Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:59, 13 November 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.

Known issues section of Nexus 5

The known issues section of Nexus 5 was removed because none of the sources are considered valid. could an independent party check them one by one?

Is a description in a reliable source citing an unreliable blog reliable?

It seems to me obvious, but an editor disagree with it saying "RS question should be about the reliability of the source cited source, and not extend citation-by-citation to questioning the reliability of sources from which the source cited drew information." I am not saying the whole part of the reliable source is unreliable but the portion citing an unreliable source is unreliable. See the detailed discussion at Talk:Prostitution in South Korea#Reverted removal of the Japanese sex tourists in South Korea section―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Not nearly so obvious. For one thing, we don't hold our sources to the same standards we hold our articles - for example, if a wikipedian were to write "I was there on the scene and X happened", that's blatantly unreliable, but if a book or newspaper article were to write exactly the same thing, that's perfectly reliable. We let our reliable sources use their rules, not ours, and we do not automatically override them because Misplaced Pages automatically discounts blogs.

In addition, there is an additional link in the chain back to a reliable source that you're missing. http://www.ecpat.net/sites/default/files/exsum_a4a_eap_south_korea.pdf, which is from ECPAT, a reasonably reputable NGO, is citing http://www.rjkoehler.com/2009/12/15/korea-still-prostitution-paradise-japanese-internet/ - a blog - but that article itself is citing http://www.munhwa.com/news/view.html?no=2009121401030827216006&w=nv which is Munhwa Ilbo, a 24 year old Korean daily newspaper, which is again sufficiently reliable by our standards. I think in this particular case this particular source meets our standards for reliability. --GRuban (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I would like to confirm an important general point, not specific to this case. Wtmitchell says that if a cited source by Misplaced Pages is reliable, a description in the source is reliable even if the description is based on an unreliable source: "RS question should be about the reliability of the source cited source, and not extend citation-by-citation to questioning the reliability of sources from which the source cited drew information." He says the reliability of Munhwa.com is "All off that is just incidental". What do you think this idea?

In this case, I concluded that even if Munhwa.com is reliable, the article doesn't support the claim because it says nothing about the child sex.20:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix7777 (talk • contribs)

That's a different point. While I agree we shouldn't question the reliability of every step in the chain, that's not to say that we should perpetuate obvious errors; even reliable sources do make errors. Yes, I would see if we could find a better source for this edit, because you are right, we don't see the word "child" in either Munhwa Ilbo or rjkoehler, and it does seem to be a rather important point. I did a quick search for korean child sex tourism, and found a lot about Korean men visiting other countries for it, and nothing about Japanese men visiting Korea for it. It would be a shame if we would be perpetuating a clerical error in the ECPAT report. --GRuban (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was not trying to make a point saying (quoting above) "if a cited source by Misplaced Pages is reliable, a description in the source is reliable even if the description is based on an unreliable source". The point I was trying to make is that a source which draws some of its information from a blog is not thereby rendered unreliable. In particular, in the case at issue here, this source is not rendered unreliable by its citing of a blog as one of its sources of information in its note number 14. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We should not second guess reliable sources and of course some sources, i.e., tertiary sources, provide no citations. Writers of reliable sources are able to weigh sources, including ones that do not meet rs for Misplaced Pages articles. What a reporter actually saw is one example. However, one must distinguish between when a secondary source is using one of these sources to support a statement of fact and when it is being used as an example. Frequently articles will quote witnesses, but that does not mean what the witnesses said was reliable. It may even be contradictory. TFD (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Can a description with a citation in a source be used in Misplaced Pages, if the description is not supported by the citation?

I summarized the current dispute below. This dispute began as a reliability issue but now became a verifiability issue.

A description (South Korea remains a major destination for travelling Japanese men who exploit children through prostitution.) is written in a source (ECPAT report) with a citation (a blog which is a translation of Munhwa.com). However the citation (Munhwa.com) discusses nothing about the child prostitution at all. An editor insists to use the description just because the source (ECPAT) is reliable, totally ignoring the description is not supported by the citation (Munhwa.com). ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

A ECPAT report is not a Misplaced Pages article. ECPAT would have their own policy as to how the citations are used in their publications; and any given citation is by no mean the only source for reaching certain conclusion in their reports. STSC (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough; you're saying that the sentence South Korea remains a major destination for travelling Japanese men who exploit children through child prostitution contains 2 elements: (a) that Japanese men travel to South Korea for sex and (b) that some of these have sex with children in South Korea. That their cite only confirms the first part does not mean that ECPAT don't have another, uncited, source for the second part.

The problem I have is that this is the only source that I've been able to find for this statement. I've seen plenty about Japanese (and Koreans) going to poorer countries for sex with children, but nothing about Japanese going to South Korea for it. Given that there is a question regarding the veracity of the ECPAT report on this point, we should confirm before inclusion. Also, surely if it was notable we'd see it reported elsewhere (which would fix the problem)? Bromley86 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The ECPAT as a reliable source has reached that conclusion with their own findings, and we would include their conclusion in the article unless there are other reliable sources challenging its finding. And the burden of proof (to prove that they are wrong) is on you. Besides, South Korea is much nearer to Japan, why wouldn't Japanese men go there for child sex? STSC (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You're asking me to prove a negative; it's highly unlikely that I'm going to find a source that says, "Japanese men, whilst responsible for a lot of the demand for child sex in South East Asia, are not a real problem in South Korea." I've searched fairly extensively and not found that statement; more importantly, I've not found a single statement, other than this ECPAT one, that Japanese men are engaged in a significant level of child sex tourism to South Korea. The best I can do is point to the ECPAT report on Japan (the one on South Korea, that mentions once Japanese men, devotes a far larger space to what Korean men are up to; logically, then, we might expect to see a similar section on what Japanese men are up to in the Japan Global Monitoring report). There is, on p.12, and it talks of Cambodia, Philippines & Thailand. No mention of South Korea.

I'm involved in a similar discussion elsewhere, but on the other side. In that case though, there are plenty of reliable sources that confirm the statement. In this case, there's one and there's reason to doubt it (footnote does not support statement).

As to why a Japanese man looking for child sex would choose to go to a country further afield than South Korea, I wouldn't know. Presumably because it's cheaper and more easily available? Certainly, the US 2014 Trafficking in Persons Report indicates that that is the case, "Japan serves as a source of demand for child sex tourism, with Japanese men traveling and engaging in commercial sexual exploitation of children in other Asian countries—particularly Thailand, Indonesia, Cambodia, the Philippines, and, to a lesser extent, Mongolia." No mention of South Korea there, despite its proximity. Bromley86 (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't you find the answer in the ECPAT report itself? It says, "The absence of criminal provisions on child sex tourism in South Korea provides a major impediment in combating the problems." STSC (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion, attribute the statement to the source than, unless it can be verified as fact, and not a conclusion made by a source, don't write it as fact, write it says X says Y(inlince citation to X source).

ECPAT is an organization, just like CATO Institute, Heritage Foundation, Brookings Institution.

Are there other sources that make this claim?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Media as RS for their own controversies (GamerGate)

Something that occurs to me after reading about all this GamerGate stuff -- is it appropriate to consider pieces of media reliable sources for controversies that they themselves are the subject of? Extending that, what about pieces of media owned by the same company (for example if a Gawker property is subject of a controversy are other Gawker properties RS)?

It seems...inappropriate to consider something an RS for a topic when it has an express business interest in taking a particular bias in it's coverage, which is always going to be the case when it's the subject of a controversy (in the case of GamerGate, Kotaku needs it to not be about ethics in journalism and alleged misbehavior of some of it's writers as much as possible because it makes them look terrible, and so have an express interest in not representing it as being about those things, as potentially does Gawker as a whole). Schadrach (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the particular situation. See our policies on questionable sources (note the footnote about conflicts of interest) and on using such sources as sources for statements about themselves. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Since every other uninvolved RS says it's not about journalism ethics, I don't see why Kotaku and Gawker can't be RS as well on it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

As DrFleischman says, it depends on the situation. Ultimately, a reliable source is one that has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Generally speaking, Misplaced Pages prefers third-party sources. WP:V says to "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources" (emphasis mine). And as DrFleischman points out, WP:V cautions against using sources with an apparent conflict of interest. OTOH, sometimes, first-party sources can have an excellent reputation for reliability. Consider, for example, the US government's 9/11 Commission report is a highly respected (if not definitive) source about the September 11 attacks. When in doubt, you can use in-text attribution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

DrFleischman and Quest are correct. In this case, media outlets that were targeted by GamerGate prior to writing anything about the controversy (Gawker as a whole, for example) cannot be considered third-party sources for the subject, but any that wrote about it before being targeted (Washington Post, etc.) were third parties at the time of writing, and are thus better sources to use. Random the Scrambled 05:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That logic falls apart when gg makes the same baseless claims against NYT / Guardian / BBC anyone else who writes about them in a manner they dont like. The allegations of being not a reliable source have to have some basis or third party confirmation before they are given credence in knocking established publications from the RS category. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

All three of those sources you listed were uninvolved before they wrote about GG, so no, it doesn't. The issue isn't general reliability - it's that they weren't written by a (then-)third party. Random the Scrambled 06:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Kotaku was "uninvolved" before GG made demonstrably-false and discredited allegations about one of its employees. The fact that GamerGate has attacked something does not render it unreliable for our purposes. If anyone *besides* GamerGate considered the accusations to be meaningful or well-founded, we might have a different discussion. But literally everyone not in the tank for GamerGate (ranging from Columbia Journalism Review to PBS NewsHour) has examined the claims made against Kotaku and found them to be specious nothingburgers. So we helpfully quote all those other sources refuting the claims, along with Kotaku's own report on its investigation. We are not solely basing the statement on what Kotaku itself says. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank TRPoD for pointing me here. Anyways, I'm probably using this for the fivethousanth time, but "Employee X of Gawker media did not do y. Source: Gawker Media". Gawker Media and its network of news/blog sites, depending on which day of the week it is, should not, under any circumstance, be considered reliable, being described as a tabloid. Additionally, the only instance where Gawker should be cited, is for the section on Operation Baby Seal (in which gamers and others are emailing Google and Amazon themselves to report proven violations of their ad systems). If anything, Gawker media should be blacklisted as a reliable source on Misplaced Pages, if anything, given their low, low standards of "reporting", bloglike nature, and otherwise low quality "news". Clickbait. It's nothing but clickbait. --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times as RS for statement about event

Salvatore J. Cordileone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I can't believe I'm doing this, but...is this Los Angeles Times article a reliable source for purposes of stating in Misplaced Pages's voice that the event described was a rally against same-sex marriage? This seems obvious to me, but other editors at Salvatore J. Cordileone are insisting on attributing the statement as an opinion in order to give equal validity to the claim, cited to right-wing religious sources, that it's not a march against anything and is in fact a rally for marriage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The article appears to have undergone a few revision since this inquiry was posted, however, it appears you posted after this edit by you. The question appears to be whether the article should state:

Cordileone took part as a featured speaker in the June 2014 March for Marriage in Washington DC, a rally against same-sex marriage. Catholic and conservative press described it as a march for traditional marriage.

...or...

Cordileone took part as a featured speaker in the June 2014 March for Marriage in Washington DC. Catholic and conservative press described it as a march for traditional marriage, others as a rally against same-sex marriage.

I happen to agree with the first version, but I prefer the second version as it appears to be more neutral. There is a bit of a double standard in allowing the Los Angeles Times (viewed by many to have a liberal bias) to be the voice of Misplaced Pages while alluding to The Washington Times citation as "conservative press". When in doubt, attribute the source. -Location (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see evidence that the LA Times is known as having a liberal bias. The failure to have a strong conservative bias is not a liberal bias. On the other side, the Washington Times is known not only for having a conservative bias but for having a conservative agenda. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Prefer the second, and it's not a matter of bias; if we have reliable sources saying two different things, we don't pick and choose, we say both, and attribute each. We don't have to decide who is and isn't biased. --GRuban (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The LA Times is certainly well known as having a liberal viewpoint (Although there were rumors for a while that the Kochs were trying to buy it which certainly would have shaken things up), but regardless GRuban is correct. The second is more neutral and is practically required by WP:YESPOV and WP:BALANCE (Both subsections of WP:NPOV) However, I would say even further, we should not be saying "conservative press" vs "others" and just name the sources directly. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the point alluded to was that one source was unbiased and therefore reliable for a statement of fact (i.e. Misplaced Pages's voice) but that the other was biased and therefore only reliable for a statement of opinion. On this point, there is one study (Google "A Measure of Media Bias") that shows The Washington Times closer to the center than the LA Times. Inserting "conservative press" rather than "The Washington Times" also appears to be a bit of editorializing on our part that could be used to lead the reader. -Location (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the question is less "did this thing happen" and more "what's the appropriate language to use to describe it." These other users at the article seem determined to show same-sex marriage as a POV term that can only be someone's "description" because it's not actually real marriage (if you look at the article history there are other recent attempts to remove references to the person's opposition to same-sex marriage). But this doesn't reflect the journalistic or academic standards of reliable sources and it doesn't reflect usage on Misplaced Pages. If a source has a known or stated agenda, we might (or might not) decide they're reliable for facts, but can and should question their use of language, especially when it diverges from the language used in proper sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, it appears as though you are stating that the LA Times is a proper source but The Washington Times isn't. Three uninvolved editors have suggested attributing each source. Why ask for input if you're really not interested in it? -Location (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

In response to an indication courteously given yesterday on the article's talk page of the existence of this discussion, I added, late in the day for me, the consideration under the heading "The problem" below. I now add here that the view expressed by Location, GRuban, and Gaijin42 respects Misplaced Pages's NPOV pillar, Roscelese's does not. As Location said, "when in doubt, attribute the source". Esoglou (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

LA Times legitimately journalistic WashTimes is like FOx News

Aside from any specifics in this particular instance, in which the hair splitting is being carried to a fine art, I feel that it is important to refute a fallacy in the above argument. It is really an "equal weight" fallacy to equate WT and LAT as somehow equally biased. They are not. I am not saying WT is never RS for anything but it has been a right wing hit piece screed sheet from the git go and the Times is one of the dwindling breed of fine American newspapers. Anyone who does not see this needs to lay off the Fox News and Michele Malkin and Rush Limbaugh IMHO. And I am very "right wing" in some ways on some issues, but I can distinguish news from editorial slant.Wikidgood (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2014

This has no basis here IMHO, this noticeboard is to evaluate articles against WP:IRS; all three sources Los Angeles Times, Washington Times, and Fox News, meet IRS. Whether they are biased or not is a question about usage, yet allowed under WP:BIASED. Statements like the one above lead to criticism of Misplaced Pages and work against the pillar of neutrality IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Articles in the LA Times are more often reliable, and more reliable, than the Washington Times to be sure, with Fox News falling somewhere in between — though it is neither a binary question or one of scale. If the Washington Times or Fox News report that it rained in Virginia or that a restaurant has become popular, they are usually reliable for that. When evaluating whether a source is reliable and how much weight it carries you have to look at the specific article, who wrote it, and how it relates to the subject. When reporting on politically charged subjects in which the Times is advocating, it is rarely reliable. Regardless, this particular issue appears to be a question of terminology, not of sourcing. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem

Is it appropriate for Misplaced Pages, dealing with the disputed matter of the 2014 Washington March for Marriage, to present one view as fact, rather than as "the general view" or some such phrase? Citing a single newspaper, Misplaced Pages at present states that the March was a rally "against same-sex marriage". Afterwards, it mentions that two classes of sources hold a different view, and that the person who is the subject of this article denies outright what Misplaced Pages in its voice and without qualification presents as simple fact; but by presenting a different view as fact, Misplaced Pages (again in its own voice) implicitly declares these other ideas incorrect. Is this acceptable? Esoglou (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Insofar as I can follow your post, I think you're asking the wrong question. This isn't really a reliable-sources question. It's a terminology question: do we use "same-sex marriage", "traditional marriage", or both? The term "same-sex marriage" is in widespread use by independent, non-partisan reliable sources. In contrast, the term "traditional marriage" is used largely or solely by socially conservative sources. Therefore, I think Misplaced Pages should use the former term rather than the latter. "Same-sex marriage" also has the advantage of being clear and comprehensible. In contrast, "traditional marriage" is a vague, unclear term for those of us not steeped in the partisan sources where it's generally used. After all, in Western society marriage was "traditionally" arranged by the parents of teenagers without their input or consent, or in exchange for a dowry of livestock. In other cultures, "traditional marriage" may involve polygamy or child brides. Presumably these are not the sorts of "traditional" marriage at issue here, but all the more reason to use the more precise and less culturally-restricted term in what is, after all, meant to be a global encyclopedia. MastCell  19:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a march. (fact). Group A says it was "anti-same-sex-marriage" (opinion). Group B says it was to promote "traditional marriage". (also opinion) (Or to promote their interpretation of/what they say is traditional marriage - but that might get into synth). Its not terminology. Its accepting one opinion as wiki's voice vs two opinions as their own voice. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Esoglu it would be helpful if you would clarify as requested above: Insofar as I can follow your post, I think you're asking the wrong question. This isn't really a reliable-sources question. It's a terminology question: do we use "same-sex marriage", "traditional marriage", or both?

Is that what you are getting at here?Wikidgood (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

What I put here was something I was preparing for insertion on the article's talk page, not for here. I was trying to make it as non-confrontational as possible, the reason too why I was making no reference to the 3RR violation by the editor who was repeatedly presenting one possible interpretation as plain fact. In the context for which it was intended, it would have been clearer, and there would have been no danger that "traditional marriage" would be interpreted as you interpreted it. Unlike me, Gaijin42 expressed the problem with perfect clarity. Esoglou (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It is my opinion that Gaijin42's proposal above is the most neutral of proposals, it treats neither as dominate, thus meeting WP:NEU.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The terms in question are "against same-sex marriage" and "in support of traditional marriage". They are both equally weighted political shibboleths used by opposing sides in the current culture wars. The question is that the detractors of MFM describe it as the former, and the supporters describe it as the latter. I have personally offered plenty of WP:RS using the latter terminology. They are both POV terms. So Misplaced Pages has no business accepting either one of them as neutral - just because most of the media sources anyone is reading today has a liberal bias does not mean that Misplaced Pages needs to incorporate that bias. Otherwise we're systematically agreeing to violate WP:NPOV on a regular basis and saying that we have to because we are slaves to a certain set of WP:RS that a majority of editors utilize to write articles. This is not just liberal vs. conservative, either. This is Catholic vs. non-Catholic as well. It is a well-known fact that the mainstream media has a deeply seated anti-Catholic bias and routinely misreports doctrine and practice - even mainstream "Catholic" publications do this! And we're being told that Catholic news sources are too biased to use for writing this and other articles. Well, that's not an excuse. Re-read WP:BIASED. Elizium23 (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I question the understanding of WP:NPOV on display here. The relevant policy section is WP:POVNAMING, which states: If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. "Same-sex marriage" is a widely-used term and appears across a wide spectrum of highly reliable, independent sources. In contrast, "traditional marriage" is a vague and relatively obscure term, the use of which is largely confined to partisan websites and organizations. Therefore, the term "same-sex marriage" is consistent with WP:NPOV; it is misguided, and against policy, to adopt a he-said-she-said, false-balance approach here. (The opposing partisan/POV term to "traditional marriage" would be "marriage equality", not 'same-sex marriage"). Finally, any argument which relies upon the premise that reputable media outlets have a pervasive, nefarious anti-Catholic bias is ridiculous and is going to be ignored, at least by me. MastCell  21:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Nobody here has questioned the legitimacy of using the expression "same-sex marriage"; the somewhat off-topic comment about a supposed anti-Catholic bias in certain media was made in relation to a characterization of Catholic media as biased. The question was and is whether the cited sources justify presenting, in Misplaced Pages's voice, one account ("the 2014 Washington March for Marriage was a rally against same-sex marriage", i.e., against the introduction of same-sex marriage in the US) as objective fact, while presenting another account ("the 2014 Washington March for Marriage was a rally to defend traditional marriage", i.e., to keep marriage as traditionally understood in the US") as no more than an opinion held by Catholics and conservatives. Surely, both accounts could and should be presented either as objective descriptions of the March or as subjective interpretations of it, not in this lopsided fashion. Isn't that what the cited sources support? Esoglou (talk) 11:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other. "...a rally against same-sex marriage" and "... a rally to defend traditional marriage" are both statements of fact. They're semantically equivalent. Neither one is a statement of opinion. They simply choose different terms to describe factually the aims of the rally. This is where Misplaced Pages policy comes in: the term "same-sex marriage" is neutral and widely used in reliable sources, whereas the term "defending traditional marriage" is restricted to lower-quality, partisan sources. Therefore, of the two factual descriptions of the rally's aims, we should choose "... a rally against same-sex marriage". That's my outside input. Now I think you should wait for other outside input, since I've said my piece and we've gone around in circles more than enough. MastCell  17:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

But why are the sources low-quality for merely expressing a different viewpoint? Why is the corollary true, that the other sources are high-quality and less biased, more neutral? I contend that the so-called high-quality neutral sources are nothing of the sort. Furthermore, they describe two different activities. Opposing same-sex marriage is a currently popular political activity. Defending and promoting traditional marriage is something that has been done for thousands of years by Church and State alike, long before the question of redefining it ever came on the scene. Defending and promoting traditional marriage is a more comprehensive activity, and it is this activity that Archbishop Cordileone has been commissioned to do by the USCCB, and it is this activity that defines and describes his career, not "opposing same-sex marriage". Elizium23 (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

MastCell, there has already been outside input, none of it on your lines. Your latest declaration demands an answer. What you call statements of fact are statements of opinion. At least the first is. The term "same-sex marriage" expresses an opinion that the arrangement is indeed a marriage, a claim that does not have 100% assent. Though not neutral, it is widely used, because its meaning is universally recognized, but recognized as an expression of opinion, not as an undisputed description of objective fact. In the US context, which is the context of discussion of the 2014 Washington March for Marriage, the term "traditional marriage" is not at all as much an expression of opinion. Only if viewed as implying rejection of interpretations of "marriage" as encompassing non-traditional forms does it become in that context an expression of opinion, . Esoglou (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at this fresh, it appears to have been an anti-gay marriage rally, not a rally that broadly supports marriage, and reported by most of the sources as such. The prevailing term for that is same sex marriage. If the organizations supporting the rally want to cloak that in a justification that they are supporting marriage just not the gay kind, and press with conservative agendas want to use self serving euphemisms like pro-family, traditional marriage, traditional values, etc., we don't need to get caught up in that. If this is just a dispute over terminology that should be the long and short of it. If there is a question of just what the rally was about, then we have to look for more sources. The sources always differ slightly, it's our job as editors to distill them. Pointing out that different sources say different things is a cop out, and not encyclopedic, unless the fact that the sources disagree is itself part of the notability of the subject matter. The fact that sources characterize the march differently is of no biographical relevance to the religious leader in question. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Nobody doubts, Wikidemon, that "same-sex marriage" is the prevailing term. Not everyone, even among those who may use it in discourse, considers it a neutral term. Everyone would agree that in your view "anti-same-sex-marriage" is the only objective description of the 2014 Washington March for Marriage and that in your view the organizers and the person the article is about were (either mistakenly or in bad faith) only using self-serving euphemisms when they called it "for Marriage", "in defense of traditional marriage", "pro-family". Not everyone would agree that Misplaced Pages should in its own voice present your view as fact. Not everyone would agree that presenting your view as fact "is of no biographical relevance" to Cordileone, especially since he explicitly denied what you state. Not everyone would agree that the fact that a wiki-reliable source such as The Washington Times described the March as "in defense of traditional marriage" should be cast aside. I think few would accept that presenting your view in Misplaced Pages's voice is in accord with Misplaced Pages's WP:YESPOV norms such as "articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc." Esoglou (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

They're not opinions, they're observations. My opinions do not matter here. Misplaced Pages's voice reflects mainstream reliable sources, written in encyclopedic tone. We use common terminology and avoid partisan doublespeak, hence we call it what it is instead of adopting the language of the advocates. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Your observation/opinion/preference, and that of the media that you think superior, namely, that the March was an anti-same-sex-marriage rally, contrasts with Cordileone's observation/opinion/preference, and that of some other media, that the March was a pro-traditional-marriage rally. Misplaced Pages itself says (WP:YESPOV) that, in such cases, views should be attributed. Esoglou (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is the policy statement that sources must be "mainstream"? It is clear we must avoid partisan doublespeak, and you've been using a lot of it in your opinions/observations. Much of the mainstream media uses partisan doublespeak, is that our excuse for violating WP:NPOV and allowing it to permeate articles here? I suggest that mainstream liberal media sources are less reliable for documenting the life of a Catholic bishop or the March for Marriage; while it's useful to document the controversy and present opposing viewpoints, Misplaced Pages is required to be more neutral than the sources we report on. Elizium23 (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

My preference is irrelevant, as is the old horse about the mainstream media supposedly being liberal. Avoiding the tone of partisan and fringe sources is fundamental to building an encyclopedia. "Same sex marriage" is the most common term, being more precise and less formal than the term it has gradually been replacing, "gay marriage". It is completely neutral, as it describes without any exaggeration or judgment the specific attribute of the marriages that is at issue, that two people of the same biological sex are recognized by the government as having the civil status of being married to one other. All of the sources, including the Catholic news service coverage of the Archibishop's speech at the rally, the text of his speech, and his letter, acknowledge that the rally was in opposition to the specific issue of same-sex marriage, not a general-purpose rally in support of marriage. They all describe it as two sides in opposition over a pending issue before the courts, the straight versus the LGBT community, and so on. The Archbishop's terminology is an effort to reframe the discussion, not a disagreement over what his position is or that of the rally. His efforts to justify himself and his controversial position to a local community and the broader public that largely disagrees with him do appear relevant to his biography. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You've missed the point again. The issue at hand is not about the term "same-sex marriage". It is about whether the March for Marriage (and more widely, Archbishop Cordileone's work on the USCCB Subcommittee) can be described as "against same-sex marriage" or "defense/promotion of marriage". It's an issue of framing. Liberals want to frame this as equal rights, fair treatment, one issue at a time. Conservatives argue that this is about redefining marriage and family, a paradigm shift in perspective and the latest symptom of a general malaise regarding traditional family values. Cordileone has been commissioned to defend and promote marriage, that is his job description, that is how the Catholic Church sees the issue. Cordileone engages in catechesis and teaching, as he is a bishop, not a politician. Cordileone is not angling to make life hard on homosexuals or to deny civil rights, Cordileone wants to encourage everyone to consider marriage as a vocation and a lifelong commitment and the fundamental building block of families. The fact that he is against same-sex marriage is significant, but framing the debate to make it all about this issue is WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. As I said, marriage has been defended and promoted by Church and State for thousands of years. The NOM, its March for Marriage, and Cordileone contend that they are simply carrying this forward, and that viewpoint should be represented properly in the article; opposition should also be represented properly, and NEUTRALLY. Elizium23 (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I can see arguments going both ways here... but the message I'm seeing from editors on both sides, correct in my view, is that this isn't a source reliability issue but a neutrality issue (what Elizium calls a "framing" issue). So, this is really the wrong forum. I'd suggest WP:NPOVN or WP:RFC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions have also been raised on the talk page about the reliability of Catholic sources, which are supposedly low-quality because they are biased, while liberal sources are more high-quality because they are mainstream and biased in the other direction. I would like to see more discussion on those points. Elizium23 (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Our neutrality guideline makes no distinction based on relative reliability among sources (see WP:NPV#Bias in sources) so again, the discussion belongs elsewhere. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman is right. It is a neutrality issue, and WP:YESPOV gives clear guidance on how to deal with such issues. Esoglou (talk) 07:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Taiwan Outlook, 4th trial

This seems to slip into the archives before it got adressed every time it is posted, what is this? Have I missed something? So I repeat the question again here.

Question: Can we use quotes from this televised interview for the 'Prem Rawat' article? Is it a primary source, or is it upgraded by being broadcasted by an independent public news format like Taiwan Outlook? In this case, can we quote Rawat's attitude toward critics, which he displays in the video around 20:00 ?http://www.ocacmactv.net/mactv_en/video.htm?sid=53570&classid=12--Rainer P. (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Primary. Certainly no problem with using it for direct quotes. I can't see a problem with using it to represent his opinions, as long as there's no controversial wording or interpretation. Bromley86 (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

tellychakkar.com

Articles of this website, tellychakkar.com (such as this and this), are used as reliable sources in many Misplaced Pages articles related to the Indian television. One such article is Bade Achhe Lagte Hain. Some users have questioned the reliability of this source while others aren't sure enough. For instance, Yunshui had told me that it appears to be possibly an acceptable source as "it has an editorial staff and appears to be a professional outfit". Similarly, when I asked MichaelQSchmidt, he said: "See this. Started in 1999 by media and television analyst Anil Wanvari, the site Telly Chakkar (aka Tellychakkar, tellychakkar.com) has editorial oversight, and it would appear suitable as a reliable source and defendable at WP:RSN should it ever be questioned. Interstingly, both founder and site have notability enough to support their own separate articles.) Even nicer that it is India's most widely read online media, advertising, marketing & satellite television resource (see WP:USEBYOTHERS). But as hyperbole seems habitual within Indian media and we cannot control the often-flowery tone of its articles, when using information from this site, be sure to neutralize the tone and give proper attribution."

He further added - "This source may still be taken to WP:RSN, but as noted above is defendable as a source...(as) RSN brings in more eyes." So I just wanted to be sure whether this source is reliable or not. Tamravidhir (talk!) 08:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Avoided using it as citation before, and I would still do. It is not reliable because it is good for gossips, not very much for televisions shows or television actors. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)revisedBladesmulti (talk)

@Bladesmulti: No doubt that anyone used to reading The New York Times or Washington Post would cringe when reading similarly accepted sources from India. Is your preference to ignore all Indian sources that use the flowery hyperbole and braggadocious tone prevalent throughout their media... even those with editorial oversight and a reputation for (flowery) accuracy? My own thought is that if we do cite anything to such sources, we make the great effort to neutralize what is being paraphrased and give proper attribution. Schmidt, 19:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

tellychakkar is the media wing of a PR firm "About us: Apart from conceiving and executing promotional campaigns targeted at the Media, Marketing & Television Trade online, it also offers similar services offline, thus providing clients with a 360 degree media service and marketing solution. " it is not a reliable source for anything. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

User:MichaelQSchmidt I agree and I would also suggest that if any sort of information is direct violation of BLP or it seems to be gossip, we happen to disacknowledge many reliable citations. I think it is great if you can find same information from any other citation/website. I wouldn't support any blanket removal of this link, but if it could be replaced with another reliable citation, it would definitely work. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get off track... as Tamravidhir was asking above using it for weekly ratings data, not about a BLP issue. But heck, even those epitomes of "reliability" New York Times or Washington Post are for-profits companies with muliple self-serving for-profit non-news enterprises. So? Misplaced Pages-defined reliability is determined through editorial oversight, reputation for accuracy, and wide acceptance through being acknowledged by others. WP:RS tells us that RS may be determined though who is writing, and not just where his writings are published. So looking beyond tellychakkar's for-profit sidelines, we examine its Editor-in-chief Anil Wanvari, reporter: Kavita Yadav, sub editor Srividya Rajesh, and other editorial staff to determine qualifications and expertise. Not focusing on one cherry-picked sentence from their more informative "About us" page, or speculating on gossipy tone, or judging it over its puffy articles, Tamravidhir's base question boils down to a simple "is it okay for TV rating data?" I would say yes, for that data. Schmidt, 04:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. Your proof about their editorial credibility is indeed convincing. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@MichaelQSchmidt, Bladesmulti, and TheRedPenOfDoom: I have seen esteemed newspapers such as Times of India write articles which make it seem as if it were also a wing of a PR firm. At times some newspapers even collaborate with producers to promote a film or e teleshow. And they seem to unfairly promote them. However they do the same with almost every show, sometimes promoting them while at times even criticising them. So it isn't unfairly promoting then? It is what the Indian sources are. They use hyperbole excessively. But if we reject all these sources then we will be having nothing left and Tellychakkar posts information put together by agencies such as Indo-Asian News Service , TAM Media Research and Press Trust of India and at times even by other newspapers. And many such sources are accepted as reliable sources because they are have a reputation, proper editorial oversight and so on. As per WP:BIASED , "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". And although these appear to be promotional they aren't actually because they use hyperbole and that is what Indian sources use. So we can't question them on this basis and on the basis of WP:QUESTIONABLE. If they are rejected then Indian television related articles will be devoid of any reliable sources. And can't we use Tellychakkar for other informations such as premiers, integration episodes, shooting, production and making? Tamravidhir (talk!) 08:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

tellychakkar.com deals in gossip, rumor, hype and "scandal". The number of reliable sources covering the India entertainment industry are really quite limited but that doesn't mean a gossip site can be used as a reliable source. Aryan.for.you (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Aryan.for.you: By you comment it seems that you have expressed what tellychakkar seems to you. Do you have any proof (evidence) to support your claim, Aryan? Tamravidhir (talk!) 09:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

we have proof from their "about us" page that they are a PR marketing firm. thats all we need. their concern is promoting their clients not accuracy and fact checking. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: But that one sentence no way makes it an unreliable source on Misplaced Pages, right? Misplaced Pages does not say that if a source qualifies all the criteria of a RS but it's "About us" page says something else them it's unreliable. Tamravidhir (talk!) 14:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

To be a reliable source the three prongs must be met. Anything published by tellychakkar is failing the prong that the publisher has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy because BY DEFINITION a PR Marketing firm as the publisher does NOT meet that criteria. Their sole responsibility is to get out information about their clients. In addition, as a PR firm they are not independent from their clients and so even under SPS they would not be allowed as a source for anything unduly self promotional- when you are talking entertainment industry, pretty much everything falls under the umbrella of promotional.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, What they are publishing is the second part. First it is not a entertaiment news site, it's a PR marketing firm which doesn't qualify for reliable source. Aryan.for.you (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tamravidhir: Please understand that when two editors (one established, one very new) have similar editing styles, make similar arguments, ignore the rest of that page and focus on just one sentence as "factual" on an "about us" page while at the same time asserting "everything" on that site is unreliable... while being unable or unwilling to support their personal opinions through any actual research into editorial staff to see that the staff has expertise required by WP:RS or if the site itself has the required widespread acceptance, then please know that nothing you write will sway them. Best to step away and allow others to provide research beyond a personal opinion, and avoid any useless back-and-forth. We're talking here only about TV ratings data, so best not to be diverted and WP:BLUD the discussion. Schmidt, 18:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

if "focusing on the one sentence" where they declare themselves to be a PR firm is insufficient reason to exclude them (and its not, its prima facia why we should exclude them) we can then focus on another sentence "The exclusive peppery online destination for the hottest news on TV shows and movies, tete-a-tetes with TV and Bollywood stars, spicy gossips and much more." which even if they were NOT a PR firm would ALSO be sufficient in and of itself to identify them as a tabloid gossip machine that is unacceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Their admitting inclusion of some gossip does not denigrate the entire site, nor its editorial staff nor its interviews nor its harder news articles. As even prima facie arguments allow reasoned rebuttal, perhaps you meant res ipsa loquitur? Without offering links to research to support your view, your opinion has not met its burden. As pointed out above and ignored through side-tracks, most forms of accepted Indian media make use of flowery language and hyperbole in their authored articles. Such use does not make reliable sites somehow unreliable. That this one actually admits to it is refreshing. Further, while tabloid formats are brief, being brief does automatically make them non-RS. However, if you contend that tellychakkar as a source is unreliable, it fails WP:V for you to then use them to denigrate themselves... an interesting Catch 22. I instead chose to look beyond their self-admitted puffery to examine its editor-in-chief Anil Wanvari, reporter Kavita Yadav, sub editor Srividya Rajesh, and other editorial staff to determine qualifications and expertise. Either they are reliable enough for us to accept their self-admitted use of the puffery prevalent within their industry and move on, or they are not. Lacking any offer of research, and without other sources supporting your claim, we have an interesting dilemma, as even blogs and bloggers have articles within WIkipedia and can be used to cite articles.

Lest it be forgotten, the original question waaay above dealt only with the site's suitability for TV ratings data. And as the ratings data are not controversial nor unduly self-serving, I believe the sources as offered can remain until replaced by others. Schmidt, 23:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Lest it be forgotten that as a PR firm, pimping the ratings for your client or showing that your clients competitors are weak are standard tactics and clearly make a PR firm unsuitable source for such information. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to bring in notice the recent tv rating figures which was manipulated. The week 38 (2014) Comedy Nights With Kapil TV ratings on ] and ] is 4.0 which is correct but on Telly Chakkar it was 6.2 ratings and this sites have followed it ],] and then Telly Chakkar has deleted the entire rating page of week 38 (2014). Similar incident happened in week 43 (2014) also and Telly Chakkar has deleted the page again. Both the said week ratings are not available now on Telly Chakkar at present. Even in their all available rating page like this and this its mentioned "(PS-As per data provided by TAM Subscriber)" which indicates ratings are provided by subcribers not TAM India directly then How can Telly Chakkar can be added has reliable source for TV ratings also? Aryan.for.you (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Aside from this one showing tellychakkar as one of Indian Television's properties, bringing forth sites with no disclosure of even having an editorial staff only implies these others do not vet their informations... not tellychakkar. I suppose each of these others should be taken to WP:RSN themselves, and lacking discernible editorial oversight will do poorly. Schmidt, 10:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@MichaelQSchmidt, Aryan.for.you, and TheRedPenOfDoom: I don't know what you are talking. I don't understand what you are talking. i don't understand where this discussion is going. Seems to me as a battlefield. I see no tellychakkar in the sites mentioned by Aryan and I Michael I didn't understand a bit of what you mentioned on my talk page. I don't know. I don't know. I don't want this to take a toll on my real life. I have much to do than this stuff. I just do this for self satisfaction and to make Misplaced Pages better but then someone comes and says don't do this and don't do that even if I know I may be wrong. Showing power? Showing authority? What does psychology say me? Let me think. Uuh! Maybe.What will happen one day? I will die no one will see edits from this account anymore. And probably know one will know the face behind this mask. Anyway. Am I lonely? Am I sad? Am I disturbed? Who cares about asking that! Anyway. I don't know. I'm bad. I'm terrible. And you have to be. You can't smile away if someone slaps you and passes by. This discussion is going nowhere. I don't understand anything. My one question to all of the editors of Misplaced Pages who have commented here, or have read this or are reading this is that just because tellychakkar does a certain kind of job or provides certain kind of services it becomes an unreliable source? It fulfills all the criteria of a reliable source then why not? Tamravidhir (talk!) 13:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

My discussion entirely: Does the media wing of a PR Firm meet the reliable source criteria of fact checking, accuracy and having editorial oversight? No, their motives are to promote their clients. Under SPS, there might be some very limited uses, but I cannot actually think of any. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Then I feel that you aren't comfortable using the source personally. But now even if I agree that it is a wing of a PR firm" then tellychakkar still appears to meet all the RS criteria. And thus this question should be directed not just to you but to the entire Misplaced Pages community. Tamravidhir (talk!) 13:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tamravidhir: lets make it simple. Does the source (this and this) added by you says the ratings are accurate?, Do Telly Chakkar claims its official ratings provided by TAM India to them? No. Its says "(PS-As per data provided by TAM Subscriber)" which means ratings are provided by TAM Subscriber to them. TAM Subscribers are TV channels, TV shows producers, Ad agencies, Media etc. So ratings provided by any of Subscribers cannot be measure as accurate thats why Telly Chakkar has itself mention on each page that data are from TAM Subscribers instead of TAM Media Research. Aryan.for.you (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Aryan.for.you: If it says that the ratings have been provided by TAM then it's very good. And you are yourself contradicting your points. I would like to bring it to your notice that TAM Media Research is one of the only two television audience measurement analysis firms of India. And its more authentic because it was appointed by the Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA), the Indian Broadcast Foundation (IBF) and also the Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI) in 1998. Then? Now, please don't say that IBF is unreliable! Tamravidhir (talk!) 15:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

OH you are going from where to where without getting my points. I am not saying ratings provided by TAM is unreliable, I am saying ratings published on Telly Chakkar cannot be measured as accurate. If it says it's from TAM then its official TAM India ratings but its saying TAM Subscriber that's makes the differences. This type of tricky line is used by the media wing of a PR Firm to manipulate ratings according to the clients without facing legal troubles. They have done it in week 38 (2014) and deleted the complete page and same repeated in week 43 (2014). Try to find out the ratings of week 38 and week 43 you won't get it because it is deleted. There is a difference in "provided by TAM" and "provided by TAM Subscribers". Aryan.for.you (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Aryan.for.you:Aren't over interpreting Tellychakkar!? :/ And I had already mentioned above that Tellychakkar at times shares the articles published by Times of India and other newspapers and Times of India and few other regularly get updates from TAm so it is possible that Tellychakkar might have got it from some other source. Not only is this is a hypothesis but so is yours. we are assuming everything. Everything's being deduced. there's nothing concrete which is now needed. Tamravidhir (talk!) 16:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't have to "interpret " anything. Tellychakkar have positioned themselves as a PR Marketing firm. Therefore NOTHING they say about anyone who may be a client or may be a competitor to one of their clients is in any way acceptable as "reliable" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: I would like to repeat what I said earlier - "Just because Tellychakkar does a certain kind of job or provides certain kind of services it becomes an unreliable source? It fulfills all the criteria of a reliable source then why not?" Tamravidhir (talk!) 16:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

As a PR firm it CANNOT fulfull WP:RS criteria because it inherently FAILS WP:RS criteria. You cannot make apple sauce from oranges. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Please could you pinpoint where does it say so? I couldn't find it. Tamravidhir (talk!) 17:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

do you not understand what a PR marketing firm does and why that is inherently oppositional to requirements for being accurate, fact checking and having editorial oversight? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: I repeat again - Tellychakkar fulfills all the WP:RS criteria. So just because it does a certain kind of job or provides certain kind of services it becomes an unreliable source? Tamravidhir (talk!) 17:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

YES "just because it does a certain kind of job or provides certain kind of services it becomes an unreliable source". A reliable source is one that has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. PR FIRM's by their very nature do not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy - quite the opposite. They have a reputation for saying and doing ANYTHING that will promote their client or demote their client's competitors. What is so hard for you to understand about that? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tamravidhir:Got it.. Check the proof (evidence). See the difference in the ratings of Comedy Nights with Kapil in the week 38, 2014 Indian Television and Telly Chakkar. TV ratings of Comedy Nights with Kapil was added higher than what it achieved (6.2 from 6.5 in week 37 instead of 4.0 from 6.0). Telly Chakkar always publish higher ratings for their clients. This is why PR Marketing firm cannot be used as a source because it's not a reliable. This is the difference in "provided by TAM" and "provided by TAM Subscribers". Aryan.for.you (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm out. Why? 1) TRPOD's repeated res ipsa loquitur assertions are not supported by reliable sources and, 2) new user A.f.y. essentially parrots his arguments while also failing to supply any properly reliable sources in support. Repeated offerings of unsourced opinion does not meet the burden. 3) I have spoken my piece, offered my research into editor and staff, and in deciding to not WP:BLUD this rather WP:TLDR discussion, I am leaving it under WP:STICK. Have fun all, Schmidt, 21:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@MichaelQSchmidt: What does it means by new user? I have seen it repeatly used by you in the discussion, does it lowers the value of discussion? Coming to point I have added 1 evidence of how PR Marketing firms works to support my claims. This was not the first time, It has been repeatly done by them. I don't know whether you are aware of how PR media marketing firm works. If there are no other source available for it that doesn't means a PR firms can be used has a reliable source. I still disagree in supporting Telly Chakkar has a reliable source for anything. Aryan.for.you (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Unreliable: I agree with TRPoD without reservation. PR firms' publications are inherently unreliable. PR firms put their clients' first, i.e. ahead of the truth. That is their job. If it wasn't they'd be out of business. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

* @MichaelQSchmidt, Aryan.for.you, and TheRedPenOfDoom: I still couldn't understand why a website can't be unreliable even if it fulfills all the criteria just because it does a certain job. I still couldn't understand the comparison made by Aryan as the Indian television website provides the ratings in TVTs while Tellychakkar has provided the ratings in the form of TRPs and apart from this the ratings given by Indian television are not in points as mentioned by Aryan. I still don't understand anything. But I'm leaving this discussion so that other editors might be able to put forward their opinions and research. But I still couldn't understand anything and due to this I would find it better to leave this discussion. I would like other editors to comment and give their opinions. As of yet I feel that no proper consensus has been achieved. But that's my perception. And I would not dare to generalise it. And Aryan I guess that Michael called you a "new editor" as compared to him, myself, and TRPoD, you are relatively new. He didn't say so to belittle or demean you. We were all once "new editors" and I'm proud to say that I am still a new editor as I have a lot to learn yet. I have lot to know. I have lot to understand. Tamravidhir (talk!) 14:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be asking "why cannot we treat an apple tree as if it were an orange tree? They are both trees." We do not care if they are trees. We care whether they are giving apples or giving oranges. PR firms are by their very nature paid to promote their clients / denigrate their client's competition -creating oranges. They have NO reputation for what we need in a "reliable source" ie actually being a source for reliable information -creating apples. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Tamravidhir, please note that it's the burden of the person attempting to add or restore content to establish the reliability of the supporting sources. This means that if no consensus is reached then the material should generally be excluded. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

pingmag

any opinions about pingmag? (specifically this article http://pingmag.jp/2007/09/05/cosplay-girl/ for use in Fursuit) a prominent link on the page points to Write for us! and this article is The by-line is Written by Chiemi. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Appears to fall under WP:SPS, useful for citing opinions, but not facts.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

GiantBomb for basic descriptions of game mechanics

I have used GiantBomb as a source for explanations of certain game mechanics here, here and have also seen it used here. Some of these are well supported by other sources that may not specifically state a definition of the subject at hand (i.e. sources that assume the reader already knows about the topic it discusses). Can a GiantBomb reference be used for a basic description of a certain game mechanic or concept, so the rest of the article could explain its importance, impact, etc? How good of a source is it anyway? Articles tend to have few editors and need to be approved by somekind of moderator. Maplestrip (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's still a wiki though, even with that (apparent) editorial control. There's better stuff out there (here's one I found for FoW, although that does feel a bit like providing a source for "the sky is blue"). Bromley86 (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for replying. I'll see what I can do :) Maplestrip (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Do note that there are Giant Bomb reviews/articles by the staff (eg like Jeff Gerstmann), and then there's their game wiki side. The former are reliable sources but the latter is not. Note that for a game that has received a good # of reviews, that one should be able to find gameplay descriptions in those reliable source reviews to augment such discussion; if the details of the gameplay are not described in those reviews or is not the subject of discussion, that probably means its too much detail to go into for our article. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not about gameplay for specific games, but gameplay in general. Descriptions of specific mechanics common in many games. Those mechanics are often not explained in reviews of specific games - for example, a review might state "the game makes use of fog of war", but it might not explain what fog of war is. The website seems to have somesort of glossary, though, which I am referring to here. Apparently it is part of the wiki-part of the website. Thanks for sharing your knowledge :) Maplestrip (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Is the Anandabazar Patrika WP:RS

Anandabazar Patrika is a the most circulated Bengali newspaper published since 1922 and has a sister newspaper called The Telegraph (Calcutta) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Why does the question arise? As a mainstream newspaper, it certainly fits profile of WP:RS. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a dispute over the use of this source in Ahmed Hassan Imran hence felt it will better if this is clarified.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course, it is. A mainstream Bengali newspaper. --Redtigerxyz 07:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Any newspaper is not a Reliable Source across the board, the reliability also depends upon context of the content for which it is considered as an RS. So, each case needs to be examined in this light, in addition to the fact whether or not it is a mainstream newspaper. AshLin (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, it definitely is a reliable source. A reliable source is one that is subjected to editorial oversight and has a reputation of facts-checking and accuracy. Anandabazar Patrika fits in well. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment is free

Hi,

I was wondering if somebody could clarify whether the following should be considered a reliable source:

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/27/turkey-murky-depths

Article: Fethullah Gülen

Content:

However, his Gülen movement has been described as "having the characteristics of a cult" and its secretiveness and influence in Turkish politics likened to "an Islamic Opus Dei".

I understand that the Guardian Newspaper is considered reliable as per Misplaced Pages:Suggested_sources however I was unsure about Comment is free given that this is a comment and political opinion site within theguardian.com. Many thanks RookTaker (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I would think that quote should be usable under WP:RSOPINION only if properly attributed. Schmidt, 23:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

My first reaction was that it, of course, is not reliable. However, I see that they do list an editor for CiF, although presumably the level of editorial control is minimal. In this particular case though, rather than the article being attributed to an author, it's attributed to Editorial. C.f. this similarly attributed CiF article that's titled, "The Guardian view on Labour’s poll ratings." That looks a lot like an official statement, implying (to me, anyway) that the article you want to use is similarly officially a Guardian piece. Bromley86 (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, ignore me. Just seen this: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." So what Michael said. Bromley86 (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks MichaelQSchmidt and Bromley86. Should the quote therefore be updated as follows:

However, according to the opinion site Comment is free in The Guardian newspaper, his Gülen movement has been described as "having the characteristics of a cult" and its secretiveness and influence in Turkish politics likened to "an Islamic Opus Dei".

RookTaker (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you need to mention the CiF part, as it is a Guardian editorial. I had a look at the WP The Guardian entry and saw this, "Responding to these accusations, a Guardian editorial in 2002 condemned anti-Semitism and defended the paper's right to criticise the policies and actions of the Israeli government, arguing that those who view such criticism as inherently anti-Jewish are mistaken." So, in this case:

"However, an editorial in the The Guardian described his Gülen movement as having "some of the characteristics of a cult" and its secretiveness and influence in Turkish politics likened to "an Islamic Opus Dei". (note the "some of" - quoting should be exact)

I'd also be tempted to include the full quote ("Hizmet, which has relatively moderate Islamist views, also has some of the characteristics of a cult or of an Islamic Opus Dei.") as a quote=, just because it's the easiest way of quickly drawing attention to Hizmet=Gulen movement for those looking at the cite. That wouldn't be necessary if this is moved to the body, as I've added an AKA to the section dealing with the Gulen movement.

Finally, I'm not sure this belongs in the lead. Fair enough having it in the lead of the Gülen movement article, but I think it's inclusion in the lead of a BLP on the strength of one opinion piece might be questioned. Definitely in the body though. Note though that I'm not a particularly experienced editor, so I may be off. Bromley86 (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bromley86 - for now I will update the quote in the way that you have mentioned. I agree that perhaps this should not be in the lead of the Fethullah Gulen article, though this can be discussed further in the relevant board. RookTaker (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Opinion sources are almost never appropriate for lead sections, even when properly attributed. They have to be carefully balanced with opposing viewpoints, and usually doing so will end up either giving undue weight to that particular aspect of the subject or causing extreme lead bloat. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DrFleischman - if that is the case, then I will go ahead and remove the sentence from the lead of the Fethullah Gulen article. I will keep this sentence in the Gulen Movement article however as this seems to be the more appropriate place to keep this. RookTaker (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Universe Today

I have a question about if a source a reliable source or not. The source is Universe Today and is available at . My opinion is that this source is a group blog and as such is not a reliable source. My only question is because it is called a "News website" is that sufficient to make it a WP:NEWSBLOG or does the fact that it has no publication and no commercial nature at all prevent that. --Obsidi (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no particular opinion on Universe Today. But "no publication" is wrong (or unclear) - the website is a publication. And "no commercial nature" is wrong as well - I see plenty of ads on that web page. The important question is if it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and if there is editorial oversight. The user comments are certainly not RS, but the posted stories may well be at least as reliable as your standard newspaper "science" section. What is it used for? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably unsuitable. No matter what it calls itself, or the fact that the site has advertising, Universe Today appears to be WP:SPS created by Fraser Cain on crowd-funding Patreon as hosted on Godaddy However, it is conceivable that like Roger Ebert and his Rogerebert.com we might have RS found through expertise of founder, or paid editorial staff, or WP:USEBYOTHERS should it be determined. Schmidt, 03:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Page: List of highest-grossing Pakistani films

Has entirely unreliable sources, some don't even refer to figures at all. In fact the page is being used as an attempt to reify those figures to which the page is suppose to refer. Chief offenders are of course non account holders. I put a deletion notice on this article which was removed with no discussion. I have been watching this page for more than a year, and the figures quoted have changed in the list in an extreme escalating fashion (factor of more than 10 in one case with no change in reference!), so we can safely assume representatives of at least some of the film's are using the article to plump up perception of their products performance. A quick check would reveal a lot to an experienced editor. As I do not know how to proceed, I would like at least some advice on this article which I consider to be quite pernicious and damaging to a fragile industry that needs sources like this to be beyond this kind of manipulation which is rampant elsewhere. PakArtPatrol (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Aren't the normal Misplaced Pages mechanisms adequate? If the sources are not reliable then you can delete them and tag the figures with {{cn}}. If the sources are reliable then the figures given should agree with the sources. If not, they should again get a citation needed tag. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

YouTube-videos

I would like to add a sentence to the 'Media'-section of the Prem Rawat-article, like: "In the 21st century Rawat gave several extensive interviews to public TV-stations", and use links to the tv-corporations' websites as sources. In some cases the interviews are not available any more on the stations' websites, but they can be retrieved as Youtube-videos, like e.g. this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbYGhnChLT0 . The station logo is visible. Are such videos RS? Can they be used to reference to that statement?--Rainer P. (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If you know a program was aired that included factual information, you can cite it as a television program or episode, without having to include the link to it; things like the show, broadcaster, date, episode#, etc. all are sufficient details to meet the verifyability policy. Now, as to whether you can link that video, that depends on whether the uploader (this Willex Television group) is affirmed to be the copyright owner of the show, and if the owner's identity on youtube is reasonably verified to be them, as the bulk of YT videos are generally considered copyright violations (uploaded by people without copyright allowance) and should generally not be linked to. If they are the copyright holder and they are who they claim to be, then yes, you can then include that link in the citation template. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Now the above video seems to have been placed on YT by the Willex people themselves, as it appears on their own YT-channel. What does this mean for us? https://www.youtube.com/user/WillaxTV/search?query=Prem+Rawat--Rainer P. (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It's without a doubt their YT channel, as their webpage links to it. Bromley86 (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. So do you conclude that it can be used as a RS for the above purpose?--Rainer P. (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It absolutely can be used, as long as it supports the content you are adding/verifying. Melonkelon (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

For stating that he gave interviews, yes. (Not that you asked this, but for directly quoting or summarising what he said, yes; in that case, use the cite av media "time=" function to cite where it happens). A much better source though would be someone else, or even his website, saying that he's given interviews, as otherwise you're courting WP:OVERCITE (he's given a fair few interviews, from what I could see). Bromley86 (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Two quotes that were deemed unacceptable?

Dorje Shugden Controversy is the article. http://www.amazon.co.uk/British-Buddhism-Teachings-Development-Routledge/dp/0415395151 British Buddhism by Robert Bluck

In the early 1980s the Dalai Lama restricted reliance on Dorje Shugden to private rather than public practice. The tension this caused within the Gelug and wider Tibetan community may reflect some opposition to his ecumenical approach.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Buddhism_in_Bath.html?id=oK8_AAAACAAJ Helen Waterhouse from University of Leeds, Department of Theology and Religious Studies

"in spite of his predecessor the Thirteenth Dalai Lama having banned the practice, commenced during negotiations between Tibet and China prior to the 1959 Chinese takeover. The Dalai Lama’s reason for first consulting with Dorje Shugdan was his need to decide between two courses of action and the absence at that time of the oracles with which he would normally consult in order to access wisdom beyond the human realms."

Both quotes are to give some context in regards to the Dorje Shugden Controversy. The reason they were deleted is because the authors/texts were deemed not sufficient enough for this topic, that their books don't talk about more of Buddhism/that their focus is narrow, and that they had been criticized for being critical of the Dalai Lama. Thoughts? Prasangika37 (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

References

1. Bluck, Robert. British Buddhism. Page 131

Citations that reference self-published sources (eg Amazon CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform)

I have opened a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:citing sources#Citations that reference self-published sources (eg Amazon CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform) on the acceptability or otherwise of self-published materials. Should they be regarded as expensive blogs and subject to the same ban? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This discussion isn't appropriate here or at Misplaced Pages talk:citing sources as it hits at the core of WP:Verifiability. A major change to policy (WP:SPS} should be discussed at the policy's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Self-published books are self-published books, and they are already covered by WP:SPS and related policy. They're not completely "banned" but they aren't generally acceptable for many claims on Misplaced Pages. This editor just seems to have been unaware that self-published books were already covered by existing policy.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Are brochures handed out at speeches reliable sources?

The article on Eric Diesel has many questionable sources. Some are introductory biographies of speakers at conferences, for example:

Biography of PAVA English Language Public Relations Manager Eric “Oops” Diesel, Kodak Theater Du Doong II festival brochure, Pacific American Volunteer Association, Los Angeles, CA, December 5, 2007

Are these types of sources considered reliable? What about unpublished transcripts of speeches, for example:

Korean Veterans Memorial Unveiling Ceremony transcript, Hae Soung Kim, War Memorial Park, Glenora CA, May 22, 2009

How would one go about verifying something like that? Lampuser (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Only if the speech was somehow reviewed by something akin to an editorial staff. Academic conferences would count. Exception would be if the page was about the speech giver themselves. Then it can be WP:SPSSELF. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

And before we even get into self-published, were these "sources" even published, ie can a reasonably determined editor access and verify their contents? If the content is verifiable only by persons attending the concert or hearing the speech in person, then the sources are no better than "I heard/read it somewhere" and are not usable on wikipedia. On the other hand, some brochures are indeed archived online or in libraries, and speeches are recorded/transcribed, in which case we'll need to consider the other relevant factors. Abecedare (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution