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.

Another editor added in baby powder a link to Amazon as a reference for the ingredients of Johnson's Baby Powder. I reverted, and the other editor re-reverted to include the link as a reference. Is a site that is selling a product (but not the manufacturer thereof) a reliable source for the ingredients in that product? LadyofShalott 23:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I searched for other references for ingredients. The manufacturer doesn't list it, but other sites selling the stuff does. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Daniel's response beat me to coming back. The most recent diff in this string is . LadyofShalott 23:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Any input from someone not part of the dispute originally? LadyofShalott 21:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be cautious of using an Amazon product description. The information is ultimately provided to Amazon by the manufacturer, but there's no reason to believe that the manufacturer has kept Amazon up to date on any changes. Amazon's processes are highly automated so it is likely that this content is not carefully curated. GabrielF (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

There's currently a dispute at Talk:George Juskalian on whether the Centreville Patch, a local newspaper, is a reliable source for the claim that his "decorations among the rarest bestowed on United States service members". Kevin McE says that's "a throwaway comment in a peacock piece in a local paper" and thus not reliable; I'd say it's ovious from the paper's very next sentence that the journalist did fact-check his claims and thus is a reliable source. Opinions? Huon (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Local papers get PR from the government - so it is not just a "throwaway line" in all likelihood. He did get a post office named after him. The Air Medal is a notable one, indeed, and very far from common, as are some of the others noted. Collect (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in the journalist's CV to lead one to believe that she is an authority on military awards, and any suggestion that she received government information is pure assumption. The following texts attest to them being high honours, probably not very common decorations, but give no confidence that they are among the rarest. That, as it stands, is uncorroborated hyperbole. Journalists in local papers are encouraged to employ some poetic licence and loose definitions to speak well of local personalities: encyclopaedic editors are not.

Not being common is not the same as being "among the rarest". To analyse whether his medals are among the rarest (as opposed to not being very common), one would need an authoritatively sourced list of the awards and sort them according to how many times they have been given, and then see where Juskalian's honours sit in that list. Kevin McE (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The source is reliable. Might I also add for the record that Patch Media is a local news and information platform owned by the AOL corporation. The AOL corporation in itself is regarded as a reliable online news source. In regards to the article, the notion of rare medals is clearly confirmed by the additional news sources that make the exact claim. The TP of George Juskalian has presented a few examples. Above all, I think it is important to note that although some of the other medals are not considered in the "Top 10" rare medals (I don't know if such a countdown exists), but given the circumstance, context and time frame in which they were awarded, the medals were indeed rare and hard to attain. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You can't just announce that the source is reliable. There is no such assumption for low circulation local media. Prove it.

If other news sources make the same claim, post them to the article and the debate is over. But do they claim that these are "among the rarest" awards, or simply that they are not very common?

If there is no comparative list of how many of which medals have been awarded, then the journalist cannot have any confidence in her claim.

Factors like "circumstance, context and time frame" or "hard to attain" might make the collection of awards notable, but they have no bearing on whether they are among the medals are among the rarest.

Juskalian's honours can be indicated and shown to be notable without any need for this spurious claim. Kevin McE (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I encourage uninvolved editors to express their opinions. I would also like to clarify that some of the medals Juskalian has been awarded with have been proven by additional sources that they are indeed rare in the talk page of article. It is also clear that the writer of the article has done her research with the Department of Defense and has made the statement in accordance to the DOD's standards.--Երևանցի ^talk 19:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we have sources other than patch.com sources that verify the awards in question? I am not on board with patch.com sources being automatically considered reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see TP of George Juskalian. The medals he has been awarded are verified in terms of their rarity with the help of additional sources. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Rare ≠ among the rarest. What on earth is so hard to grasp about that? Talk pages are not the place to have sources that the article is reliant on for verification. Kevin McE (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Kevin McE, you've got two different issues involved here. First, is this local newspaper a reliable source for the comment about "among the rarest"? I agree with you that it is not by itself. That comment must be verified by official Air Force records or reliable studies of the awarding of medals in the Air Force. Second, you seem to have a problem with the meaning of "rarest". "Rare" is not an objective measurement of anything, it is always relative. The statement "Hungarians are rarer than Americans" is true, even though there are about a dozen million Hungarians in the world. Compared to the number of Americans, they are "rare". "Rare" just means "much less common" than something else it's being compared to. The Air Force Medal, for example, is, indeed among the rarest of Air Force medals. It is not as rare as the Medal of Honor, but it is much more rare than the Air Force Commendation Medal, and, therefore, it can legitimately be said to be among the "rarest". Pushing some rigid idiosyncratic meaning for "rare" violates its actual relativistic meaning in English. --Taivo (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Re First point: I agree entirely.

Re second point: I do not agree that I have a meaning with rarest because, unlike your Hungarian example, a context is given to the population that is being compared. The true analogy would be to consider whether Hungarians are "among the rarest of European ethnic groups". They are rare when compared to Spaniards, Italians, English or French, but the rarest European ethnic groups are Romansh speaking Swiss, native Sammarinese, German speaking Belgians etc. To claim that something is "among the rarest" implies knowledge of an ordered list, a decision as to how high up that list an arbitrary cut off is made (rarest 10? Rarest 15? rarest 8%), and honest application of such criteria. No-one has suggested willingness or ability to do this in relation to this claim. Kevin McE (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

When the medal in question (the Air Force Medal, as I recall) is among the three rarest medals, then it is, indeed, among the rarest. But the real issue isn't whether it is among the rarest or not, but whether that statement by the local newspaper can be quoted as if it is from a reliable source. You are making the wrong argument, Kevin McE. You need to focus on the issue of using the local newspaper as a reliable source (which I contend it is not), rather than on the semantics of "rarest". That is the real underlying issue here. Once you realize that the local paper is a source, but not a definitive reliable source, then other than reporting that X received Y medals, it is not a reliable source for the relative frequency of award for any Air Force medals. The only reliable sources for the frequency of award of Air Force medals are the Air Force itself and scholarly works that deal with Air Force medals in a systematic way. Even if the local reporter made a phone call to the Pentagon, that does not make her/him a reliable source for that information. --Taivo (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

A consensus has already been reached regarding the issue. It turns out that everyone is pleased now. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In the Peter Ruckman article, the fact that Ruckman is twice divorced is sourced to the following footnote here. The first sentence makes it apparent that Ruckman must have gotten divorced twice, and seems okay to me. The rest of the material speaks of Gospel articles torn out of typewriters, destroyed artwork, people throwing themselves out of cars, suicide attempts, threats of beatings, etc. Is it appropriate to use a primary source as an extended footnote in this fashion on a BLP? Seeking comments from other editors after myself and another editor had different perspectives on it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me if this is not the right place to bring this up --- I'm an old man. In 2007 a Wikipedia article about the website <www.omniglot.com> was deleted because it was alleged not to be notable. I remember being surprised at the time, but assumed that was a mistake that would soon be corrected. Recently I used the Wikipedia search facility against "omniglot.com", and turned up 414 citations to it in mainspace articles. But no article about the website. You can't have it both ways -- either delete all those citations -- or restore the article!! Too Old (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we can have it both ways - though whether we should in this case is another question. Whether an article about a subject is merited depends on it meeting our notability guidelines, and whether a source can be cited depends on it meeting reliability guidelines - and it is entirely possible for a source we don't consider notable to nevertheless be considered reliable. As to whether omniglot.com actually passes our reliability guidelines, I have some doubts (it seems to be run by a single individual), though to some extent it depends what it is being cited for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone. There's been a very lengthy discussion about which website to use for box office gross at this section (http://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Which_box_office_number_site_that_should_be_use_for_references) of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. This matter is getting out of hand. I feel like I'm talking with people who are not ready to listen anyone's opinion here. I'm not insulting them but after reading the content in upper link carefully you'll probably understand why I'm saying this. Trust me I've tried explaining to them and also they keep making stuff up like I'm bullying them. I accept I called them inexperienced users once but that was actually the only insult i gave to them well ony to users BattleshipMan and Betty Logan. All of these users are saying that Boxoffice.com is not reliable but BOM is. I'll like you to check this link carefully please ( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=reddawn10.htm) . As you can see the total foreign box office gross of this movie Red Dawn is given as "n/a" while foreign box office gross of many countries is given. Now this user Betty Logan that I was discussing with say that gross for all countries is not available. Well I'm surprised how does user Betty Logan knows this? I don't think she has contacted them and even if it is true why don't BOM add up all the gross for all territories that are available to them. Even if they do not why in the world are they showing worldwide gross equal to the domestic gross. They're contradicting their own info! Which trade source have ever you seen state the domestic gross and worldwide gross of the movie equal when they only have the data about domestic gross of the movie available with them? Under one of the rules of idintifying a reliable source, " The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content." The data atleast for this movie is not reliable since they're contradicting their own info. And atleast for this movie BOM is not reliable however those users fail to understand this. I'd also like you to notice that this problem is present only with low grossing movies. No high grossibg film has this problem on BOM. Last of all no trade source uses BOM for citing the gross of this film Red Dawn. So I request you to exclude BOM as a reliable sources for the films where they make these type of mistakes.

My next topic is Boxoffice.com which kind of has a statas quo. I'd like you to notice that this website regularly updates it's foreign box office gross, backed up by TheNumbers.com and never contradicts it's own info. The users say it is not reliable. Well where's the proof for your statement? I accept budget is unusually high on this website and I don't want to get speculating like them. I do not want this to turn into an edit war that's why I requsest the intervention of admins. Instead of using a single source I suggest we use multiple sources for box office gross. Also last but not least I didn't say that Boxoffice.con is more reliable than Box Office Mojo. I used it because unlike BOM it does not contradicts it's own info. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Be aware that this editor is now WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Any readers will want to see this previous thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Which box office number site that should be use for references. You will note the reasoned arguments put forward by most of the editors there for the preferred use of Box Office Mojo. KahnJohn27 was warned about treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND but has obviously chosen to ignore that. So as to prevent the same discussion taking place you might add any comments to the previous thread - though you are certainly free to respond here as well. MarnetteD | Talk 00:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Followup I now see that K was recommended to come here to get more input so I have struck through my initial assertion of why this post came about. Editors will still want to be aware of the previous conversation. MarnetteD | Talk 00:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• KahnJohn27 is misrepresenting the discussion at the Film project. Box Office Mojo has served as a reliable source on film articles for box office data for many years, and has been included in many GA and FA rated articles without incident. This editor has been going through film articles replacing this source with a less reputable source on the pretext that he does not consider BOM reliable. The sole reason for this is that in some cases Box Office Mojo has not included the foreign grosses in its summary totals (see Red Dawn for an example, and note that the foreign gross is left unfilled). However, if you click on the Foreign tab, the foreign data is made available on another section of the entry. It seems KahnJohn regards Box Office Mojo as "unreliable" due to this inconsistency. I beg to differ: Box Office Mojo still makes the foreign data available to its readers i.e. it's there if you want to use it. He is drawing unfounded conclusions on the basis Box Office Mojo just hasn't updated a section of its website. The key points we look for in ascertaining the reliability of a source is that we trust it to accurately and honestly convey the facts and figures that we source to it, and there seems to be no cause for concern in this regard! Box Office Mojo still provides a breakdown of foreign grosses, it just doesn't conveniently tot them up for us in some cases, but the data is still there if we wish to use it and there is no compelling argument to doubt its veracity. He seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a "reliable source" on Wikipedia, and unfortunately despite several attempts at the Film project we have been unable to get the point across. As for the situation with BoxOffice.com, no-one to my knowledge has said it is unreliable: it's not a source any of us are particularly familiar with; in fact we advised that it should be vetted here before it is inserted into any more film articles. Betty Logan (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Just so you guys know, this is what KahnJohn27 wrote on my talk page in This section after I spoke to him on the talk page of Darkwarriorblake on this section. Betty Logan is one of the most experienced editors on Wikipedia. KahnJohn27 is not and he started editing as of last September. He is misrepresenting all this information and doesn't how to spell English that properly. I think the reliability and accuracy of BoxOffice.com should be vetted as well before it is inserted into any of the film articles. If it not that reliable, I say we should not use that site as reference for any of the films articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I'm "one of the most experienced", but I'm certainly not "inexperienced" either; although being red linked I can appreciate why some editors might think that. I'm confident in my evaluation of Box Office Mojo though: I have used lots of box office sources in my time here and none of them have been without errors, and that includes Box Office Mojo. However, I don't believe this is the case this time: it's not ideal that BOM hasn't totaled the foreign grosses thus complicating its usage and that in itself may be a good reason to consider other sources on convenience grounds, but I don't agree it debunks it as a reliable source, especially if we don't have a legitimate reason for thinking the individual grosses are inaccurate. Betty Logan (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes i accept I once called you inexperienced. That was the only insult I gave to you but I have never made a disrusptive edit so please stop that accusation. Also I might not spell English correctly. But this noticeboard is not the place for reporting someone's behavior or their incorrect English and nor any of us is going to decide which source is reliable or unreliable. The final decision rests in the hands of administrators and whatever they decide we all should respect that. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I assure you all my edits are in good faith and I'm not trying to enforce my opinion. I am not misrepresenting the discussion. I am only reporting what I saw. Till now you have failed to give any proof that "Boxoffice.com" is unreliable. If I was trying to force my opinion I wouldn't have brought this matter here in the first place. Also I have already said that it was actually Darkwarriorblake who told me about Boxoffice.com so I think he will be a key help in solving this problem. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

When a website starts contradicting it's own info it cannot be classified as reliable. Articles have earned the GA or FA status because they are reliably sourced and not because of Box office mojo. I'm not the one who is making things up but it is actually you. How can you so confidently say that BOM has'nt collected the box office gross for all territories that is why the total foreign gross is "n/a". Needles to say you're making this up on your own. I'd like to remind you just because a source is less reputable it doesn't mean it's unreliable. Also why don't you comment about using multiple sources? Is it really neccesary that we have to use a single source? KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

all sources occasionally make mistakes. KahnJohn, in order to completely discount BOmojo you would need to show that it REPEATEDLY is coming up with incorrect numbers- not just that it has once or twice, or that it hasnt published all of the information that you want in the for that that you want. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is a list of links proving that BOM repeatedly makes these mistakes repeatedly :-

• http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=burtwonderstone.htm
• http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=call2013.htm
• http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=21andover.htm
• http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=deadmandown.htm
• http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=lastexorcism2.htm

Also Betty Logan said that BOM is conveying facts honestly. How is it providing information honestly when it is contradicting it's own info? It is not honestly conveying facts but misrepresenting facts. Last but not least why is there any problem with using Boxoffice.com. Why are we just using a single source for box office gross when we know they can't be completely accurate. Why can't we use multiple sources? KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

what " mistake"? it is not a mistake for them to not report all of the data that you want in the manner that you want it presented. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

As an editor for nearly eight years, I can vouch for Betty Logan as one of WikiProject Films' most conscientious, knowledgable and constructive editors for quite some time. Multiple editors at the Project's talk page have all disagreed with KahnJohn27's position and find it disruptive to face his thousand-word rants and his bullying insistence that we "prove" this or that to him.

Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, two of the most venerable, longstanding trade publications in television and film, use the figures from Box Office Mojo, as has Wikipedia for years. If the film industry itself, whose studio accounting executives are certainly knowledgable and experienced in these matters, accept Box Office Mojo, then it certainly makes sense for Wikipedia to comport with the industry's most-accepted figures. The discussion at Wiki Project films looks WP:SNOWBALL from my perspective. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur that Box Office Mojo is a reliable source. From what I can tell, BoxOffice.com seems acceptable since it has been referenced in news coverage too. Regarding Box Office Mojo, the cited examples are films that are still screening in theaters, so the figures are bound to be dynamic. Is the so-called mistake that it says "n/a" instead of rolling up all the countries' figures? While odd, it's hardly damning of this source. I would be more concerned if this was a systematic matter with films no longer in theaters, but I do not believe this is the case. In short, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Instead of purging Box Office Mojo from Wikipedia entirely, we should email Box Office Mojo to get clarification about their approach here and/or consider a process of using alternative sources if BOM does not have updated figures. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I also support BOM being used as a reliable source and I also agree with Tenebrae and Erik's concerns and helpful suggestions here. We should contact BOM to get clarification about their approach to box office grosses. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea about Boxoffice.com's gross figures and they don't even actually list foreign figures, just American figures and a total gross so they don't offer the same breakdown that BOM does, but tehre is definitely something wrong with their budget figures which are often massively out of line with BOM and industry sources, sometimes by tens of millions. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should be reliable sources on this and I think BOM is reliable enough as possible. I notice something else. On Olympus Has Fallen, BOM lists it production budget as $70,000,000 and BoxOffice.com lists it production budget at $100,000,000, which differs $30,000,000 on those sites. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not completely discounting BOM. I am only saying that is unreliable for those movies where this "n/a" problem is occuring. I agree that contacting them this problem and why it is occuring will be a much better solution. Also if you think Boxoffice.com is reliable then why is there a problem for using it for those films where this problem of n/a foreign gross occurs with BOM. Besides there is not much difference between the gross of the two sites. Why do we need to mention the gross accuarately as given on the websites when it can't be accurate? Why can't we instead show it as $21 - 24 million instead of $23.5 or $21.8 million? This question has been asked by me from beginning and unfortunately no one has talked about it. I request you to discuss this too. Lastly about the high budget on Boxoffice.com I don't know about that at all and I don't want to speculate. I suggest we should contact Boxoffice.com about this. But their high or wrong budget doesn't mean they can't be used as a source for box office gross. Apart from that even BOM's budget can be incorrect. It has displayed the budget of Oz The Great and Powerful as $195 million while all other industry sources say it is $200 million. Last but not least. In order to assure you that my edits are in good faith and not disriptive I'll like you to know I'll support the decision of the consensus no matter what's the decision but only if all facts are duly weighed. If I fail to convince you even then be it. I will try to appeal the decision if all facts are not counted but won't get into an edit war. I request you to please forgive if I have made a mistake or if I have insulted you. I'm really sorry. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

at the risk of pointing out the obvious, you do realize that the difference between $195 million and $200 million is all of 2.5% - and you expect anyone to think that such a variance on estimates is evidence of criminal errors? you are just making your position look more and more ridiculous. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It's best to not get bogged down too much in the budget debate. No sources are great for budgets because they are usually estimates or based on industry leaks, so on most articles we tend to represent them as estimated ranges (The Dark Knight Rises being a good example of that approach). Usually you can get a ballpark figure but pinning it down exactly is usually impossible. Box office grosses tend to be relayed by the distributor, so there is a process in place for reliably reporting them, that any competent publisher should be able to do. Unfortunately KahnJohn is still missing the point: not supplying a foreign total in some cases is inconvenient, but it's not like they are supplying a figure that mismatches the foreign grosses. That said I have no aversion to using other reliable sites for totals if the editors on those articles deem them to be a more suitable source for whatever purpose, but that's for the editors of those articles to determine through a consensus based process. Purely on the subject of Box Office Mojo's reliability, nothing has come remotely close to convincing me they are not accurately reporting foreign grosses in the cases raised. Editors obviously have to just use the data sensibly. Betty Logan (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Listen, KahnJohn27. A lot of us on that noticeboard vouches that BOM is accurate, despite the n/a problems that it has on that site recently. So they are looking into that problem right now and check out the reliability on these sites at this point. Let's just wait and find out. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You were right TRPOD. I have put myself in a ridiculuos position. But not because I'm giving some stupid reasons because I now remember that BOM does not only show total foreign gross as "n/a" in movies. This is what Darkwarriorblake talked to me about when I was editing the box office gross at the 2012 film Dredd. I request everyone to check these two links carefully and try calculating the total foreign gross manually :-

• http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=dredd.htm
• http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=dredd.htm

Upon manually calculating the foreign gross of all countries of Dredd it comes out to be higher than the total foreign gross given by BOM. No it is no calculation error and you can check it for yourself. In the case of The Man with the Iron Fists the calculated foreign gross of all countries is lesser than the total foreign gross. How is that possible? If the reason is same that is grosses of all territories are not available well then why is total foreign gross is n/a while it is available for other movies when the gross is not available? Have they collected the data of some territories together? I don't think that's possible without collecting data of each individual territory. I'm not implying that BOM is incompetent or unreliable but this atleast debunks to some degree the implication made by Betty Logan that one of the reasons data for all territories might not be available. It also debunks to sone degree the myth that BOM is a very trustable source. It might be trustable but not that much trustable. But I don't want to imply anything and be rash. Also the theatrical run of Dredd ended many months ago. The theatrical run of The Man with the Iron Fists has also ended and so of Red Dawn. But Red Dawn's total foreign gross is still listed as "n/a". Now I wonder why is that. But still I think we should contact and ask them about it. Also please notice that while BOM might have been used for mentioning the gross of films by many trade sources. But please notice this no trade sources at all have used BOM as a source for mentioning the gross for Red Dawn, Dredd; The Man with the Iron Fists or The Incredible Burt Wonderstone. BOM is not reliable for referencing the gross of these movies. Maybe it is due time we paid detailed attention to Box Office Mojo because if you think it is reliable it might not be so. Apart from that if Boxoffice.com is reliable then why I am being stopped from using it as a source just because other users are already usig BOM. That is no proper reason especially when Box Office Mojo displays incorrect data. If Boxoffice.com is reliable then every user has a right to use it as a source instead of BOM especially if it is indeed displaying incorrect info. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

In the case of Dredd the explanation is blatantly obvious because Box Office Mojo gives you a dated breakdown of all the figures: the foreign total is dated November 18, 2012, while some of the foreign grosses for that film (five at my count) are dated up to December. Yes, it's inconvenient that their foreign total hasn't been updated yet but that doesn't make it wrong: there is no reason to doubt the figure is correct for November, which is the month the source states it is for, and the up to date figures are still available for you to use. This doesn't make BOM unreliable, it just means care has to be exercised to not use out of date totals. BOM is hardly unique in this respect: in the case of Red Dawn, BOM shows it having a foreign gross of 5-6 million, while Boxoffice.com shows it having a gross of 3-4 million, so it is most likely that Boxoffice.com hasn't updated its total either to reflect the total current income. At least with a source like BOM the breakdown makes it possible to see which territories it is accounting for and when, which makes it possible for you to corroborate its data, which is its biggest asset IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You know, KahnJohn27. At least now your starting to act less rashly. It's a start. You just got to avoid a WP:BATTLEGROUND from happening to you again.

The reason why we remove references on Boxoffice.com is because no one knows how reliable it is and there is conflicting reports on various movies regarding production budget on movies and the box office gross on each of them. While BOM gets news references from Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, no one knows if Boxoffice.com gets news recognition from any online news source. That's what we need some reliable and accurate sources before we put them in film infoboxes. What I mean that you indirectly cause a dispute over reliable sources regarding conflicting box-office gross and production budget costs that don't match to either of those sites. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Your wrong on all accounts Betty Logan. May I ask how are you so sure that whatever is it saying is true. You don't have any proof for that so I ask you to please stop making up reasons on your own. You never have contacted any of the source. If the gross of Dredd is not updated then it is their error. Atleast Boxoffice.com never makes that mistake. Also User: Erik has already said that Boxoffice.com is reliable and it is also used by trade sources. If it is then why are you saying Boxoffice.com is unreliable. Now if you can't prove that Boxoffice.com is unreliable please don't call it so. If it used by trade sources then it is reliable. You have yourself said that BOM is reliable because it is used by trade publishers. Well Boxoffice.com is too. I request you to please discuss this issue. Also I please ask you again why aren't none of the editors commenting about using multiple sources? I have asked about it so many times. Please I request you discuss that too. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm completely correct, and denial doesn't make you any more right. Let's take this one by one:

1. BOM Foreign grosses for Red Dawn: 1,134,023 + 167,548 + 460,393 + 48,925 + 658,101 + 188,145 + 58,902 + 187,782 + 157,810 + 678,227 + 60,126 + 187,518 + 376,847 + 31,957 + 572,505 + 679,139 = 5647948
2. BO.com foreign gross for Red Dawn: 48,169,726 (worldwide) — 44,806,783 (domestic) = 3362943

So why don't YOU provide us with proof that BOM is incorrect in this case and BoxOffice.com is correct. If neither source is incorrect, then the most likely explanation is that BO.com has not updated the total with the latest figures. There is no inherent reason to drop BOM in this example, especially when it gives us an itemised and dated breakdown.

Now for Dredd. The total for the foreign gross is dated 11/18/12. However, some of the foreign grosses have been updated after that date: Austria (12/23/12), Belgium (12/16/12), Egypt (12/16/12), Germany (12/9/12), New Zealand (11/25/12), South Korea (12/9/12). If you sum the indivdiual grosses, the foreign total comes out to $23,153,028, whereas for BO.com it comes to $22682533.

There are several things that are clear: In some cases BOM does not provide totals, but they do provide the individual grosses. This does not make the source unreliable, just inconvenient in those cases. In other cases the totals are dated before some of the actual grosses listed, meaning the sum of the grosses and the totals don't match up, simply because the figures come from different time periods. Again this does not make the source unreliable, since there is no evidence the figures were incorrect on the dates given, and simply means care must be taken when a total is dated earlier than some of the individual figures. Thirdly, in both cases the foreign totals on BO.com are less than the sum of the foreign grosses on BOM, which means—if we go by the assumption that both sources are reliable—that BOM is simply more up to date than BO.com. None of what you have argued makes a compelling case to replace BOM with BO.com; indeed it raises questions about how up to date BO.com data is. Betty Logan (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Your takling about Red Dawn but looks like you've forgotten about "The Man with the Iron Fists". Adding numbers by yourself is only proving what I have been saying. You don't have any proof till now just like I don't have any proof that Boxoffice.com figures are reliable or not. A real proof in your case will be a source that confirms what you're saying and I have provided a list of proofs that atleast confirms that the foreign gross on Box Office Mojo is unreliable. Box Office Mojo is not honestly conveying facts Betty. The only way to comfirm what is right and what is wrong is to contact both sources. Unless and until then I see no point in having this discussion with you because nearly everything you have said has no solid proof and I'm sorry to say but it seems like your making this up on your own and trying to enforce your opinion. Darkwarriorblake, Sjones23 and Erik have rightly said the only way to confirm anything is by contacting the source. Unless the sources are contacted and replied there is no way to confirm that either of your or mine statement is true. I actually have no proof of Boxoffice.com is reliable except that it is used by trade sources and it does not contradict's it's own info unlike BOM. You might not have known this earlier but the worldwide gross of The Man with the Iron Fists is higher on Boxoffice.com is higher than that on BOM. Also if you manually calculate it's entire foreign gross it's only half of the total foreign gross that is shown. This debunks your claim that BOM gross figures are higher than those of Boxoffice.com. Boxoffice.com's figuress seems to be morsle up to date. I'm sorry to say but after this if you still say the figures are higher on BOM than I see no point in anymore discussion. Only contacting the sources can confirm what's real. Until then nothing can be proved completely. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

For more convienience I am providing these links all of the same film The Man with the Iron Fists from BOM, Boxoffice or BO.com and TheNumbers.com.

• http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=manwiththeironfists.htm
• http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Man-with-the-Iron-Fists-The
• http://www.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/the-man-with-the-iron-fists-2012

Now please read this part carefully. :-

• After manually calculating foreign gross on BOM it turns out to be between about $3.3 - 3.4 million. If you add that with the domestic gross it turns out to be round about $19 million.
• The worldwide gross shown by BOM is $19,721,245.
• In both of the above cases the worldwide gross is less than that at Boxoffice.com or TheNumbers.com whose grosses are $20,255,313 and $20,280,476 respectively. Also the gross of TheNumbers.com is much closer to that of Boxoffice.com. There is very little difference b/w the two but a much larger in case of BOM. The difference is $1.2 million. If it appears small to you then the difference between the two grosses of the film Dredd at BOM and BO.com is also very small. And you were saying that BOM is more updated than Boxoffice.com. I think that I have disproven your implication that Box Office Mojo is more updated.

Also please note that I eariler misplaced the link of this movie with that of Dredd. So the link of Dredd has been shown two times. That was a mistake . Sorry for that. I was actually going to add the link to Man with the Iron fists. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Taken to ANI here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not here to dispute with anyone but to suggest an easier solution for Box Office Mojo's incorrect gross. I'm not enforcing my opinion and I will like to ask other editors about it first. Wherever this "n/a" problem is present we could instead manually calculate the foreign gross and add it to the domestic gross. The calculated gross can then be added to the infobox of the film on Wikipedia. I think it will be a very convinient solution. Also I'll like you to know that no trade sources use BOM as a source where this n/a problem is occuring. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

This is to inform every editor that I've contacted Box Office Mojo and sent them a message regarding this "n/a" problem or mistake as you might want to call it and have also included some examples along with it.. Hopefully they'll reply soon. However I seem to have forgotten to insert thank you at the end of the message. Just trying to lighten the mood up but I really have forgotten to insert a thank you. I don't know if that would have an impact on the message or not. If you will like to contact then you can do it easily through this link (http://boxofficemojo.com/about/). KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

To all users who think Box Office Mojo provides correct budget please think again. Atleast in case of the film The Last Stand the budget at BOM is much higher than those of industry sources. BOM reports it to be $45 million while nearly all industry sources state it to be$30 million. The budget given by BOM is 50% larger than those of BOM. So I see no reason why Boxoffice.com can't be used in it's place. Box Office Mojo is not the be all end all. However we should wait for the reply of the website. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I may not like the way you been disruptive before. I will say that in Olympus Has Fallen, BOM says it production budget is $70 million and in boxoffice.com it says it was $100 million, which it is $30 million off on both of those sites. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Now I ask you how is that disruptive. I've tried very hard to keep polite in my previous comment. I have chosen the words very carefully. I'll say I don't know where you have called me being disruptive. If it is about ANI then all I have said is true. It was you and MarnetteD who started the so called edit war and User:MarnetteD and User:Tenebrae have induldged in uncivil behavior. Their claims of me being disruptive are highly doubtful when their behavior has been more disruptive than mine. Apart from that you always seem to be rather exaggerating matters. I have repeatedly requested you to comment about my behavior at ANI and not here since this is not the place for talking about someone's behavior no matter how disruptive they are. I haven't even once discussed about anyone's behavior here. If it is about my previous comment on this discussion then my behavior is completely polite and in line as well as im good faith. Also if you're saying that my behavior was disruptive in the beginning of the discidssion then you have already said it many a times and it is not correct to keep putting blame on othees. I think you should know that repeatedly blaming someone even if if their guilty or not is completely uncivil behavior because by displaying that behavior you are bullying him and harassing him. Not only this against rules of Wikipedia but also against human values. I'm sorry to say that if you continue to display this behavior I'll have no choice else to but to report it ANI. I am now taking time and choosing what to say carefully. Needless to say you are unfortunately either misinterpreting or misrepresenting my statements. It will be decided by admins if my behavior is really disriptive or not. I think it's no fault of my behavior in actual but it is the fault of your own behavior. That's whybI request to please stop making these same remarks again and again because it is disrespectful to treat someone

Apart from that coming back.to.this discussion I have already said that I know about Boxoffice.com's higher and inaccurate budget. Mostly instead of BOM industrial sources industry sources are used especially in case of big budget movies. BOM is rarely used in case of high budget movies. It cannot be denied that Box Office Mojo's budget is highly inacurate atleast in case of The Last Stand. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

We told you boxoffice.com isn't the most reliable source for production budget and box office gross worldwide, KJ27. You're assuming that you always right. There maybe problems with BOM because of it's foreign gross issues. But it gets sources from The Hollywood Reporter and Variety, regardless of the problems and the flaws that it is having. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that we have exactly one editor who is advocating for using Boxoffice.com rather than the long-established BoxOfficeMojo.com, which the two leading industry trade magazines and the studios themselves use, would someone other than that editor explain how this is not WP:SNOWBALL? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

And I'm sorry, but I'm tired of KahnJohn27's bullying and threats. He already made a baseless claim against me at the ANI noticeboard, which an admin quickly closed, and now he's threatening BattleshipMan. ("I'm sorry to say that if you continue to display this behavior I'll have no choice else to but to report it ANI.") KahnJohn27 completely doesn't seem to understand that beating a dead horse, bludgeoning other editors with huge, rambling walls of text with poor grammar and spelling, and digging in his heels so tightly that he keeps dragging other editors to several different pages now is disruptive behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well then I ask where is it written that poor spelling is disruptive behavior. Even if it was it was not intentional. My claims were not baseless and Tenebrae has been told to improve his behavior and the discussion was closed because you accepted to improve your behavior. You had yourself accepted that you made personal remarks. You are misrepresenting everything. Your own spelling is sometimes incorrect. However removing somebody's comments as ramblings is disruptive behavior. And words like "I'm sick and tired of you" represent conflictive and disruptive behavior. Apart from that I already knew about Boxoffice.com's inaccurate budget even way before this discussion began. I am not assuming that I am correct but I am simply speaking the truth. I had noticed about it's innacurate budget when I came to know about this website for the first time. And that was on the 2012 film Dredd. My edits were made on that film long before I replaced your edits with Boxoffice.com as a source. Apart fron that it hasn't been disproved that BOM might be unreliable atleast in some cases. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Apart from that Hollywood Reporter and Variety use BOM as a source but not always. Especially in the case of films like Red Dawn, Texas Chainsaw 3D, Dredd, 21 & Over, The Man with the Iron Fists and many more where it provides inaccurate gross. However you have not mentioned that. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Mediator's note

KahnJohn27 and Tenebrae requested that I come by and try to help you guys figure things out.

Before I begin - please note that I am functioning as a neutral bystander in this role. My function as an administrator is not relevant here, though I'd like to think I have experience with Wikipedia's policies.

I've done my best to read through every relevant talk page and discussion between individual editors. I'd like to commend everyone for remaining (mostly) civil and focused on the subject at hand.

I've already said this on KahnJohn27's talk page, but my outsider's perspective on is that consensus favours BoxOfficeMojo as a reference. As I've explained to KahnJohn: per this policy, we cannot act as number crunchers. Note that the 'Routine calculations' section does not apply here; while you may, for the reader's convenience, take two relevant figures from a reference and add them for easier readability, you may not work the other way and use numbers to attempt to disprove the reference.

If consensus has termed BOM a reliable source, we may add up box office totals all day and compare them with whatever we'd like - what the reliable source says, goes. Unless multiple other reliable sources come out in direct opposition, we can't override a reliable source simply because we think their numbers may be wrong.

I'd like to thank you all for having Wikipedia's best interests at heart in this dispute. Your work is greatly appreciated.

If anyone has further questions, feel free to ask here or swing by my talk page. Regards, m.o.p 17:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all I would like to thank m.o.p. for intervening.With all due respect I would like to say that I don't think that the consensus is in favor of BOM because Darkwarriorblake and LordSjones23 haven't said anything about using Boxoffice.com in place of BOM and neither any user has said that BOM and Boxoffice.com should be used together. Not only that it hasn't been confirmed what exactly this cause of "n/a" problem is. BattleshipMan and Betty Logan have said that it is because BOM hasn't updated their gross which they are clearly making up on their own since their is no proof for it. Also when asked for proof they said that it is the truth and I should accept it. It can be clearky seen who really is trying to enforce their views and I cannot let that happen. Also the users seem to be taking decisions without any proof whether their decision is right or not. There must be a proof and I've been saying this again and again. Needless to say it cannot be considered a valid consensus when decisions are taken without any proof. Many editors seem to be reaching a decision themselves because they think BOM is more accurate which might not be so. I've already contacted BOM and only they can confirm about it's exact reason. One of the reasons might be they are not really reliable and might have been providing inaccurate or even false data. Nothing can be said at this point. So it is impossible to reach a clear decision. BOM might have been confirmed reliable many times but unfortunately this "n/a" issue was never taken up while confirming it's reliability. Any user has the right to question it's reliabity when they have concrete evidence for their claims which is what I have done. As is said in Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources under section "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content." However it can been seen that Box Office Mojo is not reliable for the statement being made where the foreign gross is "n/a" or inaccurate. I don't think it will be fair to take a decision till the reason is known for this inaccurate data and if and when BOM replies I will take it up again. According to Wikipedia policies all points and counterpoints should be weighed and judged in a discussion. I have no right to decide about a consensus but until the exact users should use BOM as a source but please I request you not to remove Boxoffice.com and replace it with BOM in mine or any other user's edit because it will be edit warring. It still has not been proved whether BOM is reliable where this "n/a" foreign gross is present. I promise not to replace BOM with Boxoffice.com anywhere in the future unless this matter is decided and try to infom everyone about it. However I would like the admin to tell me if what I am saying is according with Wiki's policies or against it since I do not know all of them. Also I don't think any user has noticed this but Boxoffice.com provides the gross for many films whose gross is not even given at Box Office Mojo. I think Boxoffice.com can be used atleast in these cases where BOM does not provide any gross. I would like to request all the users to comment about that to because all editors have said that Boxoffice.com is a good source. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Look, Boxoffice.com could be inaccurate in production budget cost and box-office gross numbers as well. We don't even know how reliable boxoffice.com really is or it's even getting an outside online news source or what kind of source as well. I will tell you one thing. I do know that Olympus Has Fallen has conflicting production budget cost numbers and are off by $30 million. Boxoffice.com is less than reputable and nobody knows how reliable and accurate the numbers in that site are. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

KahnJohn: this is not a court of law. People with a differing viewpoint are not required to document and present every piece of evidence they have. Multiple editors, some of whom have been along for quite some time, have stated that they prefer BOM as a source with valid rationale. That is the definition of consensus.

Now, if there's no opposition to using BO.com in situations where BOM does not have the required information, or using them both, then that's a respectable solution. However, that's something you'll have to discuss - I know that Lexein was talking about it earlier, but I'm not sure if the other editors involved support that direction. m.o.p 00:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I know evidence isn't required how ever I am only demanding evidence of why this n/a problem is happening. Also they themselves have said that BOM hasn't updated their gross. Proof for this is atleast required because it might not be the only reason. This is no court of law but we are not required to always abide by a single source. This is no court of law but still making a claim always requires evidence no matter wherever it is. However I can perfectly understand the concerns and opinions of fellow users. It is the exact reason why I want to let this matter end right now and thus give my final vote. I also request all users who have participated and also request admin m.o.p. to do the same :-

Not use Boxoffice.com instead of Box Office Mojo and manually calculating the gross where "n/a" - The only reason I have made the decision because of no perfect proof whether BOM is unreliable and Boxoffice.com is more reliable.

If and when BOM replies I will inform m.o.p. and hope due action is taken according to it. Also I would like to request m.o.p. to contact Box Office Mojo since I think his approach will be much more professional. Last but not least thanks to everybody for devoting their valuable time to this discussion. Many thanks to all and take care. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll see if there's anything I can do to contact BOM tomorrow, though I can't promise anything as of yet.

Thank you for changing your viewpoint, though. Adapting to consensus will bring this discussion along, and I'm sure that other editors may chime in shortly. If we can all focus on KahnJohn's proposed resolution, this dispute may just be resolved yet. m.o.p 07:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Just for clarification, KahnJohn: when both BOM and BO.com figures are present, are you okay with going with BOM's amount? This seems to be the currently-supported consensus above. Would we use BO.com in instances where BOM does not have figures? And would said additions be performed solely from BOM's public gross numbers?

Others are free to respond below, as well. m.o.p 07:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Resolution

Thanks for double checking. It's always better to be completely sure. As for my final vote :-

• Use BOM always when figures of both sources are present.
• Use BOM even when total foreign gross is n/a and wherever it is n/a manually calculate foreign gross of all countries on BOM and add it to the given domestic gross to obtain the actual worldwide gross.
• Use Boxoffice.com for films whose gross is not given at BOM.
• Not replace Boxoffice.com with BOM and vice-versa when they are already present there.

Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

While the first three points seem workable I would add that we should be able to incorporate Lexein's suggestion here 2, especially in regards to using footnotes. On the other hand, the last point cannot be used. It is basically saying that, at the spot in the article where either BO or BOM has been used it can never be edited again. That flies in the face of the basic concepts of Wikipedia. It also does not allow for updating if the current source is proved wrong or a better source comes along that refutes the info as is. One last item, several of the editors who had previously made their thoughts known here (or at the previous thread at the filmprojects noticeboard) have stopped following the conversation for various reasons. It would benefit the move towards a resolution if they could be made aware of where the conversation is now and they could add their input. MarnetteD | Talk 17:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll let the other editors involved know. m.o.p 18:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we can afford to be flexible here. If a film article lacks box office information, we can reference either Box Office Mojo or BoxOffice.com. (I am assuming BoxOffice.com is reliable because various news articles reference that website. Let me know if its reliability is questionable.) It is just that Box Office Mojo has been the traditional go-to source, and the "n/a" marker for foreign gross is new and odd. We should acknowledge that for films currently in theaters, either website may not be fully updated or be in sync. I don't want to have footnotes for temporary differences; they make better sense for when the theatrical run has come to an end and when both websites (perhaps The Numbers as well) have significant differences. In short, I would rather take a case-by-case approach. Perhaps we can focus on one example where the figures are especially dynamic? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the first three points seem helpful to everyone. I think that, per Erik, a case-by-case approach may be necessary in any case. I think it would make sense when a film's theatrical run has come to an end and when either BOM and The Numbers have serious differences. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think those solutions are a good idea. I like those ideas. What I think we should do at when the numbers differ from both sites, we should double-check news sources including The Hollywood Reporter, Variety and other reliable entertainment news sites for accurate production budget costs and box-office gross numbers, just to be sure. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should be manually calculating anything. That seems as if it would be OR synthesis. It would also be problematic to update, since a change to any one or two counties' total in a list of countries' totals wouldn't be immediately noticeable. Even if it were, this would call for continually checking and recalculating figures. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Not disagreeing or agreeing, but note that the OR policy has a sub-clause on routine calculations which I think this would fall under - provided consensus supports such calculations, of course. m.o.p 22:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I am against this proposal, simply for the fact that it is not the place of RS/N to determine which source should be used. The most suitable source(s) should be determined by the article editors in deference to WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. I can think of many cases where this proposal would break down:

1. In some cases if any one of these sources can be proven to be demonstrably wrong, then there shouldn't be a mandate to use them (the further back you go for instance, the more inaccurate box office data becomes).
2. Contradictory numbers do not automatically mean one of the sources is incorrect. One could just be more up to date than the other depending on the internal update procedures, and if the more up to date source can be identified it should be used, regardless of editorial preference. A source being out of date does not make it unreliable, since if the data was correct at the time of publication then the source has reliably published it.
3. Box office data is drawn from a wide variety of sources, among them Variety, The Numbers, books and various studio ledgers. I see so logical reason for elevating one source above another.

RS/N should only decide whether a source can be used, and discussion on the article talk page, the relevant projects and RFCs should determine that in the case of a dispute. It's pretty obvious the consensus of this discussion is that Box Office Mojo is reliable, and as such it is just one of the many sources available to us when we source box office data. The issue we should be focusing on is whether BoxOffice.com is a reliable source by our criteria. At the Film project I suggested to KahnJohn he should bring BoxOffice.com here to get it vetted, and he still hasn't done that. If it meets the criteria then it simply joins Box Office Mojo and The Numbers as just another source we can select from, and then the job of RS/N is done. My suggestion is that this discussion is closed since it hasn't actually accomplished anything, and he starts a fresh one to purely address the reliability of the BoxOffice.com. Betty Logan (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• You know what, Betty Logan, I kind of starting to agree with you on this. I think your right. Do you think we should set up a new discussion on the reliability of Boxoffice.com once we research it for it's outside news sources and such? BattleshipMan (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually Betty Logan and BattleshipMan I have been saying this the whole time that just because there is difference in between the gross of two sources it does not actually mean that one source is incorrect or that it is reliable or unreliable. However I still say that we should not replace BOM or Boxoffice.com when they are already there because it will trigger edit warring with many users. Also according to Wikipedia policies it is ok to manually calculate data from a reliable source and m.o.p. has already mentioned that fact. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not just the box-office gross is different between two sources, the production budget cost numbers in those sites differ, as seen in Olympus Has Fallen (as BOM shows the production budget is $70 million while boxoffice.com says $100 million). They can be some movies that have inaccurate production budget costs in those two sites. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you there BattleshipMan. Really to say I don't know why Boxoffice.com budgets are so high. It might be that either they are inaccurate. But on the other hand their budgets might also include the marketing costs. Most of the sources just mention production budget but don't include the marketing costs. However even if they have inaccurate budgets that does not mean they are'nt a reliable source for box office gross. I also agree with you that a new thread or discussion should be started about Boxoffice.com and also a background check should be performed. Thanks BattleshipMan and Betty Logan that's a useful advice. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

if you dont know and they dont say, where they get their numbers and they seem different than other reliable sources, that is a far more serious reliability issue than whether or not certain foreign Box office numbers might not be specified for certain films. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Boxoffice.com is considered a reliable source

Information

This is the Wikipedia page where boxoffice.com is at. It on Boxoffice (magazine). The article is a stub at this point. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

According to this it is the web presence of the official publication of National Association of Theatre Owners, so on that basis I have no problems with it being used as a source for box office data (I still have concerns over its budgets, since they are so out of sync with every other source). We should probably add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#Box office if everyone is ok with that, and wrap up this discussion. Source selection should remain the domain of the article editors, with any disputes settled at the Film project. Betty Logan (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about this. Like you said, the budgets and gross numbers are out of sync with every other source. We could have future disputes over the accuracy on the production budget and box-office gross numbers. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Budgets and grosses are different types of data, since they are obtained in different ways. Grosses are reported through despatches by the distributor, whereas budgets are usually estimated by whoever is writing the piece. I would be interested in learning why their budgets are so much higher than the others (are they including marketing? distribution costs?), but the fact is Box Office Magazine appears to be a respected industry journal in the vein of Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, and has reported box office for years, making it a reliable source, at least for box office data. The website is basically just the web presence of the same thing. It would take a very strong argument to discredit an industry trade journal. Betty Logan (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Votes

Per the above, a proposal we should add boxoffice.com as a reliable source and should be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#Box office. Should we add it? Votes below:

• Support inclusion as nominator Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: As I said above, I don't know about this. The budgets and gross numbers are out of sync with every other source. We could have future disputes over the accuracy on the production budget and box-office gross numbers and that's was concerns me and Betty Logan. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support RS status for grosses. Truth be told I think the jury is still out on budgets. I don't think it's a great problem that there are inconsistencies between grosses; it's most likely due to internal update procedures, and that can be dealt with on a case by case basis i.e. checking the dates on the data, corroboration with other sources etc. Betty Logan (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support treating BoxOffice.com as a reliable source. Identifying it as a reliable source does not mean we will use it blindly. Since there are several outlets regarding box office figures and production budgets, it is only fair to compare this source with other sources and make a determination about what detail (or range of detail) to include in a film article on Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support it as reliable for grosses and budgets. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support: I don't know about the budgets but the difference between the grosses at boxoffice.com can't be taken as a reason not to include it as a reliable source for box office gross data since in actual no source can be completely accurate about box office gross. Also budgets and box office gross are seperate data. As already said that it is a reputable industry source and it will be hard to discredit it without a concrete evidence. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Partial support: In that case, I would support the idea for grosses, but maybe not the budgets since they can be off, like I said above. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Partial support: From what I understand, BO.com's budget figures are problematic. Secondly, for consistency of reported figures throughout Wikipedia and the industry trades themselves, and so we're not comparing apples and oranges, I would strongly advocate we use BoxOfficeMojo numbers unless for some reason it has no numbers for a particular movie. In that case only would I use BO.com. This isn't a question of reliability, but if we're metaphorically measuring things with pounds and ounces throughout most movie articles, we don't want a bunch of movie articles measuring things in liters and grams. Yes, I know it's not exact comparison since figures can be converted, but you get the idea: BoxOfficeMojo has one methodology, BO.com has another, and it's important to keep methodology consistent across a numerical landscape. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: It doesn't make sense. Why do we need to follow the methodology of one source when we have multiple sources available? Grosses can never be completely accurate. KahnJohn27 (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Consensus

• It seems to be obvious that despite the discrepencies both Box Office Mojo and Boxoffice.com can be regarded as reliable sources. Bearing that in mind I have taken the liberty of adding Boxoffice.com to WP:FILM/R#Box office, so I think we can close this discussion now. If there are inconsistencies between sources, and you would prefer to replace BOM with BO.com or vice versa, it would be wise to initiate a discussion about it on the article talk page rather than edit-warring. Betty Logan (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This shouldn't mean that if BOM is in place however that it can be replaced just because Boxoffice.com has a higher gross which has been the frequent implementation of boxoffice.com referencing. The site is useless to wikipedia as it cannot be archived and it's budget figures are questionable, it should only be considered where BOM fails to have figures, which is never the case, just not high enough figures for some people. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That kind of makes sense. The budget number differs on both BOM and boxoffice.com. The budget on Olympus Has Fallen on boxoffice.com is $30 million higher than on what it says on BOM. I think we should only use that site as a last resort if BOM files to have it's figures. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I sympathize DWB, and have added a warning about the budget figures at our resource page. But the archiving issue is really a question about whether the source is robust enough to use, rather than the reliability of the source, which is what this board is supposed to assess (you can't webcite the New York Times for that matter either (or the Wall Street Journal which hides behind a paywall), but that doesn't mean we strike them off. I think on balance it is no more or less reliable for box office than The Numbers for instance, since the magazine version seems to be a low-rent Variety. I prefer BOM for the sole reason it is more comprehensive: country by country breakdowns, and they are dated too; but if there are instances where BOM is clearly not updating and the others are then we do need to consider looking further afield for our info. Betty Logan (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't mean to exclude it just because it can't be cited, but if BOM has the figures there, it's hard to argue for replacing it, while I feel this discussion seems to be veering towards more of an attempt to gain justification for that. At the The Man with the Iron Fists, the source was replaced with boxoffice.com because it was higher by a few hundred grand. No excuse for why that is the correct figure, or why it's more up to date beyond the user's personal interpretation which makes it seem a lot more obvious that it's about getting the higher figure, but as we found with The Dark Knight Rises when it was first released, we're not a news site and it isn't about having the highest gross, and a part of the reason I round those figures is because at teh end of the day they are estimates, they cannot know what something has made down to the dollar, and the movie sites report rounded figures also. It's fine to add BO.com as a reliable source, I'm just making sure it isn't taken as a sign to run through articles replacing existing reliable sources because BO.com offers a higher gross. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

KahnJohn did enquire about this on my talk page, and I asked him to obtain a consensus before changing any of the box office sources. We certainly don't want to keep flipping between sources every few days; basically we need to be sure that one site is tracking it and the other is not. Betty Logan (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Betty, we are concerned about the budget of films in Boxoffice.com. They are off from BOM. Sometimes, both sites can differ on grosses as well, even domestic and foreign wise. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the budgets are a problem, and I have added a note about their usage at the resource page. Personally I think they probably include the distribution and marketing costs too (and hence why they call it "Total budget"), but there is no way of knowing that for sure. As for the reasons why the grosses differ then that is more complicated, which is why it is important to discuss any source replacement beforehand. Does anyone know if these discrepencies occur in films 2-3 years old? Betty Logan (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Distribution costs is probably what matters more than marketing cost. I wouldn't rely on boxoffice.com for budget numbers. Plus, I wouldn't know when discrepancies occur in films to be honest. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think what we should do is investigate the budgets on boxoffice.com to see how reliable it really is since it is quite higher than BOM. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo isn't fantastic when it comes to budgets either. The problem is studios don't usually release their budgets so it is difficult to ascertain how accurate an estimate is. There is one case involving Sahara (2005 film) that was audited for a court case over Hollywood accounting: according to BOM it cost $130 million, while according to BO.com it cost $185 million. According to the court audit it actually cost $160 million, so both were quite far out. It's often best if you can find an article where a journalist actually talks to a studio spokesman or a producer, like we have in the case of The Dark Knight Rises or Men in Black 3. Betty Logan (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it a reliable source for biomedical information? Considering that:

a) It is a commercial site that gets commissions from sales on other sites to which they refer and profits from the sale of publications.

1. Stated income is also derived from usage of sponsored links, including Amazon.com.

b) Using online and self-published sources - Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using online and self-published sources, a guideline, warns against use of sources whose content is controlled by their owner - "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication." Ryanspir (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Please check the archives for previous discussions. a13ean (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable source for their own statements. Should not be used as a general source for medical fact, but if there is a controversy over a particular practice, it should be sufficient for saying "Quackwatch has stated practice X is not beneficial" or whatever. Virtually every site out there is commercial in some fashion. That has no impact on its reliability or not. Our "gold standard" for sources is newspapers, magazines etc, and they are heavily reliant on ad revenue and sales. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the LA Times article as it is used on the article of medical uses of colloidal silver http://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Medical_uses_of_silver is a secondary source or a primary source?

According to WP:MEDRS - "For Wikipedia's purposes, articles in the popular press are generally considered independent, primary sources."

However there is an editor that claims that the LA Times article is a reliable secondary source. Ryanspir (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

What article are we talking about? What LA Times article is being used as the source? To verify what content?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

"The Los Angeles Times stated that "colloidal silver as a cure-all is a fraud with a long history, with quacks claiming it could cure cancer, AIDS, tuberculosis, diabetes and numerous other diseases."63" this is the content. Article: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/02/business/fi-swine-flu-scams2. Ryanspir (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit unclear as to whether the LA Times is reporting what the FDA thinks of colloidal silver, or whether they are stating it on their own authority. In either case, I would suggest treating it as if it were a reliable primary source (ie with attribution). It would certainly be reliable for a statement along the lines of: A recent LA Times report described the cure-all properties of colloidal silver as "a fraud with a long history, with quacks claiming it could cure cancer, AIDS, tuberculosis, diabetes and numerous other diseases."63 Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The LA Times article should stay in. It is not being used to describe the medical effects, it is being used to describe fraudulent promotion, which is well within its expertise to describe. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a discussion about keeping or not the LA article. It is a discussion about establishing if it's a secondary source as one editor has said or it's a primary source as WP:MEDRS says.

However I'm not sure we can say "a recent", since it was printed in 2009. Ryanspir (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ryan, re if it's a secondary source as one editor has said or it's a primary source as WP:MEDRS says: you are the only editor at Talk:Medical uses of silver with the notion that the LA Times article as used is a primary source. Everybody else has said it's a secondary source. Please stop misrepresenting the situation to further your own editing goals.

As well you are misapplying WP:MEDRS. Regarding popular press, where WP:MEDRS says, "for Wikipedia's purposes, articles in the popular press are generally considered independent, primary sources," it is referring to popular press "articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer reviewed journal or reproduced by other experimenters" as it says. It talking about popular-press coverage of individual study results. It is not talking about popular-press coverage of the marketing history of a kind of product, as the LA Times article is. Sorry if the wording in WP:MEDRS is unclear and is confusing you but you are applying it incorrectly here. Zad68 16:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Well said. Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Official sites of authors, bands, artists etc are often used in articles, hopefully with care and an eye to WP:NPOV, WP:PSTS etc. Is there a guideline anywhere that talks specifically about using official sites in referencing ? Thanks Span (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No... not one specifically about official websites. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't find one that even mentions official sites in passing. Span (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUBLISH, perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

And maybe Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Using the subject as a self-published source. This text doesn't use the term "official site", but I'd say that for our purposes a subject's personal site and official site come to the same thing: they are published by or under the authority of the subject. Andrew Dalby 15:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That'll do. Great. Thanks Span (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a stale thread at "List of magic museums" over whether "findacadabra.com" should be used as a source in the lede. The site appears to be WP:USERGENERATED (it's a Google map which accepts user submissions, with an unclear level of moderation) and possibly redundant, as it's only being used to source the statement that "more than two-dozen museums exist". (The article lists 27, using other websites as sources.) Should this source be used? --McGeddon (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to believe that this is non-usable as a reliable source, but before I completely dismiss it, I wanted to ask if the Geeks of Doom site would be usable as a RS or not. I've seen the site around and the only reason I'm somewhat unsure is that I've seen a few other sites mention it here and there. It wouldn't completely save this article that I'm trying to rescue from AfD, but it'd go a long way towards helping. Here's a link to the website here: 3 I'm thinking no, but again- it doesn't hurt to double check. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Source: Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement. Arthur Goldwag, SPLC Intelligence, Report No.145 4

Article: Men's rights

Content:

• "Aspects of the American movement have been criticized by the Southern Poverty Law Center for exhibiting misogynistic tendencies." (in Lead)

• "The Southern Poverty Law Center has criticized aspects of the American movement for exhibiting misogynistic tendencies. The SPLC noted about websites, blogs and forums related to the movement that "while some of them voice legitimate and sometimes disturbing complaints about the treatment of men, what is most remarkable is the misogynistic tone that pervades so many." (in Criticism section)

Comment: The question I would like help in clarifying is:-

Is the Arthur Goldwag article reliable as a citation to reflect the views of the SPLC? These views are expressed in the voice of the SPLC in the Wikipedia article. Or can this only be used as a citation for the views of Arthur Golwag. I don't think broad statements about the reliability of the SPLC can be made; good judgement should be used with each case looked at individually. In this case I feel this article is not reliable as a source for its contents to be quoted in the voice of the SPLC. Though clearly reliable for the views of Arthur Goldwag.

To me parts of this article read like a polemic, and it further includes statements such as:-

• The men’s rights movement, also referred to as the fathers’ rights movement (which is factually incorrect), is made up of a number of disparate, often overlapping, types of groups and individuals.

• The men’s movement also includes mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists who are eager to learn the secrets of “game”—the psychological tricks that supposedly make it easy to seduce women.

• Some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women. Others, who have internalized Christian “headship” doctrine, are desperately seeking the “submissive” women such doctrine celebrates.

I would appreciate your feedback.

CSDarrow (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Flippant comment Combining these two subjects is like the anti-Christ of Reese Peanutbutter cups.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC) −

(edit conflict)Thank you for bringing this here CSDarrow, and I toowould also be glad to hear other opinions. But I would just like to point out that this argument is incorrectly framed, since it isn't just Arthur Goldwag and the article mentioned above that speak about the SPLC in relation to the men's rights movement. Two other articles in the same Intelligence Report issue, 5 one written by Mark Potok (the editor-in-chief) and Evelyn Schlatter and an unsigned article also makes the same claim of misogeny among Men's rights activists. This clearly isn't just Goldwag's opinion. Slp1 (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

My question is clear and with respect to Arthur Goldwag. CSDarrow (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

After reading the source, it is clear this is the opinion of the SPLC and not soley Goldwag's opinion.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

So the further 3 statements I quoted from the article are also the opinions of the SPLC? CSDarrow (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It looks like he is speaking for the SPLC. He's writing in their magazine, without any disclaimer that he's only speaking for himself. Another SPLC article by different authors seems to have said many of the same things.6 In a later blog post on the SPLC site, Goldwag seems to have thought he was speaking for the SPLC.7 He's made other posts on the subject on the SPLC site.89 The Good Men Project thinks he was speaking for the SPLC in that article.10 He was quite harsh, yes; but he's not claiming to be balanced. We can't cite the things he says as facts, but I think we can cite them as the view of the SPLC, which is generally notable on this sort of subject. --GRuban (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I doubt the SPLC has a formal opinion in the sense that an esteemed group sits around a table balancing out evidence. They rely on editorial control and authors who they feel will reflect the general ethos of the organisation. Usually their targets are pretty easy marks and it is pretty difficult to mess up. They messed up with the Goldwag et al articles and they know it. Goldwag wrote a damage control article later. 11. I doubt they will revisit this issue, it's too contentious. CSDarrow (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Directly responding to your critics isn't "damage control". It's called communication. I'm concerned, CSDarrow, that your own POV is getting in the way here. Viriditas (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. SPLC's Intelligence Report isn't merely a magazine with articles by authors expressing their independent views. The views are those of SPLC on the issue, not just Goldwag's. The two other articles in the same issue expressing the same views underscore that conclusion. Fladrif (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see evidence supporting that statement. Viriditas (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Note, having written about Goldwag and his work I'm somewhat familiar with him if anyone has any questions. Viriditas (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think he is a low brow equivalent of Anne Coulter. He is from the genre of 'journalism' that writes polemics for the masses, either left of right. They appeal to the adrenalin kick of agreement or outrage and have existed for centuries in all cultures. In the Middle East it is a national sport, with wildly popular TV programs featuring the likes of Goldwag or Coulter shooting from the hip, it's considered humor by most. In the West we are novices in comparison. CSDarrow (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you must have Goldwag confused with someone else. There is no valid comparison at all. In fact, I would challenge you to come up with a single evidence-based comparison. Frankly, your statement appears to be based on pure fantasy and wishful thinking. It's one thing to make an informed criticism but quite another to invent it because you dislike the subject. Sorry, but honesty isn't optional here. Viriditas (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

We obviously aren't talking about the same Arthur Goldwag. CSDarrow (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Put up or shut up, CSDarrow. You have repeatedly claimed that "Goldwag is a well known polemicist" and you've compared him to Ann Coulter. Which reliable, independent third-party sources support your contention? None, of course, because you made it up. Sorry, but the RS noticeboard isn't a place for fantasy and science fiction. Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

As my 8 year old daughter would say, "Lol". CSDarrow (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

So you openly admit that everything you said about Goldwag cannot be found in any reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Final comment. Thanks to all for considering this. I take the consensus is that the opinions express in Goldwag article, and other pieces discussed here, can be considered to be the opinions of the SPLC. CSDarrow (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not "final" for me. Could you tell me how you arrived at that opinion? In what way is Goldwag representing the opinion of the SPLC? Not only is he a reliable, authoritative source on this subject, he's speaking as an expert, not as a representative of the SPLC. The claims that the American men's movement is misogynistic is an uncontested, uncontroversial observation based on good observations and solid analyses. It's hardly a "polemic" nor a minority opinion. In reality, it is considered the mainstream view. Wikipedia strives to give proper weight to mainstream views in our articles. Viriditas (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No, he's pretty clearly giving the opinion of the SPLC. (Which we should have in the article, but labeled as such.) Look at how Goldwag describes his own article himself 12:

• "The last issue of the SPLC’s Intelligence Report presented a scathing portrait of “a hard-line fringe” of the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM)" - if he thought it was not a polemic, but a balanced view, he would not have called it scathing.
• "The article, entitled “Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement,” provoked a tremendous response among men’s rights activists (MRAs) and their sympathizers." If this was already the mainstream view, it would have been unlikely to provoke a tremendous response.
• "It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit. But we did call out specific examples of misogyny and the threat, overt or implicit, of violence." Note the emphasis (bolding mine) on how this is the SPLC saying these things; "label"ing, "claim"ing, "calling out". Not "these are just the facts" or "this is just the mainstream view", but "we, the SPLC, say this". --GRuban (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It is the mainstream viewpoint and Arthur Goldwag is an expert on organized hate and extremist groups. He does not work for or speak for the SPLC. Unless you have evidence showing otherwise, then you will have to concede your argument. Opinions from the "manosphere" are fringe opinions, not the mainstream. Wikipedia isn't part of the manosphere. You don't get to make stuff up about Goldwag. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, I don't care if it Goldwag or the SPLC who is speaking. But it is very important to know who is. Consensus is, whether you like it or not, seems to be the SPLC not Goldwag. I don't have a counter to the arguments presented here, as neither it would seem do you. CSDarrow (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Does Goldwag work for the SPLC? Yes or no? He's an expert on this subject matter, and he is speaking based on his expertise. Wikipedia recognizes sources as authoritative, not editors. A consensus must be based on the sources, not on what editors think about them. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Um - hello? Viriditas? Did you read the statement just above yours? The one where Goldwag refers to his own article and says it is the SPLC speaking? If he doesn't work for or speak for the SPLC, then he is one very confused individual. --GRuban (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You took a statement out if context and made a comment about his use of the royal we. Am I supposed to take this seriously? Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are. It's not out of context, the entire article refers to his previous article as speaking for the SPLC, and never says that it is only speaking for him. Earlier I linked to multiple articles he has written for the SPLC in exactly the same context. He is absolutely convinced he is speaking for the SPLC, as are the various people complaining about the article. "The royal we" seems farfetched. --GRuban (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

He's speaking for himself and when he says "our article" he's responding as the writer of the article published by the SPLC. This is obvious. That you are turning this into something it is not is telling. Does he work for the SPLC, yes or no? Do writers who are published by the SPLC speak for the organization or for themselves? Yes or no? Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think we are getting a bit of an unnecessary tangle here, as I think Viriditas and GRuban are really saying much the same things in terms of the reliability and the inclusion of this material in the article: it doesn't matter really about the status of Goldwag, as an article by the editor in chief as well as an unsigned column in the same issue make much the same point. Together there are several reliable sources saying that the SPLC has pointed out misogynist aspects of the MRM.

What I am concerned about, however, based on CSDarrow's "Final Comment" is the possibility that s/he is hoping to use a "consensus" here to justify some proposed pointy edits - see this and this. I've already commented on the talkpage of the Men's rights movement that while Goldwag and the Intelligence Report are reliable sources, particularly for their opinions on specific situations, this is not an all or nothing situation. The comments made here, it seems, are about the misogeny material, not necessarily giving the green light to the other quotes from the Goldwag article listed above. It would be good to get the opinions of other editors about this aspect of the issue. Slp1 (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Spl1, I think you need to read WP:GOODFAITH. Either this is Goldwag or the SPLC speaking. Initially, I actually thought it was Goldwag, but have been convinced otherwise.

CSDarrow (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then. I'm happy to assume good faith that you won't use this discussion to justify any other edits than the misogeny material. Would you care to confirm that my good faith is well-founded? Slp1 (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Spl1, I think you really need to read WP:GOODFAITH again. Either this article is Goldwag or the SPLC speaking. This is a very simple question I was asking, and I think a very important question. I actually thought it was Goldwag, but have been convinced otherwise. I don't care who it is, if people want to go with Goldwag I'll go with Goldwag. But the consensus among uninvolved editors, supported by convincing argument, is that it is the SPLC. Your posts are muddying a very simple issue.

Frankly I find your comment utterly puzzling, perhaps I am tired. Time for me to go to bed, goodnight.

CSDarrow (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, I am much more puzzled by your repeated characterization of Goldwag as a "polemicist". I am quite familiar with Goldwag's work, and he's as far from a polemicist as one can get. Now, you can stop characterizing him in this strange way or you can cite a reliable source supporting it. It's your choice. You recently compared him to Ann Coulter, which is so off the mark, that I'm questioning your ability and competence to participate in this discussion. There isn't a single thing that Goldwag and Coulter have in common. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Re:- "There isn't a single thing that Goldwag and Coulter have in common."

7 letters? You have sources for your statement? CSDarrow (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, you asked if Goldwag was a reliable source? He is. You also claimed that his piece was a polemic. There is no evidence of any kind, and Goldwag is not a polemicist. He's an expert on organized hate and extremist groups, and his piece on extremist elements of the men's movement is backed by solid sources, as is all of his work. You appear to be misusing the RS noticeboard to push your singular "men's rights" POV. Please don't do that. Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas: In fact Arthur Goldwag is such an expert he does know the difference between the Men Rights and Fathers Rights movements. And I quote

"The men’s rights movement, also referred to as the fathers’ rights movement....." 13

I was not going to post again but the absurdity of your comments was too much to resist. 18:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You apparently have difficulty understanding what you read. That would explain the reason for this thread. Goldwag is an expert on organized hate and extremist groups. At a higher level of abstraction, one might certainly paint all related groups with a broad brush, just as one would refer to a family of plants in general without specifying their subspecies. Your fallacious focus on highlighting such minutiae is quite telling. I get it, you are only here to play games and push your POV not build an encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Formal reply: Arthur Goldwag is an author and journalist who writes for the Southern Poverty Law Center Hatewatch blog as a "hate expert". Writers do not "speak" for their publications, although they may accurately represent their positions. On Wikipedia, when we cite a quote, statement, or opinion from a writer, we attribute it to their name (Arthur Goldwag) and their publication (in this case, based on the two different sources linked above, the Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report and the Southern Poverty Law Center Hatewatch blog, depending on which one you are citing). End of discussion. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

No offense intended, Viriditas, but the evident consensus (as Wikipedia defines the term) reached here is in direct contradiction to your statement, and your assertion that you somehow have been entrusted with the power to end the discussion in contradiction to this consensus seems a bit overstated. If discussion is over, it's because the person asking the question got his response. And, unfortunately, it is not your response. --GRuban (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I know quite a bit about Goldwag and I know how we attribute authors. I can say with some certainty that the so-called "responses" that you refer to demonstrate that they know neither. Worst of all, they are intimately involved in editing the article in the question, and they appear to be pushing their own POV in that regard. I am not involved, and as someone who is familiar with the source and how to attribute it, I can safely say that this is the only correct response. Further, the original question was flawed. We don't determine who the author is speaking for, we focus on proper attribution. I hope this corrects your misunderstanding. Viriditas (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I am duly corrected, and honored to be able to share a noticeboard page with someone of your authority. Will you also be changing the header of this page, so it no longer suggests visitors ask for the consensus opinions of other editors, and just directs them to go straight to you from now on? --GRuban (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

In general the SPLC has not disavowed signed articles for claims of "fact", and they are routinely referred to as being in the voice of the SPLC on Wikipedia. It is unusual indeed for anyone to argue otherwise - where the claims are phrased as "fact" and not as "opinion" then we do not ascribe the "fact" to the author. SPLC presumably fact-checks facts, after all. Were the example to be clearly an "opinion" then best practice is to ascribe opinions only to those holding them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

What is unusual here is your argument that we must prove a negative. That's not our responsibility at all. Our job is to accurately attribute, and the claim that Goldwag speaks for the SPLC isn't supported anywhere. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I made no such argument at all. It is up to editors to determine whether something is a "fact" or is an "opinion" - and best practice is to ascribe opinions as opinions to those holding them. How in hell do you get "must prove a negative" from that? Collect (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You wrote, In general the SPLC has not disavowed signed articles for claims of "fact", and they are routinely referred to as being in the voice of the SPLC on Wikipedia. In other words, you imply that we must prove that the author does not speak for the SPLC, because Wikipedia editors assume that they do. You can't be serious! We aren't arguing over facts vs. opinion but about proper attribution. We accurately attribute by author and publisher. What we don't do is speculate about whether an author speaks for an organization. This is really simple. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_148
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.

---