Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:34, 14 January 2018

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.

The article Ambazonia doesn't provide verified source

1. Source. http://www.ambazania.org/1024_768/input/SCAPOFormallyProclaimstheRepublicofAmbazania.pdf Ambazania.org 2. Article. https://en.wikipedia.org/Ambazonia 3. Content ... (b) President Paul Biya is guilty of treason for furthering and completing the treason of Ahidjo by bringing about the secession of the first defendant (East Cameroon) from the United Republic of Cameroon on February 4, 1984, reinstating its name "Republic of Cameroon" which had not been used since January 10, 1961. (c) That the break-away Republic of Cameroon continues, illegally and forcibly occupy the territory of the first plaintiff, which means the first defendant is guilty of an international offence of aggression and annexation, (d) The report made the Restoration of the statehood of the first plaintiff the starting point of restoration of legality.

My Observation: While i reading articles on cameroon actuality, i was redirected on the ambazonia wikipedia page, but, the information provided by the page doesn't provide verified source. i'm a citizen, and think that an encyclopedia must provide right information.

Beall's List resurrected and maintained

See https://predatoryjournals.com

Trying to determine the credibility of these Turkish sources -- for an English Misplaced Pages page about Ozan Varol (rocket scientist, author)

Sources are as follows. I am unsure of whether or not they would be considered "fringe" publications. These would be making up the bulk of an initial page about Ozan, with some additional English sources that would support.

NOTE: These are currently being translated by machine but I would be verifying them with a natural-born Turkish speaker before using.

1. http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2000/01/09/yasam/yas00.html
2. http://www.gecmisgazete.com/haber/mars-ta-bir-turk-var-14148
3. http://www.star.com.tr/yazar/demokratik-darbe-kuraminin-mucidini-takdimimdir-yazi-769551/
4. http://www.star.com.tr/yazar/marsa-ve-darbeye-merakli-bir-turk-genci-yazi-769936/

It was the year 2000 when Ozan Varol was heard for the first time that our country was informed by NASA that he would be participating in a six-member steering committee to direct space vehicles named 'Apex' and 'Athena' to Mars . At that time, Ozan was studying astronomy at Cornell University in the USA . When he was still a first-year student, he learned that he was carrying out a joint project between NASA and the school and immediately said, "Take me, too . " "Mars has a Turkish" titled News January 9, 2000 dated Radical 'den Let us read: " The victory of perseverance - 
Project manager Dr. Ozan , who said he wanted to send an e-mail to Steven Squyres , was given about 500 pages of scientific texts and a period of two weeks. Ozan who read the texts day and night , Squyres ' oral examination was successful. Success 'I'd been' he explains Ozan , so that five had managed to enter the US as the only foreign team members."

5. http://www.vize.bel.tr/Yz-39-Devlet-adamlarimiz.html

Ozan VAROL: Ozan VAROL, born in Istanbul in 1982, is the grandson of retired teacher Şakir KAN. Ozan, who graduated from Üsküdar American High School, was studying in the Astronomy Department of Corneil University in America, where he was going to pursue his higher education, while he was studying two instruments to be sent to Mars as part of a project jointly conducted by the American National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Cornell University. he took place as the only Turkish student. On January 9, 2000, Milliyet's headline, "Under the Turks on Mars", emphasized that "Ozan, 18 years old, was on the control team of the vehicle to be sent to Mars.

6. http://www.trakyanet.com/trakya/kirklareli/vize/175-vizeli-unluler.html

Ozan VAROL Born in Istanbul in 1982, Ozan VAROL is the grandson of retired teacher and Kızılay District President Şakir KAN. Ozan, who graduated from Üsküdar American High School, was studying in the Astronomy Department of Corneil University in America, where he was going to pursue his higher education, while he was studying two instruments to be sent to Mars as part of a project jointly conducted by the American National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Cornell University. he took place as the only Turkish student. On January 9, 2000, Milliyet's headline, "Under the Turks on Mars", emphasized that "Ozan, 18 years old, was on the control team of the vehicle to be sent to Mars.

Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you!

Ex Astris Scientia and Star Trek

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've noticed that a few Star Trek-related articles are using a source from www.ex-astris-scientia.org. It doesn't seem to pass the litmus test to qualify as a reliable source. Can someone point out what about it makes it a good source?
Among other places, I found a source from that site used here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Checked their FAQ. It looks like it's written by one guy, who describes it as one of the top Star Trek sites in the world. Let's see if anyone else thinks so...

Den of Geek uses it as a source in an article. There's an in-text mention and a note at the end. There are a few other articles that mention it, but they tend more to be talking about it than using it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

It is without doubt one of the best sites for trek, I have used it numerous times for schematics for creating models for mods. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, I can tell that right away. This guy is creating some exhaustive articles on his own website. If I were working on a Star Trek project of my own, I would probably use this as a resource. However, it is possible that this does not meet Misplaced Pages's reliability criteria. This falls under WP:SPS. Because Ex Astris Scientia is a self-published website without its own editorial oversight, we need to establish that its author is an expert.

• Has the author ever had any other works published? Has he written articles about Star Trek that were printed in magazines? Has he written any books that were published by a non-vanity press?
• Do other/reliable sources say "Ex Astris Scientia is a reliable source" or equivalent?
• Do other reliable sources cite its author as an expert on Star Trek? This would include newspapers, magazines, and people who work to create Star Trek canon.
• Has he ever been invited anywhere as a guest expert? For example, has he served on a panel at a Star Trek convention?
• Is there any other reason not mentioned here to consider Ex Astris Scientia a reliable source or to consider its author an expert?

There's some gray area and consensus rules, but if we can say "yes" to one or more of these questions, then Ex Astris Scientia probably makes the grade. @Darkness Shines: I didn't find anything but I was only looking for about five minutes. You sound more familiar with the website than I do, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• I saw this question pop up on a ST fan forum a while back (somebody was disagreeing with some canon claims they made on the site), and as a result, several of us spot checked a number of claims on that site against the various Star Trek Technical Manuals (which are licensed and approved, generally considered the definitive source for canon), and found that they were 100% on the mark for that test. Whether they still are or not is an open question, but all things considered, I would presume so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

As I understood it, one of the criteria for RS is editorial oversight. There appears to be none of that here, and there are some pretty bold claims being offered on the site. And there appears to be little in the way of official acknowledgement of the sole write as an "expert" in Trek. For me, the litmus for inclusion of so-called "common knowledge" is its existence across multiple sources and platforms. When a source w/out oversight publishes something found nowhere else, I think its an issue, which is why I brought it here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not quite ready to come out and describe them as an RS for ST canon (the tech manuals would be the best RS outside of the shows themselves), I just felt my prior run-in with them might be informative to this discussion. To be honest, I'd want to see something that has an official status, if it's to be used for anything canon oriented. The production of the franchise is a different matter: we can use news sources for that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we can all say there would be no problem using Ex Astris as a means of finding sources. Say, checking the website for which episode to look at and then using the episode as a primary source, but it would be on the Wikieditor to actually check that primary source. Now that so much of the series is available online, that's not as hard as it once was. But day-um if this guy is amateur, he is one thorough amateur. I'm not saying Misplaced Pages should declare someone an expert—that is the place of professional media—but I'd call this guy an unacknowledged expert or unverified, not a non-expert.

This website does have a contact us button. We could just ask "Have you ever published articles anywhere with editorial oversight? Have you ever been invited anywhere as a guest expert?" I can't find the author's real name listed anywhere, or else I'd run a check myself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Bernd Schneider runs it, the site has been cited in a few books Darkness Shines (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem is, as MPants shows above, is that if we consider him a self-published expert (about the only way the website would be useable) we need something to demonstrate that he is. If we start fact-checking him against official sources, we might as well use the official sources. If its something we cant check against anything else, we run up against 'do reputable people consider him an expert', what books has the site been referenced in and are they by a reputable publisher... Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've given this some thought, and I would like to say one more thing before this thread gets archived. I think that the site would be fine as a source for statements about canon that might be controversial enough to require a source (beyond the episode), and which can't be addressed by more definitive sources (I expect this to be very rare, but nonetheless). I think the site is notable enough in the community that it would be a fine source with attribution for just about anything. In other words, where there is a question on canon, I think that Schneider's opinion is certainly WP:DUE. I would not use it beyond that. Whenever we have the choice to use an officially licensed source, we should use that, even if they agree. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I can get behind that, Mjolnirpants. But if I remember @Jack Sebastian:'s style, I think he's asking because he wants to remove content from articles that relies on Ex Astris as a source, not merely change it from Misplaced Pages's voice to Scheider's or change the source from Ex Astris to the specific episode(s) or movie(s) and the real issue is what to do with that content. Is that correct, JackS?

Right now, the state of things seems to be that proof that Ex Astris Scientia is an expert source per WP:SPS could indeed exist but none was shown here this time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh< I remember you very well, Darkfrog, and I'm erribly surprised you've elected to address my edits, when in fact you aren't really supposed to,b ut I guess people forget things over the span of a year or two. You have certainly very little footing upon which to descruibe my style, so maybe save us both time by steppign away from that particular land mine, okey-doke?

The point that User:Only in Death is key here: if we don't know the name of the author of the self-authored site, and there isn't editorial oversight, we should err on the side of caution and use the sources that the anonymous author of the website uses (so, wrong yet again, DF). We cannot use the the conclusions that the anonymous author draws, as we cannot prove that the author is an "expert" without supporting RS reinforcement - and there is no way we can use our own judgment to assert that (unless there is a published Star Trek expert amongst us editors). I take this stance to remove the burden of defending the statements made in the documents from Misplaced Pages and onto the sources that we use instead, which is where they belong.

Again, I think that we can use the far more elgitimate RS noted within the Ex Astra articles, but not Ex Astra itself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I gave his name already, but here "the reputable Star Trek reference website Ex Astris Scientia" The Gospel According to Star Trek: The Original Crew p8 "Thanks to Bernd Schneider's Ex Astris Scientia" Star Trek: Myriad Universes #1: Infinity's Prism p517 "Bernd schneider maintains ex-astris-scientia.org as a terrific repository of STAR TREK knowledge and articles" Star Trek: Klingon Bird-of-Prey Haynes Manual It is RS for Trek Darkness Shines (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, but could you clarify the source of Bernd Schneider's "expertise"? It seems that you noted another fan site quote of praise. Do you have a surce that would be more reliable, like, say a ST published book or something? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Huh? I gave you three sources, all published books, none of them are a "fan site" Darkness Shines (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Jack, I have four things to say:

1. I agree: If Ex Astria documents the source of a claim, it would be best to always cite that source, instead of Ex Astria.
2. The identity of the man behind Ex Astria has never been much of a secret.
3. We don't need to independently determine if someone is an expert: If they're referred to as an expert by others whose expertise we don't question (or widely referred to as an expert by lay commenters), then they're an expert. Even if we know absolutely nothing about the "source" of their expertise. Expertise can be demonstrated, and indeed, must be. This is documented by others referring to them as an expert. But credentials can be irrelevant. I guarantee you that I could find a half-dozen people with relevant credentials who would never be an RS, because they have demonstrated a lack of expertise.
4. I don't know what sort of history you and DarkFrog share, but I thought their comment here to be very reasonable, and your response to be very combative. If you truly feel you are in the right in whatever disagreement went on between you, please act like it. I've seen ANI reports filed over comments more civil than that one (not that I'm planning on reporting you). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Also cited in Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek: The Original Cast Adventures p185, this from an academic publisher also cited in A Galaxy Here and Now: Historical and Cultural Readings of Star Warsp59, another academic publisher Darkness Shines (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I just got back from the post you left at my talk page, Jack, and I'm very surprised by your comments there and here. I certainly do not mean to criticize your Star Trek edits—in fact, I haven't read even one of them. But I feel like you're badmouthing me here, so I'll say to the floor that there is no "really aren't supposed to." Jack and I had a conflict in 2014 but we are not now and to the best of my memory never were under any interaction ban, formal or informal, and I've responded to an RSN thread that he's started before, without any response like this. Kind of surprised at this hostility now. However, part of Jack's comment on my talk page amounted to not wanting any help from me in this thread. I leave it in all of your capable hands.

I wish I didn't have to say this, but I am worried about my actions being misinterpreted. I am respecting another editor's wishes NOT confessing to wrongdoing. Jack clearly wants me to back off, and I am very worried that someone else in the future might say "You backed off, which means you're a filthy f--- and you KNOW IT and you're ADMITTING that you eat babies and you are PERMANENTLY giving up your right to speak in this person's presence EVER!" (For the record, it was not Jack specifically who pulled that crud on me.) I do not mean and am not agreeing to any of that. A couple weeks ago, I was pissed at someone else and asked them for space and they refused to give it to me. It was like he thought he hadn't done anything wrong and felt the need to prove it by getting even more in my face. Well I haven't done anything wrong, but I'll get out of your face anyway. This is not a promise to do so permanently.

You guys seem to have this covered. Ping me if you need anything that only I can provide, but I can't think of what that would be. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It might have been more helpful in these sorts of discussions where we are discussing the authenticity of RS to seek out sources that can show the wording. For Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek: The Original Cast Adventures (1) and A Galaxy Here and Now: Historical and Cultural Readings of Star Wars (2) help me see that Bernd has been cited elsewhere. I guess that does make them citable; as long as we are certain that Bernd is the only one writing the articles (others contributing to the cite doe not warrant the same cover as sources), the question is pretty much answered.

The history between DF and myself is pretty well-documented, and I've made a point of avoiding wherever she pops up; I have very specific opinions as to any references she brings to the fore, and that's all I'll say about that. If some of you thought my response to her rude, please take no offense; doe to my experience, they were absolutely warranted and restrained. I did not invite her comments, and she should have known better than to interact with me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Jack, if you want me not to participate in this thread, you must stop saying bad things about me in this thread. Saying you don't want my help is fine. Saying I have to not defend myself while you throw a few punches is not fine. You haven't avoided me. You've posted on my talk page on matters that had nothing to do with you, and you presented yourself as civil and even friendly at the time. You get to change your attitude toward me, but you don't get to say I "should have known better" than to think you were still feeling civil and friendly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we're done here, DF. Was there any part of what I asked difficult for you to understand? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Are Indian news outlets "always" RS about Pakistani weapons

I am posting here regarding the article Babur (cruise missile). When the missile was tested by Pakistan from an underwater platform, a number of Indian media outlets (some of which are RS) quoted a tweet from a satellite imagery enthusiast who claimed that he had obtained satellite imagery of the launch (source of imagery remains unknown) and in his opinion it showed that the launch was a fake. Now do these sources remain reliable to be quoted in an article about Babur missile when i)All international RS are against them ii)Other Indian RS are against them iii)They are quoting a single person tweeting his own opinion and iv) They did not follow up on the fakery claims when international media reported the test Another issue is that most of these news outlets are leaning towards nationalist/right so should they be considered a RS about Pakistani weapon systems? As India and Pakistan are currently engaged in skirmishes, is it according to policy to consider them RS about pakistani weapon systems when all international opinions and the opinions of a number of Indian sources is against them as well? Adamgerber80 Please be kind enough to give your opinion in this discussion. Elektricity (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd have to say that they're generally not RS on this general topic, as Pakistani sources would not be about Indian weapons. Too many nationalism and POV problems. It might be possible to find a neutral source, but that would require a lot of proof to demonstrate the source's neutrality on contentious topics.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much Strum. But, can you please link the disc. and sources? Winged Blades 05:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades Talk:Babur (cruise missile) is the place we were discussing. Here are some RS that all agree on the launch are BBC, the Diplomat, the CNN and VOA(These include the Indian source "Diplomat"). I have yet to find even a single international source that says that there was fakery. Elektricity (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Some Indian news outlets like the Hindu, Hindustan Times, Times of India etc. are very respectable, and known for the quality of their news. If it is one of those than it definitely is an RS. But, if the source is a web tabloid with no journalistic credential, wherever on earth it is from, is definitely not an RS. Aditya 12:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't discount reporting in rival countries (which may either downplay or overplay the threat). Wider international sources are often not interested enough in the subject at hand to report or dig in depth. There can be problems with home country reporting (which might parrot the party line of great success), with reports in rival countries, and in international reports. Estimates in RS are not gospel - and most coverage of weapons prior to use it really just an estimate (case in point - the F-35 is hailed as either the "best ever" or as "the biggest flop in weapon system procurement".....) - expert opinion on effectiveness of weapon systems really only goes past estimates after there is a real war.Icewhiz (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the question is not properly phrased. We shouldn't discount (or over emphasize) sources based on their nationality. Rather, we should look at the quality of the source independently and the quality of what the source says. In this particular case, I don't think the sources pass muster (the ones removed in this edit). The first, an NDTV news report is dubious because we should look for reliable print sources when making a contentious assertion rather than relying on video clips. The second, the India Today online one, quote one expert and doesn't assert the 'fake' claim independently (sort of "we're not saying it was a fake but just telling you what the colonel says". Also, we don't have any independent evidence that the colonel is actually an expert in imagery. Neither source is usable. --regentspark (comment) 19:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Everyone, I apologize for the late and lengthy response but I did not have access to internet. Now this problem is multi-faceted and reliable sources is just one of them. Hence, in my discussion on the Talk:Babur_(cruise_missile) I had indicated that parts of this might fall under content dispute as well. The issue arises from here . Elektricity edited the page and added some references and some new content which was reverted by me since I found multiple issues. My edit was reverted by the same user and thus discussion on the talk page. I have 3 issues with the user's edits. First, the user adds that the "service with the Pakistan Army since 2010, and Pakistan Navy since 2017". There is only one WP:RS () which states that it is believed that the missile entered service with the Pakistan Army in 2010 and no such source for the Pakistan Navy. All that we have is that the missile was tested in 2017 not that it was inducted and there is much of a difference between the two. My second issue was that of the range which was stated as 750km and the editor added this reference () for it. This reference to me was clearly WP:SPS and not permissible. Eventually after much argument on the Talk page in which the editor claimed that there were other references on the page which stated this (this claim was not True) the editor provided me with 3 references (, , ). First quotes a Dr Samar, a nuclear scientist, and bases it on his views, second is a website which seems equivalent to global strategy so I am not too sure and the third basis it's claims on Pakistani Military Review () which is a blogspot. The third issue is the one raised by the editor here and is phrased incorrectly in my opinion. Here are the different media sources which published this story (, , , , , ). Now, here are some organizations/reliable sources which state that the person is indeed an expert in this field , is a regular author at thePrint, authored reports for independent international organizations and even two non-Indian media sources calling him an expert and quoting his work. (,,, , ). Just as a point of reference, I did not enter the content with these sources but there were entered by another editor. And the text clearly first states the test was conducted and in the next line states that however some media sources doubted its claim. The points that I want to raise is the double standards at play here. Elektricity clearly adds one Indian general's WP:SPS as a source because it suits their narrative but doubts another Indian experts claims. Similarly, one Pakistani experts claims are taken at Face value and added as WP:RS while another ones are called conspiracy theories because they are Indian and thus assumed to have a bias against Pakistan. When I look at the WP:RS page, I read these particular texts "multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party " and "text media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited". Does the numerous media sources provided not meet these claims just because India and Pakistan are considered to be opponents? By this definition which should now lay down all possible opponent countries and state that the corresponding sources are not valid. One example here would be not to use 38North () for North Korea since it is run at Johns Hopkins University based in United States and NK and USA are enemies. I think we need to look at these sources objectively and see if they meet WP:RS or not rather than view them with the prism of their national origin. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz, Aditya Kabir, RegentsPark, and Sturmvogel 66: In case you guys missed this. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I havenot delved deep into the dispute. But, on the surface I think you were right to address the issue of reliability source by source. There really cannot be any blanket judgement based on a source's nationality. Aditya 03:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Given the history of dictatorship in Pakistan and it still ranks really low at Democracy Index and Press Freedom Index, it is all fair to use the reliable Indian news outlets to report on the events of Pakistan. It is similar to saying that we can use reliable sources of Israel to report on Palestine, as well as reliable sources from South Korea when reporting on North Korea. Excelse (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a pretty dubious argument to say the least. The media in Pakistan is known to enjoy a high degree of freedom, unlike the analogies you related here. There's examples of English publications like Dawn, The Express Tribune etc. which are well-respected. It boils down to the individual source, and has to be evaluated on that context. The Indian media is usually unreliable though when it comes to reporting on Pakistan, and tends to sensationalize. I have found this issue with several newspapers and articles. So anything has to be taken with a grain of salt and verified for neutrality. Mar4d (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Mar4d but you are using your personal opinion. You could name only 2 sources that you think can be trusted. The listing of Democracy Index and Press Freedom Index shows Pakistan ranks much lower and is contrary to "high degree of freedom". You can read Ayesha Siddiqa’s Military Inc.: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy, which shows that Pakistan's media is controlled by their military. Excelse (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Excelse I think that you are creating a False equivalence here. The Question is not about Pakistani sources or thier merit. It is about Indian sources and there merit. Moreover, your blanket claim that pakistani media is controlled by the military seems to be way out of the "ballpark" so to speak. I have looked at your contributions and find that you, like me, have not contributed to pakistani/Indian military articles much, so I think you should read up on WP:RS as I did before coming here. Nationalistic Bias in sources is considered grounds for exclusion and although almost sources are giving POV information, it is up to the editors to decide which source is good enough. Elektricity (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Elektricity: I don't necessarily agree with Excelse's comments. But I think the question has been framed incorrectly by you. We are discussing very specific sources and whether they should be included in the Babur (missile) article. There cannot be a blanket ban on one countries sources for another, as I have explained above since Misplaced Pages does not have any such guidelines. You have failed to address the three issues I have raised so far. You seem to take the references which mention an Indian expert and Pakistani expert at face value because it suits your narrative but oppose another one as "conspiracy theories" because it does not. I have presented independent sources which put the person as an expert in the field. You cannot dismiss their published claims on the basis on their nationality. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I will second what Mar4d said. During all of my work with Pakistani articles, I found at least these two sources as WP:RS without a doubt. Störm (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mar4d and Störm: I have raised multiple issues here which does not include raising doubts on Pakistani sources. I have presented multiple sources which proves to be of repute and that Indian and Pakistan media be treated equally without the prism of nationality. Because it is a slippery slope thereafter where one can claim that each countries media is being bombastic about their claims and thus cannot be trusted either. The discussion here is about very specific sources and three issues which I have raised. I would greatly appreciate it if we discussed them on their merits. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems the discussion was mostly about the validity of Indian news outlets regarding Pakistani military, which I have addressed, as for the content itself, I find your argument as correct that the author in question is indeed an expert and should be trusted per WP:RS. Excelse (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz, Aditya Kabir, RegentsPark, Sturmvogel 66, and Winged Blades of Godric: Hi everyone, it seems the user who brought this here refuses to engage in a discussion and has not responded to the points I have raised. Can we wind this discussion up? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks very much like a consensus - "There can be no blanket sanction on Indian sources for Pakistani articles. If any source is found to be unreliable then it should be dealt with individually". It also looks like nothing more is going to happen here. I guess we can close. Aditya 03:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@User:Aditya Kabir I think we should wait for a more experienced editor (admin) like User:Störm or regentspark to close this. The gist of the matter was that sometimes indian sources are not RS for pakistani weapons and almost all experienced editors agree that they are not reliable. The only dissent is provided by Excelse who does not seem to have any experience, seems to be a sleeper account made just for commenting and your own. In contrast experienced users like Storm, Reagentspark and User:Mar4d have stated that they are not RS. The so called consensus you speak of, is that when talking about Pakistani weapons, Indian sources are 'No Bueno". Elektricity (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"ADMIR"

This website claims to be of the purported American Diplomatic Mission of International Relations Intergovernmental Organization (ADMIR). I have found nothing about this organisation on Misplaced Pages or the internet and the America First sticker with the eagle makes it obvious that they are fake. Still, it is baffling that they use "-gov" (but, see, "-gov", not ".gov"!) and a seal similar to these of U.S. governmental organisations. The articles I located using it as a "source" were Brazil-based Lebanese billionaire Joseph Safra (called "His Excellency Honorary Member of Honor and Distinction") and defrocked Georgian Bishop Christopher Tsamalaidze (the link serves as a "source" on a different person, which is extremely funny as this is a five-line stub) but there may be others. This organisation smells IPSP from afar but I place it here to investigate if there is a remote possibility of it being even halfway legitimate and to raise awareness of it in case someone else encounters it in an article.--The Traditionalist (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

A quick look at the page shows grammatical errors, seemingly contradictory indications of focus and a design that reminds me of the "good" old days of geocities, even though it is obviously nowhere near that old. So that tells me that their copy was written by someone who doesn't speak fluent English, and their website was designed by an amateur. Looking at the source code shows that it was built by wix.com. So no, not reliable for anything but their own claims/views. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - far from reliable. Fake News... :) Meatsgains (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The Root

Is The Root.com a RS for information on a BLP? It strikes me as just another gossip site. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• I would argue that it is reliable as its about page (linked here) shows that there is editorial oversight over what is published on the site. Aoba47 (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The disputed article is Proud Boys (not a living person, an organisation) and the disputed edit is this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

What is said in the Root article is also backed up in second source also linked in the Proud Boys article from Southern Poverty Law Center NZFC 01:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Peter the source is used for information on a BLP, not an organization Darkness Shines (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

TheRoot is not a "gossip site," it's a general interest news and culture magazine aimed at African-American audiences. Paging through a few articles, I see no content which would raise immediate RS red flags (conspiracy theorizing, promoting fringe beliefs/ideologies, making obviously false claims, etc.) Is there anything in particular which makes you believe it's not an RS? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The Root may be usable for uncontentious claims, but I would consider it a pretty weak source in general. Much of their content is opinion oriented. I would treat it similarly to other Gawker sources like Gizmodo, Jezebel, etc.- MrX 19:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with MrX's opinion here. Neutrality 19:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

ETA: I would probably lean slightly toward not considering it a reliable for the specific content in question. The SPLC is already cited anyway.- MrX 19:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'd say not reliable for this, and probably not acceptable for anything other than the most anodyne and uncontroversial statements. There will almost always be a better source. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Based on this discussion I have replaced The Root with The New York Times Darkness Shines (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• And it keeps getting restored, so is this source RS for BLP content or not? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

If there is NYT source I don't understand why use questionable sources.--Shrike (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

At a guess because of a previous dispute with the editor restoring it Darkness Shines (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Sammy Sosa Haitian ancestry sources

1. Sources.

• Google book link with the claim of having his true name
• A letter from a reader with uncertain information.
• Wordpress self site with confessed unproved content.
• Source with no mention to Sammy Sosa, trying to back that many baseball players from Haitian ancestry have been playing lately.
• Directory site based on public referral, trying to prove that the previous link is notable.

2. Sammy Sosa.

3. Content.

Sosa's paternal family, the Peraltas, are Dominican of Haitian descent.

.

Any reliable source about that well known baseball player, not a single document have been shown by any of the sources cited. Should any of the sources be used to back that statement? --Osplace 17:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The book in your first link is an autobiography with Sammy Sosa as one of the authors. He's certainly an expert on himself! That source alone is plenty for the statement, "According to Sammy Sosa, he has Haitian ancestry" (if that's what it says; I can't access the specific page right now). Is there any reason to doubt that Sosa really wrote that book? This would be allowed under WP:ABOUTSELF, unless the claim is considered exceptional by reputable entities. Think about how American politician Elizabeth Warren was criticized for saying she had Native American ancestry. There was no evidence; it was just part of her family lore and looks like it's not true. Is there controversy like that over Sosa's claim of Haitian ancestry? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The book only was used to support a nickname, Mickey but the book do not show any indication of Haitian ancestry. --Osplace 03:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the third link, the site is quoting the president of the Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos (CNDH), Virgilio Almánzar. Has Almánzar made an official public statement that we could use instead? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

No, and at the end of that source says: "En ningún momento Almánzar acompañó sus aseveraciones de alguna evidencia al respecto, por lo que todo lo dicho huele a conjeturas y especulaciones" (At no time Almánzar accompanied his assertions of some evidence about it, so everything that smells of conjecture and speculation). Almanzar seemed to claim that, without any document. There is no video link either. --Osplace 03:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Well if the book doesn't actually say either "Sosa has Haitian ancestry" or "Sosa says he has Haitian ancestry," then it doesn't matter if it's reliable; it's not relevant. It's an issue, just not a reliability issue.

Does Sammy Sosa, anywhere, say "I have Haitian ancestry," regardless of whether he has proof? Is there a TV interview, a personal website? Where is the original Wikieditor who added this content getting it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

No, he have not, that would be a big deal and would be noted in all media. --Osplace 17:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The article lists source currently numbered 5, the article "Miniaturas del béisbol: Más de Haitianos," in which the assertion that Sosa's dad is Haitian is attributed to journalist (periodista) Julio Reyes. I'd say that's good enough. It would be better to actually cite the work by Reyes that Cruz is quoting, but I'd say due diligence is done. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Miniaturas del béisbol source is a letter from that journalist who claim having documents, but have not sent anything, is just a claim. That is the main source in the article right now backing that claim. The journalist is not sure about what he is saying with wording like: "por lo menos en los últimos 15 ó 20 años", if he has documents he should write a letter with statitistics not an open period of time; "que su primer apellido Gilliard, no estoy seguro por el momento que se escriba así, pero el padre es haitiano del ingenio Quisqueya" he is not sure how is the last name is written, again, how is written in the documents he claims (La lista es grande, pero como estoy fuera de San Pedro de Macorís y tengo un archivo personal con toda esa relación sería en otra ocasión que se la mandaría) to have? He is not sure about the information he is giving, that source seems not to be good. --Osplace 17:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

So Minaturas is not quoting a published article by Julio Reyes but either an unpublished work or a self-published work? Then per WP:SPS we are not allowed to use it for a biography of a living person, even if it is reliable for other matters.

Yes, it is an unpublished work. That source have been used at least 5 times for the same matter, back Haitian ancestry for other baseball players mentioned in that unpublished work. --Osplace 02:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, is this something controversial? If Sosa is Haitian there's probably a TV interview or something in which he says so. Then the article could read "according to Sosa, he's Haitian." The claim is not outrageous or unduly self-serving, per WP:ABOUTSELF. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, he have not said that ever, Sammy is such an important figure in the Dominican Republic, if he ever says that it will be published everywhere and will be noted in the whole country. Again, there have been a lot of investigation about his life, even people who does not like him and openly want him to look bad, but never ever have been anything published about him being from Haitian ancestry, not a book, not a magazine, not a documental, anything, and if ever comes out, will be a very big deal. --Osplace 02:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Well according to Postwar America: An Encyclopedia of Social, Political, Cultural, and Economic History Routledge p781 he's from the Dominican Republic Darkness Shines (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that doesn't seem to be in dispute, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

He is Dominican, a proud Dominican. --Osplace 02:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue seems to be whether he's a Dominican of Haitian ancestry or not and whether these sources support that statement. It seems that blackness is a very loaded issue in the Dominican Republic, so this might be more controversial than whether someone is an American of Haitian descent, for example. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

You have identified the issue correctly, is he from Haitian ancestry? Are this sources cited by the one who edited the article enough to include that statement in the article? There is no blackness discussion.--Osplace 04:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the sources presented here establish that Sammy Sosa has Haitian ancestry or that he has claimed to have it. At most, the article could say "journalist Julio Reyes has referred to Sammy Sosa as having Haitian ancestry." Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

As a living person (Sosa) we would almost certainly not include information that even indicates his ethnicity/ancestry is other than as stated in reliable sources or by the subject himself. We wouldn't even attribute that unless it had been discussed in multiple reliable sources. Anything regarding nationality/ethnicity etc is always a contentious issue and requires extremely strong sourcing. Like yourself, I cant see any of that here that would be enough to state he has Haitian ancestry. Osplace: If you want another viewpoint, you could try WP:BLPN but that board will almost certainly conclude without strong sourcing, speculation like that cant be included in a WP:BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Osplace 16:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

FFE Magazine as a source on Philippine History

Request for: Comment on the overall reliability of FFE Magazine as a source on Philippine History

Specific Source Page cited: http://ffemagazine.com/lakandula-peaceful-king-takes-stand/

Misplaced Pages Article where used: Lakandula

Specific Content: "In fact, Manila wasn’t conquered, but it was occupied through a peace pact that joined Legazpi and the three kings Lakandula, Rajah Ache and Rajah Sulayman."

Concern in specific instance: This is a relatively minor concern: many Philippine historians characterize Maynila as having been "conquered" in a general sense, since Legazpi and his successor, Levazaris, eventually gained full control of the city. (If not in 1572 when the peace pact was signed, then arguably in 1574 and 1588 when uprisings by local rulers were put down, and the old ruling families of Manila decimated.) Whether Maynila was conquered by open conflict or by signed agreement, the outcome is the arguably same. But the editor who wrote this seems to be trying to emphasize that 1572 was not a martial defeat per se. I'm not actually going to contest this, because I've heard both points of view, but

• a) Based on my familiarity with other texts, I don't think this sentence captures other (possibly more mainstream) perspectives;
• b) I don't actually think the lakandula article, which is about the individual, is the appropriate place to settle the detailed political dispositions of Tondo (historical polity) and the Rajahnate of Maynila as of 1572 (perhaps History_of_Manila is the best place) because a mention of that controversy would introduce a long, off-tangent discussion; and
• c) I'm concerned about the overall reliability of FFE Magazine as a source.

My complaint is more with the reliability of the source than it is with the veracity of the content.

General concern regarding source: According to its , FFE Magazine "is a general interest European magazine for and about everything of interest to all Filipinos working and living in Europe, their non- Filipino spouses, family and friends." Not to disparage the site in any way because its goals seem laudable enough; but it makes no claim to be a reliable or scholarly source on Philippine History. It also does not name its staff, does not cite the staff's credentials, and does not explain its editorial policy with regards to fact-checking and historical veracity.

Action requested: For now, I'm going to tag the edit as coming from an unreliable source. And I'm going to look for reliable secondary sources. But may I request comment on whether FFE Magazine should be considered a reliable source on Philippine History for Misplaced Pages? Obviously I don't think so, but I'd like to hear community inputs.

Thanks - Alternativity (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

If FFE has editorial oversight, and it looks like it does, then because "Is it reliable" is a yes/no question, I say yes. However, sources such as history books and scholarly journal articles are of course better than a general audience magazine that's mostly about modern topics. This magazine would be enough on its own except that superior sources seem to contradict it. If "Manila was not really conquered" is a legitimate historical view, then there will be at least a few history books and scholarly articles that say so. Use those instead. I imagine this article will end up reading "Some historians, such as Dr. Lastname of Such-and-such University, who argue that Manila was not conquered but rather absorbed by treaty" with a link to the article about Tondo for more information.

So the person who added this content using this source did not do anything wrong. They did enough. But because the content has now been challenged, more must now be done. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, not looking to assign blame. The editor is a newbie, so I don't think there was any intent to "do anything wrong." The reason I brought this up is that the site doesn't seem to have a clear description of its degree of editorial responsibility (as I understand from the WP:RS policy - such that it probably shouldn't be treated as a credible source, as per WP:RS. I thought I'd bring it up for a more exhaustive review, and community consensus. - Alternativity (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

country-data.com as a source for history and ethnogenesis

• Source: Tajikistan - Historical Background (http://www.country-data.com)
• Article: Tajiks
• Content: "The Bactrian and Sogdian people are the principal ancestors of Tajiks." --Wario-Man (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

At the bottom of the page, it reads Based on the Country Studies Series by Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress. That's a good sign but we need more. I don't see an about us page or a place to find out about their editorial oversight. I checked the bibliography of the China article, and it's credible and extensive. This looks like a professional compiled source. We just need to confirm it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I went looking for the official government website for the Country Study Series and found it: Okay, the Tajiks appear to be covered in the book about Kazakstan and friends, of which 69 of its roughly 450 pages contain the word "Tajik" and 6 the word "Bactrian." Does this get you what you need? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I would not say that country-data.com is a RS. It's owned and operated by Advameg. Private company that has a range of sites like this to generate ad revenue. I have found some of their other sites to be horribly inaccurate, and they often just reuse & repost content from elsewhere. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

To follow up: This is your source, the content is wholesale ripped from there. The source material is a RS, but cite that not the people reposting it for profit. Note that it's 20 years old and likely a bit out of date though. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 and Fyddlestix: Thanks for the help. --Wario-Man (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Linguist's history

Source: M. Ashraf Bhat (23 June 2017), The Changing Language Roles and Linguistic Identities of the Kashmiri Speech Community, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 55–, ISBN 978-1-4438-6260-8. (Publisher's book description)

Page: Kashmiris (Origins section)

The entire content of the Origins section (prehistory) is sourced to this book. Much of this is ignored/dismissed by authentic historians. The involved editors dismiss HISTRS as an essay and contend that this source covers "all theories"(Talk:Kashmiris#Kautilya3's edits). What do you think of the reliability of this source for history? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry but where did you get this part from Much of this is ignored/dismissed by authentic historians. I am afraid this is not a good representation of the matter. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Please address the reliability of the source, not your opinions on the content.

A useful tidbit from an author published by the so-called "Cambridge Scholars Publishing": Now that the book is out, I have mixed feelings about the experience--as other posters said, there was little feedback and no editing from them--we did it all. We couldn't get enough complimentary copies for contributors, and getting the book reviewed is a challenge b/c they are not sending review copies, just queries. These were issues we had not thought to negotiate up front.

And the publisher seems to leave the copyright with the author, probably a representation of the minimal value they add. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Reliability is just one issue here... the idea that ANY group of people are a “Lost tribe of Israel” is somewhat fringe. Is mentioning this UNDUE? (Note... the source in question does not propose this theory... it notes someone else claims the Kashmiris are a lost tribe... still, I have to question stating it at all). Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute, its a source topic. The Israel theory is not the author's opinion, he just mentions that a theory of that kind exists. A tertiary source cited on the Kashmiris article also mentions the theory, though it does nor adopt it. Mentioning a theory while not adopting it does not make the source ″fringe″.

JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand that... but there is no need to cite the source if we don’t mention the fringe theory in the first place. Context matters. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed but the source is not for that theory, its for other content too. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

What other theories?... the only place that the article cites Bhat is to support the statement that "...some scholars and Kashmiri historians such as R.K. Parmu believe that the Kashmiri people have a Jewish origin, due to several similarities between Kashmiris and Israelites. This theory holds that Kashmiris descend from one of the Lost Tribes of Israel which settled in Kashmir after the dispersal of the Jews...". Now, Bhat may well be narrowly reliable for this statement... R.K. Parmu (and unnamed other scholars) may actually say this. However, we then have to ask another question: how reliable is R.K. PARMU (or these unnamed other scholars)? If Parmu isn't reliable, then there is no reason to mention his opinion. And if we don't mention what the fringe theorists think, then the entire issue of whether Bhat is reliable (or not) becomes irrelevant... because we no longer have any reason to cite him. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, this is not a content dispute. This is a discussion on sourcing. Sourcing for content beyond the ″fringe theory″. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

But sourcing is always tied to the content which it supports. Context matters. The two can't be separated. Again, the question of sourcing becomes irrelevant if we don't include the content... but I can raise this in another venue if you prefer. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Raised at: WP:NPOVN#UNDUE issue at Kashmiris#Origins?... please comment.

Manohar publisher

How much weight should this book Hangloo, Rattan Lal (2000), The State in Medieval Kashmir, Manohar, ISBN 978-81-7304-251-5 published by a relatively unknown publisher and little known writer/professor Rattan Lal Hangloo be given in contrast to a book written by a scholar (M Ashraf Bhat) and published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing (M. Ashraf Bhat (23 June 2017), The Changing Language Roles and Linguistic Identities of the Kashmiri Speech Community, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 55–, ISBN 978-1-4438-6260-8.)? JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Manohar is a well-known Indian publisher of academic works, which have been cited on Misplaced Pages hundreds of times.

Ratan Lal Hangloo is a historian, with a PhD from Jawaharlal Nehru University, was a professor of history at the University of Hyderabad, and currently a Vice-Chancellor.

Any more questions? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I cannot find any evidence that Manohar is a well-known publisher from any independent source. The Misplaced Pages link you have provided means very little because it shows 596 results (of which there are unrelated pages) while Cambridge Scholars Publishing shows 11,000+ results. You will have to do better to prove to us that Manohar is good enough. We also have no independent proof for Hangloo's history credentials. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and the most shady thing about "Cambridge Scholars Publishing" is that it has no relation to Cambridge. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh really? Here's their description: Cambridge Scholars Publishing is an independent academic publisher, committed to providing a forward-thinking publishing service that champions original thinking, whilst ensuring we put our authors at the heart of everything we do.

Founded by former lecturers and researchers from the University of Cambridge, we publish original academic work across a wide range of subjects in four key areas: Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS); Health Sciences (HS); Physical Sciences (PS); and Life Sciences (LS).

We are unique in the balance we establish between our editorial guidance and the level of control retained by each of our authors; acknowledging the value they place on presenting their own work in a way that retains the integrity of their original argument.

With a strong reputation for author satisfaction, we understand the importance of making the publishing process a rewarding experience, with no cost to the author/editor, complimentary copies, a substantial author discount, free access to our eBook titles, and a generous royalty scheme. Our publications are marketed worldwide and sold through international booksellers and distributors including Amazon, Blackwell, Baker & Taylor, YBP and Ingram, and are widely purchased by academic libraries. In addition, we have distribution partnerships in key geographical territories such as the USA, China, India and the Middle East. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Cambridge Scholars Publishing does not just have editorial oversight. It has what looks like the standard peer review process common to the hard and social sciences. That is better than editorial oversight. It means that other experts in the field, other historians or linguists with Ph.D.s and good reputations, read the entire book and gave constructive criticism before allowing it to be published.

There are some fake journals out there, pay-to-publish, usually. I'd say it is on the challenging editor to prove that this is a fake journal. It doesn't look like one, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT: :The State in Medieval Kashmir refers to the author as "Professor Hangloo." It seems he teaches at a real university and his credentials are good, and in the field of history. He looks like an expert to me. I can't find enough information on the publisher to tell whether it is a vanity press or not, but even if it is, this first book meets our minimum requirements. See WP:SPS for how to use expert sources. You are allowed to cite information from this book in Misplaced Pages's voice. Even if the publisher is suspect (and Kautilya3 has addressed that), the author is not suspect. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I cannot find any website giving details on this Rattan Lal Hangloo. I have found a blog though which gives a list of his credentials without giving much information on what exactly his doctorates and degrees were for. All it says he was a brilliant student of history (keep in mind this is a seeming self published blog). No other information can be found on his credentials. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Update, I have found some information on Rattan Lal Hangloo, I still cannot find any information on him or his credentials from any independent, reputable website but I have just discovered that Mr Hangloo has been present in the news for very controversial and questionable things. See Allahabad University VC Appoints Sexual Harassment Accused as OSD. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Another update ,Sadly Hangloo is at the center of too many controversies, Centre wants enquiry against Allahabad University V-C, which raises questions on his credibility and reliability. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hungloo is a controversial administrator.Since, his days as a VC at Kalyani University he had his tensions with the political regime et al and this has continued unabated.But, he is reliable as an academic source, as would be someone who has held multiple chairs and has been VC of 2 quite-reputed universities..Winged Blades 16:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"M. Ashraf Brat" pulls up multiple hits, but if it's this guy at IIT, then he can be considered a linguistics expert. Again, Kautilya3 seems to have dealt with the publisher. You are good to go on both these sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

But your question wasn't whether they are good enough or not (they are). The question was how much weight to give them. They are both professionally published works written by academics with good credentials, one of them with exquisitely good credentials. I'd say give them more weight than most other sources. If you posted here because some lesser source contradicts these books, go with these books. The only possible problem would be if the author goes against the grain in some way, like if Hangloo is one of only a few professors who believe X when most of his field believes Y. In the case of any such information, say something like "although the majority view is Y, some historians, such as Professor Hangloo, believe X." Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Cambridge Scholars Publishing is a dodgy operation, as you would expect from the fact that it is falsely implying a connection with an institution with which, in reality, it has no connection at all, and its authors are primarily not only not connected with Cambridge but not even in its home country. Oh, and they engage in spamming. It apparently exists to suck in naive and well-meaning academics from outside the US and Europe. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

So it is a fake, pay to publish journal? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. I suspect it is a new company that is trying a bit too hard. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I think it is a legitimate publisher, but of questionable quality and fake pretensions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

So far these are speculations, but do you have concrete evidence for them JzG? JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so let's say that Cambridge Scholars Publishing is not a fake publisher but it is a new and unproven publisher. They might have peer review and editorial oversight but we don't know if they're good at it yet, now in January 2018. Are we okay with treating the published thesis by M. Ashraf Bhat the same way we would an expert self-published source, relying on the author's credentials alone? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The trouble is the author has no credentials for history. He is merely reproducing what he has read here and there, without being able to evaluate what is myth, what is folklore and what is history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

How would you know that he is reproducing hearsay, Kautilya3? Have you asked him? He's a good enough WP:RS for telling us the different opinions among the scholars of the matter. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Although most of Bhat's credentials apply to linguistics, he has also served on councils for social science research. I feel pretty good about this. What text, precisely, relies on his book for sourcing? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Darkfrog24 That text in the Kashmiris article which is cited to Bhat is this Scholars have proposed various different theories concerning the origins of Kashmiris. Some scholars such as Pandit Anand Koul believe Kashmiris descend from Indo-Aryan people from Central Asia and see their facial features as an indication of that. Other scholars disagree and believe Kashmiris belong to the race of Pishachas and Nagas. Others believe Kashmiris descend migrants of other parts of India, such as South Indian regions.

The original text in the Bhat source is this Many scholars hold the view that Kashmiris are a true specimen of the Aryan race; nonetheless, the last authoritative word about the origin has not been articulated, so far. R.K. Kaul quotes Pandit Anand Koul, who firmly believes that Kashmir was a colony of Aryan immigrants from central Asia; their facuial features, specifically fair complexion is representative of the Aryan race. Nevertheless, some scholars believe that Kashmiris, belong to a 1200 year old race of the Pashachas and the Nagas, and thus reject the theory of Aryan origin of Kashmiris. Some historians presume that the ancestors of Kashmiris are early immigrants from India proper.

So it seems he has been cited for giving a list of different scholarly opinions on the origins of Kashmiris, his own views have not been cited.JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Referring to something called an "Aryan race" itself is a big no-no in scholarly literature. No self-respecting contemporary historian says there was a "race" of Aryans. And here we have even more "races" of "Pashachas and Nagas". Pinging Joshua Jonathan for his input. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You have resorted to red herrings in your crusade against Bhat, it seems. Bhat is not supporting the view, rather is saying that certain scholars such as Pandit Anand Koul were of this view. He has listed a number of views among the scholars, including those such as R.K. Parmu who believe in the Israelite theory which is rejected by most scholars. Listing that certain scholars believe certain things which are no longer mainstream views in scholarship is no big issue in Misplaced Pages content, see Evolution#Pre-Darwinian. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, whatever. The only reason this source has been cited and all its hoaky theories reproduced seems to be because of the spurious "Cambridge" in the name of the publisher. Just throw it out. There is better material available. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This board is for discussing sources, not content. There is still no demonstration yet of anything wrong with the publisher Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Its not called Cambridge University Press, its called Cambridge Scholars Publishing because it was founded by former lecturers and researchers from Cambridge. Your attempt of flinging mud at them are not bearing fruit. Nor have you yet shown us the reliability of the relatively unknown Manohar publishers. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

References

1. West, Barbara (2010), Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania
2. M. Ashraf Bhat (23 June 2017), The Changing Language Roles and Linguistic Identities of the Kashmiri Speech Community, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 55–, ISBN 978-1-4438-6260-8

Ascertaining and repeating the published views of other social scientists and historians seems more than within the range of expertise of a linguist of Bhat's variegated credentials. He's served as for, lack of a better term, an officer in several cross-disciplinary organizations and committees. I say his book is reliable for the text cited here unless there is some big reason to doubt it, like another reliable source saying "No, Pandit Anand Koul didn't believe this" and "No, historians don't believe that."

Is there a difference of opinion among scholars about this?

Kautilya3, Josephus, as consensus forms in this thread, please consider "Is the Bhat source sufficient support for this text?" to have been answered. If consensus says "yes," then if you think it necessary you can move on to the questions of "Is the text sufficiently notable?" and "Is the text appropriate for the scope of the article?" please do both of you move on before this gets too personal. I was in a content dispute like this a couple years back, and I wish someone had said that to us a lot sooner: the subjective, editorial decision of whether the content belongs in the article is not as clear-cut as reliability but it is still important. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of R.K. Parmu

Related question... since the above sources are being used to support a statement about what R.K. Parmu (and other unnamed scholars) says (ie that the Kashmiris are decended from the "Lost trives of Israel"(... I thought I would ask the unasked question: Who is R.K Parmu, and is he reliable? Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

He's someone who was publishing works in 1969. That's probably why I can't find a web-based bio. Here's a review of one of his pieces, though (scroll to bottom right). Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It's time to talk about biography.com generally

I know they are owned by A&E, which gives them an air of "truthiness," but they do not cite sources or list authors. In particular, the birthdates they give are very often in conflict with journalistic sources of high repute. For examples, see Fergie (singer) and Chadwick Boseman. I'm not convinced we should be treating them as reliable at all, especially when their information contradicts better sources such as interviews and journalistic mini-bios. Does anyone have any insight into their editorial process? Without that knowledge, I see no reason to assume they are doing anything but copying other websites. Krychek (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

This page (PDF bypass) hosted by CSU–Global Campus lists it under the section "INTERNET SOURCES TO AVOID". --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

along with us --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

A&E as in Arts and Entertainment as in entertainment. That's not a credential. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Leaving aside whether one Joyce Ann Kievit at a college in Colorado finds Biography.com credible — and the website gives no reason or rationale whatsoever for its claim — a TV network lierally devoted to biography and biographical research, part of one of the largest media conglomerates in the country, with a professional staff of researchers and editors, is unquestionably WP:RS for biographies. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

We have no evidence that the website has a professional staff of researchers and editors. On the page of Fergie it has a section saying "Fact Check" with the words "We strive for accuracy and fairness. If you see something that doesn't look right, contact us!" written underneath. The contact page links to this which as the bottom says "Send feedback, report errors and submit general questions to info@bio.com". Nothing about the about page shows anything about any staff. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Emir, you're a valued colleague with good judgment. In this case, I do have to say I'm surprised anyone would suggest that a TV network — Biography Channel having changed its name to FYI — does not have a staff.

Secondarily, the fact that someone, i.e., a staff, actively solicits feedback to help ensure that its articles are correct is a good and proper thing. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, and I know this is a personal claim and I can only ask that you consider me credible after our many collaborations, I was once interviewed in my capacity as a journalist for a Biography Channel show, and there was a Manhattan office filled with about a dozen people. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'll see if there's a staff directory available, and this Variety article may be useful background: "‘Biography’ Franchise Returns as Event Programming Across A+E Networks Channels (Exclusive)" by Cynthia Littleton, March 21, 2017. Rob Sharenow, exec VP and general manager of A&E and Lifetime, is interviewed. I'm sure there are people under him.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Four executive producers for the Biography franchise are Elaine Frontain Bryant, Shelly Tatro and Brad Abramson. As executive producers, they would have staff. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Tenebrae. Sorry if I surprised you, but perhaps you misunderstood me. I am in now way making any claims about Biography Channel or program but rather just the website. This is not a case like a newspaper where the articles are published both online and on paper, but a site with over 7000 biographies. If someone can show a clear link between the program/channel and the website then I would look on this source more favorably. My point about the feedback was that is the only thing they list as fact checking, that people can contact them if they are incorrect. If they had their own fact checking process then their would be no need for soliciting feedback after being published. Even if you did not misunderstand me I am still grateful for you calling me a valued colleague, and I will still respect you even if we have a difference of opinion on this matter. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. I work very collegially with many editors, some of them for many years now, and differences of opinion occur. I find discussion, compromise and calm help prevent hard feelings. And I'm always impressed with your care and meticulousness.

This might answer your perfectly reasonable question about whether the website and the network are indeed part of the same entity: Indicia at the bottom of Biography.com reads "© 2018 Bio and the Bio logo are registered trademarks of A&E Television Networks, LLC." The Copyright page at Biography.com goes to an A&E page beginning "A&E Television Networks, LLC and its subsidiaries and affiliates (collectively, 'A+E Networks' ...." From there, the Careers page doesn't break down A&E jobs into specific divisions (A&E, Lifetime, FYI, etc.), but there are listings for "Research" and for "Digital Media." So whether or not there are current open positions at the Biography franchise, we know there are research and digital-media staff positions, at least. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. This is a tricky one. I have added a do not archive tag so hopefully other people can give us some input. If dedicated researches are present then I would say it is an RS without a doubt, but the possible contradictions with other sources make me wonder if they are just honest mistakes or unreliable sources. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• There is a missing question in this debate... “Reliable compared to WHAT?” In the absence of any OTHER source, Biography is probably “reliable enough” to use. But there are certainly lots of other sources that are way MORE reliable, and if there is a discrepancy we should certainly defer to those other, more reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm actully not seeing where the suspicion of unreliability comes from. As a journalist, I've found Biography.com information to check out with other sources, such as interview subjects and public records. Nothing is 100%, not even Encyclopedia Britannica, but I've found this website to be reliable at a professional level. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Per this article, biography.com is operated by SAY Media, not the A&E television network. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Mostly reliable. Because the A&E Network is so prominent, they likely factcheck their work pretty well, but their work can still be challenged on a case by case basis. This is similar to citing Stratfor, the global intelligence company. Their articles often do not have citations or named authors, but it is well known they are one of the most reliable in their industry. See Waters.Justin (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• I never watch A&E except by accident, and even then I've seen plenty of nonsense on it. Then there's The History Channel; once in a while something on it attracts my attention, and each time I'm reminded what nonsense they peddle. Here's a great example: "Is there evidence to support the long-rumored secret Nazi device known as "Die Glocke," which was purportedly a wonder weapon or a time travel device?" Here at Misplaced Pages I've have many bad experiences with biography.com – frequent errors. Even if we assume they're reliable, I've never seen evidence they have anything that couldn't be easily found somewhere else. I'd use it, at most, as a provisional source for hard-to-get-wrong, uncontentious stuff. EEng 04:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC on self-published announcements of works and roles

There's a RFC on whether self-published announcements of works and roles are acceptable as a reliable source. There are typically in the format of "Catch me on show X as role Y". Discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Are self-published announcements of works and roles (e.g. Tweets, Facebook posts) where the content is in the lines of "Catch me on show X as role Y" acceptable as a reliable source? Thanks in advance for your input. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Media Matters

I recently removed text from our article Chris Matthews citing criticism of him in Media Matters for America for being overly critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 US Presidential election campaign. This was in light of a recent article in the notable liberal political journal The New Republic, "What Happens to Media Matters in a Post-Hillary World?" by Clio Chang And Alex Shephard, which said:

"Employees were asked to stay late or work on the weekends specifically to cover Clinton, which many felt came at the expense of other stories and the organization’s mission. Nearly every former staffer we spoke to felt that researchers, in particular, were underpaid and overworked, and that these problems often surfaced when they were forced to work on stories they felt were dubious. As one former staffer described it, “They were paying me $35,000 a year to watch Fox all the time and to do rotating shifts where I’d have to change from a day shift to a night shift every two weeks. It was just a miserable job...”

When it came to the organization’s research standards, most former staffers we talked to agreed that they were lowered when it came to Clinton-related content. One former staffer told us that, compared to “the amount of evidence we would have to collect to go after another story,” Clinton pieces had a “much lower bar. It literally just had to involve Hillary Clinton and that was it.” Another said that they often weren’t allowed to publish Clinton-related pieces “until they had been read by someone in leadership...”

Then there was James Carville’s guest column for the site. In his inaugural post, the longtime Clinton ally stated his intention was to use the space to defend the Clintons: “That’s what happens when you have one standard for the Clintons, and a different one for everybody else, which is why I’ll be writing regularly in this space.” (Bradley Beychok, who was president of Media Matters from 2013 until early December, and who was thought responsible for enforcing the site’s pro-Clinton bent, is close to Carville)"

The New Republic was generally positive about Media Matters: "With the proliferation of conservative misinformation and the rise in popularity of far-right websites like Breitbart, there is a need for organizations like Media Matters now more than ever," but was scathing about their slant toward Hillary Clinton in the last Presidential campaign. Quoting The New Republic article again:

" Media Matters derives its credibility from its objectivity—its posts are dry, often consisting almost entirely of transcripts that aim to show how conservative media is misleading the public. Media Matters is also classified as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit group in the tax code, which means that it cannot explicitly advocate for a political candidate. The organization is careful not to step over that line, always framing pieces with a media angle—for example, “New York Times’s Maureen Dowd Writes Yet Another Anti-Clinton Column.” But with Carville’s column, that veneer of objectivity was tossed aside. Media Matters also had one standard for the Clintons, and a different one for everybody else."

This is an WP:NPOV indictment of Media Matters for America as an unreliable source of information on Hillary Clinton or her critics during the 2016 US Presidential election campaign. The New Republic is a notable liberal political journal which addressed its complaints not to Media Matters' political stance, but to their journalistic ethics and to their violation of the US Tax Code by systematically advocating for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 US Presidential election campaign despite registering with the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.

Is this enough to initiate a discussion in the Reliable Sources/Noticeboard's Project Page of Media Matters for America's reliability when cited to support statements regarding Hillary Clinton and/or her critics during the 2016 US Presidential election campaign? loupgarous (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking at that text you removed, the claim has in-text attribution to Media Matters ("Matthews has been accused by Media Matters for America..."). Obviously the organization is a reliable source for its own viewpoint, so reliability is really not the issue. The question is whether Media Matters' opinion of Chris Matthews is significant enough to be in the article. That's not a question for this noticeboard, as far as I can tell. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue never was "is Media Matters for America a reliable source for their own viewpoint?" but "are they a reliable source of information about how fairly journalists treated Hillary Clinton?"

It is a very reasonable question for this noticeboard to ask, "When Media Matters' critcism of reporting on the 2015-6 Presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton is called systematically biased by a politically friendly journal, do we warn our editors about recognizable bias in that criticism?" loupgarous (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• There seems to be a bit of an agenda here, as Vfrickey (loupgarou) is also trying to use this source to push for a paragraph-long indictment of MMfA at that article's talk, complete with links to irs.gov web pages embedded in text accusing MMfA of violating tax laws. This source is already used in the article, though the single sentence it supports probably needs a bit of expansion (and a serious grammar check). I've proposed what I feel is a WP:DUE amount of coverage at talk.

I'm also seeing some serious NPOV problems with the editing at Matthews' article, but that's not for this forum. For the record: criticism should almost always be attributed, so as long as MMfA's criticism of Hillary's critics is attributed, it's perfectly fine. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the change you're talking about, right? First of all, the line said absolutely nothing about Clinton, and the source was published in 2005. What bearing does a 2016 National Review article about Media Matters' opinion on Clinton have? Second, this still isn't a question of reliability. Unless someone is using Media Matters as a source for factual claims in Misplaced Pages's voice (rather than claims about Media Matters' own viewpoint), then its a question of weight: is Media Matters' viewpoint on the subject significant enough to include in the article? See WP:BIASED. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a biased source as long fact checking has occurred. However other factors such as due weight and whether they are fringe or common views need to be accounted for. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I just restored that edit, as the justification for removing it was completely inaccurate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Is a government agency a RS for statements attributed to the agency?

I'm feverishly trying to salvage (no pun intended) this article on a salvage company from deletion. It was a mess before and was heavily WP:PROMOTIONAL and also whitewashed the company's very sketchy history. I think I've repaired it pretty well. However, one sentence I added was:

• "According to the Port of Los Angeles, it is the largest recycling company in southern California."

This is cited to the Port of Los Angeles' official website. Lacypaperclip keeps adding an "unreliable" tag and has inquired if I can "demonstrate editorial control plus oversight?"* My question is: is an official website of the Port of Angeles a RS for statements attributed to the Port of Los Angeles per WP:RSOPINION? Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
*(in fairness, this might be a little bit of a "gotcha" attempt at me for posing an identical question about a source Lacy added to a BLP here; if that's all that's happening, I apologize in advance for wasting the noticeboard's time with this inquiry) Chetsford (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That last jibe is both unnecessary as well as a violation of WP:AGF. Consider yourself warned. Perhaps you should read over AGF. I am a bit surprised you came here, you so adamantly were citing policy to me, I thought you might know the exact chapter and verse on the policy. Bringing up a bad faith accusation is really not a way to curry any favor here. Thanks! Lacypaperclip (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"That last jibe is both unnecessary as well as a violation of AGF." Very sorry if I inadvertently offended. It was merely an observation of a diff'ed fact (see my post to you here: "Does it have editorial controls?" and your edit summary 40 minutes later to me here: "Can you demonstrate editorial control" . I brought it up only, as I explained, to make sure no one spent time replying here if this was a WP:POINT and not a WP:RS question. But your affirmation that it was a GF coincidence by you is good enough for me.

"I thought you might know the exact chapter and verse on the policy" Thanks, I do! The exact chapter is WP:RS and the verse is WP:RSOPINION. Thoughts? Chetsford (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts about the situation at hand would not be proper to post about at this particular venue. Lacypaperclip (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I don't really think we have a "situation." We just need some extra sets of eyes to figure out if we need a new source or not. But I appreciate if you don't want to participate in the discussion. Thank you for checking in! Chetsford (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Never said I did not want to participate in this discussion. Thanks for checking in! no comment on that statement. We do have a situation, but again that will be for another more proper venue as I said. I agree we need extra eyes here for sure. Thanks! Lacypaperclip (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I really apologize if I misinterpreted you Lacypaperclip. In any case, if you don't want to participate in the discussion at this venue, I will make a point of pinging you to alert you as to its ultimate outcome (either way) prior to making any further edits to the sentence in question so as to ensure we're both on the same page. Thanks, again, for checking in! Chetsford (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

References

1. "Port of Los Angeles, SA Recylcing Move Forward with Crane Replacement Project". portoflosangeles.com. Port of Los Angeles. Retrieved January 11, 2018.

• I skipped most of your back-and-forth posts.

Is an entity's own website RS for statements attributed to that entity? Yes it is. Considering that entity is the Port of Los Angeles and the statement, that such-and-such is the largest recycling company in southern California, isn't far out of its wheelhouse, I'd say that it's okay for Misplaced Pages's voice as well. Wait, it's not a government agency but a private company? That changes things. Only if the reliability of the source has been questioned in some way 1) Someone thinks that might not really be the Port's own website or 2) other similarly or more reliable sources contradict the Port's assertion would further sourcing or examination be necessary.

So is that what's going on here? Does some other source say that some other recycling company is the largest in California? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Perfect - thanks! Does some other source say that some other recycling company is the largest in California? - No, you nailed it! Chetsford (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• In general an organization is reliable for its own opinion. I would keep in mind however Port of LA is a commercial business and so have a vested interest in puffing up their facilities/companies based there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, great point. That's definitely the reason I thought it was best to write "according to the Port of LA" in the first part of the sentence instead of presenting it in WP's voice. Chetsford (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

On doing just a simple search I find several companies that make this same claim. One example is here: Do your own search if you like. Lacypaperclip (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

If the Port is not a government agency but a commercial business, then it must be given more scrutiny. However, I'd still say that what it says about something like this is reliable if attributed and not contradicted. Lacypaperclip should be applauded for doing proper legwork, but the link above says that this other company "maintains the largest recycling infrastructure," not that it is the largest recycling firm. Still, there may indeed be other sources that dispute this. I have an idea but it's better suited to the article talk page. Be over in a bit. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I would say it was reliable but not quite to the level of some official government statistic. And that no one else says anything contradictory may simply be down to no one else being interested in the statistic. So I would say 'According to the Port of Los Angeles...'. Dmcq (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

RAN has since changed the article to "one of the largest" companies. Does that satisfy everyone? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me, Darkfrog24. Based on the convo seems like we're okay to remove Lacy's unreliable tag now? Chetsford (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope. This discussion is still ongoing. Thanks Darkfrog 24 for setting up the informal poll on the talk page. If anything there is a dispute among websites as to which company may be the largest. The citation that is there is unreliable. Remove the source. Basically then you have left a statement (when phrased the largest) that cannot exactly be proven or unproven. Say it is one of the largest no means virtually nothing now in terms of using that statement to assert significance or claim notability. Hence it needs to be deleted at the AFD. I suppose we shall see. There is no rush since wikipedia has no deadline. Lacypaperclip (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Lacy - it seems everyone has come to an agreement that orgs are RS for statements attributed to themselves. You previously declared you would not post your opinion "in this venue" so I'm not sure the discussion is really continuing if no one has any contrary opinions to express; unless you've changed your mind and will now be participating? (Yours would be a welcome voice, of course.) In any case, since we seem to be wrapping things up here I'll defer to RAN or Darkfrog24 to actually execute the removal of the tag. Thanks to all! Chetsford (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I never said that. You are refactoring what I said. I am here. I am participating. Stop taking the unreliable tag off until this discussion is done and closed by an uninvolved editor. You are being disruptive again. Lacypaperclip (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It does seem very clear that there is a dispute about this. Is there any way to put up an in-text tag that reads "disputed" instead of "unreliable"? That might feel less confrontational.

It seems like the both of you have been at this too long and that things have gotten personal. If you must refer to something the other person has said, quote them directly. Instead of saying "you're refactoring/lying/etc," say "that's not what I meant" and politely correct the other person.Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

digiconomist

1. Source: The WP:POV WP:UGC digiconomist and its reposted content.

"Digiconomist was created at the start of 2014 by Alex the Vries (born 1989) as a "hobby project". Source: Digiconomist about us page 

HOWEVER, the blog is often cited by reliable sources such as:

• Washington Post:
• The Guardian:

2. Article: Bitcoin#Energy_consumption

3. Content: Digiconomist is often quoted for headline grabbing comments like 'bitcoin uses more energy than XYZ nation.' Note there are existing claims in the Bitcoin article from The Economist that already goes into bitcoins huge energy consumption. What more does this blog offer to improve the sourcing?

Content: "At the end of 2017, the global bitcoin mining activity was estimated to consume between 1 and 4 gigawatts of electricity (between 9 and 35 TWh a year), with 1.2 GW as the theoretical lower bound assuming that everyone is using the most energy-efficient mining hardware available."

Diffs: , , , , ,

@Ladislav Mecir: and I believe that if digiconomist says himself that he is operating a hobby website, why should the guarding reposting his content then make it reliable, if it wasn't reliable to begin with?

@Smite-Meister: and @Calton: both seem to assert that the content is an WP:RS.

Thanks, Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the LinkedIn of the author. Starting something as hobby project is different to saying that everything ever produced in a project is a lie or hasn't been fact checked. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• One question which is missing from these equations is how much energy a visa transaction requires in terms of carbon footprint ( or the entire energy to make it happen). Digiconomists cites the worst example for one of the largest mining farms, powered by coal burning (there are however examples with large mining farms using renewable energy). Digiconomist, "At 40 megawatts of electricity per hour that comes down to a footprint of 24-40 tons of CO2 per hour." With a medium calculation of 30 tons per hour we get 262,800 tons per year. A Mastercard study estimated in 2009 that just a creditcard has a carbon footprint of 21,000 tons of CO2. This doesn't factor in the carbon footprint/energy requirements for powering standby card readers, accounting software, staff, bills/recipe letters, office heating and so on. Miners are also encouraged to use less energy, to maximise returns. We probably need an article for this topic. prokaryotes (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Digiconomist actually has a visa calculation, but only for transactions, and the data center. Digiconomist cites a 2012 article as his source, which assumes electricity consumption for nine days equally to 25,000 households - for one data center with 130 staff people - who probably drive to the office gas powered. Visa in 2018, cites they have four datacenters, and 3 billion creditcards (That's 63,000,000,000,000 tons of CO2 from credit cards carbon footprint alone, accoridng to Mastercard). prokaryotes (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Digiconomist Bitcoin vs Visa graph is only factoring in transactions, with limited reliability estimates, old numbers, and his figure of 50,000 households (which according to his source is for 18 days for 1 data center), is either misleading, or at best a failure in balanced accounting. prokaryotes (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Issue is not digiconomist's methodology, but rather the fact that he himself admits he is operating a hobby site. A hobby site is a WP:UGC, not an RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

He said he started it as a hobby project, not that he wants everything ever written on it just be considered as a hobby site. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

He is a "Data Consultant & Blockchain Specialist" for PwC where he is "Blockchain Tribe Squad Leader". --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice also that his Visa household figure is based on backup diesel generators. A 2014 article points out (Bank of America Merrill Lynch report) "Yet, for all the energy efficiency that technology brings us, data centres remain the technology world’s dark little energy guzzling secret." prokaryotes (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This is an interesting source, I was reading it, maybe can incorporate it.

This doesn't matter who he is, not notable. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of cited sources The above cited Guardian article claims, "..one of Visa’s two US data centres reportedly runs on about 2% of the power required by bitcoin", but digiconomist nor the Guardian re-cited 360 article compare Bitcoin with Visa's household consumption at all! WAPO article actually more critical here, "One alarmist article in Newsweek said that bitcoin computer operations could consume “all of the world’s energy by 2020.” The website Digiconomist claims that bitcoin operations use as much energy as Denmark." Thus, I object to The Guardian source, but the WAPO link seems like a critical reliable look at the issue. WAPO also states, "..would amount to less than 1 percent of U.S. electricity alone and no more than 0.14 percent of global electricity generation" prokaryotes (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems you have some sources for the Visa info. Does this visa info speak to Bitcoin's energy consumption? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• There's no reason to get hung on the word "hobby", it has no bearing on the validity of the source. Many people provide professional-quality work as a hobby. De Vries seems pretty transparent about his methodology and also has reasonable formal qualifications as mentioned above, for what it's worth. Even more importantly, we (Misplaced Pages) are not using him as a source. Guardian and WaPo are. It's their decision, not ours. Finally, the WaPo article also cites numerous other experts who arrive at similar results, so I don't quite see the point of this dispute. Smite-Meister (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"Dont get hung up on hobby." Sorry, RS is important here.

WaPO also cites this blog as well as Newsweek , which also cites digiconomist. The sources you are referring to are count them, in total 2 blogs.

Last, refrain from edit warring this disputed content, such as this you did just now . Thanks, Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is now just citing 2015 figures, newer estimates, as cited here by Marc Bevand (linked by WaPo), point out that the least energy-effcient miners are barely profitable. Thus, the 2015 figure is outdated, and The Economist did not provide a calculation at all. Even if WaPo cites the digiconomist site, WaPo remains as a reliable source. TLDR The Bitcoin article gives a false impression on today's energy consumption. prokaryotes (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, always comment below the last comment, otherwise it becomes too confusing to follow up, and is a comment guideline requirement. No Visa didn't cite Bitcoin energy consumption, why should they? The reason why I pointed out that Visa's energy consumption is considerable too? Digioconomist didn't offer conclusive evidence, quiet the opposite. It is hard to tell but I would think it is similar to cryptocurrencies, maybe even more when looking at the entire credit card market. Also you shouldn't do any more reverts at the Bitcoin article, until consensus has formed. prokaryotes (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, was looking for the most recent comment and must have replied out of sync. I don' think we should get into WP:OR and compare energy consumption. Just my opinion. I reverted content that is disputed on in this very dispute and WP:STATUSQUO applies. Marc Bevand's blog above is also not an RS, WP:UGC applies. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

QZ (January 5, 2018): Having shut down the exchanges where cryptocurrencies like bitcoin are traded, the Chinese government is now going after the facilities where such currencies are “mined.” To do so, it’s hitting such operations where it hurts: electricity supply.prokaryotes (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Chinese bitcoin miners eye sites in energy-rich Canada (Reuters) China’s Bitmain Technologies is eyeing bitcoin mining sites in Quebec, a company spokesman told Reuters, as expectations of a potential Chinese crackdown on cryptocurrency mining make the energy-rich Canadian province an attractive alternative. prokaryotes (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant

Of course, this entire thread is entirely irrelevant, since the sources being used are The Guardian and the Washington Post, which are straight-up reliable sources. If User:Jtbobwaysf has a problem with how these reliable sources get their information, he should go bitch to their respective editors. I suggest that this be closed as a waste of time. --Calton | Talk 02:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Huffington Post and BuzzFeed

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/Regressive_left The Article about the term "Regressive left" quotes in the criticism section the Huffington Post and BuzzFeed. I think it is not responsible to use such low quality and prejudiced sources in an article on political terminology. 77.47.74.232 (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Buzzfeed is being used one for sourcing its commentary; HuffPo twice to source its commentary, and an another to source a comment made by another person. Neither source is unreliable for facts, so there's no issue with using HuffPo to source a person's quote and there is zero issue with quoting the writers from Buzzfeed and HuffPo themselves for their opinions. As to their opinion, it becomes a matter of whether they are undue weight and/or fringe opinions, relative to all other opinions on the topic, and not a reliable source issue. --Masem (t) 19:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That will be interesting, since having an article reflecting this alt-right talking point is in itself arguably undue weight. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• The HuffPo op-ed and Buzzfeed piece (it's a report, not op-ed AFAIK) are the least problematic sources in that article. I've tagged the article for over-reliance on primary sources and encourage folks to trim the content and fix the sourcing in the article as a whole. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• As Masem noted, neither source is unreliable for facts; while BuzzFeed used to be clickbaity, it has an actual, fairly solid journalistic reputation at this point, thanks to reporters such as Joseph Bernstein. They are *at least* as solid of sources as the National Review or Splice Today, both of which are cited in the article and neither of which you seem to be complaining about. If you're actually worried about "low quality and prejudiced sources" and not simply ones you ideologically disagree with, you should be discussing the extensive use of the David Pakman Show or a YouTube video with Milo Yiannopoulos. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, we are using left-leaning sources to critique an alt-right term? I'm shocked. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Not reliable: the Huffington Post will happily publish unverified, borderline fake, stories to please their leftist followers. We should most certainly not be trusting it as a reliable source. –Sb2001 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • here. Your description of a source as having "leftist" followers needs explanation, because we don't negate sources merely because they tend to have an ideological bent. Otherwise, we wouldn't cite the National Review or Fox News, either. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Huffpost republishes works so you can go to the original source. For example this article comes from The Wall Street Journal. Best to dig a bit deeper and find better sourcing, if possible, IMO C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Frisland reliable sources

Very recently I started to edit the article on Frisland to add an article that appears in the Portolan Journal (http://www.washmapsociety.org/The-Portolan-Journal.htm) as a reference to one of the theories as to the origin of Frisland on old (circa 1500s) maps of the north atlantic.

The subject of the article is that Frisland is shown as an island on old maps of the north atlantic, when in fact no such island exists in the area where it is shown. Various theories are presented, which are not reliably sourced, attesting to various theories of origin (mis-mapping of Iceland;; mis-mapping of Faroe Islands, mis-mapping of Shetland Islands, mis-mapping of Greenland, etc.). The author of the article (http://marcopoloinseattle.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Portolan-Article-Newfoundland-Nov-2016-1.pdf) that was recently (2017) published in the peer-reviewed Portolan Journal posited the theory, which he well-details, that the island is a mis-mapping of Newfoundland Island. One of the original editors of the Frisland article (2010, Doug Weller) and another editor (Slatersteven) are seeking to keep that theory, and the article supporting it, from being included in the article on their claim that Portolan Journal is not "peer reviewed". The editors of the journal that do the reviewing (and the author of the article in question is not part of that editorial staff) have many years of experience editing the Portolan Journal. The discussion on this is at Talk:Frisland.

Doug and fellow editor Steveslater are essentially now asserting that the journal editors doing the review (17 years of journal editing of the Portolan) is insufficient experience/knowledge to support a "peer-review" authorship, and hence does not meet the RS requirement. I strongly disagree. It is to be noted that none of the competing theories, which are already in the Frisland article, appear to meet any form of support by RS peer-reviewed articles; rather the only one that does is the one I sought to include in the article (and which appears to be demonstrably correct as per original discussion on my talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Youngnoah)).

Assistance from other editors indicating that Doug is out on a limb would be appreciated. Youngnoah (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Youngnoah

Just to play Devil’s advocate... I am sure that Doug would also appreciate any assistance from other editors. (especially if they indicate that he isn’t “out on a limb”.) 😜 Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Doug has been a long-time valuable editor. That does not guarantee infallibility. It would be appreciated if other editors could review the discussions on this matter. Thankx. Youngnoah (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Youngnoah

I only see one editor. Youngnoah says two but when asked at Talk:Frisland who were the other editors replied "Don't know and don't care." The editor of the journal was a career army officer for 30 years.. The webmaster is Leigh Lockwood, haven't found anything about him yet. The fringe author Youngnoah wants to use is Gunnar Thompson. A description on his website is here but also see Jason Colavito's description here. Thompson's obit is here and seems accurate about his career but not his books.

His books seem to be self-published. Nu Sun: Asian-American Voyages, 500 B.C. something called Pioneer Publishing in Fresno CA which is where Thompson worked and doesn't seem to have published anything else. Certainly not what we call reliably published and got a terrible review in an academic journal.

Secret Voyages published by his "New World Discovery Institute".

American Discovery, what's "Seattle: "Argonauts O.T.M" - again, Seattle where he worked.

Friar's Map L Lee productins - can't find this, not reliably published. It claims "Guernsey Museum Monograph, Multicultural Heritage Series No. 3" but here's their list of publications.

Lions in the New World only lists a distributor.

American Discovery is listed twice, there seems to be a 2nd edition, again it's the mysterious OTM in Seattle, not reliably published. In fact these all look self-published

Where is sinebot when you need him. I wroyte the post above, most of it on Youngnoah’s talk page. I’m surprised he didn’t remember. Doug Weller talk 20:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Please sign your posts so we know who you are. The two reviewers (at least) that I referenced are the current editor (Thomas Sander) and John Docktor, another past president and the Society’s webmaster, who Sander says is a regular reviewer of new materials. This was posted to show the use of the plural was proper; hence I don't care about the names of others, or if there are others; I was being challenged on the usage of the plural, and supported that usage by providing two names. Youngnoah (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Youngnoah

It's been discussed by us previously that several of his books are self-published. This is not about those books, or his other theories. This is strictly about his idea that Newfoundland is Fixland/Frisland, though mis-mapped as to its location in the old maps of circa 1500. Gunnar Thompson had lots of other ideas that are considered 'fringe'. I suspect that some of those other ideas will someday be proven true. However, this article on Frisland already lists numerous 'fringe' ideas as to how Frisland/Fixland came to be mapped on old maps. Only one (or none) can be correct. To be consistent, I'm suggesting a section in the article, likely to be called 'Theories', which detail the various theories already included in the article, and also to include the Gunnar Thompson theory that it is actually Newfoundland. Certainly, the various old maps he categorizes and on which he shows the similarities to Newfoundland is intriguing, and appears far more likely than the other theories. Youngnoah (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Youngnoah

There’s only one fringe source there and I plan to remove it if we can’t find a mainstream source discussing him. I’ve listed a lot of good sources on the talk page and the article can be rewritten from them. Doug Weller talk 20:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Ethereum

Is the following content reliably sourced?

Vitalik Buterin picked the name Ethereum after browsing Misplaced Pages articles about elements and science fiction, when he found the name, noting, "I immediately realized that I liked it better than all of the other alternatives that I had seen; I suppose it was the fact that sounded nice and it had the word "ether", referring to the hypothetical invisible medium that permeates the universe and allows light to travel."

References

1. Vitalik Buterin (2014). "So where did the name Ethereum come from?".

-- Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course it is. How is the founder of Ethereum on the Ethereum forum saying how he picked the name unreliable? My comment here is only about the reliability of the source which is not WP:USERGENERATED but WP:ABOUTSELF, other sources on that article and similar articles may be unreliable and other issues such as due weight may still have to be considered. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to post something, was directed here by Jytdog. The account from which the comment was made is from Vitalik himself, and has forum administrator status, which seems to meet the USERGENERATED exception for editorial staff. prokaryotes (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The two posters so far are the two people who have tried to retain this. In my view this is a blatant USERGENERATED issue, a comment on a blog. This article and the other crypto ones are beset by this kind of very, very low quality sourcing. There will be further issues with UNDUE even if the source is found "reliable". If this is the only place were it is discussed, it is not worth discussing in WP. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for discussing the reliability of the source you have presented for the information it is being used to represent. Whether other sources on the article or other crypto ones are low quality is not an issue that should be shoved on the side of another question. If you look above on the sections present in this page and the archives you will see I have commented a notable amount of times on the reliability of sources, my answer here is not merely because I have "tried to retain this". Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You have made your opinion clear at the article and above. Your opinion here, is what it is, regardless of what you have said elsewhere, as is mine. Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Undue -- the statement may be reliable as to what the CEO claims, but I would consider such content to be undue trivia. Founders routinely come up with "origin stories" but including them is indiscriminate. I would not include such material in an article about a company. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Ethereum is not a company. It is a currency platform, the currency is traded by millions of people, of whom many might be interested to know the origins of it's naming.prokaryotes (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

In any case, I would not use a self-citation (https://ethereum.stackexchange.com) for this information. It's unneeded & superfluous info cited to a WP:PRIMARY source. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added it after noticing that the Bitcoin article has an etymology section. Bitcoin and Ethereum are the two largest cryptocurrencies. prokaryotes (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The reference does not meet the definition of WP:PRIMARY, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event", instead as Emir of Misplaced Pages notes, it meets the definition of WP:ABOUTSELF. The same is true for the Bitcoin article etymology section which begins by citing the founders initial white paper, Vitalik Buterin here is also the founder of Ethereum. prokaryotes (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Unclear Anyone can claim to be anyone. Is this username positively associated with Vitalik Buterin? If so, I'd say it's probably reliable in the form of "according to Vitalik Buterin, he chose the name" per WP:RSOPINION. On an issue unrelated to the question of reliability, if there are no other references in unambiguous RS it might be UNDUE as K.e.coffman notes, and teetering on the edge of WP:OR by its singular reliance on a primary source for a functional piece of information. Chetsford (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The Stack Exchange account of Ethereum, references above quote. The Stack Exchange account is linked in the footer of the official website ethereum.org. Above forum link is mentioned and linked on their website's FAQ, where they write , "...please do not hesitate in contacting us on our forums". The comment user account has the role of Adminstrator on "their" forum, with 6 badges, and 161 points, this means the account is positively associated with Vitalik Buterin. prokaryotes (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, prokaryotes. Seems reasonable on that aspect to me, then. Chetsford (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Undue trivia - agree with K.e.coffman. Alexbrn (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

odssf.com

I've just found this website being used in several BLPs: Jennifer Ward, Al Roker, Dagen McDowell, Jeanine Pirro. Jennifer Ward, Tucker Carlson, and Raúl Esparza. I've removed it from Don Lemon but thought I'd bring it here for discussion before removing more. It's full of unsourced anonymous biographies and clickbait, and the aboutus page is blank. User:Ronz notes it may be screen scraping other signs and might have something to say about it. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like a completely bonkers source to me. Could be nice if someone looked into who was adding it, if one account then maybe a block. Smells like a spam situation to me, but I have not looked that deeply into it. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I certainly don't think it should be used as a source. If the people who run a website don't care enough to get basic information about themselves right, we shouldn't expect that they care about getting anything else correct.

I wasn't able to figure out what the site is, and didn't investigate closely. Looks like it started as a copy of bijog.com.

I don't have time at the moment to look at who's been adding it, but here are two additions:

Added to Tucker Carlson by 67.197.243.87 (talk · contribs)

Added to Cherie Johnson by @Vidal 1077: --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@ShulMaven: Jennifer Ward addition, @MB298: Al Roker addition, @Peteycat: Dagen McDowell addition, @Anthony22: Jeanine Pirro addition --Ronz (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I added that about two years ago, I was looking simply for references and had no malicious intent. I'll remove the ref now if it hasn't been removed already. MB298 (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I should have noted that I've been looking at a large number of similar sources in the past year. Overwhelmingly they are being added in good faith. I don't expect it's any different with odssf.com. --Ronz (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Zogby International polling is "is on the verge of being unscientific"

Nate Silver has a good reputation as a rater of polling institutions, first at the New York Times and later at FiveThirtyEight. Back in 2010, he wrote an article containing the following quote regarding Zogby International: "Zogby’s method — which allows people to sign up for surveys voluntarily — is on the verge of being unscientific, and is evidently incapable of being worthy of any attention other than as a curiosity."

In 2008, Zogby International conducted a poll which rated Rush Limbaugh as "the most trusted news personality in the nation, garnering 12.5 percent of poll responses". See Rush_Limbaugh#The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show. I am considering deleting this statement from Rush Limbaugh's article. Before I take this step, I am requesting input from experts on reliable sources. Overjive (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not a comment on Zogby International polling, but that statement is sourced to the website "IMAO.us". I have not heard off this but they are listed at Imao (not Lmao) as a political humor blog, which is supported by the about page at http://www.imao.us/index.php/about/. On this basis I think it should be removed without actually analyzing Zogby, but considering that is a humor blog I would not be surprised if it was not true anyway. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I found the same poll described on Wired, so I conclude it is not solely the product of a humor website. Thanks for the great info Emir! Overjive (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

References

1. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/zogby-broke-internet-but-it-can-be/
2. https://www.wired.com/2008/11/internet-fox-ne/

GB Times (gbtimes.com)

Source: https://gbtimes.com/chinese-pianist-sunny-li-adds-her-own-touch

This "about us" is so jargon heavy I can't be sure, but it does seem to be a platform for PR. "Our multi national teams deliver successful, multiple languages campaigns for our clients across a range of platforms including; social media, digital, TV, radio and print." Located a source supporting Sunny Li, paid creation disclosed on talkpage but there are 125 more articles using it including a whisky distillery, a chat app and an advertising company. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution