Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:54, 21 December 2015

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.

Are they reliable sources

http://www.sps-automotive.com/en_sps/track/07Nt_zonda.html http://twinrev.com/cars/Fastest-Production-car-supercars-20.6km-Nurburgring-lap-times-under-9-03.30-7119945 http://www.mobisux.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3096509 http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife http://www.zeperfs.com/en/classement-ci1.htm I have verified nurburgring laptimes in those site all the laptimes existing there seem to be correct.

Pride of Tamil Cinema

This Indian National Award winning book by G. Dhananjayan, besides many factually incorrect claims, contains considerable plagiarism from our articles. I have not read the whole book, but some examples include the chapters about Karnan, Pavalakkodi and Vallinam. Those who have read the book to any extent, like Vensatry and Ssven2 (when your internet improves) are encouraged to participate in this discussion. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

If you prove lots of plagiarism from Misplaced Pages I would say no because Misplaced Pages itself is not a reliable source. It wouldn't have a reputation for fact checking. DreamGuy (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

DreamGuy, "no" to what? The book being reliable or not? Kailash29792 (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You never even gave us the name of the book, just the author, a claim that it's inaccurate and plagiarizes and some chapters. No one is going to be able to make an opinion without some details and some examples of what it's being used for. What specific claims are you questioning? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• At Karnan (film) now, it's being cited for his opinion that it's "only Tamil film which portrayed the mythological character Karnan in a grand manner." (footnote 40) which is closer to puffery than particularly enlightening. It's also cited for a view that the performance was from another film and "not well received" (probably could just cite author directly), for a quote by another critic and for the writers, and editor. Is the quote inaccurate? Are the writer and editor inaccurate? The two opinions could be kept or cut, as I don't know how his personal opinion would be inaccurate of himself. No citations to Pavalakkodi (either version) nor at Vallinam so I'm just puzzled here at this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The author has written two books: The Best of Tamil Cinema (in 2 volumes) and Pride of Tamil Cinema, a single book. Right now we are dealing with the latter book, which can be viewed through Google preview. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682, can you see how much of the book is available on Google books preview? Or should I photograph each suspected chapter and show you? Kailash29792 (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Kailash29792 I'd rather you start with evidence of factually incorrect claims, evidence of plagiarism and responding to my question about what in particular are you against using this book for. Simply you pointing out the book sections and saying "it's wrong" will just be circular arguing until we have some idea what statement is the problem here. Again, is the "grand manner" that's bothersome? Is the writer or editor inaccurate? Are the quotes of other critics wrong? Do you disagree on his personal opinions about films? I'm not sure where you're going with this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll photograph the suspected pages and share them with you by tonight. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682, here is Karnan and here is Vallinam. Vensatry, please tell me more chapters from the book you caught red-handed. I'll upload them too, and the book's credibility will be judged. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Kailash29792 I don't get your point here. Ok, that's pages from the book. Where is the evidence that it is plagiarism or factually incorrect? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Irrespective of whether it's plagiarized or not, the book cites Misplaced Pages articles as references. It's not an acceptable as per WP:CIRCULAR. utcursch | talk 21:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail: When are we finally going to decide that enough is enough?

• http://tumblr.thefjp.org/post/10989510473/daily-mail-amanda-knox
• http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/oct/04/dailymail-amanda-knox
• http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/daily-mail-guuilt/
• http://www.fullstory.co/2pvfe (searchable text copy of the story in question)

This isn't the first time The Daily Mail has straight-out fabricated a news story. Even if they had guessed right on the verdict, the story was pre-written and was in no way an actual report of what happened. When are we finally going to say that we have had enough of this and declare The Daily Mail to be an inherently unreliable source? When are we going to decide once and for all that if something is in The Daily Mail the editor must find another source, and that if it is only in The Daily Mail we have no idea whether it actually happened as reported? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it should not be considered an RS source herein. Kierzek (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry - no newspaper is a good source for celebrity gossip at all ("instant analysis" included)-- but that does not mean the DM is to be ruled out as a reliable source otherwise. This has been discussed it seems dozens of times - and the consensus here has never been to blacklist the newspaper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Have to agree with Collect. I hate the Daily Mail, but they do sometimes have real reporting - e.g. sending reporters on patrol with units in Afghanistan . -Darouet (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

As Greenslade's article notes, four UK newspapers, including The Guardian, initially reported the verdict incorrectly. To generalise this as evidence that the Mail specifically can't be trusted is to stretch a point.Martinlc (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is stretching a point at all.

"As Knox realised the enormity of what judge Hellman was saying she sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears. A few feet away Meredith's mother Arline, her sister Stephanie and brother Lyle, who had flown in especially for the verdict remained expressionless, staring straight ahead, glancing over just once at the distraught Knox family. Prosecutors were delighted with the verdict and said that 'justice has been done' although they said on a 'human factor it was sad two young people would be spending years in jail'." --The Daily Mail

Did The Guardian or any other source other than The Daily Mail provide a totally fabricated detailed eyewitness description of the reaction to the verdict that never happened? Did they fabricate a direct quote from the prosecutors? Remember, that fake direct quote would still be up on the web if not for them getting the verdict wrong, and Misplaced Pages could have used that direct quote as if the prosecutors had actually said that -- supported by a "reliable source" that flat out lies about things.

"Following the verdict Knox and Sollecito were taken out of court escorted by prison guards and into a waiting van which took her back to her cell at Capanne jail near Perugia and him to Terni jail, 60 miles away. Both will be put on a suicide watch for the next few days as psychological assessments are made on each of them but this is usual practice for long term prisoners." --The Daily Mail

Did The Guardian or any other source other than The Daily Mail provide a totally fabricated ride in a van and a totally fabricated suicide watch?

No, this is not the same thing as getting the verdict wrong and reporting that wrong verdict. This is hard evidence that The Daily Mail fabricates quotes and events, and an excellent reason why we should never allow The Daily Mail as a source.

To all: I am considering posting an RfC on this. Where would you suggest as the best place for that RfC to be posted? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It shows that breaking news is frequently wrong. In this case the reporter heard she was held guilty of slander and assumed she was held guilty of murder. In the Obamacare verdict, most media heard that Roberts CJ had written the opinion and determined that it ruled against the U.S. government. In 2000, news media declared Gore had won the U.S. presidential election. These errors however get corrected, which is why these sources are reliable. TFD (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you really believe that if The Daily Mail hadn't gotten the verdict wrong they would have corrected the fabricated reactions to the verdict or the fabricated direct quote by the prosecutors? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

More fabrication by The Daily Mail:

• http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2014/07/09/george-clooney-daily-mail-exclusive-statement-response/12368061/
• http://www.snopes.com/isis-bans-pigeon-genitals/
• http://www.deccanchronicle.com/150826/nation-current-affairs/article/jumbo-torture-%E2%80%98fabricated%E2%80%99
• http://tktk.gawker.com/my-year-ripping-off-the-web-with-the-daily-mail-online-1689453286
• http://www.lolwot.com/10-completely-fabricated-stories-published-by-the-daily-mail/
• http://listverse.com/2015/06/23/10-egregiously-false-stories-in-the-daily-mail/
• http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/how-a-fake-story-ruined-three-peoples-lives

And yes, I did puposely include several non-reliable (but better than The Daily Mail!) sources in the above list. I wanted to see if any of the DM supporters could point that out without imploding from the irony. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

In your first link, George Clooney said a false story was "picked up by hundreds of other outlets citing the Daily Mail as their source." You need to either get these sources to stop using the DM or persuade us to eliminate any news media that uses DM. We get back to how news media are not 100% accurate but they are the most reliable sources for what happened five minutes ago. I never can understand why editors want to update articles with what happened five minutes ago, when reporting may change moments later and readers are more likely to go to news sources for breaking news. But at least errors soon found are corrected. TFD (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

PCC Censures UK Daily Mail for Fabricated Amanda Knox Story

by Sydney Smith, writing for iMediaEthics

"UK print regulatory body the Press Complaints Commission “censured” the Daily Mail for its October 3 fake story reporting the wrong verdict in American student Amanda Knox’s trial, the Guardian’s Roy Greenslade reported. As we wrote at the time, soon after an Italian court found Knox not guilty in the murder of her roommate, the Mail published a story with the wrong verdict saying she had been found guilty. Shortly after publication, the Mail pulled the story from its website. The Mail published a story with the correct verdict (not guilty) and apologized for the error.

According to Greenslade, in response to the incident, the Mail started an internal review into the incident and “disciplined the person responsible for the error.” We wrote Oct. 5 about the announcement of the Mail’s internal review. The Mail claimed that the article was up only for 30 seconds, however, Seattle Weekly said the article was up for about half an hour.

Possibly most egregious, the Daily Mail’s article included quotes from prosecutors on the (fake) guilty ruling and reported on Knox’s reaction to the (fake) guilty ruling. The PCC’s ruling (see here) said that complainants questioned those quotes from prosecutors about the verdict of guilty, and a description of what happened after the guilty verdict. According to the PCC, the complaints were made by “members of the public.”

The PCC’s ruling noted that the Daily Mail claimed the quotations “had been obtained from the prosecution in advance of the trial.” However, even if that is true, iMediaEthics notes that there is no possible way for the Mail to explain away its claim that Knox “looked stunned” in response to the phony guilty verdict. That part of the story was clearly fabricated and a guess on behalf of the Daily Mail as to how Knox would react."

Source: http://www.imediaethics.org/pcc-censures-uk-daily-mail-for-fabricated-amanda-knox-story/ (emphasis added)

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't there some discussion of creating a list of perennial sources, similar to WP:ELPEREN? DM should be on it, with strong cautions against using it, especially in BLPs. --Ronz (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no motivation to get embroiled in this again. But, what I would like to say is that content editors must have strong guidance here. I used the Daily Mail as a source a while ago, I was criticised for it, then decided to discuss this on the RS talk pages. This was a HUGE time-sink for me and others. And I only found out after that I was one of a string of editors who had similarly raised such questions. A clear decision (whichever way that goes) and guidance for editors would be a massive step forward. Please do this.DrChrissy 00:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed far too many times - and the answer remains the same - the Daily Mail and all newspapers have problems with celebrity news, but the statistics show that for other news the Daily Mail is just about the same as all newspapers - the desire to blacklist this source is simply contrary to the intent of WP:RS. And like all sources, any given claim may be given weight depending on the nature of the claim, but not on a bias that one does not like the source - I hold the same for "Russia Today", the "New York Daily News", "Huffington Post" etc. and basically all printed or media sources. And one major problem is that virtually none of them do any fact-checking at all, and most rely heavily on press releases. Perhaps we should say "no newspapers are actually reliable sources if they have no fact-checkers working at the newspaper" but that would mean we dump the New York Times etc. as well. Recall that major newspapers reported on an "amphibious" baseball player ... Collect (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Collect. Yes, there are some ridiculous publications in Daily Mail, and I have seen some ridiculous publications in Nature (journal). Yes, Daily Mail is a much less reliable source than Nature, sure, but that does not make any of these sources inherently/completely unreliable. One must simply use multiple sources, especially with regard to sensational, controversial or unusual claims. My very best wishes (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

So they are a member of the PCC which investigates all claims of inaccuracy against them. I would agree that in cases where the DM changes a story or the PCC finds it inaccurate that we should not use the original article. Otherwise there is no problem. TFD (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between "inaccurate" and "invented whole-cloth". This article covers why what the Daily Mail did here was so much worse than the errors you're listing. Someone working for them sat down and deliberately concocted fake quotes to pad out the article. Someone else approved and uploaded it, in advance, getting it ready for publication even though the quotes in it could clearly only have been falsified. Pre-writing articles for key events that can go one way or the other is normal (such as for an obituary or election victory, where you can cover major past events in the timeline without having to invent any facts and can therefore easily have something ready for publication the moment the core question is decided); but deliberately inventing facts for them is different, and the way it happened here clearly throws the Daily Mail's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy into question. Everyone makes simple factual errors now and then, but for a paper with obviously concocted quotes to be ready for publication the instant the verdict came down heavily implies that the Daily Mail is either performing no editorial oversight whatsoever, or that its editorial oversight is hopelessly inadequate. While of course reliability is contextual, either one would mean that it is generally not usable as an WP:RS. No one event can decide these sorts of things, of course, but can you honestly say that the Daily Mail has a "reputation for fact-checking or accuracy?" --Aquillion (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Aquillion has correctly identified and commented on the specific problem I have with The Daily Mail -- deliberately inventing "facts" and reporting on them as if they actually happened. Many of the other comments in this thread appear to address other issues that other editors have had with The Daily Mail in previous discussions. For anyone who wishes to claim that other media outlets "do the same thing" I would ask for examples of them "doing the same thing" when the "same thing" is the specific problem I am complaining about, which is The Daily Mail fabricating events and direct quotes and then reporting on them as if they actually happened. The other media outlets don't, as a rule, do that. The Daily Mail does.

Clearly I need to post an RfC on this. Again I ask, where would be the best place to post it? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably reliable sources. And to attract wide participation, you should add similar middle market tabloids. But before you do that, I suggest you read up on how newspapers actually work to see whether the DM falls outside normal practice. If you show in secondary sources that their standards fall below normal levels it would help your case. But providing a list of bad reporting in the past is not persuasive because the same can be found in all newspapers. "Dewey Defeats Truman" was a bigger error than anything you mentioned. TFD (talk) 04:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

As multiple people have pointed out already, there is no evidence that any "similar middle market tabloids" do what The Daily Mail does. And I am well aware of "how newspapers actually work". Hint: they don't publish wholly fabricated stories. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment We are not just talking about a newspaper getting some facts wrong, or even about a rogue reporter, we are talking about a newspaper that knowingly published a wholly frabricated story. What makes a source reliable is its editorial oversight, and there is clearly something very wrong with the editorial oversight at the Daily Mail. Yes, they carry out rock solid journalism in some cases but how can we have confidence in their editorial oversight to weed out errors and poor journalism when they knowingly publish fabricated stories? Personal blogs may publish accurate stories but we don't permit them on the basis that they are usually correct; we prohibit them because there is no reliable editorial oversight and this is the case for the Daily Mail now. Betty Logan (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to start considering it an unreliable source, and any exceptions need consensus. --Ronz (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

manowar

Is a reliable source? 2A02:582:C74:6C00:A436:91E7:2A35:6D9A (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I′m trying to ask about a website but I got an error all three times I tried to post the link. Anyway, I′m talking about ref no. 3 at Joey DeMaio. 2A02:582:C74:6C00:A436:91E7:2A35:6D9A (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this the source you are referring to? Meatsgains (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup! 2A02:582:C74:6C00:9C91:3120:9F5:4A55 (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

How are non-provable sources of "divine revelation" ever fact-checked with reliable sources?

There is a dispute over allowable content on "divine revelations" concerning the biblical messenger Gabriel. Wikiisawesome is using specious boilerplate arguments to violate my First Amendment freedom of religion beliefs, for not being considered reliable, by him, under personal bias. Under the scapegoat that the II Revelation isn't reliable source, according to policy. Citing various policies which may apply to "reliable sources" when there is an authentic debatable factual dispute over quality of sources. He is not able to point me to one "provable source of information on Gabriel." Yet, he says that this is the reason why my post is disqualified. He then attempts to use "self-publishing" source as the chancellor's foot, even though in the book itself, the divine revelation was that it could not be published for commercial use. And with no offer to potential offer to publishers (to gauge its religious/literary value), this would be extremely arbitrary to say that it is not a quality work (having in the very least artistic, educational, and literary value, on the subject matter).

I feel the bottomline is that there is no way to truly apply reliable source policies on coherent works of literature that describe spiritual beings. Because the book is published on Amazon.com and is coherent, and has literary value on the subject matter; it should be included in public discourse to determine its relation within the Wiki-content by the individual reader. This is more on point with the content neutral perspective of Misplaced Pages, to offer perspectives from all angles, that is not showing bias towards a particular religious belief.

If the II Revelation were not a high quality biblical work, and had no literary or educational value, then I would find that sufficient to say that it lacks relevance to the serious educational content of the Misplaced Pages page. But, since it is a high quality, well written work, that is written in a style similar to the Young's Literal Translation of the Bible, quoted often therein; it certainly is of educational value on the subject matter, and of strong relevance. Even though it is a noncanonical work, and is not ancient. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Good day, the II Revelation document in question is here. I suggested that Hungarywhitebear read WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB, and to come here for a neutral third party's opinion if they still had doubts as to the unreliability of that document, which appears to be a self-published work by one Jason Koda. /wia🎄/tlk 16:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this is not an RS. The first line I read is 1 A second revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to him, to show his servants the secret of God, and he did signify, having sent through his messengers to his servant Jason Steven Koda, So is this not a Primary source as well as failing the self-published rule?Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Though individual "divine revelations" may be impossible to fact-check, we can conclude from the sheer quantity of mutually contradictory "divine revelations" that "divine revelations" must be frequently non-factual. And very unreliable. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The Revelation given to John of Patmos starts in a similar manner?

Rev 1:1 A revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to him, to shew to his servants what things it behoveth to come to pass quickly; and he did signify `it', having sent through his messenger to his servant John, Rev 1:2 who did testify the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, as many things also as he did see.

Does it violate the Reliable Source rule?

There is no per se rule against self-published sources, as you are trying to interpret it. And, when the source of information is not provable, as there is no way to prove the revelation given to John was real; then there is no way to say that there is a reliable source or not. The revelation given to John is more commonly accepted and known, because of its age; not because it presents provable testimony. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The concept behind the II Revelation, is that it is the fulfilment of I Revelation 10:11 Rev 10:11 and he saith to me, `It behoveth thee again to prophesy about peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings -- many.' That John of Patmos must prophesy again in the future, and write a second revelation. And, the fulfilment of the gospel of John words, that John would somehow remain until the second coming.

John 21:21 Peter having seen this one, saith to Jesus, `Lord, and what of this one?' John 21:22 Jesus saith to him, `If him I will to remain till I come, what -- to thee? be thou following me.' This word, therefore, went forth to the brethren that that disciple doth not die, John 21:23 yet Jesus did not say to him, that he doth not die, but, `If him I will to remain till I come, what -- to thee?'

Thus, the II Revelation, has credence for allegedly fulfilling these prophecies, and whether it did or not, is open to endless debate; as is the rest of the bible. But, the arguable basis alone, is sufficient to make it of educational value on the subject matter. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see none of the RS on the[REDACTED] page John of Patmos are written by John of Patmos.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Then where exactly does the RS for these writings come from? If they are not based on writings from John? Hungarywhitebear (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First of all you have no First Amendment rights here as we aren't the US government or even a state or local government. I also agree that this isn't a reliable source. Additionally, I note that an edit of yours says "that is virtually unknown to the general public." Misplaced Pages is not a venue for new ideas, which this appears to be. Doug Weller (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The last is the real issue: this is apparently not notable given that the only sourcing on it comes from the promulgator's own website. Mangoe (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

All of your arguments are complete nonsense. They are fundamentally illogical. You are saying that a self-published author who recently wrote a noncanonical biblical book, in which he describes his vision of Gabriel; cannot be relevant or posted onto an article on Gabriel. Because there is no way to verify the author had this vision, or that it actually was Gabriel, and his book was not published by a commercial corporation putting their reputation behind the allegation that it was Gabriel, and that there is no reliable source to prove that it was Gabriel; and also that there is a blanket restriction on the inclusion of citation to newly published material on Misplaced Pages. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

That is not what we are saying. We are saying that statements on Misplaced Pages have to be verifiable. That means they have to be backed up by secondary sources, reliably published. That doesn't mean we won't exclude primary sources. Misplaced Pages covers a vast plethora of holy books, fiction, and other material that is not based in fact. The point is that everything in Misplaced Pages is either notable or covered in reliable sources with commentary and analysis. This alleged "II Revelation" is something nobody has heard about, nobody cares about, and nobody has commented on, and that's why it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages. Elizium23 (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, according to another user, II Revelation would count as a primary source. And, people obviously care about the subject matter, because it discusses Gabriel. People may not be aware of the primary source because it was just published last month. Citing facts from such a primary source without basing the entire article on it, is permissible according to the policy. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:ONEDAY is of application. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

As stated on Gabriel edit page: I don't see how the link is relevant, when I am not writing an entire article about II Revelation; I merely quoted a few verses for an article on Gabriel, of relevance. Second of all, I am not promoting a new word, idea, or invention. Notoriety is only relevant, when it involves writing an entirely new article on a topic; that it must be considered of value by someone (representative of the public at large). Information on Gabriel, historic, and how it is evolving in recent literature and media, is all relevant to the topic of the Gabriel article, which has well-established notoriety. I think your getting too deep into the commercial value of the book and saturation into media, rather than its relevance, as a modern noncanonical primary source work briefly cited on point of the topic. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Only reliable sources may be used to verify information added to Misplaced Pages. As you have yourself admitted above, II Revelation is not a reliable source, and therefore may not be used as a reference. It is not written by a reputable scholar, it has not been published in reputable peer-reviewed journal, it has not been published by reputable academic publishing houses, it is just stuff made up one day in some basement. You may want to know that even the Book of Revelation is not regarded as authoritative for anything inside Misplaced Pages, since that is prohibited by no original research rule. In analysing that book we rely upon secondary sources written by reputable scholars. They make the call about the Book of Revelation and its characters, Misplaced Pages editors don't make the call, instead they simply render viewpoints expressed by academics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Every other breath there is some new angle, to say that II Revelation doesn't meet the standards for inclusion. My time is more precious than to waste it arguing with close-minded people. You can interpret the policies any way you like, apparently if you all gang up saying that new users are wrong; it seems fine. But, the record is against you; by your own words, how you have changed your specious reasoning at least thirty different times; it stinks of fraud. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hungarywhitebear, I think it's clear that experienced editors here agree that using II Revelation as a source is inappropriate for many reasons. It is not "changing" reasoning to mention different relevant policies at different times. It will be difficult for you to contribute productively to Misplaced Pages if you continue to refuse to listen to other editors; see WP:IDHT. --Macrakis (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe any of your myriads of mercurial excuses are valid. But, like I said, it is not worth my time to argue. Upon retrospection, it is probably better that I keep knowledge of the book underground; because that is what ruined the original Christian movement, with too many fake Christians. Besides, it makes the rest of the article sources look patently fraudulent/not very compelling/fragmented/etc. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I am now watching Hungarywhitebear's edit history. We may have to block him per WP:NOTHERE and WP:POLEMIC. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

such a long debate about such a simple decision? WP:OR clearly forbids this kind of shenanigans. However I am more concerned with WP:IDHT issues here seeing the long preaching style posts made here. Perhaps an admin can put a warning on the said users TP. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yasser Hareb

Hello, I just would like to check whether the sources provided in Yasser Hareb article are reliable or not? could you please advise in this regard?. The article is proposed for deletion for unreliable sources reason, but I don't know what is wrong with the sources that I've provided. He has his own page for his weekly articles on the official websites of official newspapers from the UAE and Middle East region. In addition to that, I've provided some sources about his tv show on the official website of official channels in the UAE as well as some sources about his books. Badis1988 (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

First off - I see that the first source listed is a blog written by Yasser Hareb himself (http://paulocoelhoblog.com/2011/09/10/the-desert-editar/) In this case, this would be a self-published source which is not reliable, as the information in a blog is usually not fact checked nor cited, especially when used in a BLP. See WP:BLPSPS. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello what about the other sources used in the article? are they reliable or not? you just advised me about one source, thanks. Badis1988 (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the entire article should be deleted, non of the sources are reliable enough. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Is ScrewAttack an RS?

I came across this when editing Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. I cited video game/film/television website ScrewAttack, specifically this link: . The content in the article reads: "ScrewAttack.com placed the series among the top 20 greatest Cartoon Network shows of all time, praising its "fleshed out" and "memorable" characters, as well as its comedy style, stating that it "not only appealed to younger audiences, but to all age groups"." Cheers, Katástasi (κατάσταση) 03:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

After going through ScrewAttack's website, they have one editor and folks reporting on events but it doesn't look like they have systems in place for fact checking. Not sure if fact-checking is needed for a site like this but I'm hesitant on deeming it reliable. To support the information you are wanting to add, I'd definitely provide additional context along the lines of: "According to ScrewAttack, the series was among the top 20 greatest Cartoon Network shows of all time..." Meatsgains (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope. The original text is correct. "According to ScrewAttack, the series was among" means the series actually "was among the best". The original text says correctly, "Screwttack thinks it was among the best" , i.e., website's judgement only. Now, the question is whether this website has any authority for that. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S. The website clearly says " But nonetheless the following is my opinion on what have been the best shows to have been shown on Cartoon Network, oh and in case you missed the first part, just click the link below to get caught up.". Now, again, who the heck this guy his opinion is important for wikipedia? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't catch that, good find. In that case, ScrewAttack would not be reliable and the publication's "opinion" holds no weight. Meatsgains (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Humor article about RT

Cracked.com has a humor article titled "6 Reasons You've Probably Read Russian Propaganda Today". Key quote: "Because of the way Facebook works, if you find yourself clicking on a lot of articles from a website -- say Russia Today or Sputnik -- because it had one of those headlines you just had to check out, new articles from that same site will show up more frequently in your news feed. And they won't all look instantly crazy." The same is true of Google, and any number of other sites that customize content according to what (they think) interests you. Clearly this works the other way as well: if someone only looks at legitimate news sites they will see more links to legitimate news sites, which would lead to underestimating the amount of crazy out there. The "fun" begins when members of those two groups each try to edit the same Misplaced Pages page according to the sources Facebook or Google spoonfeeds them, often followed by a trip here. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I hate extremely: search engines trying to second-guess my interests. I remember I took part in a[REDACTED] discussion about notability of porn industry awards and naturally did some research. A couple of weeks later I had a not so small talk from my wife after she did some browsing under my microsoft account I did not log out :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Analog Man's Guide to Vintage Effects

http://amgtve.formusiciansonly.com/

Is this a reliable source that could be used to create content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirk Leonard (talk • contribs)

Looks like a decent book. Although the publisher is little known, the book has been cited by several other sources. utcursch | talk 21:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, so can I add content sourced to the book and also start new articles based on pedals described in the book?

A new article should be about a subject that is written about extensively in several reliable sources. This could be one of them, but if it's the only source the subject may not be notable enough for a separate article.—Anne Delong (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Agte, Patrick (2000): "Jochen Peiper: Commander Panzerregiment Leibstandarte"

The source in the subject, published by J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing, is used heavily in Joachim Peiper, currently linked from the main page "On this day" section. There has been some doubt voiced at Talk:Joachim_Peiper#Agte about the use of this source (which, honestly, I share). Some more input would be appreciated. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed here recently and the there is a strong argument to be made that his writing is pov driven, not objective and carries undue weight for the subject matter. Kierzek (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Bijeljina massacre RfC

Your input is requested at Talk:Bijeljina massacre#RfC: Should this article make reference to the Bosnian Serb politician Biljana Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak to kiss the Serb paramilitary leader Željko Ražnatović (aka Arkan) Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Bruce Eder

Bruce Eder writes many articles I come across. He has written music and movie criticism for not only AllMusic, but also the Criterion Collection, the most prestigious DVD label, as well as a host of other publications. He also wrote the liner notes for the Rolling Stones' Singles Collection (deluxe box set). He seems to be a writer of impeccable professional credentials and that his work, regardless of whatever venue it appears in, should be considered reliable. would I be correct? Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

References

1. "Bruce Eder: Biography". AllMusic. All Media Network, LLC. Retrieved December 18, 2015.

Your question is very broad, so the answer to that question would be, no. WP:RS looks not just to the author, but to the identity of the publisher and method of the publication - then too, there is specific text and context, which cannot be answered in a general way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

One editor told me that we look not only at the publication but also the author. For instance, whatever criticisms one has about AllMusic, there are still some noted writers who contribute there, such as Richard Unterberger and Steve Erlewine. Eder is one such writer. He has written in several publications. He was chosen to write the liner notes for a box set for the Rolling Stones--I would imagine that he had to be highly thought of to be given that honor. He has also written liner notes for the Criterion Collection DVD's. They usually feature liner notes and commentary from the worlds most esteemed experts. That is one of the reasons people pay twice as much to buy a Criterion DVD. He has written extensively there. ] Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of where a citation to Eder is in dispute? Gamaliel (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

An article from khamenei.ir

The content I added to Iran-Iraq war was removed by a user. I'd like to know if the article is not reliable. I thought the article was well sourced bedsides being written by a scholar, so it seemed reliable to me. Mhhossein (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that such a website can ever be called a reliable source. I think you are assuming that because biased sources are allowed, no matter how heavy the bias, we should allow this. However you should understand that a source must first fall under WP:RS and that is taking a hit when we examine this source. Khamenei.ir is almost laughable as a reliable source for anything to be frank, except perhaps the opinion of Khamenei, but I am not sure if even that will be allowed seeing that there are dedicated fatwa websites around. So basically a very poor source which should be avoided at all costs, especially in controversial articles. If we started using them as a source then we will be including the laughable and ridiculous theory that USA created boko Haram and they work for US, and that Isreal benefittid from the 2015 Zaria Shia Massacre. so please do not include this highly unreliable source in wiki. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Before I get bitey ;-)

Checking to see if I am correct that this source is a commercial. for-profit site and hence not an RS for articles about horse bits. It was proposed as a source at bit mouthpiece and the same editor is currently working on a draft at Draft:Dr. Bristol (Horse Bit). The topic meets notability for horse bits, and it was kind of my idea that the writer try to create a new article, but now I'm getting concerned that there is a COI going on. So anyway, before I go bite a newbie, thought I'd get some feedback. There are plenty of other sources out there about horse bits. Montanabw 00:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

COI aside, The Academy by Neue Schule would not be considered a reliable source. It is an enrollment course/training site. Meatsgains (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice thread heading ;-) I am no expert in these matters, but it does look rather like someone trying to get a for-profit site in the encyclopaedia. If it is notable enough, I would have thought there would be a more "scholarly" source.DrChrissy 00:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution