Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:11, 20 May 2013

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

Questions on sources for the Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union.

I would like to start a discussion on adding more content and sources to the Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union article. I have listed some of these new sources on the article talkpage.

I would like to start with this source

I would like to include it on the end of the sentence in the article

During the purges of 1937 and 1938, church documents record that 168,300 Russian Orthodox clergy were arrested. Of these, over 100,000 were shot.

I would like to reword the article to instead say

During the purges of 1937 and 1938, church documents record that 168,300 Russian Orthodox clergy were arrested. Of these, over 100,000 were shot. Time magazine reporter Richard N. Ostling puts the amount of executed clergy from the Soviet at an estimate of 50,000.

This leads me to my next question is the source right now in the article for the primary sentence also valid?

During the purges of 1937 and 1938, church documents record that 168,300 Russian Orthodox clergy were arrested. Of these, over 100,000 were shot.

Is Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev and his book "A century of violence in Soviet Russia" which is published by Yale press. There currently is an anonymous IP edit warring on the article attacking Yakovlev in some very ugly ways. It appears that the IP is not able to be banned and there may not be allot that can be done from what User talk:Rschen7754 has said here Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jacob_Peters. So is there a way that I could also get verification and Yakovlev as a source? Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think these are very good RS. However, your information about someone "attacking" something, SPI investigations and specific numbers with long explanations are not needed. You should only state who was the author of the publication, the publisher, date of publication, and any additional information about the source. Your goal here is to only ask 3rd opinion about sources, rather than to prove that you are right, but someone else is wrong.My very best wishes (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Books by insiders with no academic qualifications are usually not good sources. It is ironic that anyone would consider a book written by the Communist Party's head of the Department of Ideology and Propaganda to be reliable. TFD (talk) 11:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

And yet Yale Published the book in question. Also I thought he had a degree from Columbia as he is referred to as a Russian historian and also was the head of the government investigation into Soviet repression. That would make his perspective at least an informed one. Or at least Darrell Hammer says Yakovlev has a degree in history as it appears that Yakovlev is used as a valid source by a few academic articles and books that can be found on google with a simple search. , , , here on page 70 it says he has a PHD from the academy of Social Sciences LoveMonkey (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It is historically significant because it was written by an insider. Scholars who cite this work will be able to weigh the claims made in the book based on their expertise and fact-checking. As clearly explained in the preface, it is a personal statement not an academic work. If you think that the author's credential make everything he writes reliable, then logically we should use his pro-Communist propaganda writing as reliable sources too. TFD (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed Yakovlev was anti-communist at the end of his life, though. LoveMonkey 21:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Indian American history

I am wondering whether the following source is a reliable source:

• Francis C. Assisi (2005). "Indian-American Scholar Susan Koshy Probes Interracial Sex". INDOlink. Retrieved 2009-01-02.

INDOlink is the publisher and tt is presently being used to verify the following text in the Indian American article:

1600s: The East India Company brought over Indian indentured servants to the British American colonies.

Additionally, is the source a reliable source:

• http://www.indiacurrents.com/articles/2007/05/16/indian-slaves-in-colonial-america

An editor at Talk:United States is using it to claim that there were Indian American slaves in the United States in Jamestown, Virginia.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The second source looks pretty persuasive that someone at Jamestown named Menefie had an indentured servant described as "East Indian" in 1622 and 1624. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

So Til Eulenspeigel's opinion India Currents is a reliable source overall, or just that article? What about INDOlink?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the websites overall, but from what those specific articles are saying, I assume good faith that they are not making facts up about 17th century sociological studies and are thus reliable for those claims. 17th century sociological studies aren't a field where anybody gets away with fabricating data for long because it is all in documentation. And it's not historically unfeasible that there would be a handful of indentured servants from India in Virginia at that time. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I bring this up is per WP:REDFLAG. This is a very extrodinary claim, that South Asians were slaves in the Jamestown colony. Even if this is a reliable source, if there is this 17th century sociological studies, there should be other reliable sources that have information out there that says that there were South Asian slaves at the colony.

Also the article from India Current doesn't itself cite its sources for others to be able to see where they get their inforamtion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I found one of the sources stated in the article from the National Park Service. This dates an East Indian being a slave in 1635. I will add this to appropriate articles.

If someone would like to close this and archive it, I would be appreciative.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Where and how is this being used? A single source that says that there was one East Indian 'headright' shouldn't be used to make a more general statement. (Also, a headright is not necessarily a slave.) --regentspark (comment) 16:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There was a legal distinction between "indentured servant" (which the few East Indians would have been) and a "slave". This was mainly a legal distinction since for practical purposes they were pretty much the same thing. A "headright" means whoever imported him was claiming extra provisions and arable land for having imported him. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

They are very different things. In many cases, indentured servants take up the position willingly. Not always, of course, but in most cases and one 'indentured servant' is definitely not enough to assume that there was even one East Indian slave in 17th century America. --regentspark (comment) 00:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I am modifying Indian American, and History of Asian Americans with this information that is new to myself. I will also be modifying the summarization of Asian American history in the Asian American article once I am finished with the History sub-article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I've replaced "slave" with "indentured servant" in those two articles. That's what the source says. --regentspark (comment) 20:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:History of Asian Americans#East Indian Slave. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Atyachar Virodh Samiti as a source for Namantar Andolan

Our article on Namantar Andolan draws quite extensively on Atyachar Virodh Samiti (12 May 1979). "The Marathwada Riots: A Report". Economic and Political Weekly. 14 (19): 845–852. JSTOR 4367590., most notably for details of the violence brought upon on Dalits by caste Hindus. For example,

Riots affected 1,200 villages in Marathwada, impacting on 25,000 Dalits and causing thousands of them to seek safety in jungles. This violence was organized by members of the Maratha community and took many forms, including killings, molestation and rape of Dalit women, burning of houses and huts, pillaging their colonies, forcing them out of villages, polluting drinking water wells, destruction of cattle and refusal to employ. This continued for 67 days and none of the civil rights body came to save Dalits. Schedule caste Gram Sevak was assaulted and attempt was made to burn him alive. In Yetala village when two Dalits contacted Police sub inspector were beaten up in Gram Panchayat Office.

is sourced to it. I am unable to ascertain who the members of this Samiti (loosely, "committee") were/are. The introduction to their report says:

The shocking experience of massacre, loot and rape of scheduled castes in Belchi, Agra, Pantnagar, Marathwada and Bajitpuir, among other places, has demanded the attention of all humanist, progressive and Leftist forces.

It was as an attempt to understand the role of the caste system vis-a-vis class struggle and class organisation that the Atyachar Virodhi Samiti was constituted.

The Samiti sought, among other things, to highlight the nature and extent of repression of scheduled castes in Marathwada in Maharashtraiand to draw lessons for future action which the scheduled caste masses, including poor peasants and agricultural labourers, may have to take when such attacks occur again.

With this objective in view, some representatives of the Samiti visited the riot-affected areas of Nanded, Parbhani and Aurangabad. What follows is a report of the visit.

Can we accept as being reliable given the publisher is Economics and Political Weekly? Or do we need to be concerned regarding their apparent anonymity and apparently preconceived desire to respond to a "call to action" (... all humanist, progressive and Leftist forces, etc.) No-one is arguing about this - the query is for my own peace of mind. I am trying to fettle the article but there is not much point in checking statements against sources if the sources is not acceptable in the first instance. - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I found this book citing the Samiti. Seems to be a reliable source.-- Dravidian  Hero  00:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm worried about this source for historical fact. The events described are so dramatic and shocking, that we would expect them to have been written up elsewhere. Do we have any corroboration? Note that it forms part of the history of a university. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The generalities are confirmed by other sources but the specific details seem not to be. As an overview of what research happened around that time, see this at JSTOR. It mentions the above source. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

TVOvermind

I saw an article on this stating that The Cleveland Show has been canceled.. However, I don't see that news anywhere else on any repeatable sites like Deadline, Zap2it, and Entertainment Weekly. Is TVOvermind.com a reliable source? Macbookpro1990 (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Fox is scheduled to hold its upfront presentation on Monday, May 13, at which there should be an announcement about the series. We can wait until a more official announcement comes down since that is less than 1 day away. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

FetLife

I could use an outside opinion on the FetLife page, if anyone's got a few minutes. A number of references have been added recently, but also over the article's history, that I don't believe consitute reliable sources. I'm not up to speed on where the line is drawn between acceptable and unacceptable sources, though. There are only 16 sources in the current article, so I don't think it would take long for someone knowledgeable to review. I'm a little out of practice on WP practices, so if this is something that should just be templated, please let me know. Thanks! – RobinHood70 22:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be best of you posted the links that are concerning you, but just by taking a quick look I would say you are right, several sources are problematic: Footnote 3 for instance no longer has a live source (the webpage it links to is dead) and was an SPS to begin with. Check out WP:SPS

The source for footnote 6 is a blog, which makes it an unreliable source as it is again an sps. If you have other concerns post them and I'll try and help.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Luke! Part of my difficulty arises from determining what's a blog and what's not. Some of the "blogs" these days operate more or less like reputable media organizations, where others are really just a spiffed up version of Joe Blow's opinion. Gizmodo (6) was indeed one of the ones I was wondering about. In addition, I'm also wondering about: Salon (5), Jezebel (7), Gawker (13), and Sex and the 405 (15). I'm not sure what to make of the nginx ref (16), since it's a rather non-standard source, but I think both that and the other one you mentioned (3) would fall under ABOUTSELF, at least assuming I can find a replacement for it, or a wayback link or what have you. – RobinHood70 05:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm totally shocked that any editor of Misplaced Pages would consider Salon to be "a blog." I mean, really, read Salon's own Misplaced Pages article. --Meitar (talk) 06:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It's simply not something I'm familiar with. I never said it was a blog nor anything else, just that I didn't know whether or not it was considered a reliable source. Numerous publications have Misplaced Pages articles, but that doesn't mean they're reliable sources for Misplaced Pages citations. To quote the article, and the magazine's former editor-in-chief, "Is Salon more tabloid-like? Yeah, we've made no secret of that." That right there makes me believe that it's appropriate to ask if it's generally considered a reliable source. – RobinHood70 06:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the ways to try and figure this out is to look at the "about" page on the publication's website. Salon's "about" page hereand here appears to have a full editorial board which indicates fact checking. On the other hand, blogs generally are an SPS with no editorial oversight to insure accuracy and thus are not considered reliable.

Gawker has an editorial board too, but its news are summaries of reports from other publications, in which case if used one would have to also mention the original publication; an alternative option would be to use the original news source. Jezebel is doing the exact same thing as Gawker, it publishes news summaries, and has a board, but its Forums and opinion pieces are just that: WP:SPS. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Luke, that was very helpful. I'll go over the article later today and see what needs to be done. – RobinHood70 16:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(←) Okay, I've gone through the article. I'm still not sure about two of the refs:

1. The Jezebel ref looks like an opinion piece to me, but I still have a hard time with how to judge that with any certainty. It's probably not needed anyway, since it's got the Salon ref already, which looks to be professionally and neutrally written, at a glance.
2. The Sex and the 405 ref looks okay to me, but since it's the only ref supporting the info it's attached to, I'd like a second set of eyes on it. From what you said above, it looks like it has some form of editorial control, though perhaps minimal, and the article itself doesn't appear to be just an opinion piece. – RobinHood70 18:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Sex and the 405 is probably an acceptable ref in this case. They do have editorial oversight and the article does provide information beyond editorial opinions. It looks like a mix between an editorial article and a news article, and if you were to quote an opinion from it, you'd probably want to state that this was the author's opinion, but there hopefully was sufficient fact checking to make the article reliable from a news perspective as well.

I am on the fence on Jezebel also, I agree with you it is mainly an editorial. However it is being used to corroborate the statement that many Fetlife users object to one of the site's policies, and I think it does provide evidence on that, so for that limited purpose I would let it remain as a source.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Luke. I'll let the references both stand, then. – RobinHood70 16:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Tsutomu Miyazaki

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20070818192957/http://www.charlest.whipple.net/miyazaki.html

Content in two sections that referenced this site (regarding Tsutomu's early life and alleged mental health issues) was removed with the edit summaries "Removed info from unreliable source; will store this info on talk page until a reliable source can be found." (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tsutomu_Miyazaki&diff=prev&oldid=548010837) and "Moving unreliably sourced info to talk page until a reliable source can be found" (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tsutomu_Miyazaki&diff=next&oldid=548010837).

Some of the content was later restored with the edit summary "reverting vandalism": https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tsutomu_Miyazaki&diff=next&oldid=549410999.

I'm thinking that Charles T. Whipple's self-published site isn't a reliable source for this. Not sure what the guy's credentials are. From Googling him it seems like he mostly writes fiction.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Open access journals and repositories: Assessing reliability

Hi folks,

I have a general question about assessing reliability when using open access journals and repositories. These journals vary in reputation and level of peer review. What are the best practices for determining reliability with them? Thanks! Ocaasi 14:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There is probably no one simple method which applies to all cases. There are different types of evidence which can help build up a picture. One common way is to look for published evidence of what kind of reputation that the publication and/or its authors and editors have amoungst relevant experts and people whose opinions are likely to be reliable themselves. In other words, for every field, reliable sources tend to form a network of points which at least passingly refer to each other. It can also be a good idea to look at what information is available about the fact checking of the publication.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew. The problem here is with OA journals published by small companies starting a large number of journals, only a few of which are remotely likely to become notable. Some of them have extremely low standards, thus leading to some doubt about whether their peer review is adequate to be a RS. I think we have to go title by title, and article by article. The assumption is that a journal article published by a notable mainstream scientist is a RS. Published by an unknown, then we need to rely on the quality of the peer review. There is no journal in the world of such high quality that tit has not published work that has been subsequently retracted, and many famous scientists have published some of their work in very insignificant journals, or in a few cases even pnly in non-peer-reviewed repositories such as arXiv. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

As Andrew and DGG suggest, there's no real magic formula. For medical information, the guidance in WP:MEDRS certainly still applies. (Things like MEDLINE indexing are a positive but not infallible sign, for instance; review articles by recognized authors are generally a better bet than primary studies.) Be reluctant to cite brand-new studies from brand-new authors in brand-new journals; use tools like Web of Science to look at how often – or even whether – a particular study has been cited by independent authors in other journals. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

First, look at the author's section of the website. It should explain the level of peer review or other screening. Then look at some of the articles to see if the writers are academics in their field and there is extensive foot-noting. The website should also explain if it is owned by a university or academic publishing company or a thinktank. You can then check if the publisher has an article in Misplaced Pages or has been discussed at RSN. I find that generally disputes do not arise because of the reliability of sources, but the weight to be given to opinions expressed in them. TFD (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Lighthouse Pub

(cross posted from the no original research noticeboard):

The creator of the Lighthouse Pub article has used his own blog as a source and claims to be a former journalist . If he can provide examples of his past work in the relevant field from reliable sources, could his blog be considered a self-published expert source, therefore passing the WP:NOR requirement? He has started listing some published articles on his user page. --Drm310 (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the book Steep: The Precipitious Rise of the Tea Party a reliable source

Steep, which is published by the University of California Press and written by Lawrence Rosenthal, head of the Center for Comparative Studies of Right-Wing Institutions at Berkeley, and Christine Trost, the program director,, has a section about Robertson and the teaparty.org on pp. 73-75.

Robertson is decribed in numerous sources and received outsized media attention during the incipient stages of the TPm. Even so, a number of editors have been arguing for the exclusion of Robertson from any mention in the article. This academic source would seem to establish notability, along with other sources. SilkTork suggested filing here in relation to this question--broadly construed--regarding another source (MJ opinion article) that would appear to be of lesser stature. Please refer to the related discussion Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Dale_Robertson_and_teaparty.org--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 03:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Opinion column by Stephanie Mencimer in Mother Jones

Gosh it would be nice if you noted the 'actual discussion points rather than giving a somewhat mislearing version thereof. No one at all has questioned "Steep" as meeting RS. The part you elide is the use of an opinion from Mother Jones, properly cited as an opinion, which called Robertson "bogus" etc. If we have Robertson in the article, it is clear that the MJ opinion is notable, reliably sourced, and proper. And that is the actual focus of the "reliable source" issue on that page. Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Mother_Jones_Magazine_as_a_reliable_source is the salient discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion as I read it involved Mother Jones opinion of this individual not a discussion of Steep. Perhaps the section could be renamed appropriately.Capitalismojo (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Then correct me if I'm wrong, but your description seems to impute that your intent on having the MJ opinion piece recognized as RS was so that you could make recourse to its statement that Robertson is "bogus" in order to disqualify everything that any other reliable source has to say about him, thereby denigrating or outright dismissing other even more reliable sources than opinion pieces in marginal new media.

Furthermore, I do not approve of the subsection you've created, as it distracts from what this thread is aimed at resolving.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Collect. The attempt by Ubikwit to steer the discussion toward reliability of the book by Rosenthal & Trost is just a teensy bit disingenuous. The two debates here, which make up the overall debate that Ubikwit has become exercised about, are (A) an opinion column by Stephanie Mencimer in Mother Jones about Robertson, and (B) whether Robertson is notable enough to be discussed in a top-level article about the Tea Party movement. Most believe Robertson belongs in a spin-off article we are preparing, which will probably be called "Allegations of bigotry in the Tea Party," but the debate about (B) doesn't even have any business being discussed here at RSN because it's a content dispute. Also, there is absolutely no issue regarding the reliability of the book by Rosenthal & Trost. The real question here is about Mencimer's op-ed column, and its use in the spin-off article. I would suggest that if it's clearly attributed to Mencimer and labeled as an op-ed column, it can be used. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

And you are attempting to deflect the discussion in another, that being bigotry.

Robertson is not, in fact, notable only for his bigoted signs, but as the publication that is the subject of this thread documents, his was the founder of a Tea Party organization with a significant following, and was frequently sought out by the news media before his fall from grace.

You claim that there is no question about the reliability of the book Steep, but you would exclude the material included therein about Robertson while including the material from the MJ piece???

Am I missing something in that logic?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry, you're missing something: the main question is whether Robertson is notable enough to go into the main article, or whether he should only be discussed in the spin-off article. It seems that consensus at the Talk page favors the idea of limiting the Robertson discussion to the spin-off article. Anyway, it's a garden variety content dispute, not really a question of source reliability, right? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP applies on talk pages as well, so you might want to rethink your "bigoted" statement above.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: Make a two-step process into a one-step process

In consideration of the fact that the status of Steep (2012) as a "reliable" source has been declared to be uncontested, rather than filing a new thread on the reliability of the MJ article, maybe I can ask the following question in this forum.

In light of the material in Steep on Robertson, is the characterization in the title of the above mentioned MJ opinion piece (January 2010) Wash Post Quotes Bogus Tea Party Leader of Robertson as "Bogus" grounds for excluding the material in Steep on Robertson from the article. A quote from the MJ article states

If the paper had bothered to assign someone to cover the burgeoning Tea Party movement, its editors would have known that Robertson doesn't actually represent anyone, except maybe himself.

The section in Steep starts with the following passage.

The 1776 Tea Party, also known as TeaParty.org, is the national faction most directly connected to the anti-immigrant movement(my emphasis). Its corporate headquarters are in Woodland, Texas, north of the Houston area, where a Texas certificate of formation of nonprofit corporation was filed in February 2009. Its staff positions are situated in California. With 12,458 online members as of June 1, 2011...

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Question Reading your bit from Steep, I now wonder about the accuracy of this. A quick search shows that the California office is just a FEDEX pmb location, and what does "online members" even mean? Unique visitors? Email list? Current donors? Made up number? I don't know, perhaps you have and could share additional info or refs? Capitalismojo (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I graduated from the flagship University of the UC system located in the city in which the some of the UC Press offices are located and often walked past the building, here is a link addresses .

Online members refers to the fact that TeaParty.org was a website based national organization, as far as I can gather from the information available. Note that the organization was based in Texas but run by staff located in California, probably where the IT infrastructure was located.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously books written by experts in their field and published by universities are reliable sources. This work came up because its description of teaparty.org appears to differ from that in a Mother Jones editorial published several years earlier. TFD (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS is very clear, and the articles in MJ are RS for matters of opinion per that policy, and where opinions are cited as opinions - especially about current political events, the suggestion that we must use "experts" and ignore other sources is tendentious. While experts are great for scientific and medical material, they are not actually better than opinions of journalists who specialise on political issues for matters of current political issues. Collect (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Opinions are opinions and facts are facts.

Though you avoid directly addressing the content of Steep, I find the argument that the MJ opinion carries more relevance or weight than the facts (and/or opinions) in the academic source to be somewhat tendentious.

You also appear intent on denigrating academics with respect to news media reporters when it is a fact that media outlets dependent on advertising sales often attempt to appeal to emotion more than reason in order to sell their publications.

If there is no context regrading Robertson, what is the basis for stating an opinion? Or is the position that because one opinion piece characterizes him as dubious he should not be mentioned at all? I'm not sure what the telos of your reasoning is.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 13:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Try this: "Steep" was never objected to on RS grounds at all -- and its use as the basis for a discussion here was contrary to logic - this noticeboard is not for material which has not been questioned. MJ is not known for appealing to "Advertising sales" so that "issue" is a non-starter. As for "denigrating academics" that is an absurd charge, and one which belies the reasoning for your posts here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

@ Ubi For the record, I was talking about the so-called office of the Tea party organization quoted in your comments. It took but a moment to discover that the "California staff offices" that was mentioned in the Steep quote of this supposed TP organization was a fedex private mailbox. I was not talking about the University. I was pretty clear, I thought. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. I'm not sure about the TeaParty.org Texas offices, but I would imagine that a PO box is not sufficient to register a non-profit. I recall that Robertson lost his house, so it may be the case that his house had been the original "corporate offices".--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the following information will be useful:

• "State Department Watch Limited" at a P.O. Box in California = The Minuteman Project = "The Tea Party" Govt database
• State Dept. Watch in California gives $51,000 to "1776 Tea Party", Robertson's actual TP group in Texas, in 2010 -- also gives money to Minuteman Project FactCheck.org-1
• IRS Tax Forms for "State Department Watch" for 2010 (see pg 13 for money to 1776 Tea Party) Tax Form archive
• Washington Times says Robertson is "a founder" of the early TP movement, and still active in January 2010 WashTimes
• FactCheck.org says Robertson is indeed a TPer ... but he has pissed off a lot of folks FactCheck.org-2

Xenophrenic (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, the fact that teaparty.org has a box office at the Mail Center in Laguna Woods, California does not prove that it is a one man operation run out of Texas. It could be that it has a box office in California because that is where its corporate offices are located. Tim Bueler lives in next door Laguna Beach, while Stephen Eichler lives in Riverside. In a 2012 article, Mencimer refers to teaparty.org as a "tea party group", and says that according to Texas records, Bueler is media director while Eichler is executive director. TFD (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Opinion pieces in Sanctions against Iran

Please see an ongoing rfc here. The article is riddled with opinion pieces, many of which are used improperly. In particular, two opinion pieces are attributed to the publications themselves. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Can a fansite ever be considered as a reliable source? - ToonZone

I am re-posting this question (that I had originally asked a week ago), since it was archived without receiving any replies, aside from one by an editor who had already discussed the matter with me. We need the opinions of other editors, so please weigh in!

As I was working on the article Ed, Edd n Eddy, I noticed that it was using toonzone.net as a reference. I know that this website has received some opposition on this board before and initially, I was quite skeptical of it myself. Having discussed the matter with an editor who supports the website though, I've been unable to come to much of a conclusion on it either way. It appears to be a fansite of sorts, which is why I am hesitant about using it, but if any fansite could ever be considered as a reliable source, it would probably be this one.

Now, I'm not sure that any of the writers have credentials apart from their work on the website, but they do seem to comprise a "staff" of sorts. While it doesn't seem that this is a full time job for any of them (this page classifies them as "volunteers"), they do have specific titles and duties. This page mentions news editors, reporters, moderators, graphic designers, administrators, and webmasters. Also, as opposed to just reporting rumors or information that they get from other publications, this page (unfortunately, the original page from ToonZone seems to have gone dead, but there is no reason to doubt that it was transcribed correctly) indicates that the website actually engages in its own investigative journalism. The main reason why I think that ToonZone might possibly constitute a reliable source is because of the incredible reputation that it has managed to acquire. This link includes praise from two-dozen professionals in the field of animation and quite a few professional publications have even used the website as a source. Here are the links.

• Time
• The Atlantic
• The A.V. Club
• Gawker
• Crunchyroll
• Space.com
• Anime News Network
• Bleacher Report
• MovieWeb
• Scoop
• Moviefone

Apparently the website has also been cited by The Oakland Tribune, The Chicago Sun-Times, and The Kansas City Star, although I have not actually seen links for those. I'm definitely opposed to using critical reviews from ToonZone on Misplaced Pages, but am unsure whether it might be suitable for referencing certain pieces of information. In this article specifically, it is being used to cite a description of what happened during a panel at Comic-Con. In any practical sense at least, I don't see why the website should not be considered as reliable for this kind of information; it's not exactly difficult to accurately write down something that was said at Comic-Con and the above sources all see the writers for ToonZone as trustworthy. I recognize though, that the website might not meet everybody's standards and since Ed, Edd n Eddy is a Featured Article, I feel like there should be a consensus on this if it is to remain as a reference. --Jpcase (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Well i am familiar with that site and i've always just viewed it as a forum/blog not a reliable source for anything. Just my two cents. I call the big one bitey (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion on this site? I'd like to get the input of a few more editors if possible. --Jpcase (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Oran Arslan

This is used as almost the sole source for this article . Can it be considered a reliable source? I have never heard of Oran Arslan, it appears to be non-peer-reviewed, and there is no bibliography. It is entirely in Turkish, except for the abstract at the very last page, which is in English. The language therein leads me to believe that this is neither neutral nor reliable. Thanks in advance. Athenean (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Found the page for Oran Arslan . I don't see any publications in international peer-reviewed journals. She also appears to contribute to this Armenian Genocide denying institution . Athenean (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Her name is Dr. Nebahat Oral Arslan and she is reliable and not biased at all, Turkish speakers can control the page and see it very clearly. Athenean is just trying to discredit the author without evidence, because she wrote "tyranical" about the massacres, but what he does not realize is that the Arslan source is entirely based upon an Inter-Allied Commission report of 1921, and the report of the war journalist Arnold J. Toynbee, which are online . More importantly KILLING innocent people and destroying whole villages IS TYRANNICAL! So what are you trying to say Athenean? Are you saying those massacres were just?

The problem is that there were massacres committed by the Greek army against local Turks in 1921, Athenean together with Alexikoua, are two POV Greek Misplaced Pages users who are trying to cover up the crimes by making false accusations. They falsely accuse the authors and sources (even tough I provided full English translation) ,

they distort and cherry pick sources (I have explained this in the talkpage: Alexikoua lowers the number of casualties to 35, which is based on an inquiry out of 177 people in a camp in Istanbul. I have explained this 4 times to him, but still he persists on distorting the facts by saying that this is the total number of casualties, which the source doesn't say at all  : It is the result of an inquiry out of 177 people. Furthermore we have sources in one individual massacre of a village already exceeds the number 35. But still Alexikoua is persisting on abusing the source and falsely claims that Toynbee puts the total number of casualties on 35 (see ).

Now Athenean is attacking the Turkish author and source just because he doesn't like what is written in it (see

While at the same time he eagerly adds information about Greeks being massacred by Turks from an online pdf-document (see which has no footnotes unlike the Turkish source, and which looks much less professional than the Turkish source (see The Turkish document is actually a published study journal from the Ankara University ("TAED Cilt 10, Sayı 22 (2003): TÜRKİYAT ARAŞTIRMALARI ENSTİTÜSÜ DERGİSİ").

Why is Athenean not so skeptical about the French pdf-document? Because he likes the content? (Turks killing Greeks)

Since from the beginning Alexikoua has used all means to disrupt the page (the page has a very long history, can't put all the diffs)

They are doing source abuse, they are clearly pursuing a non neutral agenda to cover up/minimize crimes by the Greek army (and also to blame the Circassians). The source of Arslan states that M. Gehri stated that there were in total 6,000-6,500 people killed, there are other sources who mention that 6,000 people disappeared, still it is clear from all sources that hundreds of people were massacred and dozens of villages burned. Why else would the Inter-Allied Commission conclude that : "A distinct and regular method appears to have been followed in the destruction of villages, group by group, for the last two months... there is a systematic plan of destruction of Turkish villages and extinction of the Muslim population. This plan is being carried out by Greek and Armenian bands, which appear to operate under Greek instructions and sometimes even with the assistance of detachments of regular troops."

So I ask the admins to please stop these POV users to non neutrally edit the page, they do not say the truth, they are distorting the facts, falsely accusing people, thanks in advance.DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

movie-collection.com

Is this source reliable for stating that the film was, in fact, nominated for the awards the source says it was? Article in question is The Fifth Element - see the 'Awards table'. The only reason I ask is that the website is currently only being used as a reference for 2 articles on wikipedia, which leaves me suspicious to why it is under-utilised, considering that it has such a comprehensive and detailed list of awards (much more that the[REDACTED] article did before I updated it with this source). Freikorp (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's just stealing content from the IMDb. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I considered that possibility, but I noted that IMDb states the film was nominated for an award from the Italian National Syndicate of Film Journalists, whereas movie-collection.com does not mention this. Also whilst some wording of awards is identical (as would be expected in a list) some is worded differently, so whatever it is it is clearly not a cut and paste job. Freikorp (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point, but the fact that they've got an idiosyncratic sentence fragment ("For the fight between Milla Jovovich and aliens.") that Google says doesn't exist anywhere else reputable, leads me to believe that they're scraping content from the IMDb. The contact page is also full of broken English. That doesn't prove anything, of course, but it just makes the site seem even less reputable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Can I get a third opinion on this one? Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

TV by the numbers

Is the web page TV by the numbers a reliable source for information about TV shows including info on renewals, ratings etc? There have been prior discussions at RSN , but they have had poor participation and are inconclusive. The web site is run by two friends with no editorial oversight or assurance of accuracy or accountability. It is neither recognized or award winning in any way. This makes it clear to me that it does not meet WP:RS standards. On the other hand, supporters say its used by NY Times and other newspapers. That to me does not make any difference, but what do others think? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Since those prior discussions, TV by the Numbers has become an affiliate of Zap2it, which is part of Tribune Media Services, which is part of Tribune Company, the publisher of the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, and other major newspapers. So there's a major media company standing behind the site now. Regardless of whether it was considered a RS in the past, it should now be recognized as a reliable source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The Wrap (thewrap.com)

Is The Wrap (thewrap.com) considered a reliable source? It looks like just another entertainment blog to me. The reason I am asking is because of a recent addition to The Wild Bunch article, referring to the possibility of a remake. The new information is sourced to an article in The Latino Review, which does not look reliable, but their source is the original article in The Wrap. So, if The Wrap is considered reliable, I will simply use that as the source. But, The Wrap looks questionable to me. Anyone have an opinion? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, TheOldJacobite. The Wrap is a well-respected professional, journalistic website, and an industry trade publication often cited by the consumer press. There's a backgrounder here. It's always good to ask, of course, and I doubly applaud you for wanting to go to the original source to cite something — too often I find editors citing sources down the line re-reporting the original newsgathering sources. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad I asked 'cause I'd never heard of it, to the best of my recollection. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

My first thought was that it's a glorified Hollywood gossip blog, but here's what IGN.com has to say about the matter: "The Wrap is a very reliable source for news of this sort..." So, I'd say that it's good for minor entertainment news, but I'm less enthusiastic than Tenebrae, when it comes to bigger claims. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

AllMusic review and This War Is Ours

I have been trying to explain to an editor at This War Is Ours that the genre tags/genre cloud on the left side of AllMusic reviews are not reliable sources. I have asked him to look at the archives here. Editor doesn't seem to want to. Editor offered the album's entry at Amazon.com and http://www.hellhoundmusic.com/album-review-escape-the-fate-ungrateful/ as alternative sources. I explained that Amazon.com isn't a RS not is hellhoundmusic.com. Editor has been restoring the genres in the edit cloud because the reviewer at AllMusic isn't a RS and so the editor's prose cannot be anymore reliable than the tags. I cannot explain it any better so I'll let the esteemed editors here try to explain. There is a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page, or respond here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Realist2/Genre Warrior explains what I feel on this issue well. Excepting for very broad categorizations which are nearly universally agreeable to all (Rock Music, Classical Music, Jazz, etc.) most of the really fine gradations of music genres are pointlessly too specific, and often inaccurate as a result. --Jayron32 04:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Various Dr Who fan sites & associated templates

(A) Reviews at Outpost Gallifrey, a former Dr Who fan site. Outpost Gallifrey was wound up some years ago. A large number of articles use Template:OG review that links to the Wayback Machine archive of the site, e.g. and .

(B) The Dr Who Guide, a Dr Who fan site. A large number of articles use Template:Doctor Who RG, e.g. and .

(C) The Dr Who Ratings Guide, a Dr Who fan site. A large number of articles use Template:DWRG, e.g. .

These templates are generally used in External Links sections rather than to support specific points in articles. I've suggested the first two templates be deleted -- see Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_15 -- on the grounds that their inclusion in External Links sections seems (to me) to always be against policy. That's a slightly different question to whether they are reliable sources (see discussion at the TfD), but someone there suggested this should be discussed here. I would be interested in RS/N's views. Bondegezou (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Outpost Galifrey, was reliable for it's own opinion whether that opinion was a relevant reflection of general fan opinion or not is arguable, but in my mind OG was. I have no strong opinion on the other two as replacements of that reflection. As time passes opinion will change and it's probably worth keeping a link that shows what fan opinion at that time was as opposed to critical opinion at the time. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The template is specifically for reviews hosted at OG: as such, I feel they don't reflect OG's opinion, they are just a collation of things fans sent in (as far as I can make out). It states at that, "Outpost Gallifrey has an OPEN REVIEW POLICY! Unsolicited subscriptions are welcome; email us your review via the email gateway You must use your full, real name (we won't publish pseudonymous reviews), and please make sure your review is at least three paragraphs. We will accept reviews on everything related to Doctor Who... books, videos, fanzines, DVDs, audios, merchandise." So it doesn't appear there was much editorial control/input on these.

I very much feel that such fan sites are valuable and informative, and OG was a great site. It's useful having links to reviews like this. However, I cannot see how it can be justified under Misplaced Pages policies on reliable sources or external links. It's material that is more suited to a Dr Who-specific wiki. Bondegezou (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

K. P. Yohannan and Believers Church

The two articles, K. P. Yohannan and Believers Church both contain similar statements from one source. Specifically, the Believers Church statement says,

This move stunned the christian community because according to its tradition, only a priest can become a Bishop, and Mr. Yohannan was a pastor.

The source cited is here: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/an-archbishop-s-spiritual-factory/323561/2

Regardless of the truth of the statement, I think that the source fails verification because

• It looks more like a blog post or an opinion piece
• Contains mostly sensationalist claims about K. P., with a bias against him
• Does not appear to have been subjected to a fact-checking process

As such, I’m questioning whether this can be used as a source of fact. Could somebody else look this over and help decide what to do with this? Thanks.

LivingIsSimple (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The Indian Express is a reputed newspaper in India. Benedictdilton (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

NPR religion program claim from Judy Valente about membership estimate from Christian Science church

has removal of material with the explanation rv there is consensus for this on talk; please allow this paragraph to remain brief

The problem is that the material removed is reliably sourced, and noted in the body of the article -- that is there is a "church estimate" which has some more interesting weight than the unsourced or poorly sourced estimates give, and also noting that the only statistical measurement of church adherents has also been removed from the lead.

The source is PBS 2008 and is from a noted award-winning journalist specialising in religion for 8 years now on NPR and PBS: Judy Valente.

On the talk page, the primary arguments are that the church could not have given her such an estimate due to church rules about giving membership figures, that she is based in Chicago while the church is in Boston, that it should be disallowed as an honest mistake etc. See etc. I asked that those who find the figure to be objected to as "false" should ask here, but the editors favouring removal of that figure from the lead did not do so.

Is there sufficient reason to believe the NPR report was, indeed, wrong? That it well ought to be disallowed as a reliable source for saying Judy Valente said the church had estimated its membership at 400,000? If so - on what actual basis should we state that it is not a "reliable source" for Misplaced Pages? Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason to believe that NPR misreported this, but there is also no reason to prefer it as a "better" number. Mangoe (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again, Collect didn't tell the editors on talk that he had posted here. In brief, this isn't really about sourcing. It's about how long the second paragraph of the lead ought to be, and there is consensus on talk for the current version. The material Collect is referring to is (so far as I know) still in the body of the article. SlimVirgin 20:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Um -- I think you might well redact that snark. .

Leads are supposed to contain sufficient material for a person to know what the content of the article is -- the rationale from at least one editor was that the material is not correct, therefore should not be mentioned. The material had been mentioned theretofore, but now "briefness" is the reason to follow the removal - which I find untenable as it is an insignificant reduction inthe verbiage. An editor already removed the ARIS figures from the lead, and to simply say "estimates" are "from 100,000 to 400,000" without stating that the 400,000 is from the church misleads readers. And it is the misleading of readers of an article which is the worst violation here. If the figure is reliable, then it properly should be presented in the lead per WP:LEAD. If it is a false figure, then we should remove pbs as a source across the board. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that WP:IRS says: When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. The problem with your argument is that you are favoring a single news reports and a single primary source (the ARIS) over scholarly sources and other news reports. Personally I believe that the NPR report is incorrect in its reporting of the church estimate. On the article talk page it has already been shown how the NPR report contained a factual error regarding the church rules for maintaining membership records. However, despite the likelihood of NPR report being incorrect, I accept it is valid to include it in the article as long as the report is properly attributed to NPR. So really there is nothing to discuss here because there is a consensus among the editors to accept the NPR report as reliable and include its information in order to maintain WP:NPOV. So your complaint is not with regards to the reliability of sources, but rather with the structure of the article (namely what should be in the lead vs. the body). I believe that the most appropriate place to discuss the structure of the article is on the talk page for the article. The consensus on the talk page is that the lead should have a brief statement of the range of estimates that come from reliable sources. And that the body of the article is the appropriate place to present the detailed figures in their appropriate context. Also I think there is a bit of hyperbole in suggesting that if a news story has a mistake that everything from that publisher should be removed from Misplaced Pages. In fact this is directly counter to WP:IRS which says Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Misplaced Pages article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Heavy Petting Zoo

Is the site acceptable to use in the case of this album which was banned in Germany? This is the specific page, referred to by the article. Thanks. -- Hillbillyholiday 03:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the Gatehouse-Gazettee as Misplaced Pages reliable source?

I created a stub of an article back in November 2012 called South Cerney Castle. Included among the sources was

• Davis, Philip (26 September 2012), South Cerney Castle, Gatehouse-Gazettee {{citation}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

I labelled that source with the the template {{better source}}, because while I have no reason to believe that the information is not accurate it is a self published website (by a person who is not a recognised reliably published expert -- and so are not themselves a reliable authority/source) and because of that it fails to meet the requirements of WP:V and so in my opinion a "better source" is requited in the long term (and hence the template).

Recently the template was removed for a second time by Nev1 with the comment "Undid revision edit by PBS. Davis' work is held in high regard by the Castle Studies Group, the Castle Studies Trust, and individuals such as John Goodall. As I said before, we are fine with using the website as a source."

As Nev1 and I disagree over whether the source Gatehouse-Gazettee meets the requirements as a Misplaced Pages reliable source, more editorial opinions will help form a consensus over the issue. As this source is used in dozens of article, (possible 100s), this can be seen as a test case and it is of some relevance to the longer term development of the project.

--PBS (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Davis has published papers on castle studies, with articles in the Castle Studies Group Journal. His work has also been cited by John Goodall in English Castles (2011), an author at the forefront of current castle studies. Davis is not infallible, but he can be considered a good source, therefore satisfying the stipulation that "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". An open and shut case. Nev1 (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd support Philip Davis as an expert source on British castles. He's very well known in the academic community, speaking at major events and, as noted above, has been published in key journals. He's a national specialist on licenses to crenelate, alongside Charles Coulson. The Castle Studies Group, one of the foremost British groups for the study of castles, has publicized the Gatehouse website in its bulletins. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Request review of a source for its reliability at ICOC

Although they were directed here, a new editor has made a lengthy argument regarding the reliability of a source on the article's talk page. Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ#Removal_of_Yeakley_as_a_source.

Given the contentious nature of the subject, and the fact that the page is primarily edited by people vociferously supporting or opposing the subject, I am requesting outside experts opinions please weigh in. Thanks!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

request for comments on children's sources

A request for comments is pending on whether children's sources are generally reliable enough for adult-level facts so that Misplaced Pages editors need not be advised to look beyond a source itself to find out whether a source meets WP:RS. A similar question applies to large-print books not described as full-text. Please consider participating. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC) (Corrected a link: 20:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC))

The United States Census records

Many users use the U.S. Census as the basis for the early life of an individual and even look upon it as a undoubtable source for a birthyear debate. However, there have been some mistakes (both explainable and unexplainable) to which must direct your attention;

• Don Wilson has been credited in 1930 u.S. census as living in California, Donald H. Wilson, aged 30 with his wife Lucy J. Wilson. Originally from Lincoln, Nebraska with his mother being born in Illinois. So far so good? not quite? he was born on September 1, 1900, therefore how could he have been 30 in April, 1930 (the date in which the census officially concluded). Insignificant example? Moving on...
• Janet Waldo, whose birthdate has been declared February 4, 1924, has been listed in 1920 census (January, 1920), as being 8 month old, the 1930 census (April, 1930) as being 10 years old, and in the 1940 (April, 1940) as being 16 years old. All this with her sister Elisabeth Waldo being born in 1919.
• Lauren Bacall, is the most staggering example. According to census records, the actress who has been present at multiple ceremonies and interviews since 2005, has died in 2005.

Therefore pose the question. Are these United States records considered truly a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 00:26, 19 May 2013

See WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses". We shouldn't be using the U.S. Census as a source for birth dates at all, at least for living persons. See also note 3 on Misplaced Pages:No original research, which expressly identifies censuses as primary sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Also note that until quite recently, people were frequently regarded as one year older at the start of each calendar year. Census records are most reliable for "place of residence" and not for "precise date of birth". Collect (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, per WP:BLPPRIVACY we have to give serious consideration to not giving exact dates of birth at all for living persons unless they have "been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object". AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem with census records is that it requires a level of interpretation (read WP:OR) which we really can't rely on. It is not impossible or even uncommon for two people with the same or similar names to have been born in or lived in the same basic geographic area at the same time and been about the same age. For example, I graduated high school with two guys who had the exact same first and last name (no idea on the middle name). Census records will have established that they lived in the same small town at the same time, but using those records to distinguish between the two is easy to screw up for Misplaced Pages editors. Now, if a secondary source has vetted census records, and established the birth date or birth place or any other information, we can generally trust reliable secondary sources, because reliability means that we know those sources do their homework and generally check their information. However, we don't take information from primary sources which require us to analyze ourselves, because it is too easy to get wrong. --Jayron32 03:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Is Intelius considered a secondary source? Radiohist (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

In what sense could they be considered a publisher? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The Lauren Bacall example was probably caused by incorrect categorisation of newspaper articles as obituaries (or maybe obituaries mistakenly published or added to databases), or from documents contributed by members of the site, not from census records which haven't been published for such recent dates. Peter James (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

We should not use census records as they are not reliable sources for individual records, since they are based on statements by a household member and are primary. There is also the possibility of confusing individuals with the same name. Secondary sources of course may use them, but the authors are expected to have made judgment on each record used. TFD (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Southmonitor.com and other website using news wire services WP:RS.

I have a genuine doubt here. I came across a lot of websites which publishes news provided by reputed News agency. One such website is southmonitor.com. Since the News agency which provide the news is considered as a reliable source in[REDACTED] Can we use such websites as reference which gives credit to the News agency which provides the news. For example.

http://southmonitor.com/shots-fired-at-cannes-film-festival-actors-flee-for-cover/

In this news the website gives credit to Reuters as its the News agency which provides the news. So if we use this website as a reference can we mention the above mentioned news in a suitable article as follows.

1. Shots Fired at Cannes when a french tv channel was interviewing Oscar-winning Waltz and French actor Auteuil live.

or

1. Shots Fired at Cannes when a french tv channel was interviewing Oscar-winning Waltz and French actor Auteuil live.

Since the above mentioned news is provided by a News agency the same news can be seen on almost all news portals with almost same wording.

Kindly guide me as it will be a great help. Benedictdilton (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The site calls itself a "news portal" which is not a "news agency" by a mile, and thus the actual sources should be cited, unless the only online source is this portal (which is unlikely). Collect (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

lylefrancispadilla.com

My question is is this website a RS:

• http://www.lylefrancispadilla.com/

An editor as added the website to multiple articles about Medal of Honor recipients, and the website appears to be a self published source, even if 100% accurate and the creator well meaning. Due to the multiple usages of the website I cannot give a single article or a single piece of text, as most of the time the editor only added an external link to the appropriate section.

All this being said, I believe that the editor was entirely well meaning in adding the external link and this is not an attempt to "bite the newcomer".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Global Vision Publishing

This publisher which has been used extensively as a source appears to be a rip off merchant. This book Foucault's Analysis of Mental Illness: A Psycho-pathological Study published December 2007 is a direct copy & paste from Hizbul Mujahideen article which had the content written before 8 March 2007. How does one go about checking if any other of their published books are Wiki rip offs? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC on new library search tool for Misplaced Pages

We have a new tool, Forward to Libraries, which helps readers find books at their local library related to the articles they are reading. The tool can also be used by editors to find reliable sources. There is an RfC at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Linking subjects to books at your local library (Forward to Libraries) to determine how this tool should be used on Misplaced Pages. Interested users may wish to comment there. 64.40.54.57 (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Geohive

• Source: http://www.geohive.com/contact.aspx
• Articles: mainly here
• Content: population figures

On one hand, the site link says exactly what we don't want to hear.

On the other hand, its figures may be better than the ones it's replacing, particularly at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject China (talk discussion where Wikimedes makes a pretty good point about that)

So, I don't know. This IP has put in a lot of, what may turn out to be, great work. I don't want to lose him. But, that website comment: "This site is my hobby" compels me to post here. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:SPS or not?

Hi! User:Csurla used this source: http://www.lesnouvellesderoumanie.eu/ but I hink it is unreliable Folbal1 (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the problem with this source? Pls explain it, because the "I think" it is not enough. - Csurla (talk) 08:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It is just an obscure site, it looks like a self-published source for me Folbal1 (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Not self-published, a serious magazine. What is it being used for? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

In Ștefan Kovács article. - Csurla (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't controversial is it? Everyone can try to Google for further sources and for more details about these notable footballers. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Why needed for further sources? - Csurla (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The main question is a reliable source? Folbal opinion for SPS is failed, therefore we can use in the article. Are you agree? - Csurla (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it may be used in the article... but that does not mean it must be used in the article. If there is a better source (ie a source that is considered even more reliable), use that instead. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=Reuters> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Reuters}} template (see the help page).

1. "Shots fired at Cannes film festival, actors flee for cover". Reuters.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution