Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 141

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 135←Archive 139Archive 140Archive 141Archive 142Archive 143→Archive 145

Are unreliable sources better than no sources?

I recently saw a series of edits where one editor removed sources because they were unreliable (self-published and user-generated) and a second editor restored them because they were the only sources and so "must remain". Is this really the case? I read WP:RS and can't find anything that says that unreliable sources are better than no sources. Doesn't the acceptance of unreliable sources give the reader the impression that the information is credible, when it may not be? I ask this as a general question, rather than one about a specific article because it's an issue that exists everywhere. 75.2.209.11 (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we've ever had a discussion about that. I'll have to think about this, but here's what I usually do:
  • If the content is good (it's reasonably well-written, meets NPOV, and other content policies, etc.), and I think a reliable source can be found, I'll either find a better source myself or remove the source and add a {{fact}} tag to it.
  • If the content is bad (poorly written, factually inacurate, fails NPOV) or I don't think a reliable source can be found, I'll remove the content.
Another option is to leave the source in and add a {{unreliable source?}} tag to it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Always ask yourself whether the topic is notable. If it is not covered in independent sources, probably not. If the topic is definitely notable but most of the article is not supported by sources, perhaps the article needs to be stubbed down. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
This is all good in an ideal world. In a miriad of cases though, the information is notable and covered in many good sources, but they are not cited... because no one has bothered. Doing it yourself? Well, life is short and all of us have other things to do. Adding proper references to every article I see is lots of work, and don't get me started on things not available online. - BorisG (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
At first glance, a low-quality source (or even a very-low-quality source) seems better than no source. However, low-quality sources often go hand in hand with other problems. For instance, if an editor wants the article to say something which reliable sources don't say, that may be a red flag for problems of neutrality or undue weight. bobrayner (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe - It may depend. I remember one controversy where I was an involved editor (CISPA/SOPA) where the author of the major implementation (BIND) of a critical networking protocol (DNS) said on a blog or in a speech, I forget which, that yes indeed the proposed law would break the internet. Since the world wide web depends on DNS, this is pretty close to getting it straight from the horse's mouth, but an opposing editor would not allow it to go in, because, no indeed, it did not meet reliability guidelines. And yet his idea of a good source was Newsmax, which, slanted as it is, does have editorial review...gah. Just saying.

I do understand the rationale here, that the average person will not necessarily know who the man is, although -- to complain about this just a little more -- a quick google would have remedied this. My point in sharing this example though is that there are good sources which are not necessarily reliable under Wikipedia policy, and in information technology in particular, since this is where I have run into this, certain personal blogs are very good sources indeed. I do not know how to formulate a rule that will differentiate them from the sort of dross that led to the policy, but....if there is no dispute as to accuracy, I think it depends on whether this is a page someone put up three years ago, or that someone is carefully tending on an ongoing basis, in which case it may be worth discussing the reasons for the sourcing.... Elinruby (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Without knowing the details, I'm not sure if that other editor was correct in say that particular source was unreliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Undoubtedly, blogs of known experts and notable people are excellent sources of their opinions. It is absurd to think that an opinion expressed in a newspaper interview is more reliable than expressed in the person's own blog. - BorisG (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
But that is what a literal reading of the policy gets you. This came out of this board, by the way; you can look it up if you want. The expert's name is Paul Vixie. But that's not the issue. I understand the policy and why that happened; the other editor demanded proof that the expert was indeed an expert, and none of it was to his satisfaction. It was a fairly contentious editing process ;) However, my main point is that sometimes Wikipedia's policy's do not foresee all possibilities. If a source that meets RS guidelines is available, it should be used. But I am just noting that I'm aware of cases where very good sources have been dissed because they did not meet the letter of the policy. How about the blog of a reporter who has been covering a story, to give another example. He's not an "expert" on the topic, except that he will have extensively researched it, and perhaps will be able on his own blog to say things he cannot in his stories. Just saying, it's not always that simple. Elinruby (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe that this is that discussion: Daily Caller as source of opinion refuting a technical white paper + secondary sources A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
That is me and the issue I mention above, yes. I thought it was NewsMax but that may have been one of the other times this went to noticeboards. It was also on NPV, afaik more than once. I came into it on a RfC, matter of fact. But yeah. The idea that some dude with a CCNA is on a par with the author of the protocol is ridiculous on the face of it if you know the field, but admittedly this is difficult to determine if you do not. I do not know the answer to this. Elinruby (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Generally no. Anyone can make a website. an editor who wants to publish things in his mind on wikipedia can make homepages under various URLs and refer to himself as a third party. So, in this case its actually worse than unreferenced as it misleadingly lends credibility. Which article and edits is this problem concerning? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that as per the normal guidelines, there is no simple general rule for a question like this. We need to discuss real examples. All the answers above appear to me to be imagining various situations first, before answering. How bad is the bad source? How bad is the rest of the article? etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

that's pretty much my thought. "It depends" is a bit infuriating as guideline when you are the one trying to follow it, but if everyone is working in good faith it gives better results than wikilawyering based on the exact wording of a policy created by human beings not gifted with all-knowing foresight. Elinruby (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
for the example provided, there is no question. the content was challenged - per WP:BURDEN the person wishing to return must support it with a reliable source. the restoring person's assertation that there are no reliable sources is just the final nail in the coffin. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
An informal point here. Have you ever seen a reputed text book or even a good book refer to a blog for a material? Trust me, if I pay $99 for a book and the author says Wikipedia says (or my blog says) cloud computing is ..., I am going to be mightily dissapointed. I mean, the author is not even knowledgable enough to say in his words what such-and-such term means and has to look it up in Wikipedia? Isn't the guy an expert on the subject? Have you ever heard Bill Gates or anyone regarded as an expert on something say don't buy my book, just read my blog!. OK, apart from financial considerations, there are some very good reasons. (1) Authors can rarely negate something from a book they write unless there are major changes. All such changes are supported by extensive reference materials. (2) Books unlike research papers are reviewed (and used) not only by experts but even by laymen and students. The chances of error-correction are much higher. (3) All reputed publishers have limits to how much and what of the original content can be changed over time. Authors can rarely contradict themselves later. (4) Authors have vested interests to keep all volumes updated with latest findings and corrections. Authors and their books have been known to be outdated long before the term became popular in computing. Blogs might stay unattended for a vareity of reasons. (5) Blogs are often used to test an idea before it is published in a formal book... The list is really long, but I hope you get the idea. -Wikishagnik (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you have a very romantic notion of the book production process :) Note that I am not arguing that the policy is wrong, merely that it will need, eventually, to be updated, and sometimes gives bizarre results. As for your question, actually, the online Linux reference is, afaik, considered the definitive reference on the topic. You should check out hadoop.apache.com or php.com, or for that matter Andy Carvin on Twitter, lkml.org, the blogs of glenn greenwald, lawrence lessig, paul vixie or Techdirt. None of these meet RS, but they are all very serious references in their field. But their authority isn't easily demonstrated outside of those fields, and until somebody finds a way to do so its probably worth excluding them to keep out the real trash. But it *is* an issue. Elinruby (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a comment about removing a citation to an unreliable source: if the passage in the Wikipedia article was written based on an unreliable source, and a reliable source can't readily be found, it is important to remove both the passage and the citation, not just the citation, otherwise it is plagiarism. This applies even if the claim is common knowledge and not challenged. In this situation, the passage could be reworded so as not to plagiarize the unreliable source. On the other hand, if the passage was composed independently by a Wikipedia editor and the citation was added later, just the citation could be removed. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Film review by David Gorski at ScienceBasedMedicine.org of Gabriel Cousens documentary Simply Raw

Proposed claim to verify
  • David Gorski of ScienceBasedMedicine.org reviewed the film [Simply Raw] calling it, "Highly effective propaganda."
  • Source: Gorski, David H. (January 17, 2011). "Simply Raw: Making overcooked claims about raw food diets". Science-Based Medicine. Retrieved March 3, 2012.
Involved editors (all notified)
Previous discussion at the article talk page
Arguments for inclusion (add/expand this list)
  • ScienceBasedMedicine's authors are all medically trained and have spent years writing for the public about science
  • Gorski is a recognized medical expert written about in multiple third-party publications, he's credentialed academic faculty, and has been published in multiple peer-reviewed journals
  • The content is relevant to the area of expertise (science and scientific research)
Arguments against inclusion (add/expand this list)
  • Per WP:SPS, the website is self-published
  • Gorski's clinical expertise is in cardiac research not nutrition
  • ScienceBasedMedicine has a "pro-science" bias

Ocaasi t | c 20:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Discusssion

This is quite possibly the most well-presented discussion thread I've ever seen. I can't even tell which side of the issue you fall on, which is to your credit.

The relevant part of the RS policy would be this:

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"

David Gorski probably does have relevant expertise per this policy. In introducing his opinion in the article, you can state explicitly that his background is in cardiology.

Where I have a slight problem is with the chosen excerpt from Gorski's work. The fact that he referred to raw food diet film as "highly effective propaganda" does not tell me anything useful. Since Gorski would be quoted in his capacity as a medical expert, and not as a film critic, I would prefer to know what he has to say about the medical science behind the raw food trend. Overall, it seems that it should be possible to use language that is both less sensational and more informative. TheBlueCanoe 22:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it may not be the best possible choice of quote. The film itself is of incredibly marginal notability having attracted almost no attention from traditional sources or reviewers. I think we should simply mention the film's existence in Cousens' article without any of its scientific claims or rebuttals, delete the films article and be done with it. The whole thing has received so little actual attention that it hardly seems worth mentioning or wasting time discussing. --Daniel(talk) 22:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback here. I agree that there were more relevant statements about the science in the film and I have thus used a different quote. It doesn't resolve the RS question, but perhaps it will lead to consensus nonetheless. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Smithsonian Magazine

An editor has twice removed an article from the Smithsonian magazine claiming that it is wrong -"(His book says that... His book says: "Allegedly there is a book written by somebody stating that... And that is not a reliable source." That link is not a reliable source if it claims sth that was never written in the book. I will find all the citations f)". And "The last days of April 1945. Hitler, Martin Boorman, Eva Braun and core "Nazi" leadership fleeing in Antarctica." If you want to check and have Chrome, it will translate. Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this is at Semir Osmanagić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dougweller (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Let me just check if I'm understanding correctly. The sentence in dispute is this:
"In his book Alternative History he [Osmanagić] proposed that Hitler and other leading Nazis escaped to an underground base in Antarctica.[1]"
The Smithsonian Magazine is certainly a reliable source. But the other editor seems to be arguing that Osmanagić actually does not make this claim about Hitler. If I'm reading his edit summary correctly, the editor is saying that in Osmanagić's book, he notes the existence of such a theory, but actually dismisses it. If that's true--if in his own book Osmanagić rejects the fantastical Hitler theory--then we need to consider that the Smithsonian writer got it wrong. No one is infallible.
I suggest asking the other editor to provide some evidence in support of his position.TheBlueCanoe 22:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Someone may actually have to read the book. According to policy if the Smithsonian statement is wrong, çan't it still be entered as RS. Same as the two birth years for Sondra Locke.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The burden of proof--or, in this case, the burden of reading the book--falls on the editor who wishes to exclude the Smithsonian information. Until compelling countervailing evidence is proffered, the Smithsonian stands as a reliable source. TheBlueCanoe 22:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth: This does not appear to be a reliable source, but it predates the Smithsonian article and supports the statement. Location (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't the quote from Osmangic I gave at the beginning of this thread show that the Smithsonian article is correct? (hm, no sinebot so I'll carry on) And on the article talk page someone has added "Anybody can read Osmanagic's text about Hitler in his book "Od masona do mentalnih projekcija", chapter "Antarktika (8)" ; http://www.alternativnahistorija.com/AH1.htm#8". Dougweller (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Mohammad Ali (actor)

Another editor has made it his business to delete unsourced content from around the project citing WP:CHALLENGE (and ignoring the part where it says, per WP:PRESERVE, that it's better to try to find sources instead of just deleting).

One of the articles that he has recently targeted was Mohammad Ali, where he removed biographical information. In keeping with my ANI assigned responsibility to wikistalk this user, I'm trying to restore the content that he is too lazy to source himself.

Keeping in mind WP:BIAS, this article is likely to be difficult to source. However, I found http://mazhar.dk/film/stars/mohammadali.html to support the biographical information (i.e., family composition, schooling). My question is whether this would be considered a reliable source? Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that there is any editorial oversight for that source. http://mazhar.dk states: "mazhar.dk is an individual effort and an informative website which contains information's on various topics on Pakistan." Location (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sort of hoping that we're willing to look past any requirements for peer-reviewed-by-academics because of WP:BIAS, as I said. But is it enough for noncontentious biographical content? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Mass drive-by "ref improve" tagging

I wasn't really sure where to bring this concern, but since it concerns sources, I thought I'd start here. Klemen Kocjancic has begun systematically tagging articles with the ref improve tag. (See: .) I question whether such mass tagging is really helpful. In addition, some of the tags make no sense. Small town articles are being tagged when, in fact, everything in the articles is templated geographic and demographic information that is fully sourced (e.g., Anson, Wisconsin, Anton, Texas, Antrim Township, Watonwan County, Minnesota, Antreville, South Carolina, etc.)

Can somebody please stop this editor, quickly? 75.0.193.138 (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here. Most of the information in the specific examples you provided does appear to be cited, however, there are a couple things that could use sourced verification. Perhaps {{Citation needed}} would be better in those instances. I also took a look at 8 or 10 of his recent edits and agree that those articles do need more citations and sourcing. If you have specific concerns, you may want to bring it up on his talk page. Location (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Criminal activity attributed to Juggalos

Hi, I was looking at the sources for Criminal activity attributed to Juggalos and noticed that some of these may not be reliable. Can anyone shed some light on this?

In particular, I'd like to know about the reliability of the following sources.

Slideshow. "Crimes of the Juggalos Photo Gallery - What is a Juggalo? - Crime Library". Trutv.com. Retrieved 2012-11-08.

Miller, Jessica (2012-10-08). "'Juggalo Killers' a new breed of gang". Standard.net. Retrieved 2012-11-08.

Gibson, Michael. "10 Most Violent Juggalo Attacks Ever". Ranker.com. Retrieved 2012-11-08. (might not be neutral or reliable)

"Dropping In On The Demented Utopia Of The Gathering Of The Juggalos". Deadspin.com. 2011-08-16. Retrieved 2012-11-08. (might not be a neutral source, in addition to questions of its reliability)

"Juggalos - are they a gang, cult, and/or dangerous?". Realpolice.net. Retrieved 2012-11-08.

http://www.hipsterrunoff.com/altreport/2010/09/horrorcore-rappermurderer-syko-sam-will-rot-behind-bars-4-rest-his-juggalo-life.html

http://gangwar.jigsy.com/entries/general/juggalo-movement-modesto-family-klowns-psychopathic-criminal-klowns-juggalo-rider-bitch-down-2-party-and-nothing-2-lose-2

Also please check the article for neutrality and check the rest of the sources for any that I didn't list here that might not be reliable. BigBabyChips (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Usually if a website has video of one of its subjects captioned "See y'all in hell"...you know what, that's a big clue.
That Standard link looks like it might be the online version of the local Ogden paper -- it's a maybe. Maybe. Subject to verification. The gangwar link looks like it might be a reprint of mainstream news article, but that's a terrible source just based on the domain name, the layout and the overall tone. Go find the Modesto paper; I am pretty sure there is one and I bet that's where the story came from. The rest of these sources are tabloid at best. No point in even checking the article if the sources are this bad. Elinruby (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
agreed, of these, only the Standard is reliable--it's the Ogden newspaper. There are a few other reliable sources in the article, such as abc nightline & Seattle Weekly And there's The sections on the "two notable murder cases" are inappropriate emphasis--we have articles on each of them, and that's where the accounts belong. A sentence mentioning each with the link is sufficient. I've boldly done it. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Snopes.com again

An editor has called into question the wether a snopes.com reference is verifiable as it is used on the The Twelve Days of Christmas (song) article. In essence, the question is its reliability. See Talk:The Twelve Days of Christmas (song)#Snopes. Is it reliable or not? The archives seem to suggest a slight split in opinion on the site. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course not.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Snopes.com is not a reliable source. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.162.163 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree; they are among the most reliable sources on the Web for the things they cover. --Orange Mike | Talk 10:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
It appears (at a first glance) to be one of those sites whose authors don't easily qualify for WP:RS credentials because of the way they work. They prefer to self-publish on the Web and don't actively seek peer review from academics. If our guidelines on identifying RS were different, they probably would be RS; if our guidelines on citations were different, we would cite them in footnotes anyway, because they publish valuable material and discuss it wisely. I don't see it as likely that our guidelines will change. Andrew Dalby 12:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
A reliable source is one that has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Does anyone seriously dispute that snopes.com doesn't have such a reputation? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
It fails RS because it is self-published and does not have a formal editorial policy. This is one of the cases where Wikipedia's definition of "reliable source" does not match everyone else's. For what it is worth, their fact-checking is widely accepted as definitive. But if they have an internal fact-checking process for *their* facts it is not immediately apparent. I have complained elsewhere about some of the perverse results of the policy. However, until somebody can formulate a way to differentiate snopes.com from joeblow.com, the policy is the policy and the purpose of this board is to try to apply the policy. HTH. Elinruby (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
You need to tell us the text it is supposed to support. TFD (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

They largely do a decent job, probably better than many of the newspapers that do qualify, but we are in danger of slippery slope if we allow personal impressions to determine what qualifies. They are self-published, with no formal training in journalism, as far as I know, and no formal editorial process other than self-editing. We accept newspaper and books by experts, not because they are more accurate, they often aren't, but because they have a formal editorial process for fact-checking. (Although, as an aside, many people are under the misguided impression that science books are peer-reviewed. They typically are not.) I think there are a number of blogs with a better track record for accuracy than Snopes, and both are better than the NYT, but I don't think we would start accepting blogs as reliable sources simply because some editor has followed one closely and thinks it has a good track record for accuracy. (I know there are exceptions for blogs written by individuals who have been reporters at RS's, but that's different). Frankly, I would love it if we could find a way to allow Snopes as an RS, as well as some of the more careful blogs, but I don't see an easy, objective way to identify those which qualify and those which do not.

I tend to use Snopes the same way I use Wikipedia - I accept that they are largely correct, have a bit of a political bias, so certain subjects are more questionable than others, and when in doubt, go tot he sources provided. Snopes is doing a much better job over time of including their refs, which tend to be reliable. This also provides an option for someone wishing to cite Snopes—go to the reference they provide, and cite that.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  • At the bottom of the Snopes articles it list its references. Are these references considered reliable sources? It list "The Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes" and other things for references for Twelve Days of Christmas one. I say its a reliable source. Dream Focus 17:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Totally wrong argument above about books being fact-checked. They simply aren't. Publishers publish; they don't fact-check. Take it from me, a published author, or take it from a variety of other published authors whom you may know. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
My wording was inelegant, but I was making the same point you were. Many people understand that scientists who publish in journals have those articles peer-reviewed, and mistakenly assume that if the scientist writes a book, it is even more subject to scrutiny. That is not the case. Publishers do have fact-checking processes, which is why books are accepted, but some are better than others, and in general, they do not do peer-review. Some don't bother with fact checking. I have worked with authors of statistical texts whose work was rigorously checked. I've also worked as a fact checker of a book, again statistical related. It is totally wrong to simply declare "They simply aren't", some are better than others, and you may have worked with one that didn't bother, but some do. However, that is fact-checking, not the same as peer review.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oxford University is in fact known for its detail to fact checking. Wikipedia articles for nursery rhymes already use this book as a reliable source. Dream Focus 22:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Because of their prominence and reputation, I'd be inclined to accept Snopes.com as a reference for this. That's not to say it's the best possible reference, or that it can't be overused. Tom Harrison Talk 20:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
If the snopes articles are listing references, we should be using those references (Assuming they are reliable themselves) , instead of trying to justify scopes as secondary or tertiary. In other words, its fine in researching an article, but not as a source within in. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Why? Sounds like you are just making up a rule instead of following what the policy actually says. DreamGuy (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Not really. Commonly, I've come to sources I know are reliable but they provide references for the claims they make from more reliable sources, so it makes perfect sense to use those. Unless, of course, we're specifically talking about a claim that snopes.com makes about the information, in which case we have to consider if snopes.com has sufficient editorial control that we can consider these claims as reliable. My taken on snopes.com is while they trend towards reliable, it is not that great of one and if the claim is controversial, it is far from reliable for that. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Snopes.com is undeniably a reliable source. It has a tremendous reputation for fact-checking and is well accepted by countless other reliable sources throughout the world. Saying that you should use the sources listed on its page instead of snopes.com itself misses the point, in that those original sources may be where certain facts or claims came from, but the article on snopes.com itself sometimes comes to its own conclusions or introduces its own research. Those articles always have been allowed here as reliable sources, and demanding we use other sources they cite instead can force situations where that other source doesn't back up the part needing a reference here. It's also pretty much the same as demanding that whenever we cite any book that is reliable that also has footnotes or end notes in it to only ever use the sources listed in those footnotes or endnotes instead of the reliable source. It's ridiculous. Now, certainly there are going to be cases where some other source is more appropriate (instead of more reliable) than snopes.com, but trying to claim it's not reliable or only reliable for other sources is simply untrue. DreamGuy (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with DreamGuy here. Snopes is widely accepted as accurate and reliable, and those are the criteria which matter. That they are an exception to the usual publishing methodology I accept as noted, and find it ironic that as we on Wikipedia are also an exception to the usual publishing methodology, we are all the more terrified of accepting anyone else who isn't dead-tree and peer-reviewed. Obviously we must not accept poor sourcing, which almost all such sites are, but blindly following the letter of policy and not being able to see exceptions is wankery. Remember that in all we do, we should be seeking to improve the encyclopedia - not try to ensure we become so rules-bound we forget why we're here. If there are better sources, sure, use them - but eliminating Snopes due to a mindless adherence to rules which are in place to help us identify reliable sources, not in place to help us rule out reliable sources, makes no sense. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 15:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources for alternative theories on the natural-born-citizen clause?

A discussion has arisen at Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause (see here) regarding whether WorldNetDaily (WND) is or is not a reliable source for what are generally held to be fringe theories regarding the true meaning of the US Constitution's requirements for the office of President. The person advocating the use of material from WND is also arguing that the alternative theories in question are in fact legitimate viewpoints from "scholarly legal people or groups", which need to be acknowledged in the article in order to preserve NPOV and "illustrate the existence and extent of the controversy" — and that labelling these theories as fringe, and the sources backing them (most of which appear to me to be blogs) as unreliable, is indicative of an attempt "to try to pick a side and suppress the other side".

I challenged the editor in question to take the issue here, but he appeared reluctant to do so (opining instead that "making an 'effort to open up a wider discussion on one of the above noticeboards' is what administrators are for, we're just editors"). I don't agree with this view, but in an effort to move the discussion along and not allow it to simply stagnate, I'm bringing it here. Hopefully I've characterized the other editor's arguments correctly here; if not, I trust he'll correct me.

Comments welcome — here, and/or at Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause. Thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not a theory is fringe is an issue for Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. There is no prohibition against discussing alternative theories as long as it is not given undue weight relevant to its prominence. Questions regarding whether or not specific sources for those theories can be used is an issue for this noticeboard. Hard to say until we know what they are.
On that point, WorldNetDaily might be a reliable source for a statement about itself or a statement of opinion with attribution, but it is unlikely to be regarded as a reliable source for a statement of fact due to the widely-held perception (true or not) that it publishes from a biased political perspective. As always, context matters. Location (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Three groupings of sources illustrate the problems for this article:
1. Quotes representing “Birther scholars" Being blogs, these are not acceptable sources for showing what is or is not fact; yet, they accurately show why these people believe as they do, what they have said, and what their side of the dispute is. The sources are long legal-thought websites with point after point trying to prove what they have specifically taken to court. They accurately reflect their bias.
2. CRS quotes used in the article itself:“Birther scholar,” Attorney Leo Donofrio, essentially (putting it politely) asks this question of the CRS memo author, Attorney Jack Maskell: Why did he reconstruct a key Supreme Court quotewhen he knew the original did not say what the reconstruction said? And, critical to his thrust, “Maskell never mentions that the father and mother were US citizens at the time of petitioner’s birth in California.” Depending on interpretation, the change affects the credibility of the CRS memo upon which some of the article is obviously patterned (starting with the first quote and stating the view that the Natural-Born-Clause article reflects).
3. WND (which I think is “over-the-top” frequently). Yet, what source hasn’t taken sides (their bias) on the Birther subject? If you believe Israel’s “Birther” and main-science web portal, then The New York Timesand CNBC among many in the national media) launched pure "Alinskys" against Birthers either maliciously or without doing their homework. And if countries are watching the issue, as [http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/ex-communist-nations-expose-obama-fraud/ WND] says they are, then WND has an argument much bigger than “Fringe.” That shouldn’t be too hard to verify on the Internet. Yes, context matters immensely, yet dispute, not Birther fact or fiction, should be the context of the article. See “Fringe or Significant Dispute” on WP:FTN. mintbark 05:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
WND is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. That's been rather clearly hashed out many times before. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a Flounder

The Character from Disney's The Little Mermaid is not a flounder nor a guppy, the character's a yellow and blue colored tropical fish. I looked up other websites for other atlantic tropical fish I couldn't find an actual species for the character (none of the other atlantic fish has the same colors and/or patterns as him. Some of the other fish species (those that has the same colors and/or patterns as the character) only lives in the Indian and Pacific Oceans). That's why I inserted him as a juvenile atlantic blue tang. Although, the Character and the real life juvenile blue tang's fin shapes and body shapes are not similar, but his body shape and fin shapes are more like an Indo-Pacific regal blue tang.


Atlantic blue tang juvenile

Real life juvenile atlantic blue tangs are bright yellow with golden blue rings around their eyes and the edges of their dorsal and anal fins. Their coloration from yellow juvenile, to yellow-tailed blue subadult, and to blue adult is not a size dependent so they could be larger then the blue adults.

Fascinating, but uh...could we get some context here? TheBlueCanoe 05:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe the context is this edit and similar ones in that article's history. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Obviously the only source that matters here is someone from Disney saying what sort of fish they modelled the character on. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Questions about sources at Libertarian Republican

This is in part a BLP issue but I thought I'd bring it here first. I've got doubts about quite a few sources here. Eg:

http://freemontana.com/102_Reasons.pdf for Jerry O'Neil (politician) whose article doesn't say he's libertarian.

Reason.com in general, especially when the article is titled "Libertarian(ish) Candidates" (and again, the subject's article doesn't mention this, see Mia Love.

Ontheissues.org and is [] which says libertarian sufficient to call him libertarian?

GovTrack - maybe, but calls him a centrist, so how can we use it as a source to call him Libertarian? I'm removing the unsourced entries as BLP violations. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The source could be used in an attributed manner stating X says Y about Z, but as these are BLPs, I would ask for multiple reliable sources be given to verify whether X is Y.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

MMA reliability

Hi. i was wondering if mmajunkie is legit for using as a source. I see it has usatoday at the top. I was wondering about sn nation webdsites such as bloodyelbow? I have also had questions about the validity of bleachereport. Any merit to these questions? And I mean as it relates to enough of these type of articles justifying a fighter/events general notability. Thanks. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

mmajunkie

  • Assume to be reliable According to the About page, MMAjunkie.com is owned by USA Today and appears to have editorial oversight. Unless someone has some contradicting evidence, I would assume that this site meets WP:RS, generally speaking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Assume not to be reliable and view on a case by case basis, a website that caries a "Rumors" (sp) section can't be assumed to have a blanket reliable status; then there is the reliance on "sources close" to things such as this or the 1000+ pages a search turns up for that well known journalistic trick to add an air of respectability to a guess. I also know that the OP agrees with me on this as he clearly viewed the website as "garbage" five weeks ago. ✍ Mtking ✉ 19:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Assume to be generally reliable It is owned by USA Today and has an established editorial board. While specific articles may have errors, as with any news publication, the site as a whole appears to be reliable. SilverserenC 00:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Assume not to be reliable - It is at best a fan-press site, and is tightly linked with the covered subject (ie, not an independent source). Ownership by USA Today is irrelevant. News of the World was owned by News Corporation, that didn't add to its reliability either. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • How is it a fan-press site when it has official columnists and an editorial review board? They have a specified staff, it's not a user-written site. It has nothing to do with "fans" at all. SilverserenC 08:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
As with the example of News of the World, the existence of a staff does not indicate an independent reliable source. In this case, USA Today has a sports department and they sometimes use material from MMAJunkie. However, when USA Today publishes such a story they do it under their own masthead, and with additional editorial review. Compare the MMAJunkie headline from today here, which paraphrases the USA Today article here. The USA Today article is in a reliable source, while the MMAJunkie article is based on that article. Yes, the same author is listed. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
USA Today being involved in really only tangential and just serves as an example of an organization that considers it a reliable source of MMA news. But MMAjunkie would be reliable regardless even if separate from USA Today, because it has an in place editorial board to review articles and has a set of specific writers for its articles. SilverserenC 17:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

bloodyelbow

  • Comment I'm unsure of this site. It's owned by SB Nation, a company I've never heard of. There's a fan section which is obviously not reliable. There are news articles, by named authors, but I get the feeling that this is a glorified group/fan blog. I would lean towarns unreliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Not reliable No evidence of editorial oversight, the SB Nation/about page refers to "involvement of SB Nation bloggers" and "network of fan-centric online sports communities." click on the "by line" of a news article and it takes you to a users section of the site. Again I also know that the OP agrees with me on this as he clearly viewed the website as "garbage" five weeks ago. ✍ Mtking ✉ 19:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I've been wrong before. Yes, I do not try to use websites like mmamania and bloodyelbow, unless it is a direct interview with a fighter. Otherwise, the opinions of that site is garbage. With that said, one man's trash is another man's treasure PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Not reliable - Fansite generated by bloggers. Even the partent site refers to BloodyElbow as a user generated blog. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

bleachereport

  • Comment This looks like another group blog. They claim to have a rigorous review process to accept writers but I don't see any evidence of editorial oversight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Not reliable for Bleacher Report as well for its "largely unpaid contributor base publishes", there is an application to become a contributor, but no evidence of editorial oversight. ✍ Mtking ✉ 19:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment While hitting the Sports link on CNN.com today a notice popped up that in February, the sports news on CNN will be provided by BleacherReport and no long from SI. Interesting. Ravensfire (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment This is good. I see more mma coverage in the future. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Not reliable - blog and feed aggregator. When the front page of a site is tweets and responses, that's probably not a great sign. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NONENG vs. WP:USERG

Lately I've noticed a recurring trend in articles relating to Japanese topics. If I try to add something that I read in a Japanese book, journal or the like, sometimes I will be asked to give an English source. I can find English sources that say the same thing as the scholarly/reputably Japanese sources, but most of them are some guy's personal website. I don't think anyone would honestly claim that a piece of information that is backed up by both reliable foreign sources and non-reliable English sources should be deleted, but I was wondering which is better?

I ask this now, because on a move request for the page Rashōmon someone brought up the third source it cites, which is the personal website of some guy who doesn't look Japanese but goes by the name Shōriya Aragōrō. He doesn't look like he is a recognized expert in kabuki theatre, much less in the field in question in the article. The question is whether it would be a good idea to go out and locate a Japanese source to replace this one? It's theoretically possible that a reliable source in English says the same thing, but if so it would be very hard to locate; a Japanese source could likely be located with a simple Google search. If self-published English source says the same thing as a reliable foreign source, would it be better to give both for WP:V's sake, or delete the English one as per WP:RS?

elvenscout742 (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:V doesn't require you to give an unreliable source in English. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:NONENG only says that equivalent English sources are preferable if they exist. If no equivalent English sources exist, WP:NONENG can't be used to disqualify Japanese-language sources. People's private blogs are generally not reliable, so using reliable Japanese sources would be the preferred option. And even if equivalent English sources do exist, WP:NONENG doesn't say that you can never use a Japanese one, it only says English ones are preferred. Having said that, I'd be hesitant to compose entire articles based exclusively on non-English sources. A topic with no reliable English coverage might be seen as failing the notability test as far as English wikipedia is concerned. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually there is nothing in WP:Notability that requires any English sources - in fact it explicitly denies the notion, so the lack of them is not a "threat" to article notability. Roger (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
yep. there is no requirement that the source be *easily* verifiable, only that it *is* verifiable, either by asking for help from a Japanese speaker, or ordering the book, or whatever. Elinruby (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks everyone! Actually, most notable topics in Japanese literature have been discussed extensively in Japanese sources (and possibly Korean, Chinese...), but if they have been covered in English it is only on a couple of pages of Donald Keene's 4,000-page history of Japanese literature or some such text. Although apparently one similar book by Konishi Jin'ichi was translated into English, which raises the question of whether a translation is more reliable than the original, when if one only cites the translation then the choice of particular terminology might be that of the translator rather than the original author. But I'm rambling now... elvenscout742 (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The policy on non-English sources is pretty clear. As long as an English source of equal validity is not available, the non-English source is acceptable under the same policies and guidelines of the rest of the encyclopedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I sometimes am involved with bringing in material in from from the French Wikipedia and asked a number of questions about this at one point. The rationale I was told was that if someone is interested in obscure points of French history and culture, something like the various factions of the French Revolution (for example) they may well be doing graduate work and actually read the language; and in any event a reliable French-language source is vastly better than nothing or than the the more superficial treatment that might be available in English. The sources should however meet the other criteria of RS, of course. Elinruby (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Mecha and Anime Headquarters source reliable?

Im seeing this link --> being used as a source for Gundam articles so my question is, is it a reliable source? I have been trying to clean up the Gundam articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Haven't checked the article, but it appears to be the Mecha and Anime Headquarters, so that at least needs to be fixed. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay and I fixed the heading here as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The part im intrested in is this: it lists the Gundam series and clicking through it (Such as Gundam ZZ --> ) shows detailed information on the show. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Website appears to fall under WP:SPS. I do not see any sub-page on the site, that states who is publishing the content and what (if any) editorial supervision occurs on the website content. Has the source been shown to be a notable expert in the field it is publishing in? If it has not, I do not see this website as a reliable source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
IM not sure on this but thanks for the feedback the source did seem unreliable to me based on what I saw as well, just wanted a 2nd opinion before doiung anything. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

rock on the net

A user is repeatedly attempting to use http://www.rockonthenet.com/ as a source for a past Grammy nominee. Specifically, the user is attempting to use as a source for Lita Ford's alleged Grammy nominations from the 1980s and 90s. I'm not familiar at all with this website but it's reliability seems questionable. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChakaKong (talk • contribs) 19:06, 17 January 2013‎

If Lisa Ford had Grammy noms, there are surely far better sources than that. Not RS. KillerChihuahua 21:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
agreed. These nominations and awards are widely reported in the mainstream press. Elinruby (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)

Is Jorge Erdely Graham a reliable source?

Japanese Movie Database??

Conference presentation as source in article on Ayurveda

Sourcing demand concerning geographical term in a human genetics related article

Can a new religious group be a reliable source for its own trial?

http://www.archivoelectoral.org/

Source only mention the subject article in passing.

Orlando Bosch

Johann Hari

List of award nominations (Kapanlagi.com)

Erowid a reliable source about drugs or not?

Dr. Cat article, is this proof enough of claim

Topix

Gamelan gong gede

www.slowtwitch.com/ and Technical Editor Greg Kopecky

Waldorf education: two sources

Censorship in Islamic societies

SPS on European borders

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Film Fail Awards

Cineuropa

Yukio Mishima bibliography: Number of works

Source for Progressive Utilization Theory

Cannabis deaths?

Kim Jones at About.com on Christian music

Reliable press, outside area of expertise.

Need assistance regarding Contemporary Christian Music article

Compositional information of a song

Philip Ahn

Press+1 a reliable source?

Typepad.com

Medievia

Horrible source?

DNA Tribes, a private genetics company, being used as a source

Facebook used as official website in infobox

Patents as source for invention claims

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI