it satisfies Misplaced Pages's reliable sourcing requirements. Jayjg 21:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

{ec} Looks like a fansite to me. Unless the authors are music journalists or something, (I didn't research the site's authors) I would say that it's not a reliable source. The fact it's used as a source for years simply means that it's been wrong for all that time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

At the bottom of the page it says "The information found herein is © KMFDM Inc." Does that make a difference? Torchiest (talk | contribs) 23:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that's because part of the FAQ was taken from kfmdm.net, as per http://www.kmfdmfaq.com/faq.htm#VIII:2. By the way, the link from kfmdm.net doesn't seem to be an endorsement, since that page also links to kfmdmsucks.net, and even our Misplaced Pages page. --GRuban (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

While it's proper to debate whether being linked from an official site constitutes an endorsement, linking to a site called "KMFDM Sucks" doesn't invalidate it either. Let me explain that band has a history of self-deprecating humor, and even released a single called "KMFDM Sucks". Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If this is the same KMFDM FAQ that's been regularly posted to USENET for over 15 years, that might be worth considering as an expert SPS, though it would be more appropriate as a WP:EL. For a bona fide FAQ, I'd want to see if the regular editors of the page would want to IAR on this one. I'd suggest using an inline tag like refimprove instead of deleting the content outright, except if it's a BLP problem. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Uexpress

Uexpress appears to be a syndication service. They mostly carry word games, puzzles, cartoon, features, and some columnists. I don't see any indication that they exert editorial control over the material they offer. For columns that haven't been published by any conventional newspaper or similar publication are they the equivalent of a self-published source?   Will Beback  talk  23:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• It depends what one is trying to use it for. Are we talking about something like "Pet Connection" or "Supermarket Sampler", which I would expect to be noncontroversial, or the columns of Ted Rall or Ann Coulter, for whom many readers take at least one of those columnists with a grain of salt the Bonneville Salt Flats? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Uexpress is being used as a source for an opinion of a controversial group, based specifically on a column which does not appear to have been printed in any secondary source.   Will Beback  talk  23:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
    • It would still be helpful to know which group, what opinion, which column, and which Misplaced Pages article this relates to. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This concerns an opinion of Federation for American Immigration Reform given by Georgie Anne Geyer. The cited article is here: . As mentioned above, I haven't been able to find any version of it that's been published by a newspaper. The editor who added it has complained that an opposing view, added as balance, represents undue weight. Talk:Federation for American Immigration Reform#Undue weight While investigating further I realized that the Geyer cite might be problematic. FWIW, Geyer is not an impartial journalist on this issue but rather has written advocacy material. If the Geyer cite is removed it'd legitimate to move the balancing quote to a less prominent location.   Will Beback  talk  22:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of an interview as a reliable secondary source

In the Southern Poverty Law Center article, an editor is using an interview from the WNYC radio program "On the Media". He/she summarizes this interview as follows:

"In the last year the SPLC has also expressed concern that hot rhetoric and disinformation is causing a dangerous increase in paranoia and confrontation within the political landscape. There is the concern that overheated speech of pundits and politicians is inflaming hate groups that may pose a viable threat. The SPLC specifically singled out Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, Congressman Steve King, and commentators Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs as failing their moral responsibility for the inflammatory effects of their rhetoric on hate group violence."

1. Is a straight interview like this (it is not clips of an interview that is in the context of a news story) a primary source, or is it a reliable secondary source?

2. If the source is a primary source, does the above summary violate the following policy on primary sources:

"A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge...Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source."

--Drrll (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Interviews are considered primary sources and can only be used to represent the opinion of the subject. There are certain cases where they are valuable (see #LGBTQ above) but generally you would use them for "In an interview, the SPLC said..." statements. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 10:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about using only direct quotes or very close paraphrased approximations, right?--Drrll (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be my interpretation of PSTS, and I would much rather use their own website. I would actually favour using a shorter, less detailed summary, not including the names, stating clearly that it was an interview, and if possible attribute it directly to a person at the SPLC rather than the whole organization. Also, I wouldn't use it at all if it's a lengthy article - that's stub-type stuff and I would expect it to change as more information about the SPLC arises to flesh out the article. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 13:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I would classify the material quoted above as ephemera that really isn't encyclopedic. I wouldn't call it "stub-stuff" as stubs are held to the same standards as full articles. I agree that interview are primary sources, even when embedded within news stories. The exterior news story may be secondary if it synthesizes or brings some objectivity to the topic, however if it just is reportage, it also is a primary source as an eye-witness to the interview. --Bejnar (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Who is the publisher in this instance? The publisher is WNYC. Is WNYC a reliable source? Yes. Is WNYC secondary to the SPLC? Yes. Therefore, the interview in question is "published by a reliable secondary source". Indeed, this noticeboard is for discussion of "reliable sources", and the question Drrll has asked is a question about primary sources, which doesn't even pertain to the scope of this noticeboard. I have asked this question over at the NOR noticeboard. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the Salty on this one -- an interview conducted and published by a reliable source (in this case, WNYC) is an acceptable source. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that WNYC is a reliable source--the question is whether a transcript of a straight interview is primary or secondary. This noticeboard doesn't seem ideal for answering this question, but it seemed closest to the noticeboard choices available.

BlackJack's site

In respect of this site www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket which has been used extensively by user blackjack I would point out that as regard copyright there can be no real issue because the cricket content is in two parts. Firstly scorecards copied from a variety of secondary sources. No issue on reliability here as the cards are available in several books, some dating back 100 years or more. There is no primary source here ie: BLACKJACK has discovered nothing new. Part two is his own opinions expressed as comments and annotations. Some of this is risible and utterly unreliable. The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians which is accepted by MCC and ICC as the main source in this area(ICC co-ordinator D.Kendrick is ACS chairman) saw these comments to BJ's work in the terms I express and have written about them as such. Given the BJ attacks violently anyone questioning his work I believe this should be looked at. Though the scorecards are reliable, the opinions are actually new and held only by BJ and thus utterly unreliable. Distinguished historians Peter Griffiths(Cricketarchive), Peter Wynne Thomas, Keith Warsop, John Goulstone and others would support this view. Incidentally Mr Warsop published an almost identical list of scorecards to the one on www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket twenty years ago and a booklet detailing such scores was published by ACS six years ago. As for using names to sign posts - who is Blackjack or Moondyne?88.108.2.72 (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC) DR A Tillmann

We have already stated (above) that this issue revolves around the question of whether BlackJack (in his real life persona) should be considered a reliable expert on Cricket due to his stated work experience. If so then his opinion would be note worthy and can be included, and his website would be considered reliable and can be cited. Those of us who respond to questions on this notice board are not in a position to judge whether a particular person should be considered an expert in a specific field. That is a question that is better answered by the editors at the relevant project page (in this case Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cricket) who will be more familiar with the reputation of sources relating to the topic.

If you feel that BlackJack is "attacking" people, or violating another of our behavior guidelines, the place to complain is WP:ANI not here. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Blueboar. Dr Tillmann is none other than Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft. He has already made several posts at WT:CRIC which annoyed the members there but he still persists in his petty vendetta which, as you can see, is because I do not always agree with some of his chums in the ACS. You will note, however, that though he doesn't like my theories, he does agree that the site is reliable for its match reference information and that is what really matters. The site is designed to present a consolidated list of match references and it is on this that its reliability must be judged. I'm happy to discuss it at WT:CRIC as long as the contributors are all bona fide members of this site.

By the way, the ACS has no official status whatsoever. It has, however, used my matchlist as the essential basis of its online "Early Cricket Project" and has designated me as the main contributor. CricketArchive (also mentioned above) has published match references and full match scorecards for the 18th century which were provided by me and, again, they have acknowledged my contribution (I reckon I supplied some 95% of their 18th century material).

I'm rather busy in real life now and can only spare limited time for WP. But I have been sorting out site licensing with Moonriddengirl as above and I said to her that I will instigate a discussion on CRIC when time permits, unless one of the genuine members wants to kick it off first. ----Jack | 15:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

ACS is the official ICC provider of List A statistics and is used by ICC for all its' official records.88.108.10.67 (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

List A cricket started in 1963. The site in question deals with the 18th century. Please keep things in context. ---- No it's used for all records and list A started in 1962Jack | 20:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Get a clue please... both of you... complaining about each other here on this page will not help. For resolution on the "expert/not expert issue, go to WP:WikiProject Cricket... for resolution on sock puppetry, personal attacks or other behavior issues, go to WP:ANI. Please to not continue your conflict here on this page. Do not respond to each other on this page (we understand both sides of the issue, so there is no need)... take it elsewhere. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't send this back to WT:CRIC, that is where it just goes round and round. A neutral area where reliable sources are debated (i.e. here) is a much better venue. At WT:CRIC, that is where Blackjack and his supporters (including me) all interact, and a fair and neutral assessment of the source will never take place there. You can ask Blackjack and the IP to not comment on the source themselves and leave it to a neutral user, but please take a look at the issue and don't bounce it back to WT:CRIC :) --SGGH 13:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes - so let's get to the crux of it - why should this site be considered reliable according to our normal policies on RS? I don't want any "he said, she said", let's stick to the site. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. But I am going to have to explain why the site is reliable and also explain to people who do not follow cricket that I am a subject expert. But, I don't know the process here. Please post some questions and I will answer them, if you want to do it that way. ----Jack | 17:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's start with that - which reliable sources note that you are an subject expert? Newspapers, specialist cricket publications etc. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Just noting in passing that IMO this is the proper venue for this discussion, not the cricket project. Cameron Scott's quesiton above is precisely the one I'd have asked, and is the most relevant here. Guy (Help!) 19:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, here is a slightly easier question that may be helpful: What reliable sources have attributed information to the site? That is, it is not suitable for Misplaced Pages to use information from a site if no relevant authorities regard the site as reliable. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The essential sources which may be considered reliable are CricketArchive (CA) and the Association of Cricket Statisticians (ACS), both of which qualify as "specialist cricket publications". CA is an online source only while the ACS mainly produces printed material in the form of handbooks, although it does have a website which includes its Early Cricket Project. CA is widely quoted for its statistical content but note that it contains very little in the way of narrative or historical content. The ACS is less well known but, as its article shows, it does attract recognition.

If we accept that these are reliable sources then the next thing is to ascertain where they got their 18th century coverage from and, although my contributions were not exclusive, they were extensive and the bulk of the 18th century material published online by both these sources is derived directly from the match references that form the fundamental part of From Lads to Lord's (LTL). The acceptance of this information by CA and the ACS effectively confirms their view of myself as an expert in this area of cricket history.

If you look at CricketArchive contributors you will see that John Leach is one of many people who contributed the thousands of scorecards and match references to the site. The page is not specific re contributions given but I can guarantee that these people did not merely write in with a question or two. For example, I believe that Peter Wynne-Thomas, who has an article on here, contributed massive amounts of information about Nottinghamshire CCC. My contribution amounted to about 95% of the site's 18th century coverage including nearly all the detailed scorecards.

Contributions to the ACS Early Cricket Project are recognised in detail. If you look at the list of contributors you will see my name and if you follow the matchlists (one per year) you will see that I contributed the vast majority of references given. Taking one page at random, you can see that the Matches in 1730 were contributed exclusively by me.

The information I gave to CA and ACS was based on the list of match references that forms the fundamental core of LTL but admittedly it is me personally rather than the site which is acknowledged as the source by CA and ACS.

I have been extensively published by the ACS both online and in their printed material: e.g., their main publication is the Cricket Statistician which is a quarterly journal. Examples of my ACS online work are this and this. I was also published by The Cricket Society whose secretary Mr Hignell personally invited me to contribute historical material based on my work in the ACS publications. I resigned from the ACS in 2007 due to differences with the committee about its policy towards cricket history and I decided not to remain in the Cricket Society because I have limited time for writing and I wanted to concentrate on the internet.

(addition) I've been reminded that my article The Monster Bat Controversy of 1771 was published in the Autumn 2006 edition of The Journal of the Cricket Society. Various articles about cricket in the 18th and early 19th centuries were published in the ACS Cricket Statistician from c.2004 to 2007 when I resigned from the ACS. I'm afraid I don't have those journals any longer so can't check the precise details. Since spring 2007, my writing has been confined to the internet.

Re Peter Wynne-Thomas who I mentioned above, he performed a review of LTL in its initial form although I should point out that he got someone to print it for him instead of viewing it on the internet. As a result, he took it out of its "comfort zone" and lost all sense of layout and presentation. However, it is the content that is important. His review is in the Cricket Statistician in either the 2007 autumn or 2008 winter edition. This was after I resigned from the ACS and the editor added a little note to the review which rather unnecessarily mentioned my resignation. Mr Wynne-Thomas recognised that the fundamental aspect of the work is the consolidated match references and he praised my industry in completing this and commented upon its usefulness (at that time a consolidated set of 18th century match references did not exist with references distributed across a number of not easily obtainable books). ACS reviewers tend to be very strict and do not hesitate to cite errors when they see them. Mr Wynne-Thomas did not cite any match references that were incorrect and I am sure that he did check them, or at least a substantial sample of them. Given that he is acknowledged to be an expert in the field, this finding says a great deal about the site's reliability. I have to admit that he did have some criticisms in other areas but they do not imply a lack of reliability and are effectively his opinion versus mine. He suggested a couple of extra sources (one of which I found useful, the other less so). He complained somewhat testily about the lack of original research (which must suit WP) but, as my preface clearly points out, the key purpose of the work is to consolidate existing match references. He disagreed with some of my opinions such as my view that Neville Cardus was the "wisest of all cricket writers", which is hardly significant. And he objected quite strongly to the geopolitical and general history coverage which he sees as irrelevant, whereas I would point out that the scope and theme of the work are clearly outlined in the preface and it does say that I consider the geopolitical and cultural background to be of great importance, so that is a matter of whether to present precise detail only or provide a big picture too.

LTL has received mentions in other media although I can't be specific about dates. The mentions were not unfavourable and were included in pieces about cricket or sporting websites in general. For example, the Daily Mail in c.2008 had an article about sporting websites and said that LTL carries a compendium of early cricket match references, or words to that effect, but made no comment about its quality. There was something in a similar vein last year in one of the Sunday papers, The Observer I think. The Wisden Cricketer had a piece sometime in the last couple of years which mentioned LTL among sites that cover cricket history but said nothing specific. I don't buy papers or magazines so I only know of these mentions after being shown or told about them by other people. The site is still quite new and early cricket has only a limited market, even among cricket fans, so I would not have expected even that much "media coverage". These mentions are only worth noting in passing: it is the CA and ACS connections that are key to this discussion.

I might add that Misplaced Pages itself has given credence to the site because, although I am biased, the core members of WP:CRIC are subject experts although most have only a passing interest in the sport's early history. However, none of these people have challenged the reliability of LTL apart from an interested question or two. I think this post by one of the most respected cricket contributors is an excellent summary of the overall CRIC position.

In addition, in his latest missive to WT:CRIC, my opponent actually states: Firstly scorecards copied from a variety of secondary sources. No issue on reliability here as the cards are available in several books, some dating back 100 years or more. Precisely. And, as I have said all along, it is the key purpose of the site to consolidate match references from all these old books (by the way, I don't use detailed scorecards there as they are out of scope and I have uploaded them to CA where they are appropriate). In another place, he complains that "There is no primary source here: i.e., he has discovered nothing new". As I have said, OR is out of scope and, given that the existing match references have been reliably sourced and reliably presented by someone who was indispensible to the CA and ACS sites re their early cricket coverage, the LTL site must itself be considered reliable.

Thanks for taking time to read this. I'll be happy to answer more questions but do please note that I don't have as much WP availability now as formerly. ----Jack | 06:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The desire has never been to question Blackjack's industry but he has raised three points:

1) The review of his web book and his article (which I accepted) in the ACS magazine was unfavourable.

2) It did not question the scorecards which were copied from other sources and sent to the ACS early cricket group where his contribution was noted. He sent the same cards to Cricketarchive which actually already had them.

3) The crux. BJ has undertaken no original research. His work is second hand. He is not an expert but an informed amateur. All the sources were research by others years ago. As a result:

4) He shows ignorance of context when adding comments and making observations about pre 18th Century Cricket. It is this that is at question. Thus he has a list of pre 18th Century County Champions. No one else has this list because it is his own little piece of fantasy. No one recognises it. His analysis of early cricket is so badly flawed as to require several pages to illustrae. The names he has mentioned, including Mr Wynne-Thomas concur with this view as do the ACS Early cricket group.

5) Upon being criticised by ACS he engaged in a series of aggressive emails to myself, Mr Wynne Thomas and others. He did not fall out with the committee.

6) Blackjack was not indespensible to the ACS or CA coverage. Mr Griffiths(proprietor of CA) has all the cards submitted by BJ to hand anyway. BJ was kind enough to transcribe them. The ACS ECP has all the cards and more. Again BJ transcribed them after which they were check for the inevitable typos and errors.

7) In summary BJ knows a lot about C18th matches but very little about the context, histography, research, primary souces(A point he is keen to make) or the methodology of interrogating such sources.

LTL is a reliable source of scorecards but the use he has made of his conclusions is simply so lacking in the items listed, as to be untenable for school homework. 88.108.10.117 (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)(On behalf of MA, PWT, KW, JG)

Let's have a few truths here. The writer of the above is called Mark Asquith (I am not "outing" him: he has admitted in his Richard Daft guise who he is) and he was briefly the editor of the Cricket Statistician. He was then dismissed by the committee for whatever reasons and he promptly resigned his ACS membership. This happened a year or more before my dispute with the ACS committee which was about their procrastination in moving the Early Cricket Project forward. None of that has anything to do with the reliability of my website and the thing you have to watch with Mr Asquith is random comments going off at tangents. So you can ignore his point (5) which is a complete fabrication.

The review by Mr Wynne-Thomas was as I have said above and was only unfavourable in terms of his views about no OR, the use of geopolitical and cultural background and a few minor differences of opinion. As far as the fundamental match references are concerned, Mr Wynne-Thomas did not find any faults at all and this is what matters in terms of site reliability.

CricketArchive may already have had 18th century match references but they did not publish them until I provided the definitive list which is why I am on their list of contributors.

Again with his point 3, he has completely missed the point that the intention of the site was NOT to do OR but to consolidate the existing references which were distributed across several old books. Why he cannot get into his head that you can write a book without doing OR, I do not know. He has previously complained about articles on WP because no primary sources are quoted even though he knows full well that we do not allow them.

Re point 4, no one else but him has questioned the context of the site and he is hardly one to question that. His own work on this site has shown a complete lack of context, especially Golden Age of cricket when he was using his User:Fieldgoalunit alias. That article had to be dismantled and restarted. Similar comments were made by the then ACS chairman about his editorship. And you will note how I have had to edit his above post to make it readable. In Mr Wynne-Thomas' review, nothing was said about context and, if the ACS Early Cricket Project shares his view, why did they acknowledge me as their main contributor? The assertion that a proposed list of champions is a fantasy must apply equally to the people who were involved in the production of a similar list for the 19th century, which is where I got the idea from. In fact, the official championship began in 1890 and any and all prior lists are merely mild speculation with the benefit of showing who the most competitive teams were over a given period.

Re point 6, the facts are as I stated them in my previous post and the evidence is in the online links.

Point 7 is just speculative rubbish about someone he doesn't even know.

And his final line is typical of the childish taunts he so readily adopts as in this post where he resorts to describing a good WP:CRIC member as "mental". His allusion to school is appropriate for someone who acts like something in a school playground.

I did hope that this discussion would be reasonable and mature and would involve genuine members of the site, but here we are dealing with a troll yet again. Where are the ground rules for WP:RS which will ensure reasonable and objective discussion? ----Jack | 15:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I resigned in fact(See the appropriate Journal). The 19th century list was arrived at over several years from contributions of distinguished experts. I didn't call anybody mental as the post shows. In fact in all these dealings have been temperate.

The 19th century list is pure speculation based on looking at known match results, exactly like the 18th century list. However, they both have the merit of highlighting who were the most competitive teams at the time. And, I'm sorry, but if you think your comment to AssociateAffiliate was not a childish insult then you have a problem. If you think you can ask someone if they are ill and then suggest they are showing signs of mental instability, then you have a problem that goes beyond being rude. That sort of cheap taunt is right out of order and we have had it on this site ever since you first came on. If you recall, the first admin who blocked you, User:Orderinchaos, did so inter alia because you threatened someone. But of course you are always so "temperate", aren't you?

Can we have an admin here to sort this character out, please? This is supposed to be an objective discussion about a site's reliability. ----Jack | 18:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we have an admin here to sort this character out, please? This is supposed to be an objective discussion about a site's reliability. 88.108.30.208 (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to the admin User:Tim Song, the troll who was using the IP range 88.108.x.x has been banned for one month with a block placed on the entire range. If you want to to study the sordid details of a sad affair that has been going on for two years now, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive.

Although this individual is the one person who has seriously questioned the reliability of my site, I am conscious of my obligations towards WP and I would like to take part in an objective and reasoned discussion about the subject with genuine site members and without IP trolls intervening. I've answered the questions above which are mainly around interaction with specialist cricket publications and I would now be happy to answer further questions by genuine site members.

I have to say, and I'm sure User:SGGH will agree with me here, that there seems to be no co-ordination or sense of purpose here. I get the feeling that the now-departed Mr Asquith is the only one with any real interest in the matter, though that is because he is pursuing his little vendetta. Please prove me wrong and ask me some more questions. ----Jack | 19:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

One point I should have made before is that other WP users have seen fit to cite LTL. This has certainly happened with cricket articles edited by members of WP:CRIC but one I was surprised to find recently was English inventions and discoveries. However, I don't see that as conclusive evidence. It might just be the result of a Google search as LTL does register quite well there, depending on who or what you are looking for. For example, see this return. ----Jack | 20:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of content to look at here, I'm going to take my time and by thursday or friday this week, I'll give my take on the matter. --Cameron Scott (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone provide *specific* references in regards to the sites (such as the Daily Mail, The Observer) that (as claimed above) have cited this site as an authority - because at the moment, it looks like it should be classified as a SPS and not used as a RS (although I am still investigating). --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing has turned up yet but people are looking far and wide... --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to look for another couple of days but unless someone can provide any of the links requests above, I will be inclined to say this is a SPS that should not be used because insufficent evidence has been presented that a) it's considered reliable and/or 2) blackjack is a noted expert. --Cameron Scott (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Cameron, I note that in respect of the newspapers and magazines, you refer to "sites" and "links". As I said above, the references were in the printed versions, not the online versions. As for the subject expert point, I would remind you of the CA and ACS links plus the precise date of one Cricket Society publication: these are the specialist cricket publications you requested in your first post in this topic. I would also point out that the IP user is a noted troll (see WP:ANI) who has been blocked on umpteen occasions. Although his edits in this topic remain in situ, I would within the terms of WP:BLOCK be entitled to remove them. Finally, have you noted the comments of User:Johnlp per the link provided to WT:CRIC?

It seems to me that there is a distinct lack of interest in this matter and if there are only you and I of genuine site members taking part, then we cannot possibly achieve a consensus. I suggest this topic is closed as WP:RS cannot resolve the issue and that we take the advice of User:Blueboar above and redirect the case to WT:CRIC. After all, with no disrespect to yourself, they are the people with expert knowledge of cricket. ----Jack | 21:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Is Dollywood.com a reliable source for the article about Dollywood?

This may sound like a stupid question, but is it? I ask because on Dollywood.com, things are geared more towards promotional stuff, rather than neutral information. Regardless, all the articles on Dollywood need citations, for example there is only one on that page. So if Dollywood.com does turn out to be a non-reliable source, would it be okay to use it temporarily until more reliable sources can be found? Thanks, Donatrip (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Only for uncontroversial facts. Obviously you could not cite it as a source for, say, it's own awesomeness. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Haha yeah I see what you mean. This helped; thanks Guy! :) --Donatrip (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Mulberry Harbour

I served with the Royal Navy in WWll on Deep Sea Rescue Tugs. While serving aboard HMS Jaunty we towed the Mulberry Harbour Blocks, in tandem with HMS Stormking from East India Docks in London where they were built, to Beachy Head. This meant we towed them through the narrow strauts that are between Dover and calais and known as E-Boat Alley. These blocks wer submerged and floated for towing to Arromanches following D-Day. Our ship was not involved in towing them as we were part of the group on the eve of the D-Day landings who went over to tow any hazards that would impact on the Troop landings. We were also there when the storm wrecked much of the Harboir at Arromanches and totally dismantled the Harbour at the American Omaha Beach. The US Deep Sea Tug USS Partridge and the Royal Navy Tug HMS Sesame were torpedoed on June 10 towing parts for th Mulberry Harbour off Arromanches. Harry Greenwood <email address redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.16.170 (talk) (talk • contribs) 05:50, 16 April 2010

I assume you are asking whether "you being there and seeing it" can be considered a reliable source for an article. The short answer is: No. You would have to write up your account and published it before we could use it... but we can not include material that is not published. The objection to your adding material to Misplaced Pages from your memory of events has less to do with WP:RS as it does with our policy of WP:No original research. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Harry, is this covered in, for example, Pawle's Most Secret War or some other source? Guy (Help!) 19:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Harry: As mentioned above, statements from editors are not suitable in articles. While that policy unfortunately excludes many useful contributions, you may appreciate that the policy is essential if you contemplate the many thousands of "unusual" people that populate the Internet and who would claim anything if the policy was relaxed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Query

Is it alright to use some tabloid sources for non-controversial facts in a biography? I've done-up Ben Thompson (actor), but was wondering if this is an alright practice for facts not covered in any other sources. Regards, Pyrrhus16 00:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Depends what is meant by a "tabloid". Which sources? Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The current refs 2 (Western Daily Press), 8 (Daily Record), 9 (Western Daily Press), 12 (Daily Mirror), 13 (Metro) and 14 (Daily Mail) are the ones I am wondering about. Pyrrhus16 22:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

TorrentFreak

Is TORRENTFREAK.COM a reliable source for technology news, specifically in relation to file-sharing and to establish the notability of computer software? It appears to be a small advocacy outfit, promoting copyright infringement, with no oversight or fact checking department. The Guardian and a host of reputable technology websites such as Wired News and CNET cover the same topics, including lawsuits, with greater impartiality. Wikispan (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

TorrentFreak falls in the area between an expert selfpub and a true secondary source. It certainly has a reputation for reporting on the details of torrent-based technology. According to our own articles, it apparently broke an important story on ISPs throttling peer-to-peer connections. A quick Google Books search showns that it's cited fairly often, and Google News indexes it as a news source. It's come up before on WP:RSN and much the same things were said.

You can always feel free to upgrade citations to a more reliable/more widely available/more original/or more background information source, but that's if they provide the same information. I would expect the Guardian or Wired to work in broad strokes, and more specialized sources such as TorrentFreak, Ars Technica, The Register, or Freedom To Tinker to provide the details.

Also, do you have a source that says they "promote" copyright infringement? There's many legal uses for torrents. I believe Misplaced Pages can be downloaded via torrent.

It should be fine for facts about torrent file-sharing technology. But it's probably too specialized to establish notability for a software package. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Several other sites have a reputation for reporting on the finery of torrent-based technology, most importantly, with objectivity. TorrentFreak bloggers habitually defend the practice of downloading protected works and they encourage readers to vote Pirate Party. I am struggling to understand how they are reliable for anything other than news stories about themselves and what the most Pirated movies on BitTorrent each month are. Google News also indexes Alex Jones' PRISONPLANET.COM and countless other unreliable sources, casting doubt on its usefulness as a barometer. (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As Wikispan says, the real issue here is no evidence of editorial oversight or fact checking by anyone with published credentials in a relevant subject area. That alone disqualifies it as a reliable source. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

A source does not become unreliable just by publishing opinions favorable to a political party which one Wikipedian does not like.

Squidfryerchef has said it well: The numerous citations of Torrentfreak in publications which are uncontroversially regarded as reliable sources (see also Google Scholar) show that the site has a reputation of being citeable with regard to its (limited) area of expertise. Given this reputation outside Misplaced Pages, it is irrelevant whether a Wikipedian is "struggling" to understand why all these scholarly articles, reputable newspapers etc. chose to cite TorrentFreak. Speculating about their editorial process also doesn't override this evidence.

Summarily, I think Torrentfreak can be considered a reasonably reliable source for factual statements in the area of filesharing and copyright infringement. In a case where its information is conflicting with that of other sources, or when citing it for opinions, extra caution should apply.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

TorrentFreak bloggers do offer a unique perspective in some regards. I do acknowledge that much. They are often first to publicly announce the arrest of individuals connected to the Warez scene and the closure of unlawful online file-sharing websites. They frequently share tips on encryption, as well as private trackers, helping visitors to stay two steps ahead of the law. A close examination of Google Scholar shows that many people find them useful for statistics on which games and films are most downloaded. However, they are not cited nearly as often as CNET, The Register or Ars Technica (or any other reputable source with editorial oversight) which have tens of thousands of hits between them, compared to just 128 for TorrentFreak. Wikispan (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The difference in the number of hits surely has something to do with the fact that CNET etc. cover a vastly larger area than TorrentFreak, which (as noted above) focuses on the rather narrow topic of filesharing. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources used in new edit to Platine War article

An editor in the Platine War article has made edits here citing works by Pacho O'Donnell and Diego Abad de Santillán. The most troubling to me is the use of the former to justify a lowering of the number killed by the dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas from a figure of between 2,000 and 20,000 to "80". As this seems to be quite a radical departure from the sources I've read, I'm wondering if this author/source is pushing a fringe view?

I've not come across materials from either author touching on this period, so guidance would be appreciated as to whether they are RS for the statements in this edit. There is some back and forth on Talk:Platine War that may or may not be enlightening. • Astynax 03:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that a drop from 20,000 to 80 is worth a challenge. If need be, directly attribute the numbers (suggest something like: "There is debate as to how many were killed. At the high end, noted historians X, Y and Z, estimate 20,000<ref>; Noted historians A, B and C puts the number closer to 2,000<ref>, while Pacho O'Donnell and Diego Abad de Santillán state it was only 80<ref>.") Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to know whenever O'Donnel is a reliable author or an unknown man making some weird story to draw atteintion to himself, I must point that he was Secretary of Culture of the city of Buenos Aires and Argentina itself, Senator, Deputy, ambassador in Panama and Bolivia. And his specific work as historian is recognized as well: he received the "Isabel la Católica" ("Isabella the Catholic") order from the Spanish King Juan Carlos I of Spain, and the "Palmas Académicas" ("Academic palms") in France (See here, the page belongs to the government of the province of Misiones). The legislature of Buenos Aires honoured him as illustrious citizen (see here, news article at "Clarín" newspaper). I have to note that the pages are in Spanish, but it's an Spanish author the one we talk about here. Suffice to say that the pages are reliable and unrelated with him: not reliable in the sense of talking about history, but reliable in the sense that we can take for sure that they are not "spamming" or lying. MBelgrano (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source from youtube

Hi,

The best reference I have found in support of statement was made by notable person is link to youtube video. The video include an interview with him in which he made this statement (In an Israeli TV show, at Israeli Channel 1, which is a reliable source), however-the Hebrew title that the one who uploaded the video to youtube choosed is hatred toward the speaker. I can't find other online version of this video. Can I still cite it as a sole source?--Gilisa (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No. Anyone can upload stuff to youtube, possibly after modifying it. Also, if the information being verified is worthwhile, it will appear in other sources that are actually reliable. Further, it is original research for an editor to select specific comments made by some person from a primary source, and then present those comments in an article (a reliable source may point out that the quotes were later withdrawn or were made as a joke, and so on. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq, it's an interview, it's not edited and if you can refer me to the specific policy that support all of what you assert (original resaerch and so forth) apply to an interview in You Tube automatically-do it. If you can't, then let others to answer my question. My question refered more to the title of the video than to its content.--Gilisa (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

A link would be helpful? What is the content that you want to include and the citation? Uploads of programs to utube also have possible copyright violations.Off2riorob (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Here it is, ( the one who's speaking is Azmi Bishara-he said there that he historically see Israel as part of south Syria and that there is no Palestinian nation, but an Arab nation. It's all in Hebrew, so I don't know how helpful it can be for you.--Gilisa (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Youtube videos would be reliable sources if both the original publisher and the uploader are reliable sources. If the title of the work is obscene that is unfortunate, but ultimately has no bearing on the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

How can it be verified that the video on youtube is the same as what was broadcast on TV? Modification of videos without leaving a clear trace is easy, anyone with a computer can do it. There is a good reason why youtube is not by default considered a reliable source. Zero 11:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Zero, it's not edited as can be easily understood from the video in which the frames are continuous as well as the language. Betty Logan summarized the main points for consideration pretty well-if both the original publisher and the uploader are reliable sources-then it's a RS.--Gilisa (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The uploader is not a reliable source in this case, is he? nov424? As I know utube links to support content are generally considered to be a bad idea, if the issue was notable a citation would have reported about it elsewhere anyway. Off2riorob (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, the uploader in this case is indeed not a RS. However, as for noteability, it was reported in many other places. What is valueable in the youtube link is that it's a direct citation--Gilisa (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, imo it doesn't appear usable in this case, at least you have the other reliable reports of the incident. Off2riorob (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, how about this? It comes from Arutz 7, which is a constant visitor on this noticeboard-and many times considered as RS.--Gilisa (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva was discussed here. To me it does not look as if "outsiders" found it a RS. And then to use it as a source in a WP:BLP? -Seriously. No. Huldra (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Anyway, surely if its a notable statement then it will be widely reported elsewhere. Otherwise there is a severe dash of UNDUE if this is the only place you can source it to. Spartaz 15:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

In general, youtube videos are not considered reliable. Often there are WP:copyright issues as well. The exceptions are videos created by and posted by mainstream news sources on their own dedicated youtube channels. Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

M. Avrum Ehrlich

User:Zsero has deleted the following paragraph from the article on Menachem Mendel Schneerson:

According to Erlich, towards the end of his life, particularly after his heart attack in 1977 his scholarship began to fade - one of Schneerson's editors, David Olidort, "told how most of Schneerson’s aides and editors adored him and saw him as virtually infallible, despite their numerous corrections of his failing scholarship."<ref>''The Messiah of Brooklyn: Understanding Lubavitch Hasidim Past and Present'', M. Avrum Ehrlich, Chapter 8, p. 80, note 35. KTAV Publishing, ISBN 0881258369</ref>

His rationale for removing it was untrue. olidort never told ehrlich any such thing. When I objected to this removal, on the grounds that the material was reliably sourced, he restored it again, with the rationale lies do not belong on wp, no matter who wrote them. a source that tells lies is by definition not reliable. The author, Ehrlich, was actually ordained as a rabbi by Chabad, the movement which Schneerson headed (and the movement to which Zsero belongs). Also, according to his bio, Ehrlich:

read Jewish Philosophy and Political Science at Bar Ilan University, completed his doctorate on leadership strategies of Hasidic masters at the University of Sydney. He was awarded a Krytman scholarship to research at the Cambridge based Centre of Jewish – Christian Relations, and was awarded a Chevening and British Commonwealth Scholarships to undertake research on religion, law and government at the University of Cambridge’s Department of Social and Political Sciences and later at the Centre for Advanced Religious and Theological Studies.

In addition to his other books on Judaism, Ehrlich has written Leadership in the Habad Movement: A Critical Study of Habad Leadership, History and Succession, (Jason Aronson, New Jersey, 2000) and The Messiah of Brooklyn: Understanding Lubavitch Hasidism Past and Present (KTAV, New Jersey, 2004). He was also the Editor-in-Chief of the Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora, (ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, 2008). He is currently a full professor of Judaic studies at the Centre of Judaic and Inter-Religious Studies at Shandong University.

Now, I understand that this statement is problematic for members of Chabad, who generally consider Schneerson to be the greatest Jewish leader and legal mind since Moses: indeed, many (perhaps a majority), consider him to be the greatest Jewish leader of all time, and, in their belief, the Jewish messiah (or even more). Thus they have worked diligently to keep any hint of criticism of Schneerson's abilities from the article: for example, the "Controversy" section in the article has no material in it at all, merely a link to a different article (Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson#Controversy). In addition, this paragraph is deleted on a regular basis; likely once a week or so, by my estimation. Keeping all that in mind, would Ehrlich be considered a reliable source for this claim? Jayjg 16:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think your agenda here is quite visible, and its funny how you don't even bother to disguise it. "Full professor at...Shandong University".....no kidding!!! He MUST be an expert, then.66.202.61.162 (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No Ehrlich would not be a reliable source for this nor any controversial claim. A researcher is only as good as his research, and people like Ehrlich WP:BLP violation removed cannot be trusted. This has nothing to to with Rabbi Schneerson, and everything to do with Avrum Ehrlich WP:BLP violation removed relying on hearsay. Normally, a top-line publisher would independently fact-check controversial claims, but KTAV isn't exactly 'top-line'.... they were best known for Jewish childrens novels, and Hebrew school textbooks. 99.237.138.36 (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:VERIFY, which states "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Your depiction of KTAV is inaccurate. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Note, this IP editor is User:Winchester2313 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Elazar_Shach&diff=next&oldid=348773538). Winchester2313, I've removed your WP:BLP violations, but if you continue to make them you will be blocked. Jayjg 23:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Edward Stone (clergman)

In the article on Edward Stone (clergyman) a user has advanced the theory that Edward was actually known as Edmund:

However, it is also possible that the Reverend was formally known as Edward, but was referred to as Edmund by his close friends and family. Wills of other members of the same Princes Risborough family support this theory and it is common for people to use "pet" names this way.

The citation given is "Buckinghamshire Records Office" No reference number is given to identify the family wills, but it is my understanding that even with full document references this would not be acceptable as it is not a printed source. Opinions appreciated.

Speculation based on primary sources - absolutely doesn't belong here, per WP:PRIMARY. (Barnabypage (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Unless there is a secondary source for the speculation it is WP:OR and should not be included. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

GamesRadar piece

Last week, Scapler (talk · contribs) added a reception section to Pokémon Black and White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that cited this article from GamesRadar. Since then, there has been discussion on the talk page as to whether or not this is actually an editorial piece and is not a reliable source for the content being cited. Another user who agrees with me MelicansMatkin (talk · contribs) also brought up that "the WikiProject (WP:POKE) seems to have developed a warped perception of reception as of late. Anything that even briefly mentions the subject is instantly seized and used for the article, even if it's almost completely irrelevant to the article". This is most certainly the case for the GamesRadar article. So is this 14 sentence editorial a reliable source when it comes to being a "reception" of a game that's six months from being released?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are my initial thoughts...Generally speaking, GamesRadar is considered a reliable source for video games. I'm not a Pokemon fan, but it looks like a reliable source for this article. However, I'm not sure the article expresses "disappointment". The article says "surprised", not "disappointed". Also, it makes no mention of the GameBoy being obsolete. (Yes, the GameBoy is old but Misplaced Pages has rules about WP:SYN). I think a better phrasing would be:

Justin Towell of GamesRadar UK expressed surprise that the games were not announced for the planned Nintendo 3DS handheld, and that the titles "Black" and "White" evoked an image of the Game Boy.

This is beyond the scope of this noticeboard, but IMHO, the second point about evoking an image of the GameBoy seems fairly unimportant, so I would drop it from the article. I think what our readers would really like to know is whether the game will be available for Nintendo's new system. So I would change it to:

There has been no announcement whether the games will be released for the planned Nintendo 3DS handheld, according to Justin Towell of GamesRadar UK.

And I would drop the reception section of the article and work the above sentence into somewhere else in the article text.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've incorporated your suggestions into the article as it stands as such. However, I believe that the author of the content will revert me fairly quickly, because the piece is purportedly a "reception" of the titles of the games being "Black" and "White" as opposed to something more "imaginative" in Justin Towell's opinion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Bloody-Disgusting

why is someone saying bloody-disgusting.com is a "questionable source"? its been cited 2000 times on wikipedia, also i think you should know the user has previously been banned from editing on wiki. :) thanks

This probably has something to do with this thread on the WP:IRS talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not as obvious an answer as it first appears from the name. (By the way, we have an article on them: Bloody Disgusting.) It's a relatively new website, and has a horrible name, but is starting to be cited by more reliable sources: The Scotsman; Time Magazine; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; MSNBC; again MSNBC. That's how sources become considered reliable, more reliable sources rely on them... but it's just starting that process. I'd say depends on the item to be cited. What is the item to be cited? --GRuban (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Its basically some information on the biographical article on Ali Larter, someone with the ip address 207.69.137.40 is citing the site as a questionable source. If someone could let them know it is a source because others also undid their revisions but he redid them. Very annoying. Thanks!

Interview in Independentpoliticalreport.com for BLP?

This interview in Independent Political Report for Wayne Allen Root BLP. Reliable?? Not mentioned in WP:RSN search. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless there are doubts about its legitimacy, I don't see why not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this article is an interview, which is different from a news story. In an interview, all the source needs to do is to accurately write down what the interviewee says. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Alexa rankings

The Global warming pages continue to help keep this board lively. We now have editors edit warring to remove Alexa rankings from articles about environmental blogs. As far as I know, Alexa rankings are currently the industry's standard tool for measuring site traffic. There are criticisms of Alexa, but the Alexa article contains these criticisms, so any readers can simply click over to the Alexa article and decide for themselves. Am I off the mark here in thinking that there is no justification in deleting mention of Alexa from articles on websites as long as the number is attributed to Alexa? Cla68 (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Can i ask why you aren't presenting the objections that have been made on the talk page? Perhaps you may even want to link the discussion - so that uninvolved editors can see that the objection is not about Alexa in general - but Alexa in context? Well - since you didn't - here is the discussion: Talk:DeSmogBlog#Traffic. Cooked down summary (of my argument): Alexa rankings are great for general purpose sites that get a distribution of visitors that is similar to the distribution of the general population - but for specialized or niche sites, the visitor distribution is not such. Therefore the information is basically worthless and in worst case directly misleading. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, Kim, allow the independent editors here to give their opinion. As I pointed out on the talk page, Alexa is referenced over 900 times in Misplaced Pages, with most of those referencing the Alexa rankings, so this is an important question as it applies to a lot more articles than just DeSmogBlog. Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am allowing them to give their opinions - but you have the responsibility of presenting the case in such a way that people understand what the request is about.... you failed that one, therefore i had to comment. As for your 900 argument - its irrelevant for the case at hand (see talk). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC) If you truly want independent opinions, why poison the well by leading off with accusations of "edit warring" as you have done here? A dispassionate, neutrally worded request for third-party views would have been far more appropriate. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

From the Alexa site, "Sites with relatively low traffic will not be accurately ranked by Alexa.". So it really is a case by case thing on a scale of 1-100,000+ with 100,000 being complete unreliability and 1 complete reliability. They claim. Weakopedia (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Comparatives, when available, can be a helpful determinant of the relative reliability of statistical data rankings. "Quantcast" provides statistical data as well. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I added the Quantcast number as well. Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

So far, everyone who has commented here is involved in the AGW topic. Weakopedia's comment, however, is helpful and gives me an idea about how to qualify the information in the article. Nevertheless, I still hope some uninvolved editors will comment. Cla68 (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

We now have editors edit warring to remove... gosh, how mysterious - editors edit warring to remove - but no-one edit warring to reinsert? Its another one-sided edit war! William M. Connolley (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, here is my view. On Misplaced Pages, we try to base articles as much as possible on secondary sources. Alexa ratings are a primary source, and using it directly can violate original research. If there is a reliable secondary source which says site X has Alexa rating Y, then it would be fine to use, otherwise, especially for controversial issues, it should be left out. Crum375 (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect (and though this rather off-topic issue was introduced as an aside by the OP), this is supposed to be a discussion of RS and attendant considerations for the Alexa statistical data. I would suggest that this thread is better suited to Talk:DeSmogBlog#Traffic JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm not sure that I would be considered an "independent" editor, to the extent that matters. I've contributed to talk pages on GW articles occasionally, but never edited the articles. On Alexa: it's a straw poll of sorts, as it counts hits by people who have the Alexa toolbar. Thus it is prone to manipulation on the margins, and is a questionable method of gauging site visits. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, of three independent editors who have commented here, two appear to be against and one suggested using Quantcast in addition to Alexa. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this needs to be looked at from another perspective as well. While Alexa or Quantcast determinations on relative rankings apparently become "less reliable" as traffic decreases, they DO appear to establish the fact of comparatively low internet traffic. That, in and of itself, is a fact that can be both reported and interpreted as the reader of any article might see fit to do. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Cla68 (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Then a second question arises that should be addressable here. Are Alexa and/or Quantcast also WP:RS for a valid factual assertion of relatively lower internet traffic? JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Since this question applies to more than just this article, I'm thinking of posting a wiki-wide RfC on using Alexa and Quantcast as sources for site traffic information in Misplaced Pages articles. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that is an excellent approach, but PLEASE compose it quite carefully. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll pass it by you before posting it. Cla68 (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting point on use of Alexa as an indication of low traffic. However, I'd be reluctant to perform an independent analysis of whether Alexa indicated that traffic is low, as I'd prefer a third party to do so. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point that warrants noting. IMHO, comments/opinions/assertions posted to RS/N's have considerable more influence and/or worth when the guidance and spirit of WP:VERIFY are applied. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a different point to make. I question whether an Internet search ranking has encyclopedic value at all. I.e., vague claims to being best are not a substitute for having quality content, and Misplaced Pages is interested in quality content.

I was a webmaster for a major company for years, and yes, I used Alexa to demonstrate to management that our efforts to improve the site were working. We never intended to use Alexa as anything more than a rough estimate of whether we had an effect. We all agreed the Alexa figures were subject to many problems. But when your site is shown to be greatly increasing in popularity relative to competitors ... that was just the double-check to confirm what we already suspected from our own much more careful analysis.

All data has a certain statistical uncertainty. In the case of Alexa, it's huge. Even more, most people don't have the time or patience to analyse how rating sites such as Alexa are particularly weak for their own purposes. Presenting traffice ratings in Wikpedia to innocent readers who do not have even the slightest experience with web analysis is utterly misleading. It is saying, in effect, without any specific supporting evidence that high traffic = truth. This kind of thinking needs to disappear from Misplaced Pages. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Evelyn Evelyn

There's been an ongoing dispute for some time now on Evelyn Evelyn about whether some fandom controversy about the band has sufficiently reliable sources to be mentioned in the article. Sources that have been proposed include this and this. More input about whether these are reliable sources would be welcome; it would probably be better to contribute on the talk page than here, since that way the other editors of the article are more likely to see it too. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Bostonist.com (your second link) is, by its own description, a blog site - so not a reliable source unless Kerry Skemp, the author of this article, is a noted expert on the subject. The reliability or otherwise of About.com must have been discussed before - I don't know if any conclusion has been reached but the general tone here is dubious: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:About.com#Blocking_about.com Barnabypage (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There have also been suggestions that the personal blogs of the members of the band Amanda Palmer and Jason Webley would be usable as primary sources for the existence of the controversy. Again, comments on the article's talk page would be helpful. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Progress Report & LewRockwell.com

Current argument happening at Talk:Libertarianism over the validity of a number of sources. One is The Progress Report. I'm not sure exactly what the site would be considered. Another is Lew Rockwell, which is a libertarian site. This is the WP article for it. Would these count as blogs, or opinion sites, or news sites, or maybe they can be used for some but not all types of sourcing? Torchiest (talk | contribs) 18:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

source #3 links a search engine Darkstar1st (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Blatantly false. It links to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, not a search engine. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

We should keep the main discussion on the talk page itself. I removed the IEP source, as it doesn't say anything specifically about the statement it is cited with. But I'm still curious about the other two sources I originally asked about. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 19:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No they are not reliable sources except for statements about themselves. Note however that some articles they publish were originally published elsewhere and can be evaluated independently. TFD (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No, source 69 "^ Foldvary, Fred E., Geoism and Libertarianism. The Progress Report." is a link to an editorial blog from a lecturer at the same private Santa Clara Jesuit university as this disputed source http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/sundstrom/Sundstrommanifesto.pdf used as the primary source on left-libertarianism page.Darkstar1st (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither of these are reliable. The first is very very FRINGEy, the second provides no information about it's editorial control or expertise. Hipocrite (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Source 10 of the left-libertarian page list the following self-published blog from an anarchist site: http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/tals.html I suggest we include an expert as several of the sources related to libertarianism appear to be manufactured in the last few years.Darkstar1st (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Opinion Sources in "2010 Itawamba County School District prom controversy"

I have concerns about a number of sources cited in the 2010 Itawamba County School District prom controversy page, some of which are polemics, being used to describe the actions (and occasionally the identity) of living people.

In order of greatest to least concern:

http://www.inquisitr.com/69069/constance-mcmillen-fake-prom-confirmed/

I think the problems with using the above as a BLP source are pretty obvious. It directly identifies and attacks certain people.

Added by edit: another commentary piece used as a source: http://theweek.com/article/index/201598/Mississippi_outrage_Fake_proms_for_lesbians

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/features/view/feature/Lesbian-Couple-Sent-to-Fake-Prom-1015

The source cited above is a link to opinion pages hosted by The Atlantic Wire. The article citation refers to it, incorrectly, as The Atlantic. The article is a personal commentary piece that cites other commentators and an interview.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20001910-504083.html

This is cited as CBS News, but is actually the CBS News Crimesider blog, specifically an opinion piece that repeats Internet gossip along with personal commentary.

Two more pieces used as sources:

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/05/ACLU_Investigating_Fake_Prom/

http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2010/04/07/13501391.html

These last two might or might not be RS, but the first is mostly interview and the second repeats commentary from social media websites and uses questionable diction ("fake prom", "hoax") some of is used in the article and justified by other editors on the grounds that it is supported by sources.

I think the BLP source standards apply to this article, at least in the context that these sources are used, since there seems to be a tendency to these sources to vilify one group of identifiable living people (students of a particular high school), and in some cases to stigmatize the general population of an identifiable geographical area. Geogene (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the Atlantic Wire citation to link into its section of the Atlantic article, which describes TAW as "a website associated with The Atlantic that aggregates opinion from across the media spectrum and summarizes significant positions in each debate." TAW's own About Us page further describes TAW as a "portal for opinion news" that "systematically tracks hundreds of opinion-makers from newspapers, web sites, television, radio, and magazines", "synthesizing and analyzing what’s out there, summarizing the significant positions in each debate", and "fram the key questions and disputes of the day and offer clear links to our sources."

The 2010 ICSDPC article plainly references facts from this source (rather than opinion, which I believe would also be valid as long as it was labeled as commentary.) AV3000 (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi AV3000. I agree with your description of the source, that it catalogs what it calls "opinion news" from "opinion makers". I also agree that the article is sourcing issues of fact from this aggregate of opinion pieces, facts that deal with the actions of living people. For example, that AW piece cites an Arianna Huffington op-ed condemning the recent preliminary court ruling, among other things. I don't think this material is RS as a source of facts. I continue to insist that it should not be used as such. Perhaps the original HuffPo op-ed it cites could be used, carefully, as a source of quotes from notable commentators (Huffington may be notable enough) condemning what happened, with those quotes identified as such in the article and attributed to the pundits behind them. That would be simply using an opinion piece to cite the opinion of the author, which I agree is probably an acceptable use as long as it is kept notable and there isn't enough to turn the article into an attack piece. Using such a source for facts is another matter, unless we're citing an expert on a non-controversial, non-BLP topic. Thanks for modifying the citation. Geogene (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

matzav.com

Is http://matzav.com/ a reliable source? Jayjg 00:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Reliable for what Jayjg? Book reviews, restaurant reviews, news of community events, I would say yes. News more generally, probably not. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Reliable for this claim:

In April 2010, Orthodox rabbi Ephraim Kestenbaum was quoted as recounting that his father, David Kestenbaum, a rabbi who had worked to save European Jews during the Holocaust, had been urged by Wise through him (Ephraim) to reduce his pressure on the American government, and that Wise had told him " Tell your father that he has to be an American and not to fight hard for Jews in Europe. You have to be an American first." Kestenbaum stated his belief that, but for Wise’s actions, President Roosevelt would have done more to save Jews in Europe.<ref>Yair Alpert, , Matsav.com, April 14, 2010.</ref>

--Jayjg 12:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a quote from an interview and probably not an interview directly with matzav.com. It needs to be traced back because otherwise this becomes info at 4th or 5th hand: matzav says that E. Kestenbaum says that D. Kestenbaum says that Wise influenced Roosevelt. But perhaps Yair Alpert is the author of the piece and can be seen as the source? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Flag

Flag appears to be willing to publish anything written by anarchy-sympathetic writers, and does not appear to have any real editorial oversight or review process. The about page says: "Located in Chico, California; run by individuals committed to the expression of free ideas; flag has provided free web space for anarchist thinkers since 1997. The content and views expressed on this server are in no way related to or endorsed by the owners of this domain or any of its upstream providers." The particular piece being disputed is here. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 13:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Flag is basically a hosting service for a wide variety of projects related to anarchism, so it confers no reliability on the piece. Having said that - a bit of Googling suggests that the author, Chris Faatz, may be a recognised authority on aspects of radical politics. Someone would have to dig deeper to establish this, but if so, his piece might qualify as a RS at least for some statements. Still far from ideal, though. Barnabypage (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You may be right. Looks like he's done work for The Nation, which would help establish reliability. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 15:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Fallingrain.com

Hi please join in the thread at here. Falling rain was compiled in 1995-1996 and lists false population estimated within a 7 km radius and altitude data which reliable government sources and google earth and consistently proved wrong, often dramatically so and oftne lists settlements or draws railway lines which no longer exist. Unfortunately many editors believe this data to be reliable and have used it or linked to it in over 9000 of our encyclopedia articles, presenting the read with false information or directing them to false information through external links. This site has recently been used as a source for the mass creating of generic stubs about Kenyan village. The creator is now aware of the problem and thanks to a Xenobot has now been dealt with but we still have 9000 articles using this as a source/link. I and other well trsuted experienced editors/admins such as User:Darwinek, User:Orderinchaos and User:Satusuro have called for this to be blacklisted asap and did so back in December. Four months later we are still stuck with 9000 links in articles and a lot of data which we know are false. It seems however this is not adequate enough for deletion and that a wider consensus is needed. Please can you comment on the black list page in the link given and offer your views on this situation. Thankyou. Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Racerhistory.com

Would http://racerhistory.com be considered a reliable source? ~EDDY ~ 00:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution