Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:04, 19 May 2014

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

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

Current large scale clean-up efforts

Large scale clean-ups/answersingenesis.com

Large scale clean-ups/evolutionnews.org

Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com

Large scale clean-ups/kavitakosh.org

Partisan group self published source Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites in Saudi Arabia

The article has a lot of citations from a single partisan self published source which reflects only a fringe standpoint of history. Many of the names of the graves mentioned are not even verified , here is the source:

http://www.al-islam.org/history-shrines/history-cemetery-jannat-al-baqi

It looks more like a blog presenting personal opinions on a matter and that too by a fringe group which accuses a Jewish conspiracy in the destruction.

Hence proof of the graves from reliable independent, non sectarian sources should be added. Relevant tag: WP:BIASED,WP:FTN (fringe theory).

partisan base self published source

in article Mufaddal Saifuddin

However, Muffadal Saifuddin's succession has not been accepted by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, who claimed the title of the 53rd Dai of the Dawoodi Bohras Himself. Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin performed nass on him 49 years ago, a ritual during which he appointed him as his successor in private, just before he was publically appointed as Mazoon, second-in-command in Bohras hierarchy. After the death of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin he claims that the succession was not done in London as Mohammad Burhanuddin suffered from a full stroke at the age of 100, that made it difficult for him to write, speak, or move. Khuzaima Qutbuddin explains that he never claimed to be the rightfull successor, as per Mohammed Burhanuddin's instruction to keep it secret. It is further claimed that former CJI upheld the validity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin as the rightful successor.

1. http://fatemidawat.com/

Dispute as to who Sheb Wooleys Children

Sheb Wooleys Misplaced Pages says that he had two daughters ; when in fact he had ONE LEGALLY ADOPTED daughter Christi Lynn Wooley who was his ONLY CHILD and a step daughter ( never legally adopted) Shauna Dotson . Misplaced Pages states that Sheb had two daughters ; when in fact he had one legal daughter and one step daughter

Earth Mag article (op-ed?)

Article: List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ref: Steven Newton (2012-04-30). "Voices: Defending science: The link between creationism and climate change". EARTH Magazine. Retrieved 2014-04-20.

Article content: "Interest in such scientists has been increased by attempts to compile lists of dissenting scientists, including a minority report to the US Senate by Marc Morano, another by Arthur B. Robinson, which is often known as the Oregon Petition, and another by the Heartland Institute, all three of which have been criticized on a number of grounds."

Discussion: Here, consisting of a few comments beginning at 18:16, 25 April 2014

The reference is a proposed addition to the end of the content quoted above, specifically criticism of the Oregon Petition. The relevant info from the reference is:

"Having failed to convince the scientific community of the credibility of their views, both creationists and climate change deniers have taken their case to the public in a way that distorts and misrepresents the nature of science."

"Take petitions, for example. Creationists maintain a “Dissent from Darwin” list of several hundred Ph.D.s who have signed a statement encouraging “careful examination of the evidence” for what is vaguely termed “Darwinian theory”; climate change deniers have the so-called Oregon Petition, with more than 31,000 signers endorsing a statement denying that there is any “convincing evidence” that the human release of greenhouse gases will cause “catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”"

"Such petitions convey the misleading impression that science is a popularity contest. Whether evolution and climate change are good science is, ultimately, a matter of evidence, not of who can amass more signatures. But that’s not the way deniers portray it."

The author is Steve Newton of NCSE(NCSE profile)

The concern is that the reference is an op-ed, and may fail WP:NEWSBLOG or otherwise not be reliable in this context. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope, the concern is that the reference simply isn't needed, and that you haven't made an argument as to why it should be used. There are already references for the sentence that you reference above in the article, and there is consensus that it shouldn't be used. Another concern is that you simply want it in the article because you want to couple "climate scepticism" with "evolution denial", which is a WP:BLP concern - not a reliable source one. --Kim D. Petersen 01:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, RS is not the crux of the issue. Only one editor in a very, very extended conversation has brought up this op-ed as a Reliable Source issue. This is not the proper forum for this content discussion. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I was planning on taking this to NPOVN next. As I pointed out, I want to be sure we have this resolved first. --Ronz (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It's moot. There are already six refs for that section's language. There is no apparent support and considerable resistance to this proposed edit, regardless of RS issues. What could be seen as forum shopping isn't a solution. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Please leave this discussion to those who want to address the concerns here. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This ref is titled "comment" on the site. It is an opinion piece or column. It is reliable for the opinion of the author. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ordinarily, one should be wary of using opinion pieces in BLP articles. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those are the concerns. Any thoughts on the specific publication, the author, the author's affiliations, or the reliability of the quoted information? --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

My take: The publication itself is generally a reliable for such information. While it is an op-ed, the author is speaking directly for NCSE, which is generally a reliable source for such information. Overall, I can't imagine how this couldn't be considered reliable. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no description (byline etc) of him speaking directly for the NSCE your take is incorrect. The piece is signed "Steven Newton" and does not in any way describe who Steven Newton is or why he would speak directly for the NSCE, thus it is entirely an inferrence on your part. Had it been an NSCE piece, then it would be signed with NCSE or had Newtons credentials attached to show that he was speaking in this aspect. --Kim D. Petersen 07:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that NSCE highlighted the article (as already pointed out on the talk page), and he is clearly speaking for NSCE:

What do creationists and climate change deniers have in common? Over the past few years, this riddle has been on our minds a lot at the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit that has fought for more than a quarter-century to defend the teaching of evolution in the public schools. Now, we’re expanding to defend the teaching of climate change — and with it, science in general.

I think we're safe. --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Youtube video on official channel?

Connecticut Public Television did a video article on Slater Memorial Museum. Their official website links to the article on their official YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcNQZtp2rSk). YouTube is not normally considered a reliable source so I am unsure if I can use it for stating how part of the museum's collection was acquired by Slater on his "Grand Tour" around the world via ship. If I cannot use it as a reliable source, is it permissible to use the YouTube link in the external links section? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The usual problems are not an issue here since being a official channel removes the usual copyright concerns (the main issue with most Youtube videos). The only real issue I can see would be whether or not Connecticut Public Television is a reliable source for this fact and that is something I have no idea about.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It is unlikely that anything of note seen on YouTube could not be found on a reliable source, this would avoid using possibly unreliable videos as a source it just means a little more digging around for the facts. MilborneOne (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hue massacre

Please see that: http://hnn.us/article/23641.

Txantimedia refused that is a reliable source (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Massacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF#dig_.2Bshort_-x_113.190.46.114_dynamic.vdc.vn._has_started_reverting_without_discussion) with his reason: "Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars is a Marxist organization that was clearly pro-Hanoi...".

So, Is this a reliable source?

• ACTIVE MIG29VN SOCKPUPPETRY INVESTIGATION ROUND 3
• Archives of 2 recent, previous sockpuppetry investigations of MIG29VN

That isn't a useful source for the article because it only mentions the 1968 events in passing. The sourcing is generally poor in the article. Use only recent (post about 1990) scholarly works that have some distance from the arguments at the time. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this a RS?

Hi, I have been looking at ways to improve the Italian invasion of France page and have noted the French version uses the following source: Giorgio Rochat, La campagne italienne de juin 1940 dans les Alpes occidentales

From what I can find, the author appears to be an Italian historian. The opening notes that "This article presents an Italian perspective on the campaign by Italy’s forces in the Western Alps in June 1940." The article appears to provide vital information about the state of both sides, in an area scantly covered in the more accessible English-language secondary sources.

At some point, I would considering taking the article towards a GA review (a long way down the road at the moment). Would this source present a problem?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I've cited and seen cited other work at revues.org, seems legit. Off the top of my head, I know that this article was a major source for my article on the Livre des Esperitz. The only objection I could begin to imagine (not have, but imagine) is "it's not completely in English!" which is not policy and a stupidest reason to exclude a source (particularly when the language is in a source that at least a third of us should be able to guess a rough meaning for). I could possibly see the complaint "you're not reading it right," but the only way for an editor to say that without being a dick is to provide a more correct translation. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree that there is no problem with this source. Author is a well-published historian, a specialist in his field. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad we have consensus on the matter. I would have hated to have used the much needed figures, only to have them pooh-poohed down the line.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Celebrity sources and distinguishing tabloid (newspaper format) from tabloid journalism

Like I recently stated here and here, I think that some WP:Reliable sources, mainly celebrity sources, are being inappropriately discriminated against, similar to how People magazine was being inappropriately discriminated against (mainly by a lone editor), and that editors failing to distinguish between tabloid newspaper format and tabloid journalism is clearly still a problem for Misplaced Pages. For those who don't know, or need their memory refreshed on the matter, there was an extensive WP:RfC discussion here at this noticeboard about whether or not People magazine can be used to source WP:BLPs. WP:Consensus from that discussion is that People has good editorial oversight and is generally a WP:Reliable source for WP:BLPs, but that it either should not be used for contentious information or should have an additional source to support its use for contentious information, and that it should never be used to source highly contentious information. When I noted on NeilN's talk page (shown here) that I JethroBT's closure of that discussion can be misinterpreted since what is contentious can be debatable (but that what is highly contentious usually is not debatable), NeilN essentially stated that people should understand what is meant by the closure. In a discussion from my talk page, you can see I JethroBT stating, at 07:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC), that he "would say that unless there are discrepancies between and other reliable sources, something like a celebrity's birthday or their family members could be reasonably sourced to People. I agree that sometimes editors will call something contentious, but there should be a demonstrable reason why that is so (which it may well be in specific cases). Calling it a 'gossip magazine' or saying that birth dates are simply iffy in People alone just aren't going to cut it, for instance. John's arguments were not persuasive during the RfC and they shouldn't be elsewhere if that is the basis for disagreement."

And yet here we are again, with some editors removing or banning sources simply because the sources are celebrity sources or gossip sources (not that I disagree with replacing a celebrity source or a gossip source with a better source). The "gossip magazine" rationale was used to try and keep People out of WP:BLPs, and the Misplaced Pages community stated that a source simply being a celebrity source or a gossip magazine is not a valid reason for removing such a source from a WP:BLP. Additionally, Misplaced Pages editors are still failing to distinguish tabloid newspaper format from tabloid journalism, as in the case of The New York Daily News; like I stated before, the Daily News (New York) Misplaced Pages article has "tabloid" in its lead and in its infobox because it's linking to the Tabloid (newspaper format) article. Read the lead of the Tabloid (newspaper format) article. The Independent and The Times are also in tabloid format. Compact (newspaper) is a tabloid format. So, in conclusion, we need views on these other celebrity sources (as in non-People magazine sources). In addition to The New York Daily News (which has been to this noticeboard before and has never been deemed something that absolutely cannot be used for WP:BLPs or otherwise), some of the sources being discussed, the ones that I consider generally okay for WP:BLPs or a case-by-case matter for them, are Us Weekly (widely used on Misplaced Pages and similar to People magazine), Hello! , OK! (more of a case-by-case basis) and The Huffington Post (more of a case-by-case basis). Also keep in mind that some of these sources do exclusive interviews with celebrities (The Huffington Post to a less often degree). And for the record (and shown in the aforementioned discussion from my talk page), Herostratus did propose User:Herostratus/Daily Mail et al RfC back in 2013. Flyer22 (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Contentious claims require stronger sources. People is a pretty reliable IMO, because they have a decent history of editorial oversight. For celebrity issues, they are the news equivalent of Time. For anything that is contentious, BLP requires multiple reliable sources. If it is alleged that Jenny Tata had breast augmentation, despite her claims of being real and spectacular, then the NYT alone making this statement would not be enough to satisfy BLP. NYT and People each making the claim independently? That crosses the threshold.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Two kinds of pork, as noted above, there is WP:Consensus that People is generally WP:Reliable for WP:BLPs. So what I stated above is more so about other celebrity sources, such as Us Weekly, and editors thinking "tabloid format" automatically means "tabloid." There is no blanket ban on using these sources for WP:BLPs, such as Us Weekly, The New York Daily News, etc., and I don't think Misplaced Pages editors should be acting as though there is, especially for non-contentious material (a sentiment echoed during the People magazine debates, including the People magazine WP:RfC that was had here at this noticeboard). Like I stated during the People magazine debates, stating that celebrity sources cannot be used for celebrity information is similar to stating that sports sources, such as ESPN, cannot be used for sports information or to source something about a sports star (also a celebrity). Flyer22 (talk) 05:01 (UTC)

The reason I believe why things like Us Weekly and People and OK! are often discouraged for celeb use is how much of it is gossip that is fabricated and/or poorly supported (i.e. giving a quote from a "source" without specifying the name of the "source"). Not to mention, there's also bias in many reports given. "Widely used on Misplaced Pages" seems like a WP:WAX argument, though. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

They are not generally discouraged. It's only a few editors, including you, discouraging their use or outright trying to ban them, with no support from the wider Misplaced Pages community (except for clear-cut cases such as the Daily Mail). And as for a WP:WAX argument, in reference to Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists: Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists can be a valid argument, as noted at that page, and it is certainly valid to state that " is generally accepted on Misplaced Pages, including for WP:BLPs, except for by a few editors trying to impose their personal view of acceptable sources on Misplaced Pages articles." People magazine is cleared as a WP:Reliable source, after a very big and long WP:RfC discussion here at this noticeboard, so still trying to discourage use of that source is a waste of time. If you have no proof for People, Us Weekly and OK! generally fabricating their material and/or being "poorly supported" and biased, then you are not going to get support from the wider Misplaced Pages community to ban those sources for WP:BLPs. And like I already told you, many WP:Reliable sources report what an anonymous source has stated without ever revealing who that anonymous source is; your argument that celebrity sources do it more often holds no weight with me. WP:Reliable sources does not base reliability on that matter. WP:Reliable sources bases reliability on editorial oversight and accuracy. Flyer22 (talk) 06:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"Often" isn't always synonymous with "generally". Also, for examples of poor support I've often seen, have a look here ("A source who has worked with Clooney", does not mention name of "source") and here ("Sources tell PEOPLE", again doesn't say who the "sources" are). It would be more credible if the names of these "sources" were given. I will say that English teachers I've had in the past discouraged such sources in papers. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"Generally" is important because the wider Misplaced Pages community decided that People magazine is generally WP:Reliable for WP:BLPs. Saying that People magazine is not always reliable? No media source is always reliable. Many scholarly sources are not always reliable. The exceptions with regard to People magazine -- that it sometimes should not be used for contentions information and never as the sole source for highly contentious information -- is already noted above. You can continue to go on about People magazine, of course, but, considering that the wider Misplaced Pages community has already condoned its use for WP:BLPs, I'm pretty much done debating you on that. I started this discussion to focus on other celebrity sources, not a celebrity source that has already passed with nearly flying colors. Flyer22 (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

And as for your idea of "poor support," my "06:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)" post above addresses anonymous sources and what WP:Reliable sources bases reliability on. Flyer22 (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I am basically in agreement with the previous posts here regarding the reliability of these types of outlets, but another thing to consider here is not just plain old WP:V but also WP:NOT/WP:UNDUE. These sources often follow celebrity lives very closely, and even when it comes to non-contentious professional material it's often too much for Misplaced Pages purposes. And often rather than gossipy, negative things they actually lean too heavily to the promotional side. When editors in good faith use celebrity focused sources to keep articles up to date, they often add the specific date it was announced that they got a part in a film, or that they're recording a new album or going on tour (for bonus include a hype quote from the celeb about how enthusiastic they are about this new project.) And then the exact date of when filming/recording started, the exact date of when it finished, and the specific date of release, bonus for adding in specific date of release for several regions. And in the end you have something that resembles WP:NOTDIARY more than an encyclopedic summary. These sources can be used but there are very often editorial reasons not to, and there is good reason to, whenever possible, build biographic articles predominantly using higher quality sources. My personal rule of thumb is something like, if celebrity focused outlets are the only ones reporting on something, it's likely not WP:WEIGHTy enough to include. (But when, say, a celebrity chooses to give Us Weekly a statement from their side regarding something widely reported in other sources, by all means include it, WP:NPOV and all.) Siawase (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Siawase, especially for echoing my sentiments that some of these sources, such as Us Weekly, do exclusive interviews with celebrities or give exclusive statements. Previous posts here regarding the reliability of these types of outlets have generally accepted People magazine. And The New York Daily News has not done bad at this noticeboard either. Not to mention that it's not a celebrity source; it's simply that one aspect of its reporting is reporting on celebrities. I'm iffy about use of OK! and The Huffington Post for WP:BLPs, as noted above. But I don't see anything wrong with using Us Weekly, unless it's to source something "contentious" (and by "contentious," I mean something not supported by other WP:Reliable sources); and of course, I don't think it should ever be the sole source for highly contentious information. Flyer22 (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

How exactly can we rely on the words of anonymous "sources" when we don't even know who they are, though? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The kind of material these outlets attribute to unnamed sources is the vast majority of the time things we would never include on WP:NOT/WP:WEIGHT grounds anyway. Most of the time it's fluffy minutiae about the subject's romantic life, as the examples you gave above demonstrate. We don't have to fret over the reliability of whether Clooney had his arm around his fiancee or not, because this is not something we would include in his Misplaced Pages bio even if the NY Times published it with photographic evidence. Siawase (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. I was thinking: "Uh, we might want to avoid the cases where the sources are going the 'anonymous' route, except perhaps for non-trivial cases where various WP:Reliable sources are also reporting on the 'anonymous source' matter." Flyer22 (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I would not trust the Huffington Post, any gossip blogger, The National Enquirer, or any rag owned by Rupert Murdoch. The New York Daily News is not what I'd call reliable, but I guess it's better than the others. Compared to these paragons of truth and virtue, People and Us Weekly almost do seem like reliable sources. I would say they are OK for facts (not rumors) and interviews. I'd prefer something a bit more reliable, though. It's owned by the same exact company as People, but even Entertainment Weekly would make me feel better. I would oppose any statement cited to an undisclosed source, especially in a BLP, and most especially if it came from some gossip rag like The New York Post. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

After reading all of the above - the idea that "tabloid journalism" has any particular connection to "tabloid format" does not fly. I here offer a possible definition of "contentious" with regard to claims:

A contentious claim is any claim of fact which either may directly harm an individual or is based on anonymous allegations. Where any argument about the claim ensues, the word applies.

For BLPs, the concept of "reliable source" refers to general use of a source for non-contentious claims - meaning we have a panoply of "celebrity sources" to choose from. If the claim is "contentious" it is not the "specific source" which ought to be the issue, but whether other sources verify the claims.

Misplaced Pages uses "reliable" not to mean "only the truth" but whether the source is known for fact-checking of the type of claim made. It is far more important to keep "opinion columns" (even from :reliable sources) from being used for contentious claims - The New York Times, according to its first Public Editor, did not "fact check" opinion columns (in fact stating that one writer still misquoted a claim which had been corrected months earlier), and I doubt many places do that either.

Were I to hold any sway at all, I would rule out all the "political opinion sites" at the outset. I would rule out obvious "political campaign material sites" as well, and every single "we are right and they are wrong" site known to mortal man.

Mixing pure lye and pure sulfuric acid makes for a neutral solution -- after you see a nice explosion first.

To get a neutral solution is far safer when one starts with materials not too far from a pH of 7.

In the same way, using sources which make strong claims which on their face are far from neutral causes more heat than anything else.

Cheers. I have been deemed not conducive to a healthy working atmosphere I fear. Collect (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Collect, thanks for weighing in it. I'm not sure if by "the idea that 'tabloid journalism' has any particular connection to 'tabloid format' does not fly.", you are referring to my claim that editors are confusing the matter or that you are stating they shouldn't be confusing the matter. But I assure you that they are; this is made clear by this discussion I recently linked you to on your talk page. XXSNUGGUMSXX, who is now participating in this noticeboard discussion, was one of the two editors confusing the matter. This confusion was also present during the People magazine debates of last year. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The confusion has trapped many editors in the past, and is likely to continue to do so. The "fly" reference was, alas, partially in homage to your own posts and name. Sigh. Collect (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay, Collect. Thanks again. Sorry about my own confusion on that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, Entertainment Weekly is without question infinitely more reliable than People or Us Weekly. As far as ownership goes, writers are separate from publishers. Does the same company publish their pieces? Perhaps, but People definitely has different writers than Entertainment Weekly. Time Inc/Time Warner does the publishing, not the writing. I fully agree with you on Huffington Post and New York Post. If political bias is of concern, than pieces like Huffington Post and FOX News shouldn't be used. The two are notorious for political bias (which often contains fraudulence in favor of said bias). New York Daily News is more reliable than Huffington Post, FOX News, National Enquirer, and New York Post, (all four of which I am all for blacklisting) but I'd avoid using it when possible. If Daily Mail hasn't been officially blacklisted yet, by all means blacklist that as well. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail blacklisting? You do know that it has been used as a source for years on Misplaced Pages in numerous song articles both GA and FA-class? Why the sudden discrimination against celebrity newspapers? Yes they are bad sources when it comes to facts and politics etc, but as a member of WikiProject Songs they are highly valuable for reviews of music videos and live performances. Honestly, every celebrity newspaper is not 110% unreliable in every aspect and topic of life, deeming every tabloid unreliable in turn is generalisation in my opinion.—CoolMarc 20:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail has been declared unreliable at WP:RSN repeatedly due to continuous fraudulence, so the idea of blacklisting isn't so sudden. I rarely see it in GA's let alone FA's, seems like WP:WAX. The concern is more about "celebrity gossip" than "celebrity newspapers". As for blacklisting..... what I meant was to make it essentially unusable (i.e. page won't save if it's contained). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, thanks for weighing in. I appreciate editors weighing the matters the way that you, Collect and most others have done in this discussion and not stating that these sources should be outright banned from WP:BLPs (unless, of course, it's a source like the National Enquirer); you all have instead stated that a few of them should be avoided, and, in some cases, it may be best to replace the good ones with better sources, especially depending on the circumstance. My main issue with regard to celebrity sources (as shown during the People magazine debates of last year) is removing a WP:Reliable celebrity source, let's say Us Weekly, simply because an editor has deemed it unreliable and/or does not like it, and offering no attempt to replace it; that usually leaves articles in a worse state, not a better state, as far I'm concerned, such as in this case at the Janice Dickinson article. Like I stated in this discussion, I don't agree with editors going around deciding what source is reliable or unreliable; that matter is for WP:Reliable sources to decide or, if the WP:Reliability is not clear, for the Misplaced Pages community to decide at this noticeboard. Therefore, judging by most of the comments in this discussion, I will be restoring the Us Weekly source at the Janice Dickinson article until a so-called better source is found for that material in the interim.

As for the claim that Entertainment Weekly is more reliable than People magazine or Us Weekly, I don't buy that, especially with regard to People magazine. And like Two kinds of pork stated above, "For celebrity issues, the news equivalent of Time. Entertainment Weekly does not come close to being as valuable to celebrity Misplaced Pages biographies as People magazine is. As for The Huffington Post, the New York Post and FOX NEWS, which are not technically celebrity sources, there is no blanket ban or blacklist against using them and they are nowhere close to the unreliability state of the National Enquirer. Their uses is a case-by-case matter. Because of the common claims that FOX NEWS is politically biased, one would of course need to be careful when using that source for political matters.

Coolmarc, the general WP:Consensus in this discussion is that celebrity sources are not necessarily bad. It's the circumstances with which they are used that can be bad. And Coolmarc and XXSNUGGUMSXX, as for "celebrity gossip" vs. "celebrity magazine" (I'm not aware of a "celebrity newspaper"), the point is that all celebrity sources engage in celebrity gossip, including People magazine, but removing a source based on the fact that they do engage in that is not a valid reason for removal. Celebrity sources can be used to source matters that are not devoted to celebrity gossip, such as a celebrity's part in a film role, an exclusive interview the celebrity has done with the source, a celebrity's birth date or the fact that a celebrity has one child; People magazine and Us Weekly are often used for such material, especially People magazine, and I have witnessed no dubiousness when they are used for such matters. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

My issue is that I've noticed that User:XXSNUGGUMSXX edits out any tabloid references on articles and in GA reviews, mentions "remove tabloids". See "Spinning Around", "Diamonds (Rihanna song)", "S&M (song)", "Love the Way You Lie", "Irreplaceable", "4 Minutes (Madonna song)", "Rehab (Rihanna song)" and "Push the Button (Sugababes song)" - all examples of FA-class song articles which use the Daily Mail reasonably as a source. Tabloids are harmless when it comes to reviews. Are all those FA-class song articles Daily Mail sources fraudulent, let alone other tabloids? Is every tabloid source fraudulent? No. Like I said, generalisation not WP:WAX.—CoolMarc 22:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Shall we blacklist National Enquirer? While using People or Us Weekly might not be so bad for giving an age range, they do frequently engage in false gossip (often regarding celeb relationships). I gave a couple examples above, even if you don't feel they are poor support or anything for claims. How is Entertainment Weekly not better for biographies if they have a higher accuracy rate, though, and are more professional in their writing?? Whenever possible, I strongly encourage replacement of People, Us Weekly, New York Post, and others with better sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

CoolMarc, as I said Daily Mail has been repeatedly declared unreliable in previous WP:RSN discussions. It will have to be removed/replaced by better sources, as it is listed under "sources to avoid" in WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You overstate your case -- DM is reliable for many topics, but should not be used for contentious claims about anyone in a BLP. It is generally accurate on many topics outside celebrity gossip, but, frankly, the more titillating the gossip, the less reliable any source becomes. It is due more to the nature of the gossip than to the nature of the publication. Collect (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

XXSNUGGUMSXX, I think that to blacklist the National Enquirer, you are going to have to propose that in a separate section at this noticeboard and/or likely start a WP:RfC about it at this noticeboard. You are also going to have to demonstrate that People magazine and Us Weekly "frequently engage in false gossip (often regarding celeb relationships)" if you want me and many others here at this noticeboard to believe that. If People magazine engaged in that, it would not have been community-approved in that aforementioned big WP:RfC about that source. As for how it is better than Entertainment Weekly for celebrity biographies, not simply biographies, I suggest you read all of the "Yes" comments in the aforementioned big WP:RfC, which make it explicitly clear how valuable People magazine is to celebrity biographies; in short, not only does it have good editorial oversight, it specializes in celebrity information and will often have information that no other source has about a celebrity, often (not always or mostly) because a celebrity trusted People magazine with the material over any other magazine or any newspaper. Celebrities often go to People magazine with their story or for an interview because they trust People magazine. Strongly encouraging replacement of People, Us Weekly, New York Post and other sources with "better sources" is your right; one of my points is that it is no one's right at this site to demand that these sources be replaced. But New York Post? Clearly, it is not on the same trustworthy standing among Misplaced Pages as People and Us Weekly are. And just look at its Misplaced Pages article, the Criticism and Controversies sections. Again, however, it's not technically a celebrity source. Also, I already told you above that I am done debating People magazine with you here in this discussion, considering that it has been so well approved here at this noticeboard, so I certainly am now done debating you on that matter here in this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Collect, there are conversations such as this and this. It has frequently been scrutinized for fraud. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

So Daily Mail are now completely unreliable on every matter as per WP:RSN? As I see User:XXSNUGGUMSXX is now removing them from numerous articles without looking into what each Daily Mail article states, but simply reasoning "Bye bye Daily Mail as per WP:RSN". Is this the same for every tabloid format now? Such as Daily Mirror, Daily Record etc? —CoolMarc 23:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell based on previous WP:RSN discussions and other criticisms of Daily Mail, looks like it isn't a reliable source at all. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

For certain things, no, I would say it's not. The used of the more sensationalistic tabloids should generally be discouraged, as they have a disturbing history of manufacturing stories and controversies. For something innocuous, like a review, I think it would be alright. I personally would never cite one of these rumormongering tabloids as a reliable source under any circumstances, but I recognize some people like to do so. I would discourage them from using such disreputable sources in Good and Featured articles, but I guess there's really no policy-based mandate for that. As far as People and other celebrity magazines go, I'd say that we need to be very careful not to repeat rumors or speculation. I don't like the idea of using celebrity-obsessed tabloids, but Flyer22 has made some compelling arguments that have caused me to soften my stance a bit. I sympathize with XXSNUGGUMSXX's hardline stance on reliable sources, but I think an interview from People would be fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Renowned for Sound, reliable?

I'm not sure as to whether this site Renowned for Sound] is reliable? Can I have some input on this please? —CoolMarc 16:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's got an editor listed. That's always a good sign. From randomly reading a few articles, I'd say the site's grammar and spelling seem to be fairly good, which is also a promising sign. I did a few standard Google searches, and I didn't really turn up much when searching for "according to renowned for sound" or "according to renownedforsound.com". I did turn up this mention, though. So, I would accept it for reviews, but news reporting might be a little contentious. Other sites don't seem to trust it, so I'm not sure we should, either. It does seem edited, however. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! —CoolMarc 20:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Because of how little this web magazine is discussed by other media, I think each article should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Founder Brendon Veevers is not well known as a music critic, despite his years of such work. Certainly the 'facts' presented in interviews count as WP:PRIMARY sources because they are not fact-checked; only information presented neutrally by the writer/editor should be counted as WP:SECONDARY sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like they take payment to feature artists, though that material is restricted to a dedicated "Ones to watch" subsection. But anything in that section should, at the very least, be used with the usual WP:PRIMARY cautions, since it comes from the artist directly. I'd also have to wonder how objective they could be in any subsequent coverage of artists who previously paid to be featured. Siawase (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Academic Questions

Is Academic Questions, a publication of the right-wing think tank National Association of Scholars, a reliable source? Its Misplaced Pages article claims it's peer-reviewed, but I don't see even the journal itself claiming to be peer-reviewed, let alone an independent source confirming it; even if it does make that claim, it comes from an obviously agenda-based source rather than a scholarly or professional organization with a respect and reputation for accuracy, and has been described as an opinion journal rather than a scholarly one.

The WP article in question is Academic bias, where several citations to AQ are being used to claim liberal bias in academia. A similar problem exists with Issues in Law and Medicine, which is harder to find data on but which also appears to come from an opinion-based think tank. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The sources in Academic Questions and Issues in Law and Medicine have been cited in peer review journals. The Huffington Post, The Nation and the Weekly Standard all have their own agendas, and yet are cited as reliable sources in Misplaced Pages. The description given by Rocelese reflects her own bias.--TMD (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The use of the term "Right-wing" is pejorative and not really descriptive of the National Association of Scholars. The admit to be politically conservative but this is no tea party group. That seems to speak to the bias of Roscelese. The real question is that is this a reliable source and regardless of whether it is peer-reviewed or not, there is no evidence that it is a unreliable source. Since Roscelese is making the claim that it is, it seems to me that Roscelese has the responsibility of showing why it is more unreliable than many of the other sources used in Misplaced Pages. CaptainCS (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The last time I checked, HuffPo etc. weren't lobbying groups. Having a bias and still having a basic reputation for accuracy isn't the same thing as existing to promote a particular bias and having no such reputation for accuracy. FYI, we don't operate to the standard of "it's reliable unless you can prove otherwise"; otherwise, every other personal website and blog out there would be considered reliable. Make the case for its reliability, without resorting to personal attacks, strawmen, and other fallacies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Huff post may not do any lobbying but what about A. Huffington herself? She runs the organization behind Huff post. Are you saying that she does no lobbying whatsoever? Is this the standard you want to set up? I am not even sure if National Association of Scholars does any lobbying but we are talking about Academic Questions not the organization behind the journal. Heck, even academic organizations like American Sociological Association do some lobbying from time to time but that does not stop us from using American Sociological Review articles. Sorry but this logic does not hold up unless we are going to apply this lobbying rule to everybody and not simply the journals and organizations you do not seem to like. CaptainCS (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

"What about X?" is not really a very compelling argument. But, no, I don't consider the Huffington Post to be a reliable source, as it reports on Bigfoot sightings, and its other stories are not much different from the Daily Mail. See the above debate on tabloids for further discussion. I don't see what any of that has to do with this journal, however. As far as agendas go, that's essentially a non-issue; biased sources are explicitly allowed. I don't know that it's due to highlight the opinions of this group if the journal is not peer-reviewed, but that can be solved via an RfC. Bickering about each others' biases certainly isn't going to help anything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: lists the journal in question as "peer-reviewed". ditto. And a host of other lists of peer-reviewed journals. Springer is generally considered an RS publisher of such journals. It is not up to us to question what reliable source clearly state - in this case that the journal is, indeed, refereed and peer-reviewed. Collect (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• I do find it intriguing that the journal webpage doesn't contain the assertion that the journal is peer-reviewed. It's also instructive to look at an actual article: this doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that would be the result of peer review. At best, these things are probably best considered equivalent to op-eds -- thus perhaps useful for noting the opinions of the authors, but not for statements of fact. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You are correct in that bickering gets us nowhere. I made the comparison to Huff Post to show how unrealistic the new criteria was. But to provide positive evidence of AQ here are a few links to academic citations of articles written in AQ. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=12779448875812919896&as_sdt=5,44&sciodt=0,44&hl=en, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=10722867667352071428&as_sdt=5,44&sciodt=0,44&hl=en, and http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5036649046675304332&as_sdt=5,44&sciodt=0,44&hl=en. I know from my readings that many of the citations are treated as studies within literature reviews. Whether AQ is officially peer reviewed or not it appears that academics take the work in it seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainCS (talk • contribs)

I've tried to check some of these - the first I found only cited the AQ article to severly criticise it , the second actually was not even citing AQ, but an article by Jürgen Habermas with the same title . That does not give me much faith in the power of these links to support the quality of AQ. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

But whether it's peer reviewed does make a big difference in how *we* can use it. It's obvious to me that their articles are extended opinion pieces. If that's wrong -- if it can be shown that there is in fact a process of peer review -- then we wouldn't to treat it as a source that merely offers people a platform for expressing opinions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and it's definitely being used as though it were a real source and not an op-ed. Check out the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to get Academic Questions disqualified, then you will need to show that it is less reliable than the sources that get cited, such as Huffington Post. If HuffPo is legitimate, how much more so with this one?--TMD (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It always depends on what a source is used for. The HuffPo is ok for attributed opinions and movie reviews, not for science articles. I'd tend to go with Nomoskedasticity to not use AQ for questions of fact, but only for attributed opinion (and then only if the opinion is notable). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There are some opinion pieces in AQ and some research in it. The research has been treated by scholars, as I have shown above, as viable work worthy of attention by scholars. Researchers have tested the results of some of this research in attempts to support or refute this work. I have more confidence in AQ than in Huff Post and some of the other sources used in Misplaced Pages. Unless there is evidence to the contrary we should treat it as a source and each article should be evaluated for whether it is an opinion piece or new research to be treated accordingly. CaptainCS (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

uninvolved views?

So far, the only people responding above (apart from me) are already involved with the article. I'd like to invite other uninvolved views in this section. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here... We can't answer the generic question "Is X a reliable source". There is no such thing as a 100% unreliable source... and no such thing as a 100% reliable source. Reliability depends on the specific context in which the source is being cited. What we can answer is the more specific question: "Is X a reliable source when used in context Y"... so, please reformulate the question to give us that context. Blueboar (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Just in case that's not clear enough, what you need to do is to say, "Here is the exact statement that I want to put in this exact section of this exact article, and here is the exact source (specific article, not just the journal in general) that I want to cite". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm not an involved editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If used (and we do need to know what specific purpose we are talking about to decide the 'if') I agree that it should only be used to state the opinions of specific named authors and not for statements of fact. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It's used for a number of claims of fact, attributed to an author as though a research study. "George Yancey’s research is particularly notable since he finds that academics in a variety of disciplines are open to discriminating against fundamentalists, evangelicals and to a lesser extent Republicans." "However, social conservative academics were found to work in lower status academic institutions relative to their professional achievements. Yancey also argues that the label of Republican or Christian may not be enough to trigger bias but those seen as strongly conservative in their political ideology or religious theology may garner discrimination and prejudice. Furthermore, evidence of academic bias appears to be stronger in the social sciences and humanities than in the natural sciences. Such findings indicate that if academic bias exists then it does so within a given cultural context." "On the other hand, the willingness of academics to discriminate against colleagues indicate little appetite for such discrimination unless the target is religiously or politically conservative." (this last in particular is obvious original synthesis aimed at discrediting a source which talks about bias based on race, sex.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The Telegraph (UK)

Is The Telegraph a reliable newspaper for the statements attributed to the UK science minister in this article? Since I'm from the US, I am not familiar with UK newspapers other than The TImes. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph most certainly is reliable. That and The Guardian are among the most reliable newspapers in the area. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It is considered equal in stature to The Times: . Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Court judgements - Primary or secondary source?

Are court judgements considered primary or secondary sources? Background here. --NeilN 19:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I would re-frame your question slightly to read "is it more consistent with Misplaced Pages's role as a reliable source of encyclopedic knowledge to reference learned, reasoned and independent (by definition) judgments rather than press articles" Justmauritius (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the debate, but if any of the judgments are being used to support claims about living people then public records such as court documents are prohibited per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Betty Logan (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Bingo. Court documents are just about always primary documents, especially for judgments. While the judgement may summarize or quote specific filings / evidence, it ultimately is something produced by the judge(s). They shouldn't even really be used as a source for specific quotes mined from the judgment as it's far too easy to fall into POV quote-mining. We should always be using secondary sources. Ravensfire (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It would have to depend what the judgment is being used for. An opinion summarizing the state of the law should be perfectly fine to use as a source on the state of the law. If we are talking about the facts of a particular case, would an appellate opinion summarizing the findings of the court below be a secondary source relative to the opinion below? bd2412 T 03:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No, those are still primary. We can't use court documents of a judicial opinion by themselves as a source for what "the state of the law" is without including every caveat, nuance, and nod to jurisdiction implied or stated in the ruling. If a Misplaced Pages editor is determining which part of a ruling or judicial opinion is significant, that's original research. Misplaced Pages editors are not reliable sources for interpreting legal documents.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Legal research and writing does not work that way. A case is a primary source for the case itself (we have many articles on specific cases), but to treat an opinion like a primary source for its discussion of a statute explained in the opinion would make no more sense than considering a legal textbook to be a primary source for its discussion of the same statute. In that case, the Misplaced Pages editor is still determining which part of the discussion in the textbook is significant; if that was going to be the test, then Wikipedians would be barred from using any sources at all. Of course, most legal textbooks explain the meaning of the law by merely quoting the language of judicial opinions! bd2412 T 13:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

My 2p on this is that discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls might be helpful in determining if they are or not. I have no opinion either way. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, in a case like that, court documents are primary about the case they present, because they will naturally be generated by the case (otherwise, the argument becomes every legal case could be notable if the court documents were secondary). There may be cases about Case Y that is discussed in the legal findings of Case X to support Case Y's notability as secondary review of Case Y, but those same documents are still primary for Case X. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course, most legal textbooks explain the meaning of the law by merely quoting the language of judicial opinions! Newspapers quote people, that doesn't mean that directly quoting a person without a newspaper wouldn't be quoting a primary source. If something is reviewed in law journals or legal textbooks, then it is being vetted as important by people other than Misplaced Pages editors. Not everything a judge says in an opinion is notable or universally clear as to its technical import to people with no legal background. We don't treat judge's opinions as non-involved, third-party sources for the decisions they make. We don't interpret judgements, we report how others interpret them. We sometimes use primary sources for quotes, but an article shouldn't consist of primary sources, or we would have a Misplaced Pages article for every decision made (as Masem just said). A judge's opinion is a source for what it said, but is not a source by itself for whether it has legal significance.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It may be useful for our purposes to distinguish between trial court opinions and appellate opinions. A trial court is generally examining the facts before it, while the appellate court is examining the decision of the trial court, usually to see whether the trial court made a mistake in its application of the law. It is typically the appellate opinions that are quoted in legal texts and cited as authority by other courts. In arcane areas of law, however, the third-party sources most likely to quote or analyse the opinions even of an appellate court are law blogs, which I would think are less reliable than the courts themselves. I would add, as someone who has recently entered the field of legal journalism after having practiced as an attorney, that mass-market news outlets are notorious for misunderstanding the law as presented in judicial opinions. bd2412 T 17:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

In this instance the court case was used as a citation to provide evidence by example to underpin a point concerning a general "state of the Law" edit. The parties to the case are academic and of no relevance. As was observed, if the edit was concerning the parties then it would be a primary source but where the edit is concerning a general point of law it is simply an example being used to illustrate typical circumstances in which the point of law applies. In this instance it serves to illustrate the general point of an "unfair trial" and not concerning a specific unfair trial. I would re-iterate that in my view, in these circumstances, the pleadings themselves are primary source, the independent, reasoned and analysed judgment of the Court (in this instance five judges)relevant to the general article is highly worthy material to post. I welcome further comment? Justmauritius (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

If you were the one "providing evidence" to support a point, that sounds like original research. Is it the judges who say the circumstances are typical, or is that a point you're trying to make by pointing to a single judgement where a judgement happened a certain way?__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, looking at this, you're attempting to use the existence of a single case to support your own assertion that these cases are significant. The existence of an example is not a reliable source for generalizations or assertions made by an editor. Otherwise, I could include a citation of a few jaywalking cases of completely unknown significance into the Jaywalking article. You need a third-party source that these arrests represent something of significance. (I'm neutral about whether the case is significant, but it's probably more significant to a sub-page about the Commonwealth State of Mauritius than the general principle of law. The judges are making a ruling about a single incident in a single country under a specific law, they are clearly not speaking to how the principle should be interpreted generally.) This is not a reliable source for the content you're trying to insert.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

In this instance the court case was used as a citation to provide evidence by example to underpin a point... – This sounds and awful lot like WP:SYNTHESIS to me. We are not permitted to make claims that are not explicitly made by the source attributed to it. Betty Logan (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Court decisions are always primary sources, whether they summarize the facts or provide opinions on the law. When writing articles about legal opinion, one should use law textbooks or legal reports, and generally only quote the case where secondary sources have found it helpful to do so. TFD (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm with TFD: Anything issued by a court is primary until proven otherwise (and also technically self-published, by the way, although that's not important, since the court is "an expert" on what the court said). If the information is DUE, you will be able to find better sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If a case is printed verbatim (or with minimal editing) in a third-party textbook or collection of selected cases, does that secondary publication count as a secondary source for the case, and the information presented in the case? bd2412 T 18:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that that that would make a difference, it's still primary. Any commmentary that accompanies it, which there would typically be in a case book, would be secondary though. DeCausa (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Quotes are still primary sources. A textbook for example may quote what a madman says, but that does not make his words reliable. Also, frequently there are majority and minority opinions in judgments, or may be reversed on appeal or a new Supreme Court may decide differently. Different states may interpret the same types of laws differently. We can only resolve that by using secondary sources. However judgments could be seen as secondary sources where they outline the history of a law and previous court decisions, although it would be rare that this would be the best source. TFD (talk) 06:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yup - see Obiter dictum. There's a case that gets mentioned in some of the tax protestor articles about a judge ruling the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified, or wanting to put the full quote from the case in the article. Except the case itself was about deploying troops to Iraq and the judge is basically talking to himself. So it's a quote from a ruling in a case, but it's textbook obiter dictum. We need those secondary sources to tell us what's really noteworth in a ruling. Ravensfire (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be a good reason to distinguish as sources trial court decisions (like the one you mention here) from appellate decisions. Appellate court decisions are a further step removed from the introduction of witness testimony and documentary evidence, are produced by a panel of judges rather than a single judge (and are generally internally reviewed by other chambers of the appellate court before being released), and reflect the higher degree of judicial expertise incumbent on appellate judges. bd2412 T 13:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference spamming of alternative internet archives

The spamming of alternative internet archives seems to be a growing problem that is easily overlooked. It certainly took me some time to figure out what was going with articlescache.org. We've two recent reports of similar problems (onreference.com and another with multiple domains) and in the latter I wondered if we should cover this in a guideline or essay. The term "archive" is so common that I'm having trouble finding past discussions... Thoughts? --Ronz (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you worried that these archives might not be honestly representing what they've archived? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm worried that editors are confused by them, rather than immediately deleting them and warning the persons adding them. --Ronz (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Using Yahoo Voices as a source

Hello all,

SOURCE: Woroniecki Family in Times Square

ARTICLE: Michael Peter Woroniecki .

CONTENT:

In November 2010, according to the article Woroniecki Family in Times Square on Associated Content.com, the Woroniecki family ministered in Times Square, New York City, handing out free music CDs and promoting their website ‘ifanyoneisthirsty.com’. The author writes that the thrust of their message “was that Jesus is alive and that we need to actively seek him out”, adding that despite any controversy, the family seemed to him to be genuine in their efforts to “go all over the world and celebrate life and the living Jesus.”

I was recently told by a Wiki contributor, also editing that article, that blogs or self published articles are never to be used as sources, especially in BLPs, unless they are written by the subject of the BLP. And, having read the appropriate Misplaced Pages guidelines, I see that is how they lean. However, I also read that "some sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".

IMHO, this source is reliable for the content it was supporting in that it was being used to simply verify that Woroniecki was in New York in 2010 and the author's take on Woroniecki's family and message after his encounter with them. Since the content is under "Current" and the source is not being used to prove/disprove or verify/dispute any controversial or negative/positive statements, beliefs or suppositions and does not contradict any previous statements or sources or make any other claims about Woroniecki that have not been previously stated and sourced, I believe this is a case in which Yahoo Voices may be used as a source. I think, since this is a BLP, this paragraph is helpful in keeping the article from being outdated and irrelevant.

I would appreciate clarification on this issue from any Misplaced Pages Administrators, especially those experienced in the writing and editing of BLPs.

Thank you!

JesHelpin (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Per our policy on biographies of living persons: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person." Anyone can go to Yahoo Voices (as they could have gone to Associated Content and given their "take on Woroniecki's family and message", whatever their "take" may be. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Yahoo Voices probably falls in with other contributor sites such as About.com which is not regarded as RS. Betty Logan (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_158#Yahoo_Contributor.27s_Network Not a RS in my book. --NeilN 02:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, sometimes I'm unsure when it comes to using About.com as a source on Misplaced Pages, which is why I use it occasionally on Misplaced Pages and only on a case-by-case basis. If you look at past Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources noticeboard discussions about it, you will see that the general reception to it is that it's not a reliable source, except for in the case of some of its experts. For example, in this 2012 discussion, WhatamIdoing stated, "To be more precise, About.com itself is not reliable, but the individual authors fairly often qualify for expert status (see WP:SPS) and are thus reliable sources no matter where they publish. That's why we say that 'source' has three meanings on Misplaced Pages (author, publication, and publisher). Only one of the three needs to be acceptable. In this case, the overall publication (About.com's website) is unreliable, but some of the authors are." And in this 2013 discussion, David Eppstein stated, "Past discussions of about.com have been mixed, and (from my reading) seem to indicate that the result depends strongly on whether there is some other reason for viewing the author of an article there as an expert on the subject (much like WP:SPS). See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Huffington Post, Gawker and About.com, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22#About.com, and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 27#About.com. (I looked these up for a discussion in Talk:Tartine that also involves reliability of an about.com source.)"

So maybe the same can be stated of Yahoo! Voices? I stay away from using Yahoo! Voices as a source on Misplaced Pages, however, and I know that when it was going by the name "Associated Content," it was routinely removed from Misplaced Pages articles as unreliable. And, as indicated by SummerPhD above, Misplaced Pages takes WP:BLPs (biographies of living persons) very seriously. Flyer22 (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback and discussion. But my reason for posting was not to debate Yahoo! Voices as a whole being a RS. I am specifically asking about it being a credible source for the content listed above. I agree that Voices would not and should not be used to find and source medical, scientific, historical or legal issues and content. But Wiki guidelines clearly state that some sources, that might not be acceptable for certain content, are viable for other content WP:RS. Since the material that Voices was being used as a source for is social/religious/location in content and is being used to verify Woroniecki's appearance in New York in 2010, and the author of the Yahoo article is a New York resident, who has contributed for seven years on a wide variety of topics and won numerous Yahoo awards, I believe that it's use conforms to Wiki guidelines. We are not talking about needing an "expert" opinion here, just a reliable, third party, to say that he saw Woroniecki a certain place at a certain time and what Woroniecki was preaching at that time. Looking at the authors bulk of work, views and variety of topics, he is qualified to do that, and only that. It is not "contentious", "libel" or "damaging" to the subject of the BLP WP:BLPs and does serve a purpose in keeping the article current. Yahoo! Voices is no longer a "self-published source" since articles must be submitted for publication and can neither be self-serving advertisements or targeted rants. I have a feeling that, with a media world that is being driven more and more towards all online, freelance publishing, this won't be the last time we have to address Yahoo! Voices and define it's uses. I would appreciate it if any Admins who have written/edited BLPs could weigh in on this. JesHelpin (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to indicate that this author is a "reliable, third party". It is someone with no editorial oversight publishing on a site that does not have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" WP:RS. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yelp for summarized statements of reviews

Can Yelp pages like this one be cited for summarized statements like the following one in the Citi Field article: "Overall, reviews of Citi Field from fans and press have mostly been positive." ? My guess is no, because it's user-generated, and because some users may write negative reviews out of a desire for retribution, other personal reasons, or satire, and negative reviews were observed to have risen 20% in 2013. However, I wanted the community's input. I tried looking through the archives, and it appears that no one had a discussion focused on Yelp in particular. The one discussion that mentioned it was this one, in which an editor, A Quest for Knowledge, pointed out four articles citing Yelp. Of those four, Yelp citations are only found in two of them, and in any event, that's a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one (i.e.: just because there are articles citing it doesn't mean that they're supposed to; it's possible that the editors who did so didn't know about WP:USERG). Thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I would stick to review aggregators that track professional reviews when making statements such as these, but I don't know of any for businesses offhand. As far as I know, Yelp is composed entirely of user-generated content. I personally would not trust anything I found on these sorts of sites. You don't know who is posting these reviews. Could be bitter competitors, could be shills, could even be me. Quoting Yelp would be like quoting user reviews on the IMDB or Amazon.com. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I oppose the use of Yelp in this context. I own a small business and Yelp reviews are really important to my online image. But they are user-submitted and subject to "gaming" by vindictive cranks and unethical competitors. I have seen cases of extreme harassment on Yelp by people reminiscent of some of the trolls and sockpuppets here on Misplaced Pages. But I fear that Yelp management is sometimes slow to act. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured as much. Nightscream (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

RFC of possible interest

Please see Talk:Simon Collins#RfC: Do newspaper sources that are unavailable for free online thereby become unreliable and is the content they are cited to verify, thereby rendered poorly-sourced and/or unverifiable?.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Idolator

I opened a discussion recently regarding the reliability of this website; no consensus was reached, actually. This website I'm mentioning is called Idolator (can be found here) and is published by Spin Media (to which I have mixed considerations, as they publish some decidedly reputable works and sites, such as Spin, AbsolutePunk and PopMatters however they are also the publishers of Under the Gun Review and other Kardashian websites which are considered unreliable). Relatively to the writers—95% of the Idolator articles used in the article Trouble (Natalia Kills album) are written by their associate editor Sam Lansky which also works for Time and MTV while he has also written for New York magazine and The Atlantic. Two of the sources used in my article are from that website as well but written by Mike Wass (who I believe only works at Idolator however I have no problem with his writing style). Idolator is used in a lot of GAs however people tend to remove those sources when trying to make them FAs.

Well, the problem with my article is that it addresses an album which was not recognized by the general music press (I'm talking about websites like MTV, Rolling Stone, etc.); it also had a weak commercial performance. Basically, the only decisively reputable sources that address the album are (aside from Idolator) AllMusic (review), Digital Spy (vaguely, just an interview with Natalia Kills), Billboard (vague coverage as well) and The New Zealand Herald (review as well). In January, I promoted the article to GA-class and my goal is to have it go FA-class, however I would not be able to further promote its class without the Idolator sources as they would remove a lot of valuable information from the article.

I want to reach consensus here and hopefully include it in FAs from now on (depending on the verifiability of the claim it's going to support). Another argument that people usually use to disregard Idolator is the "fact" that it is a blog, when it isn't, it just follows that style. Thank you for reading and please comment. (going to ping some users so we can talk a bit about this) @XXSNUGGUMSXX, WikiRedactor, (CA)Giacobbe, and Livelikemusic: prism 16:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not know much about FA's or GA's, but I would largely consider Idolator a reliable source, as I believe it was already deemed as such in a previous discussion as a project related to music articles. Several musical artists do report to the website, which has proven its reliability in terms of creditability. Therefore, I don't see an issue with it being included as a reliable source. It is highly cited, as well, especially on Google, where it is shown as part of their "News" tab of a match lines up. I would doubt if it didn't have some kind of reliability, it wouldn't be. Also, to Prism, just a word of advice, user's do not own pages, though sandboxes may be another exception, though it isn't encouraged to "own" your sandbox, but Misplaced Pages doesn't seem to be as hard on those as they are actual articles. livelikemusic 16:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: Thank you for your quick comments, however I do not have a "owning pages" mentality whatsoever. The 'my' I wrote on the above text was just misinterpreted. prism 16:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

At first, I didn't have problems with it. However, when I tried to use it in place of Daily Mail for Rihanna's net worth, Tomica reverted me saying Daily Mail was better (which I find absurd since Daily Mail has notoriously been scrutinized for fraud repeatedly). After hearing it was a blog, I began to have my doubts about Idolator. Some of their content seemed like gossip upon first glance. However, a closer look found it wasn't so frivolous. Some of it is quite well written and supported. Perhaps "blog" needs to be taken out of its Misplaced Pages article so it doesn't give a misleading red flag to readers who have never previously known of it. Some of their content is not quite accurate, though they generally provide an understandable basis even when in error. Overall, I no longer have concerns with using it. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you give an example on where has it posted "not quite accurate" content? Thank you! @JennKR, Tomica, and Calvin999: If you guys could give your two cents on this as well it would be very helpful.prism 16:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't remove accurate descriptions of a site from its Misplaced Pages article just so that Misplaced Pages editors won't get the wrong idea about the site. It's time that more Misplaced Pages editors distinguish general blogs from WP:NEWSBLOG ("news blog" covering more than just big-time and/or solely news organizations), and that, per WP:Reliable sources, even initially questionable sources may be reliable depending on the context. Flyer22 (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Most of the inaccuracies pertained to things like celeb gossip (but not Perez Hilton-level gossip), though I'm fuzzy on details. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thankfully they usually stay away from gossip-y posts and rumors, so that won't be a problem for assuring its place as a reliable source. prism 17:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

albumlinernotes.com

Is www.albumlinernotes.com considered a WP:RS? GabeMc 16:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it would be necessary to link to the website itself. If you're looking for a particular booklet or liner notes there, just type them down and when in the Misplaced Pages article, just support the content added with Template:Cite AV album notes. prism 16:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

But, if the website is not a RS, then it should not be used to support any material in any Misplaced Pages article. GabeMc 16:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

But if it just contains scans of album booklets (and after verifiying that they are the real booklets) they can be used. For example I could do what I advised you to do in the last comment by scanning a booklet and uploading its photos to some image-hosting website, like Tinypic. But I wouldn't be using Tinypic, if you understand me... prism 17:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay; I think I see what you mean, but the liner notes that I am trying to source (Pet Sounds 1993 CD version) are not scanned at the website, they have been transcribed, and the website must be a WP:RS in order for me to cite to its transcriptions. GabeMc 17:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha... I've tried to find the booklet on Discogs however there are no scans of it (the 1993 version, both Japanese and American), just a scan of the CD which says where it was remastered. If that helps, though, click this. (Discogs is considered an RS, as it is used on the FA 4 (Beyoncé album). prism 17:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

What? Discogs is certainly not a reliable source. It's user-generated. From their "about us" page: The heart of Discogs is a user-built database of music. More than 191,000 people have contributed some piece of knowledge, to build up a catalog of more than 4,900,000 recordings and 3,300,000 artists. We're far from done and you can contribute too! Discogs also offers the ability to catalog your music collection, wantlist, and share your ratings and reviews. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

So, is it acceptable to cite www.albumlinernotes.com? GabeMc 16:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's just some guy's self-published website. I've got no reason to doubt the website's veracity, but I don't think it would count as reliable. I guess I'd treat it like any other user-generated database: a good place to start research but not a resource that I would cite as a reference. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be a large collection of copyrighted material. Therefore, linking in any way to this site would fall under WP:LINKVIO policy. I would say this cannot be used or linked under any circumstance. Elizium23 (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Fan page considered a reliable source?

If anyone is interested in a discussion about whether a celebrity fan page should be considered a reliable source: Talk:Melissa Joan Hart#Official WP:PRIMARY source. Thanks. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

For some things a fan site might be reliable but it will depend on the age of the site and its reputation possibly noted by others. However, I would almost say with certainty that a fan site of a living celebrity will never be reliable under the limitations/sourcing requirements of WP:BLP. Unless we're talking an interview by that celebrity with that site where the site has clearly shown its editorial control and reliability, anything these types of sites publish are going to fail the higher WP:V requirements and/or will be reported by other more reliable sites. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you'll look at the discussion linked above and, if you think it's appropriate, make your comments there. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Melissa Joan Hart#Official WP:PRIMARY source. An anon IP contends that melissajoanhart.ning.com (a defunct website) was merely a fansite and not official, and therefore not reliable for biographical statements in this BLP. I argue that it was certainly an official website; this is borne out by various evidence such as the site's own assertion as "official" as well as its byline "Created by Melissa Joan Hart" at the bottom of this page which links to her own user profile. She was creator and administrator of the site from its inception until its demise. It is also worth pointing out that the website, and its redirect, www.mellyjhart.com, were both linked from the BLP article for years purporting to be her official website. There has been no rational dispute of this fact for for over four years. It would be nice to settle definitively here. Elizium23 (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The IP editor raises very good points. Anyone can put up a web site and claim to be a celebrity. I've had friends who did that sort of thing. I found a blog post where "Melissa Joan Hart" talks about how you can vote for her on Dancing with the Stars. Throughout the post, she speaks in first person ("I", "me", "my"). That doesn't prove anything, but it does lend some credence to the claim that this is at least supposed to be her official website and not a fan-run site. I don't see any evidence that this is her official web site, but it does claim to be. Eh, it's probably OK for trivial claims consistent with WP:BLPSOURCES. If the IP editor still objects, then either back down or open an RfC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I object. We're talking about a BLP issue. If anything is sacrosanct on Misplaced Pages, it's BLP. Misplaced Pages has run into serious problems with biographies of living people; there are very good reasons the policies are so strict. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is a Tweet from Melissa's verified Twitter account that links to a blog post she made on the Ning.com website. There are also many Tweets from her linking to mellyjhart.com, which was registered as a redirect link to melissajoanhart.ning.com. Elizium23 (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Your first link is a dead link. And we are talking about melissajoanhart.ning.com, not mellyjhart.com. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

My first link is not a dead link. It links to a single Tweet on twitter.com, in which there is embedded a shortened link to ning.it. This link expands to http://melissajoanhart.ning.com/profiles/blogs/summer-premiere-tonight?xg_source=shorten_twitter so clearly Hart has directly Tweeted about the website she owned and operated. Elizium23 (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Click the link. It takes you to the message "404: Not Found". Again, do you make this stuff up as you go along? 75.177.156.78 (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you? The link works perfectly well for me. I assume you are referring to the link within the link. That is, if you click the link, then click to the ning.com site within it you get "404". Yes you do. We all know that. Elizium knows that. That's quite separate from your claim that a "fan site" is being used. She's just stopped using that site now. The link is merely proof that it was indeed her own site when it was up. Paul B (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

What the IP fails to mention is that this was not just a fan-made site, it was an official fan site, that is, it was created, administered and maintained by the subject of the biography, Melissa Joan Hart. Therefore it is a valid WP:SELFPUB and WP:PRIMARY and reliable for the biographical information that is cited in the article. Elizium23 (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

WHOIS lookup on the domain mellyjhart.com (which still to this day redirects to melissajoanhart.ning.com) shows that the domain is registered to one Melissa Wilkerson with an address at Grand Central Station, NYC. Elizium23 (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Uh . . . Melissa Wilkerson??? That's an utterly meaningless comment. And mellyjhart.com is a dead link; do you make this stuff up as you go along? 75.177.156.78 (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The ning.com site is up, but the one for MJH is down. But going through archive.org does show a site that claims to be written by MJH herself. The problem is that given BLP, connecting the message of a verified twitter account to make the claim she made the site is really really really on the cusp - I would completely avoid it still if at all possible. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems much more straightforward than that. Her verified account on twitter repeatedly links to the old website which she refers to as her website. The domain is registered to Melissa Wilkerson (her married name) and her current website links to the old one. I see no grounds for any real doubt about this except some kind of hyper-scepticism without any evidence to support it. All I see from the IP by way of argument is sneering and taunting. Paul B (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

But then this begs the question - why did she take down or let that ning site expire? In terms of BLP, it's a ten-foot pole situation that I would stay far away, that the material that might likely appear that can only be sourced to that website is going to be a BLP problem in the first place. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow you. There may be many reasons why a person takes down a website, or moves to a new one. It doesn't alter the fact that it was her website. There is nothing to suggest that there has been any controversy - or that the website contained something problematic. If it's her website it's her website. If you publish a book, and then move on to a new one it's still your book. Paul B (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I can tell you a likely reason: the ning site was overrun by spammers and scammers. It became too much work for her to maintain in a useful state. Also, she found it much more expedient to use Facebook and Twitter as they were designed to reach many more fans than ever wanted to create an account on a second-rate site like ning. What I can't explain is why she didn't try to lock or freeze the site so that the useful information and media could be preserved. But that is how the cookie crumbles. Elizium23 (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

And here's an even more likely reason: MJH has nothing to do with the ning.com site. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, 75.*, there's enough evidence to suggest she did. However with the site down, it does beg what information is essential for her bio article that has to be taken from there, and thus why I would avoid using anything from that site. A question to be asked is what information is so important from the site that has to be included? --MASEM (t) 18:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment I have several observations:

1. We must not assume websites that claim to be "official" or written in the first person are indeed authored by the claimed person. Celebrities are easy targets and official sites need to be substantiated.
2. The problem with substantiating a site such as http://melissajoanhart.ning.com/ is that because it is hosted on a host platform (ning.com) we are unable to check the domain registration against the WHOIS database.
3. However http://www.mellyjhart.com forwards to the dead site http://melissajoanhart.ning.com/. Mellyjhart.com is registered to a Melissa Wilkerson (Melissa Joan Hart is married to Mark Wilkerson).
4. Elizium is also correct about Melissa Joan Hart (or rather a verified Twitter account) linking to the website in a tweet.
5. The address she links to is http://melissajoanhart.ning.com/profiles/blogs/summer-premiere-tonight
6. The website is no longer in operation, but it can be accessed through the Wayback machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20130604211823/http://melissajoanhart.ning.com/profiles/blogs/summer-premiere-tonight
7. The disputed biography link can also be accessed in much the same way: http://web.archive.org/web/20130604210304/http://melissajoanhart.ning.com/page/biography-2

I would say that odds strongly indicate that the site was hers or was at the least authorized by her. However, I think the IP was correct to question it because it isn't obvious at first look. My suggestion would be to add the twitter link to the citation so it is obvious that the website isn't just a fansite. Betty Logan (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Would someone please confirm that this link at the Twitter page here (allegedly from MJH) is a dead link? It is when I click it. If it isn't a dead link, please tell me what you see. Thanks. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The Twitter link works. The ning.com link is dead to me (and with an error report from ning.com, so it's not ning.com being down, but the MJH pages being removed.) I can see what that page was at archive.org: , but if the information is about when this show premieres, there are better sites to confirm this (eg . --MASEM (t) 20:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we know that. See my message further up the page (timed at 17:28). We all know it's dead. That's one of the premisses of the debate. Hence Elizium's comment in his/her first message in the thread: "She was creator and administrator of the site from its inception until its demise." Paul B (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The Red & Black

Is this University of Georgia (link here) newspaper reliable and/or reputable enough? I want to use an album review from it on an FAC. prism 10:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Henley & Partners

If you have a look at nearly (maybe all) articles about various country passports or visa requirements, for example:

• Visa requirements for Singaporean citizens
• Trinidad and Tobago passport
• Visa requirements for Costa Rican citizens

You will notice that most of them reference the Henley index (which redirects to Freedom of movement.) Upon inspection the Henley index is produced by Henley & Partners, which calls itself the Global Leaders In Residence and Citizenship Planning. Is this the sort of thing that we should be using for a reference? The Henley index doesn't really mean anything (outside of the Henley group), is it something we should be describing as "a thing" in these articles? My opinion is no, and I think it basically equates to spam. Not really sure where this discussion should go, I thought RS/N was a good start as I don't think this residence planning company is really a reliable source.--kelapstick 12:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Is Voice of Russia article reliable for quotations attributed to PM?

Is this article Nuland's cookies as illustration of West's 'policy of non-interference' in Ukraine reliable for the following statement?

In December 2013, Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev criticised her(Nuland's) support for Ukraine's Euromaidan anti-government protests as interference in the affairs of a sovereign state.

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, although since I don't know what article you are talking about, it's harder to say whether the information is relevant. Voice of Russia should be taken with caution as a source, but it is going to be reliable for attributed comments like this. Formerip (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Section blanking at the Victoria Nuland article. This revert claimed that "VoR is not reliable" as part of its basis for removing the aforementioned text.

There are related threads

1. Talk:Victoria_Nuland#BLP_restart
2. Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Victoria_Nuland_and_Robert_Kagan
   --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution