Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carolmooredc (talk | contribs) at 19:54, 15 January 2014 (→Brad DeLong blog RS?: remove tangential issues to focus on fact SPS still used improperly in BLP). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Current large scale clean-up efforts

Large scale clean-ups/answersingenesis.com

Large scale clean-ups/evolutionnews.org

Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com

Large scale clean-ups/kavitakosh.org

Is Astrodatabank reliable?

In 2011, there was a discussion whether Astro-Databank (ADB) was a reliable source, see here. I want to clarify (as an editor of ADB), that the project claims reliability for the birth data section, i.e. birth date, birth time and location. Each entry is rated with the Rodden Rating system, and each entry contains precise source notes naming the source of the birth data information. Many entries carry the AA rating, which means that an original birth record or birth certificate was either in the hands of the editor, or quoted by another data collector of high reputation.

The astrological charts shown in ADB are reliably computed.

Other information found on an ADB page, for example biography text and category classifications reflects the personal knowledge and opinion of the respective author/editor. For newer entries, biography information is often copied from Misplaced Pages. These parts of ADB claim no special reliability.

Sources about the Pantheism and Shintoism

Main topic: Pantheism and Shintoism, Dispute:- Talk:Pantheism#Shinto Considering that there are many sources, regarding the known connection of Pantheism and Shinto. I want to know, if any of these sources are reliable, or legible, and should be used for pushing the information that Shintoism is pantheism.

• Shelton, Barrie. Learning from the Japanese City: Looking East in Urban Design. p. 112.- "very much on the plural for it is a polytheistic and pantheistic belief".."Shinto refers to an assortment of beliefs and practices that are pantheistic in nature"..
• The Ethnic Dimension in American History. p. 168. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)-"Shintoism combined a pantheistic worship of nature with deification of the emperor, who was the living kami",
• Stuart Picken. Sourcebook in Shinto: Selected Documents. p. 302.-"It stands to reason that pantheism should have a more powerful attraction for the Shinto of the future than monotheism",
• Genchi Katu. A Study of Shinto: The Religion of the Japanese Nation. p. 64.-"As we have just seen, although the animistic polytheism of original Shintō evolves into naturalistic pantheism..",
• Spirit of the Environment: Religion, Value and Environmental Concern. p. 52. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)-"I conclude that the religion we need to embrace now is pantheism, as exemplified in Shinto,...",
• Paul Carden. Christianity, Cults and Religions. p. 52.-"All of nature is animated by the kami—including things such as rocks, trees, or streams—making Shinto a combination of polytheism and pantheism..."

Bladesmulti (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Picken, Katu and Clark (in Cooper and Palme) are appropriate sources for the Pantheism article. Picken and Katu are reliable for Shintoism. What they are not reliable for is a bland statement "Shintoism is pantheism". The sources have to be summarised properly with regard for the many nuances they insist upon. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length, and this editor is fishing for sources to justify what he already "knows". I have presented various other sources which say just the opposite, e.g. : "Nor is Shinto pantheistic for Shinto does not regard an omnipotent logical principle as identifying itself with the universe, but sees divine spirit as living reality self-creating itself as the universe." Mason, J.W.T. (2006). The Meaning of Shinto. Trafford Publishing. p. 78. Retrieved 2014-01-01. Mason is one of the classic western analysts of Shinto (his papers are collected at Columbia) so this a very authoritative source.

Part of the problem (besides the willy-nilly search for anything that juxtaposes "Shinto" and "pantheism") is that a lot of these sources don't seem to understand the latter term and use it as a synonym for nature worship (which isn't a great explanation of Shinto either) or confuse it with animism (which all good sources agree is found to some degree in Shinto). This is a field where there is no substitute for knowledge of the material, because there are so many superficial analyses of what is really a very difficult anthropological and ethnographic puzzle; Shinto doesn't fit western religious categories very well and a lot of authorities would object to it being called "a religion" at all. I have tried at length to get this editor to understand this, but I've had to address the same small set of sources (most of which are patently unsuitable) over and over. I've also had to address the much more blatantly false assertion that Zoroastrianism is pantheistic when any even vaguely competent source says exactly the opposite. This article is plagued by editors who want to see pantheism in every religion, when really it appears only as an element in some of the Indian religions (and yes, we're having a big fight over sourcing that too). Mangoe

This is Reliable source noticeboard, not content dispute, your comment is largely unrelated here. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, Mangoe, that we see research being done in the wrong way, by trawling through Google Books. The sources that I have said are reliable are difficult philosophical texts and you can't cherry-pick from them. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Would be much better if you give a try too. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that Mason is self-published, I wonder why? Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Doug, that's a reprint of a collection of older materials. I'm not sure why I don't find older editions but Mason was mostly active before the early 1940s. Mangoe (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I see an original date of 1935. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Nearly every RS discussion has a content dispute behind it, and this is no exception. Mangoe (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. When this board works well we can move content disputes forward by concentrating on the sourcing aspect of encyclopaedic quality. In this particular case I think the page could also benefit from some input from experts in comparative religion, theology or philosophy. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyways, how many were reliable of these. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Of those listed above, the first is a book on urban design and the second is a book on the immigrant experience, as I have said at least three times now. They are obviously out of their field of expertise. The third is quoting another work we have discussed on the talk page, and that work proposes a modern reinterpretation of Shinto, and the passage lays out a path of how the author thinks Shinto should develop; it's not useful as a description of Shinto now. The source work has also been discussed on the talk page. The fifth and sixth are newly introduced to the discussion, but works on Christianity and environmentalist spirituality are also works of inferior authority.

That leaves the fourth work, which is specifically on Shinto. Its problem, as we've also frequently seen in other sources which have been proffered, is that it doesn't understand the distinctions well. Further down the same page Genchi writes, "The theme of the last quoted stanza at once reminds us of the striking expression of St. Paul, 'We live and move, and have our being in Him' (Acts, XVII, 28), in which we can see a germ of pantheism in the Pauline Christianity." Well, this is incorrect: the doctrine expressed is panentheism. We also have been over a lot of other sources which confuse animism and pantheism or which equate the latter with "nature worship" as a whole. As a final note on Genchi's text it's extremely important that it was published in 1926, when Shinto's political meaning was paramount; Genchi starts right off by making the key distinction between sect Shinto and state Shinto. I haven't read the whole work but it is very possibly an apologia for what westerners saw as the co-option of religion by the state in the pre-war period.

We are still at the other problem here that we have other references which specifically deny that it is pantheistic. I'm getting a bit fed up now, first that we are having to address works which are patently inadequate, but more so that we've had to address these same bad sources over and over. I'm going through some of the sources I have at home, and it's evident to me at least that this whole question of pantheism in Shinto is complicated. Mangoe (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Only scholarly sources should be used for this topic. Some of the books on the list don't meet that criteria, but neither does John Warren Teets Mason (1879 to 1941) was an American journalist who published several works on eastern spiritual traditions.

Like the religion of Ancient Greece, Shinto would definitely be "polytheistic" in a comparative religions sense, but the term "kami" in Japanese is not equivalent to deity. Accordingly, I agree that it is necessary to attribute statements from RS that make one characterization or another. Shinto has evolved since prehistoric times (before it was called "Shinto", which is a Chinese term found in the I'Ching as one class of religion), and State Shinto was influenced by the need to further institutionalize religions in building a modern nation state as a result of the opening to the West. It has strong Confucian influences, and assumed the role of the Buddhist temples in the Edo period of acting as local registries for citizens--like a parish system, etc. The editors of this book Shinto in History: Ways of the Kami are a couple of academics with some prominence in the field at present.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of the Daily Mail

I'm sure long-time RSN editors will be aware of the unreliability of the Daily Mail, but the following might nevertheless be a useful resource for disputes about the reliability of its stories: Lies of the Daily Mail. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

DM is not great for celebrity gossip -- nor is the Guardian so great either. Vote totals in elections, and actually most medical reporting is actually reasonably good, along with most other "hard news" stories. Note that almost all the "lies" were, in fact, "celebrity gossip" for which the NYPost and a lot of other papers have quite similar records. Collect (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

If you think that the Daily Mail is a good source for medical reporting, then I am utterly speechless. MastCell  19:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

the stories identified in the source as false are NOT celebrity gossip " disabled people are exempt from the bedroom tax; that asylum-seekers had “targeted” Scotland; that disabled babies were being euthanised under the Liverpool Care Pathway; that a Kenyan asylum-seeker had committed murders in his home country; that 878,000 recipients of Employment Support Allowance had stopped claiming “rather than face a fresh medical”; that a Portsmouth primary school had denied pupils water on the hottest day of the year because it was Ramadan; that wolves would soon return to Britain; that nearly half the electricity produced by windfarms was discarded. " - not a "celebrity gossip" story in the bunch of identified falsehoods from 2013. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, there's that, too. Collect must have been looking elsewhere, because as you point out, most of the lies listed on the website seem calculated to stoke xenophobia, irrational fears of government euthanasia, resentment against the poor and disabled, disdain for renewable energy, and religious hatred. I'm sure they also published a lot of false celebrity gossip, though. MastCell  20:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The comparison with the Guardian is pointless because we don't cover gossip anyway. I've always argued that the Mail is sometimes to be treated as reliable, but never for science. However, I see few cases where it is reliable, except for stories that are covered in other papers anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I echo Itsmejudith - a good chunk of time it is not reliable. in the cases where it would be considered "reliable enough" a more reliable source is almost always available. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Your use of "we" is interesting -- are you affiliated with any newspaper perchance? IIRC, The Guardian was just recently strongly chastised by the PCC? Collect (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian does cover celebrity gossip, though not with the same enthusiasm of some other papers. "We" clearly means Misplaced Pages. However, it's fair to add that the linked article does include examples of celebrity gossip (about Sharon Stone, Rowan Atkinson etc) Paul B (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Paul, my point was that whether a paper is "good" for gossip or not is irrelevant to us, as we don't cover gossip. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's what I said. Paul B (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Collect, you make me want write ] Really, the quality of the Guardian, for good or ill, does not ameliorate the lack of reliability of the Daily Mail. I'd suggest blacklisting it except that we need to link to it for all the nonsense it instigates and which we need to document as subjects for our articles.The sly ad hominem is also unwelcome. Mangoe (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No "ad hominem" was intended, and, I trust, was not inferred by Itsme. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Not affiliated with any newspaper. By we I mean we at WP. The UK newspapers we (on WP) treat as generally reliable are, in alphabetical order, The Daily Telegraph, The Evening Standard, The Guardian, The Independent, The Scotsman and The Times, as well as their Sunday equivalents ("the broadsheets"). Regarded as less reliable are, in alphabetical order, The Daily Express, The Daily Mail, The Daily Mirror, The Daily Record, The People, The Daily Star and The Sun ("the red-top tabloids"). Hope this helps. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I fear you conflate WP:RS meaning "published with editors who do some fact checking and corrections as needed" with reliable as in "always correct." The NYT does corrections on a regular basis -- the Guardian was caught in an error which got the ire of the PCC. Nonetheless, the three items had contained "serious overstatements, presented as fact" on the nature of the complainant's role. Noting that this was a "particularly concerning case the inaccuracies were central to the reporting; they appeared across all three items; and they directly contributed to the newspaper's criticisms of the nature of the complainant's role and his personal suitability to fill it", the Commission upheld the complaint. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

So what is your point? There is scarcely any newspaper that has not sometimes made mistakes. What matters is the overall reputation for accuracy. It remains utterly unclear what you meant when you wrote "DM is not great for celebrity gossip -- nor is the Guardian so great either." The Guardian is not "great" for celebrity gossip because it generally isn't interested in it much, not because it has a reputation for printing falsehoods. The juxtaposition is case of apples and oranges. Paul B (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No, of course I would not waste the time of this board with a suggestion that "reliable" means "always correct". Itsmejudith (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for posting this resource. The Daily Mail is a worthless tabloid which is close to useless for our purposes. We can never use it to support anything to do with BLP for example, and the suggestion that we could use it to source medical matters is frankly a ludicrous one; at one time it could perhaps have been used as an emergency substitute for toilet paper or as a resource in producing papier-mâché, but in the digital age even these uses are closed off. I would move to fully blacklist it, except for the possibility it might occasionally be a good source for its own lies or (let's be charitable) unreliable vapourings. The contention that because another more reliable source has sometimes been criticised, the Mail is therefore reliable is one that fails the most elementary logic test. --John (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yup. WP:RS asks for sources with "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The Daily Mail has neither. It does however have a reputation for printing tendentious bollocks for the purpose of denigrating whatever minority/disadvantaged group it feels is the flavour of the day. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to Collect for a useful original post. The list of UK newspapers added by Itsmejudith is also valuable, thank you. The late and not-in-the-least-lamented "News of the World" can be added to the second category there. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You mean David Eppstein? If Collect added anything useful to this thread it was in the Socratic sense of illustrating something by stating the opposite. I think all of his claims have been thoroughly debunked at this stage. I agree with you about the list and about the NoW. We could also add Metro to the shit list. --John (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I most certainly meant to thank David Eppstein, as you correctly surmise. Sorry about that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away. Don't get me wrong - on a scale of one to shit, the Daily Mail is very shit. It has a poor reputation for fact-checking on anything to do with science, including social science. However, it does have a reputation for fact-checking to the extent that if you want to know what was on BBC2 at 7 pm yesterday, its TV listings are generally as reliable as those in any UK newspaper. And the contents of its news reports, to the extent that they are factual and non-contentious, can usually be relied upon, albeit fairly weakly.

We ought to pay attention to the commonsense bottom line of "how likely is it that this is true?" more than on poisoning the well, which can all too often be a devious wiki-tactic. The Daily Mail can actually be a useful source in many cases. Formerip (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's not use the accuracy of TV listings as supporting a "fact-checking" reputation, please. All newspapers (at least UK) will get their listings information from the relevant media directly without any "fact-checking". It's a form of PR "churnalism" which just happens to be useful. Podiaebba (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is rs and a member of the Press Complaints Commission. That does not mean of course that everything printed is accurate. Here btw is an article about their baby euthanasia story. However, we are supposed to use the best sources, which tabloids rarely are. We are not supposed to use stories when rs have said they are wrong. When they are reporting what is in another source, in this case the BMJ, we should not report their version when it obviously inaccurately reports what another source says. For medical information, we should not use them at all, per WP:MEDRS. If no other source reports the same story then WP:WEIGHT usually means we should not include it. And of course we should only use it report facts, and ignore any opinions that their reporters add. TFD (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure about your first statement? The entire rest of what you say contradicts it. I am seriously struggling to come up with an example where a Daily Mail source would be a positive addition to an article, other than an article about the Mail. Can you help me? --John (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment In my personal opinion, the daily mail is for the most part unreliable for several reasons; it is among the most sensationalist media out there, it does not do a lot of fact-checking, plus it sometimes permits some of its columnists to write racist columns. We can surely do much better than that? Pass a Method talk 12:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • it does not do a lot of fact-checking - I think editors tend to be vastly overoptimistic in terms of how much fact-checking any media sources do, in the sense of systematic independent checking of journalists' work by another employee. Exceptions would tend to be major investigative stories where legal liability is likely to be an issue. Beyond that, it's basically a form of the "smell test" with editors reading stories and looking for things that sound dubious, and asking the journalist to confirm, and maybe leaving it out. The idea that media sources, even at the top end, routinely have a "fact-checking" process something akin to academic peer review was always a myth, but in the 21st century, commercial imperatives have reduced this even further (eg by removing experienced specialist sub-editors from the process, who provided an extra layer of smell-testing in the past). (Also, let's not forget that fact-checking sometimes fails when it is done - vide the Sunday Times' infamous Hitler Diaries episode.) Podiaebba (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Has become a cause celebre for some erstwhile editors, and rightly so, I think. However, it does sometimes publish excellent photographs, as I noted when Ravi Shankar died back in 2012: - don't see any problem with using that as an excellent source. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I fear some editors label a source as "not RS" on the basis that they disagree with it socially or politically. WP:RS does not state that "I disagree with it" is actually involved in the determination of usability of any source - we use many sources which a great many people disagree with. Calling any source a "piece of shit" is not actually relevant, it shows the POV of the person using the term far more than anything else. And, as was shown, even the vaunted Guardian can end up with very bad articles per the PCC. And, of course, there are editors who course around Misplaced Pages removing every usage of material from disfavoured sources -- but miraculously never removing material from sources they agree with politically. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I fear editors forget that the reliability of sources is contextual. Arguing whether a source is reliable or not in the abstract is a bit like arguing whether surgery is a reliable form of treatment in the abstract. Podiaebba (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

And what is the context in which we would report a story that appeared only in the Daily Mail, and no other major media outlet? Mangoe (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be the million dollar question here, all paranoid claims aside. --John (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Two or three kinds of case. The most obvious is a cultural review; the Mail's opinion of a Hollywood blockbuster is as notable as the Independent's opinion. Another is where they have a detail that isn't in other papers, although that should ring alarm bells about notability. And the third is if the paper has done investigative journalism, which they have done on a few occasions in the past, especially in relation to exposing fascism (which is of course ironical...). We shouldn't rule sources out or in, especially not in the abstract. Having said that, it may well be that the Mail is overused. We could do a mass cleanup, although we still haven't completed any of the mass cleanups we have started. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as reviews are concerned, I do not know if the DM's reviewers are taken seriously in the critical community (unlike say the NYT, which is considered a taste-setter). In the other two cases, I would still say no. A detail reported only in the DM I would not trust, and investigative reporting which no other media outlet picked up I would not repeat. Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The Mail's arts critics are not completely without credibility, for example Christopher Tookey and Robin Simon (critic). Certainly a Mail review of a London West End theatre production, for instance, can be taken far more seriously than its latest updates on the causes and treatments of cancer...

It may also be a reliable source for some sports coverage, something I don't think we've mentioned here, though I don't know enough about that to have an opinion either way. Barnabypage (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying we would recommend using the Mail in those cases. But we might. And the Mail is a good-enough source for when a TV series airs, on what channel, etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I would aim for a higher standard of sourcing though. It isn't that often we would need to source what time a show broadcasts; we'd likely be more interested in the critical response and I take the point above about arts critics. I like the idea of having a cleanup of overused Mail sources; I've been removing them from BLP articles for a good while now and it'd be good to have some help, and to widen the scope. --John (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

To see what a cleanup would involve, I searched for the string dailymail and have gone through the first twenty results. These seem to be the articles that use the phrase "dailymail" (one word, which corresponds to the website) most often. The results fall into different groups. Daily Mail is one obviously OK one, as well as the article about its website, one about the Charleston Daily Mail, and Liz Jones, a journalist at the Mail. Then there are a number of football articles and a tennis one. It would be useful to talk to WikiProject Football about that. In the case of Mario Balotelli some of it looks very like gossip and may have to be removed as a BLP violation. Another group of articles is about X Factor and in one case Big Brother. A lot of that looks to me like tat, but then again I don't have much to do with that area. Then there are some more serious cases. 2010s in fashion was the worst, and a dreadful article anyway. It extrapolated from Mail articles to imply that named celebs dress like chavs or Essex girls. (Of course the insult could go in either direction, unacceptable, anyway.) Then there are the articles on Heather Mills and Victoria Beckham. I took out a load of stuff about Heather Mills' houses, with purchase and sales prices. It looks like we really do need to pay a lot of attention to the use of the DM in BLPs. A lot of work, difficult to use automated tools. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like you've found some good examples of generally bad Misplaced Pages content, but that doesn't really have much to with the reliability of the DM. The DM probably is a reliable source for the prices of Heather Mills' homes - it's just that the information probably doesn't belong in her article. I'd be willing to believe that the DM is frequently misused on WP, but that's really a separate issue to its reliability. Formerip (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I've opined enough about the DM's reliability in the abstract. I wanted to see whether it really is overused, and how. The sampling showed that it is used a lot in sports and TV articles, so that's where further examination could be useful. It's usually political questions that are brought here. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, that Heather Mills article was a mess. I went a bit further than Itsmejudith. We already have a blanket prohibition for tabloid journalism on BLPs and I encourage people to take out these bad sources and material sourced to them on sight. --John (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I would happily see a blanket ban on all DM stories being used as sources, it simply cannot be trusted. GiantSnowman 10:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I am tending in that direction. --John (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I strongly object to a blanket ban... for any media source. Reliability is always contextual (we must ask whether the source is reliable for a specific statement, presented in a specific article). A source can be reliable in one context, and unreliable in another. There is no such thing as a source that is "always reliable"... nor is there such a thing as a source that is "always unreliable". It is fine to consider some media sources to be more reliable than others (and we would prefer these more reliable sources over the less reliable ones)... but there is a huge difference between "less reliable" and "unreliable". Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

while "reliability" is contextual, a more reliable source than the Daily Mail is almost always available for anything we would want to include in an encyclopedia I do not see how a de facto ban with WP:IAR for the few occasions when it might be appropriate would not itself be an improvement to the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

IAR can not be used as a means of erasing a policy -- and we use a great many sources with far worse records overall (including not a few sources from very-POV publishers which make quite astounding claims). Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

i am not certain what you mean about "erasing a policy". Misplaced Pages:NPOV#Good_research is a policy. Applying policy through the "banning" of Daily Mail because it is almost never even close to the best source is not "erasing a policy". In the few potential occasions where DM would be the best reliable source for particular content in a particular article we can certainly use it- ignoring the ban based on WP:IAR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I am with TheRedPenOfDoom on this. I would challenge Blueboar or anyone else opposing the proposed ban to think of a real example of where we would want to use a source from the Mail (or the Sun) in a way which would actually improve an article. Arts reviews have been mentioned as a possible area, but no concrete examples have been given. Sports coverage I am even more dubious about. Nonetheless, bring out your positive examples and we can discuss them, as we have seen two recent awful examples (Heather Mills and Victoria Beckham) where the Mail and other poor sources were being used in a way which was not only unethical and counter to policy, but also probably illegal. --John (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's say that we want to cite the fact that Great Britain won 29 gold medals in the last Olympic games... It happens that the DM supports this information. It is a reliable source for this information.

Now, let's say that the Times also reported that England won 29 gold medals in the last Olympics (likely), then I have no problem with saying "the Times is a better source" and citing the Times instead (we have no rule that prevents us from choosing between sources, or replacing one source with another source we consider better).

My point is this... the fact that the Times might be considered more reliable than the DM does not mean the DM is unreliable for this information. When it comes to reporting how many gold medals GB won, The DM is acceptable... even if it is not the best. Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly right. If anyone wants to go through Misplaced Pages replacing cites to the Daily Mail with cites to the Guardian, please knock yourself out. But I don't think it will be time well spent. Formerip (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

England does not compete in the Olympics and never has! Apart from that minor confusion, I don't understand the point you are making here. Are you arguing that it is ok to use the DM to support material, so long as a better source is also available? I wouldn't see the point in that. I repeat my challenge; find me one decent instance of the DM being used to support something that is not available in a better source, and where the existence of that info so sourced is of benefit to Misplaced Pages. I suspect you can't do it and I will be impressed if you can. --John (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the Mail is a great source for match reports, but when it comes to sports broadcasting their reporting as good, if not better than most. Charlie Sale is arguably the best in the business. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• The Daily Mail is a high-budget British newspaper, subject to British libel law - some of the most onerous in the world. As such, nearly every "fact" it reports will be legally defensible for accuracy and defensibility from libel. That said, it's relentlessly trivial and obsessed with fatuous celebrity trivia. Nearly anything in the DM is simply irrelevant for an encyclopedia. Worst of all though, the DM's editorial standpoint is probably the most partisan of any UK mass circulation newspaper.

We can trust the DM, as far as any other UK paper, for basic reporting of established facts. No more. We can't touch it for anything involving interpretation or editorial comment. We might sometimes use it as a primary source (where permissible) for examples of the DM itself or the political position of the UK right wing media. If we wished to know Heather Mills' house price it might even be adequate for that sort of tittle-tattle (the DM does only prints things that it sees a no more than acceptable risk of court action, which is better than many of our RS achieve), but then we're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a gossip column, so how often would we care?

Overall though, I see no real reason to change policy re the DM. These issues are no worse than for Fox News or for a variety of major, but agendaed, sources. We should be generally conscientious and observant in our editing, not specifically policy-bound. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to set a general rule that we must never cite the Daily Mail. I agree that it's not a good source in many cases - many editors seem to agree on that - but that's all we need. Instead of hunting for exceptions to the rule in advance, we can deal with exceptions when we find them. bobrayner (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It also has one of the worst records on press complaints and libel settlements of any british newspaper so it should be used with extreme caution ----Snowded 16:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Andy, I wouldn't trust Fox News for a political report which didn't appear elsewhere either. OTHERCRAPEXISTS simply means we have other bad sources to deal with as well. Mangoe (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this discussion going anywhere? Is there a serious idea to either blacklist (surely not) or "brownlist" the DM? "Brownlisting" a source would be some sort of "OK uses are (i) articles about or related to the source itself (ii) named topics X, Y, Z. Use with caution otherwise: check if better sources are available and whether information only available here really merits inclusion.". Podiaebba (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with WP:RSMED, but in response to one of the early comments, surely it will have something recommending that an extraordinary medical claim should never be backed up by any newspaper article? The problem with the Daily Mail is not its fact checking (which is no worse than several other media sources that we don't bat an eyelid at using), but the sheer extent to which it manipulates those facts to tie into the editorial line. So extreme caution yes, and by all means spell out what "extreme caution" means if you must. But a blanket ban would be absurd, and would only lend credibility to the perception that Misplaced Pages is not neutral. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 18:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I could compromise on blacklisting and "brownlist" instead. Something like "The Daily Mail is an unreliable source and should be used with great caution. It can never be used on BLPs, and should generally be avoided except when sourcing its own opinions or for exception 1 or exception 2, where discussion page consensus supports it." In fact I think that's where we have got to so far with this discussion, and we now merely need to find what the exceptions are, if any. The two suggestions I am aware of where we could take the Mail seriously as a source, would be sports and arts coverage. I remain to be convinced on both, but probably could be if the right examples were forthcoming. I am still waiting for specific positive examples of where the Mail is used as a source to the project's benefit. I am not saying such examples do not exist, but there comes a time in any discussion when, the proponents having failed to come up with examples, the force of their argument silently evaporates. I fear we are close to that point now. --John (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I dont agree we need a reliability statement that mentions the "Daily Mail" in particularly, sure a general warning about tabloids but I cant see any reason to be specific. To be neutral we would have to list what can and cant be used from every newspaper which is clearly a daft idea. As has been said like all such newspapers sources they can be dealt with as they come up and any specific statement doesnt really help. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

If we were going to start blacklisting sources, I'd start with others that are much nastier than the Daily Mail. bobrayner (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

A lot of editors are using feelings without much fact. Blanket banning the Daily Mail as a source is as WFC says absurd, we could go after The Guardian and the BBC equally both have had complaints upheld against them doesn't mean they are not a generally reliable source. A site RFC would be needed to show clear consensus to do so as banning a big newspaper as a source is certainly not neutral, when weighed up against other national UK newspapers. Also comments such as i don't see the Daily Mail being beneficial to the encyclopaedia is in my opinion unhelpful without damm good evidence to back that up. Users need to start citing evidence to back up statements, as so far there has been very little provided that would justify any type of ban.Blethering Scot 23:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the story that started this thread off? Are there similar stories about the Guardian or the BBC? Would it be possible to compile a list like this one on the Guardian or the BBC? I'd in turn ask for evidence if you said yes to that. No, the Mail is uniquely bad; not really a newspaper at all but more of a scandal sheet a la The Sun, but even the real knuckle draggers are generally aware that we can't use The Sun to source our articles here. Though you might be surprised; I took Sun sources off a high-profile BLP just the other day. But the Mail is worse for our purposes because I suppose to some people it is ambiguous and might appear to be a decent source. As a tabloid, it is already beyond the pale for BLPs; I would love to see a clear consensus here that it should also generally be avoided for all articles. If you disagree, I would once again challenge you to come up with an example of a case where a Mail source benefits a Misplaced Pages article. Just one. Failing that, we can almost default to the common sense position that the Mail is generally a poor source, as most people here agree. --John (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

So is this discussion going anywhere? Andrew Dalby 09:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, a large-scale cleanup would help to ensure that BLPs are free of gossip. Our existing large-scale cleanups have been abandoned, though, because the sheer scale seems so daunting (to me, at least). Itsmejudith (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Generally if one is editing an article about a story in the news, which is the major reason for using newspapers, one may google the topic and choose a relevant article in any major newspaper. The trend toward paywalls may be one reason to use it. TFD (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, maybe that should be the major reason for using newspapers, but my quick trawl shows that it probably isn't. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A request for opinion as to the Mail's football-related reliability was made at the football WikiProject. My personal view is that I'd be happy to rely on broadsheets to source factual content relating to what happened in matches, whether players have scored or set up a goal and how they did it, whether they've served a suspension or broken a leg. If there's a more generally reliable alternative for sourcing a particular item, I wouldn't use the Mail or any other tabloid. But the broadsheets cover football below the Premier League only sporadically. If Misplaced Pages is to write about lower-level football and its players, and the notability criteria suggest that it should, we need non-broadsheet sources. In context of factual football-related content, I haven't found the Mail any less reliable than other sources. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for coming over to give your opinion. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems reasonable then to say that "the DM may be used as a reliable source for sports results and the like, but should be avoided for other purposes and especially for (a) material only it reports, and (b) BLP claims." Mangoe (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that. --John (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Except, of course, that would exclude it from exactly the way that Struway says it is useful, since (a) the entire point is that only it is reporting this material, and (b) that a player has served a suspension is a BLP claim. So you're not actually in agreement, you're actually contradicting what he is saying, you're saying it specifically shouldn't be used for that. --GRuban (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is a good test case. Laurence Graff#Personal life, British billionaire, under Personal life. Can we use The Daily Mail for details of the name and professions of his children (which I would deem reasonable since the Daily mail would have no reason to distort these facts). Secondarily, can we use the Daily Mail to indicate that he fathered a child out of wedlock.Patapsco913 (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"Graff also fathered a child with jeweller Josephine Daniel, 34 years his junior, in 2009", cited to "£2bn diamond dealer, 71, fathers lovechild by 37-year-old former PA (...but, generously, his wife is standing by him)", in a BLP? No. Absolutely not. If there isn't a better source for details about his children, then it doesn't belong, period. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Well you leave out half of the equation: The webpage also states: "They have three children: Francois (b. 1967), who runs the London branch of his father’s company, Stephane (b. 1968), an artist, and a daughter Kristelle (b. 1980)" cited to £2bn diamond dealer, 71, fathers lovechild by 37-year-old former PA (...but, generously, his wife is standing by him)" The Daily Mail is being used to show who his children are and what they are doing. I think the Daily mail would be good for that information.Patapsco913 (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As the rest of the conversation above should make clear, a gossip article from the Daily Mail is not an appropriate source for a BLP. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is used a source in 1000s of articles on Misplaced Pages. So the question is whether is it reliable in some instances or reliable in no instances. If it is not, then we have to remove it from every instance on Misplaced Pages. Also, a question for the British editors, is the UK subject to strict libel laws or are they relatively weak which would make it unreliable to use anything but the top British publications as reliable sources. In the USA, source such as the New York Post and People magazine are considered reliable even though considered to be Tabloid.Patapsco913 (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

English libel laws are much stricter than the U.S. Whereas in the U.S. plaintiffs must prove actual malice, in the U.K. they do not. TFD (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• IMO, whether we like tabloids or not, the DM is a mainstream, established British newspaper and therefore citations to it would generally meet RS. However, I would proceed with caution in the case of any of the information in the paper is considered possibly unreliable and prefix any Misplaced Pages references with 'According to the Daily Mail...' . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of possibly partisan sources about Muhammad Ilyas Qadri

Article: Muhammad Ilyas Qadri

Content: Summations wants to add the statement

"Many Great Sunni Muslim Ulma E Kiraam of the world like Kaukab Noorani Okarvi , Allama Hashmi Miyan , Mufti Faiz Ahmed Owaisi , Arshadul Qaudri , Muhammad Muneeb ur Rehman , Allamah Syed Irfan Shah Mashhadi ETC consider Ilyas Qadri is great Leader of Muslim Ummah"

Sources: For this statement the user initally cited:

• http://www.dawateislami.net/books/bookslibrary.do#!section:onlineRead_366.2.64 and
• http://www.scribd.com/doc/147949604/dawat-e-islami-ulma-e-ahle-sunnat-ki-nzr-main-mufti-faiz-ahmmad-owasi

and on being challanged, added

• http://www.dawateislami.net/books/bookslibrary.do#!section:onlineRead_366.2.2 and
• http://www.dawateislami.net/books/bookslibrary.do#!section:onlineRead_366.2.102

Other editors have argued that these sources are not indiependant of the indvidual Muhammad Ilyas Qadri and are from small publishers with no apparent editorial control.

Discussion: see Talk:Muhammad Ilyas Qadri#Views of Ulma E Ahlesunnat about Muhammad Ilyas Qadri for previous discussion of this matter. DES 21:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention , I have commented following in that discussion :- what are you saying and why are you not understanding and answering my questions? this is not only matter of sources my dear please read my previous comment... yes one book are from "Maktaba Tul Madina - Official Publishers of Dawat e Islami" but what written in that book? do you read? and what written in that book have video proof too in many videos website which I already given too... just for example in book suppose there in written that scholar Kaukab Noorani Okarvi said ilyas qadri is great leader , in book there is written proof but same u can see Kaukab Noorani Okarvi saying same in videos too that, then how and why this information not added? and I have mention other book too which are not from Official Publishers of Dawat e Islami , and please read that book because there not only written but there are mentioned original sources too , sources of old news papers , interviews etc... so please don't take it as personal/ego it is just information which people should knw. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summations (talk • contribs) 00:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Summations, I am saying that I am not sure those sources are reliable sources to support that statement in a Misplaced Pages article (in line with the verifiability policy), and so I am asking here for other opinions. I have not commented further on the talk page because until I get a response from an uninvolved and knowledgeable editor her I have no further useful comment to make. (By the way, while I am sure it is intended as a gesture of friendship, some editors would prefer not to be addressed as "my dear" by a person that they do not know well.) DES 16:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

"Many Great Sunni Muslim Ulma E Kiraam of the world like" is a quick fail of WP:PEACOCK regardless of sources.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

DESiegel, Okay if you are not sure thn plz refer some knowledgeable editors to solve this matter... and about my dear , yes you are right agree with your though will be care in future...

And " Great Sunni Muslim Ulma E Kiraam " , yes agreed and got your point , but this should be edit mean word "great" can be removed but whole adding/editing should be mention for public information... I am waiting for u guys response . thanks --Summations (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

waiting for your ans........ --Summations (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Demographia: World Urban Areas

Note - Previous discussion can be found at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_161#demographia.com TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

After consultation with users TheOriginalSoni and Anna Frodesiak, I restart discussion about the source Demographia: World Urban Areas, because previously noticed irregularities. Previous discussion is here. Source of Demographia: World Urban Areas is currently used in >250 pages in Misplaced Pages, few articles based on the source (as primary/main source). Demographia: World Urban Areas is the main source on Misplaced Pages concerning urban areas. Must to be strong consensus to exclude this source from Misplaced Pages. The previous discussion has not given any serious arguments against this source (according to me); also some posts were nonsensical, confusing administrative city limits, urban area, metropolitan area and urban agglomeration and users who know the topic has not been informed of the discussions. The (currently) discussion is particularly important because the outcome of this discussion may result in the removal of few articles based on this source and verification other similarly sources, including UN, OECD, WorldGazetteer, CityPopulation etc; which have exactly the same disadvantages as Demographia: World Urban Areas. So, what we do in this case? Subtropical-man (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC) (en-2)

Not reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Why exactly according to you is not reliable? Also please give an example of source about urban areas that you think is reliable. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC) (en-2)

It's not a reliable source. However, I'm more concerned about the addition of large volumes of listcruft which has no source at all. bobrayner (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Generally, RS/N is not page for votes, this is page for discussions and consensuses. If anyone thinks that this source is not reliable, please proof or/and explain why. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not reliable because there is no reputation for fact-checking. There are better sources available such as the UN and the OECD. I am aware that they do not use the methodology that you would prefer, but sorry, that is the state of knowledge at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• (ec) Hi Subtropical-man,

Sources will be presumed unreliable unless there is definite reason to show that it's not. In this case, we even had editors discussing why it was not reliable during the previous discussion.

• The first one from TFD said "It is run by Wendell Cox's company, and its objective is to promote automobile use and road construction."
• Yet another statement from Qwyrxian said - "I pointed to a number of reasons on User Talk: Jl2047a, foremost among them being there is clearly no editorial oversight with a history of fact-checking. The grammatical quality of the document indicates a non-professional production. And it is known that the author is an advocate for a very specific form on city planning which presumably would/could be affected by population statistics. Finally, there is no reason to believe that Cox's definition of the urban area is equivalent to Misplaced Pages definition, especially since he explicitly states that he's making his own decisions based on satellite imagery."

I could go about listing all of them, but as the editor re-opening a discussion that went in favour of removing the source, YOU are expected to provide proof that the source is reliable and address issues raised in the previous discussion.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, So you did not give any serious arguments against this source. Also, UN and the OECD is not sources about urban areas. I asked earlier: "please give an example of source about urban areas that you think is reliable" (if there).

TheOriginalSoni, maybe Wendell Cox's have activities in road constructions etc, but United Nations (UN) is intergovernmental organisation to promote international cooperation (per Misplaced Pages), OECD is Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and have own range of activities and the same - other sources about urban areas, metropolitan areas and urban agglomerations. Your second argument is only Qwyrxian's susceptive private opinion (with words type "presumably would/could be"). These are only his private thoughts/reflections, I have a different. Everyone has the right to a subjective opinion. Subtropical-man (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure you have a right to your own opinion. You came here to get opinions from editors who are interested in sourcing. I gave you my opinion and you also had one from TFD. You may not get any further ones, I'm afraid. On the specific question about how we source a figure for an urban area, we can often get that from a national government source. I am aware that then we don't have consistency from one country to another. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"...national government source. I am aware that then we don't have consistency from one country to another" - so, will be a mess and also national government sources is not reliable source to urban areas, this is reliable source to city limits/county/region. Subtropical-man (talk) (en-2) 12:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Referencing "There's a named after "

We are discussing either a passage like

• In Ponce, there is public housing complex named in his memory.

needs a reference. While I think it does, a fellow editor argued that, since it can be checked on a PC with google maps, it does not.

I'm open to be enlightened about what's the common practice on such cases. Thanks, --damiens.rf 16:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It really should have a reference, because we have no idea if the name of that place was specifically picked after the person of interest or another one with the same name (even with a obscure name like the one here) The reference would make it clear which person was the intended honoree of the naming. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Maps can be sources too; why not? A map is a published collection of information about a specific topic. It might not be a particularly strong source though. Is there anything controversial or unusual about this claim, or does it affect a BLP in some way, or is there any reason to disbelieve it? If so, I would seek stronger sourcing. bobrayner (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A map is only going to say "A building named X is located here." It says nothing why it was named X, and that's the issue. Even if X is a very uncommon name, we cannot presume that a building named "The X building" was named for that specific person named X. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, maps are hardly ever sources on the history of buildings or places. (Not that they are unreliable as such, they simply don't provide that kind of information.) Local histories and local newspaper archives are more likely to be fruitful. If there is a plaque or similar on the building itself then I think that, unless there is actual disagreement, that could be an adequate source too. And then there are a few sites, such as John F. Kennedy International Airport, where the origin of the naming is so patently obvious that though - yes - it should be sourced at some point, that really needn't be a top priority. Barnabypage (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue is not whether Maps are or are not RS. The issue is whether the statement requries a citation and I argue it does not. Not everything in Misplaced Pages requires a citation. Mercy11 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, all content challenged or likely to be challenged DOES require a source, and this content HAS been challenged and therefore DOES require a source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but always within reason. For example, if I go to sky, is it reasonable to expect to put to work (read: disrupt) every editor there by demanding a citation for "The sky is blue"? No. You consider the request, and in this case you consider the requester and his motive, who in this case (as explained below) likely comes with a hidden agenda. Mercy11 (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Given that you have been told at ANI that you aren't assuming good faith, you need to ignore whatever motive you think Damien has, and you need to address the base issue. The reason we don't need to source "the sky is blue" is that it is a plainly obvious fact to everyone. The fact that a single building in a single location is named after a local notable person is not plainly obvious to everyone and requires a source. --MASEM (t) 01:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• I am the fellow editor Damiens refers to, and I am not arguing that "it needs a reference it can be checked on a PC with google maps" as he states.

To begin with, no editor should come to this section unaware of the background, so they can make intelligent statements rather than in a vacuum and play into Damiens hands. Damines has been, Of Recent, targeting Puerto Rico articles with what can be called malice. Just like you can discriminate against an ethnic group, you can discriminate by purposely targeting a certain group, and only a certain group of articles. And this is what he is doing.

With that said, now Damiens is targeting every minor thing he can think of in various PR articles - Particularly biographies and the like. He is, BTW, under investigation HERE right now.

This controversy rises in this light. He started tagging PR articles in retaliation for someone reporting him there (WP:ANI), a reporting that, BTW, he hasn't cared to respond to.

Mercy11 (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Irregardless of the larger conflict (and whomever is right or wrong), the point is that maps can't be used to verify things that would be of historical note, such as why a building was named a certain way. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You are missing the point, I am afraid. I suggested he can look at a map because he is obviously not familiar with Ponce, so he can get his "thirst" satisfied, and bring an end to his objection. The issue is not whether Maps are or are not RS. The issue is whether the statement requries a citation and I argue it does not. Not everything in Misplaced Pages requires a citation. Mercy11 (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If it requires a reference, then obviously it would require a RS, so the point re maps is not altogether irrelevant. But I agree with you that unless there is something that throws the naming of this particular building into question, and there is real doubt that it is named after the Raúl_Gándara_Cartagena of the article, a citation for it is hardly a high priority. Barnabypage (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

In my position, I was coming more or less from the direction that User:Bobrayner above states. If Damiens, non-maliciously, was asking for a CN becuase he has reason to know that there is no hosuing project by that name there, then that's OK. But to come with unclean hands (see above) and tag something that he has not investigated first, that is not dubious, that is not known to him to be -for a fact- different than stated, and tag it with a CN tag, that's a problem because he is basically pitting WP:OR against the fact that he can go to any PR housing government site, verify the information and move on becasue it is not controversial. Again, his goal is not the WP:V, but he comes in with unclean hands and a more ulterior motive. IAE, there nothing controversial or unusual about this claim, it does it affect a BLP in any way, nor is there any reason to disbelieve it is as stated. Mercy11 (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you know some PR housing government site? That would work as a reference. --damiens.rf 20:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunately for you, Damiens, this is not about what I know, but about your behavior. Together with other editors I have become quite familiar with your style to Disrupt without getting caught. It includes starting up issues in noticeboards and then not showing up to comment until you are, well, cornered. It involves tagging a multitude of articles --and even scores (yes, 20 times some factor) of images-- at a time and then leaving the dirty work to others. It includes targeting others when they happen to cross paths with you. In general, rather than contributing to the development of the encyclopedia, your goal is indicative of someone who wants to make Misplaced Pages look bad with giant flashy tags at the top of articles and CN and other tags all over - in particular when the articles are Puerto Rico related.

Feel free, however, to ask for proof of all of my accusations about you above which I will gladly provide everyone here. Mercy11 (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, the Department of Housing of Puerto Rico, through the Puerto Rico Public Housing Administration, has a list of all public housing complexes in Puerto Rico. See for the ones in Ponce. According to that list the one in Ponce is named after José N. Gándara, but Mercy11 is our WP:PUR expert on Ponce-related matters so maybe there is another complex not on that list named after Raúl? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Ahnoneemoos, it is named after his brother, José N. Gándara, and I have already added your cite to the other article(José N. Gándara). This resolves this matter as far as I am concerned. Mercy11 (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ahnoneemoos! Great work. And thanks to everyone that took part on this discussion.

In regard to the general question, is it a consensus that: (1) Maps themselves can't base a claim that an existing place was named after someone, and (2) whenever challenged, statements like "there's a street named after Jimbo Wales" must provide a reference.? --damiens.rf 11:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a reference is needed. It's pretty common that streets etc. are named after someone else of the same name. Mangoe (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Disagree. You cannot compare requiring a citation for a plain "street" named after someone (unless happens to be a major thorougfare, like the FDR Drive, and most streets are not) with requiring a citation for a US federal government housing development. A street may simply need to be defined in a "legacy" section of a biography as being situated in a certain X neighborhood and crossed by certain Y and Z (better-known) thoroughfares, and then leave it to someone FAMILIAR with the local geographic area to challenge that fact. Housing developments, schools, hospitals are different because a much larger number of LOCALS will be familiar with the truth of falsity of such claim. So, IMO, neither requires a citation, but for diferent reasons (I am not saying don't put a citation if you have it; I am ttalking about it being requried). In addition, when someone unfamiliar with the area, like Damiens, challenges that type of Legacy section claim, and only for Puerto Rico-related biographies and only while under the threat of the ongoing discussion about him as I linked to above, you can't help by consider his true ulterior motives in bringing the matter to this discussion. Mercy11 (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• If it is only something that is readily known in local lore, then absolutely a citation is needed for a worldwide encyclopedia, even though this can easily come from a local reliable source to validate the fact. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Disagree. Would any other worldwide encyclopedia cite to that level? And Misplaced Pages is no exception. That's why we don't require everything to be cited. IAE, I invite you to check my edit history, if there is anyone that provides citations here, at Misplaced Pages, and for this worldwide encyclopedia, it is I. But citing to the core as you are implying is not warranted. Especially when the motivation is dubious. Mercy11 (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Until shown otherwise, you must assume good faith that this is a proper question to ask. And yes, local lore is highly suspect, particularly if it is not documented anywhere. Word-of-mouth - which is what you are saying exists - that only extends in a small local area is not sufficient sourcing for our encyclopedia, and likely wouldn't be sufficient for the other ones either if they covered topics to the level of detail we do. From what you've said, it should not be hard to find a source here, even if it is one documented in a city registar or an old newspaper, we just need that to make that claim. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Where did I ever say that, as far as the Dr. Gandara housing complex word-of-mouth is what I am saying exists? I never said that. In fact, not only is there the Documented cited source Abnoneemoos provided above, but there are also these other rock solid sources: (1)SENADO DE PUERTO RICO, RESOLUCION CONJUNTA R. C. del S. 898. Senator Seilhamer Rodríguez. Gobierno de Puerto Rico. 16ta Asamblea, 6ta Sesión Legislativa Ordinaria. Senado de Puerto Rico. R. C. del S. 898. 5 October 2011. and (2) Sunny A. Cabrera Salcedo. Hacia un Estudio Integral de la Toponimia del Municipio de Ponce, Puerto Rico. Ph. D. dissertation. May 1999. University of Massachusetts Amherst. Graduate School. Department of Spanish and Portuguese. Page 165.

But this discussion is not just about the specific case of the houuing development named after Dr. Gandara, but about the greater question of whether a cite is mandatory or else for Legacy sections in biographies that say things like "There is a X building in the town of Y named after person Z" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercy11 (talk • contribs)

• We require a source for information that is likely going to be challenged. I would be complete amiss to state that a local building was named for a local celebrity and not expect someone on the opposite of the world to question that, so I would supply a source for that. It's common sense with respect to our verification policy. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Local lore is well-known as a source for spurious naming legends. Really, if I were being sufficiently hard-nosed I would insist upon a trail of sources back to a primary source at the time of naming. But some source of decent repute is required. Mangoe (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Example: There is a Roberto Clemente street in Holyoke, Massachusetts. I happen to know that; and both of you probably didn't. Does that make it local lore? IAE, how do you differentiate between local lore and WP:OR? That's really where we need to be spending our energies, seems to me... Mercy11 (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Does it matter? If you are asking is to trust you, rather than a published source, I don't care what you call it - I will ask for a proper citation. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you read this entire thread? I am not against citations and there is probably no one in Misplaced Pages that provides them for every single fact more than I do. Check my edit history.

So, no, I am not asking anyone to trust me. You are missing the point. The issue here is that the enormous majority of editors at Misplaced Pages would not ask for a cite unless they had a reason to. Right? For example, would you ask for a citation for everything and anything that's not cite, including for "the sky is blue" and for "there is a park in Jakarta, Indonesia named Pin Jun Xant" and for "there is street in Malboro, Massachusetts, named Someguy1221 "? Get it? My point is we normally ask for citations about stuff we didn't know, we find curious, or we find dubious - not the rest if it seems to make sense. Now, how would a "There is residentail complex in Ponce, Puerto Rico, named after some-famous-doctor-that worked there" not make sense and, thus, require a citation, unless you either were familiar with Ponce, Puerto Rico, or had some other ulterior motive --hidden agenda-- to ask for such cite. Disagree? Mercy11 (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I did not miss the point. I chose to address the policy issue, rather than your complete inability to assume good faith. I would challenge that myself, since in my own experience on Misplaced Pages (nay, Earth) people will lie about anything for any reason (or simply be wrong and refuse to admit it). If you want to cast aspersions on another editor, you should come up with a better reason than "I can't believe anyone would doubt this!" Someguy1221 (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

(←)You did say above that you, too, wouldn't just "trust me over a published source". So no matter how we slice it, fact is when we don't know someone we throw AGF aside and we demand "OK, show me the 'money'". On the other hand, I never said we should not -ever- ask for a citation. In certain cases it's not needed ("the sky is blue"), in others it's mandatory ("The US has 317 million inhabitants"). I was simply observing that the majority of editors do not ask for a citation except under very specific certain circumstances. Case in point, you seem to be accusing me of a "complete inability to assume good faith" and yet you also stated "I would challenge myself, since in my own experience on Misplaced Pages (nay, Earth) people will lie about anything for any reason", which gives evidence of your own lack of AGF. However, we don't need to reconcile those two seemingly contradictory statements. The fact is that, in the end, we are all guilty of lacking AGF (even if we refuse to admit it) - but we lack AGF because there is reason: namely, our prior experiences about others lying, etc. So, no, policy issues (the question about whether or not a citation in the Dr. Gandara case should be deemed mandatory) cannot be dealt with in a void; there is always an element of personal perspective involved when someone's character is under question as you have shown above. Mercy11 (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I usually assume good faith. I do not assume either accuracy or intelligence. There is quite a difference. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm uh, not going to try again to explain this to you. If you really take it this personally whenever someone challenges an addition you make, that's just something you'll have to find a way to deal with. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Mercy11, You are correct that we not dealing in a void. We are dealing in an area covered explicitly by policy - challenged content REQUIRES a source, not "challenged content requires a source unless i think the person is challenging it in bad faith." whether or not you are assuming bad faith or even if you can prove bad faith, when challenged, content needs to be sourced. and if it is in fact "obvious as 'the sky is blue'", then sourcing it will obviously be a trivial exercise which will in fact leave the encyclopedia in a better position than it was previously. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Car racing websites

I'm performing the DYK review for Lavaggi LS1. The article cites Racingsportscars.com, Planetlemans.com, and Ultimatecarpage.com. The Racingsportcars.com citations are to pages describing the results of races. The site solicits this information from anonymous volunteers (see the "Contributions" section of the site's About page). This puts it somewhere between questionable (for lack of editorial oversight) and user-generated, unless I'm missing something. The other two sites don't say a lot about their editorial policies, so I thought I'd come here for guidance. Thanks. Lagrange613 19:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Since this is a reasonably specialized field with few active editors in, I guess I'll have to duck out of my break once again to state my case here. Racingsportscars.com clearly states that the contributions are for the photographs, and the race programmes. As a result, it's a reliable source; if they're pulling things straight from a race programme, then it will be accurate. There are plenty of results for races on this website that are almost impossible to find anywhere else. In my experience, it's always been accurate; in fact, on occasion, more so than an official source (some of the British GT championship archives are incorrect, as they are inexplicably missing cars out altogether from some races, even when they ran.) It is also a source that has been used for years on Misplaced Pages, and in GAs although I know how little the former means.
• Planetlemans is the one that I'm really surprised is being questioned. It's a source with a wide amount of uses here, and one with a fairly good reputation; again, everything checks out against other sources that are definitely reliable, and it has been used in GAs.
• Ultimatecarpage is the only one that could be considered questionable, in my eyes. I use it predominantly for car specifications, but it could justifiably be seen to be a "case-by-case" thing. For example, if the article clearly cites its source as a company press release, then it is going to be reliable. The potentially questionable thing would be anything done by Wouter Melissen, although I would say he is reliable, just given what I've seen and have verified myself. One thing to back that up is , which is a piece he wrote for a reliable source, and the fact that High Gear Media list him as one of their writers, although I don't know if that means much.
• I realize that a lot of this is talking from my own personal experiences, and that this may not wash with some people; all I can give beyond this is my word that if I thought a source personally to be unreliable (and unless this RSN finds massive factual errors being abundant in any of these websites, it won't change my opinion; I'm sure anyone who has encountered me before knows how stubborn I can be about some things), I would not use it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

For both Racingsportscars.com and Ultimatecarpage.com you seem to be asserting that reliability is somehow inherited from one's sources, and that's simply not the case. Suspecting a source's information to be true is necessary but not sufficient; we also need some indication that the source has a process for weeding out false information. The requirement in WP:SOURCES of "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" sums it up nicely. You're asserting accuracy; what I'm looking for is an indication of fact-checking. Lagrange613 15:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oh come on. If something is coming straight out of a race programme, or an official results list, then it is going to be reliable and accurate, and no further checking is going to be required; this is not "suspecting a source's information to be true", this is common sense - and if you're not seeing that, then I'm afraid your knowledge in this area is too limited for you to be participating in properly (wrt analysing a source's reliability/verifiability/accuracy/whatever). And I'm not doing anything of the sort with Ultimatecarpage.com; they either requote a press release (in which case it is as reliable as the press release is), or they use the writings of someone who can verifiably be seen to have written for reliable sources. As I've said, when I've verified these sources against other ones, they've been found to be accurate, and in some cases, more so than official sources, which contained errors. If a source is accurate, then the facts are fine, and the source is reliable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Please also include mulsannescorner.com in your considerations here. It is also cited in the Lavaggi LS1 article, and in many other car racing related articles, and has been added to many racing car articles by User:Mulsannescorner who states on his user page that he is "the Editor of the website Mulsanne's Corner, http://www.mulsannescorner.com." - start at the bottom of this list, and work up to see them. Jaggee (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Mulsanne's Corner can potentially be variable. The relevance of the Mulsannescorner user is marginal at best; I can see clear improvements that they've made, regardless of if they've cited themselves as the source or not; they were last active in 2012, and their talk page shows a clear encouragement from WikiProject Sports Car Racing in 2006 to contribute; this shows that the source is well regarded. Their specifications and such things are highly reliable, and have always cited reliable sources for their data in my experience; they're also the best source of aerodynamic data that I've seen on the web. The potentially "questionable" Mulsanne's Corner section is the "news" section. In the Lavaggi LS1 article, the particular source comes as a direct quote from Lavaggi himself, and his team's Sports Director, so it is reliable. Fuller can be found being quoted in reliable sources, such as , and is a published author and has been an aerodynamicst for several teams. So I'm pretty damn sure that source is reliable as well, particularly for anything to do with the aerodynamics of racing cars; the guy knows what he's talking about. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

... Bueller? Can we please get some community input on this? The DYK review is languishing, and as Jaggee points out this question has the potential to affect other articles as well. In at least one case editors are waiting on this thread to establish consensus so they can make changes to a GA if necessary. Lagrange613 17:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I've found something that clearly states that WikiProject Motorsport regard Mulsanne's Corner and Planet Le Mans to be reliable: see this list. The list was last updated in 2009, and is clearly incomplete (things like Sky Sports F1 haven't been added, just as an example) so the lack of Ultimatecarpage.com and Racingsportscars.com on the page doesn't mean anything per-se. And no, User:Mulsannescorner did not add their own website to the list, just in case anyone wants to query that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

  So Pc13 thought the sources were reliable when that user added them to this list in 2008. That counts for something, but it's not consensus. Lagrange613 20:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• And for those two, they are reliable enough to be in the Sports Car GAs on the Howmet TX, and the Jaguar XJ220, as well as the Allard J2X-C article that is the centre of some dispute. So 3/5 articles on sports cars have passed GA using those sources. UCP is also a reference in the GA-standard BMW M1 Procar Championship, whilst RSC is present as an external link in the 2007 24 Hours of Le Mans GA. In fact, UCP is actually used as a reference in WikiProject Sports Car Racing's sole FA; the Maserati MC12 article, and it was present during the FA review as well. I think that says enough. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

  The uses in the promoted articles also count for something. However, let's keep in mind that many of those promotions are quite old, and the standards have risen over time. The only articles to be promoted in the last five years are Allard J2X-C and Jaguar XJ220, and in both cases the citation to the website at issue is supported by another source. Per WP:ELMAYBE a source can be not reliable but still be suitable as an external link. In any case, I'd rather we not be circular. The correct order is to establish reliability and then to judge their inclusion in articles. This is why it's come up over at Allard J2X-C. Lagrange613 20:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• They may be old cases, yes, but a source doesn't become unreliable overnight; it is the notability criteria that has changed the most, not the judgement of sources. I've already established that all of the sources are reliable, and that clearly a lot of others agree. Two of the disputed sources are included on the Wikiproject's reliable source list, and the other two are used in GAs and FAs; beyond that, I've also presented evidence of their reliability, and your previous quibbles with semantics haven't shown anything otherwise. These are not tiny websites that no-one in this subject area had ever heard of, or ones that had been unused. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Removal of material with Ludwig von Mises Institute connections

• Here removal of material from Prof. Leland B. Yeager re: Jesus Huerta de Soto with relevant edit summary this reference, published by Mises Inst, where both are affiliated is not RS for noteworthiness (Huerta de Soto, a professor in Spain, also is a fellow; Yeager an author "Associated Scholar"- (later correction))
• Here removal of quotes from Yeager, Jörg Guido Hülsman and Ron Paul with edit summary: Delete praise from affiliates and colleagues at Mises Institute -- undue.) (Hulsman has spoken and written for the Institute; Ron Paul is a "Distinguished Counselor")
• Here delete material from Huerta de Soto with commentary on it by Gary North (economist) with edit summary: Delete material relating solely to intramural discussion within Mises Institute and its "fellows" and with no indication of public noteworthiness from independent RS unaffiliated parties (North is an Associated Scholar.)
• I reverted the material removed by User:SPECIFICO back writing revert back material; there is no general[REDACTED] consensus this material is not notable and some of this has already gone through long discussions and 12/29/13 User:MilesMoney reverted it back again here, pointing to his talk page entry which is called: "Removal of incestuous shoulder-patting/LvMI-related sources". Despite my reply, neither editor bothered to further defend their removal of the material.
  

So are they right and nothing from professors or notable figures who have some loose tie to the Ludwig von Mises Institute is ever allowed on Misplaced Pages? (Note that they did leave in criticism from another author published by the Institute, Larry J. Sechrest, whose criticism they evidently liked.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Since all the authors are "fellows" of the Mises Institute, the reference to "loose ties" does not apply to these individuals. The former Hulsmann article was deleted from English WP. There's no requirement for consensus prior to revert of BLP material. SPECIFICO talk 02:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This is all in relation to he BLP of an Austrian School economist, Jesus Huerta de Soto. The article doesn't currently say anything in the lead about why he is notable. It seems to me that editing the Spanish translation of Hayek does meet the notability requirement for an economist, so that needs to go into the lead. The source can be the Hayek books themselves. Then in the body of the article, when it discusses his other work, the emphasis should be on reviews of his books in academic journals, so that we can see how they have been received in the economics community. Spats on blogs with other Austrian School economists are unlikely to be of interest. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Itsmejudith for noting that the Hayek book connection is notable; we had a heck of a time keeping that in at all. I'm have a feeling there are a raft of academic journals that I can't find on the web and those who deal with the article and may have access haven't provided any info. But maybe it's time for me to learn how to use WP:The Misplaced Pages Library! :-)

Note that only Gary North was a blog, so I guess that can go (it was added originally by SPECIFICO anyway). The other two are from Journals or books. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith -Hello. In an earlier version of the article, there was additional detail about de Soto's contribution to the apparently aborted Spanish Hayek edition, of which only seven volumes were actually published. De Soto was responsible for footnotes, bibliographies and introductions. These are not chores of an economist but of an editor. De Soto is not credited with the translations. If editorial prep work is a mark of WP Notability, then tens of thousands of clerical workers at publishers around the world would be WP Notable. Moreover, the article currently presents De Soto as an economist, not an editor. The sources for this are primary source. Nothing to indicate it's been noted in independent WP:RS. However, the notability issue is peripheral to the question raised here by @Carolmooredc:. The deleted material referenced by Carolmooredc is all internecine praise from the walls of the Mises Insitute, not independent, and not noteworthy stuff to boot. Carolmooredc, it would be great if you could dig up some independent, peer reviewed journals -- independent of the Mises Institute -- or other independent RS about de Soto the economist. I encourage you to ply your efforts, but we can't use "editors' intuition" to support WP article text. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO may want to downgrade through his own comments and interpretation the importance of Huerta de Soto being chosen for the role of editor by the U of Chicago Press, but he still was and that is a fact. Actually, I just looked at my "add file" on Huerta de Soto and I see there are several items I'd found and hadn't gotten around to adding before I had to run off to deal with some new Austrian economics BLP where dubious, inflammatory or worse material was being added or perfectly good RS removed. Sigh. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's all stick to the subject of this thread??? Ron Paul, et al. Thx. SPECIFICO talk

Excuse me, you said it would be great if I added material and I merely replied I found some I forgot about and why I'd failed to add it (i.e., not just laziness; only so many hours budgeted for editing). No badgering, please. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

University Laudatio RS for BLP facts?

At this diff I rewrote the sentence on Huerta de Soto's role as "Spanish language" editor of The Collected Works of F.A. Hayek to conform with the sources and also used this ref: LAUDATIO in honour of Professor Jesús Huerta de SOTO from Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid on the occasion of the Doctor Honoris Causa Award Ceremony (10/22/10). It is a 20 page document written by several professors at the University which provides lots of details about Huerta de Soto. I'm sure I'll be challenged on any use of that document, so as long as this is open might as well check. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stay on topic here and at such time as it is appropriate, consider opening a separate thread for the Roumanian reference (which does not appear to have been peer-reviewed or otherwise vetted by an academic publication review.) SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It is on topic since another editor brought up moving this factoid (once properly described) to the lead. And since when are only "peer-reviewed or otherwise vetted by an academic publication" allowed in factoids about people for their bios? Off topic is your constant false claims of "off topic." (This whole Editor of Spanish edition was discussed ad nauseam on the talk page previously here and here.)Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI - I started Talk:Jesús_Huerta_de_Soto#Hayek_Spanish_Edition_revisted and have noted that this English language version of one of the Hayek collection books clearly states: Editor of the Spanish Edition: Jesus Huerta de Soto, which is more explicit than the listing in the seven Spanish language books currently used as references.

I was assuming that the role we were talking about was scholarly editing. As in Piero Sraffa editing the works of David Ricardo. If that was the role that de Soto played in relation to Hayek in Spanish, that meets WP:PROF. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

De Soto's role does not appear to have been original scholarly editing of historic texts such as you cite wrt Ricardo. De Soto was responsible for footnotes, bibliographies, and intros. SPECIFICO talk 23:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Cite for that claim please? Collect (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

His cv. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

His c.v. says he only does intros and footnotes? Interesting. Collect (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Jesús Huerta de Soto website, see Curriculum Vitae, Labor Editorial which reads: Editor of the Spanish edition: Jesus Huerta de Soto The work of the editor of the Spanish edition is to coordinate and manage the entire collection, specifically to engage translators, proofread the text, realize the pagination of the footnotes for the Spanish text, and write forewords and prefatory notes to the volumes in the Series.

Now the issue of the difference between a "scholarly" editor and any other kind of editor had not been brought up before so it seemed like SPECIFICO's wanting to add a description of what he did as editor was just an attempt to diminish and mock his role as editor. Obviously the fact that Huerta de Soto was chosen for the role at all in a notable collection is of some note on the notability scale. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you know that kitty litter is of some note on the radioactivity scale? Some, but not very much. By stating exactly how de Soto describes his participation we can obviate dispute as to its noteworthiness. On the other hand, Prof. Sraffa's Ricardo edition, cited by @Iselilja: was a much heralded scholarly achievement and a noteworthy contribution to the worldwide study of the history of economic thought. SPECIFICO talk 03:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Why not just say that only Nobel Prize winners in economics and incredibly noteworthy individuals like this should have articles. See Misplaced Pages is not a scientific journal or textbook. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I've seen nothing to indicate that this wasn't scholarly editing. Writing footnotes and intros is a key part of that role. The Laudatio is reliable for bibliographical facts. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

What's your basis for this evaluation, "The Laudatio is reliable for bibliographical facts"? More "relaiable" than de Soto's own cv on his personal website? What's scholarly about compiling references bibliographies and footnotes? Are all of us, WP editors, notable scholars? There should be some independent published source which would unambiguously refer to the noteworthiness of de Soto's work on the translation of the U Chicago books into Spanish. Hiring the translator really doesn't seem noteworthy to me. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The question in this thread is "University Laudatio RS for BLP facts?" WP:CONTEXTMATTERS applies (in all RS discussions) and there is nothing anywhere noway nohow to suggest that University Laudatio is not RS. 'Noteworthiness' of particular facts is a weight question, not an RS issue. – S. Rich (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Laudatio could have been taken from googling, recopying unidentified non-factchecked sources, published or word of mouth, or by Ouija board. Please demonstrate that it's reliable for these facts. Nobody's conflating the RS and noteworthy issues. Why not rely instead on de Soto's own statements about himself? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The source is identified. It is the webpage for this university: . It is not word of mouth or a ouiji board. Googling is the method we use to find sources. Fact-checking applies to periodicals and this source is not a periodical. Not every source needs a "fact-check" process because context matters. Because the fact presented by UAIC serves to confirm his CV, it serves to verify the SPS material that de Soto provides. – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, I would like to ask those who comment here to refer to WP:RS and cite the specific provisions of WP policy which they believe apply to the Romanian university document. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Reliable_sources which defines what reliable source are, i.e., a "document" with authoritative "writers" that has been published online by a reputable institution. Certainly reliable enough for verifying this factoid and probably any other factoids. If it should be used for some extra-ordinary claim in the future, feel free to bring it to the talk page or here. I see some factoids there I had not seen before, but now that I know they exist, I certainly would look for other verification as well. The more RS the merrier. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS, not only WP:V. Please read it. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The Laudatio is signed by a dean of faculty of economics. That's pretty good sourcing. We read past the fact that it is promotional and full of peacock terms and just use it for bare facts. The article subject is clearly notable. The article now needs more information about the subject's writings and how they have been received in academia. It must always bear in mind that the Austrian School is considered heterodox. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the Laudatio is a good source and can be treated as RS. Andrew Dalby 20:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Please share the reason(s) for your agreement. I see (in the googled translation of) the document that de Soto studied Austrian theory in the actuarial MBA program at Stanford University. Does anybody think that's accurate or true? I also see some language in the document which appears to have been copied from an earlier version of de Soto's Misplaced Pages article. Who is making these remarks? A notable economist? SPECIFICO talk 21:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

One more note on this off-topic section. The section was opened when CMDC removed, not added facts about de Soto, namely his particular responsibilities in the Hayek edition, as he himself stated them on his website. The Romanian Laudatio did not deny those facts, so the Laudatio is irrelevant to the removal of those facts, as is this section, per my initial comment in it above. Let's get back to the original section topic, if anybody cares. SPECIFICO talk 03:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The removal of text, the original issue raised here, was excessive and done for inadequate reasons. It would slant the article against Mises Institute-related material. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be slanted for or against. The choice of this scholar, by a university press, as an editor/translator of a multi-volume standard work, is notable enough to include in his biography. To use the excuse that this is a BLP to remove information that individual editors don't like would be babyish. The discussion is unnecessarily long, I think. Andrew Dalby 09:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby:: It's not a matter of slanting anything. It's a matter of using independent RS references. The deleted material is not encyclopedia-worthy. Please review the statements in Soto's CV regarding his services as editor. He was not the translator. He was engaged to hire the translator. He was an editor, not a researcher, translator, or scholar. His role was similar to the role of tens of thousands of editors around the world. That role, by itself, would not establish his WP-notability. However this isn't his AfD so I'm not sure that matters here. Please don't use loaded words such as "excuse" which disparage the motives of other editors. I earnestly hope you'll review the article and its associated talk pages before posting here again. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

"Only an editor" is not what you seem to think with regard to scholarly works. He was not a mere spillchucker which is what too many folks think is the "job" of an editor. Most, nay essentially all, editors of scholarly works are acutally scholars. Amazing, but true, not even a Ripley comment. And thus your argument fails. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This thread shouldn't be the place to discuss de Soto's notability or lack thereof. The article doesn't comment on his duties, it merely repeats the description he himself provides on his CV. The topic of this thread, with respect to WP:RS is stated at the top of the first section. SPECIFICO talk 14:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying issues

• Just to clarify, since some issues have gotten mixed up. The initial thread is about removal of three pieces of sourced info. Per another editor's comment, I have no problem with removing the North blog info. And it looks like other editors disagree with SPECIFICO's view that just because professors happen to be associated with the Mises Institute, their writings in books and scholarly journals never can be used as references.

Notability might be relevant because SPECIFICO recently put a notability tag on the article writing After many months additional editing since the AfD got a reprieve, notability is still not evident - this a week before he removed the 3 pieces of info under discussion and refused to discuss the issue on the talk page despite my request.

• The second is about the use of the Laudito for non-extraordinary factoids which I assumed would be reverted and has been. (My removal of what I thought was excessive detail was not the reason I brought the issue here, so SPECIFICO seems to be getting confused.)

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested formal closure

Here, FYI. Because Because so many WP:BLP talk page discussions are about this issue over and over again, and variations on it have been brought to WP:Reliable Sources Noticebaord repeatedly - and because the articles all are under Austrian economics/General sanctions. Note it's not a discussion link; that happens here or perhaps elsewhere. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Archeoastronomy and the "Double Project Proposal" of Giulio Magli

• Giza Necropolis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pyramid of Khafre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There was a new section added here and also here regarding a pyramid-building theory by Giulio Magli.

The whole thing seems sourced to this document, which looks academic on first blush, but then it looks like it's just the proposal, no obvious peer review., submitted by the author himself. Am I right to think that no academic process has actually taken place with this proposal?

And is this person a reliable source by himself for theories about building the pyramids? (The book he has written seems to be from an academic self-publisher.)

Arxiv is a preprint service. While it tries to filter out obvious crank papers, papers there are not peer-reviewed. This source should be treated as an unpublished paper and is thus unreliable because there has been no independent review. --Mark viking (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked a little more and this author has a newer book on the pyramids published with Cambridge University Press here, but there are also published articles in places like this from the Journal of Cosmology. This seemed like rehashed pyramidology and "supposedly-science" but the Cambridge source confuses me. Maybe other editors with a stronger background in this than me will notice it all. Thanks!__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we can use the Arxiv source, although we probably could use, attributed, his books. See this review of one of his books - not from a RS but from someone who had Magli as an examiner for his PhD and whose opinions I respect. But I am struggling with this I admit. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

(Hmm, even that connected source didn't think much of the pyramid theory.) I would tend to place "This is why the pyramids were built" in the field of extraordinary claims. And in the sense of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", I'm having trouble judging if this individual theory is more notable than all of the theories we don't have in the article, or how to give it appropriate weight. But at that point it's not really a reliable source issue, it's one of whether Undue Weight applies, I suppose. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Helmuth Von Glasenapp

Is the following source reliable?

Source: Glasenapp, Helmuth von (1999). Jainism: An Indian Religion of Salvation. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 494. ISBN 978-81-208-1376-2.

Article: Jainism and Hinduism

Content:

Helmuth Von Glasenapp writes that the difference in the rituals of practitioners of the two religions would be that the Jains do not give any importance to bathing in holy water, cremating or burying ascetics, offering sacrifices to the dead and burning widows.

--Rahul (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not an optimal source, since the book was written in 1925. You should use more recent scholarship. The author is the subject of an article on the German Misplaced Pages, if you want more information about him. TFD (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Also his information is wrong. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The de.wiki article says that some of his works are still considered standard. Does this have any bearing on the case? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It explains why Motilal Banarsidass reprinted his book: unlike some, they don't reprint just anything :) I'd agree with TFD, though, that we ought to look for reliable sources more recent than 1925. Andrew Dalby 12:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the work is still considered as one of the standards. This might be of interest: In this review (of another book), peter flugel mentions Glasenapp as one of the only four authoritative textbooks on Jainism. --Rahul (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The linked book review says Von Glasenapp presents "canonical and classical Jain doctrines in ahistorical terms. Not much consideration is given to the differences between canonical and classical Jainism, nor to post-classical, medieval and modern developments...." That is like writing about Christianity, but ignoring Protestantism. These are the types of problems that one expects modern scholarship to address. Many classic texts in social sciences are still used in college readings, for example Marx, Weber, Freud, but students are made aware of their limitations. TFD (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

So what to do? I have used this source extensively on Jainism and related topics. Should it be replaced by other sources everywhere? --Rahul (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

We wouldn't rule out the use of this book: Judith's point above is relevant to your question. But, since this is a major world religion, one could reasonably hope for later reliable sources on the same issues. If there are, we should prefer them. Scholarly approaches will have changed since 1925, and later work will sometimes be better informed. Andrew Dalby 10:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I would not remove material sourced to this book unless subsequent scholarship contradicts it. A lot of older articles on Misplaced Pages were created by copying out of copyright sources. The War of 1812 for example was copied from the 1910 Encyclopedia Britannica. Some have no sources at all. I would say though that going forward we try to find more up to date sources. TFD (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Unpublished/non-peer Reviewed Study

This study by Media Matters for America is self-published, not peer-reviewed, and not in any journal. It is presented as a study reporting media bias in a manner which implies that it has some scientific validity. There is simply no way this can be considered a reliable source. Arzel (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Arzel, if you were on the side of the 97% of published climate scientists who confirm that anthropogenic global warming were a reality, you would certainly see this differently, but as a climate change denialist, you really can't stand the inclusion of anything which challenges your 3% POV. That the source is biased is irrelevant. It's a notable RS which presents a POV you don't like. That's not a reason for not using it.

BTW, it's a basic survey of the news coverage, not a scientific study of the type one sees in peer reviewed scientific literature about disease, treatment, atomic structures, etc.. You need to learn the difference. Don't let the word "study" confuse you. Peer review is not expected for this type of thing. If you would spend less time objecting to everything which is against your POV, and actually study the RS presented here, like this study, you might learn and change your real world POV. Since you seem incapable of doing that, I really question your objectivity and competence to work here as an editor. We are expected to learn and change our real world POV according to what RS inform us. That's what reasonable people do. POV warriors don't do that, and we don't need them obstructing progress here. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I would remind BullRangifer to stick to the point. This study is un-published and not peer reviewed. I would also remind BullRangifer to avoid the personal attacks. Arzel (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Try reading what I wrote. This is content from a RS. It is not scientific research in the usual sense. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Try reading the section I linked to. All of the studies, except this one, are actual studies. It is quite apparent that you have done no actual analysis of the article and simply followed me there in order to WP:BAIT me like you did on my talk page. Arzel (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Arzel, you state that "There is simply no way this can be considered a reliable source". Why "no way"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It is being presented as a scientific study, but it is not peer-reviewed. We have never accepted this kind of self-published research as a reliable source in this manner. Arzel (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

How is it being presented as a 'scientific study'? Which 'science' would such a survey come under? The attribution to Media Matters for America seems clear enough to me, and I think our readers can figure out from the name alone that MMfA isn't an academic journal. Are there any particular grounds for doubting what their study reports? And if there is a problem with it being 'primary' (as opposed to 'self-published' - a media watchdog that didn't publish things would be a strange sort of organisation), perhaps a secondary source reporting on the findings might be worth including: (see also ). AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::Since Bullrangifer has been part of the discussion at ANI where you accused him of stalking at ANI over this, I'm not surprised he's come here. I believe calling someone a stalker as you did is a personal attack so you really shouldn't be complaining when he comments on your editing. Back to the issue. It is called a study. Your comment on my talk page about WP:Scholarship is irrelevant as no one is suggesting it is an academic study. It doesn't need to be peer-reviewed to be used so long as it's attributed. It was published on their website. If you read WP:SPS you will see it's not meant to cover organisations such as this - or Fox News itself for that matter. We've discussed MMfA over and over here, it gets tiresome and clearly political, which shouldn't enter into these discussions. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I only called him that because he is following me around. You as an admin should know better, and don't seem to care. Yet you say that I have a personal attack against him for stating it? Don't bring up the political angle to me, when you see me using highly biased sources to trash others you might have a point. The only political angle here is haters of FNC. You seem to be ok with them using WP to push their point of view. I thought Admins were supposed to follow WP core policies like NPOV and Weight. Arzel (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Reliable. Arzel does not like the source, so he does his best to undermine its credibility. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Actually everyone is supposed to follow WP:NPOV. Arzel, you seem to be skipping around our policies and guidelines. Exactly how does it fail WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT? Of course, this isn't NPOVN so if you are now agreeing it's a RS and are arguing on NPOV grounds we can close this. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: There is another source that reported what MMfA said. QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see this study is widely cited by various news and advocacy organizations. I suppose one might want to object to its neutrality given the source organization, but it's clearly widely taken as an authoritative report. Mangoe (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like MMA comes up a lot at WP:RSN search. Since it's a report on their content analysis of media stories, are its reports on such things generally WP:RS or not? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

MMfA is not a science organization, and does not present itself as such -- its opinions on science are citable as opinions - but it does not have any standing as a science journal or science publisher. Collect (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

We can't make a blanket ruling on it, as the sorts of things it covers and the types of story are too varied. I certainly wouldn't rule out use of its authored investigative stories. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Media Matters is a reliable source for accuracy in the media. In this case they are not writing about climate science, but how a scientific report was covered in the media. Arzel would have us believe that since they arguing that the media provided undue coverage to fringe views, they cannot be reliable. It is a cynical view of the world to think that everyone falsifies facts in order to support positions. Rational writers examine the facts and draw conclusions from them. TFD (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Media Matters for America is an advocacy organization. If our article on this organization is accurate, they are "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation". Advocacy organizations are obviously not independent of the subject and should be treated as a primary source. In general, advocacy organizations are not reliable for anything but their opinion in articles about or related to themselves. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with this. It's really not reliable for anything on its own, and should probably be avoided as a source. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• A Quest For Knowledge's post jams together phrases from WP:V but does not accurately reflect that policy. Since Media Matters works by analyzing published reports, it is a secondary source. Also, the sources that are "not reliable for anything but their opinion in articles about or related to themselves" are self-published and questionable sources. Media Matters is neither questionable nor self-pubished, as those terms are used in WP:V. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Really? So you're saying that advocacy organizations are independent of the subject in which they advocate and therefore should be treated a third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject? If not, I'm pretty sure that's what I said. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe you should go back and read WP:V. You don't seem to remember what it says very well. "Third-party" is a crap term and I reject it. I acknowledge that an advocacy organization is not independent on topics that they advocate for. But sources do not have to be neutral and independent to be reliable sources on topics other than themselves. They just have to avoid being self-published (and even then, there are exceptions) and not have a conflict of interest. Merely advocating a position does not create a conflict of interest. The kinds of conflicts of interest that would make a source questionable are described in footnote 8 of WP:V and are along the lines of having financial interests that are promoted by the source, writing that tries to sway litigation, and the like. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't remember where it says that "Third-party" is a "crap term" and should be rejected. Can you please point everyone to which sections of WP:V say this? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• I reaffirm my rejection of the term third-party, but that term is not really relevant to this discussion. The only uses of that term are:

1. "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Later, the "Notability" section states "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." Taken together, this means that topics for which no third-party sources can be found shouldn't have an article about them in Misplaced Pages. It does not mean that every single claim in the article must be supported by a third-party source.
2. The term is used in the Self-published sources section, but since Media Matters isn't a self-published source, that's irrelevant. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• You can reaffirm whatever you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it's clearly stated in What_counts_as_a_reliable_source. If you disagree with Misplaced Pages policy, you are free to open up an RfC. If you are unwilling to do so, would you like me to open it for you? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• So, since the President of the United States and the Supreme Court are paid by the United States, they are not third parties, and cannot be considered reliable sources for anything except their own opinions? Have I got that right? Jc3s5h (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• No. The reliability of a source greatly depends on the content and the context in which it is used. A source that may be reliable in one context may be unreliable in another context. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• That's 'third party', as in not linked with the subject of the article. Or are you suggesting that MMfA is affiliated to Fox? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Misplaced Pages the second party of the three? TFD (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

As for 'weight' issues, see for example , , . Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Another example

I have turned up this article in the Columbia Journalism Review making similar but more specific claims along the same lines, in this case about changes in coverage at Reuters. Mangoe (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Since multiple RS have commented on this matter, I suggest that they be added as sources to the content on the FNCc article, thus ensuring that anymore attempts to whitewash the article of reliably sourced content by Arzel, nearly the only type of activity performed by this user, doesn't happen again. The next time Arzel does such a thing anywhere on Misplaced Pages, it needs to be treated as vandalism. Their whitewashing campaign has gone on for far too long and they need a topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

AQFK, policy on this site anyway does not say that any source that opposes or does not endorse U.S. conservatism is unacceptable. TFD (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Correct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• As others have pointed out, better reliable sources are available supporting the point in question (that Fox News, among other conservative media outlets, gives disproportionate airtime to climate-change "skeptics"). Since we should always strive to use the best available sources, why not table the Media-Matters question and utilize the the higher-quality sources instead (e.g. , )? MastCell  07:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Of course we can use those, but that's not a good reason not to use MMfA for their opinion/analysis. I still maintain that for this it meets our RS criteria and any 'weight' or significance issues. Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Except that I'm not sure they reach the level of consistent accuracy necessary for a reliable source. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Since their POV and agenda are known, it would be reasonable to attribute cited statements, and in the case where there are other RS to minimalize presentation of MMfA's statements, but having a partisan POV is not grounds for a blanket dismissal as RS per se.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 12:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Not reliable. While global warming"(or whatever is the preferred term) is most certainly real, this study appears to be focused on media coverage. And even that is besides the point. This study could have been covering the media coverage of the Kardashians and it would still be just as unreliable. Media Matters is or course a partisan operation and so they should be scrutinized for their reliability overall. There is no way we should be passing off this "study" as an academic study.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I give up. It appears this is going to be discussed in two sections. No one is passing this off as an academic study. It is the opinion of MMfA and their opinion has enough significance to be used. So long as we attribute it the fact that it is partisan is irrelevant, we frequently use partisan sources - that's the way NPOV works. And of course this is focused on media coverage - that's the whole point. No one is suggesting we add scientific studies to this section on global warming. Dougweller (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The use of the word "study" does imply academic or scientific analysis, and that is how it appears in the article (or did a few hours ago IIRC). As to your point about attribution to MMfA and the analysis being their opinion, I agree completely. That they are focused on media is relevant. Everything they produce is opinion, as opposed to lets say the poly sci department of McGill doing a peer reviewed study on global warming skeptics in the media which should be considered factual.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Reliable. The ratio of pro/anti climate change coverage which was published by MMfA is interesting and relevant. The argument that MMfA is not peer reviewed is a red herring; we do not require media watchdogs to be peer reviewed, when commenting on media trends. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Reliable, this discussion needs to focus on policy, not a partisan dismissal of a source because it is associated with the position of the opposing party in the political spectrum.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• In regards to Media Matters, I don't think partisanship is the real issue. All sources have a bias. The Washington Post tends to have a liberal bias and the Washington Times tends to have a conservative bias. That doesn't make them unreliable. See WP:BIASED. But, I see two very real problems. First, this is a primary source. While primary sources are acceptable in certain, limited situations, secondary sources are preferred. Second, Media Matters is a special interest group. Special interest groups are obviously not independent of their special interest. Instead, we should be relying on secondary, third-party reliable sources which are independent of the subject. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• There's also the basic issue of accuracy, which people seem to want to avoid. The comparisons to Fox News aren't apt, because they're more like a NewsBusters/Media Research Center type of group. We should consider whether their take on something is accurate as well as those concerns you provide above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Reliable The issue is the coverage of global warming rather than global warming itself. TFD (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Reliable cited as opinion on MMfA The definition of favourable or unfavourable coverage is clearly a matter of opinion -- and the CJR only uses the MMfA data and does not provide data on its own, and only covers Reuters' coverage. Thus all CJR can be used for is "Media Matters for America states that Reuters total coverage of global warming had fewer mentions when Paul Ingrassia was editor than under prior editors". Nit a very major claim, but all that the CJR article can support. Collect (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Reliable. How many times are we going to re-litigate this issue? If we accept the arguments against MMFA, then that also disqualifies Fox News. Gamaliel (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Using a commercial website as a source if it has valuable encyclopedic information

dndclassics.com is a website that I first visited earlier this week. It is an offshoot of DriveThruRPG and OneBookShelf and hosts the same content there, but focusing solely on Dungeons & Dragons products. It is a blatantly commercial site, intended to sell PDFs of both new and out of print RPG material. And I want to use it to source a whole bunch of articles.

Hold on, before you go thinking I'm crazy (if it's not already too late), I have a good reason. What I found in my browsing is that a lot of the product pages have detailed histories accompanying them. The ones I like best are the ones written by Shannon Appelcline – an established game designer, owner of RPGnet, and author of the non-fiction book Designers & Dragons. Designers & Dragons is a history (or series of histories, company by company) of the RPG industry, which originally began as a recurring column on RPGnet, and which Appelcline compiled into a single source in 2011, and has expanded significantly for a second printing (I believe) later this year. I have found his work to be particularly well-researched, detail oriented, and informative in just the right way to be used as a very valuable source for adding encyclopedic content to Misplaced Pages articles. Appelcline also has a Designers & Dragons column on RPGnet, which includes two big articles, full of links to these product histories, and recognizes them as real, researched histories.

As for the histories I found in dndclassics/drivethrurpg, who knows, I would not be surprised if they are eventually compiled into a book as well, or at least hosted at a less commercial site, but for now they are hosted on a site that has an "add to your cart" button on each page, which is why I am concerned that other people would be concerned. In reading through these product histories, I found them to be just as valuable as his earlier work. These numerous product information pages go into the exact sort of detail that I would need to really build up Misplaced Pages pages – both to add nice flourishes to articles that are already in great shape, and to add some meat to articles that are struggling. These histories include what was happening at the publishing company at the time, other works those authors were involved in, where the books fit in the history of the game and the publisher, what purpose the books were intended to serve, and other insights that are not available anywhere else. The histories are not written by or for the publisher (TSR/Wizards of the Coast), but they are likely benefitting the retailer website.

I am looking for feedback before I start using these histories, so that if I am challenged later, I know how to respond. If you need any examples on what I would do with this, I can respond later today. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to tell you. Your best argument is that Shannon Appelcline is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. In this particular case, Appelcline has authored a book published by Mongoose Publishing. However, you are not supposed to use an WP:SPS as a third-party sources about living people. That said, you still run the risk of other editors objecting and all your hard work going to waste. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Does this part of the WP:SPS guideline exempt Appelcline from concerns about using self-opublished sources (such as RPGnet)? "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from in your last two sentences, A Quest For Knowledge. Appelcline did not publish Designers & Dragons himself, and the product histories on drivethrurpg are not published by him either, but by the website (or so I assume). Please help me follow your train of though. BOZ (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is a small example of the kind of thing I would want to do with these articles. This page says that "Gygax says that the G-series modules were inspired by the "heroic adventuring" of The Incomplete Enchanter by Fletcher Pratt and L. Sprague deCamp." This is the sort of interesting fact that I would like to add to Against the Giants, which I am hoping to raise to FA one day. What this whole thing boils down to, is, how big of a problem would it be to use this as a source? BOZ (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Another example. This page states that Ravenloft (module) was called "Vampyr" before it was produced - that is a fact which the article currently does not state, but probably should. There are probably very many things I could glean from these histories; he is still writing them at this time, so who knows how much more I will be able to get out of them when he is finished. BOZ (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

First, let me just caution you that I don't know anything about Dungeons and Dragons or RPGnet. What I am saying is that the websites that you have listed are, generally speaking, not considered reliable sources. However, if you really want to use them, your best argument is that Appelcline is an established published expert which is allowed by WP:SPS. However, this argument is on thinner ice. IOW, this is a gray area. There is no definitive authority about whether a source is reliable or not. Ultimately, it comes down to what other editors think. Some editors might object; other editors might not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I get what you are saying. If someone challenges whether Appelcline is an expert on the subject matter or not, I guess I will have to address that when the time comes. I have already used other works of his quite a bit, so that may come up in the future regardless of whether I use the "dndclassics.com" pages as sources or not. So I guess that comes back to my original question then - is linking to the pages themselves, given that they are on a very clearly commercial website, allowed by Misplaced Pages's guidelines even if Appelcline could be considered an expert in the subject matter? BOZ (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to give you a second opinion... I think what AQFK says is right. The fact that these are commercial sources does not necessarily disqualify them... but it does make them questionable. Essentially its a judgement call... with the commercial nature of the website being somewhat off-set by the expertize of the author (Appelcline). If challenged, don't insist on useing them... explain why you used them, and then follow consensus of other editors. That said... I do have a suggestion: This is the kind of thing that I would use in text attribution for. Don't just say "Gygax was inspired by Pratt and deCamp. <cite drivethru>" ... say something along the lines of "According to RPG historian Shannon Appelcline, Gygax was inspired by Pratt and deCamp. <cite drivethru> "). That makes it a statement about what Appelcline says... not a statement about what Gygax actually did. Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

All sources are questionable. It depends on various factors. With a commercial site, you have the usual problem of (probable) lack of fact-checking you find with any small publication. With commercial sites you also have the problem of incentive to lie in order to make sales. I would not use a commercial site to reference "One of the best-written examples of its type". I would use a commercial site to reference "Was originally published in 1973" since there's no incentive to lie about that. (They could still be unintentionally wrong about that though, of course.) "Gygax was inspired by Pratt and deCamp" is kind of in the middle there. In theory the writer could be saying that in order to goose sales. Against that you have that the author is named and is an actual expert with a reputation to uphold, so realistically this is not what's happening here. Since there's no fact-checking (probably) -- no editor saying "Wait, how do you know that? Let's see your source" -- she could be wrong. Maybe she heard somebody say that Gygax said that but the person got it wrong; maybe she got Pratt confused with Anderson; whatever. Against that you have that the author is named and is an actual expert with a reputation for knowing this stuff so this is vanishingly unlikely. IMO it's quite acceptable. But as noted above you may run into editors who think differently. You may run into editors of the mind "Commercial site? Not allowed, period" without thinking much beyond that. There are all kinds of people here and some are black-and-white regarding their thinking on matters like this. So you might have to push back sometimes. It's worth it to improve the article, though, and BTW thank you for your initiative to do so. Herostratus (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everybody, I will keep all of this in mind.  :) I think it would also be a good idea for me to make and keep a list of wherever I wind up using such citations, so that when/if the histories are republished elsewhere on the internet or finally on paper, I can switch them out to something that people are less likely to object to. Appelcline appears to be trusted in the gaming community, but if it helps his reliability, in the back of Designers & Dragons he has listed (at least) a full page of sources he researched, including other previously published non-fiction books about RPGs and the industry and trade magazines, and a list of the dozens of industry professionals and insiders who fact-checked his work before he published it. Although he doesn't cite any sources in these product histories, since they are written in the same style and contain similar sorts of information as to what I have seen in the book, so I think it is fair to assume that the same sources are being used. No one is unimpeachable of course, and all people make mistakes, but until someone exposes him as being noticeably inaccurate or some kind of fraud, I consider him trustworthy. BOZ (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Huffington Post article for Janet Jackson's religion

Is this article in The Huffington Post reliable for adding the statement that Janet Jackson is Muslim to the Janet Jackson and List of American Muslims articles? Nightscream (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't say she has adopted Islam as her religion, it says she has been studying the Qur'an. So does the Harper's interview it links. I think the two together would constitute a reliable source for the statement that she has been studying the Qur'an, or at least that she has said that she is doing so. That does not make her a Muslim. I have studied the Qur'an at times, Just as I have studied the Christian scriptures for various purposes, and I am neither Christian nor Islamic. DES 23:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In this particular case, I would say definitely no. The sourcing is weak. Even if you accept that the Huffington Post as a reliable source, this particular article isn't even about Janet Jackson. Jackson is only mentioned in passing. And the fact that the author says "reportedly also practice Islam" indicates that even the author is unwilling to stand by this claim. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite true, but the linked Harpers article is entirely about Jackson, and it contains a quote from Jackson on the subject. That, I think, can be cited for the lesser claim that it supports. DES 23:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC) Horrid error, I confused the two celebs, A Quest For Knowledge is quite correct above. This would need a better source. DES 23:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I did some Googling around and there's definitely rumors and speculation about this, but it's being reported as exactly that: rumors and speculation. For example. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

"Rumours" about religion do not belong in any BLP IMO. Collect (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

"Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question," -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I would not use a source that mentions someone in passing as an article about that person. When writing about a topic, the correct way is to find relevant sources and reflect what they say, not look for sources that support what one wants to say. NPOV is a more relevant policy. If articles about Jackson fail to mention she is a Muslim, then it is unimportant to her article, whether true or not. TFD (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Passport

Jasmine Waltz has her age sourced by her passport. This contains a picture of it, but it's usually an unreliable source. Can I include it?--Launchballer 14:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you can't use a passport for personal details such date of birth regarding a living person. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT issue, as the source is still the Mirror. If you're saying it's unreliable then they cannot be trusted to report what her passport says. Mangoe (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

In this particular example, the source is the newspaper (a secondary source) that is itself referencing a primary source (a passport). How else to we source a birthdate? --Iantresman (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

But I have seen it - the article contains a scan of it!--Launchballer 17:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It makes no difference whether Launchballer has seen the passport (that is, held the passport in Launchballer's hands, tilted it to see all the holographic color changes, etc.). Launchballer is not a reliable source (nor is any other Misplaced Pages editor) so Launchballer's report of seeing the passport is unusable. What we do have is a newspaper website, the Mirror, that decided that the purported passport scan they obtained was reliable enough to publish. If Mirror were a reliable newspaper, like The Times (London) or the Washington Post, we could use the report in Misplaced Pages. I'm not familiar with the Mirror (but what I've seen so far doesn't raise my hopes). Jc3s5h (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That's what I meant, I've seen it through the Mirror article. I know I'm not a reliable source, I even wrote the essay Misplaced Pages:You are not a reliable source! Why I wasn't sure is because the Mirror is an unreliable source. Thanks anyway.--Launchballer 17:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd be hesitant to cite the Mirror for any sort of contentious material. The time the Mirror came up at RSN, editors didn't seem too impressed with it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Reporters can look up primary documents and report facts about a person's date of birth. Then we would have a reliable secondary source. But the Mirror article does not do that. It merely says that Waltz provided what she said was a copy of her passport that said she was born in 1979. TFD (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If there was no controversy over the date and nothing serious riding on it except to get the facts right in the article, I'd say that this source is sufficient. However in this case a newspaper which is not exactly the New York Times (understatement of the week) is making a claim in order to disprove information provided by the subject herself. The weak reputation of the newspaper means that you can't just present the newspaper's claim as fact. However, you might be able to get away with using the subject's given date in the lead, then later in the article or as footnote write something like "however, the Mirror newspaper published what it claimed was her passport showing the earlier date XXX". Even the Mirror is a reliable source for what the Mirror contains. Zero 02:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

On second thoughts, even that might be a violation of WP:BLP. You could ask at WP:BLPN. Zero 02:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Joshuaproject.net

I'm involved in a dispute over whether this evangelism website is a reliable source that there are 5,100 Russians in Venezuela. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a better source to replace it: the Venezuelan census asked about foreign-born population in 2001 but no figure was given for Russia (and anyway this wouldn't include Russian descendants born in Venezuela), I couldn't find anywhere that the 2011 census asks about ethnic background (which makes you wonder where exactly Joshua Project could be getting these numbers from, since they certainly don't conduct their own censuses!), and from web searches I could only find vague historical information like that 300 families of Russians came to Venezuela in the mid-20th century.

Some background: Joshua Project is used in about 600 Misplaced Pages articles, mostly as a source for population figures. (IMO it is unreliable for all of those uses and should be subject to mass removal & blacklisting.) It has previously been discussed on RSN (e.g. Feb. 2009, Sep. 2010, Nov. 2010) with mixed opinions; some said that even if they have an obvious POV due to their religious mission it wouldn't cause them to distort population figures, while others have said even if the Joshua Project got their information from reliable sources then we should be citing those sources themselves and not an aggressively POV intermediary.

Editors from WikiProject Ethnic groups generally have a much more negative opinion on reliability: that even if Joshua Project is getting their underlying data from a reliable source, they don't say what source that is, and additionally they make egregious errors of interpretation both in delineating ethnic groups (relevant discussion from an AfD many years ago on a purported ethnic group which was really just a region) and in giving statistics about them (e.g. this discussion from 2008, particularly comments by User:Caniago and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise). Even Christian academics have described the Joshua Project in rather unfavourable terms, e.g. : "The Joshua Project attempts to define ethnic groups, but they are about a century behind in their thinking and their terminology."

Any outside opinions appreciated. Thanks, 61.10.165.33 (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Does Joshua Project gather its statistics like this?

Looking back at those other discussions, some argue based on the idea that they wouldn't have any reason to give inaccurate figures. This isn't a useful argument. There's also strong opposition to using them as a source. According to their list of data sources, a solid majority of their sources are just other evangelical groups, singling out this one in particular. They shouldn't be ranked beside census counts as equivalent, as they are in Russian diaspora, etc. They should be considered unusable due to a lack of verifiable methodology and recognition for statistical or academic contribution, even when setting aside all questions of advocacy and bias. __ E L A Q U E A T E 11:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

We have no idea where they get their data, it's not part of their primary mission, and there's no significant penalty to them for errors, so I see no reason to consider them as a reliable source for population statistics. Mangoe (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Even though it's a very interesting website, I cannot see anything on there about their quality control. For example statistics on India come from "India - Omid / South Asia engineer". Not reliable. Zero 02:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not rs and should not be used. TFD (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Fan and Chen study

This is a request for opinions about the reliability of this study by Fan Lizhu and Chen na, which is cited in several articles about Chinese religions. It is the only reference for Bao ying, Yuan fen, Ming yun, Heilongdawang Temple, and Wu (Chinese religion). On Talk:Chinese folk religion I asked the user to provide publication citations but none have been given. Based upon the second paragraph's "this chapter" it appears to be an unpublished draft. Keahapana (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It is published as part of the series China Watch, by the Fudan-UC Centre for China Studies . So it is self-published (since Fan is part of the Centre), but certainly Fan is an established expert. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This looks reliable, but I agree that multiple articles cited to a single source is not great. Perhaps the articles should be merged to Chinese folk religion or elsewhere. Formerip (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Archaeology and Language

Is the following source reliable?

Source: Lamberg-Karlovsky, Carl C. (February 2002). Archaeology and Language: The Indo-Iranians (PDF). The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. pp. 63–84.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: year (link)

Article: Andronovo culture

Content:

Carl C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, a Professor of Archaeology and Ethnology, writes that the identification of the Andronovo cultural horizon is comprised by many different ethnological components, in particular by Indo-Iranian, Finno-Ugric, Proto-Turkic & Proto-Mongolic.

--Radosfrester (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Why give a wrong link and then tell us not to use it? I edited your text to use a working link. This seems to be an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal, so it meets WP:RS comfortably. You can check it's a a real article rather than a fake here. Zero 02:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. --Radosfrester 22:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Pindi Bhattian

Pindi Bhattian, a historical town of mid east of punjab has alway been the pivotal place of DULLE DI BAR. Pindi Bhattian is situated along the bank of the chenab at a distance of 110 km on the motorway from lahore. The town is surrounded by districts, nankana, sheikhupura, jhang, faisalabad and sargodha,whereas its own distt. headquarter hafizabad lies to its north 59km away. It situatet 622 ft above the see level.Its population 50,000. This historical town was established 800 years ago by the bhatties, migrated from jaisalmir, rajputana, india. Before them the hanjras were the landlords of this areas,but with the passage of time bhatties dominated. During the regime of mughal king Akber, Dulla Bhatti was a famous hero of this tribe. Stories of his bravery can read in the book Dulle-di-bar by historian and writer Prof. Asad Saleem Sheikh.

Pindi Bhattian's economy also mostly depends upon agriculture. The town has tehsil offices, judicial complex, THQ hospital, veternary hospital, boys and girls Degree Colleges, Technical College, vocational institute, 2 boys high and 1 girls higher secondary school and many other Govt and Private middle and primary schools,Also 2 bazaars,1 main and other Aaqal bazaar,many adjusent markets,rice and ice factories, A big taxtile unit Cresent Bahuman. It has mostly English medium institutions for education. All the secondary and intermediate educational institutions are affiliated with BISE Gujranwala. (REFERENCE;DULLE-DI-BAR BY ASAD SALEEM SHEIKH IZHAR SONS URDU BAZAAR LAHORE) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.187.22.237 (talk • contribs)

We do have an article on Pindi Bhattian. This posting may actually contain a reference to a source relevant to the article, i.e."Dulle-di-bar by historian and writer Prof.Asad Saleem Sheikh" if anyone has a moment to search for it. It doesn't have to be in English to be usable. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Intelius.com

This is a free people search engine used to source a lot of biographies, see . Besides being pretty obviously not a reliable source, the ones I checked simply came up with a search enginge page with no data. Needs a clearup. Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. I recently had this conversation in a BLP when someone was trying to use it as a source for a birthdate. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Do we have a bot that can insert an {{unreliable source?}} template into these articles? Maybe leave a note on the talk page explaining why the tag was added? Let editors of each article decide if and how best to fix the issue? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Brad DeLong blog RS?

Bringing this here now because this has come up repeatedly at Robert P. Murphy as not RS for BLP. It was discussed at Talk:Robert_P._Murphy#Krugman:Misunderstanding_of_WP:BLOGS and at a WP:BLPN where no involved editors responded. However, it was removed and seemed settled as DeLong's blog not being RS, especially since better sources came up in the WP:BLPN discussion. A few hours after I got around to adding those better sources to the talk page discussion and inferred intention to properly rewrite the section, an involved editor put back the rejected info at this diff.

In short Paul Krugman has mentioned Murphy explicitly a couple times in his NY Times blog (January 19, 2011 and December 31, 2012). However, the added Krugman blog entry does not mention Murphy and says: Brad DeLong vents his spleen on one example, a guy who has been predicting double-digit inflation for years but remains absolutely committed to his framework all the same. There are then two is a long descriptions of DeLong's criticism of Murphy from two different DeLong blog entries. (See diff.) Seems like tortuous synthesis using a questionable source to me. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Brad DeLong is a UC Berkeley economist. He is RS as far as economics is concerned. Murphy's blog is used to establish all the facts about his predictions (which is permissible per WP:Aboutself); DeLong and Krugman are only used to assess those predictions (not establish facts). Krugman links to DeLong's discussion of Murphy, and it's absurd to suggest that he isn't talking about Murphy in the quoted text. Steeletrap (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Krugman himself says "Brad DeLong vents his spleen" shows this is a personal blog rant and not a reliable source. Editors can read details at the DeLong Blog entry. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Brad DeLong more than meets the recognized expert criteria of RS. Experts are allowed to use informal language like that now and again. Gamaliel (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

DeLong is an expert on economics, writing on his blog. Reliable, with the caveat that this is talking about an ongoing disagreement within the field. The fact that Krugman mentions the post is a point in its favour, but not absolutely necessary. Krugman links to DeLong's blog post so it's clear that Murphy is the subject. Reliable but you will have to decide how much weight to give to it. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's personal blog. We should never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert. See WP:SPS. It's unreliable and a WP:BLP violation to boot. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

DeLong is a recognized expert in economics and his blog is a reliable and usable source, per policy, for his claims and views and ideas regarding the area of his expertise, economics, as long as they are properly identified as his claims, views, and ideas. Gamaliel (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Not if it's being used a third-party source about a living person. This is official Misplaced Pages policy. If you don't believe me, please read WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware of these policies that you've already linked to previously, but thanks for the reminder regarding what we're already discussing. However, the claims in question aren't claims about a living person. They are claims about economic theories. Gamaliel (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's the diff in question.

"University of California, Berkeley Professor of Economics J. Bradford DeLong sharply criticized Murphy's reaction to the bet. Citing data indicating that CPI never reached 3% (well short of the 10% Murphy needed to win the bet), DeLong criticized Murphy for 'refusing to rethink or modify any of his analytical' positions in spite of (what DeLong perceives to be) overwhelming evidence against them."

This is a clear violation of two key content policies, WP:BLP and WP:V. It should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (emphasis NOT mine). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I might reword or remove material where DeLong criticizes Murphy and not his theories, but the core dispute is one of economics and economic theories. I see no claims about Murphy himself, only claims regarding DeLong's opinions about matters in his area of expertise. DeLong is a recognized expert (I won't bother quoting and highlighting the relevant RS policy regarding that, as I'm sure you are aware of it.) and the content is relevant and permissible under all those policies you've been citing, all the more so because this content is cited by a Nobel laureate in an unimpeachable RS, the New York Times. Gamaliel (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It's completely inappropriate for a WP:BLP. Even if somehow this content were salvageable (completely removing all references to Murphy), at best it belongs in an article in article about DeLong. For serious academic topics such as economics, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources. There shouldn't be a need to resort to personal blogs. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no question that "For serious academic topics such as economics, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources." But that's not the issue we have here. This is an article about an economist who is obscure in professional terms but has been heavily promoted and published within the walled garden of Misenean think tanks so that he manages to become notable, but because of that most of the available sources will be not of the first tier of preferability. An expert like DeLong, the author of numerous academic peer-reviewed publications, will not publish an academic peer-reviewed publication on views of a figure who is relatively obscure professionally, but will address them in his blog if they receive some media attention. So we have to deal with the sources that we have, and it would be irresponsible of us to have an article about an obscure economist and ignore the viewpoint of a significant economist, likely the only expert, academic attention that the ideas of this obscure economist will likely ever receive. Obviously, these sources should be used with caution, and any claims regarding Murphy himself should not be used. But DeLong's professional, expert opinion about Murphy's economic ideas are not claims regarding Murphy himself. Gamaliel (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No, policy is extremely clear: Never (emphasis NOT mine) use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. I have no idea what part of "never" you find ambiguous, nor do I care. The fact is that the WP:BURDEN of proof is on you to justify why these edits are acceptable. You can either gain consensus for these edits or not. And you are certainly entitled to disagree with official Misplaced Pages policies, but again, the onus is on you to get them changed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of WP burden, but it is irrelevant here as this is a noticeboard regarding WP:RS and not a discussion about article consensus. Misplaced Pages policy is quite clear, as is what I have been saying, and I'm not quite sure why you are misunderstanding it or are unwilling to discuss that beyond repeatedly invoking policies you well know we are both aware of. An opinion about economic matters is not a claim about a living individual, no matter how many times you invoke Misplaced Pages policy. Gamaliel (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no WP:RS issue here. There's simply no such issue with this content or the sources. Wrong place for any concerns about this. SPECIFICO talk 00:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I worry about the use of blogs. Usually blogs are "thinking out loud," tentative thoughts, or presentation of ideas for feedback. They may not be the final position of the author's viewpoint. Is there a general policy about blogs here on Misplaced Pages. I'm sure this has been discussed. Any pointers? Jason from nyc (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:BLOGS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is an important consideration when evaluating RS. So, is the personal blog simply commentary on economic questions or does it contain information about living third parties. If the commentary is confined to economic issues, then fine, use it. But once it, the blog, strays into a discussion about someone then BLP and SPS factors must be considered. "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." Is this info worth repeating? Assuming it is, who has done so elsewhere? – S. Rich (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

But these are issues of WP:UNDUE content or BM's WP:NOTABILITY, not RS board stuff. No reason to open this thread instead of using the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 01:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Editors are discussing the material and citing RS policy. Also, as Steeletrap is defending the blog on the basis of RS ("restoring RS coverage of inflation prediction...." in the edit summary & above), this noticeboard is an appropriate location. – S. Rich (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Nah. If you believe these are not RS citations, please give specific words in the policy which support that view. @Steeletrap: is just affirming what we all know. It's like when you recite the Pledge of Allegiance. We all know it's the flag, but we affirm it. SPECIFICO talk 01:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Much of what I said above are direct quotes from official Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. It always makes for interesting (if not humorous) reading when somebody claims that direct quotes from Misplaced Pages policy are wrong or aren't Misplaced Pages policy. In any case, you asked and you shall receive: " Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (emphasis NOT mine). Are we happy now? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

QfK, we don't use any blogs for sources about living people. Murphy himself establishes all the facts about his failed prediction (which he can, per WP:Aboutself). DeLong and Krugman offer their opinions on these facts, but don't add any new information about Murphy. It is frustrating how many times I have had to explain this to you over the last few months. Steeletrap (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Specifico (and Steeletrap) seems to be saying that WP policy permits SPS commentary about third persons because the material "is just affirming what we all know." Is this what you mean? – S. Rich (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

DeLong and Krugman offer their opinions on these facts, but don't add any new information about Murphy. Since there is lots of quoting going on, I thought I would quote your relevant summation of the issue, since there's a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on here. Gamaliel (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Robert P. Murphy is not an economic theory, he's a person. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, indeed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The URL name, which may have been the original title of the blog entry, makes it clear it's not encyclopedic and is vs. BLP: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/12/when-will-robert-murphy-conclude-that-he-just-does-not-know-what-he-is-doing.html. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with those who say DeLong's blog can not be used in this context. He is not just criticizing Murphy's theories... he is criticizing Murhpy himself. What is interesting is that, if DeLong had published the same criticism of Murphy in an economic journal, or even in an op-ed piece in a major news paper... we could report on his criticism. But, Policy is clear... we can not use his personal blog for such criticism.

The Krugman blog is different... that is a professional blog, published under the auspices of the NY Times. It is the on-line equivalent of an op-ed piece that is published in the dead-tree paper version of the Times. That is OK, as long as we attribute the opinion to Krugman. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

RS version of Krugman views. At this diff I put in material from the two Krugman blog entries which actually mention Murphy by name. I only link to Murphy's replies at this point; only one of them is a personal blog entry and the only direct reply to the second Krugman blog entry. Such self-defensive personal blog entries usually are given a bit more slack under WP:RS. In the second Krugman entry he links to the whole DeLong-Murphy SPS blog debate and people who want to get into that level of nitty gritty nitpicking and name-calling among economists on their personal blogs can just follow Krugman's links. Thus the paragraph in question can be removed. I also here put an Unreliable tag on the whole paragraph in question and noted in text that Krugman did NOT explicitly name Murphy in this blog entry, as he did specifically name him in the other two.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Good. WP:NEWSBLOG authored pieces are fine, even for BLPs. I also agree that attributing is essential in this case. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the article talk page concerning this edit. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

At this diff: Now it becomes a matter of Murphy's self-published blog mentioned first, DeLong's self-published blog second and Krugman commenting on them, with a link to Murphy's reply last. That's really building a POV argument misusing SPS in a BLP, IMHO.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of the Daily Telegraph?

Re article Mr Whoppit Continuing from Misplaced Pages:RSN#Reliability of the Daily Mail

TheRedPenOfDoom was one of those most scathing about the reliability of the Daily Mail, or "Daily Fail" as he refers to it in edit summaries, when replacing it with that paragon of respectability, the Huffington Post website.

He now seems to be taking a similar line with the Daily Telegraph. PRODing an article with 9 sources, Mr Whoppit as "all the "sources" are of absolutely non reliable kind". These sources include two robust books and also the Daily Telegraph. He has since AfDed the article (now with 12 sources, as almost every book on Donald Campbell mentions his superstitious obsession with his mascot) under GNG, again for having inadequate sources. Clearly Red Pen is lumping the Daily Telegraph in with the Daily Mail as "absolutely non reliable ", a view that wasn't unanimous here for the Mail and is far from the case for the Telegraph. Red Pen, and his friendly admin Kww, have described the Telegraph in the past as a "red top", shorthand for an unreliable UK tabloid and used this as a reason for removing content sourced by it. To clarify though: having the word "Daily" in the title does not mean that a UK paper is an unreliable tabloid.

The Telegraph's politics are not mine. However I would have to recognise that it is a well-written and broadly accurate newspaper (and factual reporting still isn't the same thing as a subjective editorial position), meeting WP:RS as much as any newspaper of record.

Do we consider the Telegraph to be acceptable as a source? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Every newspaper will have some form of bias, that fact is unavoidable. it appears that Pen in focussing on the papers that are more conservative leaning but I would like to know what his view of The Guardian is because that is a left leaning paper but is on the same level as the Telegraph. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The same parallel immediately came to mind as I was reading the above. I've used both as reliable sources for facts with the most contentious articles and never had their status as RS questioned. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any newspapers should be used for reports on medical, scientific or historical matters unless they are uncontroversial. I've seen far too many distorted, garbled and downright false stories in even the most reliable newspapers. The politics of the paper may be relevant to the types of distortion that occur in such cases (e.g. the Telegraph's past support of AIDS denialism). But that's a separate issue. This is not controversial stuff at all. Paul B (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why we need an article on someone's teddy bear, but then I'm not a teddy bear aficionado. I see no reason why the Telegraph should not be reliable for Whoppit-related facts. There is an article in The Independent (December 9, 1995) which discusses Whoppit too, and some local newpapers, with fascinating facts such as "In the 1990s, Merrythought re-issued a limited edition replica of Mr Whoppit, with his original red jacket sporting the Bluebird motif." ("Bears with Rich History" Middlesborough Evening Gazette, April 18, 2012). We should be able to use such sources for uncontroversial material such as this. We are supposed to be building an encyclopedia after all, not tearing one down. Though he "survived" the crash which killed his owner, I don't think Mr. Whoppit is covered by WP:BLP. Paul B (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• I would consider The Telegraph/Daily Telegraph to be one of the most reliable newspapers of the lot, and I can't see why you would claim it was totally and utterly unreliable. I agree with the campaign to get rid of all Mirror/Sun/Mail references, but not the Telegraph. I definitely second Paul's point about general-purpose newspapers being unsuitable for scientific information. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisting of major newspapers is silly -- each has items where they are stronger and where they are weaker, but the meaning of "RS" is not "this is a true source" as that policy makes clear. I find almost no sources, including the BBC, are good for contentious claims in BLPs where rumours are concerned. Almost all are good for sports stats - so I find this sort of query pretty much useless. And I disagree that any source should be excised from Misplaced Pages because an editor hates it. We even use Pravda as a source, so why we should be so opposed to what are mainstream western journals is absurd. Collect (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW, "Huffington Post" is not very useful for any BLP claims, especially where it links to a video. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• The Telegraph is a more than reliable Broadsheet newspapers, it is not a tabloid source. I object to blacklisting any newspaper that can be used to back non contentious subjects however the Telepraph isn't even in the realm of The Sun & The Mirror which makes this a silly assertion. The issue with that article is obviously notability and not a source one.Blethering Scot 15:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the Telegraph is RS for anything that you'd expect to source to a national newspaper. I say nothing about teddy bears :) Andrew Dalby 15:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliable as a national newspaper. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Fortean Times as "recommended reading"

A no brainer question, but

Should Misplaced Pages list in a section of "recommended reading" books published by the Fortean Times? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

As just a little review of WP:RSN or Talk:Fortean Times would show you, the general opinion of the FT is rather at variance with your claim, "to "recommend" books by fortean press is an unacceptable dereliction of duty". The Fortean Times repeatedly puts forward its own position, echoing the words of Charles Fort: It should be inclusive, but skeptical. It should report accurately, with traceable citations and without embroidery. This is not far from WP's own position: we report on the paranormal, on pseudoscience and on psychoceramics, but we neither take a subjective editorial position as if we "believe" in such things, nor do we invent upon them. In general, the FT is full of other people's lunacies, but they're clearly presented as such. The FT will not run a story "space aliens ate my hamster", but it will report in unsensationalised detail on the "Church of the hamster-eating space aliens", who do believe in such a thing.

I suspect I already know the answer to this, but have you ever even seen a copy of the FT? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a sourcing question; it's an external links question. Given that the article in question is essentially on Forteana/believe-it-or-not material, I find it hard to argue against such a link without arguing for the deletion of the article in the first place. Mangoe (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

To be precise, they are listed under "further reading" (well, maybe that implies a recommendation). I don't know why there are external links to Google Books. Google Books is handy when it mirrors the text of books we want to cite, but that's not the case here, and it isn't a reliable source. If we're going to cite these books under "further reading", we need to get publication details from a reliable source (Library of Congress catalogue, British Library catalogue, that kind of thing). Andrew Dalby 13:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

HarperCollins Canada - are reliable publisher?

http://www.harpercollins.ca/

And book like this one:-

http://books.google.com/books?ei=tJbWUu2nFs3MrQez2ICQCA&id=MwdXAAAAYAAJ Bladesmulti (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

HarperCollins is as reliable as any of the big mass-market publishing imprints (Random House, Penguin etc.). An individual book could be reliable in context. It depends on what claim the book is being used to support. (A popular history book might not be reliable regarding a specific technological claim, while a cook book wouldn't be great support for an historical claim.) What is the context? __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Reliable for what? Reliability depends on WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Which article do you want to use this source for and what content are you using it to support? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The specific book linked to was originally published by the University of Virginia Press, so it has a good chance of being considered generally reliable, but it still depends on the claim it is intended to support. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for presenting your opinions. Remember,[REDACTED] is not limited with this website only. There is a quote, goes like "In India I found a race of mortals living upon the Earth, but not adhering to it. Inhabiting cities, but not being fixed to them, possessing everything but possessed by nothing." Popular quote though, multiple reliable sources, but I was confirming if this publisher is reliable or not, and the book, so I could have more sources to present if I ever face a dispute. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a quote attributed to Apollonius of Tyana. The only source is Philostratus's biography of him, the Life of Apollonius of Tyana. This is a second-hand quote (made generations after it was said to be uttered) and probably always will be, barring an archeological discovery. If you wanted to use it somewhere seriously, you should have some mention that it came from Philostratus's book, as it's not considered a completely reliable account. There are many reliable sources that will confirm "Philostratus says that Apollonius said..." but there are no current reliable sources that say "Apollonius said..." without qualification. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Guess it was best suggestion. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

And specific to your question, the book from HarperCollins that you originally asked about has nothing to do with the quote and shouldn't be used for anything to do with it. It only uses the quote on the dedication page and makes no claim about its historical accuracy. Not a bad book, but it has nothing useful to say about the quote, good or bad. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I dug up a copy of Life of Apollonius of Tyana and it's not in there. The only mention of it seems to be in some Hindu religious blogs with no attribution of where it was written. I can't find a scholarly source. If there's no source for it, it shouldn't be used. And you absolutely shouldn't use a modern-era business book about marketing to support a quote from antiquity. You say you have multiple reliable sources, but I don't see them and you haven't referenced them anywhere. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Business books are notorious for picking up quotations and attributing them to some random famous person, preferably of venerable antiquity. Often the the quotation is found to be modern - as with the Charlton Ogburn quotation attributed to Petronius, or appears to come from some obscure source but then to have been attibuted to a more venerable figure (e.g. Ruskin. See Common law of business balance). Business books also like obscure scientific "facts" such as the boiling frog tale. I suspect that Business books are not reliable for anything much. Especially anything to do with business. Paul B (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a real quotation. No blame to anyone for not finding it: everything depends on the translation you use and what words you search for. Here's a link to the Loeb Classical Library translation of Philostratus: Life of Apollonius of Tyana. See vol. 2 p. 49 (middle of the page).

I would quote it from this translation, which I think others would agree is reliable. It's a primary source, but I see no reason not to use it. Clearly it is much better to cite this than to cite a modern book on some tangential subject: all those modern sources just copy the quote from one another and don't even remember that (as Elaqueate rightly says) it is Philostratus, not Apollonius, who is being quoted here. So, I'd say, cite this edition, quoting its precise words, and make it clear that these are words attributed by Philostratus, the biographer, to Apollonius of Tyana. Andrew Dalby 18:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Miscellaneous name sites as sources

I'm having problems at Rehal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Rahal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and now Channy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with an editor, Aqua 33 (talk · contribs) who thinks that and are adequate sources. I cannot find any reliable sources for this, nor does it seem at all likely if you look at the actual names of the people listed. This relates to a discussion I'm having at Wikionary.. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with AncientFaces or but AncientFaces appears to be some kind of social networking site targeted and genealogy. houseofnames.com appears to be some kind of commercial website. Unless someone can provide evidence that either of these sources have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, not reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Given that the editor reverted me with an edit summary "Rahal and Rehal are Anglo Norman surnames (if someone lacks knowledge I can't help" I'm not optimistic this is going to be settled easily, but maybe they will take part in this discussion tomorrow. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution