Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

"WP:RSN" redirects here. For "Wikipedia will be ready real soon now", see meta:Eventualism.

Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please be sure to include the following information, if available: Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html]. Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]]. Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".
While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Identifying reliable sources. The policy that most directly relates is: Verifiability. If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. If your question is about undue weight, or other neutral point of view issues please use the NPOV noticeboard.	Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Click here to start a new discussion

Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179

Known issues section of Nexus 5

The known issues section of Nexus 5 was removed because none of the sources are considered valid. could an independent party check them one by one?

Is a description in a reliable source citing an unreliable blog reliable?

It seems to me obvious, but an editor disagree with it saying "RS question should be about the reliability of the source cited source, and not extend citation-by-citation to questioning the reliability of sources from which the source cited drew information." I am not saying the whole part of the reliable source is unreliable but the portion citing an unreliable source is unreliable. See the detailed discussion at Talk:Prostitution in South Korea#Reverted removal of the Japanese sex tourists in South Korea section―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Not nearly so obvious. For one thing, we don't hold our sources to the same standards we hold our articles - for example, if a wikipedian were to write "I was there on the scene and X happened", that's blatantly unreliable, but if a book or newspaper article were to write exactly the same thing, that's perfectly reliable. We let our reliable sources use their rules, not ours, and we do not automatically override them because Wikipedia automatically discounts blogs.

In addition, there is an additional link in the chain back to a reliable source that you're missing. http://www.ecpat.net/sites/default/files/exsum_a4a_eap_south_korea.pdf, which is from ECPAT, a reasonably reputable NGO, is citing http://www.rjkoehler.com/2009/12/15/korea-still-prostitution-paradise-japanese-internet/ - a blog - but that article itself is citing http://www.munhwa.com/news/view.html?no=2009121401030827216006&w=nv which is Munhwa Ilbo, a 24 year old Korean daily newspaper, which is again sufficiently reliable by our standards. I think in this particular case this particular source meets our standards for reliability. --GRuban (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I would like to confirm an important general point, not specific to this case. Wtmitchell says that if a cited source by Wikipedia is reliable, a description in the source is reliable even if the description is based on an unreliable source: "RS question should be about the reliability of the source cited source, and not extend citation-by-citation to questioning the reliability of sources from which the source cited drew information." He says the reliability of Munhwa.com is "All off that is just incidental". What do you think this idea?

In this case, I concluded that even if Munhwa.com is reliable, the article doesn't support the claim because it says nothing about the child sex.20:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix7777 (talk • contribs)

That's a different point. While I agree we shouldn't question the reliability of every step in the chain, that's not to say that we should perpetuate obvious errors; even reliable sources do make errors. Yes, I would see if we could find a better source for this edit, because you are right, we don't see the word "child" in either Munhwa Ilbo or rjkoehler, and it does seem to be a rather important point. I did a quick search for korean child sex tourism, and found a lot about Korean men visiting other countries for it, and nothing about Japanese men visiting Korea for it. It would be a shame if we would be perpetuating a clerical error in the ECPAT report. --GRuban (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Just to clarify, I was not trying to make a point saying (quoting above) "if a cited source by Wikipedia is reliable, a description in the source is reliable even if the description is based on an unreliable source". The point I was trying to make is that a source which draws some of its information from a blog is not thereby rendered unreliable. In particular, in the case at issue here, this source is not rendered unreliable by its citing of a blog as one of its sources of information in its note number 14. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We should not second guess reliable sources and of course some sources, i.e., tertiary sources, provide no citations. Writers of reliable sources are able to weigh sources, including ones that do not meet rs for Wikipedia articles. What a reporter actually saw is one example. However, one must distinguish between when a secondary source is using one of these sources to support a statement of fact and when it is being used as an example. Frequently articles will quote witnesses, but that does not mean what the witnesses said was reliable. It may even be contradictory. TFD (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Can a description with a citation in a source be used in Wikipedia, if the description is not supported by the citation?

I summarized the current dispute below. This dispute began as a reliability issue but now became a verifiability issue.

A description (South Korea remains a major destination for travelling Japanese men who exploit children through prostitution.) is written in a source (ECPAT report) with a citation (a blog which is a translation of Munhwa.com). However the citation (Munhwa.com) discusses nothing about the child prostitution at all. An editor insists to use the description just because the source (ECPAT) is reliable, totally ignoring the description is not supported by the citation (Munhwa.com). ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

A ECPAT report is not a Wikipedia article. ECPAT would have their own policy as to how the citations are used in their publications; and any given citation is by no mean the only source for reaching certain conclusion in their reports. STSC (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough; you're saying that the sentence South Korea remains a major destination for travelling Japanese men who exploit children through child prostitution contains 2 elements: (a) that Japanese men travel to South Korea for sex and (b) that some of these have sex with children in South Korea. That their cite only confirms the first part does not mean that ECPAT don't have another, uncited, source for the second part.

The problem I have is that this is the only source that I've been able to find for this statement. I've seen plenty about Japanese (and Koreans) going to poorer countries for sex with children, but nothing about Japanese going to South Korea for it. Given that there is a question regarding the veracity of the ECPAT report on this point, we should confirm before inclusion. Also, surely if it was notable we'd see it reported elsewhere (which would fix the problem)? Bromley86 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The ECPAT as a reliable source has reached that conclusion with their own findings, and we would include their conclusion in the article unless there are other reliable sources challenging its finding. And the burden of proof (to prove that they are wrong) is on you. Besides, South Korea is much nearer to Japan, why wouldn't Japanese men go there for child sex? STSC (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You're asking me to prove a negative; it's highly unlikely that I'm going to find a source that says, "Japanese men, whilst responsible for a lot of the demand for child sex in South East Asia, are not a real problem in South Korea." I've searched fairly extensively and not found that statement; more importantly, I've not found a single statement, other than this ECPAT one, that Japanese men are engaged in a significant level of child sex tourism to South Korea. The best I can do is point to the ECPAT report on Japan (the one on South Korea, that mentions once Japanese men, devotes a far larger space to what Korean men are up to; logically, then, we might expect to see a similar section on what Japanese men are up to in the Japan Global Monitoring report).[1] There is, on p.12, and it talks of Cambodia, Philippines & Thailand. No mention of South Korea.

I'm involved in a similar discussion elsewhere, but on the other side. In that case though, there are plenty of reliable sources that confirm the statement. In this case, there's one and there's reason to doubt it (footnote does not support statement).

As to why a Japanese man looking for child sex would choose to go to a country further afield than South Korea, I wouldn't know. Presumably because it's cheaper and more easily available? Certainly, the US 2014 Trafficking in Persons Report indicates that that is the case, "Japan serves as a source of demand for child sex tourism, with Japanese men traveling and engaging in commercial sexual exploitation of children in other Asian countries—particularly Thailand, Indonesia, Cambodia, the Philippines, and, to a lesser extent, Mongolia."[2] No mention of South Korea there, despite its proximity. Bromley86 (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't you find the answer in the ECPAT report itself? It says, "The absence of criminal provisions on child sex tourism in South Korea provides a major impediment in combating the problems." STSC (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion, attribute the statement to the source than, unless it can be verified as fact, and not a conclusion made by a source, don't write it as fact, write it says X says Y(inlince citation to X source).

ECPAT is an organization, just like CATO Institute, Heritage Foundation, Brookings Institution.

Are there other sources that make this claim?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Media as RS for their own controversies (GamerGate)

Something that occurs to me after reading about all this GamerGate stuff -- is it appropriate to consider pieces of media reliable sources for controversies that they themselves are the subject of? Extending that, what about pieces of media owned by the same company (for example if a Gawker property is subject of a controversy are other Gawker properties RS)?

It seems...inappropriate to consider something an RS for a topic when it has an express business interest in taking a particular bias in it's coverage, which is always going to be the case when it's the subject of a controversy (in the case of GamerGate, Kotaku [for example] needs it to not be about ethics in journalism and alleged misbehavior of some of it's writers as much as possible because it makes them look terrible, and so have an express interest in not representing it as being about those things, as potentially does Gawker as a whole). Schadrach (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the particular situation. See our policies on questionable sources (note the footnote about conflicts of interest) and on using such sources as sources for statements about themselves. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Since every other uninvolved RS says it's not about journalism ethics, I don't see why Kotaku and Gawker can't be RS as well on it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

As DrFleischman says, it depends on the situation. Ultimately, a reliable source is one that has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Generally speaking, Wikipedia prefers third-party sources. WP:V says to "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources" (emphasis mine). And as DrFleischman points out, WP:V cautions against using sources with an apparent conflict of interest. OTOH, sometimes, first-party sources can have an excellent reputation for reliability. Consider, for example, the US government's 9/11 Commission report is a highly respected (if not definitive) source about the September 11 attacks. When in doubt, you can use in-text attribution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

DrFleischman and Quest are correct. In this case, media outlets that were targeted by GamerGate prior to writing anything about the controversy (Gawker as a whole, for example) cannot be considered third-party sources for the subject, but any that wrote about it before being targeted (Washington Post, etc.) were third parties at the time of writing, and are thus better sources to use. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 05:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That logic falls apart when gg makes the same baseless claims against NYT / Guardian / BBC anyone else who writes about them in a manner they dont like. The allegations of being not a reliable source have to have some basis or third party confirmation before they are given credence in knocking established publications from the RS category. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

All three of those sources you listed were uninvolved before they wrote about GG, so no, it doesn't. The issue isn't general reliability - it's that they weren't written by a (then-)third party. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 06:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Kotaku was "uninvolved" before GG made demonstrably-false and discredited allegations about one of its employees. The fact that GamerGate has attacked something does not render it unreliable for our purposes. If anyone *besides* GamerGate considered the accusations to be meaningful or well-founded, we might have a different discussion. But literally everyone not in the tank for GamerGate (ranging from Columbia Journalism Review to PBS NewsHour) has examined the claims made against Kotaku and found them to be specious nothingburgers. So we helpfully quote all those other sources refuting the claims, along with Kotaku's own report on its investigation. We are not solely basing the statement on what Kotaku itself says. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times as RS for statement about event

Salvatore J. Cordileone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I can't believe I'm doing this, but...is this Los Angeles Times article a reliable source for purposes of stating in Wikipedia's voice that the event described was a rally against same-sex marriage? This seems obvious to me, but other editors at Salvatore J. Cordileone are insisting on attributing the statement as an opinion in order to give equal validity to the claim, cited to right-wing religious sources, that it's not a march against anything and is in fact a rally for marriage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The article appears to have undergone a few revision since this inquiry was posted, however, it appears you posted after this edit by you. The question appears to be whether the article should state:

Cordileone took part as a featured speaker in the June 2014 March for Marriage in Washington DC, a rally against same-sex marriage.[3] Catholic and conservative press described it as a march for traditional marriage.[4] [5]

...or...

Cordileone took part as a featured speaker in the June 2014 March for Marriage in Washington DC. Catholic and conservative press described it as a march for traditional marriage,[6] [7] others as a rally against same-sex marriage.[8]

I happen to agree with the first version, but I prefer the second version as it appears to be more neutral. There is a bit of a double standard in allowing the Los Angeles Times (viewed by many to have a liberal bias) to be the voice of Wikipedia while alluding to The Washington Times citation as "conservative press". When in doubt, attribute the source. -Location (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see evidence that the LA Times is known as having a liberal bias. The failure to have a strong conservative bias is not a liberal bias. On the other side, the Washington Times is known not only for having a conservative bias but for having a conservative agenda. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Prefer the second, and it's not a matter of bias; if we have reliable sources saying two different things, we don't pick and choose, we say both, and attribute each. We don't have to decide who is and isn't biased. --GRuban (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The LA Times is certainly well known as having a liberal viewpoint [9] (Although there were rumors for a while that the Kochs were trying to buy it which certainly would have shaken things up), but regardless GRuban is correct. The second is more neutral and is practically required by WP:YESPOV and WP:BALANCE (Both subsections of WP:NPOV) However, I would say even further, we should not be saying "conservative press" vs "others" and just name the sources directly. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

[Edit conflict. Responding to GRuban, but it looks like Gaijin42 made the same points citing the same study.] Agreed. I think the point alluded to was that one source was unbiased and therefore reliable for a statement of fact (i.e. Wikipedia's voice) but that the other was biased and therefore only reliable for a statement of opinion. On this point, there is one study (Google "A Measure of Media Bias") that shows The Washington Times closer to the center than the LA Times.[10] Inserting "conservative press" rather than "The Washington Times" also appears to be a bit of editorializing on our part that could be used to lead the reader. -Location (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the question is less "did this thing happen" and more "what's the appropriate language to use to describe it." These other users at the article seem determined to show same-sex marriage as a POV term that can only be someone's "description" because it's not actually real marriage (if you look at the article history there are other recent attempts to remove references to the person's opposition to same-sex marriage). But this doesn't reflect the journalistic or academic standards of reliable sources and it doesn't reflect usage on Wikipedia. If a source has a known or stated agenda, we might (or might not) decide they're reliable for facts, but can and should question their use of language, especially when it diverges from the language used in proper sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, it appears as though you are stating that the LA Times is a proper source but The Washington Times isn't. Three uninvolved editors have suggested attributing each source. Why ask for input if you're really not interested in it? -Location (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

In response to an indication courteously given yesterday on the article's talk page of the existence of this discussion, I added, late in the day for me, the consideration under the heading "The problem" below. I now add here that the view expressed by Location, GRuban, and Gaijin42 respects Wikipedia's NPOV pillar, Roscelese's does not. As Location said, "when in doubt, attribute the source". Esoglou (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

LA Times legitimately journalistic WashTimes is like FOx News

Aside from any specifics in this particular instance, in which the hair splitting is being carried to a fine art, I feel that it is important to refute a fallacy in the above argument. It is really an "equal weight" fallacy to equate WT and LAT as somehow equally biased. They are not. I am not saying WT is never RS for anything but it has been a right wing hit piece screed sheet from the git go and the Times is one of the dwindling breed of fine American newspapers. Anyone who does not see this needs to lay off the Fox News and Michele Malkin and Rush Limbaugh IMHO. And I am very "right wing" in some ways on some issues, but I can distinguish news from editorial slant.Wikidgood (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2014

This has no basis here IMHO, this noticeboard is to evaluate articles against WP:IRS; all three sources Los Angeles Times, Washington Times, and Fox News, meet IRS. Whether they are biased or not is a question about usage, yet allowed under WP:BIASED. Statements like the one above lead to criticism of Wikipedia and work against the pillar of neutrality IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem

Is it appropriate for Wikipedia, dealing with the disputed matter of the 2014 Washington March for Marriage, to present one view as fact, rather than as "the general view" or some such phrase? Citing a single newspaper, Wikipedia at present states that the March was a rally "against same-sex marriage". Afterwards, it mentions that two classes of sources hold a different view, and that the person who is the subject of this article denies outright what Wikipedia in its voice and without qualification presents as simple fact; but by presenting a different view as fact, Wikipedia (again in its own voice) implicitly declares these other ideas incorrect. Is this acceptable? Esoglou (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Insofar as I can follow your post, I think you're asking the wrong question. This isn't really a reliable-sources question. It's a terminology question: do we use "same-sex marriage", "traditional marriage", or both? The term "same-sex marriage" is in widespread use by independent, non-partisan reliable sources. In contrast, the term "traditional marriage" is used largely or solely by socially conservative sources. Therefore, I think Wikipedia should use the former term rather than the latter. "Same-sex marriage" also has the advantage of being clear and comprehensible. In contrast, "traditional marriage" is a vague, unclear term for those of us not steeped in the partisan sources where it's generally used. After all, in Western society marriage was "traditionally" arranged by the parents of teenagers without their input or consent, or in exchange for a dowry of livestock. In other cultures, "traditional marriage" may involve polygamy or child brides. Presumably these are not the sorts of "traditional" marriage at issue here, but all the more reason to use the more precise and less culturally-restricted term in what is, after all, meant to be a global encyclopedia. MastCell ^Talk 19:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a march. (fact). Group A says it was "anti-same-sex-marriage" (opinion). Group B says it was to promote "traditional marriage". (also opinion) (Or to promote their interpretation of/what they say is traditional marriage - but that might get into synth). Its not terminology. Its accepting one opinion as wiki's voice vs two opinions as their own voice. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Esoglu it would be helpful if you would clarify as requested above: Insofar as I can follow your post, I think you're asking the wrong question. This isn't really a reliable-sources question. It's a terminology question: do we use "same-sex marriage", "traditional marriage", or both?

Is that what you are getting at here?Wikidgood (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

What I put here was something I was preparing for insertion on the article's talk page, not for here. I was trying to make it as non-confrontational as possible, the reason too why I was making no reference to the 3RR violation by the editor who was repeatedly presenting one possible interpretation as plain fact. In the context for which it was intended, it would have been clearer, and there would have been no danger that "traditional marriage" would be interpreted as you interpreted it. Unlike me, Gaijin42 expressed the problem with perfect clarity. Esoglou (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It is my opinion that Gaijin42's proposal above is the most neutral of proposals, it treats neither as dominate, thus meeting WP:NEU.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The terms in question are "against same-sex marriage" and "in support of traditional marriage". They are both equally weighted political shibboleths used by opposing sides in the current culture wars. The question is that the detractors of MFM describe it as the former, and the supporters describe it as the latter. I have personally offered plenty of WP:RS using the latter terminology. They are both POV terms. So Wikipedia has no business accepting either one of them as neutral - just because most of the media sources anyone is reading today has a liberal bias does not mean that Wikipedia needs to incorporate that bias. Otherwise we're systematically agreeing to violate WP:NPOV on a regular basis and saying that we have to because we are slaves to a certain set of WP:RS that a majority of editors utilize to write articles. This is not just liberal vs. conservative, either. This is Catholic vs. non-Catholic as well. It is a well-known fact that the mainstream media has a deeply seated anti-Catholic bias and routinely misreports doctrine and practice - even mainstream "Catholic" publications do this! And we're being told that Catholic news sources are too biased to use for writing this and other articles. Well, that's not an excuse. Re-read WP:BIASED. Elizium23 (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I question the understanding of WP:NPOV on display here. The relevant policy section is WP:POVNAMING, which states: If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. "Same-sex marriage" is a widely-used term and appears across a wide spectrum of highly reliable, independent sources. In contrast, "traditional marriage" is a vague and relatively obscure term, the use of which is largely confined to partisan websites and organizations. Therefore, the term "same-sex marriage" is consistent with WP:NPOV; it is misguided, and against policy, to adopt a he-said-she-said, false-balance approach here. (The opposing partisan/POV term to "traditional marriage" would be "marriage equality", not 'same-sex marriage"). Finally, any argument which relies upon the premise that reputable media outlets have a pervasive, nefarious anti-Catholic bias is ridiculous and is going to be ignored, at least by me. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Taiwan Outlook, 4th trial

This seems to slip into the archives before it got adressed every time it is posted, what is this? Have I missed something? So I repeat the question again here.

Question: Can we use quotes from this televised interview for the 'Prem Rawat' article? Is it a primary source, or is it upgraded by being broadcasted by an independent public news format like Taiwan Outlook? In this case, can we quote Rawat's attitude toward critics, which he displays in the video around 20:00 ?http://www.ocacmactv.net/mactv_en/video.htm?sid=53570&classid=12--Rainer P. (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Primary. Certainly no problem with using it for direct quotes. I can't see a problem with using it to represent his opinions, as long as there's no controversial wording or interpretation. Bromley86 (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

tellychakkar.com

Articles of this website, tellychakkar.com (such as this and this), are used as reliable sources in many Wikipedia articles related to the Indian television. One such article is Bade Achhe Lagte Hain. Some users have questioned the reliability of this source while others aren't sure enough. For instance, Yunshui had told me that it appears to be possibly an acceptable source as "it has an editorial staff and appears to be a professional outfit". Similarly, when I asked MichaelQSchmidt, he said: "See this. Started in 1999 by media and television analyst Anil Wanvari, the site Telly Chakkar (aka Tellychakkar, tellychakkar.com) has editorial oversight, and it would appear suitable as a reliable source and defendable at WP:RSN should it ever be questioned. Interstingly, both founder and site have notability enough to support their own separate articles.[11][12]) Even nicer that it is India's most widely read online media, advertising, marketing & satellite television resource (see WP:USEBYOTHERS). But as hyperbole seems habitual within Indian media and we cannot control the often-flowery tone of its articles, when using information from this site, be sure to neutralize the tone and give proper attribution."

He further added - "This source may still be taken to WP:RSN, but as noted above is defendable as a source...(as) RSN brings in more eyes." So I just wanted to be sure whether this source is reliable or not. Tamravidhir (talk!) 08:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Avoided using it as citation before, and I would still do. It is not reliable because it is good for gossips, not very much for televisions shows or television actors. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)revisedBladesmulti (talk)

@Bladesmulti: No doubt that anyone used to reading The New York Times or Washington Post would cringe when reading similarly accepted sources from India. Is your preference to ignore all Indian sources that use the flowery hyperbole and braggadocious tone prevalent throughout their media... even those with editorial oversight and a reputation for (flowery) accuracy? My own thought is that if we do cite anything to such sources, we make the great effort to neutralize what is being paraphrased and give proper attribution. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

tellychakkar is the media wing of a PR firm "About us: Apart from conceiving and executing promotional campaigns targeted at the Media, Marketing & Television Trade online, it also offers similar services offline, thus providing clients with a 360 degree media service and marketing solution. " it is not a reliable source for anything. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

User:MichaelQSchmidt I agree and I would also suggest that if any sort of information is direct violation of BLP or it seems to be gossip, we happen to disacknowledge many reliable citations. I think it is great if you can find same information from any other citation/website. I wouldn't support any blanket removal of this link, but if it could be replaced with another reliable citation, it would definitely work. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get off track... as Tamravidhir was asking above using it for weekly ratings data, not about a BLP issue. But heck, even those epitomes of "reliability" New York Times or Washington Post are for-profits companies with muliple self-serving for-profit non-news enterprises. So? Wikipedia-defined reliability is determined through editorial oversight, reputation for accuracy, and wide acceptance through being acknowledged by others. WP:RS tells us that RS may be determined though who is writing, and not just where his writings are published. So looking beyond tellychakkar's for-profit sidelines, we examine its Editor-in-chief Anil Wanvari, reporter: Kavita Yadav, sub editor Srividya Rajesh, and other editorial staff to determine qualifications and expertise. Not focusing on one cherry-picked sentence from their more informative "About us" page, or speculating on gossipy tone, or judging it over its puffy articles, Tamravidhir's base question boils down to a simple "is it okay for TV rating data?" I would say yes, for that data. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. Your proof about their editorial credibility is indeed convincing. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@MichaelQSchmidt, Bladesmulti, TheRedPenOfDoom: I have seen esteemed newspapers such as Times of India write articles which make it seem as if it were also a wing of a PR firm. At times some newspapers even collaborate with producers to promote a film or e teleshow. And they seem to unfairly promote them. However they do the same with almost every show, sometimes promoting them while at times even criticising them. So it isn't unfairly promoting then? It is what the Indian sources are. They use hyperbole excessively. But if we reject all these sources then we will be having nothing left and Tellychakkar posts information put together by agencies such as Indo-Asian News Service , TAM Media Research and Press Trust of India and at times even by other newspapers. And many such sources are accepted as reliable sources because they are have a reputation, proper editorial oversight and so on. As per WP:BIASED , "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". And although these appear to be promotional they aren't actually because they use hyperbole and that is what Indian sources use. So we can't question them on this basis and on the basis of WP:QUESTIONABLE. If they are rejected then Indian television related articles will be devoid of any reliable sources. And can't we use Tellychakkar for other informations such as premiers, integration episodes, shooting, production and making? Tamravidhir (talk!) 08:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

tellychakkar.com deals in gossip, rumor, hype and "scandal". The number of reliable sources covering the India entertainment industry are really quite limited but that doesn't mean a gossip site can be used as a reliable source. Aryan.for.you (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Aryan.for.you: By you comment it seems that you have expressed what tellychakkar seems to you. Do you have any proof (evidence) to support your claim, Aryan? Tamravidhir (talk!) 09:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

we have proof from their "about us" page that they are a PR marketing firm. thats all we need. their concern is promoting their clients not accuracy and fact checking. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: But that one sentence no way makes it an unreliable source on Wikipedia, right? Wikipedia does not say that if a source qualifies all the criteria of a RS but it's "About us" page says something else them it's unreliable. Tamravidhir (talk!) 14:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

To be a reliable source the three prongs must be met. Anything published by tellychakkar is failing the prong that the publisher has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy because BY DEFINITION a PR Marketing firm as the publisher does NOT meet that criteria. Their sole responsibility is to get out information about their clients. In addition, as a PR firm they are not independent from their clients and so even under SPS they would not be allowed as a source for anything unduly self promotional- when you are talking entertainment industry, pretty much everything falls under the umbrella of promotional.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, What they are publishing is the second part. First it is not a entertaiment news site, it's a PR marketing firm which doesn't qualify for reliable source. Aryan.for.you (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tamravidhir: Please understand that when two editors (one established, one very new) have similar editing styles, make similar arguments, ignore the rest of that page and focus on just one sentence as "factual" on an "about us" page while at the same time asserting "everything" on that site is unreliable... while being unable or unwilling to support their personal opinions through any actual research into editorial staff to see that the staff has expertise required by WP:RS or if the site itself has the required widespread acceptance, then please know that nothing you write will sway them. Best to step away and allow others to provide research beyond a personal opinion, and avoid any useless back-and-forth. We're talking here only about TV ratings data, so best not to be diverted and WP:BLUD the discussion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

if "focusing on the one sentence" where they declare themselves to be a PR firm is insufficient reason to exclude them (and its not, its prima facia why we should exclude them) we can then focus on another sentence "The exclusive peppery online destination for the hottest news on TV shows and movies, tete-a-tetes with TV and Bollywood stars, spicy gossips and much more." which even if they were NOT a PR firm would ALSO be sufficient in and of itself to identify them as a tabloid gossip machine that is unacceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Their admitting inclusion of some gossip does not denigrate the entire site, nor its editorial staff nor its interviews nor its harder news articles. As even prima facie arguments allow reasoned rebuttal, perhaps you meant res ipsa loquitur? Without offering links to research to support your view, your opinion has not met its burden. As pointed out above and ignored through side-tracks, most forms of accepted Indian media make use of flowery language and hyperbole in their authored articles. Such use does not make reliable sites somehow unreliable. That this one actually admits to it is refreshing. Further, while tabloid formats are brief, being brief does automatically make them non-RS. However, if you contend that tellychakkar as a source is unreliable, it fails WP:V for you to then use them to denigrate themselves... an interesting Catch 22. I instead chose to look beyond their self-admitted puffery to examine its editor-in-chief Anil Wanvari, reporter Kavita Yadav, sub editor Srividya Rajesh, and other editorial staff to determine qualifications and expertise. Either they are reliable enough for us to accept their self-admitted use of the puffery prevalent within their industry and move on, or they are not. Lacking any offer of research, and without other sources supporting your claim, we have an interesting dilemma, as even blogs and bloggers have articles within WIkipedia and can be used to cite articles.

Lest it be forgotten, the original question waaay above dealt only with the site's suitability for TV ratings data. And as the ratings data are not controversial nor unduly self-serving, I believe the sources as offered can remain until replaced by others. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Lest it be forgotten that as a PR firm, pimping the ratings for your client or showing that your clients competitors are weak are standard tactics and clearly make a PR firm unsuitable source for such information. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to bring in notice the recent tv rating figures which was manipulated. The week 38 (2014) Comedy Nights With Kapil TV ratings on [[13]] and [[14]] is 4.0 which is correct but on Telly Chakkar it was 6.2 ratings and this sites have followed it [[15]],[[16]] and then Telly Chakkar has deleted the entire rating page of week 38 (2014). Similar incident happened in week 43 (2014) also and Telly Chakkar has deleted the page again. Both the said week ratings are not available now on Telly Chakkar at present. Even in their all available rating page like this and this its mentioned "(PS-As per data provided by TAM Subscriber)" which indicates ratings are provided by subcribers not TAM India directly then How can Telly Chakkar can be added has reliable source for TV ratings also? Aryan.for.you (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Aside from this one showing tellychakkar as one of Indian Television's properties, bringing forth sites[17][18][19] with no disclosure of even having an editorial staff only implies these others do not vet their informations... not tellychakkar. I suppose each of these others should be taken to WP:RSN themselves, and lacking discernible editorial oversight will do poorly. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@MichaelQSchmidt, Aryan.for.you, TheRedPenOfDoom: I don't know what you are talking. I don't understand what you are talking. i don't understand where this discussion is going. Seems to me as a battlefield. I see no tellychakkar in the sites mentioned by Aryan and I Michael I didn't understand a bit of what you mentioned on my talk page. I don't know. I don't know. I don't want this to take a toll on my real life. I have much to do than this stuff. I just do this for self satisfaction and to make Wikipedia better but then someone comes and says don't do this and don't do that even if I know I may be wrong. Showing power? Showing authority? What does psychology say me? Let me think. Uuh! Maybe.What will happen one day? I will die no one will see edits from this account anymore. And probably know one will know the face behind this mask. Anyway. Am I lonely? Am I sad? Am I disturbed? Who cares about asking that! Anyway. I don't know. I'm bad. I'm terrible. And you have to be. You can't smile away if someone slaps you and passes by. This discussion is going nowhere. I don't understand anything. My one question to all of the editors of Wikipedia who have commented here, or have read this or are reading this is that just because tellychakkar does a certain kind of job or provides certain kind of services it becomes an unreliable source? It fulfills all the criteria of a reliable source then why not? Tamravidhir (talk!) 13:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

My discussion entirely: Does the media wing of a PR Firm meet the reliable source criteria of fact checking, accuracy and having editorial oversight? No, their motives are to promote their clients. Under SPS, there might be some very limited uses, but I cannot actually think of any. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Then I feel that you aren't comfortable using the source personally. But now even if I agree that it is a wing of a PR firm" then tellychakkar still appears to meet all the RS criteria. And thus this question should be directed not just to you but to the entire Wikipedia community. Tamravidhir (talk!) 13:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tamravidhir: lets make it simple. Does the source (this and this) added by you says the ratings are accurate?, Do Telly Chakkar claims its official ratings provided by TAM India to them? No. Its says "(PS-As per data provided by TAM Subscriber)" which means ratings are provided by TAM Subscriber to them. TAM Subscribers are TV channels, TV shows producers, Ad agencies, Media etc. So ratings provided by any of Subscribers cannot be measure as accurate thats why Telly Chakkar has itself mention on each page that data are from TAM Subscribers instead of TAM Media Research. Aryan.for.you (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Aryan.for.you: If it says that the ratings have been provided by TAM then it's very good. And you are yourself contradicting your points. I would like to bring it to your notice that TAM Media Research is one of the only two television audience measurement analysis firms of India. And its more authentic because it was appointed by the Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA), the Indian Broadcast Foundation (IBF) and also the Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI) in 1998. Then? Now, please don't say that IBF is unreliable! Tamravidhir (talk!) 15:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

OH you are going from where to where without getting my points. I am not saying ratings provided by TAM is unreliable, I am saying ratings published on Telly Chakkar cannot be measured as accurate. If it says it's from TAM then its official TAM India ratings but its saying TAM Subscriber that's makes the differences. This type of tricky line is used by the media wing of a PR Firm to manipulate ratings according to the clients without facing legal troubles. They have done it in week 38 (2014) and deleted the complete page and same repeated in week 43 (2014). Try to find out the ratings of week 38 and week 43 you won't get it because it is deleted. There is a difference in "provided by TAM" and "provided by TAM Subscribers". Aryan.for.you (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Aryan.for.you:Aren't over interpreting Tellychakkar!? :/ And I had already mentioned above that Tellychakkar at times shares the articles published by Times of India and other newspapers and Times of India and few other regularly get updates from TAm so it is possible that Tellychakkar might have got it from some other source. Not only is this is a hypothesis but so is yours. we are assuming everything. Everything's being deduced. there's nothing concrete which is now needed. Tamravidhir (talk!) 16:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't have to "interpret " anything. Tellychakkar have positioned themselves as a PR Marketing firm. Therefore NOTHING they say about anyone who may be a client or may be a competitor to one of their clients is in any way acceptable as "reliable" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@TheRedPenOfDoom: I would like to repeat what I said earlier - "Just because Tellychakkar does a certain kind of job or provides certain kind of services it becomes an unreliable source? It fulfills all the criteria of a reliable source then why not?" Tamravidhir (talk!) 16:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

As a PR firm it CANNOT fulfull WP:RS criteria because it inherently FAILS WP:RS criteria. You cannot make apple sauce from oranges. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Please could you pinpoint where does it say so? I couldn't find it. Tamravidhir (talk!) 17:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

do you not understand what a PR marketing firm does and why that is inherently oppositional to requirements for being accurate, fact checking and having editorial oversight? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: I repeat again - Tellychakkar fulfills all the WP:RS criteria. So just because it does a certain kind of job or provides certain kind of services it becomes an unreliable source? Tamravidhir (talk!) 17:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

YES "just because it does a certain kind of job or provides certain kind of services it becomes an unreliable source". A reliable source is one that has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. PR FIRM's by their very nature do not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy - quite the opposite. They have a reputation for saying and doing ANYTHING that will promote their client or demote their client's competitors. What is so hard for you to understand about that? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tamravidhir:Got it.. Check the proof (evidence). See the difference in the ratings of Comedy Nights with Kapil in the week 38, 2014 Indian Television and Telly Chakkar. TV ratings of Comedy Nights with Kapil was added higher than what it achieved (6.2 from 6.5 in week 37 instead of 4.0 from 6.0). Telly Chakkar always publish higher ratings for their clients. This is why PR Marketing firm cannot be used as a source because it's not a reliable. This is the difference in "provided by TAM" and "provided by TAM Subscribers". Aryan.for.you (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm out. Why? 1) TRPOD's repeated res ipsa loquitur assertions are not supported by reliable sources and, 2) new user A.f.y. essentially parrots his arguments while also failing to supply any properly reliable sources in support. Repeated offerings of unsourced opinion does not meet the burden. 3) I have spoken my piece, offered my research into editor and staff, and in deciding to not WP:BLUD this rather WP:TLDR discussion, I am leaving it under WP:STICK. Have fun all, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@MichaelQSchmidt: What does it means by new user? I have seen it repeatly used by you in the discussion, does it lowers the value of discussion? Coming to point I have added 1 evidence of how PR Marketing firms works to support my claims. This was not the first time, It has been repeatly done by them. I don't know whether you are aware of how PR media marketing firm works. If there are no other source available for it that doesn't means a PR firms can be used has a reliable source. I still disagree in supporting Telly Chakkar has a reliable source for anything. Aryan.for.you (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Unreliable: I agree with TRPoD without reservation. PR firms' publications are inherently unreliable. PR firms put their clients' first, i.e. ahead of the truth. That is their job. If it wasn't they'd be out of business. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

pingmag

any opinions about pingmag? (specifically this article http://pingmag.jp/2007/09/05/cosplay-girl/ for use in Fursuit) a prominent link on the page points to Write for us! and this article is The by-line is Written by Chiemi. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Appears to fall under WP:SPS, useful for citing opinions, but not facts.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

GiantBomb for basic descriptions of game mechanics

I have used GiantBomb as a source for explanations of certain game mechanics here, here and have also seen it used here. Some of these are well supported by other sources that may not specifically state a definition of the subject at hand (i.e. sources that assume the reader already knows about the topic it discusses). Can a GiantBomb reference be used for a basic description of a certain game mechanic or concept, so the rest of the article could explain its importance, impact, etc? How good of a source is it anyway? Articles tend to have few editors and need to be approved by somekind of moderator. Maplestrip (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's still a wiki though, even with that (apparent) editorial control. There's better stuff out there (here's one I found for FoW,[20] although that does feel a bit like providing a source for "the sky is blue"). Bromley86 (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for replying. I'll see what I can do :) Maplestrip (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Do note that there are Giant Bomb reviews/articles by the staff (eg like Jeff Gerstmann), and then there's their game wiki side. The former are reliable sources but the latter is not. Note that for a game that has received a good # of reviews, that one should be able to find gameplay descriptions in those reliable source reviews to augment such discussion; if the details of the gameplay are not described in those reviews or is not the subject of discussion, that probably means its too much detail to go into for our article. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not about gameplay for specific games, but gameplay in general. Descriptions of specific mechanics common in many games. Those mechanics are often not explained in reviews of specific games - for example, a review might state "the game makes use of fog of war", but it might not explain what fog of war is. The website seems to have somesort of glossary, though, which I am referring to here. Apparently it is part of the wiki-part of the website. Thanks for sharing your knowledge :) Maplestrip (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)