This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What are the feelings about using the Daily Mirror and the Huffington Post as sources for claiming a death is "unusual", as was done in this edit to List of unusual deaths?

Daily Mirror link: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/woman-having-sex-railway-tracks-2323644

Huffington Post link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/train-tracks-sex-run-over-ukraine-_n_4017485.html

—Kww(talk) 21:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The Dailly Mirror is a screaming healine tabloid whose bread and butter is sensationalizing content. They are not a reliable source for much of anything.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The Huffington Post passes as a WP:Reliable source, and is generally accepted on Wikipedia as one, but all WP:Reliable sources have their limit. Whether or not the Daily Mirror is a WP:Reliable source, it generally is not accepted on Wikipedia by very experienced Wikipedia editors; it seems that it's tabloid journalism, not simply a newspaper employing tabloid (newspaper format). Flyer22 (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

In any case neither article uses the word "unusual" or any synonym or near synonym, so they are not evidence for the statement. That they are in a section entitled "weird news" is not sufficient to make the claim. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually of the opinion that any column used to collect "weird news" is inherently unreliable for classifying things as unusual, even if it uses a synonym in the text. There's too much of a motivation to classify things that way simply to fill column inches.—Kww(talk) 03:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

More important, I am less willing than I used to be to trust the HP as a RS in all cases: consider the similarity of their article to that in the Mirror. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

while parts of the Huff Post are generally reliable, look at the other headings along with the "Weird News" section under the "Huff Post Live" banner: Dumb Crime, UFO, Conspiracy Theories, World Records, Paranormal, Ghosts editorial snark, "Ghosts" aren't "Paranormal"?, Anatomical Wonders, Zombie Apocalypse.

This is definitely their "Tabloid" pull out section and not the work for which they get Journalism awards. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Huffington Post used to be under community restriction for use in sourcing facts. That has been slowly changing as editors are able to demonstrate that some material from HP is original (not repeated from another source) and was written by a journalist accredited in their field and is a straight forward news story and not a blog or opinion piece. The reason why Huffington Post gets a lot of editors in an uproar is that we did have restrictions on them when they were more purely a blog site. That has changed greatly and discussions on this board have covered that and consensus seems to recognize that HP can be used as RS in some cases. The Daily Mirror is a tabloid publication in the sense that it is generally seen as gossip, sensationalistic and little editorial over site allowing for outlandish claims.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: On October 29th, an IP changed The Huffington Post Wikipedia article to partly state that the newspaper is a tabloid; I changed it back to "blog" earlier this hour. Flyer22 (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't seem to find a clear consensus for AMG as a source for biographical info. (The specific article is Perri "Pebbles" Reid.)

It is obviously widely used on Wikipedia, not that that means much. More telling, IMO is that AMG is used by the New York Times. Thoughts? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The metadata looks like it is in part user-submitted. I would not trust the metadata. The biographies and reviews are all licensed from Rovi, and neither All Media Guide nor Rovi seem to accept user submissions in this area, though they do seem to accept corrections. The corrections are requested to have a citation, but it is not required. Who knows what that means in terms of reliability. I try to avoid using Rovi/AMG as a source, but the reviews and biographies seem to be the most reliable aspect of the site. If you simply must use Rovi/AMG, I guess that's the part to use. If you do a web search, you can see that the author of this bio, Greg Prato, is a veteran music journalist, and he's published several books. I'd say that anything he says is fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Its reliability may not be the real issue anyway, since I've seen many reliable sources misreport ages, simply because often lie about how old they really are. This was an issue at Audrey Tautou for years until it was settled by Tautou herself just last month, but you can see how it was handled until then. Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Verifiability is the issue: Did the material come from a reliable source. As a result, this it the "Reliable sources noticeboard" not the "Is it correct noticeboard". - SummerPhD (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Even if Allmovie is deemed "reliable" for her age, it doesn't get to trump other reliable sources in this regard. This book by a music historian states she was born in 1965, while another music writer states she was born in 1964. The magazine article posted on the talk page clearly contradicts the 1966 date too. While all three may meet the basic RS criteria (professionally published with editorial oversight) only one of them is correct in regards to her age, so it's basic common sense here to include either all the sourcable dates or none of them. Betty Logan (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The biographies and reviews are reliable sources - several of their writers are well established and respected music writers. The chart information (listed under 'Awards') is also reliable - taken from Billboard. The lists of genres are often pretty meaningless and shouldn't be trusted, not sure about dates of birth - most I've checked against other sources seem pretty good. --Michig (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I have listed a policy proposal pertaining to dealing with_Lack_of_references_and_citations_through_Edit_filters at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy).Please do join in to give your valued openions.

Mahitgar (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue is whether Demos (U.S. think tank) in a "Policy Shop" blog entry by Matt Bruenig in can be used to criticize Hans-Hermann Hoppe for "comparing LGBTQ people to pedophiles" - and any other purpose - in this article: "Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Libertarian Extraordinaire". (Note "discussion" section included to prevent unnecessary discussion in other two sections.) User:Carolmooredc talk 17:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

• No, it is a BLP violation. I have removed it. The guy is not a member of the Demos staff, so this is obviously just as blog post. I see no statement on the site which says they retain editorial control over the blogs either. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• Strong claims require strong sources, and that raises doubts about this one. I can understand the rationale that if HHH said these things we could cite him as a primary source about his own opinions, but that is not what we are doing as I understand it? Any chance that supporters of this material can find it in a better source?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Involved editors

Originating editor writes:

• Demos (U.S. think tank) does not indicate that its blog is edited, so this may well be self-published. Matt Bruenig is not listed as part of the staff, board, fellows, or experts at Demos; a Huffington Post article describes him as a college student. His webpage states he has written for a few publications but lists no academic or other evidence of expertise. Bruenig obviously is first and foremost an advocacy opinion piece writer.
• When I added Hoppe's quote at this diff (starting with "Hoppe had written"), it became clear that Hoppe listed a lot of different types of people he didn't like, both were on the list, and Hoppe made no one on one comparison. This is just Bruenig's highly POV opinion writing not journalism trying to be accurate.
• User Steeletrap removed a verify credibility tag at this diff falsely claiming there was no ongoing discussion and MilesMoney reverted deletion of the section on BLP grounds saying there was not a BLP issue -- even though four out of six editors discussing Bruenig in this section were opposed to using him for criticism in a BLP.
• FYI, another use of Bruenig in the article is as a secondary source to point out what Hoppe said on free speech, which also is quoted. But I'd rather see a primary source used than let in a nonRS secondary source which before long will inevitably be used for critical purposes, against WP:BLP.

As regular readers of this board know, editors have to keep bringing examples of poorly sourced critical material in Austrian economics BLPs and other articles here to get community comments one at a time, time after time. At what point do community sanctions on Austrian economics kick in? Very frustrating. User:Carolmooredc talk 17:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, I do not think it is a good idea to split discussion into two sections based on whether an editor is previously involved or not.
  Regarding the Bruenig bit, I am in favor of keeping him for his uncontroversial affirmation of free speech not being allowed in Hoppe's vision of covenant communities (as described clearly in Hoppe's book), but I am not in favor of giving Bruenig voice in the controversial bit about pedophiles and gays. Bruenig is not significant enough for controversial opinions of his to be quoted prominently. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• @Binksternet. Indeed such delineations are not good ideas. I've become fed up of trying to understand and discourage this and other idiosyncracies deployed by the various combatants (for that is what they are). Much more of this sort of thing, which extends the "them" and "us" mentality, & I'll be proposing that all who are presently involved are topic banned: the disruption ins tiresome and ridiculous. Then we'll all get some peace. - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Given that people tend to ignore the rules anyway, I'd a agree. User:Carolmooredc talk 02:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Question for OP. Trying to follow your rationale for excluding this source. How is Demos different than the Mises Institute (other than the many women working at Demos?) They both seem to be research and policy advocacy organizations. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Mises blogs are written by academics and experts and I haven't seen the Troika of Mises critics coming down on any of them. Did I forget something? Do you have any example? I know I objected to the use of a LewRockwell.com blog entry that Steeletrap and MilesMoney supported the use of, but I fixed the OR problem, so now it's just and irrelevance problem. (And there are far bigger POV issues on Rothbard hit piece article anyway.) User:Carolmooredc talk 18:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Jeffrey Tucker is one of the most prolific contributor to Mises.org. Is he an academic? His only editorial experience appears to have been with the Ron Paul Newsletters (though admittedly this is only alleged). Steeletrap (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I see it as a POV issue rather than rs. What degree of expertise does Bruenig have? To what extent has he influenced mainstream views of libertarianism? How often are his works cited in political science textbooks? I would say that his article does not meet the grade for inclusion. TFD (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this and the previous RS posting were weight/pov issues rather than RS issues. However to your other points -- Hoppe is to my knowledge not discussed by any mainstream political theorists or economists, either in textbooks or elsewhere. Therefore it would not be surprising that a journalist or other investigator would have done the best, most thorough, and neutral research on HHHH. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Blogs that lack editorial control are not reliable except for comments made by the author about the author. Blog entries that relate to living people need to meet a higher standard than other such entries. This is a blog entry about a living person, written by someone who seems neither to represent Demos nor to have been subject to editorial oversight and, as such, should not be used. If Hoppe is not discussed by mainstream political theorists or economists then we have nothing to say, period, because we cannot give more weight to the fringe than to the mainstream. It might be an indication that the entire issue is not notable. - Sitush (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The topic is worth mentioning since his exposition is a rather insensitive and inaccurate way of describing a libertarian principle which WP:RS have commented upon. However, it only deserves a paragraph. Instead it's been blown way out of proportion as a WP:Coatrack. But I'll say no more :-) User:Carolmooredc talk 02:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It was never a BLP issue because Bruenig referred directly to HHH's own words, which were indeed summarized accurately. If I were to say that neither French people nor child molesters were allowed in my restaurant, I would be grouping the two categories together as if they were somehow equivalent. HHH does this with homosexuals and child molesters. In short, there can be no defamation because the claims are true: HHH really did say this stuff.

As for Bruenig, the technical term for his occupation is "journalist". He's as reliable a source as the equivalent from the institute-whose-name-I-cannot-speak. MilesMoney (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, instead of taking the view that readers are unintelligent people and our role is to steer them away from evil, think of social scientists, police officers, psychiatrists or political strategists who have come to this article because they have come across the name. They do not need guidance in order to steer them away from wrong decisions, but need facts in order to make rational decisions. TFD (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Miles, how do we know that he accurately summarised what Hoppe said and meant? Your analogy seems to be drawing a conclusion that is not said - it is an opinion. If you think that journalists are inherently reliable then you've got a lot to learn. And if he *is* a journalist then why doesn't he publish this in a mainstream news media outlet? TFD, if social scientists etc come to Wikipedia as an authoritative source then they're in the wrong job. We don't even have the confidence cite ourselves, and rightly so. - Sitush (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

They do not come to it as an authoritative source. However, if someone doing research comes across the name in passing, this article is probably the only source that assembles biographical detail, and the first Google hit. In fact the other sources on the first page of Google hits (other than wikiquotes) are all sourced to him or the LvMI. Anyone reading this article would think that his major significance to people who read his books is a libertarian justification for the exclusion of LGBT people from society. Of course researchers are aware that many if not most Wikipedia articles about political topics are misleading or biased. But that does not justify their being so. TFD (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, TFD. If only one could get more of a response at BLP about these heavily biased articles. However, in the past on other articles, I've had admins come in and take out a lot of WP:UNDUE negative, advocacy-sourced material and a few weeks later POV editors who put similar material in a number of articles put it right back in again. So it's a very frustrating failing of Wikipedia trying to get sanctions for editors who continually abuse BLPs. At least this board usually will remove non-WP:RS material and support RS material falsely claimed to be non-WP:RS. User:Carolmooredc talk 04:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

@TFD -- I don't think the article says anything about who reads 4H's books or who those people might be. However his most prominent notability in the public eye today (and perhaps in histories written 50 years hence) is that he's the guy who said all that LGBT stuff. That stuff was in the national news, whereas very very very few folks know or care about his libertarian principles or his PFS. SPECIFICO talk 04:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

When LGBT-advocating editors are busy dumping poorly sourced, POV, WP:UNDUE material in there requiring hours and hours of discussion on talk pages as they defend it with questionable arguments, necessitating multiple visits to noticeboards, etc., other editors can become too burned out to even look for other evidence of notability. And even if it later note:his professorial comments defended by the ACLU is the most notable (newspaper wise) fact about him, it's (later note: 7 paragaph long section) still way too much material and totally WP:UNDUE. User:Carolmooredc talk 04:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You still have to establish the weight that your sources have. How many other writers for example have cited Bruenig's opinion? TFD (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

What the heck is NSNBC International? It's apparently a domain from Montenegro. I have discovered it is used four times at Wikipedia as a source, but am unfamiliar with it. It's confusingly close to MSNBC. I can't find an article here: NSNBC International or NSNBC. Is this a RS, or is it a copycat fringe website? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You can take a look at their about page here. Seems like a new news publishing operation (Feb 2013). I don't see any support for RS in the form of mention in other RS, notable editorial board members etc. The editorial policy is vague and seems more a political statement than anything else. For each use I would suggest checking the author, other RS mention etc. My basic impression is not RS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I was just doing some research for a speech I'll be giving on "The Vaccine Controversy" (which doesn't even exist within science and medicine), but which is kept alive in fringe circles, and I ran across an extremely unreliable and deceptive article on NSNBC. There, at the bottom of the page, was this description of NSNBC:

• "In March 2013, nsnbc ínternational was started as a daily, independent, international on-line newspaper to provide high quality news, analysis and opinion from contributors throughout the world. nsnbc has a number of high profile contributors, and has a partnership with a number of other independent media, to guaranty you the best possible coverage. nsnbc is in a permanent mode of expansion to break, what we perceive as corporate and government controlled misinformation of peoples´world wide. Starting from a personal blog in 2011, it developed into a daily newspaper in 2013, and during 2014 - 16 we plan to have independent contributors in, and cover most countries. nsnbc is free to read and basic subscriptions are free of charge, but we appreciate donations. We also offer you to become an nsnbc insider by signing up for special, paid subscriptions, which offer you additional services, and access to an informed community." (Source)

The author first published this trash in fringe publications 2 3, so it's secondary BS, which doesn't increase its accuracy. I think we should be extremely cautious about using this source. - Brangifer (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the topic, but I'm not sure how fair you're being to the author; a cursory glance at the piece suggests he seems to be relying on other sources, and some of the sources look worth following up. Podiaebba (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The Contributors list has some notable names, like F. William Engdahl and Michel Chossudovsky. Its editor-in-chief is Christof Lehmann, who isn't, and doesn't have any journalistic background or publishing pedigree etc that I can see. In addition, nsnbc shares 50% of its ad revenue with contributors. In short, nsnbc is similar to something like globalresearch.ca - any judgement of reliability is based entirely on the author attached to the piece (like a self-published blog), with the publication adding nothing to it. Podiaebba (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the comment immediately preceding. As for being fair to the author of the specific articles. If his work is published only in non notable places that have no standing as RS, what is the author's standing as an expert or as a journalist? A well sourced article in a non RS publication (like say WP) is not a reliable source for WP content. Regarding it being secondary, the same author publishing the same (or essentially the same) material in three different places does not make it secondary. A secondary source would be someone else commenting on or citing this material in a separate work (like if an article appeared in a newspaper about Samuel's claims). - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct. He seems to be the only source for this conspiracy theory/accusation. No RS report it. Unfortunately Gates, being a public person, can't sue for libel and have any chance of success, at least in the USA. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

He seems to be the only source for this conspiracy theory/accusation. - well yes and no. The excess NPFAFP in India analysis clearly comes from here. I can't see a source for the Gates Foundation funding OPV (oral polio vaccine), but have the impression OPV is the standard used in India and the Foundation funds the programme. One point worth making is that the headline is misleading - it refers to "paralysis death" rather than "paralysis and death", as appears to have been the author's intention originally (look at the URL of the original story 4, and note the misleading removal of "and" doesn't appear in the body text). Podiaebba (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Connections to folk like Egdahl and Chossudovsky can only increase concerns that this source has inherent problems with neutrality and accuracy. bobrayner (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Back in August of this year, concern was expressed that Mark Regnerus is a questionable source to use for sourcing sexuality material, especially with regard to adolescents; see Talk:Hookup culture/Archive 2#More POV articles from same author, where NorthBySouthBaranof explained removing sexual material because "the text expressed a negative POV with regards to sexual behavior and it was heavily reliant (in some cases, basically completely reliant) on the questionable work of Mark Regnerus, whose studies involving same-sex parents have been entirely discredited." Other editors have followed in this regard, Meteor sandwich yum at the Adolescent sexuality in the United States article and Saltybone at various articles (for Saltybone, so far November 13 regular time or Wikipedia time, and November 14 in Wikipedia time); see Saltybone's contributions. Saltybone has even been removing Regnerus from situations that provide WP:INTEXT attribution to Regnerus.

In the discussion about Regnerus at the Adolescent sexuality in the United States article, Student7 stated, "It doesn't seem to me that Regnerus has been proven non-WP:RS. Rather the reverse. See Witherspoon_Institute#Regnerus_Study. This subsection contains pointed criticism of the author, but defense, as well. The criticism seems to be mostly directed at his SSM parenting and not his other research. But even there, many sociologists/psychologists support him. Erasing Regnerus instead of offering an 'answer' to his research denotes WP:BIAS if he is WP:RS, which I believe he is. If we erased all citations where the author held an strong opinion, we would be mostly unable to conduct citation in Wikipedia. Gone would be the NY Times, The Washington Post, CBSNBC, and most of the media, and many think tanks, as well. For the record, teenaged births have reached a record high. Sure, birth control. Right. Anyway, these children of teens are most likely to be 'in trouble' with the law later on and to have 'diminished careers.' Right now, it is a national blight, and thwarts all efforts to conduct a War on Poverty or improvements in outcomes with education."

I brought this matter here to this noticeboard because this clearly needs to be significantly discussed among the wider Wikipedia community. It is important to remind editors of WP:NOTADVOCATE; do read the Wikipedia:Advocacy essay. While I understand the reaction to exclude Regnerus from matters concerning LGBT topics because of his LGBT research, there is nothing that gives us the right to remove him from Wikipedia entirely. In some cases, Regnerus is reporting what many or the vast majority of sources report (and I'm not talking about his LGBT research). And like I also often state, WP:Neutral is not about giving equal validity to matters. The WP:Due weight aspect of WP:Neutral makes clear (when scrolling down to the Balancing aspects and Giving "equal validity" subsections), there should not be an attempt to give "equal validity" to things that are not on equal footing with regard to coverage among sources.

Other editors involved in, or related to, this Regnerus matter are Illuminato, Maunus, NinjaRobotPirate, AndyTheGrump, Jaytwist, EBY3221, NatGertler, Zad68, IPs noted at the end of the Talk:Hookup culture#History section discussion, and mostly recently...Dmol (seen reverting Saltybone here; Saltybone's reply is here). Flyer22 (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll quote what I already stated, I saw news reports questioning this researchers methods and the more of his uses on Wikipedia I saw - the more suspicious I became. I've seen now two articles that entirely hinge on his studies. Doesn't that seem odd? Doesn't that go against having a neutral point of view? That one questionable researcher's study from 5-6 years ago is the basis for at least two full articles? I hope to be proven wrong but it doesn't seem likely.

At least for the two articles (Pornography and adolescents, and Sexual behavior of American adolescents) that solely rely on this researcher I think Wikipedia should be careful of being his mouthpiece, or whatever is being promoted.Saltybone (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Saltybone; there seems a concerted effort to create and rewrite human sexuality articles with a highly biased, reactionary viewpoint, and I think it's veering into WP:PROFRINGE territory. I've essentially given up on editing sexuality articles, as my interest in the topic is simply not matched by my toleration for drama, but I find this trend troubling. I don't know about Regnerus citations being purged from articles without discussion, but I believe that Regnerus could be considered WP:FRINGE. Google News results claim Regnerus and his research to be "discredited", "debunked", and "infamous", among other negative descriptions. Granted, some of these results come from advocacy sites, but this is not what I'd expect to find from a reliable source. At best, discretion and care should be used in citing him and his work. Obviously, biased sources are allowed; it's explicitly stated in WP:BIASED. However, Regnerus' reputation for controversial, non-mainstream opinions and poor scholarship may be too strong to allow him to be used on anything but trivial statements of opinion and non-controversial statements of fact (as determined by consensus on the appropriate talk page). If Regnerus is reporting mainstream opinion, then it should be easy to source such statements to a more reliable source. I would discourage the use of Regnerus as a reliable source, but much of the problem is actually WP:NPOV violations and thus more appropriate to that noticeboard. I have no problem with articles being purged of citations to Regnerus, but I think we should probably discuss it here first and determine consensus on this matter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

As someone very familiar with Wikipedia human sexuality articles (as many at this site know), I have not seen a "concerted effort to create and rewrite human sexuality articles with a highly biased, reactionary viewpoint," unless of course referring to Illuminato; Illuminato, for example and as you know, heavily cited Regnerus in a few articles (including "Pornography and adolescents" and "Sexual behavior of American adolescents," two articles he or she created) -- all about adolescent sexual behavior in the United States. Regnerus was already used in several human sexuality articles, but without much emphasis, as partly shown by Saltybone's aforementioned recent edit history. Flyer22 (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'd rather not get into that whole discussion here, as it's off-topic and everyone involved has already had their say multiple times, across several article talk pages, RfCs, and deletion discussions. I shouldn't have even mentioned anything. In fact, I think it would be best if I just struck it out and we all just ignore that bit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

On a side note: I usually don't consider advocacy sites with regard to Wikipedia content, per the Wikipedia policy and essay I cited above. Many advocacy sites disagree with what researchers state, including advocacy sites with regard to what mainstream research states. Nothing new there. Like Saltybone, I also edit LGBT topics...as also seen by my participation at WP:LGBT. But I never let the fact that I disagree with how the mainstream is in some respects with regard to LGBT topics get in the way of my editing Wikipedia neutrally. I don't go around trying to give "equal validity" to LGBT matters; this would be against policy anyway, as pointed out above. I accept the mainstream on Wikipedia because that is what we are supposed to do, per WP:Due weight. And for a LGBT editor to go around removing Regnerus from any and every Wikipedia article, that can certainly be considered as having a biased opinion of/advocate reaction to that source. Flyer22 (talk) 08:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, you want opinions on whether works by Mark Regnerus are reliable sources in Wikipedia? Well, for a start, any study that has been condemned by the American Sociological Association is fringe social science. Not reliable for fact, and probably not worth mentioning as opinion either. Most definitely not good as a main or exclusive source for an article. Having said that, Regnerus is still a practising academic. Any studies he has had published in peer-reviewed journals, and that have not received the opprobrium of the academic community, may be reliable, but we will decide on a case-by-case basis. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Studies in respected peer-reviewed publications are generally credible. In creating encyclopedic articles, such studies should be viewed in the context of the general research conducted on the given topic and weighed appropriately. Certain POV-pushing editors have a tendency to selectively choose research that supports their POV and omit research that conflicts with it. This should not be taken as indicative of the validity of the research, but rather as indicative of a particular editor's attitudes.Jaytwist (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The book Rick Maxwell, St Peter's College, Auckland, Simerlocy Press, Auckland, 2008 is being used in multiple BLPs. uses of book. The author Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (the editor who has inserted all uses of the book self identifies as the same name) does not appear to be recognised as an expert. The publisher Simerlocy Press, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL is not an established or well known publisher. I am of the opinion that this is not a reliable source. Before I remove all uses of it I'd like a second opinion. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any sign that this "press" has ever published anything but this single book. It's not utterly clear that the publisher or the book even exists, given that every reference I can see traces back here. Mangoe (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Can the work of amateurs and volunteers ever be considered reliable sources? Well, Benjamin Franklin, for instance, is recognized as a serious scientist, even though he never heald a teaching post. Amateur astronmoer David Levy was a respected colleague of the Shoemakers, as acknowledged by his sharing credit for the discovery of Comet Shoemaker-Levy.

When I worked on the BLP of an individual who was a prominent bird-watcher, it seemed to me bird-watching was a serious field of study, where all the RS were drafted by amateurs and volunteers.

Well, it seems to me that the information maintained by the boatnerd organization, is reliable. Boatnerd tracks the vessels that traverse the Great Lakes and the St Lawrence Seaway. It provides a fairly extensive profile of every active lake freighter, an extensive collection of vessels that formerly traversed the Great Lakes, aswellas significant non freighters, lie the USCG Mackinaw

A 2008 profile of the organization by the Toronto Globe and Mail reported that the site had 20 million visitors a month (in 2008). The article quoted one of the volunteers over how professional mariners monitored their site:

The boat nerds are fully aware that some will scoff at this level of obsession. "Most of the professional mariners, they all make fun of us," says Mr. Wobser. "But I guarantee you they read (Boatnerd.com) every damn day. I know because any time we get something wrong they're on our ass correcting us right away. The Coast Guard, especially, they watch us like hawks."

The reason I am asking is that another contributor has nominated an article I started for deletion, implying the boatnerd site I referenced was not a reliable source.

I'd like to add that there seem to be fields where there are no controversies. Great Lakes Maritime Commerce seems to be one of those. There are no warring factions, with warring POV we had to balance. Geo Swan (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

What's the question? The boatnerd website's reliability should be gauged per reference, not validated or damned across the board.

It kind of looks like you want to know whether the Boatnerd article can be written without getting deleted. At your sandbox, it looks like there is not enough dedicated coverage of the group. You can't write an article without showing more notability. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the original question relates to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saginaw (ship, 1953). Stuartyeates (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that Boatnerd may well be reliable on many points, but contributes little to notability if Boatnerd is explicitly trying to profile every ship.

The White Pages would be a reliable source for people's phone numbers, but that doesn't mean every person in the phonebook is notable. bobrayner (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that the simple availability of a complete listing of a certain class, however reliable, does not confer notability on everything listed. Mangoe (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• While I too agree that the availability of an RS with a list with a list entry for every ship of a certain class would not justify creating stubs about each vessel in that list. I will point out that the boatnerd profiles are far more extensive than a list entry. They include all the specifications, beam, draft, length, tonnage, manufacturer of the powerplant, and its power rating. They include the shipyard where the vessels were built, where they were retrofitted or repaired. They describe the vessel's name was chosen. They describe incidents in the vessel career, including those that were not spectacular. So, they are completely different from a telephone listing. Geo Swan (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Bobrayner, I am interested in replying to your comment on the notability of multi-million dollar vessels, like the Saginaw, that carry something like a bllion dollars worth of cargo over their lifetimes. But Wikipedia talk:Notability or Talk:Saginaw (ship, 1953), or some other fora would be the place for that.

You wrote you recognize "Boatnerd may well be reliable on many points". Does this mean you have specific concerns there are points where boatnerd will not be reliable -- or were you just being cautious? Geo Swan (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Mostly cautious :-) We can't really give sources carte blanche. RS/N focuses on "Is source X reliable for content Y?".

It's the indiscriminate nature of a listing that undermines notability. How can inclusion in list mean that something is notable, if the list strives to include all the things? bobrayner (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

In some areas we have accepted specific, well-regarded amateur (i.e., non-credentialled) sources. US lighthouse articles almost without exception rely on sources which could, at some level or another, be regarded as amateurs, because there is a complete dearth of genuine pros (the USCG articles are in fact all written by volunteers). We have referred to Kraig Anderson's LighthouseFriends site because we can see that he's doing good research, even though it's technically a personal site. That said, I wouldn't use this as justification to write an article about his site. Mangoe (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I'd say boatnerd.com is top-notch, so I'll interpret your comment as an endorsement of the continued use of its information as reliable source references in other articles. Geo Swan (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• I can't speak for the shipping project, and I would defer to them within reason. I'm simply stating that we have precedents for widely acknowledged not-really-pro sites as reliable sources. Again speaking to the lighthouse example, for US lights we generally go by the USCG site in establishing notability, not any external site, acknowleding that the official site has some faults in that wise. Mangoe (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Let me say a discouraging word: Here's the standard: "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per SOURCES and "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." per SPS, both part of V. Amateur sites do not ordinarily satisfy the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" part and are then damned by SPS. They can be redeemed by showing that they have been relied upon by — not "20 million visitors a month" (Google gets far more than that, but is not a RS just because something shows up in a search result) - by sources which are, in fact, RS and which themselves have such a reputation. It is in this manner that they gain such a reputation. Does Boatnerd (or LighthouseFriends) have that reputation? I don't know. What's the evidence that it does? (They can also be redeemed by the "established expert" path, but in my experience that's a much tougher route to follow though on first blush it appears easier.) The fact that amateur sites have been used elsewhere is in no way a "precedent" except for the fact that their use is possible, they may (or may not) have been misused in those other places; see OTHERSTUFF. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think we're really disagreeing. My "precedent" was to establish your "possible", not to imply that there was some support inherited from one case to the other. In the case of LHF there's no controversy that I know of concerning its actual reliability (as opposed to our formal standards), and I gather that this isn't the case for boatnerd.com. Such doubt would be, it seems to me, fatal. Mangoe (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Cool <cyber-five>. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

http://shoebat.com/2013/03/07/the-promotion-of-human-sacrifice-and-cannibalism-in-egypt/

That source would be reliable? It's from Walid Shoebat, containing different sourced information. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Not rs, because he is not an expert. Also, the sources he uses are mostly primary and probably could not be used either, unless their interpretation is supported by secondary sources. TFD (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

No - judging by his article he can't be considered a reliable source even for his own background. Podiaebba (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This is primarily about Hedy_Lamarr and the invention of Spread Spectrum - a claim that has been extended to include it's use in technologies including by not limited to CDMA, Bluetooth, WiFi and others.

I've done a lot of research into the claim that Lamarr created (along with George Antheil) a form of spread spectrum.

• What is not in doubt is that a patent (1941) exists and that Lamarr is credited as being one of the inventors.

• What is in serious doubt is the claim that this patent, in any way, formed a crucial part in the development of advanced signalling. A factor that forms a large section of the Lamarr page and implies that this single development gave us the above.

Prior to Lamarr/Antheil's patent (which made it impossible for enemies to jam control signals to remotely steered torpedoes) the technology had been invented and patented as early as 1903 Frequency-hopping_spread_spectrum#Multiple_inventors although this reference neglects the earliest attempts and the only reason we even know that this patent exists is because it was discovered during a routine prior art search - and Lamarr sued. Yet, even from Wikipedia's own sources, it's pretty clear that neither Lamarr (nor Antheil) had any claim to this technology. That hasn't stopped the PR machine from making a fair attempt at changing history. I should remind the casual reader that discovering/inventing something is not what counts, what counts is who invented it first. Had the military not classified the claim it's likely that a due-diliganace search would have shone light on this decades ago.

As to the reliability of sources surrounding this claim. Except for the patent that we know exists anything else is largely hear-say and based on flimsy evidence from two sources which have spread across the web over the years. Comparing any number of articles that make the claim or some reference to it, the same book or award pops up.

Hedy's Folly ¹ by Richard Rhodes and the 1997 EFF award for innovation spearheaded by David Hughes. Having spoken to Mr Hughes, he appears to be the single source of this claim since he was interviewed by Rhodes for that book. I haven't read it, but I'm assured that it contains a lot about George Antheil and comparatively little about Lamarr. And just for the record, he's damn nice chap. It's also worth mentioning that neither the EFF nor David had access to the information I have available to me today; and that's the difference.

As to those sources: I have been unable to find a single piece of corroborating evidence that cannot be traced back to misreadings or slavish copying of the Lamarr memoirs, Hedy's Folly or the EFF award.

Take a reference (13 as of this writing): http://www.insidegnss.com/node/303 - this states that "Today, Patent No. 2,292,387 is considered the foundational patent for spread spectrum technologies."

Says who (I'll get to that)? The author of this piece, from the grandiose sounding "Gibbons Media & Research LLC" is non other than Eliza Schmidkunz who is co-owner of Gibbons Media and Research LLC. That is, as people are so fond of telling me, original research.

Perhaps Ms. Schmidkunz considers it so - I can't find anything else to back that claim up and it's central to the idea that Lamarr's patent gave us those technologies. The only expert in patents I can find is rather cynical about the whole thing, where he notes "Call me skeptical, but I suspect George Anthiel had other motivations for including Hedy as a co-inventor. ²

Now reference (14) http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jones/cscie129/nu_lectures/lecture7/hedy/lemarr.htm (no citations) but the paper compares well with the facts distributed by David Hughes and expanded by Richard Rhodes in 2011.

Again we come back to David Hughes EFF nomination (and Lamarr's win) as the press release states: "Actress Hedy Lamarr and composer George Antheil are being honored by the EFF this year with a special award for their trail-blazing development of a technology that has become a key component of wireless data systems. In 1942 Lamarr, once named the "most beautiful woman in the world" and Antheil, dubbed "the bad boy of music" patented the concept of "frequency-hopping" that is now the basis for the spread spectrum radio systems used in the products of over 40 companies manufacturing items ranging from cell phones to wireless networking systems."

Yet we know, from earlier patents that the pair DIDN'T invent frequency hopping. The EFF award - and subsequent book - are based on flawed evidence (even if it was the best at the time).

A technique of frequency shifting is described in US Patent 1869659 filed in 1929 and granted in 1932 ³; and there are others. It's a matter for others to decide why this prior art wasn't spotted by the examiner - my guess would be that the world was at war and folks had other things on their mind. But this IS prior art and the EFF Award, which is questionable at best, sets the precedent for everything that came after.

(Physics professor) Tony Rothman's 2003 book "Everything's Relative and Other Fables in Science and Technology" devotes a chapter to this myth - including SIGSALY and other mentions of using frequency switching - with citations to the material. Smidoid (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I found this on google scholar 8 posted on inter-disciplinary.net by Jacquelyn Bent, Theresa Porter, and Helen Gavin. Is it a reliably published source for use on their discussion of the cartoon character Elmyra Duff? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Just looking at the basics of RS, it doesn't look like inter-disciplinary.net (IDnet) has any editorial oversight or peer review (can anyone just post their OR without any review?), I don't see IDnet cited or discussed in other RS. I didn't find any other published work by the three authors elsewhere (any journal or magazine articles or book chapters in the field?) or citations of them by other RS authors nor did I find bio's of the authors giving credentials in the field. I have not yet checked the literary criticism databases so I may just not have found it yet. I don't mean to be hostile in any way just giving my 2 cents as a part of this noticeboard. My impression is this is non published OR by authors who are not experts in the field. If you have anything to show otherwise please post here for consideration, likewise if you have a reason why this source is important to the particular subject. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thats what I thought, but it came up in the google scholar search and I wasnt certain what criteria the scholar search used. Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a non-traditional publishing model where professionals and amateurs work together with no distinction in status, and writers' credentials are not presented. I do not think the model meets Wikipedia rs requirements. However, we can assess each paper on its merits. In this case, two of the authors, Gavin and Porter are psychology professors who collaborated on a book published by Wiley-Blackwell.9 Hence the paper meets WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." In this case they are writing about the psychology of a cartoon character. TFD (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think TFD has a point. Evidence of publication of two of the authors lends credibility to the claim of established expertise in relevant field. I am not sure how established or how expert, are they full professors? Where? Is a single book enough to establish them as experts?

I am also not clear exactly how relevant the field is. I think we are talking literary criticism here not psychology. The field of expertise is clearly human psychology and the subject matter is definitely fiction. I think literary analysis is a clearly defined independent field with it's own publications and experts, how exactly do the authors qualify as experts in the relevant field for the discussion of a cartoon character? - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You can read about Gavin's background here. The article provides psychological profiling of evil cartoon girls, which is within the competence of a forensic psychologist. In fact, Cleckley and other psychologists have analyzed fictional characters - Cleckley wrote about Iago and Edmond in Shakespeare for example.

Looking at Gavin's page, I found the paper in question has been published ⁴⁵

Reflist

I think that qualifies as RS. The listing of publications on Gavin's page do establish her as published on the subject of how women are portrayed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I recently discovered an imdb help page that is similar to Wikipedia's help desk. I found something encouraging. While a lot of the information on imdb is not reliable, I saw someone on that help page advise that before a certain person could be added to the credits, a person working for imdb would need to be shown a screen shot of that person's name in the credits. I should have saved a link to that information, and when I get to another computer where I feel safe going to imdb, I will do that.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't usually need a source for credits; the work itself is a primary source. I use the IMDb to refresh my memory when I can't remember character names or other trivial details, but I prefer to use primary sources (poster, the credits sequence in the film, etc) for credits. When the IMDb credits are listed as certified by a union, that's pretty authoritative; however, once in a while there are discrepancies in minor areas, such as a producer listed as an executive producer (or vice versa). I don't have a problem with people referring to the IMDb when they're filling in an infobox, but they should at least use common sense as a sanity check and have the good sense to defer an editor with a more reliable source; Variety, for example, is a good secondary source. The IMDb is on my personal blacklist, and I usually remove any citation to imdb.com that I find, as it's either redundant (citation for credits) or notoriously unreliable (trivia, biography). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Here, here. Agree with NinjaRobotPirate. I'll interview actors, and they will have no idea why they're listed on IMDb as being in certain movies — particularly upcoming ones, but also extant films. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I tend to take a more blunt approach and don't see IMDB as reliable for sourcing facts. If it is listed on IMDB as a fact, it should be found in a reliable source acceptable to our standards.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I've used imdb many times for credits. If you know of a better place, I'd like to hear it. It may not be anywhere else. Looking for the actual credits is kind of a problem. Unless you have the DVD in your possession or something.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, as was stated the best source for credits is the primary source, not a site that allows anyone to edit any piece of inaccurate information.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't usually put imdb in a footnote. Most of the time it's just a filmography or something and they don't tend to have sources. I know of one time when imdb was the only way I could find when a certain actor first appeared on a show.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the link I was given. I don't guess it proves anything, but it does establish that they go to a lot of trouble, most of the time, to make sure credits are accurate.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The public (and from what I can see) Wikipedia seems to think that a patent is Reliable Source in the context of who did what and when. This is not the case - and I think we should be wary of using them. A patent grants rights to the inventor(s) to exclusively use their invention for gain for a set period. Many (most?) inventors assign their patents to other people/companies - often because they don't have the resources to exploit them. Some points worthy of note:

1. The person(s) named on a patent is not, necessarily the inventor. (I have personal experience of this.)
2. When, as is commonplace, more than one person is named as inventor, there is no way to be sure from that document who made what contribution.
3. Patent offices do not check to see if the invention works or is practical: just to see if something like it has already been "invented" (prior art).

I believe that these three points of patent law which are not well understood outside the field of inventors, are confusing enough to consider them unreliable witness for a Reliable Source.Smidoid (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Smidoid

Patents, in themselves, are "primary sources." That noted, they are reliable for the date of issuance (and, in some cases, of application), and for the wording of the claim made therein. Edison held many patents for which the credit should have belonged to his employees, but you are correct about how "work for hire" goes to the employer's credit -- just as it does for copyright, and awards for books. And Wikipedia accedes to the normal practice of crediting such authors and inventors as listed on the patent or authorship notice. Collect (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Collect except on the last sentence. If there's significant controversy about where the credit should go, Wikipedia would report the controversy using secondary sources, and would not rely on a primary source (such as a patent) on that issue.

But this board discusses specific cases. Is there a specific case to discuss? Andrew Dalby 13:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is how important Hedy Lamarr's frequency hopping patents are and whether they actually contributed to current use of the technology. Mangoe (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Mangoe is correct (I'm sure there will be other examples but this one has entered the public consciousness). Lamarr didn't invent frequency hopping; she won an award from the EFF and everything has snowballed from that. The original source material came from David Hughes who proposed Lamarr and Antheil for it. The confusion arises because of a bit of arcane patent law which we might see as a citation. Lamarr's "discovery" of frequency hopping was preceded by several others and at least one example in an early text book. IF Lamarr should be credited with anything, it's the technology designed to proven the jamming of WWII radio controlled torpedoes; and that's it. While we could argue about the level of her contribution until the sun dies and never get any further. The references to CDMA came from a patent prior art search which cites their patent long after it had expired. But the spread spectrum part of CDMA was invented separately and clean room - if it should cite anything, it should be siting the older patents - as far back as 1903. What appears to add to the confusion is that Lamarr sued - even though the patent had long expired; and was in the public domain.Smidoid (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

Seasons greetings.

To express need of additional citations for verification english wikipedia has got multiple formats of Template:Refimprove, but all of them are box templates to be used for whole section or whole article.But I did not find any inline template simmiler to citation needed ^{citation needed} to fullfill need of inline template asking for additional citation for cross verification.Please let me know if there is one, or if some one can help in generating one would be a welcome step.

Mahitgar (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

How about {{Better source}} or {{Verify credibility}}? There are more in Category:Inline citation and verifiability dispute templates. bobrayner (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Any French speakers around? This question also possibly involves other policies than WP:RS, but to start somewhere...

Article: Teleological argument. Text: a translation of Voltaire's: L'univers m'embarrasse, et je ne puis songer Que cette horloge existe, et n'ait point d'horloger

• Currently in article, and being defended with reverts (bold added): I'm puzzled by the world; I cannot dream The timepiece real, its maker but a dream. Source: Harbottle, Thomas Benfield (1908). Dictionary of quotations: French. S. Sonnenschein. p. 101. ISBN 978-1-4212-5720-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• My translation as a Wikipedia editor (given that I found the above not good): The universe troubles me, and I can not imagine that this watch exists, and it has no watchmaker at all

The following alternatives were then offered by third party User:Myrvin:

• The universe perplexes me, and for me it is unthinkable That this watch exists, yet without a watchmaker.. Christianity Unveiled, Paul Henri Thiry Holbach, Hodgson Press, 2008, p. 285
• I canot believe that this watch can exist and have no watchmaker. A Pocket Philosophical Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 11 Aug 2011, p. 271
Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_160
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

---