Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:19, 7 August 2011

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.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460 461, 462, 463, 464, 465

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The Register at Santorum (neologism)

1. A link to the source in question.
2. The article in which it is being used. Santorum (neologism)
3. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting. See
4. Links to relevant talk page discussion. Talk:Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism#.22Navel_Gazing.22

Some editors claim that The Register is not reliable in quoting Jimmy Wales or Seth Finkelstein (the latter individual however wrote the quote is accurate). FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an area in which I would argue that the Register is a reliable source. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree; the Register has consistently pushed a ... rather firm editorial position concerning wikipedia. If we were using the Register article for an exact quote of a third party, or some other concrete fact not subject to interpretation, I could live with it; but we shouldn't be relying on qualitative comments made by somebody who starts their rant with "The world's Wikifiddlers are obsessed with santorum..." The Reg likes words like "wikifiddler". bobrayner (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm. I agree with Bobrayner on his line of reasoning, but not his conclusion in this case. Most of the added material is direct quotes from Wales and Finkelstein. The only interpretation by The Register seems to be: "the line between participant and documentarian is inherently blurred". Which is not controversial, I don't think. We should be really careful about material from the Reg, but I think this narrow case is acceptable. – Quadell 17:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's an editorial position at The Register regarding Misplaced Pages, as opposed to a few of the writers who often cover it tend to be critical of Misplaced Pages. However, the mere fact of being critical of Misplaced Pages should not be evidence of not being a reliable source. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If there is a material difference between "the Register having a certain editorial stance regarding wikipedia" and "A couple of the register's handful of writers like to rant about[REDACTED] from a certain angle" then I acknowledge it, but it probably doesn't affect my earlier point. ;-) I'm not concerned about whether they are broadly "pro" or "anti"; but when the Register gets a bee in its bonnet - given away by their choice of wording and selective reporting - I think we should no longer treat it as a reliable source for qualitative stuff. The same would apply to certain earlier Register articles on climate change, "Stuckism", &c... if this stuff is significant, surely a more credible source covers it? bobrayner (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the argument above is that it effectively ends up defining particular Misplaced Pages-critical aspects as per se not credible. That is, if The Register covers a part of an overall story that's critical of Misplaced Pages, and you say other sources must cover that specific Misplaced Pages part too before it's OK to mention it, it's problematic, as all sources don't covers all aspects of every story. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Full stripping of unsourced articles

Hi, I'd value your thoughts on this issue. I understand that policy supports taking out unverified material from articles. WP:V "Policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." What if an editor decides to challenge everything in a non-BLP article that doesn't have sourcing (which makes up the majority of articles, I imagine). What is to stop them from stripping back all content from hundreds of articles, claiming lack of citations? This is not how it usually works in practice, it seems - we adds cn tags, section tags etc unless material is glaringly nonsense or garbled and we commit to improve the content over time. Most of the more minor folk characters and figures of local myth, for example, have poorly sourced, tagged articles that need work, but could, essentially, have all their content deleted. Your thoughts much appreciated. Thanks. Span (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If the content otherwise looks reasonable then I think such stripping on a large scale would be disruptive. However, there is a lot of unsourced cruft and speculation out there, especially in less-visited articles; if the text already suffers from other flaws (ie. It doesn't look plausible or neutral) then I won't be shedding any tears. Is this activity confined to a particular subject area?

Sadly, we're not going to build a better encyclopædia by leaving flawed articles with long-term tags. It would be nice if those favouring deletion could put more effort into finding sources first, but removing unsourced content will often be better than the status quo. If any other person really mourns the lost text they always have the option of going back and find a source for it. I realise some may not like making that effort, but building a high-quality encyclopædia inevitably takes more work than just building a big pile of text. bobrayner (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that stripping entire articles is a bit drastic, although you're right--a strict interpretation of the policy is removing all unsourced content, even if all the content is deleted. I've found that articles that are poorly sourced need improvement in all areas, so the solution is for editors to dedicate themselves to these articles. I've also found that those of us who are committed to doing that are few and far between on this project. The temporary solution is tags, which should alert the reader that the article they're about to read is crap. My advice is be part of the solution, not part of the problem, and work on these articles to bring them to a higher quality. Christine (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

We occasionally have to strip libelous content very quickly, especially when there's a complaint, and it's good to have a policy that allows for that in these situations. But it's only acceptable to remove content. It's better to tag it, and it's best to add sourcing. – Quadell 17:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's all helpful, thank you. Quadell, or anyone else, do you have a policy page link that suggests something along the lines of "it's only acceptable to remove content. It's better to tag it, and it's best to add sourcing"? The articles I'm thinking of are around myth/folklore, no BLP or liable involved, in an local area I know absolutely diddly squat about. I'm not sure when uber-zeal becomes 'disruptive editing'. Cheers Span (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I would challenge any assumption that simply putting up a label saying "this content is flawed" - without actually fixing the content - is inevitably better than removing the flaw. Tagging has its place, but it's not a substitute for solving the problem; removing unsourced content is a solution. (Adding a source would be a better solution). bobrayner (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What's missing is the time dimension. The addition of tags establishes a start-date for a good-faith cleanup. Straight-away slash and burn doesn't do that. Of course, it is still better than having to use AfD: there's a preserved history. Is there an easy way to bot-notify all prior contributors to an article that it's been put on notice? LeadSongDog come howl! 13:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My personal rule of thumb for articles I'm involved with editing is that if someone adds uncited material and I can't supply a citation for it myself, I give it six months tagged as needing a citation before I remove it. (Assuming, of course, that there's no BLP or other issue that requires immediate removal.) That's long enough to give other users plenty of time to fix it if they can, but short enough that it doesn't turn into indefinite retention. cmadler (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

So it seems from the above there would be support for an editor whose main role was working through non-BLP articles, stripping out all long standing unsourced text (say extant 6 months+), reducing the content to basic lead information. Is that so?Span (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say "no" on two counts. First is the removal of "all unsourced text". This suggests that all text must be sourced, which is not the case. Second, this suggests that the editor would be removing content without even a cursory search for sources, and while such removal is acceptable (I'm not opposed to it), it's not preferred (I don't support it). cmadler (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If the content has been tagged for 6 months and nobody else has found a source, then taking it at face value I could hardly object. However, I would be concerned about pointiness, and if the deletion is selective in any way - maybe it only covers certain types of content or certain articles - I would be concerned about a hidden agenda (or, at least, an agenda which hasn't been mentioned in this thread).

I would prefer that sources were added, or if an agreeable source can't be found then I would prefer that the text be changed to fit what sources do say - however this can be quite slow work. Those who care about WP:V cannot work as quickly as those who just want to put lots of text into blank spaces. bobrayner (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the article, it's very possible that no one is actually working on it. I've got articles in my watchlist that have had {{refimprove}} templates for years. But no one is actively working on these articles. The fact is that we simply don't have enough editors to try to fix everything. Fortunately, we don't don't have a deadline.

A common practice is to 'draw a line' in the sand as far as new content goes. So if someone adds something new to the article without a source, I'll usually try to find a source and add it myself. If I can't find one, I'll add a {{FACT}} tag to it. If, after a few months or year or whatever, no one has added a source, I'll remove the statement. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"I understand that policy supports taking out unverified material from articles". No, this is incorrect. WP:V only requires that material be capable of being sourced, not that it be sourced. IOW, verifiable is not the same thing as being verified. For example, if I were to write that '"Germany is a nation in Europe", the only requirement is that a source exist somewhere in the world that supports this material. I don't need to necessarily need to cite it because it extremely unlikely to be challenged. If someone is blanking material simply for not being cited, I would explain to them the difference being verifable and verified. Ask them which material in particular they think is actually wrong and why. If they can't actually indentify which material is wrong and why, it sounds like the editor is being WP:POINTy and WP:DISRUPTIVE. If they cannot be reasoned with, I would report them to WP:ANI. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:V requires that ""all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material". If the content had previously been tagged by somebody else, I think that's a pretty clear challenge. Hypothetically, if anybody were deleting really obvious stuff like "Germany is a country in Europe" or "The sky is blue", that would be disruptive, but it's unlikely that the deletion is of such extremely obvious content. Hard to say without more case detail - who is deleting what?

Requiring a would-be deleter to demonstrate that content seems wrong is, I think, putting the burden of proof in the wrong place. We can't build a high-quality encyclopædia by giving a free pass to any content which passes a "meh, it looks plausible" test. bobrayner (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Lots of articles have {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} templates. That doesn't mean that anything specifically is wrong. If there's a particular issue with material, then the {{verify source}} can be used. If someone is deleting out unsourced but valid material soley for the lack of sources, they they either don't understand our policy on verifiability and/or are being disruptive. As for burden of proof, see WP:PRESERVE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

We still seem to be arguing about subtly different things (for instance, I had in mind things like cn tags rather than a whole-article tag). I would like to emphasise, again, that it's difficult to have a detailed discussion without knowing the details of the case.

As an aside, WP:V contains neither the words "capable" nor "verifiable". If we're going to haggle over policy detail, I think it's best to stick to wording that's actually in the policy. For instance, "that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material... Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed". That's good, clear wording and I cannot fathom how somebody might conclude that it's "incorrect'" to remove unsourced content. bobrayner (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A few points:

1. I was responding to the original question which was about "Full stripping of unsourced articles".
2. Sorry, I guess I should have used the term "verifiability" rather than "verifiable". Either way, my point's the same.
3. You need to read the entire policy as a whole. I see this a lot, editors inadvertently focusing on a couple of select phrases while missing the big picture. To put a fine point on it: Only material that has been challenged (or is likely to be challenged) actually require cites. If you find material that is both unsourced and you honestly believe is wrong, that's one thing. But challenging material simply for the sake of challenging is WP:POINTy and WP:DISRUPTIVE and that's what the OP seems to be about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Bob, you're right that verifiable doesn't appear in the policy. The reason for this is that the word was changed to attributable as part of a (failed) attempt to merge WP:V and NOR into a single policy called WP:Attribution.

But Quest is 100% right: the policy requires that it be possible to supply a citation. That is the plain meaning of the -able suffix, and it is the meaning that the community uses. The policy does not require that anyone have already typed up the name of the source into the article. And the only community-approved solution to the presence of verifiable encyclopedic material that is one of the four types that must have an inline citation is to boldly add the citations yourself, not to delete it on the grounds that the other editor didn't get it perfect on the first try. (Non-encyclopedic material, such as errors and trivia, should be cleaned up in compliance with the last half of PRESERVE, which is titled "Problems that may justify removal".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Blog used as source in O Brother, Where Art Thou?

Cmadler has added information to the cast section of the O Brother, Where Art Thou? article, claiming that the character Governor "Pappy" O'Daniel is probably based on former Texas governor W. Lee "Pappy" O'Daniel. I removed it once as unreferenced, and he has restored it with the following source:

Sorin, Hillary (2010-08-04), "Today in Texas History: Gov. Pappy O’Daniel resigns", The Houston Chronicle, http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2010/08/today-in-texas-history-gov-pappy-odaniel-resigns/, retrieved 2011-08-02,

The relevant quote in this blog entry is as follows: "Many cultural and political historians think the character Gov. Menelaus “Pappy” O’Daniel of Mississippi is based on the notorious Texas politician, Wilbert Lee “Pappy” O’Daniel." But, she does not cite any of these "many cultural and political historians." Given the vagueness of this statement, the lack of verification, and the fact that this is a blog, I want to know if this can be accepted as a reliable source for the purposes of this article. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If it is true that "many cultural and political historians" think this, it should be easy enough to cite the opinion directly to one or more works of these "many cultural and political historians." Yworo (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Just remove it then. I figured that stating that a character named "Pappy" O'Daniel, who is a southern governor in the late-1930s and owns a flour company, might be based on a historical figure named "Pappy" O'Daniel, who was a southern governor in the late-1930s and owned a flour company -- particularly when there is also a clear physical resemblance -- was so obvious it didn't need citing. When RepublicanJacobite removed it for lack of a citation, I gave what appeared to be the best (from the Houston Chronicle, one of the largest newspapers in the USA) citation I could quickly find. I don't care enough about this to dig through scholarly works looking for it, particularly when other parts of this article are cited to fan sites or even uncited. cmadler (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that falls under WP:NEWSBLOG and is a completely acceptable source - indeed, as Cmadler points out, a better source than we often get in film and TV articles. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Roscelese that this source is ok and should not be removed, per WP:NEWSBLOG, but I just added a second scholarly source. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, David. It's always great to see a dispute about an "okay" source being resolved by someone boldly providing a really good source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Celtic F.C. supporters

I wonder if we could have opinion on some sources used on this page, where it has been suggested the editing has been too "fanzine like" and has some sources open to question.

1/ Glasgow based Celtic have developed a strong fan base since their foundation in 1888. No source. Is that acceptable?

2/ However, since then Celtic have developed new fan bases in; South Korea, Honduras, Mexico, Kenya and most significantly Japan where an estimated 7 million people support Celtic. This means Celtic have a global fan base of over double the population of Scotland. No source for South Korea or Mexico. Honduras source comes from an agent brokering a deal to take a Honduran player to Celtic. .Kenya source comes directly from Celtic FC . Japan source comes from a sports marketing company - not sure what there relationship to Celtic is

3/ in June 2011, new signing Adam Matthews, who had been linked with Arsenal and Manchester United, described Celtic as being "the second most supported team in the world" The statement that Celtic are the second most supported club in the world comes from a player signing for Celtic. Is that good enough?

4/ Celtic have become very popular in Nairobi ... The Celtic jersey is now the most popular in Nairobi, outselling the likes of Man U and Arsenal. The source for this is again the club, i.e. Celtic. Is that acceptable.

5/ Noel Gallagher AND Liam Gallagher are listed as Celtic Fans. The brothers are in fact fanatical Man City fans, but a reference says they have a "soft spot" for Celtic. Is that good enough?

General comments on this page would also be helpful. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There should be no question that Celtic have a global fan base. Screw the sources used and delete them for not meeting WP:V. But instead of spending the few minutes to post here go and Google News Archive it to find a better source. And then laugh at Celtic for sucking.Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the page maybe could take a leaf out of the Arsenal F.C. supporters page book? I do agree that it is very fanzine-like in favour of Celtic and has no mention of some of their less than savoury actions. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Second Line of Defense

My policy WRT the sldinfo.com site has been to accept anything that is quoted from a known person (until that person objects) and reject anything based on unknown sources like say:

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=21086 Former Senior USAF Officer: When I was with the F-22 program ...

Right? Hcobb (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This site is very confusing at first glance. I can't tell who's behind it, who writes it, or what sort of editorial scrutiny the material receives. And the source you point to is an interview with an anonymous source and conducted by an unnamed author. Plus, I don't understand the Media Kits label at the top. Would be great if you could explain a bit more what this site is. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The media kits are information for potential advertisers. Barnabypage (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it fair to rebroadcast a libelous allegation - with a disclaimer?

This is the subject of a fierce debate on Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman) in reference to the Russian oligarch in exile in UK, who had won three consecutive libel suits over allegations of various misdeeds. The disputed article repeats these allegations in minute detail, with a disclaimer that they have been actually rejected and/or retracted. Technically, everything is properly sourced, but is it fair? And is it legally sound from the standpoint of filtering potentially libelous off these pages?--Kolokol1 (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

On a quick glance, this appears to be more a BLP issue than an RS issue; I see that you've already raised this issue at WP:BLP/N, and I'd look for an answer there. I'm certainly no BLP expert, but this appears generally OK to me. We are not saying, for example, that Berezovsky had his rivals murdered; we are stating (factually, backed up by sourcing) that Forbes made this statement. We follow that with a description of his suit for libel and the court decision, again, backed up by sourcing (Washington Post). The only question I have, and again, this is not an RS issue but a BLP one, is whether the article gives undue weight to the various accusations by going into too much detail. cmadler (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Posting contentious allegations with a simple statement that they were unfounded is quite against the premise of WP:BLP and yet found all too often. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Not an RS issue. TFD (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This BNET piece

I assume that BNET is considered reliable, since it's notable enough to have its own article, and is owned by CBS Interactive, but in reading Interactive this page, which the writers/editors of the Alexandra Govere article cited in that article, much of it, including explanations of the things that would make her notable, is written by Govere herself in the first person. This doesn't disqualify it as user-generated, does it? Is this page okay to use to cite for this material in Govere's article? Up until now, all of the material in her article was either unsourced, or supported by sources that were self-published, user-generated, or which failed verification, with the exception of one passage sourced to an Elle Girl article. But now in looking at this BNET article, I wondering if this is a valid second one, and if it confers notability on her. Thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 08:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The principle is that material which is not subjected to any fact-checking at all is not a "reliable source." No matter who owns it. The reason is that , sans any fact-checking, a person can make rather broad claims about their own notability. This does not mean they are lying, only that, without such oversight, we do not know if they might lie about their notability. Now if your experience in reading resumés is that they are 100% accurate, I have some land west of Miami to sell you. Collect (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Reliability as a source, and notability of an organisation or publication, are not the same thing. We also have articles on Youtube and Myspace, on hoax organisations, on people who are primarily known for deceit or fantasy, and so on...

We can cite things that people say about themselves even if it's in a venue that's not otherwise particularly reliable, but we have to be careful. bobrayner (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be an opinion piece and therefore not reliable for the facts expressed, only as a source for the writer's opinion. TFD (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the writer of the article appears to be reporting who the two people that McDonald's Corporation and Walt Disney Company chose to be Millennium Dreamers Ambassadors, which would appear to be factual. The material that then follows is written by the two youngsters. Does the former go to notability? Is it not presumed that the latter is reliable enough to be added to the article because it appears in a reliable source? Nightscream (talk) 04:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The BNET article is autobiographical, but published by a reliable source. We've got lots of biographical articles based partly on autobiographies. For example, Evelyn Waugh, Ernest Shackleton, and other Misplaced Pages:Featured Articles. WP:ABOUTSELF isn't about sources written by the subject, just published by the subject. Unless she turns out to be a highly influential member of the BNET staff, or she claims highly unreasonable things there, it will do. --GRuban (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Digital Blasphemy‎

Digital Blasphemy‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure if this is a WP:RS issue or a WP:NPOV one, but is it acceptable practice to cite an article almost exclusively to the topic's website? This would appear to be a violation of WP:PSTS and/or WP:ABOUTSELF to me, but I have an editor on this article claiming that "primary sources are fine for the article's content if the information is not in doubt" and that "you only need third party reliable sources to prove its notability" on an AfD -- inclusion of them in the article itself isn't necessary. This strikes me as WP:WIKILAWYERING that subverts the whole reason for having a requirement for third party sources. Opinions? Hrafn_Stalk(P) 16:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) That isn't a neutral call for someone to come over and comment. And this is not the page for this. This is where you ask if something is a reliable source or not. The AFD proved that the topic was notable. If you want to include those sources into the article, go ahead, do it yourself. Dream Focus 16:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That user is kinda right. The self published sources are probably reliable in this instance. And, the fact that there aren't any secondary sources may mean that the subject isn't notable, and should be put up for AfD. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It went to AFD and ended as keep based on sources found covering it. Dream Focus 16:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• The article itself should certainly have sources that are more than primary (indeed, ideally the majority of them should be independent). If you're struggling to find them, just make sure the article is tagged so that other editors will be encouraged to help out.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• It looks like Hrafn and Dream Focus have already had a long argument about this on the article's talk page. Hrafn is right: a well-written article is based primarily on WP:Independent sources. But over-reliance on the company's own opinion about itself is technically an NPOV issue, not an RS issue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Alexa rankings?

A number of articles on WP about web sites have "Alexa rankings" in their infoboxes or bodies - which get updated with "increase" or "decrease" on almost a monthly basis. Two questions - is Alexa really a "reliable source" for ranking web sites? And is an uptick or downtick in a ranking of sufficient value to be noted in any inbox or article? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I often see Alexa rankings cited by many reliable sources, which is usually an indicator of a source being considered reliable. The uptick/downtick is probably beyond the scope of this page, but I would say it violates WP:RECENTISM by tracking current trends rather than documenting overall performance within a historical context. Betty Logan (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I was pretty sure the "uptick/downtick" stuff would fail <g>. The real problem otherwise is that the "rankings" are not citable in any way - they are constantly motile, and they are based on a non-random sample of Internet users. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I definitely think the uptick or downtick indicator should be removed, Misplaced Pages is not a ticker tape. They can always follow the link to the Alexa site for at this moment stuff like that. I think the updating is too frequent but haven't strong feelings about that. Otherwise I am fairly happy with them being present. Dmcq (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, Alexa is the only company that gives this info for free. The other web trends firms require payment for their reports. So, I don't see a good substitute for the majority of Misplaced Pages articles on web sites, unless someone here feels very generous... FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That Anime Show

At Joel McDonald I added links to That Anime Show, which is done by J. Michael Tatum.

• That Anime Show EP 2, “Joel McDonald”
• That Anime Show EP 19, “The Return of Joel McDonald”

Is that website a reliable source? Dream Focus 18:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that the description given of J. Michael Tatum is indistinguishable from that of Joel McDonald (both "American voice actor, ADR director, and script writer who works for anime series at FUNimation Entertainment") -- I certainly don't see how they can be considered to be independent. Nor, given that it's explicitly a "podcast" would it appear to be a WP:RS. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Given that it is a podcast which does not have an article itself, by someone who does not have a well sourced article themselves to establish their notability (not that the podcast would inherit the notability in any case), it does not appear to be a reliable source. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Not having a Wikipedian article does not mean the person is automatically unreliable.陣内_Jinnai 21:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"Sugar" websites, e.g. Buzzsugar.com, Popsugar.com

I have been seeing a number of people using the "Sugar" websites, such as Buzzsugar.com and/or Popsugar.com, as sources in articles. They are published by Sugar Inc.. I was wondering what the opinion is of these websites. (I wasn't able to find anything about them in the archives.) The Popsugar homepage uses the word "gossip" several times, which sends up a red flag for me. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

And even if a site gives reliable news what are the guidelines about xyz and the bikini beauty on the beach in Brazil or whereever? Dmcq (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of how these sites are used? Without looking too deeply into these ones, from what I have seen of similar gossip sites, what little information they have of value to an encyclopedia is almost always culled from other, more reliable, sources. So the preferrable sourcing practice would be to replace sites like these with the originating source. Siawase (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Observer article about My Little Pony's 4chan presence

LaMarche, Una (2011-08-03). "Pony Up Haters: How 4chan Gave Birth to the Bronies". New York Observer. Retrieved 2011-08-03.

Noted in the Friendship is Magic talk page, the Observer article consists of interviews of a few convention-goers who misquote Know Your Meme. The article has seems to have no editorial oversight and contains obvious factual mistakes. It is used to cite the firing of a moderator from 4chan, but there are no reliable sources for this claim, and I feel the article itself is unreliable because of its many mistakes. -IsaacAA (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't question that the article is basing a lot of facts on what the writer likely got directly from fans. It is the fans' estimates in timing and numbers that are certainly off from what I know to be true but can't source directly. But that said, the use of the NP article within the WP article does not cite any of the questionable figures, and instead primarily used to detail the events (not the exact timing) that did take place at 4chan which did correctly get reported by the fans and correlate not only what I know is correct but at least 2 other sources. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW: Know Your Meme is an unreliable source to start. They may have editors improving the various meme articles, but they're not 100% infallible, and users are still free to add info w/o oversight. So saying that the fans are misquoting KYM may actually be more that both fans and KYM may have different facts in their head about how the numbers work. More reason not to try to work in the exact numbers but stay with the parts that are consistent. --MASEM (t) 12:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Part of the reason the article is unreliable is because it relies on people apparently quoting KYM. It would be very helpful to have a reliable source about the alleged firing of the moderator by Poole. -IsaacAA (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The source usage in the article as it is right now looks ok to me. Details like exact dates or related firings seems like material that could be skipped anyway. A Misplaced Pages article should provide a summary overview on a topic. It doesn't need to include every turn of an event, just outline the broad strokes. You could make the sourcing issues clearer to readers by in text attribution, ie that the 4chan events are described by fans from their point of view of how events unfolded. Siawase (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. -IsaacAA (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Mona Lisa

The editor Simple Blue (talk · contribs) has been insistent upon inserting a reference into various articles regarding the Mona Lisa for some months now despite being informed by multiple editors that the theory expressed (apparently originally by Relpmek (talk · contribs) is original research. I would appreciate some evaluation regarding the reliability of the reference in question.

• The reference being inserted is this page. There is no indication of whether this statement has been peer-reviewed, published elsewhere, or otherwise given credence.
• It has been inserted multiple times into the articles Mona Lisa, Lisa del Giocondo and Speculation about Mona Lisa.
• The origin of the theory that the Mona Lisa is Da Vinci's mother appears to have been inserted first by User:Relpmek here; User:Relpmek self-identifies as Roni Kempler.
• A look through the contributions of both editors will give a good indication of their efforts to have this theory included. Talk page discussion has generally been less than constructive.

Opinions would be appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: The page of Roni Kempler that user:Simple Blue has entered in several pages is, of course, of no reliability whatsoever. Ron Kempler (be it or not user:Relpmek) is not a reliable source. Neither is a reliable source Serge Bramly, who is a fictional writer, not a historian, and in particular, not an art historian.Divide et Impera (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• Yup. Not reliable. A personal website like this wouldn't be acceptable even if there weren't a vast corpus on the Mona Lisa. Has someone filed a SPI, by the way? Relpmek isn't editing anymore, but Simple Blue, y'know, just happened to start editing right around when Relpmek stopped... Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I figured I'd do this first, see how it goes. I doubt we'll need an SPI to deal with things. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The idea that the painting at some level represents Leonardo's mother dates back to Freud. It's notable for being one of Siggy's attempts to apply Psychoanalytic theory to Leonardo's work, but even Freud did not claim that the painting literally depicts his mother, rather that unconscious memories of his mother affected the way the image was painted, particularly the famous smile. Of course it is a purely speculative and entirely unfalsifiable argument. There are no images of Leo's mother, or home movies of her smiling, so we can't possibly make any actual comparison. What Freud says is notable, but it has nothing to do with normal art historical methods or standard scholarship on the painting. R Kempler's views are neither notable or reliable. Paul B (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Reports by organizations with a POV

There are numerous reports published by various organizations with certain POVs. For example, Misplaced Pages's articles on renewable energy cites many reports published by various renewable energy trade or industry organizations or otherwise by clearly pro-renewable energy organizations. Such reports seem to fall outside WP:RS. They are not academic reports or newspapers. Neither are they self-published material by a single person which seem to be the case for all examples of self-published material in the policy. Another example would be reports by political parties or by special interest groups. So are they allowed or not? Miradre (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, "self-publishing" is not necessarily the act of a single human. "Self-publishing" means only that the author and the publisher are the same, regardless of whether that means "same human" or "same multinational corporation". Coca-cola.com is self-published by Coca-cola, Inc., as their lawyers will be happy to tell you if you ever violate their copyright.

Our SPS policy is especially appropriate for small groups. You may certainly cite their reports, websites, newsletters, etc., as reliable sources for the group's opinions; really, no other source could be as authoritative. (An independent source would do a better job of showing that their opinion is WP:DUE, but they are the best source for the claim that they hold a given opinion.) Factual claims, especially if on a disputed point, should typically be given WP:INTEXT attribution: "According to the Flat Earth Society, the Earth is shaped like a tortilla." WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Desperate Housewives

There's one of those standard "sources say" reports on various sites that the TV show Desperate Housewives will end after the upcoming season. ABC is supposedly making an announcement Sunday. I would think that this is a matter where encyclopedic values would call for us to wait until the announcement, or at least until someone with actual knowledge says this on the record. This isn't exactly an earthshaking matter that we need to urgently stay on top of in real time, either. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, who's the source? Are you referring to the Deadline Hollywood source cited at the end of the Lead? I believe Deadline is considered a reliable source. Nightscream (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Sovereign Independent

Is this site reliable for this addition to the Zeitgeist: The Movie article? In addition, another editor pointed out that it features articles like this, and I myself became a bit suspicious by the tone of their About Us page. Nightscream (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm the other editor, and it looks like a conspiracy website, carrying 9/11 truth material. I'd say it's not RS - something which Nightscream has already decided, given that he's deleted the material added sourced to Sovereign Independent. Obviously, I support that.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

James Naismith

Hello. My name is Joel Templeton. I have just received some news on my family tree that James Naismith(he would have been her uncle)was related to my Great grandmother Mrs. Peter Templeton. The Templeton side of my family came from Scotland, then to Canada, then some came to Wisconsin(that's where I'm from). Any information regarding this is helpful and appreciated. Thanks. Joel Templeton

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Joel. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard is for examining whether sources that editors ask about here are reliable enough to be used under the WP:IRS policy. It is not a resource for answering miscellaneous questions. Try Misplaced Pages:Reference desk for that. Good luck! :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail

I have edited an article about Anjem Choudary, I included some detail from the Daily Mail, another editor on the article talk page Talk:Anjem_Choudary insists the Daily cannot be used. Is the Daily Mail an acceptable source on wikipedia? Other editor is reverting claiming justification under BLP that Daily Mail cannot be used --Hemshaw (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the article being used, and to support what content? Generally, it is my present view that the Daily Mail is a reliable source; it is published, and has editorial oversight. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Daily Mail is published, and yes, has editorial oversight. It also has a reputation for making crap up. A tabloid newspaper, with pretensions to be otherwise. I'd be very wary of using it as a source for anything contentious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages article states that the publication is the second most purchased paper in th UK, it must have some reasonable adherence to factual content. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no automatic correlation between popularity and truth. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope opposition to this source is not because the paper is right of center, as indiciated in the[REDACTED] article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also per the article Tabloid, the meaning is meant for the size of the paper used. How does that impact the reliability of the content? The tabloid article list the Chicago Sun-Times and the San Francisco Examiner as prominent tabloids in the United States. Does this mean that their content is less then reliable? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's an intersting word. It has two distinct, but historically connected meanings. The second sentence of the lead of Tabloid says ""tabloid journalism", which tends to emphasize topics such as sensational crime stories, astrology, and TV and celebrity gossip is commonly associated with tabloid sized newspapers". That's what's being discussed here, a greater interest in popular (not necessarily accurate) content, rather than factual, in depth news reporting. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Tabloid is frequently shorthand for a paper that reports on stuff we don't consider important. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So this example is something that "we don't consider important"? Sure the way it is presented maybe be more glammed up, but that doesn't mean that within it isn't some useful information that can be used to support content within a[REDACTED] article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If something is 'important', it will also be reported in sources with a better reputation for objectivity. Why use a tabloid (in the 'sensationalist' sense) when you can find better ones? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for presenting that example. I have big problems even with the headline, especially the first and fourth words. It unnecessarily sensationalises stuff. I also wonder what the third paragraph (and do note the tabloid rule that one paragraph equals one sentence) has to do with this item as news. It provides added colour, but is also blatantly guiding the reader in how to think about this. It's a lot more than news reporting. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The passage supported is "When younger he was known as 'Andy' and was proud of his Pakistani origin". I would question whether a newspaper, especially one that is middle market, is a good source for a WP:BLP for events that happened thirty years ago. And something that does not make the quality papers is probably not weighty enough for inclusion. TFD (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

For the benefit of others, here is the 'Daily Mail' source being cited: . Rabble-rousing bigotry of the worst sort, full of weasel-words and insinuations - so entirely consistant with the Daily Mail's usual standards... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, swilling and leering are not really objective words. I also love the line "He also mixed with hook-handed demagogue Abu Hamza..." That's a gem, straight out of the tabloid journalism textbook. HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not that the Daily Mail is right-wing; you'd get few left-wing British wikipedians seriously challenging The Times as RS. It's that the Daily Mail is an unreliable tabloid, whatever else its pretentions might be. Best to be avoided if at all possible.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:RS the Daily Mail is RS. There is an interesting history of IDONTLIKEIT regarding the paper, but it is just about as reliable as the Guardian and other British papers. The claim that it has more libel cases than other papers is inaccurate. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Pambazuka News

Pambazuka News, published by Fahamu since 2000, is a pan-African electronic weekly newsletter and platform for social justice in Africa providing: contemporary commentary and in-depth analysis on politics and current affairs development, human rights, refugees, gender issues and culture in Africa. It is designed to be a tool for progressive social change.

Can this source be used reliably to establish that a blogger is notable enough to have their views included on Misplaced Pages? User:Halaqah claims it can. Shii (tock) 08:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This editor, skipping the talk page has a Specific issue with a specific comment from a person more than qualified to make the statement. the section refers to an opinion which years ago we (who edit the article for years and are very familiar with the history or Africa and the opinions and scholars). balanced this section by representing a controversy with the topic. I have seen nothing writing on the Arab slave trade cite that makes it false history, unreliable history, junk, unscholarly, fiction, or unreliable. two source, one of them the no2 website on Arab slave trade (after Misplaced Pages)Google rank] is not a blog and our personal hatred of different views does not make something trash to be deleted at whim. In this article the quality of other references are far lower yet only this specific comment is targeted by this new editor to a page I have worked on for over 5 years. Pambazuka News is a well respected African based opinion on many matters, as opinions go why are African opinions not coming from BBC and CNN all of a sudden RS issue? RS has become a place to throw out anything from a minority news group.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's an international spam factory as far as I can tell. I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. Span (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well it is good enough all across wiki, and as i said there are TWO references. And no it is not a SPam factory, I think beyond personal views you will have to prove that it is. BBC on Fahmu and here is another reference to them as a credible info source. So how is this a bloggers site? And here is ALL AFRICA All Africa on Fahmu] so please prove it is a bloggers site and unreliable for an opinion made by an author on Fahmu who is a UNESCO winner for work on slavery. Now All Africa who is reliable beyond doubt, saw the article suitable enough in quality to republish it --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That All Africa link is just a repost of material from Pambazuka News. Shii (tock) 11:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is, now why would they do that if it was a BLOG? Does a credible news agency repost blogs? I dont think so. One of the biggest new agency on Africa saw it news worthy, notable in content from a author who seems to know the topic (as i have seen no junk or false history in any of the arab slave trade, to reprint it in their journal which i subscribe to. And republishing is common with news groups who get sources from other credible sources--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution