Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:03, 25 February 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.

Jeremy Bates New York Jets Quarterbacks Coach

The page for Jeremy Bates incorrectly identifies him as the Offensive Coordinator for the New York Jets. He is listed on the official New York Jets website as the quarterbacks coach, a position he has held for about a year. On January 19, 2018 a piece was published in the New York Daily news that contained speculation that Bates would be named Offensive Coordinator for the Jets but no announcement has been forthcoming and no change has been made to the official website. There has been no verification of any kind by Bates or anyone connected with the Jets that he has been promoted.

Salon Newspaper an Opinion website ?

Hello in the actual Misplaced Pages article about Salon newspaper it states in the opening line that Salon is a "News and Opinion website". Salon_(website)

If this particular website is half just opinion - why are Salon articles counted as a reliable source in quite a few Misplaced Pages articles? That is especially taking into account the very trashy and grotesque language that is obviously acceptable.

Has anyone looked into the opinion versus news dichotomy, in terms of accepting Salon articles as proper encyclopedia references of fact?

Thank you for your time. Maryanne881 (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It has multiple editorial staff as well as a dedicated corrections page . I have not fully looked into the dichotomy of the two sections though. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Maryanne881, some of their articles are news stories, and some of them are opinion pieces. You may cite the news articles for facts (just like you would cite your local newspaper, which also contains opinion pieces), and you may cite the opinion pieces for facts about the opinion being presented (e.g., "Rita Reviewer wrote that the movie was fantastic"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• It's very context dependent. Salon has a pronounced leftward editorial bias, but its reporting of science can be very good indeed. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Guy and WhatamIdoing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• News and opinion means that it has both news and opinion sections (and the two are clearly delimited.) The news sections are citable as news (its editorial slant should sometimes be taken as context, but isn't itself something disqualifying under WP:RS - see WP:BIASED), and the opinion section is citable as an opinion under the usual WP:RSOPINION rules. --Aquillion (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Can the Toronto Sun be used as a citation in Misplaced Pages?

User T****** wrote that the Toronto Sun is an unreliable citation. I looked in Misplaced Pages article, Toronto Sun, and it doesn't confirm this. Is the Toronto Sun, which appears to be a major newspaper of Toronto ok to use as a citation in Misplaced Pages? Vanguard10 (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

For context, here is the post in question. Misplaced Pages:QUESTIONABLE would exclude most North American tabloids as they have a reputation for the opposite of fact-checking. WP:BLP requires the highest quality sources for claims about living persons. Unless and until there's a consensus that the Toronto Sun is a rare exception to the unreliability of tabloids, you should avoid citing it for details about living people. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Copy-pasted from elsewhere: The Toronto Sun certainly is one of the least reliable "newspaper" in Canada, and is modeled after The Sun of the UK. It's a tabloid, not a serious source of news. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It's edging on a tabloid; I would avoid it for any BLP related issues (like this), unless they are the principle source and information corroborated with them and/or their coverage becomes central to the story at hand. --Masem (t) 23:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

In this case, the Toronto Sun clears him. So it fixes BLP issues. Still, I don't know this Patrick Brown politician so I don't really want to edit the article after this current issue settles. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If this is about the Patrick Brown scandal, you want this the absolute best sources for this stuff, not tabloids. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It is really a BLP violation if Misplaced Pages is biased either way. If there is only mention of allegations then it makes Misplaced Pages a hit piece. If it is all positive, then it can make Misplaced Pages like a propaganda piece. It's important that anything be covered as neutrally and comprehensively as possible. Otherwise, nothing should be covered. I have fixed it to be neutral. There is no mention of the Toronto Sun in the text of the article. Only the fact that Brown took a lie detector, which is not disputed by anyone or any source. Thanks for the analysis. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not how BLP works. BLP raises the bar for any sources about living persons, especially negative statements. That doesn't mean that the bar is set lower than usual for positive statements. Like, we generally wouldn't accept a tabloid's claims about non-living individuals either, because tabloids have an earned and well-known reputation for being unreliable. Neutrality does not mean that we're under any obligation to create an artificial balance that isn't present in reliable sources -- see WP:GEVAL. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

For example, if a tabloid reported that someone used their fourteen inch penis and incredible lovemaking prowess to raise enough money for charity to cure cancer, we still need a better source than that, even if it was somehow true. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Even if a tabloid did an article about a death mask of Pope Alexander VI, we still would need a better source -- even though it's about an object that happens to look like a person who has been dead for centuries. Tabloids are not real news, and this should not be news to you. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

What Misplaced Pages and we should do is to make a list of unacceptable sources. I didn't know the Toronto Sun was unacceptable until now. How about newspapers from countries with dictatorships? Should both left wing MSNBC and right wing Fox News be on a list of banned sources? Or, for now, just keep it to the Toronto Sun? I don't ever intend to use the Toronto Sun again as a Misplaced Pages citation. Vanguard10 (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It's been common knowledge that tabloids are not real news but sensationalist pablum for years. I've known not to trust tabloids since I was in elementary school, back in the Clinton administration, well before Misplaced Pages was a thing. We already have policies and guidelines that make it clear that professional, mainstream sources with a reputation for factchecking are what we want. There are more news sources and more fake news sources than you realize, so creating a set list for users who somehow don't know that tabloids are not real news would be a pointless waste of time. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Its news reporting is reliable. Note it is a member of the National Newsmedia Council, which investigates complaints of inaccurate reporting and The Sun is owned by the Postmedia Network, which owns broadsheet, tabloid and local newspapers. The paper was founded by staff from the broadsheet Toronto Telegram after that paper closed and chose the tabloid format for the convenience of its largely blue collar readers who read it on the bus to work. I note that there are no complaints about it on the Council website. The website says, "Journalistic standards require a news story to be factually accurate, including identification of individuals and quotes. The article should acknowledge the ‘other side’ of a case, and allow opportunity for response." That fully meets the requirements of a reliable source. TFD (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not news reporting, though, it's scandalmongering. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

News reports no longer considered as RS?

WP:NEWSORG notwithstanding, would anyone care to comment on this: and "news reports are primary sources for historical events". This is in relation to BrowseAloud and now AfD:BrowseAloud (3rd nomination). It's a piece of software that was barely notable in the past and was deleted on its 3rd AfD. As it has recently, since that AfD, become news-worthy for a whole new reason it went through DRV, and now AfD. This AfD seems to hinge on excluding sources like these: and I cannot see anything in our RS policy to support this new "news reports are not RS" approach. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue of whether a given source is primary, secondary or tertiary has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the source is reliable. All three types of sources can be either reliable or unreliable, depending on the content and the reputation of the source. Someone expressed the opinion that newspaper articles are primary sources. Such articles can be primary or secondary, depending on context. A "police blotter" type newspaper article saying that a burglary was reported at 123 Main Street is a primary source, and is probably reliable. A lengthy article by a staff reporter about a wave of burglaries, including interviews with detectives, victims and detailed reporting of court testimony is a secondary source. And significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources is required to establish notability. Cullen Let's discuss it 01:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• "The issue of whether a given source is primary, secondary or tertiary has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the source is reliable."

OK, I can agree that point. But over at the AfD, this same issue is being used to argue for deletion, on the basis that the sources fail RS, and thus the article topic fails WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY and WP:PRIMARYNEWS (part of WP:USEPRIMARY which is directly linked from WP:PRIMARY). Its nothing to do with reliability as such. However notability (see WP:GNG) prefers secondary sources to primary ones. So a news story from the point of time of an event - reporting the event absent any real analysis as such, would be a primary source. Almost all 'current event' news reporting falls under that, exceptions might be an indepth expose that causes a scandal, the original expose would be secondary, the subsequent news reporting on the scandal would be primary. A news report written significantly after the event analysing the causes, effect etc in depth - would be secondary. For the purposes of notability all the sources could be reliable per our policy but not an indication of notability. WP:NOTNEWS also exists for a reason, where there is a flurry of news items about a breaking story, we are not a news ticker. Notability *should* be assessed by its impact over time. Sadly NOTNEWS is routinely ignored. -add- for the two references listed, I would class them under current event reporting and so primary sources per the standard non-wiki definition as well as the wikipedia one in the linked pages above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• So where would you stand on this AfD question? And if that was delete, would that be on the basis of NOTNEWS?

I used to be very much on the fence for this article. It's a bad product, WP should not promote it, but I also see value to WP debunking it, or at least pointing out that it's not universally supported. In recent years, it has become widely used for the sort of government websites who frequently behave in a dumb and profligate manner because government thinking encourages that ("Something must be done, this is a something, let's do it."). Recently though there is an upsurge of interest in it, driven by the malware problem. It is within encyclopedic scope to answer public demand to explain such topics and I see articles like The Reg (a competent, technical specialist publication in this field) as being exactly the sort of source we should be using to justify that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think I already stood on the AFD and the DRV (prior to that) before you posted this ;) I dont have any problem with the reliability of the sources. Its that absent its use in the malware issue, its just not notable at all. And the malware issue is hardly unique or 'notable' as wikipedia would class it, plugins for browsers being vectors for virii/malware is not a new or uncommon problem at all. If there was an article on the specific malware issue itself, or a section in a relevant article on cryptomining it might/probably be worthy of inclusion there as an example. As it stands though, the article (unless something drastically changes) is just going to be an attack page completely unduely weighted towards one event in software's history. To make it not weighted that badly, you would have to restrict it down to a sentence or two and then you are still left with nothing notable. If you have to bulk out an article with a load of news reports about one event *that isnt even specifically about the subject of the article* then its a good sign NOTNEWS should be looked at. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think the arguments are reasonably clear. This is a non-notable software component that was caught up in an exploit. It's not that news reports arent reliable, or that they are primary, it's that they are about the exploit not the non-notable plugin. The same sources would be fine ot mention this in an article about bitcoin mining browser hijacks. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I would almost say that we have some type of equivalent concept of WP:BLP1E when it comes to commercial products, entities, etc, which the GNG considers part of enduring coverage. A piece of software that is part of a significant news event that is not directly tied to the intent of the software doesn't make the software notable. Instead, we look to the event, or in this case, the class of events of other illicit cryptomining incidents, and can mention the software in there. It is the same how the legit piece of software Medoc in 2017 cyberattacks on Ukraine isn't notable on its own, but is mentioned in context of the attacks. --Masem (t) 14:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• News reports are primary in the general discipline of historiography = our problem, as is often our problem, is that are regularly trying to cover 'current events'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Greenfield, Patrick (11 February 2018). "Government websites hit by cryptocurrency mining malware". the Guardian. Retrieved 19 February 2018.
2. Williams, Chris (2018-02-11). "UK ICO, USCourts.gov... Thousands of websites hijacked by hidden crypto-mining code after popular plugin pwned". The Register. Retrieved 19 February 2018.

Question about songkeybpm.com

Hello everyone! I was looking for sources for the "My Man" (Tamar Braxton song) article, specifically to add information on the song's composition. Would I be able to use the following site (songkeybpm.com) to cite the key and beats per minute? Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like it. There's no evidence it is authoritative. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Makes sense, thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

If reliable sources say something is a concept, does that make it so?

Having a disagreement at Talk:Mottainai#additional_references_for_expansion so want some clarification here. If a reliable source, such as http://www.abc.net.au which a search shows is used in 1,906 Misplaced Pages articles already, has an article titled Avoiding waste with the Japanese concept of 'mottainai' , does that prove its a concept not just a word? The argument is that they and other sources found aren't experts on "Japanese linguistics", that you need a "university press or peer-reviewed source by a Buddhist specialist", not a "popular news websites" to state something. Dream Focus 12:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I note how you start from the assumption that the sources are reliable, despite this being the forum to establish if sources are reliable for the content. Anyway, they are all "popular" media sources, none peer-reviewed scholarly sources, so they are not more reliable than the standard dictionaries that say mottainai is just a common word meaning "wasteful", "What a waste!", etc. abc.net.au is a news site, and is generally trustworthy for content like that, but they are not Japanologists, linguists or Buddhologists; when the word mottainai doesn't appear anywhere in either the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism or Routledge's Encyclopedia of Buddhism, it's safe to assume that it's not a unique Buddhist concept, and you need a better source than popular news site to contradict that. And even if it is "a concept" (a word which you have been continuously refusing to define), it doesn't matter when we already have an article on that same concept: Pratītyasamutpāda (which in Japanese is engi, not mottainai). (Note that this is based on your source; I have read and understood it, even if I don't agree with it, where you apparently have not read/understood it and are only using it to prop up an argument you are making to undermine my contributions to an article you clearly have no interest in improving.)

Additionally, what are you even doing on the article? You made one drive-by !vote in the AFD five years ago, then when I went to the talk page and suggested merging you suddenly showed up again, and your conflict with me on the swamp monster AFD and other places has made this your most active month of editing in over three years; are you hounding me?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

During your long drawn out nonsense about the the ARS at various places, you did mention that article multiple times. So I did check it out. You complained about no one adding sources to it in your village pump rant and/or elsewhere, I don't remember, so I looked for some, and found some I thought useful and put them on the talk page so they could be worked somehow into the article. I honestly thought that'd be helpful. But you wish to declare yourself an expert on everything Japanese, and dismiss any major newspaper or other reliable source as being wrong, so I asked here for opinions from those who regularly deal with cases about reliable sources. Dream Focus 20:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I mentioned it once -- one other editor kept honing in on it and I made the mistake of responding to him.

My complaint was never about no one adding sources to it; it was about ARS members not working to fix it (and a lack of "sources" was not the problem so much as a lack of specialist sources that made it clear that there was no WP:NOTDICT problem -- Wiktionary already has an entry on it, BTW) after having steamrolled the AFD, which is the opposite of how ARS is supposed to work. I concurrently made a concrete proposal (cut all the etymology crap, most of which is OR based on a rudimentary knowledge of modern Japanese grammar that wouldn't make sense in classical Japanese, cut the "Cool Japan" marketing stuff sourced to defunct ex-pat magazines, and merge what's left into Wangari Maathai), and then a few days later you showed up and basically said "I found these popular media sources, one of which is just another Cool Japan ex-pat magazine"; don't merge the article".

"drawn out nonsense" and "village pump rant" are off-topic and uncivil, and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making snide remarks like that here or elsewhere.

Also, neither ABC nor NBC are newspapers; they are (the websites of) national television networks in Australia and the United States, repectively; are you referring to The Japan Times? JT is a "major newspaper" now? It's essentially another Cool Japan ex-pat magazine, with a slightly larger circulation that is inflated by Japanese readers wanting to improve their English literacy, but no Japanese would read it for reliable information on their own country. I seem to recall they once called the Man'yōshū Japan's "oldest anthology of domestic poetry", translated its title as "Collection of 10,000 Leaves", and misspelled Susumu Nakanishi's name, all in the same short book review? It is reliable for uncontroversial claims mostly related to modern (Japanese) politics and society, but not for anything related to traditional Japanese culture if they are contradicted by better sources.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

JT is a "major newspaper" now? It's essentially another Cool Japan ex-pat magazine, with a slightly larger circulation that is inflated by Japanese readers wanting to improve their English literacy

Oh, horseshit. It's a straight-up daily newspaper, for sale in kiosks all over the Kanto area, at least. When I see someone at the point of having to make up stuff to prop up his case, I have wonder why the obsession? --Calton | Talk 00:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Calton: Sources? I doubt 99% of customers frequenting those kiosks are buying an English-language newspaper to get the inside scoop on Japanese current affairs, let alone the detailed niceties of traditional Japanese culture; they do it to practice their English. The ex-pats who use JT as their primary source of information on any of that stuff (who are definitely a tiny minority of the paper's readership if it is indeed on sale in "kiosks all over the Kanto area") are just as likely to use Japan Today, Nipponia or Look Japan. All of these sources can be used for uncontroversial BLUE content that can easily be verified in better sources, but none of them are as good as scholarly reference works from Princeton and Routledge. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW, it's not clear what you think I "made up" -- if you could clarify, I'd be happy to back up anything you think I made up with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources? I live in Tokyo, and have read it for years. So from personal experience I know that your characterization is, to put it charitably, off-base. Oh, and protip: if you have to make up shit ("...get the inside scoop on Japanese current affairs"? Who said THAT?) you're not helping your case. --Calton | Talk 06:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Please drop the tone. I did not insult you personally, and I don't deserve you issuing me "protips" and accusing me of "mak up shit". I honestly have no idea what your last three sentences are meant to mean -- are you saying that few people use The Japan Times for information on Japan? That's the same as I am saying. The simple fact is that most of its readership consists of Japanese people who want to practice their English reading, but we are not using it for English-language advice; we are using it for information on Japanese culture, in this case an alleged ancient, or at least medieval, Buddhist (or Shinto -- no one seems to be able to make up their mind) "concept". If you don't have anything to say about article content and are just here to defend a paper you've been reading for years from an off-handed remark I made about how it should only be used when better sources agree with it, which has next to nothing to do with the core issue here (the JT doesn't actually disagree with me), then I would kindly ask you to go build the encyclopedia rather than picking fights for the sake of picking fights. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I did not mean to imply with any of the above that I believed The Japan Times to be a disreputable smut rag that should never be cited. What I meant was that general news media (regardless of format or editorial bent -- the applies equally the The New York Times and The Daily Mail) are generally considered inferior for Misplaced Pages's purposes to peer-reviewed scholarly works, at least in fields like linguistics, religious studies and classical literature. (The question is actually tangential to the content dispute, though, since the article in question does not contradict my claim that mottainai refers to the concept of wastefulness.) It's obvious that multiple good-faith contributors have interpreted my comments as saying what I didn't mean them to say, so I apologize for my lack of clarity. In that spirit, I have stricken everything I wrote above about The Japan Times specifically. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. If the New York Times and others said something, that'd be enough. Even if you couldn't find something in what you considered to be a "peer-reviewed scholarly works", that wouldn't mean that you could just decide something doesn't exist, and argue nonstop about it not being real and having no reason to have an article. Dream Focus 16:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• I placed a friendly suggestion at Hijiri88's talk page: a similar suggestion is made to other participants in the discussion here and at Talk:Mottainai#additional references for expansion: comment on content not on contributors, and certainly avoid to bait other editors into making personal comments. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• So, thus far, in the Source/Article/Content logic for entries on this noticeboard, we have (if I'm not erring):
  • Sources (from Talk:Mottainai#additional references for expansion):
    • Avoiding waste with the Japanese concept of 'mottainai' (abc.net.au)
    • Los Angeles' Little Tokyo Looks for a Sustainable Future With Some 'Mottainai' (nbcnews.com)
    • Sato, Yuriko (2017), "Mottainai: a Japanese sense of anima mundi", Journal of Analytical Psychology, 62 (1), John Wiley & Sons: 147–154, doi:10.1111/1468-5922.12282
    • Suzuki, Yasushi; Kar, Rabi N. (15 September 2017), "India-Japan Cultural Distance on the Mottainai Ethics", Towards A Common Future, pp. 155–170
  • Article: Mottainai
  • Content: --???--

I haven't seen a clear actionable content proposal yet: unless someone can provide one, with proper sourcing to the above or other publications, that we can discuss, I propose to close this thread as impossible to process on this noticeboard. Or is this only about finding sufficient independent reliable sources for WP:GNG reasons? Even then, sufficient sources should be usable for actual content in the article, so content proposals would be the way to go anyhow, even for proving notability. Or, alternatively, post {{merge to}} & {{merge from}} tags in appropriate places, in which case this RSN thread can probably be closed too (open a discussion regarding the proposed merge on the talk page of the article you propose to merge to). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Content based on Look Japan article

• Look Japan is used in the article as a reference, but then tagged as an unreliable source with the long message "unreliable source|reason=These magazines designed to introduce Japanese culture to resident foreigners are generally oversimplified and juvenile, and are frequently wrong. This is like attributing an entire paragraph of a Misplaced Pages article to a sixth-grade textbook.|date=February 2018". Mottainai#Modern_Japanese_environmentalism So, how about that specific example here? Is it a reliable source, or can someone give their personal opinion and declare it not one? Dream Focus 16:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • For that example we would have:
    • Source: Chiba, Hitoshi (November 2002). "Restyling Japan: Revival of the "Mottainai" Spirit". Look Japan. Archived from the original on April 5, 2004. Retrieved July 22, 2013.
    • Article: Mottainai#Modern Japanese environmentalism
    • Content: "In November 2002, the English-language, Japan-based magazine Look Japan ran a cover story entitled "Restyling Japan: Revival of the 'Mottainai' Spirit," documenting the motivation amongst volunteers in a "toy hospital" in Japan to "develop in children the habit of looking after their possessions," the re-emergence of repair shops specializing in repairing household appliances or children's clothes, the recycling of PET bottles and other materials, the collection of waste edible oil, and more generally the efforts to stop the trend of throwing away everything that can no longer be used, i.e. the efforts of reviving "the spirit of "mottainai""."

  & some prior discussion about this content-reference combination at Talk:Mottainai#Merge?, (ii). Thoughts (apart from those already mentioned above)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Inside the article itself, where its used as a reference, there is a tag saying "unreliable reference" and anyone clicking edit on the article can see that long reason given as to why. Should that "unreliable reference" be in the article?" Dream Focus 16:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The above-quoted section title is my softened version; the content as it was originally written was complete nonsense. My version at least doesn't appear to contain fringe content, but as written now it would seem to belong more in an article on Environmentalism in Japan. An ex-pat magazine using a common Japanese word that virtually everyone who lives here and has at least a passing knowledge of the language knows does not demonstrate anything beyond its being an everyday word. Even use of more obscure words in such sources could easily be attributed to an intention to teach sub-N1 foreigners the language. The reason parameter in my tag focused on the apparent lack of critical nuance in the source (and I might even be wrong about that -- you should take it to the talk page and see what User:Curly Turkey and User:Imaginatorium think), but there are plenty more reasons why that source is inappropriate for the content attributed it and the context in which it is attributed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri, you're arguing with someone who's not trying to understand what you're saying. All they care is if the article's sources meet the lowest of thresholds, which they unfortunately do. And so we're stuck with bullshit. At this point, the best you can do is damage control, like you did with that section header—and delete all that uncited text in "Origins" (which should be titled "Etymology"—"Origins" borders on POV-pushing).

Mottainai is a "concept" only in the sense that words in general stand for concepts. It's deserving of no more than a mention in Environmentalism in Japan, but an entire article on mottainai ignores the fact that it's a common, everyday word, not normally loaded with political or religious connotations. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

So multiple reliable sources and a noble prize winner talk about the concept, but two self proclaimed experts on anything Japanese say something else. Others please add in your input here. Dream Focus 22:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Dream Focus: you're not even trying to understand what the issue is, so trying to communicate with you is only exasperating. Thank you for "improving" the ecyclopaedia with bullcrap. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Curly Turkey: As I said on my talk page, I'm done wih the article. You even suggested I focus my efforts elsewhere. I might take a look at that bushidō article you mentioned: even if it is somewhat outside my normal wheelhouse, I can at least keep it from saying things like "The Heike Monogatari dates to the eighth century and is one of the earliest Japanese writings." I guess this thread can be closed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Dream Focus: Could you just answer, simply: who do you think knows more about the Japanese language: a person who has studied, speaks, and reads the Japanese language, or a person who has not, but has received a noble, or even a Nobel prize (not for linguistics)? Imaginatorium (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Well since I added references showing the Japanese Prime Minister talked about the concept, there is a bestselling book about it from a Japanese writer, and various Japanese news sources talk about the concept as well, I find it far more likely to believe these reliable sources than the personal statements of a few self proclaimed experts on anything Japanese who say something else. Dream Focus 18:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of http://www.tracking-board.com for film/entertainment entries

Specifically the article --Prisencolin (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

My attempts to find anything about their editorial standards keeps pulling up advertisements for their services, or "opportunities" to write for them, or other things that leave me rather concerned about the site as an RS. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• I call spam. Guy (Help!) 01:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Is "Religious Studies News" reputable?

• Is "Religious Studies News" a reliable source for editing articles on Misplaced Pages? It is located here. Instinct for me would indicate that it is not, but I want to gauge the opinions of some editors more experienced in these matters before making a judgement either way. It relates to a question at the Teahouse. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Stormy... you might want amend your question using the full name of the source in the header... the abbreviation “RSN” is used on Misplaced Pages to refer to our “Reliable Sources Noticeboard” (ie this very page) and so others might not understand what you are asking. I know you clarified things in the actual text of your question, but for someone just glancing through the headers to see if they want to respond to a question, it LOOKS like you are asking if this Noticeboard is reputable (and they might assume you were trolling us).

Whoops... Done. Sincerest apologies, I really don't know how I missed that. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

no problem... I hope you get a quick reply Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to throw my hat in with those who were confused by the original section title. It's even worse if you see it in the page history without any context. One would almost suspect deliberate punning; if this were the case (and I don't think it is -- the above apology looks sincere) I would likely praise the genius wit responsible, but as is I guess it's just a humorous accident of the kind that occasionally happens on Misplaced Pages. Still got a good chorkle out of it, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

As to your actual question... I don’t know enough about the source or topic to give you an answer... hopefully someone else will. Blueboar (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• "Religious Studies News is the web magazine of the American Academy of Religion". It also looks like it's the name of the association's quarterly newspaper? AAR is a legitimate academic association, as far as I understand, so I'd treat it the same way I would any other academic association's non-academic members-oriented publication. In other words, it may contain some useful columns, reviews, summaries, etc. that would make for a decently reliable source, as long as you keep in mind it will have some promotional bent regarding its members and is not itself an academic journal. — Rhododendrites \\ 03:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

DBase

Source: DBase.tube

Article: List of most-subscribed YouTube channels

Content: § By country and territory

The "most-subscribed by country" table is currently based on the lists compiled by VidStatsX, but the website has been inaccessible for about two weeks. If the table is to remain, another reliable source must be found from which relevant, regularly updated statistics can be derived. I believe the best candidate is the website DBase, which provides lists of most-subscribed YouTube channels for around 200 countries and territories (examples of some of the lists that would be used: ), but I am struggling to determine if it is reliable. The lists are most likely automatically generated, but does that preclude them from being dependable?. LifeofTau 07:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

SyrianCivilWarMap.com and aleppo24.com

These two sources are being mentioned in the infobox on this article. To me it seems like a case of questionable sourcing for the map link as there's nothing indicating how or why it's notable, what its editorial standards are, etc. From what I can gather, it's crowd-sourced news; twitter reports, blogs, etc. While Aleppo24.com could be used as a source in the article itself, including either of them by name in the infobox seems like giving their estimates undue weight and seems highly unorthodox. Eik Corell (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit filter for the Daily Mail

(Formerly: Cross-post of WP:EFN discussion) A year ago, this noticeboard resolved that links to the Daily Mail would generally be banned on this project. The ban has never been technically implemented, however. A discussion was started at EFN last month to finally set the Mail filter to warn, but it fell off of the noticeboard due to lack of participation. I just rescued the discussion from the archives, and I thought that this time around I'd cross-post here, since the discussion is arguably more relevant to this board than to that one. — PinkAmpers& 14:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Make it so. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support No reason to not have this in my view. --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - This would be help a lot. We should also do this for Breitbart, and possibly others.- MrX 🖋 16:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

what picard said. Jytdog (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Unnecesary vanity tags that just waste volunteer time. --DHeyward (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Eh? This does the exact opposite, warning users of inappropriate citations before they commit, saving reversions. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't WANT them warned: he's using his comments at WP:EFN to relitigate the RFC. --Calton | Talk 03:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm reviving this discussion with the hope of coming to a conclusion. I just had to revert WP:BDP content cited to the Daily Mail. It would be nice if this filter were implemented.- MrX 🖋 19:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: Surprisingly, there still are over 27,000 articles in Misplaced Pages that cite the Daily Mail. Would it be necessary to replace these references if this filter were implemented? Jarble (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a good question Jarble. I don't know, but I doubt it. Perhaps PinkAmpersand knows.- MrX 🖋 22:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

On a technical level, no, nothing would need to be done. The filter would only catch edits adding references to the Mail; it wouldn't do anything to edits to articles with preexisting references. Also, while the support/oppose !votes here aren't unhelpful, they're just relitigating a settled issue. What needs to be decided is how to implement the RfC consensus, and I would encourage editors to comment on that matter at EFN (rather than here, since EFN has the ultimate say on this). — PinkAmpers& 23:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Technically wouldnt it flag up if someone edited a section/article with an existing DM reference? That would at least prompt people to replace it. (oh and support filter etc etc) Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

PinkAmpersand, has blacklisting been considered? I see that The Daily Mailer is blacklisted, but not the Daily Mail. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I'm not sure. That would be a good question to ask at EFN. — PinkAmpers& 15:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

PinkAmpersand, if I understand things rightly, this is probably the best place to seek a consensus on whether to move forward (not the final decision) with blacklisting a source. With a consensus in hand, then a "nomination" at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist would likely result in a blacklisting. Does that make sense? Should we start a new thread seeking an actual blacklisting, since that's different than the subject of this thread? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Ah, I see your point. I thought you were asking more of a technical question. Anyways, personally I'd be against outright blacklisting, since there's a decent number of cases where Mail links are permitted. A filter that warns but does not block seems more flexible than a spam blacklist that outright blocks. — PinkAmpers& 17:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Then I'll settle for a filter. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Only in death: No, that's not how the filter works. If you look at the source code, you'll see that it only checks whether the added text (added_lines) has a Mail link, not whether the article itself (new_wikitext) does. You can see for yourself: Go make a copy-edit to an article with a Mail link, and then check your own filter log. You shouldn't see an entry for the edit. — PinkAmpers& 15:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support its about time we do this.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support I see no valid reason that we should not warn users not to add cites to the Daily Myth.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Steven, did you mean to write "warn users to not add cites"? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• LOL, yes, a not in the wrong place, how DM of me.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Censorship is not the answer. Likewise the discussion resolved that DM is acceptable in certain circumstances. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• The C of E, you do realize this isn't a ban, but just a warning to be cautious? No one is asking for censorship. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

We "censor" things all the time. The blacklist has thousands of websites, many titles and word are blacklisted. The Daily Mail is not, by community consensus, a reliable source, so this should change nothing at all, other than saving people the annoyance of having to revert crappy sources. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If you want to revisit the decision, C of E, just start a new RFC instead of trying to hobble it by the back door. --Calton | Talk 03:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support a filter. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Seems to be a no-brainer. --Calton | Talk 03:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Medical Hypotheses

I found at least 15 articles in Misplaced Pages that cite the Medical Hypotheses journal, which is well-known for its promotion of pseudoscientific theories. Do most of these references need to be replaced? Jarble (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Probably. Though what we really should do is eliminate content that relies on Medical Hypotheses, and then decide if there is additional material based on robust and reliable sources that belongs in our articles. (That is, we shouldn't start with Medical Hypotheses crap and go hunting for sources to support it. We should start 'clean', and try to write content that is supported by good sources from the get-go.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• I nuke them periodically, along with a long list of others. Feel free to do the same. Guy (Help!) 01:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Indeed. Not a RS for medical facts. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• My one caveat to a “Nuke them all” attitude would be that it may be reliable when used as a PRIMARY source for supporting a statement about “what the claims of pseudoscientists actually are”. Note, this would only be appropriate in an article or section ABOUT a pseudoscientific theory, and it would have to be attributed... but under these very limited circumstances it might be reliable. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, Blueboar is right. Even blacklisted sources can be used for that purpose, and those instances should be kept. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Further caveats to nuking are necessary as in many RS determinations, absolute blanket statements about reliability are not always correct. In the wake of their pseudoscientific publications on AIDS denialism, the editor was fired by Elsevier in 2010. Articles since 2010 are now subject to peer review and there is a new editor, advisory board, and editorial policy in place. Post-2010 publications in this journal are therefore not automatically non-RS under MEDRS. Even prior to 2010, Horrobin and Charlton did publish some reasonable papers. For example, one of our articles in the search results Jarble posted is Tularemia which cites Trevisanato, Siro I. (2007) “The ‘Hittite Plague’, an Epidemic of Tularemia and the First Record of Biological Warfare, Medical Hypotheses, Vol. 69, Issue 6, pp 1371-1374. This paper is a rather boring example of archeo-epidemiology and supports its plausible hypothesis with reasonable evidence. The same caveats apply to it that apply to, say, this paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which is almost automatically accepted here as a RS. An individual assessment against our guidelines is necessary for any cite to Medical Hypotheses instead of blanket condemnation and removal. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No, even then it is not usable, because if the only source for what $QUACK says is $QUACK saying it in $QUACKRAG then it's ]. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Are pics a reliable source?

The article for Princess Lilian, Duchess of Halland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) makes extensive use of photographs as references. Especially in the Princess Lilian, Duchess of Halland#Honours section. Are these considered reliable sources? There is no mention of where they were taken nor is there any indication of what honour is in each pic. If they are okay a followup question is, since they are bare url's, how can they be formatted to avoid linkrot? Thanks ahead of time for any assistance that you can provide. MarnetteD|Talk 21:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Has medal, source, picture of her wearing medal. No, that looks a lot like WP:OR to me, because it assumes we correctly identified the medal. Guy (Help!) 01:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

About the only time you could use a picture for that would be if you had a photo of the award being presented and even then it would be a bit of a punt. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

A photo is a published source and can be used to source facts as long as the fact being summarized from the image is obvious to any reasonable reader. From Misplaced Pages:PUBLISHED; "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet."--Mark Miller (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Not in this case, because in order for it to be a source for the claimed fact, it requires interpretation by someone familiar with the awards in question. It's WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

What we are actually talking about are Royal Orders so an image such as this could be used to demonstrate that she indeed has been awarded the order because of how unique each order is to each country but, whenever there is an actual documented text source, it should be used. So multiple use of images to source a single fact could become undue weight if the images are all from the same photographer or even different photographers or images when a text source is available.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Surely we don’t need to rely on a picture to know what orders someone has been awarded. There are all sorts of written sources that list such things. Cite one of them. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I have to say if that is the only source for this I am thinking the issue of identification may be very valid.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

There are other published reliable sources for at least the first Order that I checked. "Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage" is often used for these types of claims and does mention the Orders of Seraphim and of North Star of Sweden. There are likely to be more. I would exhaust all reliable sources in books, journals, news blogs, newspapers (which generally announce the award of Royal orders) as well as primary source government documents such as Royal decrees or declarations etc. before resorting to image sourcing only.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

And if there are no book sources then it's WP:UNDUE and if it's only a picture of the decoraiton being worn it's WP:OR because there are so very many decorations, many of which appear very similar. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Uhm...not really. Royal Orders are military orders or awards basically, and all have very specific designs and specific sashes and ribbon that are worn. It really depends on the image. A confirmed image of a royal of Sweden wearing a specific Royal Order is easily identified but it is the image that is original research and being used as a primary source. Photographs are original research but can be used as a source.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

And recognising them in a photo and using that as a source for attributing that grant, is blatant WP:OR. Every single one of them will be officially published in a newspaper of record (London Gazette, in the UK). Use that. Guy (Help!) 00:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Sort of related, years ago, an editor wanted to use a picture of some guys office which had some awards hanging on the wall as a citation for the guy having received said award. I was VERY against this. I would be very very very very weary of using pics as RS, especially with photoshop ect. --Malerooster (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Well unfortunately our guidelines do allow it to a point and no, Guy, it is not actually true that every Royal Order awarded will be published. We can summarize an image on an article without a source as long as it is obvious by sight however, I would probably say "wearing the royal order..." in any such caption and not "Awarded". An image showing a royal wearing the award only means they wore it, but it can be assumed they didn't buy it from Wal Mart.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

No, our guidelines do not allow it. WP:RS trifecta: reliable, independent, secondary. And WP:NOR. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

To my mind, the problem with using pictures as sources is not so much a "reliability" issue as an "OR" issue. And it's not about the medium "image" as such; it's about using sources to back up statements that are not intended as such by the medium's original author. Citing a source on Misplaced Pages, in a responsible, non-OR way, always means rendering a statement that can be attributed as such, as an intented message, to the original author of the source. If we could prove that the photographer of this picture originally published it with the intention of showing: 'here, she got this order', then it would be okay as a source. Since we can't (and it's highly unlikely they intended any such thing), we are left with a claim of fact that we can't attribute to an author but that we have made up ourselves. We are using the picture not as a source of somebody else's claims, but as evidence for our own claims. That's the very definition of "original research". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Just to address the example picture near the top. Thats a picture that shows someone wearing an award. Even if I knew what it was, its not verifying it was actually awarded to the person. They could have picked it up in a charity shop. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, a royal personage is unlikely to do so, but the issue is definitely one of OR. Consider: I could take a capture of the opening sequence of The Prisoner and use it as a source for the claim that McGoohan's character drives a Lotus Seven with the registration KAR 120C. I could do that, but it would be OR. The registration pate, fine, that requires nothing other than reading the plate, but the model? It's a Seven alright, but is it a Seven, a Super Seven, a Caterham Seven? You'd have to be a Lotus nerd to know, and that means the identification is wholly reliant on accepting the interpreting editor as an authority, which is canonical OR. Oh, and actually the title sequence is a Lotus Super 7 series II, but there are a couple of other cars used in the series itself, one of which was a standard Seven fixed by Lotus to look like a Super 7. Obviously. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

And I'll reiterate that my argument above actually goes a lot further than this: all these considerations about how obvious or incontrovertible or open to alternative explanations the "facts" in the picture are, are in fact quite irrelevant. Even if their correctess was completely, 100%, beyond all possible doubt, my distinction above would still hold: the picture would be evidence of a fact, but not a source for a claim. In Misplaced Pages, WP:RS is always about the latter, not the former. Sourced claims always have to be somebody's claims: the intended statements of the original author, not your own. Deriving your own claims from a picture you present as evidence is always OR, no matter how obviously true they might be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Images (photographs, maps, graphs, etc) are best thought of as being illustrations of (or visual support for) what the reliable sources say... not as being sources themselves. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

In the current case, all I'm seeing are random, blurry, uncaptioned photos of a person who happens to be wearing a variety of medals on her sash. Like this: what information is someone supposed to tease out of THAT? --Calton | Talk 13:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd also wonder if it passed as being mentioned, was the photo taken to show off the medals or to show the person. The medals may just be what they wore than than something that was being mentioned. If you see a photo of two people shaking hands you can be pretty certain that them shaking hands was something that was being mentioned by the photo. Dmcq (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Photos don’t “mention” anything, they “depict” things. Now... if the photo originally appeared in a reliable source, and there is a caption with the original photo, THAT CAPION might be used as a source (however, the source containing the caption and photo may be unreliable... misidentifying the people in the photo or, worse, staging it with impersonators... so be cautious). Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The "Swedish honors" section lists 4 awards with 12 "sources". Of those 12 "sources", 9 are simple uncaptioned photo-image files, showing the subject at social events, usually accompanied by others; 2 go to Pinterest pages of random royals, and 1 is a dead link to an image file. These don't even count as PRIMARY sources. --Calton | Talk 15:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• No, pictures are primary sources, using them to support claims in the encyclopedia is OR.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution