Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

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

Editors can post questions here about whether particular sources are reliable, in context, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. For general or hypothetical questions concerning a source, please use the talk page.

Before posting a question regarding the reliability of a source, please keep in mind that reliability is often dependent upon context (that is, on exactly how you are using the source). You will get a faster and more useful response if you include:

A full citation of the source in question. For example Strickland, D.S. and Worth, B.S. (1980) "Books for the children" Early Childhood Education Journal 8 (2): 58--60. A link to the source in question. For example [http://www.webpage.com] The article in which it is being used. For example [[article name]] The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting. For example <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y". Links to relevant talk page discussion. See diffs for an explanation.

While we attempt to give a second opinion and consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy. This is not the place for content disputes which should be directed to the article talk page or associated WikiProject

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. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to the Verifiability talk page. 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.

Click here to start a new discussion thread

Is BET a reliable source?

Various artist's sales are based on confirmations by either VH1 or MTV, so I was wondering if BET, short for Black Entertainment Television, is regarded reliable as well? Thanks for your replies. Malcolmo (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Black Entertainment Television, "90 million homes ... launched 1980... mainstream rap and R&B music videos" can generally be considered similarly reliable for artist's sales. --GRuban (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't view BET as similarly reliable, especially for sales figures. For example, BET claims here that R. Kelly has sold 150 million records, in fact, R. Kelly's available certified sales from those music markets covering 90% of the global sales are only 50 million, which translates into some 70 million in actual sales. The 150 million claim is clearly an inflated figure for R. Kelly and that alone suggests that BET doesn't use enough resources to get their information correct. Therefore, it cannot be considered as reliable as MTV or VH1 for example, neither of which has a history of publishing such outrageously inflated sales figures.--Harout72 (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a verifiable published source. I can't seem to download that compressed file from that other link you're pointing to, so I don't know what it is supposed to be. Can you summarize what it says and who it's published by? --GRuban (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The figure within must be verifiable, and the 150 million as claimed by BET, doesn't agree with R. Kelly's available certified sales. The file that I've put together and uploaded are the certified sales of R. Kelly which I've retrieved from the certification-databases of the certifying bodies such as RIAA, BPI, Bundesverband Musikindustrie etc.. I just tried to view it, and it seems to work for me.--Harout72 (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, the doc downloads for me now too. You've searched a number of databases for sales of multiple individual albums, added the numbers together, written the results in a Word doc, and uploaded it to a file sharing site. I'm afraid that is pretty clear Wikipedia:original research. It is not a routine, obvious, and correct calculation that anyone could be expected to trivially perform. Do we know that the databases are in each case correct? Do we know that you copied the numbers correctly? (There aren't one or two figures to add up, there are lots.) Do we know that you got all the albums? Did you miss any? Did you confuse any with any others? (In several cases, your own doc says you had to look it up under another performer's name... are you sure you got the right one each time and every time? Can we be sure you did?) I'm afraid that doc is not close to being a Wikipedia:reliable source. It may be the truth (or even The Truth!) or it may not; since it's not a trivial judgment, we go with with the reliable sources; in this case, that's Black Entertainment Television. --GRuban (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The databases are of those associations which issue certifications in each market, yes they are correct. These are routine and trivial calculations at the List of best-selling music artists where Malcolmo intends to use BET as a source. Nothing is copied from the databases, the certification-awards are converted into figures by following the corresponding award-levels provided directly on the sites of the certifying bodies, criteria for RIAA, criteria for BPI, Bundesverband Musikindustie, the sources are listed on the uploaded doc.. Every Platinum/Gold/Silver award is converted, nothing is missed. And no, it's not an original research as the certifying bodies do provide the levels for certification-awards. All one has to do is follow the release date and apply the levels provided on the same sites. The document is not provided on here to pass as a reliable sources, the sources the certifications are taken from are reliable. WP:RS states: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context; and BET in our case is not reliable. --Harout72 (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think you're pretty clearly matching the results of your own research against that conducted by a national cable TV channel. If some other reliable source came up with a different number for R. Kelly's sales, we could cite them. Until then, though, BET seems to be what we have. --GRuban (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Time Mazazine claims 50 million records for R. Kelly which immediately agrees with his available certified sales. There should never be such a gap between artists' certified sales and their actual sales as it is with BET's claim.--Harout72 (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be better, except it's from 2007, so can't be compared to the 2012 BET article. Kelly just might have sold a few records in the last 5 years. In fact, if he had sold 50 million by 2007, I'm even more wary of your figures from that Word doc that say he had still only sold 50 million by 2012.--GRuban (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No, Times' article can't be compared to BET's, not because it's from 2007, but because BET is rather lousy when it comes to getting its facts right. R. Kelly's sales have been quite poor since 2007 (see R. Kelly discography), so a few millions on the top of the 50 million wouldn't make BET a better source and it most definitely doesn't make his available certified sales which I've put together on one sheet questionable. As I explained above, the Certified Sales are often less than the Actual Sales, because not all albums/singles/videos reach the required levels to be certified. Artists like R. Kelly whose popularity is mainly concentrated on the U.S. market, could not have sold 150 million records that easily. That figure is only possible when artists experience widespread popularity all over the world. BET could perhaps be an OKAY source when supporting statements about music events, but sales figures do take a lot of research and require careful calculations which I doubt BET has the right staff for.--Harout72 (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we need a third (or rather fourth) opinion. Anyone? --GRuban (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone? Anyone at all? Bueller? --GRuban (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm very skeptical of sourcing anything to basic cable infotainment channels, as opposed to legitimate news organizations. I am skeptical of their level of editorial control, reliability or reputation for fact checking, beyond doing just barely enough to avoid successful libel suits. I would not source things to E!, MTV, Spike, TruTV, BET...etc. That does not appear to be a universally-held view here, however. Fladrif (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what's so unreliable about this source. I reckon Harout72 just thinks he's right about everything and refuses to listen to other peoples opinions. --Jamcad01 (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but if MTV.com or other similar network websites are considered reliable. BET must be too. Malcolmo (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As of now, the majority tends to say yes. Malcolmo (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not the majority that counts, what counts is why editors think the source in question is reliable. The comment made by Jamcad01 above is not an explanation as to why the source is reliable, he/she is simply another upset editor whose sources at the List of best-selling music artists have been turned down due to their questionable reliability.--Harout72 (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

But in this particular case, the claim is not even far fetched. R. Kelly has certified sales of OVER 50 million. It is moreso highly unlikely his sales would be only fifty million, since he started in 1991. BET is not some blog. It is one the country's biggest network, especially in relation to African Americans, and African American music. 92.230.237.186 (Malcolmo) 14:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, to GRuban, the original research policy restricts what content can be added to articles. There is nothing wrong with using original research and a little common sense to determine what should be removed from articles. Regardless, one bad report doesn't mean the publisher as a whole is unreliable. Everyone messes up sometimes. If it were demonstrated that BET regularly screws up like this, that would be another thing. But in the other direction, demonstrating the reliability of BET's numbers is as simple as showing that they are cited by sources whose reliability is not in dispute. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There'd be nothing wrong with using common sense. But as you can see from the argument, the sense here is not at all common. Have you looked at Harout's work? Have you considered reproducing it? It's not trivial. It requires quite a bit of adding, querying, and educated guessing. Is it transparent to you that it's without error? Because if it is, you're smarter than I am. And this is the work we're supposed to use to "common sense" convince that a major cable network is wrong? --GRuban (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

GRuban, this is not guessing whatsoever, in fact, it's not even difficult. If one has a hard time converting, for example, R. Kelly's U.S. Platinum for Double Up into the figure it represents using RIAA's criteria, then that person might have problems with other simple calculations also. The same thing is with all other music markets, no educated guessing is required.--Harout72 (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is there are claims that the RIAA has been engaging in creative accounting and itself violating copyright law (Major Labels Accused Of $6 Billion Worth Of Copyright Infringement In Canada). This makes any numbers from them suspect.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ That article doesn't mention anything about the certifying bodies such as RIAA, Music Canada, BPI etc.. It speaks of record companies involved in selling records and not reporting the sales. The RIAA and Music Canada certify those records the sales of which are legitimately reported. Record labels must submit proof of sales to certifying associations in order to get the albums/singles/videos certified. And that article is about the sales of those records (albums/singles/videos), from which record labels profit but do not report.--Harout72 (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you missed the part about the CRIA (the Canadian version of the RIAA) and as up amite it talks about "not reporting the sale" which was my point.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Canadian Music Industry Association individually (present Music Canada) is a non-profit organization which hasn't immediately been involved in the lawsuit. It's the members of CRIA who were involved in the lawsuit, Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada. They are represented by the Canadian Music Industry Association but operate on their own. As I mentioned above, the purpose of CRIA (Music Canada) among other things, is to certify legitimately reported record-sales.I'm afraid I fail to see why this was brought up.--Harout72 (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Primary/secondary source questions

When a medical/health/science-related study is done and it is available in the scientific journal PLoS ONE, is PLoS ONE considered a secondary source? Also, when the EPA gets a request from a pesticide manufacturer to make a new product available the manufacturer must present studies re its safety to the EPA. The EPA then evaluates the studies to make a decision re the safety of the new chemical. When one quotes the EPA, are they considered a secondary source? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The primary source is the source that produces the research and the findings. If a study presents tests and results in a journal then it is a primary source. However, another study in the same journal could discuss the results presented in another paper (published in a previous volume of the journal) and that would then be a secondary source. In the second example, the EPA study would be a secondary source for the results they are reviewing, but a primary source for their own conclusions regarding the safety of the chemical. I think that's roughly right; if it isn't someone will be along to correct me. Betty Logan (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This is far from clear. Wikipedia uses somewhat non-standard and none-too-clear definitions of primary and secondary sources. If a source is primary or secondary also depends on its use. In standard terminology, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies would be a primary source on Einstein, but a secondary source on physics. Lab notes, experimental recordings, and direct observations would be primary sources on physics, but a properly written and reviewed paper is a secondary source. Wikipedia does not universally agree with this, so caveat emptor. That said, PLoS ONE is a non-standard journal that - intentionally and publicly - employs somewhat different review criteria than conventional journals. In particular, a PLoS ONE publication should not be taken as evidence of noteworthiness, as "importance" is one thing PLoS ONE does not assess. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks so far but I still don't understand the situation with the EPA. If I would use a Cochrane Collaboration reveiew to back a claim I made here, that would be a secondary source, correct? In the same situation would the EPA be considered a secondary source, or would they be a primary source? Also, many medical and chemical articles, for instance the phthalates article, have a large number of studies that have not been reviewed that are used as sources in the article. I understand that Wikipedia has guidelines that urge editors to try to use reviews rather than studies since small studies may produce outlandish claims that may greatly differ from the majority of outcomes of most studies, and thus be out of place here. However, when a large two-year study done by university scientists and funded by the FDA is released, would it be considered to be appropriate to include here? I'm speaking of this study [1] Also, would this university news release be considered a secondary source of the study itself? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Cochrane reviews are considered secondary sources about the topic in question. If the EPA reviews multiple studies, then their analysis is a secondary source; if the EPA conducts and publishes original research, then it is primary. All content regarding medical claims are governed by the guideline WP:MEDRS which encourages secondary sources, however most people are not aware of this, and many, many articles are littered with primary studies that go against this guideline. In general, we should use secondary reviews, unlike the primary study you suggest, as we don't know how much weight to give it until it is reviewed in the scientific literature. Yobol (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

If all of the chemical articles toxicity sections are to be wiped clean of all primary research, much, perhaps most, of the untoward effects of chemicals would need to be removed. For example, see this section from the Bisphenol A article from the "Health effects" section:

In 2011, the chief scientist of the United Kingdom's Food Standards Agency commented on a study on dietary exposure of adult humans to BPA performed by the EPA, saying, "This corroborates other independent studies and adds to the evidence that BPA is rapidly absorbed, detoxified, and eliminated from humans – therefore is not a health concern." In the study 20 subjects were tested for BPA every hour for twenty-four hours while consuming three meals consisting of canned food.

In 2012 a paper was written in response to this study, however, criticizing the study as lacking data and having flawed assumptions.

In this example perhaps the EPA primary study could be included because it was mentioned by the Food Standards Agency, but the primary study which criticized the EPA study and published in PubMed could not be included, correct? Since, unlike medical studies, there are not numerous journals that comment on studies, or reviews such as Cochrane's reviews, the numerous suggestions that many chemicals may have dangers not yet acknowledged by government agencies such as the FDA, CDC, or EPA, will go unreported by Wikipedia under present policy rules, is that correct?

Would this study [2] published in an on-line journal still be considered a primary source (I'm guessing the answer is "yes").

Thank you all so much for your help - it means a lot to me and my continuing editing at Wikipedia. Gandydancer (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the Vom Saal, Prins, & Welshons paper is analyzing another paper, rather than conducting new laboratory or clinical experiments, wouldn't it be secondary? Jc3s5h (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Even though they do review another study, it seems to me that it falls short from what WP:MEDRS gives as examples of secondary sources. However, I do remain unconvinced that it was the intention of Wikipedia to use WP:MEDRS as a strict guide for references in chemical articles, but I doubt that we can settle that question here. But to move back to the study I referred to in my initial question, a study I used because it represents dozens of other studies in the pesticide articles. The study in question here [3] has to do with honey bee health, not human health. So it seems to me that this Wikipedia advise would apply for proper sourcing:

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] (The concern is that they not be used to present fringe theories.)

As I said, this was a university two-year study funded by the USDA and it seems to me that there should be no argument for not including it in an article that discusses Colony collapse disorder. What do you think? Gandydancer (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You will find more information about this at WP:USEPRIMARY. You may use primary sources (particularly high-quality primary sources). Even MEDRS agrees that primary sources are (at least occasionally) useful and appropriate, particularly for recent information and for subjects for which proper reviews are rare. "Primary" is not an alternative spelling for "unreliable". What you particularly want to avoid is using a primary source to de-bunk a secondary. "According to this newly reported experiment, ___" is okay; "All the reviews say X, but this little primary source proves them wrong" is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Perfect and so appreciated. Gandydancer (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, and even more interesting to see how only a very limited number of the "policy guidelines" discussed here made it over to the clothianidin talk page, where Gandydancer et al have been using primary research articles that fit their belief systems to try and debunk established scientific consensus expressed by global authorities regarding the as-yet unresolved effect of pesticides on pollinator health. (for a brief synopsis see Topic III: Research to Identify Factors Affecting Honey Bee Health, Including Attempts to Recreate CCD Symptomology at USDA's 2010 Colony Collapse Disorder Report to Congress) You see this same approach employed on many chemical articles, such as Neonicotinoids and imidacloprid, but also colony collapse disorder, which makes it look as if Wikipedia editors are themselves qualified secondary reviewers.

The typical pattern goes something like this "Uncertainties still exist for chemical X (cite globally recognized authorities' secondary source or sources), but here are 10 studies that focus on potential hazards, including THIS ONE THAT JUST WENT VIRAL AFTER IT HIT THE HEADLINE NEWS." Clearly, the intended message is that that there cannot possibly be uncertainties no matter what the globally recognized authorities say. Of course, this ignores the fact that when recognized authorities identify hazards and uncertainties, they're typically summarizing the weight of evidence involving somewhere between dozens and hundreds of studies. It would be a very rare thing, indeed, if a couple of new studies that are hyped in the news actually flipped scientific consensus on its ear. I'll admit that highlighting new primary research is titillating and makes for great marketing of advocates' favorite hypotheses, but I feel it harms Wikipedia's credibility. Because of Wikipedia's popularity, this abuse of primary research also misleads the public discourse on the extremely complex (and widely misunderstood) topic of regulatory risk assessments for pesticide chemicals, for which potential hazards are but one of many factors that must be taken into account.

I invite anyone who is interested in reliable sources to comment on a proposal to amend the WikiProject Chemistry's Manual of Style, which in its current form encourages the use of primary research almost without restriction. For NPOV editors who are simply trying to improve access to neutral information about chemicals, this openness is essential. Unfortunately, it also creates opportunities for exploitation. USEPA James (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Offline newspapers

Hi, can we use offline non-English local newspapers as sources providing their scans? --S Q 15:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would you need to provide a scan? ElKevbo (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No need to provide a scan - no real mechanism to do so anyway. Can't upload to Wikipedia - it would be a copyvio. However, if the source is quoted in translation, I have seen the practise of inserting the quote in the original language as part of the citation. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Such scans are very often a copyvio. Unless the scanned image is hosted on the newspaper's own website it's probably safest to presume it is a copyvio. Just use the standard {{citenews}} template - with, as suggested by User:Elen of the Roads, an optional quote. Roger (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't automatically use {{citenews}}; use the citation format already established in the article, which might or might not be the {{cite xxx}} family of templates. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

S_Q, see WP:SOURCEACCESS -- there is no requirement that a source be available on-line. However, if the source is not in English, then please comply with WP:NOENG. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

My view is that Wikipedia should implement a verification mechanism that will verify whether the information given in an article is really present in the offline reference. How will we know if an offline source is misrepresented or misquoted? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If you suspect that a "non-online" source has been misrepresented or misquoted, you have two options: 1) attempt to check it yourself by locating a copy of the source (not always easy, but a major library is usually a good place to start), 2) see if some other Wikipedian is willing to do so for you. Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Any editor who is caught fabricating stuff and attempting to hide it by citing to difficult-to-access sources should be taken out and shot blocked for a very long time. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem I've come across with this is in WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT faults with secondary usage. I had a case of this where a local Catholic newspaper in Colorado was claimed as a source for a highly questionable claim about George Washington. I did manage to get someone who had access to old issues to take a look, and she found that the citation was spurious; it had been copied from secondary sources without verification. As a rule, I would reject such citations if the information ought to be something that is more widely or prominently recorded and especially so if the matter is a secondary reference for a controversial claim. It's a common mechanism used by fringe theorists to fabricate support for their assertions. Now, for more routine information which would tend to be recorded only in a local source, I would be more inclined to assume good faith. It would be reasonable to expect, however, that the editor could tell us where they got access to the material. Mangoe (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the burden sits on the editor presenting this evidence to show it's real; they could email the scan to other editors if it's disputed (if not disputed no need to scan). Common sense should apply. If people are questioning your citation for good reason, one should supply it for scrutiny, rather than forcing people to run around and scrape up the original source. Just my two rupees. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have access to a source and someone else doesn't, then it would be courteous and collegial for you to supply scans or quotations to the editors without access, assuming you can do so without violating copyrights, no matter who originally added the material. But it is not required. Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/FAQ addresses the issue of source access. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Adherents.com

What's the verdict on Adherents.com? User:124.181.25.139 has been using it as a source in various bios, but the site doesn't really strike me as the kind of source we'd normally accept. Zagalejo^^^ 23:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it lies on the "reliable" side of the line... but I agree it isn't the best. Certainly, if some other reliable source says something that conflicts with what is said at adherents.com, I would defer to the other source as being more reliable.Blueboar (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it is probably not a reliable source, by our standards. There is no real indication of who is responsible for the content, and what checks and controls there are. On the other hand, it does seem to cite sources for at least some of its data - and may thus be useful as a resource to find such sources, which may themselves be cited provided the person citing them checks the cited material, and doesn't just copy the cite blindly from Adherents.com. What is it being cited for, though? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The IP is using it to say that various athletes are Christians. I think that the claims most likely are true, but I'm a little wary of seeing that particular site used as a reference. Zagalejo^^^ 02:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not RS for that. WP:BLP policy requires particularly good sourcing over religious affiliations and the like - and we shouldn't normally be going into such details at all if it has no bearing on the notability of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

See also a previous discussion on this website: [4]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable, SPS, unsigned tertiary aimed at a general public, no editorial policy, Preston Hunter has no expert exemption. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of your objections are not valid, policy-based reasons for rejecting a source. Most health-related government websites, for example, are "unsigned tertiaries aimed at a general public". Almost no sites publish their editorial policy (you, of course, don't actually know whether they have an editorial policy, only that you couldn't find one). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I am very wary of using it. We used to rely on it very heavily for Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States (and I see there are still some links left) but for instance this page on Eisenhower refers back to us, and has some very questionable "research" from JW sources. I would certainly avoid reference to it where is gives no citations. Mangoe (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The IP is adding religious-related categories - BLP policy states "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." so these should all be removed unless they conform to our policy. Dougweller (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This site, hosted by anonymous individual(s), is a populist site and its only goal seems to become famous, increase page rank, and generate money through ads. Lack of editorial board, fact-checking mechanism. It's not RS. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Youtube clip

Is this you tube clip uploaded by persons unknown [5] OK to be used in International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) to support the following "According to the defense layer of Jamaat leader Delwar Hossain Sayeedi, the trial has only targeted figures of the previous government, and present opposition parties" Darkness Shines (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No. There is no guarantee of veracity to the original recording, or that the content was uploaded intact. Secondarily to that, the original video (even if uploaded by a reputable group with editorial control) would itself need to be reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid Darkness Shines has mischaracterised the uploaders. They are a respected international law firm based in London. In any case, I have replaced the reference with that of the original venue for the event that they uploaded the clip of. The clip was provided by the the prestigious American Society of International Law [6]. Aminul802 (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Law chambers are not reliable publishers; 9 Bedford Row (Chambers) are not the American Society of International Law; and Luncheons are not acceptable methods of reporting legal or historical information. It is unreliable as the Youtube video is unreliable (9 Bedford Row (Chambers) are not a media company, nor the originator of this Luncheon), and it is unreliable as the Luncheon itself is unreliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Are the lawyers comments not admissible when they are characterised as the lawyer's statements in a way that clarifies biases? The line says, "defence layers state that the targeted figures are the previous govt and present opposition." Aminul802 (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? All 1,597 people named and to be tried are in opposition? Sounds a little implausible to me.Darkness Shines (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, Fifelfoo, do you want to point us at the policy or guideline that says recordings of speeches are not reliable sources? I'm not finding it, and I am finding WP:RS saying that videos that have been distributed (e.g., on YouTube) may be just as reliable as equivalent text publications. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Oxford, secular Biblical archaeologist unreliable because of religious bias?

I have a user on my talk page attempting to place his own original research in articles like Philistines and History of ancient Israel and Judah (claims he's "just reading" primary sources, despite having been told repeatedly that doesn't work here). He's made the claims that:

• Publications from Divinity colleges (Oxford in this case) are "obviously biased."
• A source should be excluded because the author is "a Bible-believer" (despite William G. Dever saying "I am in fact not even a theist") and that (other, unused) sources by the author (but none cited in the article) were purportedly self-published, before going on to claim that there is no archaeological evidence for the existence of Israel, like an Egyptian stele mentioning Israel that has been known about since 1896 or a Moabite stele making quite a few more references to Israel that has been known about since 1868.
• An author with a PhD in Biblical anthropology is not an appropriate source for an article on Ancient Israel.

Are these in any way valid criticisms of sources on the Philistines, ancient Israel and Judah, etc? Or are they unnecessarily questioning the reliability of apparently good sources?

The sources in question are:

• Dever, William (2001). What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It?. Eerdmans.
• Dever, William (2003). Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?. Eerdmans.
• Dever, William (2005). Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel. Eerdmans.
• McNutt, Paula (1999). Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel. Westminster John Knox Press.
• Any sources from "divinity colleges, particularly Oxford's.

Does using these sources count as promoting a religion?

Ian.thomson (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Short answer would seem, to me, to be "no". Now, in some rare cases, which I don't have any real reason to believe apply here, they might be, but I think the sources listed directly above, published by Eerdmans and Westminster John Knox, are from reputable enough publishers in their fields that they do not instantly disqualify as reliable sources. Having said that, if the books in question have not been subject to apparent independent academic review, or if the academic reviews and other comments (if any) about the works indicate that those particular works are advancing a particular religious opinion, that would be different. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In the case in question, our article on William G. Dever indicates that he is to be presumed reliable. If someone were to find a lot of his peers saying "Dever is a crank" (as for example is the case about Bart Ehrman's ideas about the reliability of textual transmission, which are widely rejected), then perhaps his findings could be excluded; but I don't get that impression at all, and his inclusion in several reference/survey works would tend to reflect support of expert status.

It should also be kept in mind that this is a quite contentious field, with a great deal of disagreement about how the material ought to be used. Mere disagreement between experts is to be expected. Mangoe (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The individual who was calling Dever unreliable refused to cite anything but primary sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

DJ Booth

I am currently doing a GA review of "Cockiness (Love It)" and I am concerned that one of the reviews used is from a non-RS. The editor used this review from DJ Booth, which he has said is not reliable enough for FA but good enough for GA. Any feedback as to this review should be included? Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

While we're at it, how about CultureBlues, which is also used for a single review? Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

What text are the two reviews being used for? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Album reviews / editor opinions. Personally, I don't think either is big enough to warrant inclusion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

So the issue is not of reliability but due weight. In terms of size DJ Booth appears quite large based on its website's traffic ranking (~9000th which is pretty decent): [7] so I wouldn't rule it out based on that. cultureblues, is a minor website and doesn't appear to have a lot of due weight attached to it. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Naturally, we want to ensure the critic quoted is qualified as well. Are they qualified? Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What qualification is expected from someone who reviews music? I think DJ Booth is fine for the one line or so I saw it being used for. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Behind the Voice Actors

Can you folks weigh in on whether the Behind the Voice Actors website is a reliable source or not? The question comes up in the context of a date of death for Margie Hines. A number of people have attempted to add a date of death in the past, but always without a supporting citation. While it's likely that she is dead (she'd be 103 years old now), I've done some searching and have never been able to find anything to support a specific date. (For instance, although she supposedly died in Albany, NY, the Albany Times Union doesn't have an obit for her.) If BTVA is an RS, then problem solved, if not, it's back to the drawing board.

BTW, FWIW, February 4, 2011 is the same date that those numerous editors -- mostly IPs -- attempted to add in the past. One even had what looked like a source, but it didn't pan out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

On their FAQ page [8], they say they require actual proof of the truthfulness of the information they receive, which would point to reliability, but they also say they rely on resumes, among other things, as valid sources, in which case they would simply be re posting an SPS. So, the reliability of such information would have to be determined on a case by case basis, and you'd need to know the original source of that information. I looked for alternative sources, but nothing thus far. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've looked again, using some different search schemes, and still nothing. I'm wondering about calling SAG to see if they'll give out that kind of information. I know that my own union will only give it out to members. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Is a documentary about a person a "Self-Published Source" if positive towards its subject?

I recently added an "Early life" section to the biography of John Searl, an inventor of a "free energy" device. Now, me and RSN regular IRWolfie- are having a bit of a dispute about the aptness of the source I used for the information which I added (see our talk page discussion).

These are the statements in the article section that are all referenced to the documentary:

1. John Searl is deaf, which he attributes to beatings and neglect as a child.
2. He was the son of Robert Henry Searl (b. 1908) and Violet Gertrude Maud Pearce (b. 1914).
3. He had a younger sister and brother. Under the care of Dr Barnardo's Homes John would be placed in a number of foster homes.
4. Because he was deaf his early schooling was critically lacking and he learned neither the alphabet nor sums.
5. Searl finished at Thorndon Infant School in 1942 and went on to I Secondary School in Suffolk County.
6. In 1944 he was transferred to the Russell-Cotes Nautical School in Dorset County.
7. He finished here in 1946. Then he got his first job at British Rewinds' electrical repairs in London as an electrical engineering apprentice, still, and all the while, under the system of Dr. Barnardo's Homes.

To me this all looks like uncontroversial information, but IRWolfie- finds that "John Searl appears heavily involved in the production of the promotional video and it is published by a company that appears to have only ever made that one documentary. This seems like a self published source by any stretch." On the premise that this documentary is an SPS IRWolfie- also writes, "The self published source has no due weight attached to it, due weight is established by secondary sources." I don't know why this user finds as they do. I don't find this documentary to be compromised in the way the IRWolfie- does, having only watched the first 30 minutes of it, but then the user also doesn't present an argument, merely their opinion. But my immediate evaluation would also extend itself to finding this source applicable for the listed statements even were it a self-published source. The video's IMDB entry can be seen here, and I observe a number of people having been involved in the production. What is an appropriate assessment of this source for the statements listed above? __meco (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, if it is self-published but not by John Searl then it can not be used: WP:SPS Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.. The video appears to be created by a once off production company: [9] Secondly, if the promotional documentary is published by John Searl then it seems unsuitable because: 1. The article already contains mostly primary sources, adding a whole section on a self-published primary source appears undue 2. I am not convinced of the reliability of the material. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

What's the source that says that Searle was involved in the production of the video? Lockerman appears to have done other things [10]. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If John Searl was not involved then it is not suitable for use on wikipedia as it is self published. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's unclear if the source is self-published or not. However, the primary criterion is "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and I see no reason to assume this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that this is a WP:BLP, I'm astonished to see such a poor-quality source cited. In fact, none of the sources seem adequate. While not strictly a RS issue, I would recommend giving serious thought to whether the article should exist at all: does its subject meet WP:BIO? Jakew (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It was put up for PROD a while back but the deletion was declined by User:Joe Decker so it would have to go through an AfD. You can start the AfD if you wish. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The DVD looks likes a self-published source, and hence unuseable, to me. On a pedantic side-note, I doubt that the DVD refers to "I Secondary School", although it may refer to a school in Eye, Suffolk. There is nowhere called "Suffolk County" or "Dorset County" in England, though there are counties of the United Kingdom called Suffolk and Dorset. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• FYI it's up for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Searl#John_Searl. Throw in your two cents if you want. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

To answer the nominal question: any source, including a documentary film, is a self-published source if the author (=the person who chooses and creates the content) and the publisher (=the person who makes the creation available to the public) are the same people. It doesn't matter whether the content is positive, negative, or neutral. The only thing that matters is whether the author and the publisher are the same.

(NB that authors often try to hide their self-published status by creating a tiny, one-person business and saying that their business is the publisher, rather than accurately listing their own names. That's why people are skeptical of "publishers" who have never published anything else.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

When is YouTube a good source?

I have a dispute with another editor about the extent that web-published video can constitute strict publication. I'm too tired to type one more sentence of summary or bickering, so I thought perhaps I could start a thread discussion the topic in the abstract. What conditions do you believe need to be in place to consider a networked video (e.g. YouTube) to be a good, reliable, verifiable source of information? Squish7 (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thats not very specific. I'm no expert but I think never, that doesn't mean you cant use it at all but usually no. It depends on who originally published it and under what license. Weekly Republican Address has 140 youtube videos for example. If the original source is good enough to use but the copyrights are in question it is best to provide only a reference in text without a link:

<ref>person(s), "the title of the production", who published it, the date it was published.</ref>

In stead of, for example:

<ref>Mr G., "Under Pressure", Do Try This at Home, Season 2, Episode 1, 2014</ref>

You could look at other articles how sources are used. Here is a search for "youtube.com".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=youtube.com&fulltext=1

84.106.26.81 (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• The IP address above is completely incorrect. It's actually very simple about when you can use Youtube. If the video is hosted on the channel of an official news organizations, like the official Fox News or CNN Youtube channel, then the video are both reliable and don't violate copyright. Silverseren^C 04:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think he was asking for cases where it is obvious. I thought the question was where the line is. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have not clicked on all of them at the Republican article but so far a couple are perfect examples of when YouTube can be used. Example: this is a primary source (so use it with care) but it should be OK. The YouTube channel is verified as being official with the link to it from here (lower right). There are some concerns overall (not enough secondary sources, refs are not formatted correctly) but those are a whole other issue. More info can be seen at an essay I started: Wikipedia:Video links.Cptnono Follow-up:Didn't realize we were looking at it as an "abstract". There are too many variables to give an answer here which is why YouTube videos should be judged on a case by case basis.(talk) 20:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• It is only acceptable when it is the YouTube channel of something that otherwise conforms to WP:RS, like Fox News, and then under the requirements for other broadcast media. It's never acceptable if it's a self-published source (see WP:SPS) unless it's about itself: say, Pat Condell's YouTube Commentaries become popular enough to be relevant to Wikipedia, etc. For example, I could make ten YouTube videos on why space aliens are real and how they put on suits of skin to become our leaders and usher in the New World Order; those videos could then be used to artificially lend more WP:WEIGHT to an extremely fringe cause. From that example, it should be clear why such sources are never acceptable. JohnChrysostom (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you really have to pick Faux News as your example? To be a reliable source, there must be a reputation for fact checking, not just a large audience. There are in fact some reliable publishers with redistribution via YouTube channels, but Jon Stewart has made a living for years out of spotting the errors on Faux. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

What if the video is of a BLP subject giving information about themselves that is used to support material in their article? As long as it's unambiguously clear that it is indeed the subject in question, then wouldn't it be permissable to use for some info, like an artist discussing the techniques and materials they use, for example? Nightscream (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"I use the best materials in the world and possess the best technique. I name my techniques differently to what art historians and art theorists name techniques." cf: The tree shaping case. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not following. Can you clarify? Nightscream (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Individuals are often the worst source regarding themselves, they are habitually self serving, they are the perfect example of a PRIMARY and an involved source. They have no distance from themselves, and make outrageous claims on a regular basis that experts do not. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I make a point not to rely on self-published or primary sources precisely when the material in question is indeed potentially controversial or self-serving, like the awards that an artist has one. But when it's something completely innocuous or neutral in that respect, like where the person was born or grew up, what materials they use, that's not really self-serving, is it? Where else would information on what type of paper or which pencil leads an artist uses be found, if not from their own mouth? Nightscream (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding geography and self-identification: British Isles dispute; Eastern European disputes; regarding techniques and methods in fine arts: Tree Shaping dispute. Ethnicity and at least one art technique have so stewed the editing process with their controversial nature that arbitration has been effected. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what the "Tree Shaping dispute" is, and it would help if you would tell me or link me. In any event, the types of pencils, markers, inks or papers that Adam Hughes uses is not controversial or disputed, a point that I thought I had made clearly enough in my last message above. That is why I question if there's anything wrong with relying on a YouTube video of a notable artist explaining the materials he chooses to work with. In what way is this controversial or disputed? How does one dispute the materials a notable flat-out says he uses? What source could possibly be used to contest what materials he uses when working in his own home? Nightscream (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree_shaping. If it isn't in a secondary source why on earth is it encyclopaedically relevant? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there some particular reason you archived this discussion only five days after you asked that last question above, when threads are usually archived after six weeks of inactivity, as you yourself note in the white box at the top of the archived version of this discussion?

In answer to your question, material is encyclopedically relevant, event if it isn't in a secondary source by virtue of the fact that those two things are not causally linked.

Adam Hughes is such a noteworthy illustrator in his field that his techniques and materials are obviously encyclopedic in nature. Are you saying that that entire Tools and materials section in the Penciller article is not encyclopedic?

And how would a secondary source be likely to better cover a living comic book artist and cover/pinup illustrator's techniques and materials than the illustrator himself? Such information is usually documented in one of two places:

• 1. In interviews in industry publications and in books (A secondary source)
• 2. On the artist's website or in videos that they appear in, sometimes on YouTube, and sometimes in professionally-produced videos sold to consumers (A primary source)

While some information does appear in the first type of source, it is my observation that more often it tends to appear in the latter. Perhaps this is because artists tend to be better at explaining their own processes and the tools they use in free-form explanation, than in the format of a rigid, question-and-answer text format. A good illustration of this is the fact that in the penciller article, of the 23 citations for the material in the Tools and materials section, only five are of publications that were published independently of the artist himself. Of these, two of them (Citations 1 and 2) are essentially the same publisher repackaging much of the same material. And of these five, or two of them present the material in paraphrased, third-person form (Citations 4 and 18).

Part of the reason I make that last point because I'm wondering if there is much of a difference between an interview conducted by and published by an industry publication that is generally considered to be reliable TwoMorrows Publishing (Citations 1 & 2) or Comic Book Resources (Citation #22) and a column published by such a publisher in which the artist merely explains his techniques and materials without an interviewer acting as a middleman (as in the case of the Comic Book Resources articles/columns by Joe Quesada that are cited as Citations #14 & 15). Nightscream (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Because the thread was 10K. RS/N was crashing browsers. The automated bot was down. The archive period is currently 7 days, not 6 weeks. This thread had been open since 5 January despite not meeting the requirements of RS/N (see the top of this page), and discussion was not turning towards the purpose of RS/N (again, see the top of this page). Mostly though because RS/N was 700kB and breaking browsers. RS/N is now 250kB-ish, and I'll let some other editor close this. If you'd like to duplicate here the citations from penciller then we could discuss them. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I already discussed them, in my message above, and for my purposes, duplication was not necessary. If you wish to discuss the points I raised above, in answer to your question about whether material is encyclopedic if it's not found frequently in secondary sources, feel free to do so. If doing so requires linking to those cites, you're more than able to do so yourself. Nightscream (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Publius Enigma - Usenet as a source

I removed a big chunk from this article, some unsourced, some from Usenet involving discussions and added by an editor who was involved in those discussions. That editor restored it all, but most was then deleted, leaving only [11] which has 3 links to a usenet group. What do others think? Is this an instance when we can use such groups? Dougweller (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted it as OR based on primary sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you supply citations of the works you'd like discussed as mentioned at the top of this page? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Plummer v. State (of Indiana)

I need advice on how to deal with sourcing at Plummer v. State (of Indiana). On Wikipedia:Help desk#Newbie file uploader questions the issue was brought up about using primary vs. secondary sources, in particular the use of a 1893 Indiana Supreme Court decision. I think I will be within Wikipedia policies if all I do is to provide an external link to the text of the decision and depend on reliable secondary sources for everything else. (The article is not properly sourced yet; I am working on it and have requested help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Plummer v. State (of_Indiana)) Would that be acceptable? I really want to do the right thing here. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you look up the problems of interpreting law and cases, you'll discover that doing so constitutes original legal research. For this reason, cases ought to be treated as primary sources. WP:HISTRS has some suggestions on where to quote and use primary sources, and these may be applicable to law: basically if a legal scholar quotes a section of text and characterises or explains it, then we should be able to do so too—but we need to cite this correctly: Case §5¶17 as quoted and explained in Foo, Bar (1990) etc... Even then, the Primary Source isn't acting as a reliable source for anything but its own content. Remember: references are for more than just reliably sourcing facts. References act as "hyperlinks" to relevant content, it may be worth citing the case in full at its first appearance. Supplying an external link (from a reliable repository) sounds like an excellent idea. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I just read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) and you were right. Lots of good advice that is applicable to a legal topic. Once I solve the accessibility/paywall problem I am going to treat the source it exactly as you advise above. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You would be better served by looking to scholarly sources that discuss the decision. Callaghan's "Cyclopedia of Criminal Law", [12], Thompson's "American and English Encyclopaedia of Law" [13] Far better than trying to cite the decision itself. But, be careful, as it is (i) a very old decision, as are the sources that typically discuss it and (ii) it by no means establishes a universal rule. See this 1921 article in the Central Law Journal [14] The Wilson decision is a secondary, recent source on Plummer, but I would not characterize that decision in the manner the article has characterized it. It would be even better to look to find reliable sources which discuss the Wilson decision. Fladrif (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I will try to make the article follow those sources as you suggest. (I am still hoping that some law student will ride in like a white night and rescue this poor floundering engineer, but I will do my best.) I do want the full text to be available, simply because the internet is full of alleged quotes from this decision that do not appear in the decision, but other than that, I will try to do as you suggest. Very helpful. Thanks. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You must not have seen my post at the help desk. The decision is available here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I have no idea why I didn't find it when I searched. Alien Mind control clouding my thoughts, no doubt. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I found about 30 or so Indiana cases citing Plummer and its rule of law appears to stand today.(I am wondering whether these could be thought of as secondary sources.) I did not find any law review articles on Plummer but found references to treatises on the case in Indiana Pleading and Practice. I wasn't able to have access to these books yet. I am happy to share all I have found if needed. The google books references from Fladrif sound like a good starting place and I am glad to know about these. I am also wondering if this case can be considered notable,ie, WP:NOTABILITY: .."if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Could the cases citing Plummer create notability? Now I am curious about how this will go.Coaster92 (talk) 05:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have some concern that the decision may not be notable enough to merit its own article, and raised that question on the article talkpage. Lots of state supreme court cases get cited multiple times in later decisions without being notable for purposes of Wikipedia. But, this isn't the Notability noticeboard, so I leave it at that. Fladrif (talk) 14:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ttwick.com

I can't figure out what this is, but it is being added to many articles. It seems to be a site analyzing twitter posts to determine whether individual Venezuelans are chavistas or not, resulting in a "chavista" score at the top of the page (sample). I removed one and was reverted. Do we want this in External links? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be a website that uses some algorithm to analyzes twitter posts; I can't see how any of that (the source or the analysis) meets the requirements of WP:RS, and I can see definite WP:BLP issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Two new editors adding them: [15] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I reverted these from the BLP's in question, they are obviously not reliable, fail WP:EL and are no doubt a BLP violation to boot. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I just found this "About us" description at the bottom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

After warning, after removal, still at it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Reported to ARV, he ain't gonna listen. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Also reported to WT:WPSPAM#ttwick.com. If persists, may need to look into adding to XLinkBot, or to the spam blacklist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

While I've got your collective attention :) Could folks please watchlist Henrique Capriles Radonski? He is a candidate for presidential elections in Venezuela to be held this October, and there have already been some pretty awful state-sponsored anti-semitic attacks on him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Editorials

I thought at one point this guideline differentiated between an individual signed editorial position, and an (unsigned) editorial written by a newspaper's editorial board. One would assume that the latter would be more reliable than the former, since it would have to go through the exact same legal and fact checking process as any news story in the newspaper. Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If an editorial board write it I would assume they check the facts, I would agree with your assessment. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that all editorial content in a reputable newspaper, including signed editorials, goes thro review for legality and accuracy. EMP 00:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagree in general. An editorial written by a newspaper's editorial board is still a statement of opinion, just the opinion of a group rather than an individual. We shouldn't be citing statements of opinions as if they were facts. I used to have a great copy of the Boston Globe where the editorial was praising George H. W. Bush for showing restraint in not invading Panama; the headline of that exact same edition was about George H. W. Bush invading Panama. Though of course specific cases might be different; hence the disclaimer at the top of this board - what specific position/statment/claim, source, and article are you asking about, please? --GRuban (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Here, for example, is a recent Wall Street Journal unsigned/editorial board editorial.[16] The WSJ is a highly respected newspaper. But its editorials are very much editorials. It includes such statements as "Obama ... spent most of his Presidency promoting tax increases and he would hit the economy with one of the largest tax increases ever in 2013"; "Republicans also failed to put together a unified House and Senate strategy"; "... Republicans are drowning out that victory in the sounds of their circular firing squad" and other statements that should not be allowed near a Wikipedia article. Opinion is opinion, even when it comes from an editorial board. --GRuban (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is the real point. Although editorials, signed or unsigned, are surely vetted for legality, their accuracy is by no means certain, since they are opinion pieces and by definition strongly colored by subjectivity. [[User:EMP]] (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

nasrani.net/

Does anyone think this is a reliable source? It doesn't seem to exercise editorial control over the articles its members post. Found it at Knai Thomman but there are a number of other articles using it.[17]. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at one of the articles on that site [18] it appears very well referenced, but there are obviously no peer review. From their about "This is a collective collaborative effort from members of different denominations of Nasrani Community and outside. The articles/posts in this website are the result of individual research done by the respective people. The sources and references are duly acknowledged in each article / posts."[19] I have no idea if the author is an expert in the field, if he is then perhaps it would meet RS Darkness Shines (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Right. The site does not have any editorial board, and is analogous to a user-generated site. Only those articles which are written by recognized experts should be used in Wikipedia, with proper attribution. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Agenda-based organization as source for activities of another organization

*sigh* Once again I am here with a completely ridiculous question because the user on whom the WP:BURDEN lies refuses to seek support for the material he is repeatedly adding.

Is this page from the website of the "Pro Life Campaign," an anti-abortion organization, sufficient to source the claim that the polling organization Red C conducted a survey which found X, Y, and Z? No reliable sources cover this survey and Red C's website itself shows no trace of it, but the user in question, editing under his own username and under an IP, has repeatedly [20][21][22] added it even after being informed that neither newspaper-type RS nor the organization which supposedly conducted the poll have ever said that it happened, instead preferring to make personal attacks.

To me, it is obvious that if neither third-party reliable sources nor primary sources from Red C say that Red C conducted a survey, we cannot say that Red C conducted a survey. Liamfoley/86... apparently believes that RS requirements are waived if the poll results support his agenda. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup. "Pro Life Campaign" aren't a reliable source for anything but their own opinions. If the poll took place, it should be independently verifiable. If it isn't, it can't be cited in our article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well... Technically speaking, PLC itself is a third-party source, so you've got a third-party source saying that Red C conducted this survey (unless, e.g., you believe that PLC owns or controls Red C and therefore the two apparently separate entities are functionally one). But a claim backed only by one fairly minor source is probably not DUE, and I'd certainly want to see WP:INTEXT attribution if it were included. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If it's true that PLC commissioned the poll, as they say they did, they would be a second party, I believe. Not a third, at any rate. But as I said it's not a question of due weight; we simply don't have evidence that this poll ever existed (also see discussion at Talk:Abortion in the Republic of Ireland, apparently PLC has repeatedly made these sorts of claims about nonexistent polls), so there's a WP:V failure. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if PLC commissioned the poll, then that counts as a type of control (for the one poll, at least) and so they're not a third-party source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Is "onlineopinion.com.au" a reliable source?

Specifically this article which an editor is trying to use as a reference: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13215&page=2 I can't tell whether or not this website is just a glorified blog site where anyone can write an opinion of anything. Freikorp (talk) 10:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see the top of this page, reliable in what article for what claim? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

My bad, sorry. This article: GetUp!#Prioritisation_of_GetUp.21.27s_campaigns This claim: "David Palmer, writing in On Line Opinion, noted that the failure of GetUp! to "get its members to sign a petition in favour of same-sex marriage" was "especially striking"." Freikorp (talk) 13:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

David Palmer's opinion isn't particularly notable in relation to Australian politics (I'd say the same about most newspaper opinion columns). As onlineopinion.com.au is an openly publishing format whose primary criteria is quality of writing, they don't attach notability to the opinion. It might be reliable for the sentence without the evaluation "especially striking," as this seems to be a claim of fact, and onlineopinion seems to provide a moderate degree of oversight of this stuff. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Project InCite

This is for your information: m:Wikimedia Fellowships/Project Ideas/InCite. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

thank you for the notice. I have responded at length there. To summarise for other editors, in relation to an encyclopaedic project:

• InCite proposes original research as standard, and aims to arm editors to politicise the Point of View of the encyclopaedia
• Attacks the concept of scholarly knowledge as having a greater weight due to a superior fact checking ("epistemological") tool set
• Has grave risks related to the ethics of collecting oral citations, which WP:RS/N recently dismissed in a lengthy discussion
• Would appear to be, due to its focus on wikipedia and its normalisation of en. as wikipedia, to be an off-wiki attempt to collude to change community consensus.

In short, I find it bloody dangerous, ill prepared, and failing to comprehend fully the problem of oral or populist knowledge traditions adequately. It also has a bloody condescending tone (I would suggest to my friends, "Imperialist tone") towards communities that hold non-scholarly knowledge traditions. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what a Pandora's box it would be to allow or even encourage unverifiable original research. We already have enough of a battle trying to keep highly politicized subjects sane. The proposal is wrong-headed; it can only weaken the wiki. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Far left-politics

Article: Far-left politics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Source: Woshinsky, Oliver H. Explaining Politics: Culture, Institutions, and Political Behavior. Routledge, 2008.

The section "Socialism and communism" (pp. 144-149)[23] of the book is used as a source for the lead.

My concern with this source is that appears to be an introductory U.S. polisci textbook, and therefore is tertiary. The terminology used is not explained, there is no dicsussion about its usage by other authors, different terms are used interchangeably, and it is U.S. specific. (In the U.S., modern liberalism is called "left-wing".) Another issue is that the body of the article uses a source, a Socialist research paper, that also provides a different definition.

TFD (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Per the Preface to the text itself (xiii) it is an introductory textbook aimed at undergraduate students, as its function is pedagogical (and geographically limited) rather than scholarly, it does not actually embody the scholarly debate or opinion. It is an inappropriate tertiary source to use for a definition in the social sciences—do not use. Seek higher quality tertiary sources such as scholarly encyclopaedia aimed at scholars, review articles on the topic, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I see nothing at all in any policy that says a textbook aimed at university students, rather than scholars, is unusable. In fact, WP:RS directly says "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Even when the textbook is a tertiary source (and RS indicates that not all textbooks are), it says "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries..." I'd say that providing a basic definition in the introduction would count as "giving overviews or summaries".

Consequently, I believe this source is useable for the stated purpose. It may not be the best possible source (and editors are free to find and prefer better sources), but it does actually meet the written guidelines on this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia policy on tertiary sources to which TDF linked says that "Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other." It seem that this source is used exactly for that purpose. -- Vision Thing -- 09:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps outside of the social sciences and humanities. Within the social sciences and humanities textbooks are regularly regarded as substandard, and they do not generally represent the scholarly opinion. Their function is pedagogical, not the reporting of research. They regularly oversimplify and make geographically specific claims that are not substantiable through the world community. Textbooks, even at the undergraduate level, regularly replicate the socially dominant ideology. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a single introductory undergraduate textbook in the social sciences is in general not a reliable source. Introductory textbooks always inherently overgeneralize, are always a good number of years behind the state of opinion in the field, and are normally written to be as palatable as possible, which means they repeat what they think will be the preconceptions of their readers. Some may be; I'd accept the various editions of Samuelson's Economics for the consensus at the time of mainstream US economists, though of course not for a worldwide view of the subject. And so on for the recognized classics. I see no evidence that this particular book is of such authority. And in particular, I would be very reluctant to consider any general US college textbook on politics to have any authority whatsoever in differentiating far-left political movements. (This sort of thing is becoming an increasing problem with the Academic Program--students are simply entering things from their course textbooks, with at best minimal rewriting but almost always without any attempt to compare or another source or awareness of likely prejudices in textbooks.) DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

DGG, did you look at the way the textbook is being used in the article? It's cited in the lead to support very broad statements. It's not trying to "differentiate far-left political movements" or anything even remotely complicated like that: it is used to support things like a claim that the far left opposes social hierarchy and supports equal distribution of wealth. I don't know much about this area, but I doubt that any source would disagree with these general statements. If your goal is to make very general statements, then a source that generalizes is probably your best choice.

Also, the English Wikipedia isn't supposed to represent solely the current scholarly opinion and leave out "the socially dominant ideology". We want all the significant views, and I can't imagine a view more significant than "the socially dominant ideology". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Increasing use of blogs as cited and reliable sources — either rigour or guideliness need to be enhanced

I am seeing an ever increasing reliance on the use of blogs from non-authoritative sources as citations in articles, where research has been undertaken (presumably), however on the blogs there is not citation of sources, no evidence of authority of the writer, and this would seem to trivialise the works that we do about citing sources, and brings us in to a contemporary space where the written web word is taken as a reality. If you have a look at Special:LinkSearch/*.wordpress.com you will see an indicator of the issue. I am not going to blame the users as it seems that we are not educating sufficiently about the use and value of reliable sources. Seems like there could be a series of essays that we could be looking to put into Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost that looks lift the standard. Plus to me it would seem that we need to be starting to hassle for some more prominence and rigour around this subject matter. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested in the "InCite" project above that suggests that we should wholesale accept such ephemeral and public knowledges that lack systems of verification. If you want to take on the core job of editing a signpost article, that sounds cool, and I'd support you in that and possibly have a little bit of copyediting time. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Billinghurst, this guideline distinguishes "Personal blogs" (deemed unreliable) from "Journalism blogs" (deemed either reliable or unreliable on a case by case basis, depending on a given blog's reputation for fact finding and accuracy). You point us to a link search for wordpress.com... but wordpress isn't a source, it's a format... and wordpress.com is not a source, but a blog hosting site. So a simple linksearch for "wordpress.com" is not going to tell us whether the blog being cited in any specific article is reliable or not. You have to actually go and examine the specific blog being cited and determine if it is reliable in the context of the specific article it appears in. Now, If you are calling for us to use more caution and hold ourselves to higher standards when determining which "Journalism blogs" we should consider reliable, I completely agree. Blueboar (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I also note that a lot of the "citations" to wordpress.com that show up in the linksearch result you point us too actually appear on User pages or Article talk pages... not in actual articles. Blueboar (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

For Personal Blogs I could imagine situations where they could be used, for example for the opinion of a notable person from their blog (where independent sources establish due weight though for the mention). IRWolfie- (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Does this blog qualify for an expert exception?

I'm working to improve the very limited sourcing on the Autoweek article. I'd like to use this as one of the sources: http://roaringracers.livejournal.com/679.html. While this is a blog and self-published sources do not normally count as reliable sources, this may be considered an exception according to WP:SPS. This states that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The author of the post is Jim MacQueen, who can be considered an established expert and has had his work published in reliable third-party publications. He has been a reporter and the Contributing Editor of Motor Trend ([24]) and several other automotive publications. An example of his previously published work is here: [25].

Based on the information presented above, would others consider this blog post to be a reliable source according to the expert exception outlined in WP:SPS? --DetroitSteele (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It is very well written and it does not make extraordinary claims without substance. I would accept as a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, acceptable as RS. I assume that you will be using the source as a ref for added content about Leon Mandel. Since he is not living, and for the other reasons you mention, looks good to me. (If he were living, there could be a problem. WP:SPS: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." EMP (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Binksternet & EMP. Yes, I will be using this as a source for references to past editors along with the editorial style used by Autoweek. Appreciate the quick feedback! --DetroitSteele (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hold on... while MacQueen might qualify as an expert on automobiles, I don't think he qualifies as an expert on the editorial history and editorial styles of rival magazines. You would need to cite a literary critic for that. So, to give you a proper answer, we need to know exactly what information you wish to cite Jim MacQueen for, and which articles you want to say it in. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

We do need to know exactly how the source is to be used in the article(s) to decide whether it falls under the SPS exception for experts. It is way too easy to fall prey to "expertise creep". But, I'd be inclined to think that MacQueen is qualified as an expert to write about the editorial style and history of magazines for which he actually worked - which would include AutoWeek. Fladrif (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate the additional input. Yes, I would be using this source to add info regarding the editorial style of Autoweek, which MacQueen worked for. Based on that it looks like this may be permissible as a reliable source, but if there are any additional concerns I'm happy to discuss. Also, it is worth noting that I plan to submit any proposed changes to my sandbox for others to review and post, rather than posting myself. This is due to my conflict of interest as an employee of Autoweek, which I disclosed on WP:COIN. --DetroitSteele (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Combining sources to calculate something not explicitly stated

I've been working on articles for the television series Millennium, and although I can reliably source the series' Nielsen ratings, I don't have any sources which state the actual viewing numbers. However, another book I have here, concerning The X-Files, gives the number of households that each ratings point represents in that same year (1996–1997). Would it be considered original research to take the ratings listed in one book, multiply this by the number of households a point represents given in another, and produce a viewing figure that isn't given explicitly in either source; or would this conclusion be considered an appropriate one to arrive at given the sources? GRAPPLE X 15:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If any guideline allows this it would be WP:CALC. You would want to have consensus on the issue, agreement among involved editors. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You are allowed to do basic arithmetical calculations. What you can't do is derive new conclusions from those calculations or interpret them. What you are suggesting sounds like simple data manipulation, or putting it in a form that can be corroborated by the two sources. We do this sort of thing all the time on sports articles, such as this one; that article documents ranking points each player receives, but sometimes we can only source the round the player reached and how many points a player gets for reaching a certain round, without having a source that explicitly says how many points the player got. It's the same principle here, you can source the ratings for the show, you can source the viewing figures for the ratings, so it is just a simple logical step to state the vieiwng figures for a show. Betty Logan (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You might also like to read Wikipedia:These are not original research#Simple_calculations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Be absolutely sure that the numbers are counting the same thing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

New Media Books

In the course of another RSN thread a few weeks ago, I noted that a monograph by an editor involved in that discussion was being cited in some articles. The monograph is Castro, Stephen J. "Hypocricy and Dissent Within the Findhorn Foundation: Toward a Sociology of a New Age Community" ISBN: 978-0-9526881-0-5, ISBN-10: 0-9526881-0-7 New Age Books, Forres Scotland (1996), and it is cited in three articles at Wikipedia, all relating to the Findhorn Foundation, of which the author is apparently a disaffected former member.[26] It would appear to me that this is a SPS. The publisher "New Media Books" is located in the small town of Forres, Scotland, no address, just a PO Box, and has published only two books: this one, and one other four years later.[27] The second book is Thomas, Kate, "The Kundalini Phenomenon: The Need for Insight and Spiritual Authenticity", ISBN 978-0-9526881-1-2 ISBN-10: 0-9526881-1-5A , New Media Books, Forres Scotland (2000). The Thomas book is cited as a source in three Wikipedia articles, one overlapping with the Castro book.[28]

A distributor for the imprint, Kevin Shepherd, the son of Thomas, denies being the publisher. [29] Shepherd states that he, Thomas and Castro all lived in the same house together in Forres, where the publisher's PO Box is located.[30] Castro says in his Wikipedia profile that his background is in publishing.[31] The only logical conclusion is that one of these three, probably Castro, is the actual publisher, and that this is a SPS. Now, Castro's book does appear to have been cited in a handful of journals per Google Scholar[32] and Thomas' book once [33] I see no indication that either Castro or Thomas have been published by any reputable, independent publishers, though I have not made any exhaustive search. The use to which these sources are being used does not seem to be confined to statements by the authors about themselves.

I know nothing whatsoever about the subject matter or the authors. This is just one of those thing you stumbled across by virtue of participating at RSN, which leads to interesting diversions such as this. Thoughts on these books and this imprint as sources? Fladrif (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that these are hallmarks of self-publication. To my mind, the publisher is questionable, and reliability hinges on citations. TimidGuy (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with the rigid application of the SPS policy in Wikipedia, ultimately it's up to the community to decide what it wants to do. I would just like to point out that Hypocrisy and Dissent was favourably reviewed here. Speaking of the Findhorn Foundation, Fladrif, did you notice that many of the books listed in that article are published by Findhorn Press, which is clearly associated with the Findhorn Foundation (the relevant section is perhaps incorrectly named "References", and presumably should be "Further reading"; there are, however, a couple of questionable sources in the "Footnotes" section). Also, if we're having a general clear-out of questionable sources, there is also the question of books published by organisations that are (or were) clearly connected both to the authors and to the subjects of the books. Shouldn't you be listing those as well? Fifelfoo recently declared that such sources were not reliable, indeed less reliable than non-devotee self-published sources. Simon Kidd (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I did notice them, but my impression from the publisher's website is that Findhorn Press originally operated as a vanity press for the Foundation's founders, but now publishes other stuff. As I said, I know nothing about the subject matter, so I may well be wrong about that. If you think that the books published by Findhorn Press are not reliable sources, start a thread on them. I suspect that many of the sources in these, and a lot of other NRMish articles may be highly problematic where the publisher is an arm of the movement, but RSN would need to look at them individually and exactly how they are being used in an article. Fladrif (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As both the author and publisher of Hypocrisy and Dissent I am obliged to agree with Simon Kidd’s comment: “it’s up to the community what it wants to do.” As far as I’m aware, the book is the only annotated, critical work on the Findhorn Foundation and provides a necessary alternative to partisan publications about that community. Even the Journal of Contemporary Religion, in an unsympathetic review of the book, conceded: “The current consensus within the [Findhorn] community appears to be that Castro’s book is important and that there are lessons to be learned.” To my mind that justified the publication and the reason why I wrote it. The book is based on newspaper reports, letters, conversations and actual recorded events that arose within the Findhorn Community during the period of 1991–1995. Apart from a reference in my personal profile, I have not mentioned the book elsewhere on Wikipedia.--Stephen Castro (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Although your SPS monograph can't be used a a source, particularly if in involves living third persons (see WP:BLPSPS which has an absolute prohibition against using a SPS in regard to living third persons), the fact that it has been reviewed or cited as a source in other publications gives you a path forward. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Journal of Contemporary Religion, Cultic Studies Journal and Kwansei Gakuin Sociology Department Studies are reliable sources (and I'm not opining that they are), you might be able to cite those articles, rather than your book, for the purposes it is being cited now. Fladrif (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Using Congressional Research Service reports at National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

A predominance of sources about NDAA 2012 focus on the issue of indefinite detainment. Other aspects, including those which account for the majority of the text of the bill itself, and the funding it provides are only briefly mentioned. Is this Congressional Research Service report considered a secondary, reliable, and/or independent source for summarizing the rest of the bill? Link to report Thanks, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 00:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I consider CRS to have the an excellent reputation for objective analysis in anything related to public policy, and I would consider it a reliable secondary/tertiary source of the highest quality. Anyone challenging their accuracy would need to have exceptional evidence indeed, based on adverse criticism from multiple equally reliable sources--of which there are not many. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input DGG. The report is almost 50 pages long. Would you advise that selecting which parts of the report are noteworthy requires confirmation from other secondary sources, or can editors just use their discretion to pick out parts of the report that are relevant to the article? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 06:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I would assume the entirety of any of their reports is a RS for anything they cover. We're using it as a source for an article on a topic, not writing an article about the report as such, so I see no reason to decide on what are the most imprortant parts of the report. The only precaution is , that since the CRS pretty much as we do is expectedto at least mention all significant opinion, that we not cherry-pick quotations. DGG ( talk ) 07:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think DGG is spot on here. It's worth noting that CRS would be a very similar source to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) or the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in that they operate independently from Congress on a nonpartisan basis. When it comes to an article about a piece of legislation, tracing the history of its provisions, etc., there is no one with better resources or credibility than CRS. Quirin42 (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Citation of Simonton in the Shakespeare Authorship Question article

I’ve been referred to the Reliable sources noticeboard by Tom Reedy pursuant to a source objection I raised on the Shakespeare Authorship Question article, regarding a “study” by Dean Kieth Simonton that was published in, Emperical Studies of the Arts. My objection is twofold. First, Simonton’s “study” falls completely outside of his specialty and he has no academic standing in the subject matter of the “study”. Second, and more importantly, the “study” is nothing more than a summary of Simonton’s method and conclusions. The published “paper” contains no data or information. Moreover, Dr. Simonton advises that there is no supporting information. So, it may be that, on the surface, or technically speaking, Dr. Simonton and his paper meet the requirements for source citation, however, looking below the surface, the author’s authority in this case is highly questionable and the paper is utterly without substance. To appreciate the gross shortcomings of the paper one does, of course, need to read it and, technicalities of policy aside, one would hopefully consider whether a “study” that is nothing more than a summary of methods and highly questionable conclusions, with no supporting information, should be treated as worthy of citation.79.200.96.122 (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not clear what the purpose of the irony quotes is. I haven't read the article in question, so I can't speak to the substantive objections. "Empirical Studies of the Arts" is the official, peer reviewed journal of the "International Association of Empirical Aestetics".[34][35] The Association is one of psychologists, and the journal focuses on interdisciplinary studies of aesthetics, with articles aimed at a general audience. Notwithstanding that it has been in publication nearly thirty years, it does not have an Impact Factor.[36] The Article in question has only been cited three times according to Google Scholar, once by the author himself, and once in a Wikipedia mirror.[37] I would take the lack of citation in other scholarly publications as an objective indication that this article and this journal does not qualify as a scholarly, reliable source for Shakespeare authorship questions, and should not be used as a source in the Wikipedia article. Fladrif (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if Fladrif is familiar with the article, since OP didn't provide a link. The diction of his commentary causes to me suspect that he might have had some other topic in mind than the Shakespeare authorship question when he initially posted, so I am providing it. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I am familiar with the Shakespeare authorship question article at Wikipedia. The article by Simonton at "Empirical Studies of the Arts" being discussed as a source is paywalled, so I haven't read it. I suppose I was ambiguous in my post above as to what "article" I hadn't read. Fladrif (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you admittedly cannot speak to the substantive objections of the complainant, I will respond to your points.

I have no idea what an "Impact Factor" is, nor have I been apprised that having one is necessary in order for a source to be considered reliable as per Wikipedia policy, but I did note on the page you linked to a disclaimer stating that "the information is old or wrong now. Specially, impact factor is changing every year. Even it was correct when updated, it may have been changed now. So please go to Thomson Reuters to confirm latest value about Journal impact factor."

It does not surprise me that a Google Scholar search fails to turn up any citations for the article; the topic is a fringe theory of very little interest to academics who publish in peer-reviewed journals, and to expect a study specializing in an esoteric corner of a fringe topic to have entered mainstream academic discourse is unrealistic. But a search using the terms "Shakespeare" and "Simonton" tells a much different story about the reputation of the author (and yes, I'm aware he often cites himself; the nature of his work is cumulative, after all).

According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP the article meets Wikipedia standards for reliable sourcing, to wit:

1. "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable."
2. "One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes." (Empirical Studies of the Arts is abstracted and indexed in eight different indexes.
3. In addition, even though the study upholds the academic consensus, the information is attributed to the author by name in the text.
4. Finally, this article more than clears the hurdle for reliable sources for an article about a fringe theory.

I also must confess that I am puzzled as to the complainant's statement, "the 'study' is nothing more than a summary of Simonton’s method and conclusions." What exactly does one expect from a report of a study besides the context, methodology, and conclusions? A blow-by-blow, keystroke-by-keystroke narrative? I ask that he or she please clarify the objection. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It's indexed on PsycINFO, which pretty much on its own means it's a reliable source. That doesn't necessarily mean we can do anything we like with it, but it can't be batted aside as unreliable. --FormerIP (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

A journal may be reliable source in general, without any article in it necessarily also being reliable; but for a generally reliable journal, impugning any particular article in it can be done only on evidence that other equally RSs have questioned the work, which does not seem to be the case here. And in this particular instance, Simenton clearly is a general acknowledged expert on the question of authorship and creativity; he has published on the subject elsewhere also, in Computers and the Humanities for example, the leading journal in its field, in Psychological Review, a leading APA journal, and isn essentially every journal in the area. His general work on creativity uses Shakespeare as an example, & he absolutely qualifies as an expert. DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There seems good reason to accept this article as worth citing, and no good reason to reject it. Andrew Dalby 17:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't logged in and my signature didn't get posted (comment at the top). To “clarify” my objection, I must first quote from the “study” (please note that the quotation marks are not meant to indicate “irony”, but simply to be clear about the subject):

“In this study the two authorship positions are evaluated by examining the correlation between the thematic content of the plays and the political context in which the plays would be written according to rival sets of dates.”

Here we are talking about the intent to establish a meaningful (to use Simonton’s word, “empirical”) correlation between the thematic content of the plays and historical events/context and thereby to confirm chronology of authorship dates. Simonton includes a slight “time lag” to account for the time between conception and performance of a given play and he concludes that the existing conventional dates assigned to the plays are more or less confirmed.

Now, I think that someone with a truly comprehensive knowledge Elizabethan-Jacobean history, European history of that time period, and Shakespeare’s plays, would approach this undertaking with considerable caution and skepticism. There is no reason to suppose that Simonton has comprehensive knowledge or expertise in any of these subjects, and while I have great respect for Simonton his field of expertise, it appears to me that he approached this literary-historical problem with remarkable and unwarranted confidence. But, to appreciate the difficulty of making sense of such an undertaking it is necessary to consider how he identified or divided up the ‘thematic content’ that was to be correlated with the historical context. Simonton:

“In the case of the thematic measures, five factors emerged. These may be interpreted as follows (loadings in parentheses): a) War and Conflict—“The factors responsible for civil strife” (.97), “The definition of treason or sedition: the revolutionist as a treasonable conspirator” (.97), and “Civil war and war between states or international war” (.73); b) Political Leadership—“The virtues which constitute the good or successful ruler; the vices associated with the possession of power” (.83), “The myth of the royal personage: the attributes of royalty and the burdens of monarchy” (.81), “The exploitation of absolute power for personal aggrandizement: the strategies of princes and tyrants” (.66), and “The courage required of citizens and statesmen: the political recognition of courage” (.60); c) Competition and Conquest—“Competition in commerce and the rivalry of factions in politics” (.99) and “Conquest, empire, political expansion and ends of war” (.99); d) Political Intrigue—“Chance in the persons holding power: deposition, assassination, usurpation” (.88) and “The character of the tyrannical man: the friends of the tyrant” (.77); and e) [Uninterpreted]—“Revolution and counter-revolution: civil strife distinguished from war between states” (.88) and “The courage required of citizens and statesmen: the political recognition of courage” (.62). When the same data consolidation strategy was applied to the political context measures, four factors emerged, which may be interpreted as follows: a) External Threat—number of nations at war (.82), battles (.76), civil disturbances (.72), attacked (.70), and state of war (.69); b) Diplomatic Strength— territorial gains (.84) and treaties (.70); c) Internal Threat—executions (.80) and conspiracies (.80); and d) Military Strength—attacker (.77) and allies gained (.74).”

Whether these categories of thematic content are right or wrong, or simply represent Simonton’s opinions, is impossible to tell. Simonton provides no substantive (certainly no detailed) justification for his selections and his assigned weights. The categorization and weighting may be argued endlessly and are, therefore, of very questionable value, especially if one is pursuing empirical results. If there is science in the methodology of selection it is not documented. If we agree, nevertheless, to accept Simonton’s thematic categorization and weighting, the fatal problem with the “study” is that Simonton provides none of the historical-contextual data/information that was presumably correlated to the thematic data. Had he provided that information, that, obviously, would open the door to infinite debate about whether the right historical events and contexts were used and properly weighted. So, to characterize the matter in simple mathematical terms, Simonton devised and equation based on two unquantifiable factors and arrived at a finite sum of the two.

There are many additional problems with Simonton’s study. For example, he uses the Valenza/Elliott chronology for Oxford. There is no consensus among Oxfordians in support of that or any Oxfordian chronology. Simonton makes no allowance for the problems of revision. Plays that were not published or performed prior to the FF are apparently correlated based on conventional dating. But I will not take up time here on the many other points that are objectionable about the “study”.

Above DGG says, “His general work on creativity uses Shakespeare as an example, & he absolutely qualifies as an expert.” This may be narrowly true in the context of Wikipedia policy. That it is true in practical terms, on this subject matter, is highly questionable. Simonton has no background in history or literature. His few writings on Shakespeare demonstrate a superficial knowledge of these subjects, and his “study” in this case falls completely outside of his specialty. However, to put the matter into perspective one ought to consider this: if Simonton’s “study” had contradicted the standard chronology and validated an Oxfordian chronology, would the controlling editors allow the citation? I suspect, in that case, the citation would be summarily rejected. Ssteinburg (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

We do not, and cannot, discuss what may or may be wrong with Simonton's study. That is not how Wikipedia works. We go by what reliable secondary sources say on the subject. If Simonton is publishing in a journal with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, and other scholars in the field cite him as an expert, then we must presume that he is an expert, and cite his work accordingly. We must give due weight to whether his position is assessed by other experts as mainstream or controversial. We do not purport to assess the validity of his work ourselves. We are not the experts here. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Noted. Ssteinburg (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

However, aside from Sstienburg's specific methodological critiques, his points that Simonton is here publishing outside of his field of expertise, in a relatively obscure journal, are still valid for consideration here on Wikipedia. Homunq (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And they have had consideration, as you see. Andrew Dalby 18:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Avonko three blog references and one non supporting reference lead to a failed speedy delete

Hello, I'm trying to understand this speedy delete decision and would like to know your thoughts on the references. It's a 3 paragraph article with 4 references, the Forex News blog articles are not linked but they are found here - 2 3. I'm discussing it with the admin here, thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 12:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not just nominate it for deletion and be done with it? It's a slam-dunk. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Because I'm trying to understand this speedy delete decision, as that's what I would have requested. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletions are supposed to be as absolutely obvious as possible. If there's any hint of a question in anyone's mind, then it's far better to use WP:PROD or WP:AFD. That's why the various deletion-related policies require all speedy deletions to be declined unless they are "the most obvious cases". The fact that someone disagrees enough to decline it is proof that this particular page isn't one of "the most obvious cases". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Daytona2 - thanks for the lack of courtesy in not bothering to notify me of this post. Perhaps next time you'd like to consider how rude it is not mention additional threads? As WhatamIdoing points out, and indeed I have pointed out, it was not an obvious speedy - and furthermore it was FOUR YEARS AGO. The fact the article was not deleted in the intervening time implies my decline was right. Pedro :  Chat  20:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You'll alss notice, by the way, that WhatamIdoing uses almost the exact same terminology above as I did four years ago. Pedro :  Chat  20:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Article on citizen journalism website by "di LameDuck": reliable source?

I was forwarded to here. The source of which I doubt the reliability is the website AgoraVox.it. According to the wiki-article about Agoravox: "a French website of news powered by volunteers and non-professional writers". And: "As of April 2009, nearly 40,000 volunteers were enrolled as editors of the French version. They were 70,000 in April 2011.[citation needed] At that time, the site had over 1900 volunteer moderators.[citation needed] An Italian version of the site was launched at the end of 2008".

In particular, it concerns this article: http://www.agoravox.it/Guerra-a-Gaza-La-rete-estremista.html . An article written bij "di Lameduck", which is - as can be fairly assumed - an alias. It is used in Jewish Defense League as the source to back up the claim that: "Members of the JDL have put graffiti on the walls of Palestinian houses with the words "Gas the Arabs" and "Arabs to the gas chambers"."

LevelBasis (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

as i am french i do know better agoravox than en.wp guidelines (just passing by) but it's some kind of Prison Planet. on fr.wp i would discard agoravox as a RS no matter what the subject is (even more if its about israel related stuff if you see my point) - MIRROR (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Are Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper reliable sources?

These two guys have been writing profusely about Falkland Islands' history, and expressing their views about the sovereignty issue and related conflicts, which is a British and (IMHO) anti-Argentinian POV. This includes the often cited paper Getting It Right, a reply to an official Argentine seminar.

I tried to get information about Pascoe & Pepper but I got lost in Google. I appreciate any help or thought. Thanks. --Langus (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Please provide links to the articles in which they are cited. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I didn't expressed myself correctly: I mean that it's usually cited here in Wikipedia, when discussing article content. --Langus (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Content policies and guidelines don't apply to talkpage discussions the way they do to mainspace articles. AFAIK, you can cite anything during a discussion, but that doesn't mean the other editors have to accept your view or your supporting material. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

And that's exactly why I'm researching them: to know if I should accept the material or not.

I can find them as reference in the following articles:

• Luis Vernet
• Falkland Islands
• Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands

They're cited there as contributors of David Tatham's Dictionary of Falklands Biography, which has already been at RSN.

In fact, I'm just finding this in that old thread: "The claim is made above that Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper are acknowledged experts in the field. Pascoe appears to be a language teacher and Pepper is a geologist". Also: "Graham Pascoe MA (Oxon)". --Langus (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok here's where that came from: List of contributors.

It says:

Graham PASCOE

MA (Oxon), Ger & Fr; English teacher; Dip TEFL(Wales); Dip Ling (Lond); Dr Phil (Munich).

Peter PEPPER

A (Hons) Keele; geologist; former Co-Editor of the Falkland Islands Newsletter.

--Langus (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Peter Pepper and Dr Graham Pascoe are reliable, they are well know academics who have done a considerable amount of historical research in the area of the Falkland Islands. Its an area where few UK researchers work, so the number of UK sources is relatively scarce. This is not a concern over the reliability of these sources, rather its another attempt by Langus to force his desired content into articles by having the sources discredited. If you refer to Talk:Falkland Islands, Talk:Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands and Talk:Luis Vernet, you will find plenty of vexatious argument from Langus where he is seeking to impose a solely Argentine POV rather than presenting all of the views available in the literature. This is yet another example of Langus trying to use wikipedia's processes to impose content, rather than establishing a consensus in talk. He has taken this to WP:ANI, WP:WQA and forum shopped in general trying all ways to skew the POV of articles. It is relatively easy to confirm their bona fides, their work has been endorsed by the noted British historian Sir Lawrence Freedman see [38]. The link also gives a clue why there is so much effort on wikipedia to discredit their work. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

WCM, I promised myself I wouldn't fall again into your spiral of personal attacks, so my response to them is this wikiquette request.

Back to the point, if Lawrence Freedman has endorsed their work, that surely is a good sign. But is that enough to become a reliable source? You also sustained that Dictionary of Falklands Biography is a superb source, but the consensus at this board resulted to be not so confident on this.

You can see I'm not the only one with these doubts, as it was mentioned in that old thread too. --Langus (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

A cursory glance at your contribution history shows that what I said is true. You've raised frivolous threads at ANI twice now, dragged me to WQA twice now. Tatham is a good source, the disruptive banned editor User:Alex79818 and yourself have repeatedly tried to have it declared unreliable so that you could impose content favouring Argentina's sovereignty claim. Your "doubts" have nothing to do with the source but rather WP:IDONTLIKE. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Tatham is a good source for certain uses, or at least that was the last consensus at WP:RSN. Anyone can see that, except you, I wonder why. User:Alex79818 had nothing to do with that outcome BTW, and I didn't even drop a line there.

Congratulations, you've ruined my evil plans and saved the world. Now I invite you to continue lying about me at the wikiquette request. --Langus (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Is Artistdirect a FA reliable source?

I really want to know If Artistdirect is a FA reliable source? I mean particularly this one. It's a real interview made by the stuff with Rihanna. It is very important cause it represents nearly the whole Background on "Unfaithful". Thanks :) ! — Tomica (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Artistdirect has come up in several threads earlier, with no real consensus. Checking Google News, I see no indication that Artistdirect is ever cited by any legitimate news organization as a source. It is not itself a news organization. There is no indication that that there are any journalistic editorial review and control. It basically creates content to deliver teens and 20's eyeballs to advertisers. I would not regard it as a reliable source. Fladrif (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Bhau Kalchuri - Meher Prabhu (Lord Meher)

This book (Bhau Kalchuri, Meher Prabhu: Lord Meher, The Biography of the Avatar of the Age, Manifestation, 1986) is a major source for Meher Baba and also for many of the articles related to him. It is also a minor source for many others, and has even found its way into articles on general religious topics. See the following list, which is not exhaustive:

• 101 Names of God
• Avatar's Abode
• Azar Kayvan
• Beloved God Prayer
• Beyond Words
• Charles Purdom
• Chilla-nashini
• Discourses (Meher Baba)
• Don't Worry, Be Happy
• Francis Brabazon
• Gabriel Pascal
• God Speaks
• Guru
• Hazrat Babajan
• Higher consciousness
• Jai Baba
• Kitty Davy
• List of avatar claimants
• Mandali
• Mani Irani
• Meher Baba's Flag
• Meherabad
• Meredith Starr
• New Life (Meher Baba)
• O Parvardigar
• Perfect Master (Meher Baba)
• Prayer of Repentance
• Quentin Tod
• Qutb
• Religious ecstasy
• Samadhi of Meher Baba
• Seven Names of God Prayer
• Sheriar Mundegar Irani
• Shireen Sheriar Irani
• Silence Day
• Spirit
• Spiritual practice
• Subtle body
• Sufism Reoriented
• Upasni Maharaj

Kalchuri became a devotee of Meher Baba in 1952, and he remains the Chairman of Avatar Meher Baba Trust (see also here). The entire book is available online here. According to the first page, on his deathbed in 1969 Meher Baba asked Kalchuri to write the book. Since he only met Meher Baba in 1952, for the early years Kalchuri had to rely largely on the diaries of devotees. He compiled and edited in Hindi, using sources that were written in Gujarati, including Behli J. Irani's unpublished biography, and the diaries of Dr. Ghani, Ramju Abdulla, F.H. Dadachanji, and Kishan Singh. Kalchuri's Hindi was subsequently translated into English by an Indian (Feram Workingboxwala), and afterwards edited by Lawrence Reiter. In his preliminary Erratum to Vol. 17, Reiter says that "errors have inadvertently occurred in the collecting and retelling of stories" and that "in translation there will be errors, not only in content but also in meaning".

The publisher, Manifestation, appears to be one of the imprints of organisations related to Meher Baba (see here). I have heard that Meher Prabhu was initially funded by donations from devotees. The book is known to contain factual errors, as well as devotional interpretations (see Volume 5, Page 1609 as an example of the latter: "These comforting words were a consolation to his lovers. They had no idea yet that, in any event, the whole burden of humanity's suffering fell on Baba's slender shoulders, as he possessed universal mind.") One example of a factual error is at Volume 5, page 1612 where Rom Landau is described as Italian, whereas he was in fact born in Poland of Polish-German parents.

The book is clearly not academic or critical, but a hagiography by a devotee, written largely for devotees, allegedly at the request of the biographical subject, and almost certainly published by a devotee press. In his recent conclusion to another RS query, Fifelfoo said that such devotional works "do not even approach" the Wikipedia threshold for reliable sources. Since each case should be treated on its own merits, I submit this particular source for community discussion. Simon Kidd (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Fifelfoo. Books about NRMs and their leaders by devotees published by "in-house" imprints affiliated with the NRM and which have not established a reputation for reliability and editorial control are really just SPS. They can be used solely for the purpose of describing themselves, not third parties, so long as they are not overly self-serving, but that's about it. Some very limited use of this source is probably OK in the Meher Baba article, but this source would appear to be used far beyond the narrow limits of WP:ABOUTSELF Fladrif (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

While the press, work and author provide a very strong indication against the reliability of this work for historical articles, historical biography, sociology of religion or elements of Sufi, Hindu or Islamic theology; I would suggest attempting to see if this work has been the object of independent scholarly book reviews, for example, in scholarly journals, before finally dismissing it. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

George Lewith and David Colquhoun's blog

I recently removed some text from the article George Lewith (diff) critical of Lewith as it relied on a blog post (here) written by David Colquhoun and I was uncertain as to whether it met the criteria for a reliable source or not. However, looking at WP:RSEX, it appears that a blog may be considered reliable if it is hosted by a university and written by a professional in that field. The blog post mentioned above can also be found hosted by UCL (here) and Colquhoun was a pharmacologist at UCL who has served on the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council and has also published several articles on alternative medicine (mostly comment pieces, the odd editorial), so I wonder if the blog might qualify as a reliable source in this context? Randomnonsense (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:SPS. I would also say that the article is unbalanced without some criticism from orthodoxy, including in the lede as well, since the subject is an advocate of fringe science. What you have here is a mix of WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP, and both apply. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Whoops! I must reverse myself. WP:SPS clearly states "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Some other source has to be found to balance the article. That blog points to a lot of potential sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

My impression is that the fact that UCL hosts the blog post elevates it above a self-published source, as there is some independent oversight. I'm also aware that those blog pages went through some legal wrangling in which they were taken down and then reinstated after legal advice. In terms of balance, what do you mean, criticism of Lewith or criticism of the alternative medicine he researches/advocates? I intend at some point to replace the description of his research, which as it currently stands is more of a WP:SOAPBOX for his research than anything else, with a briefer general description of his research and perhaps a list of selected articles. Randomnonsense (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I should have provided a link about the legal dispute; a joint statement by UCL and Colquhoun is available here. The material on Colquhoun's blog underwent review by both UCL and legal counsel, and was approved by both. I don't think it can be considered a self published source under WP:SPS. Randomnonsense (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Additions to Old Testament

An editor on the Old Testament article appears to be inserting information into referenced sources. The editor feels justified because he has information that is not included in those references. Could someone please explain why the additional material should be added as new sentences and with the appropriate references? Please see Talk:Old Testament#Hashem sfarim's additions? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I see no problem whatsoever with the proposed addition "oneness and supremacy", and it appears to be an accurate summary of the source. Yes the word "supremacy" doesn't appear on the page. But, neither does the word "oneness". The source, Barton at p9 addresses both concepts, just not using those precise terms. As for the other dispute about whether translators did, or were believed to is the appropriate language, the other editor acknowledges that the proposed change is not supported by the source text. I would suggest that the solution to satisfy both of you is to instead use "Wurthwein states that..." Fladrif (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Soompi

I noticed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Company that the article was mostly sourced to Soompi, which appears to be an English language site covering K-pop. It is unclear to me, however, whether it is a news site (semi-pro or otherwise) or simply a collection of amateur blogs/fora. This article seems to indicate that it once was the latter and is now the former, so I'm not convinced a priori that the reasons given in the six year old deletion discussion apply anymore. Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Bartlett

moved to BLPN

Hmm... I wonder if this could go to WP:BLPN. --George Ho (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I did that. -- Vision Thing -- 09:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Majority_Judgment#Satisfied_and_failed_criteria

Majority_Judgment#Satisfied_and_failed_criteria has a "Primary" tag, presumably because it references papers by the method's inventors. However, aren't peer-reviewed mathematical proofs valid sources, even if they're "affiliated" with the subject of the article? Homunq (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Affiliation has nothing to do with whether a source is primary. See WP:Party and person for a quick summary. You might also like to read WP:USEPRIMARY. Primary is not a fancy way of spelling unreliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not the question. The template "primary" actually says "primary or affiliated", and anyway what I'm saying is that I think the tag was misapplied. A peer-reviewed article is neither primary nor unreliable-on-the-basis-of-affiliation. Homunq (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Falkner, chef and pastry chef DOB and location

Hi, I am Elizabeth Falkner the San Francisco chef and pastry chef and someone has edited my DOB an location. I was born in San Francisco in 1966 and not in Boston in 1975! Thanks, Elizabeth

Book: Iran and the challenge of diversity

About book:

• Iran and the challenge of diversity: Islamic fundamentalism, Aryanist racism, and democratic struggles, Author Alireza Asgharzadeh, Publisher Palgrave Macmillan, 2007, ISBN 9781403980809, Length 249 pages, P 18.

We have problem about it in Azerbaijani people [39].

We talk is available in Talk:Azerbaijani people#Number of Azeris in Iran& Talk:Azerbaijani people#Alireza Asgharzadeh's publication's are not reliable sources

According to Alireza Asgharzadeh (2007-above source):

“

The population of Azeris in today's world is approximately 44 million, of which 20 to 30 milliom are believed to be living in iran, over 8 million in the Republic of Azerbaijan, close to 2 million in Turkey, and the rest in countries such as Russia, Georgia, Iraq, and Ukraine.

”

I think this source is reliable by WP:RS WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Thanks --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 07:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly Reliable: Academic publisher, specifically regarding ethnicity in the area, and cited favourably (Gilles Riaux (2011) Ethnicite et nationalisme en Iran Paris: Karthala) by another expert publishing in precisely the field. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable on this topic - when there is a wide array of expert sources, including renowned linguists, available. Asgharzadeh's area of study is Africa, not Iran. He does political activism vis-a-vis Iran, but that doesn't make him a specialist. In addition, the "44-million" number he's advocating, is contradicted by EVERY academic and official source. We're talking about dozens of academic sources that put the number between 20 to 35 million, which means this is clearly WP:Fringe. --Wayiran (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• You're going to need to provide appropriate evidence to support this claim; particularly given PalgraveMacmillan is the publisher. Your argument, at the moment, lacks any form of substantiation. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gabriel Cousens. Input requested.

There's an interesting discussion going on at Deletion Review over whether an article about a prominent raw foods advocate and spiritual teacher should be created or continue being deleted. Of note, there is a controversial section in the article which has raised questions about reliable sources. The subject also requested deletion of the prior article in an Afd. I would appreciate any thoughtful comments or criticism, especially in the area of your speciality, which is the quality and sufficiency of the reliable sources used (or not used) in this article. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Center for Immigration Studies as a source for Illegal_immigration

Is the Center for Immigration Studies considered a reliable source for content in the Illegal_immigration article such that their claims and research can be stated in Wikipedia's voice, or are they an advocacy group whose opinions need to specifically attributed to them within the article. see [40] and Talk:Illegal_immigration#CIS_does_not_seem_unreliable_per_se -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The source does have an editorial board [[41]], which plays in favor of accuracy, but much of its content appears to be in the form of opinion pieces. If used I would treat its content as a statement of opinion, not as fact. Follow the guidelines in WP:RSOPINION.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Very clearly a lobby organization whose statements should be attributed, preferably with a mention of their platform - i.e. "anti-immigratin think-tank" or some such.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There are some of their content for which that would seem appropriate, but other content which is either uncontroversial or well-supported, or both. This content:

The United States is one of only two high average income countries (the other country is Canada which offers it in limited circumstances) that still gives birthright citizenship for children born where both parents are illegal immigrants, tourists, visitors or other types of temporary residents (diplomats excepted).

is uncontroversial and is supported by an apparently well-researched backgrounder which include over eighty references. If we took a conclusion from that paper, I agree it should be attributed, but it seems unreasonable to say "CIS says <trivial fact>".

Another reference was to an opinion piece at that site and I removed the reference and tagged the content as needing a reference. The content, before TRPD, began "Opponents of illegal immigration often cite a lack of enforcement or the inadequate enforcement..." and that seems like a sufficiently neutral presentation of opinion.

Another uncontroversial fact is:

Many illegal immigrants are migrants who originally arrive in a country lawfully but overstay their authorized residence (overstaying a visa).[42][43] For example, most of the estimated 200,000 illegal immigrants in Canada (perhaps as high as 500,000) are refugee claimants whose refugee applications were rejected but who have not yet been expelled from the country.[44]

42 is a quote from the some Homeland Security official at the CIS site. 43 is a news-like article at workpermit.com. and the final cite refers to a Toronto Globe and Mail article. That content is not improved by slapping "CIS says ..." at the beginning to the paragragh, as was done today.

It doesn't seem reasonable to add attributions when the CIS site is used to support uncontroversial facts - only when it expresses opinion, or conclusions. I happened across the site when I saw an odd edit summary - I have no interest or prior vested effort in the article. TRPD is correct that there is a lot of poor quality sources, he is just taking an approach which seems to place attacking that one source above maintaining the quality of the article. I have been working through the entire article cleaning up the references on both sides of the issue and I plan to continue that followed by more rigorous checking of the sources and removal of unsupported content. I hope you'll agree that each of these cites need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Material from advocacy organisations should always be used with care and should be clearly attributed (as maunus says above, they should really be described as well as named).

Even apparently uncontroversial material should not normally be taken from advocacy websites. Find a neutral source for the same information. Because there is always a chance it is not uncontroversial after all, and because it is bad for the credibility of the article if it looks like it is sourcing too much of its information from sources that have an agenda. --FormerIP (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Awarding body using IMDB's "past winners" lists as their own

If an awarding body, in this case the Motion Picture Sound Editors, who are responsible for the Golden Reel Awards, provides a link to the Internet Movie Database's own list of past award winners and nominees rather than maintaining their own (as seen here, though it should be noted that they are asking for an archivist to help create their own listing), would these listings be considered reliable? IMDB is usually (justly) seen as bargepole territory, but my understanding is that some of their content is sanctioned by, if I recall, either the Writers Guild of America or the Directors Guild of America and that content has been seen as okay when no alternative presents itself. Without any official listing, but with what seems to be a sanctioned list on an otherwise-unreliable site, could the IMDB listing be used, or is it better to leave these out of articles and hope that the MPSE finds that volunteer they're looking for? GRAPPLE X 03:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think probably not since it seems like they link to the IMDB because they haven't recorded the info themselves, rather than because they're in a position to vouch for its veracity. In the case of WGA they actually supply the content to the IMDB, so it is technically authored by them even though it is published by IMDB. If they are in the process of setting up their own archive it might be best to wait. Betty Logan (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Was thinking as much but I figured it was worth looking into. GRAPPLE X 22:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

syrianhistory.com

Resolved

I wish to use this site to source this [42] CN tag which just popped up on my watchlist. The site is run by this fellow Sami Moubayed and he is an historian, would this pass the SPS test? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Never mind, found another source. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Twitter as a source

There is a discussion at Talk:House (season 8)#Twitter as a source about using Twitter pages as reliable sources. Apparently there are some editors who feel that any Twitter page can be used to source anything on Wikipedia, and they are using that rationale to repeatedly restore Twitter pages as sources. I would appreciate some comments there or here. Thanks. 24.163.38.176 (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Tweets by notable individuals, if it is highly relevant and important, can be used as a self-published source with proper attribution. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Suppose that a tweet from a user A says B. Unless and until there is good reason to suppose that we know who A is, we don't use it at all (there is zero encyclopaedic value in the statement "Someone in the world once said B"). If there is good reason to suppose that A is indeed A, then it can be used to support the assertion "A said B" (or possibly, "In 2012, A said B") but only if it carries due weight. If in addition A is a known expert on the subject whose comments are usually taken as authoritative by other people, then we can use it to support the assertion "B" (again, with due attention to neutrality on the subject of B). Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say Twitter shouldn't be entertained at all unless it is a confirmed account. Betty Logan (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, confirmation is essential. But tweets fall under WP:SELFPUB. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I use this as a review source?

I'm in the process of working on the article for I Survived BTK and found this article [43]. It's not about the movie but it does mention it at the end and gives a mini-review in 1-2 sentences. (It was originally released under a different name, Feast of Assumption.) I'm not very sure if this could be usable even as a trivial source since it's so brief, so I thought I'd ask.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Of course an article published in San Francisco Bay Guardian, no matter how small the coverage is, can be used as a reliable source. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)