Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:50, 6 March 2018

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

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

Jeremy Bates New York Jets Quarterbacks Coach

The page for Jeremy Bates incorrectly identifies him as the Offensive Coordinator for the New York Jets. He is listed on the official New York Jets website as the quarterbacks coach, a position he has held for about a year. On January 19, 2018 a piece was published in the New York Daily news that contained speculation that Bates would be named Offensive Coordinator for the Jets but no announcement has been forthcoming and no change has been made to the official website. There has been no verification of any kind by Bates or anyone connected with the Jets that he has been promoted.

Edit filter for the Daily Mail

(Formerly: Cross-post of WP:EFN discussion) A year ago, this noticeboard resolved that links to the Daily Mail would generally be banned on this project. The ban has never been technically implemented, however. A discussion was started at EFN last month to finally set the Mail filter to warn, but it fell off of the noticeboard due to lack of participation. I just rescued the discussion from the archives, and I thought that this time around I'd cross-post here, since the discussion is arguably more relevant to this board than to that one. — PinkAmpers& 14:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Make it so. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support No reason to not have this in my view. --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - This would be help a lot. We should also do this for Breitbart, and possibly others.- MrX 🖋 16:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

what picard said. Jytdog (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Unnecesary vanity tags that just waste volunteer time. --DHeyward (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Eh? This does the exact opposite, warning users of inappropriate citations before they commit, saving reversions. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't WANT them warned: he's using his comments at WP:EFN to relitigate the RFC. --Calton | Talk 03:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm reviving this discussion with the hope of coming to a conclusion. I just had to revert WP:BDP content cited to the Daily Mail. It would be nice if this filter were implemented.- MrX 🖋 19:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: Surprisingly, there still are over 27,000 articles in Misplaced Pages that cite the Daily Mail. Would it be necessary to replace these references if this filter were implemented? Jarble (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a good question Jarble. I don't know, but I doubt it. Perhaps PinkAmpersand knows.- MrX 🖋 22:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

On a technical level, no, nothing would need to be done. The filter would only catch edits adding references to the Mail; it wouldn't do anything to edits to articles with preexisting references. Also, while the support/oppose !votes here aren't unhelpful, they're just relitigating a settled issue. What needs to be decided is how to implement the RfC consensus, and I would encourage editors to comment on that matter at EFN (rather than here, since EFN has the ultimate say on this). — PinkAmpers& 23:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Technically wouldnt it flag up if someone edited a section/article with an existing DM reference? That would at least prompt people to replace it. (oh and support filter etc etc) Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

PinkAmpersand, has blacklisting been considered? I see that The Daily Mailer is blacklisted, but not the Daily Mail. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I'm not sure. That would be a good question to ask at EFN. — PinkAmpers& 15:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

PinkAmpersand, if I understand things rightly, this is probably the best place to seek a consensus on whether to move forward (not the final decision) with blacklisting a source. With a consensus in hand, then a "nomination" at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist would likely result in a blacklisting. Does that make sense? Should we start a new thread seeking an actual blacklisting, since that's different than the subject of this thread? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Ah, I see your point. I thought you were asking more of a technical question. Anyways, personally I'd be against outright blacklisting, since there's a decent number of cases where Mail links are permitted. A filter that warns but does not block seems more flexible than a spam blacklist that outright blocks. — PinkAmpers& 17:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Then I'll settle for a filter. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Only in death: No, that's not how the filter works. If you look at the source code, you'll see that it only checks whether the added text (added_lines) has a Mail link, not whether the article itself (new_wikitext) does. You can see for yourself: Go make a copy-edit to an article with a Mail link, and then check your own filter log. You shouldn't see an entry for the edit. — PinkAmpers& 15:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support its about time we do this.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support I see no valid reason that we should not warn users not to add cites to the Daily Myth.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Steven, did you mean to write "warn users to not add cites"? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• LOL, yes, a not in the wrong place, how DM of me.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Censorship is not the answer. Likewise the discussion resolved that DM is acceptable in certain circumstances. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• The C of E, you do realize this isn't a ban, but just a warning to be cautious? No one is asking for censorship. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

We "censor" things all the time. The blacklist has thousands of websites, many titles and word are blacklisted. The Daily Mail is not, by community consensus, a reliable source, so this should change nothing at all, other than saving people the annoyance of having to revert crappy sources. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If you want to revisit the decision, C of E, just start a new RFC instead of trying to hobble it by the back door. --Calton | Talk 03:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support a filter. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Seems to be a no-brainer. --Calton | Talk 03:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support As long as this is limited to a warning, and limited to the Daily Mail, then it makes perfect sense as a logical extension of the previous decision. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. A warning seems like it will save us trouble down the road without much risk of causing problems. Anyone adding a new reference to the Mail ought to be made aware of the decision regarding it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Aquillion's comment above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)
• Support. It's time we implemented a decision we have already made. Bishonen | talk 18:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC).
• Support I think this is like the third time -- we already have the consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Edit filters should be used against sites that have been blacklisted. While DM is not to be used for factual aspects, it is not blacklisted - it can and should be used if the newspaper is the center of a controversy. I see a slippery slope where a source we've claimed non-reliable is on a filter, we would start including more, and that will make the situation worse. --Masem (t) 01:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Is a non-Reliable-Source reliable about who was his informant?

On Tikun Olam blog page someone added a claim by the blogger about a source of his. The blog on its own isn’t considered RS but can it be in this case since it is about the blogger?

The person who is supposed to be the informant past away about two years ago do no BLP issue here. But he was a public figure and I would assume th reliability of the source is important. Change

Kigelim (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If the author of a blog writes about his previously anonymous source, of course he's qualified to describe the source. That's axiomatic. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It would have to be attributed to Silverstein, but Tikun Olam is RS for Silverstein saying something. Note you may have BLP issues regarding naming the informant (from a non-RS - so saying Silverstein named Y) - separate from RSness. See WP:SELFPUB].Icewhiz (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

BLP isn’t an issue bc the guy is dead. Self published says “it does not involve claims about third parties;”. This claim includes another individual.

in addition and possibly more important, no one have picked on the story. It is a big deal a person at his position will reveal secrets to a foreign blogger. This isn’t just a cute fact rather he would have been tried for breaking Israeli law.

In short, is Silverstein RS to claim an individual broke the law? Kigelim (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Silverstein didn't claim the source broke the law. That's your interpretation. He wrote that "he offered me scores of scoops on major stories which could not be published in Israel due to judicial gag orders or military censorship" (emphasis added). Since Silverstein is American and his blog is published in the U.S., I don't see a claim anywhere—except in your post—that the source violated the law.

And why do you have such a bug up your ass about Silverstein anyway? Are you an unrequited lover? A stalker? You've been on this jihad for almost three years now. Isn't it time to find a more productive way to spend your time? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 04:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:BDP actually still possibly applies. However, per WP:SELFPUB(2) it does not involve claims about third parties and possibly SELFPUB(4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity as well - this should be excluded as long as it is sourced to Silverstein himself (whose blog is generally not a WP:RS - though I admit I read it regularly (in between of the crud, some 10%-15% of pieces actually have some information. Middleeast Eye is not a RS either, and in any event they have stated The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye. making their RSness moot).Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn’t suggest Silverstein broke the law but the other individual who shared the information did. That individual is a 3rd party. Kigelim (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

That's what I wrote. In any event, you haven't explained your obsession with Silverstein. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Did or didn’t his informant break Israeli law by telling Silverstein the information? Absolutely! For your question, Silverstein uses whatever source to blackwash Israel. He even relays on comments on his blog as sources. The fact no one caught on this scoop of his means either he isn’t taken seriously or WP:BLP prevents me of completing the sentence. Kigelim (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, so now you're an attorney as well as a stalker? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 01:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Is that your defense line? Do you have any doubt revealing state secrets are breaking the law? Since you are such a Silverstein fan you know he thinks he doesn’t visit Israel bc he is afraid to be arrested and that when he isn’t even subject to Israeli law while publishing any piece of supposed intel. Kigelim (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't need a defense. You're the one asserting that a law has been broken. I'm simply asking if you're a lawyer. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 04:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

FWIW (this discussion is getting off topic - SELFPUB applies anyway) - discussing the subject of an Israeli judicial gag order privately, as opposed to publishing it via public means would not, in and of itself, breach the gag order. This is much of what Silverstein publishes (in terms of scopes). Discussing matters under military censorship would potentially be different - depending on the particulars. Whether such a defense (which would entail claiming Silverstein's subsequent publication was unrelated to the aforementiined discussion) would hold up in court... Is a diferent matter.Icewhiz (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Bates New York Jets Quarterbacks Coach

The page for Jeremy Bates incorrectly identifies him as the Offensive Coordinator for the New York Jets. He is listed on the official New York Jets website as the quarterbacks coach, a position he has held for about a year. On January 19, 2018 a piece was published in the New York Daily news that contained speculation that Bates would be named Offensive Coordinator for the Jets but no announcement has been forthcoming and no change has been made to the official website. There has been no verification of any kind by Bates or anyone connected with the Jets that he has been promoted.

Mass creation of table tennis articles largely based on a single source.

ApricotFoot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is creating lots of articles on table tennis players, many of which rely solely on this website as their only source. Obscure sports notability is not exactly an area in which I have a lot of interest, but this seems kind of shaky to me. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The articles are for gold, silver and bronze medallists at World Championships so I would not describe them as 'Obscure sports notablilty'. Granted that many only carry the one source but surely that is why they have been created as stubs for other users to add and improve them?ApricotFoot (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I’m just not sure that winning a bronze medal at a table tennis contest in 1939 is a sufficiently notable achievement to merit a stand alone article. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Surely you cannot be serious, a bronze medal at a world championship in one of the worlds biggest participation sports! If you don't think that is notable then it begs the question as to whether every bronze medal for the vast majority of Olympics, Commonwealths, Europeans (non mainstream sports) should be deleted. Anyway as I said they are only stubs. I will add more citations from sports book collections that I have to help the issue, but it will take a couple of days.ApricotFoot (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

What I was really hoping for here was some input from uninvolved users, but it seems that is not forthcoming. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:NTENNIS, so yes getting a bronze in a major world tournament makes them notable. But it also lists what they are. So simpkle question, did they compete in any of these?Slatersteven (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: My apologies for editing your remark, but I fixed the link so we could see it, and I’m afraid that link deals with tennis, while the subject here is table tennis AKA ping-pong. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

So do we have a similar set of criteria?Slatersteven (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I haven’t been able to find one. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

LISTING IN FILM CREDITS

Hi--For some reason unknown to me, a song I co-wrote that was featured the film To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar, and which is listed in the "Soudtrack" section on the movie's Misplaced Pages page, was marked "citation needed." The song is listed among those not included on the soundtrack release; however, the song is included in the film's credits (link below). Apparently this doesn't constitute a "reliable source." Can that really be possible? I can even tell you at what moment the song appears in the film--it's playing on the car radio when the three stars get picked up hitchhiking...Thanks for your help. The credit is at 1:07 on the video. Senorartkat (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

If the song is listed in the film credits, then you can cite those credits. They are a reliable primary source for this sort of thing. Blueboar (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Do I just post the YouTube link as a footnote?Senorartkat (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

No, don't use the youtube video at all. A youtube video may have been doctored, and any decent editor could do it in a way that wasn't obvious to the casual viewer. If it was a video of a person saying something, that would be much harder to fake and so might be acceptable. But it's possible (if remote) that your song doesn't actually appear in the film, and you posted a doctored youtube video to try and engage in some self-promotion. Rather, you should use {{Cite AV media}} and reference the film directly. I can help you format it. This ensures that your reference material is valid.

Also, and this is much more important: YOU SHOULD NOT MAKE THIS EDIT. COI is a complex subject, but the absolute best way to treat it is to never make an edit to a topic you have any COI with. Instead, you should use the talk page to post an edit request that the edit be made on your behalf.

I see you've had a rough start, and you have my sympathies for that. It seems that we as a community could have been more welcoming and patient with you. But at the end of the day, our main focus is on content, and the fact that you were treated unfairly doesn't really matter. But please, let me help you. I'll comment at the talk page and try to get a discussion going. If the other editors will listen to me, or they just don't care enough to respond, I will make the edit. But if there's still a serious pushback, then I'm afraid you might have to let this matter go for now, and wait until things have cooled down. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I added my name to the Misplaced Pages page a long long time ago, but I never thought it would be thought of as a conflict of interest since the song is, in fact, in the movie. The "citation needed" seems to have appeared pretty recently, not sure why. I cited IMDb as a source not knowing it was user edited, and once again, unaware that it could be considered conflict of interest. Whatever; I'd appreciate your help very much. You are a fine human being, and I'm not stupid enough to lie about something that would be so easy to disprove.Senorartkat (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I added the film as a source and posted on the article talk page about it. The editor who had been reverting you thanked me for my talk page edits, so it's safe to presume they're okay with the addition of the film as a source. I hope this hasn't soured you on Misplaced Pages. We can be a bit (read: extremely) pedantic, but once you get used to it, it's pretty easy to get along. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Nah, I think it's good you're scrupulous. Thanks all around.Senorartkat (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikileaks

Hello. I just wanted to know if a Wikileaks source can be mentioned as reference or reliable source.  M A A Z   T A L K  09:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The simple answer is "it depends." As this question has been asked many times before, you may wish to search through the archives of this page for references to Wikileaks and read what has previously been discussed.TheBlueCanoe 16:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Be aware that our WP:EL policy forbids linking to websites which host copyrighted material without permission, ergo the very mission of Wikileaks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• The main problem with Wikileaks (aside from the problem BullRangifer points out) is that we can't trust that the documents are exactly what they purport to be. An ideologically driven document thief (whatever the ideology, whether they're a believer or just being paid) would be motivated to alter stolen documents to support said ideology. Even in cases where the documents can be verified through technical means (such as with the Podesta emails), said verification is far from foolproof. Even some of the emails verified through DKIM keys might not be legit: remember that the attackers had access to the computers which ran the software that produced the keys. If the recipient of an email no longer has a copy, there's no way to verify that the key which validates the email is the same key that was originally received. (I admit, this is a bit of a stretch, but it's certainly possible.)

So no, I would never cite a WL document, unless I absolutely had to, and even then, I would be very specific that it was the document hosted by WL which said whatever it said, and not imply that the original document said the same thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Ma'az: basically echoing TheBlueCanoe and MPants (and having no idea about BullRangifer's EL note), it very much depends, and Wikileaks should be treated as a primary source, or something close to it. As MPants notes they are also ideologically driven (which doesn't exclude their usefulness, just important to keep in mind). When they're cited it should be with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Darouet, you deserve an answer. The issue of linking to such websites came to my attention when we needed to link to the source of the Trump–Russia dossier. Unfortunately it isn't linked on the websites of Fusion GPS or Orbis Business Intelligence, where the copyright probably resides. It's located at DocumentCloud, without permission, so the article doesn't link to it.

The policy is located here: Misplaced Pages:External links#Restrictions on linking. I have just added WikiLeaks there, but even without that addition it still applies.

That policy applies even more so to WikiLeaks, where hosting stolen material is their mission. I hope that explains things. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey BullRangifer, thanks for explaining the situation at "Trump-Russia Dossier", and for linking to Misplaced Pages:External links#Restrictions on linking. As noted above I would remain very cautious about linking to it, but not because of copyright issues. Wikileaks is primarily known for releasing material that is classified, or secret, and often related to potential wrongdoing by governments. That kind of information is of great interest to journalists (never mind Wikipedians), and as you can see on our page describing Wikileaks, plenty of sources describe Wikileaks as a kind of journalistic organization. My principle concern would be 1) that because they often dump large quantities of data, has a reference to any particular release been justified by demonstration of interest in other media, 2) As MPants noted, there could be issues with the authenticity of the document, and 3) Wikileaks is a potentially useful, but also biased source. -Darouet (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I think that we can usually trust multiple RS to comment on such leaks from them, and we can cite those sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• I have a related question to this. What if the Wikileaks itself basis the content it on say other newspapers? Can then the opinion of the newspaper/source suddenly taken to be WP:NPOV. In this case wouldn't it be simply the diplomat relaying the information they read/heard back to State Department and sometimes including their own POV in it? Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• I've read alot of comments, and still i'm confused on this. Generally speaking, can Wikileaks be considered as a source. I have received following answers:

1. Yes, it is a reliable source.
2. It can be mentioned but it is only reliable if another reliable source is mentioned with it.
3. It can be mentioned as a source, however one should mention in the content that its from wikileaks.
4. No, it is a weak source and not reliable.

So, where is the line in the sand? Which opinion is the best opinion? I would love a closing verdict on this issue.  M A A Z   T A L K  13:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Ma'az — where the "line in the sand" is drawn, for this community, will tend to depend on the specific context. -Darouet (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

For example @Ma'az: it looks like an article you were editing had material removed that linked wikileaks, here . In that particular example, I have no idea how exactly that Wikileaks link would support such a very bold and general claim. I actually followed the link — it's a large file — and the multitude of information contained there does not allow a reader to editor to easily verify the claim. So in that particular case, you might find that the leak or its contents were reported in the Indian, Pakistani, Afghan or international press. But I think removing the link would be justified. -Darouet (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• As above: it's context dependent, but the default would be "no" for Wikileaks, which might flip to "yes" for specific content in specific articles. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Using advertisements in old newspapers as sources

Can a advertisement found in an old newspaper be used as a source to place an individual in a certain place. For example if Ringling Bros. Circus had an advertisement for an upcoming event in the St Louis Post - Dispatch newspaper in 1956, can I accurately state "Ringling Bros. visited St Louis in 1956" and use the advertisement as my source? Idealee (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I tend to believe not because the appearance may have been canceled but I just want another opinion Idealee (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The archive is strong enough to establish that the ad was placed. I would note that lists of venues likely are available somewhere. As to "an individual" - even an official list of venues can not establish an individual's actual location on a given day. Collect (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with those who say that "going to be here" and "being here" are not quite the same.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It is a reliable source saying that "Ringling Bros. intended to visit St Louis in 1956". but not much more. MilborneOne (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm marching with the crowd on this one: The event might have been cancelled after the ad was placed, so no. But it's okay to use to show that they intended to be there on that date. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

As seen in the article Atlanta International Film Festival.--Auric talk 16:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the input. It was the conclusion I had arrived to but I just wanted some confirmation. Idealee (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Can an editor dismiss the official government agency's website because they don't trust the government?

1. Source: Departments of Justice and Homeland Security Release Data on Incarcerated Aliens—94 Percent of All Confirmed Aliens in DOJ Custody Are Unlawfully Present

2. Illegal immigration to the United States

3. A report released by the DOJ and DHS on December 18, 2017, found that more than one-in-five of all persons in Bureau of Prisons custody were foreign born, and that 94% of confirmed aliens in custody were unlawfully present. They also found that non-citizens commit a substantially disproportionate number of drug-related offenses.

I restored part of someone's edit, but the same guy then removed it again. Dream Focus 16:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• WP:ATT. "According to the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, X". The reader can then make up their own mind. Guy (Help!) 16:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Having looked at their edit summary, I would go with "If you can make the case that the DOJ is untrustworthy with reliable sources, then I'll accept your objection as valid." In other words, if they can make that case to WP content standards, the way it was done with the Daily Mail a year ago, then it's okay to remove a citation to the DOJ based on mistrust of the DOJ. But if they can't, then their mistrust is misplaced, and their revert a mistake. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• The issue to me with the paragraph in question is that it's circular - if illegal/undocumented immigrants are put into Bureau of Prisons custody for being illegal/undocumented immigrants, then you're not necessarily demonstrating anything about their criminality other than merely being in the United States illegally. It would seem to me more relevant to rely on data that discusses rates of conviction/incarceration for illegal/undocumented immigrants vs. other immigrants and/or citizens. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Not at this time. What they do or do not trust is irrelevant. Even if it is not RS, we attribute it, so there is no valid objection nI can see.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• I requested secondary sources that put the report in appropriate context. Such a request is valid, given that this administration has on at least two occasions produced bogus reports (i.e. reports which produce false or misleading conclusions and omit relevant information) about immigration: (1) A "DHS report" which claimed three-quarters of “international terrorism” convicts were immigrants and (2) a study by the Department of Health and Human Services on the costs of refugees. The former study was ripped apart by reporters and fact-checkers, and was described by experts as highly misleading. It turned out that the analysis was not even conducted by DHS analysts. For the latter study, Stephen Miller forced the Department of Health and Human Services to omit that refugees had net positive effects (i.e. they brought in more revenue than they cost) after he was presented with the findings. In other words, the administration changed the analysis when it produced findings that it did not like. Should both of these misleading bogus reports have been added to Misplaced Pages without any independent secondary sourcing to substantiates the reports' veracity or put the findings in the appropriate context? Of course not. The same applies to the administration's most recent report on the horrors of immigration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  The first one is just a twitter Trump made. That has nothing to do with the justice department's official stats on their official website. The next bit is about legal refugees, not illegal immigrants. They help the economy because the wealthy ones get in first probably. Read the entire article and it says they just cherry picked information. The report shows they spend more money per refugee than on citizens in this country. Has there even been any proof that a government website has published false information about crime statistics? Dream Focus 17:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  Your response is bewildering and not about anything I brought up or that was in the sources cited here. Per the RS I cited here, the two reports are bogus. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• We are indeed dealing with an untrustworthy administration which is pushing bogus information in certain cases. Deal with it on a case-by-case basis, using RS to back up any edits. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, the BJS confirms the claim about the number of non-US citizens in custody, see https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p16.pdf. But this is rather misleading, as federal prisoners (the only ones counted) are only about 10-20% of the total prisoners in the US, and a disproportionate number of them will be citizenship-based offenders based on simple jurisdictions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The question is not so much RS as UNDUE, IMO. If this is a statistic that no reliable secondary source discusses, then neither should we. Guy (Help!) 18:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Is Poets & Quants an RS please?

Hello. Is Poets & Quants considered a reliable third-party source that we can cite please? It seems reliable to me but I am not sure who is behind the website. Please ping me when you reply. Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

52 Misplaced Pages articles use it. They have editorial oversight. Dream Focus 18:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

For what? It seems reliable but that will be very dependent on the content and the article. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Conforming website http://www.deccanherald.com as reference

Article: Shreya Ghoshal

Full reference URL: http://m.deccanherald.com/?name=http://www.deccanherald.com/content/661487/my-whole-focus-always-music.html

Content: She has sung in 14 languages. Zafar24Talk 00:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Forbes site subdomains as reference

Hi, I was looking at the Brie Larson article. On the opening lede, it has a link as a reference to Natalie Robehmed, who is on the editorial staff of Forbes. I know the sites subdomain is essentially a webhosting outfit, built with contributors but is it valid source. scope_creep (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Editors frequently misuse content from www.forbes.com/sites. In this case, however, because the author is identified as Forbes staff rather than as a contributor, is a reliable source for Larson being on a Forbes 30 Under 30 list. I wouldn't put it in the first paragraph of the lead, because it doesn't rank up there with her Academy Award, British Academy Film Award, and Golden Globe. Also it might be better worded as "in one of their 30 Under 30 lists". If Misplaced Pages is to be believed, there are 41 Forbes 30 Under 30 lists published every year. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Worldbruce. That has clarified the spot a bit. scope_creep (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Xianning (work on the Minor Administrative Divisions in China)

I have done about seventy of these for Chinese minor geography articles. This is the way I've been doing it recently. Seeking your thoughts and opinions. Please help me get as close into line with the standards of English Misplaced Pages as possible so I can do these in the right way.

Source 1 xianning.gov is directly from the local government- this type of website often includes typos on rarely used characters. I feel certain that it is a good source, but am I citing it correctly? Source 2 xzqh.org is from a secondary source which I feel is a reliable source on the administrative divisions of China- it is often used by other people in English wikipedia and on Baidu Baike. It often includes typos on rarely used characters. Is it really acceptable? The third source stats.gov.cn is the central government's lists of names and statistical numbers for administrative divisions; it often includes typos. 4 is another secondary source, less reliable but sometimes helpful. Having all four cited at once seems to me to me the best way to make sure that wikipedia is consulting all the relatively authoritative sources. There are definitely other sources, but I don't know about them and I hope you will tell me about them if they are out there. In essence, is there anything obviously out of line with my methodology, citations, or the statements I create based on looking at these sources?

1 Source: 4 sources

2 Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/Xianning

3 Content: Xianning has 1 district, 4 counties, 1 county-level city and 1 other area.

District:

• Xian'an District (咸安区) (location of Xianning's main urban area, i.e. the place that low-resolution maps would label as "Xianning")

Counties:

• Tongshan County (通山县)
• Chongyang County (崇阳县)
• Tongcheng County (通城县)
• Jiayu County (嘉鱼县)

City:

• Chibi City (赤壁市)

Other Area:

• Xianning Advanced Technology Industry Area (咸宁高新技术产业园区)

References

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxkFaxtFqx0
2. "咸宁市行政区划" (in Simplified Chinese). 咸宁新闻网. Retrieved 3 March 2018. 咸宁市辖嘉鱼县、通城县、崇阳县、通山县、赤壁市、咸安区四县一市一区和一个高新技术产业园区，共设12个乡、51个镇、6个办事处，下辖1049个村民委员会、10145个村民小组。
3. "咸宁市历史沿革" (in Simplified Chinese). 行政区划网站www.xzqh.org. 7 December 2011. Retrieved 3 March 2018. 2000年第五次全国人口普查，咸宁市总人口2700678人。其中：咸安区567598人，嘉鱼县358646人，通城县427867人，崇阳县456792人，通山县378849人，赤壁市510926人。 2004年末，咸宁市总面积10022平方千米，总人口约276.9万人。辖1个市辖区、4个县，代管1个县级市。共有6个街道、51个镇、12个乡，131个居委会、1034个村委会。
4. "2016年统计用区划代码和城乡划分代码：咸宁市" (in Simplified Chinese). 中华人民共和国国家统计局 National Bureau of Statistics of the People's Republic of China. 2016. Retrieved 3 March 2018. 统计用区划代码 名称 421201000000 市辖区 421202000000 咸安区 421221000000 嘉鱼县 421222000000 通城县 421223000000 崇阳县 421224000000 通山县 421281000000 赤壁市
5. "湖北咸宁市" (in Simplified Chinese). 博雅地名网. Retrieved 3 March 2018.

Ban on predatory publishing too restrictive to be fair

Since November 2017, I've had a dispute with Administrator JzG about the use of a particular source in the article on Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen. On 19 November 2017, JzG stripped the article of a book by Italian physical chemist Enzo Tiezzi, see this diff. The dispute remains unresolved by the time of writing, as JzG has so far declined to enter into a discussion of the substance to the argument, see my talk page for details on this.

Let me restate my most important point already made on my talk page: According to the prevailing WP content guideline on reliable sources, predatory publishing pertains only to low quality articles published in journals lacking a reliable peer review process. But Tiezzi's book is indeed a book, so the guideline obviously does not apply here.

Of general interest to other editors on this noticeboard is my concern that the ban on predatory publishers is too restrictive to be fair when books are boldly being stripped from WP articles whenever the publisher involved (in this case, WIT Press) is suspected of predatory publishing of articles. I would like some response from other editors on this issue, thank you.

References

References

1. Tiezzi, Enzo (2006). Steps Towards an Evolutionary Physics (PDF contains only the title and contents pages plus the preface of the book). Southampton, Boston: WIT Press. ISBN 1845640357.

End of post. Gaeanautes (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not a ban, it's simply that these are not reliable independent sources. Their peer review process is lax, their model is essentially indistinguishable from Lulu or some other vanity press. The source you mention above stinks of WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Does it matter what the peer review process is if the book is written by a reputable authority in the field? I am not presuming that Tiezzi is one in this case, but for the sake of argument, if Tiezzi was an acknowledged expert in the field, then I'm not sure it matters where that author publishes something. We do, after all, accept as sources self-published blogs by experts, which have zero peer review. bd2412 T 16:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, because vanity presses have been used to publish utter tripe, even by authorities in the field. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Policy says that we treat predatory journals as self-published sources. Whether it's a journal or a book seems to be a distinction without a difference. As with all self-published sources, the question then is whether the author is sufficiently noteworthy that his views should be included. Self-published sources should never be used to support extraordinary claims. And if the claim isn't extraordinary, there should be better sources available. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The two statements in the diff quoted appear to already have multiple other sources in support. Is there a reason why one additional citation – especially one to a predatory or vanity press – is necessary or particularly valuable?

The only other place the source is used is to support the infobox assertion that Georgescu-Roegen 'influenced' Enzo Tiezzi, citing a mention on page 40 of Tiezzi's book. Surely there should be more and better sources if Georgescu-Roegen was a sufficiently meaningful and significant influence to warrant infobox mention. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Barnes Review

An editor is suggesting that Barnes Review is an acceptable source to comment on Walt Disney Companys's values without a third party source mentioning their criticism as significant. If you've never heard of this source, try reading the second sentence of our article. (It was enough that after finding this I checked if the source was used anywhere else in wikipedia articles. It is, but all of the uses seem probably okay, fairly non contentious claims about people somehow involved in the magazine.) Assuming there is no dispute over the unsuitability of this source and I know this isn't really the purpose of this board, I'm hoping at a minimum people here will have some experience how to counsel an editor who believe such a source is acceptable since I'm at a loss and it doesn't seem to raise to the level for ANI of itself. I initially thought that maybe this editor just didn't realise what Barnes Review was, but the fact they initially added it , combined with a look at their edit history suggests to me they probably are aware. Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

vgmdb.net as a source for video game music information

I'm trying add citations for Donkey Kong Country#Audio, but I've had difficulty finding reliable sources to support its information. The difficulty, in my opinion, is because the soundtrack was published in 1994 and many of the physical sources which have documented information about it are now gone, and it's from a time before there was a large internet presence of online media documenting this kind of stuff. While I have a good idea that the two pieces of information that I'm trying to verify are correct: That the official name for the track is "DK Island Swing", not "DK Swing" as the Square Enix article names it, and that the album has "hidden" bonus tracks, it seems that the only source of information are online databases.

The most promising source that I can find is video game music database. While the site does rely on community-generated content, it requires registration, and edits are not submitted until they are reviewed by trusted editors. The about page is somewhat reasuring, though the only people connected with are online pseudonyms. While this is not the preferable source for this information, the information seems to be important information when discussing the soundtrack in the article, and I can find no better sources.

Basically, is this an acceptable use case, and if not, what should be done with the content?

Thanks, --E to the Pi times i (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how you could grant an exception to WP:USERG for this, and I say this as an active member of VGMdb. Also, edits there aren't pre-reviewed and accepted by trusted editors like you claimed, it works similarly to Misplaced Pages in that they are published and go live immediately and only get reverted by others if deemed false or whatever. However, I would consider using their hosted scans of liner notes as a reliable source, as you could verify the info there and simply cite the OST itself in articles. I'd also consider cross-posting this to the WP:VG/RS talk page for opinions from dedicated MOS:VG editors. ~ Dissident93 02:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Dissident93, could you clarify what you mean by "using their hosted scans of liner notes as a reliable source"; I'm not sure what you mean by liner notes. And whoops, I didn't realize that they didn't review in that manner, that was my impression from a brief edit there. --E to the Pi times i (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit: (03:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)) Do you mean like the back cover of DK Jamz? That works, except for verifying the hidden tracks. It would be nice if I could cite the album itself for the hidden tracks, since I know the tracks are there (I own the album), but that seems like circular sourcing.

Yes, all the albums and its packaging (such as liner notes) that get scanned, uploaded, and then hosted by VGMdb. As for the hidden tracks, well it has to be sourced from somewhere else; if you can't find it other than the VGMdb tracklist, then it can't really be verified (on Misplaced Pages) and thus shouldn't be cited in articles. ~ Dissident93 03:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You can definitely use the album itself as a source. It is a published piece of media.--Alexandra IDV 17:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

(Yes, where applicable, think of it the same as a Plot section in an article about a film or novel -- they do not require any secondary sourcing at all because I can describe the plot myself after watching the film or reading the novel.) MPS1992 (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Alexandra IDV and MPS1992: Ah, but after investigating policy more thoroughly, I have figured out what bothers me about using the album as a source in this context: In order to come to the conclusion that the track list is different from the album's tracks, I have to have the album, the liner notes, and perform an analysis by comparing the two. Per WP:NOR, I'm not allowed to do this. It's annoying, but it's an important policy. skirts the edge of WP:I-SAW-IT (bear with me, I'm stretching it). It's easy enough for me to say I've seen that the album has more tracks than are listed on the liner notes, but it's not as simple as song lyrics or book quotation. In order to come to the It's preferable to have a secondary source which describes it, certainly, especially since there's a citation-needed template there, indicating someone thought that statement was citation necessary (probably beyond the album itself as a source.) That said, I'm going to end up using it as a temporary supporting source there until I can bolster it with more sources. --E to the Pi times i (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC) (Edit 03:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC))

Giulio Meotti

At Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict Giulio Meotti's article The silence of the West Ynet 22 February 2012 was quoted for the view:

Giulio Meotti has argued the opposite position – that antisemitism has become socially acceptable in Western media and that the world tolerates murder of Jewish children

This extraordinary hyperbole is quoted in the lead as though it were a representative view. Now Meotti was shown to be a serial plagiarist soon after that date, and Ynet dropped him almost immediately afterwards from its columns.

The evidence that the views he puts forth as his own are filched from googling other journalists was documented by Marc Tracy:-

• Marc Tracy Op-ed on Israeli Gay Rights Lifts Without Credit TabletMay 16, 2012
• Marc Tracy Italian Journalist Also Plagiarized in U.S. Outlets, Tablet May 22, 2012)

He was also dropped as a contributor to Commentary that same year and in 2014 The Italian Informazione Correttas gay rights activist Angelo Pezzana, otherwise close to the ultra-right Israeli circles, fired him.(Andrea Mollica, Furiosa lite sui gay fra ultràs della destra filoisraeliana Gad Lerner.it, 29 January 2014.

An editor has restored Meotti's stuff saying he is quotable for his own views, but the evidence is, given he lifts material from all over the net, no one can say if those are his views or borrowed from other journalists. In any case he is a fringe voice, and in my view totally unacceptable for an encyclopedia.Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Prior copy-pasting issues aside, it does seem he is still in the employ of Il Foglio and that he moved from YNET to Arutz Sheva - publishing regularly in both. He should be reliable for his own opinion - this is more of a NPOV/WEIGHT issue than a RS issue.Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

His own quoted opinion is extremist, bigoted and nugatory. We do not source Misplaced Pages articles to fringe lunatic opinionist sources. If we did, articles would just consist of grandstanding peripheral murmurs from the web's infinite spinmeisters. Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

No one is saying he in't published: he was picked up by the conservative rightwing Il Foglio, which is basically a broadsheet with limited circulation (25,000 copies), notable for supporting the Church's former ultramontane hostility to bioethical issues though Giuliano Ferrara himself is an atheist, and financed also by Denis Verdini, who to date has been convicted of corruption, and has several outstanding cases against him for bankruptcy. As for Arutz Sheva it's a settler rag that promotes conspiracy views like Meotti's (the Pope is abandoning Europe to Islam, Obama's presidency was infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, Kevin Spacey's only safe option would be to convert to Islam where homosexuality's acceptable (?), or firetorching by settlers of Abu Khdeir was perhaps done by an Arab homosexual. The list of fanatic bullshit from Meotti is endless. No mainstream newspaper will have a bar of him.Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

A settler viewpoint might be DUE for violence against settler children (e.g. Itamar attack - Paletinians stabbing to death a 11 year old, 4 year old, and a 3 month old settler baby) in Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.Icewhiz (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, settlers steal land, kill sheep, poison wells, kill Palestinians, kidnap children, pelt stones at Palestinian children going to school, steal the olive harvests when they are not chain-sawing some of the million odd olive trees in Palestinian groves, and generally whinge that they are poorly treated in the Western press which refuses to condone their racism. Read David Shulman's Dark Hope. The next we'll have is someone saying we should have the viewpoint of the 'Ndrangheta in Italian articles, whenever the state cracks down on them, per WP:Due. Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Most of them were born there, The Demographic Success of the West Bank Settlements (and the trend line has more or less continued since 2012), they are human.Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course they're human, unlike the Palestinians. Let's listen for external input.Nishidani (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

References in Brian Dyson

• Brian Dyson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. "Coca-Cola Names Brian Dyson Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer". 23 July 2001. Retrieved 4 March 2018.

   This appears to be an old press release from Coca-Cola, published by ProgressiveGrocer.com, containing outdated information.

   Used to verify, "Brian Dyson worked with The Coca-Cola Company for 35 years." and "The family resides in Atlanta."--Ronz (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

2. Turner, Mark (10 May 2015). "Yes, Coca-Cola CEO Brian Dyson really did give that "five balls" speech". Retrieved 4 March 2018.

   This appears to be an entry in a personal blog, MarkTurner.net.

   Used to verify, "Brian is also known for his “five balls” speech." --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

3. Taggart, Jim (3 September 2010). "How Many Balls Can You Juggle? 30 Seconds of Impeccable Sense from Brian Dyson". Retrieved 4 March 2018.

   An article in a leadership consulting company's blog. It looks like the author, Jim Taggart, was a consultant at the company, The Leadership Hub. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

   Used to verify, "In 1978 Dyson was named the President of Coca-Cola United States, the Company's U.S. soft drink division. In 1983, he was named president of Coca-Cola North America, with responsibility for the Company's entire North America portfolio. In 1986 Dyson was named president and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Coca-Cola Enterprises (CCE)" and "An author of short stories, in 1996 he published a novel, Pepper in the Blood." and "Brian Dyson is married to Sue Dyson."

• There is a New York Times Magazine article and a Businessweek profile also being used as references that I don't think are problematic, though the profile is not being linked inline. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm refraining from following BLP by removing the three poor sources and anything not verified by the other two references in an attempt to give Lidiia Kondratieva a better understanding of WP:RS while trying to minimize escalating her personal dispute with me. (I realize the outdated press release might be used for basic historical information.)

What do others think of the three sources and how they are used? --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

David Ogden Stiers, recently dead (yesterday) BLP, reliability of sources re coming out.

TO AVOID FORUM SHOPPING AND DISCUSSION SPLITTING, PLEASE COMMENT AT THE ARTICLE OR BLP NOTICEBOARD MASH star Stiers died on March 4th. In 2009 the "gossip boy" wordpress blog published an "interview" with Stiers in which "Stiers" came out as gay. This contradicts an earlier (RS) interview in which he said he was not gay. The gossip boy interview has subsequently been picked up and cited in many sources including ABC and the NYT obit for Stiers (NYT cites ABC, ABC cites gossip boy). There has been long standing but contentious consensus to exclude this info based on the WP:GRAPEVINE argument, but with Stiers death, the issue has been reopened. The discussion could use additional eyes/voices from experienced editors Talk:David_Ogden_Stiers#gay_summary

TheBlaze

1. source mentions on noticeboard:
   -link
   -link
2. partisan source: TheBlaze
3. article (blp): Dana Loesch
4. disputed content:

   "... questioning the conservative political credentials of commentators who were supporting Donald J. Trump at that juncture."[

   --22:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Reliable - The source, albeit wp:BIASED, seems reliable in the context e.g. sourcing commentators's notable positions--whether S. E. Cupp's, Loesch's, the formerly CNN and now PBS's Amy Holmes's, Tomi Lahren's (now of Fox Nation)--taken during their respective employment stints at TheBlaze. Cf. wp:Selfpub.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Not reliable. TheBlaze isn't unreliable due to its bias. It's unreliable due to the absence of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It's a conservative commentary site run by Glenn Beck. It has no journalism chops. Case in point, the author of the source article you're pointing to had no prior journalism experience aside from being an opinion editor for the Liberty University school newspaper. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman and Hodgdon's secret garden: Despite its unreliability, there are more than 400 Misplaced Pages articles that cite The Blaze. It would be worthwhile to review the accuracy of these articles, and then find more-reputable sources if necessary. Jarble (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

That would indeed be a worthwhile endeavor but it's not the purpose of this discussion. We're focused specifically on Dana Loesch here. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

cmt - Presumably Scott Baker (journalist) was providing that inside-hire editorial oversight.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, Scott Baker, who prior to working for TheBlaze was a co-founder of Breitbart, and before that was a local news anchor. Who has zero editorial or real journalist experience. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

And Andrew Breitbart had prev. co-founded the HuffPo. wp:IRS: All three partisan opinion/current events sites may be reliable, accdg to contexts. (Salon. National Review. Dailycaller. Humanevents. Mediaite. MediaMatters. Townhall. Redstate. ...) Necessary as as it is to give special care when history renders some among such media platforms WP:Questionable sources, such care is manifested when an opinion is properly attributed to the individual offering it, who was on staff as a commentator whatever the venue in question, as Loesch was in 2016 with TheBlaze.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Not reliable - As per DrFleischman, there's no demonstrated reputation for fact-checking and accuracy here. Clearly one can find Glenn Beck's attributed opinions on TheBlaze, but it's unclear as to whether one can find high-quality factual news coverage. As with many things from partisan news sources, if the only place you can find something is TheBlaze, one must question whether it merits inclusion in Misplaced Pages. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Opinions attributed to not only Beck but to Loesch and other co-hosts of TheBlaze are found at the TheBlaze source because she'd hosted--along with a radio show syndicated by America Radio--the show Dana on TheBlaze TV 2014-2017. As to the question of wp:weight you broach: Dana aired likewise her 2016 primaries-season contra-Trump sentiments on her radio show, in interviews with Megyn Kelly on Fox News, and in columns in National Review opinion pieces, too.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Not reliable per the previous points raised. Also because of those points, it calls into question whether the comment being discussed is notable enough to even be included in an article; if there's no other source besides TheBlaze, that, to me, means that it isn't significant, and including it could be WP:UNDUE. Rockypedia (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

References for AFC Club Competitions Ranking

For article titled AFC Club Competitions Ranking, there are limited sources on the Internet. The only reliable source is Asian Football Confederation (AFC) website . However, there are other topics in the article that needs reliable sources. So, I want to ask if these sources are reliable:

1. Since AFC website don't display any ranking history, the article used this page as reference
   
2. AFC website also don't display any club ranking, so the article used this page as reference

Cheers. Fauzannaufan (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Spam at Metaphysics

A WP:SPA who has a WP:COI insists against WP:SPAM and WP:SOAP to insert his own work, which is apparently WP:SPS, at Metaphysics.

The text he entered is "* Ramakrishna Surathu (2018) You are God, Independently Published, ISBN 1977025641". Please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

This isn't spam. User Tgeorgescu haven't read the book, he / she is removing my edits based on prejudice. The book deals with "being" and "existence" which are the main subjects of Metaphysics. This book is a proof that metaphysics isn't just a theory. The author of the book gave a technique called "witness" which in itself is a proof that Metaphysics is a science in itself. Being is a subject, another being is no less than an object for the being in question. This can't be proved with any external object other than subjectivity which by it's very nature is a witness. If this book is not Metaphysics then what is it about? Did you read the book? If you haven't then your decisions are more prejudice than sensible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakrsu13 (talk • contribs)

WP:NOTBLOG: we have no interest for your book, take it to your own blog or website. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not your (Tgeorgescu) property.

It's not just your book: in general we have no use for WP:SPS works. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• OK, I have a few questions before I weigh in here. First, Rakrsul13... did you write this book, or have anything to do with publishing it?Blueboar (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Self published doesn't mean the information published is worthless, after all if it's selling on amazon. The whole book is centred at the "Being" and "Existence". Perhaps the author is new, perhaps the author has truly known him/her self. What the author says in the book is exactly what is popularised as Metaphysics. The author in the book gave a technique called "wintess", perhaps the reader of the book may benefit by knowing that metaphysics (concepts of Being / Existence) is not just a dull theory (without any practical applicability) and it can be practically proven as a result of execution of the method him/herself.

Please answer the question that was asked... Did YOU write this book, or have anything to do with publishing it? Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah... I see from his user page that he was indeed the author. Now blocked and mention of his book removed from the article... end of discussion. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution