Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453

Additional notes:

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

Start a new discussion

Personal website

Is this a reliable source for a death? It appears to be an official personal one and is already linked from the article http://graal.co.uk/index.html article is Laurence_Gardner Off2riorob (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say this is okay, since is is a self-published source used for information about its author. It might be argued that Gardner couldn't possibly have posted his own death notice, but I would say that this is a complication we can safely ignore, because there doesn't seem to be any reason to question the reliability of the site. I think the death of an article subject is somewhere where it is common sense for WP not to be over-strict in its application of the RS policy. Hypothetically, if no source other than this website ever reports his death, are we to pretend forever that he is still alive? --FormerIP (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, I did also do an archive search on the site and it has been in existence for a few years and it clearly is official in some close associated way, so sadly I have added it, thanks. (ec) Yes I have seen this can be a problem when people who are not very mainstream notable pass on and the sources reporting can be not mainstream and weak, I feel this one to be correct, thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There are secondary sources available. Here is one [1]. Jrod2 (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT. Especially for death notices! Death notices have to be treated with extra care and have to come from especially reliable sources. If the death is legit, it will be picked up elsewhere. Even if the other source cites a personal website/blog, it is incumbent upon us to wait until other sources announce the death notice. I'm not familiar with unknowncountry.com, but unless it is truly a RS, I would be reluctant to accept it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Dlabtot (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

AFIK there is absolutely *nada* on our guidelines that clearly says that a confirmed primary source can NOT be used as reliable source to verify the death of the article's subject. If anything, logic says they can be just as reliable. Example, *unreliable* news source or news blog *X* announces the death of a subject from a long illness with cancer while a very recent article on the subject's personal site reveals that he has gone on remission and is expected to survive. The primary source confirms that the information coming from X is a hoax. Assuming the subject's personal site was not hacked, we can't assume that reliable secondary sources such as Rolling Stone magazine, etc will pick up the death notice of a person, right away. WP:Notability doesnt mean WP:FAME. This means that a combination of primary and secondary sources should b enuff . Jrod2 (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeedy, the guys dead, its in his article a couple of days now. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me that if someone succeeded in hacking an individual's web site, one of the first bits of mischief that might occur to the hacker would be to post a false death notice. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That's why a primary, secondary sources combo will fit the criteria. But not using the subject's personal site at all seems ridiculous to me. Jrod2 (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And the notion that someone could self-publish their own death notice does not seem ridiculous to you? Dlabtot (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

nope, not if a secondary source corroborates it. Ya assume only the owner has access to his own site...what bout his web designer or the webmaster, ha??. Jrod2 (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It is just a simple and undeniable fact that you can't self-publish something after you're dead. If someone else publishes it, it's not self-published. Dlabtot (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What does that got to do with all this??....if ya dont like the wording at the guideline, change it, aight? i.e. "if subject is really dead, then his personal web sites are dead too and cant be used for s**t".... :)Jrod2 (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The wording of the guideline is fine. It is your interpretation that is off. Dlabtot (talk) 03:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If the wording is fine then what's your point?? Jrod2 (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is what I've previously articulated. That dead people can't publish their own death notices. Therefore a death notice can never be self-published and therefore would have to meet all the regular RS requirements. I have no interest in engaging in a pointless dispute with you about whether dead people can publish things. Dlabtot (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason self published sources are not considered reliable is that there is no editorial oversight and an individual could publish anything. You're arguing that because the owner of the web site is dead, they cannot be the one publishing this. True enought, but what that also means is that we have no idea who is publishing the data. The data is self-published, it's just we don't know at this point who that self is, thus the source cannot be considered reliable. Nuujinn (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop clogging n' making your own interpretations of guidelines with a non NPV....if ya found wording that states primary sources cant be used to corroborate the death of the author, just cite it. Jrod2 (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It is true that we don't have a policy that explicitly states that sources that are self-published by dead people are unacceptable. So in that sense, you are right. Dlabtot (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dlabtot, I dont mind having long discussions bout guidelines ad nauseum with u. I kinda like ya ;) But me thinks the problem here is defining the word primary "sel-published" source. Should it change its definition of being primary SP source when the author dies?? Maybe, but if someone else is now publishing on there, then the source only becomes a secondary source...now whether is reliable and meets WP:RS or not, thats why we here for. Jrod2 (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:SPS personal website are not considered reliable sources, and the web site in question is still a personal web site, even if the original author has passed on to the great wiki in the sky. We could call it a secondary source or a primary source, but it's still not a reliable source. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and this personal web site fails those criteria. Nuujinn (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Geez, this GL is so confusing to so many editors, i better take it to the VP....Nuujinn read carefully the language, it doesn't say that self publish sources "can NOT be used as reliable sources, but that are "largely not acceptable". Then theres that caveat on the next paragraph saying basically that if a SPS is an expert then we sure can. This is the function of this noticeboard...to determine WP:RS. This keeps going round n' round in circles, Yo. Jrod2 (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really in circles, it's really very straightforward. It's a personal website, and we could take the owner of the website as an expert on themselves, although if we do so, we have to be very careful because it falls into BLP. But in this case the web site says the owner of the web site is dead. If we take it as not true, it's de facto unreliable. But if we take it as true, it's not a BLP, but the author of the obit is not the owner of the website, and the obit is thus self published material without any oversight, from an unknown author, and thus we cannot assume the author is an expert and the material is de jure not reliable. Seems simple enough to me. Nuujinn (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Read the stuff above again, your opinions are welcome, but they are just your opinions n' your own interpretation of guidelines. We all are the consensus and if most users feel the site can be used then it's used....if not, then not...it's not complicated. This noticeboard operates with consensus not vote, JIC so you don't misrepresent what im saying...U can post on and on n' until the cows come home what you think our guidelines say, but until the wording of that GL is spelled out, theres still nothing that says SPS primary sources are not acceptable to verify the death of an author. Peace out . Jrod2 (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Jrod2, you are not only wrong, your position is entirely preposterous. And completely unsupported by any common sense reading of our policies and guidelines or any current or prior consensus. Dlabtot (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ya can say that if it makes ya feel smart but it doesnt change the fact that theres nothing written to support what you're saying [*largely not accepted* dont mean *not accepted*].... if they intended it to be absolutely not acceptable, then they wouldnt have used the word *largely*. Then theres the next guideline both of ya conveniently skip in this discussion :) Dont get personal like that again or ya'll know where it all ends up..;) Jrod2 (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Dont get personal like that again or ya'll know where it all ends up" - there is nothing personal in what I said. Your argument is ludicrous and absurd, but that is not a personal comment about you. Dlabtot (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves..." Jrod2, are you arguing that Laurence Gardner posted a note to his own website from beyond the grave? And if not, what do you think think the definition of self-published is? Nuujinn (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup Dlabtot, u make perfect sense...no question ya are playing with our board rules in good faith n' respectful manner ...LOL......And you Nuujinn, cant help ya understand that there ain't GLs that say ya can't use SPS as sources to verify death of subject. Thats why I kept saying that a primary-secondary source combo should be enuff. Jrod2 (talk)

First, the specific point is moot; The Independent has reported on Gardner's death.[2] In general, though, I would side with Jrod2 here. We accept someone acting as an agent for a person as part of self-published; after all, when someone puts a notice on their web site, do we require that they have personally edited the actual HTML, and brought up the server? When someone self publishes a book, are they expected to manually push the buttons that set the type and bind the paper? Surely not. Surely half the time they ask a secretary or spokesman or publisher or someone else to do it for them. The web server is maintained by yet another person, or even an independent web hosting company. We accept it as self-published as long as the orders come from them. In this case, I would argue that the person who put up the notice on the web site was acting as an agent for the person himself; yes, even though the person himself is dead. Whoever put up the notice is almost certainly the same person who put up all the other information on this website. --GRuban (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No we don't expect to be manually pushing buttons but we do expect them to be responsible for what's said. Anyway I don't understand the mad rush to report things instantly on Wikipedia, I don't see why there would be a reason not to wait for secondary sources, especially since hacking a website and putting up a death notice does seem like something a malicious prankster would do. It also seems like a lot more harm could come from Wikipedia spreading a false death rumor than could come from Wikipedia waiting until it was confirmed by secondary sources. Dlabtot (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yo Dlabtot, i dont think anyone would disagree with what ya said....the thing is.... this was already published by secondary sources almost simultaneously to that personal site (my initial logic to all this).....sooo like GRuban said, the point is moot. Jrod2 (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Dosa

is a breakfast eaten in South India for thousands of years. Pat Chapman in his cook book claims Dosa orginated in Udupi, Karnataka. Thangappan Nair, an Indian writer also argues the same in his book.

However, both authors do not attribute their claim. It is also possible Pat Chapman used Thangappan Nair's book as reference. Considering the venerable tradition among Indian writers to document hearsay as history, I am just urging editor User:Gnanapiti to be more careful.

it would be impossible to determine and definitely say Dosa or any traditional Indian food originated anywhere. First, there is no way the first person who made the first Dosa left any evidence behind and/or it is more than likely Dosa evolved from something else which had existed. For these reasons, wikipedia is better served if we attribute the use of the food "Dosa" in some old literature.

I have proposed either the removal of this information or attribute the opinion to the authors and the lack of citations in their book. English food writer Pat Chapman and Indian writer Thangappan Nair argue Dosa originated in Udupi, Karnataka. However, both books do not mention the source of their claim.

Any suggestion will be appreciated. --CarTick 13:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're reading too far into the source. The book is published by an actual publisher (i.e. it's not self-published) so the book isn't really required to say "I learned this from X". Saying English food writer Pat Chapman and Indian writer Thangappan Nair argue Dosa originated in Udupi, Karnataka is acceptable; the However, both books do not mention the source of their claim is not. We're not here to challenge the sources, but rather only to state what the sources say. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

changed the text per your suggestion. but, I still disagree with you that being published by a publisher will make it any more reliable than self-published. i also disagree with you that wikipedia editors can not challenge the authenticity of what we choose to add. --CarTick 16:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Self-published versus published is one of the key aspects of reliability. If it's published by an publishing company, there's almost always some level of editing and verification done, whereas self-published is the exact opposite. You can challenge the authenticity of sources if there's some reason to do so (e.g. other people have written how the author is full of crap) but in this case, you've got a food writer and another writer coming to the same conclusion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I will tell you why I think Thangappan Nair whose 2004 book which predates Pat Chapman's 2007 book (so i believe Chapman bases his reference on Thangappan Nair) can not be considered a serious history book. T. Nair categorically says, "Idli (another south Indian food similar to Dosa), Dosa and Rasam all originated in Karnataka in prehistoric times" without any of the nuances you see in this article which reviews the book written by K. T. Achaya

To provide you some context here, steam vessels are required for Idli making. From the article,

“ Indeed, the Chinese chronicler Xuanzang (7th century AD) categorically stated that there were no steaming vessels in India. Achaya writes that the cooks who accompanied the Hindu Kings of Indonesia between 800-1200 AD, brought fermentation and steaming methods and their dish Kedli to South India ”

so, how did south indians make Idli if they didnt have steaming vessels?

please compare the nuanced writings of A. T. Acharya with absoluteness of T. Nair. besides, the weasel word prehistoric is generally used by fake historians who hasnt done their research well.

If my words carry any weight, I have never heard of T. Nair being an Indian historian let alone authoritative. --CarTick 23:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll back up Annyong here, and I'll be even more direct. Wikipedia articles cannot contain editors' personal challenges of the reliability of what we choose to add. Our words, the editors' words, do not carry enough weight to go into articles. Only the words of the sources we cite do. We personally are effectively anonymous and have no credentials, no matter how right we might be. If you can find another published author that disagrees with Nair, we can say "Nair writes X, but Professor Jane Doe writes Y" ... but we can't write "Nair writes X, but an anonymous Wikipedia contributor writes Y", even though, of course, the anonymous Wikipedia contributor might be right. If you are convinced that Nair is wrong, go find a published reliable source that says so, and we'll be able to add that challenge to the article, but we can't challenge without that. --GRuban (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

well, there is a clear misunderstanding or misstatement of my position here. I dont want to be quoted in wikipedia articles and have been around long enough here to know that. I just thought the editing process involves debate about the reliability, authenticity and authoritativeness of sources we choose to use. --CarTick 16:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What GRuban and others are referring to is the proposed "However, both books do not mention the source of their claim" insertion. This is an argument that you, the editor, is making, and therefore it cannot be included in the article. Both sources meet Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers

I'm having a conversation with an editor who is trying to bring an article to GA status. He or she admits to removing references from the article if they don't have page numbers. I would contend that, since books generally have an index in which the reader can run down a pageless references, removing a ref from a reliable source simply because it does not have a page number is not improving an article but harming it. The editor points to WP:V#Burden of evidence as his justification. It does indeed say that references should have page numbers where appropriate, but my feeling is that a good, legitimate partial ref is better than no ref at all. Could I get some opinions on this? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see why providing page numbers should be a problom. Ple explain why page numbers arnt availible.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be a question for whomever put the ref in, and is rather beside the point, which is that working on an article as found is it legitimate to remove a reference simply because it doesn't include page numbers? Obviously, if one has access to the source, one should look up the ref and add the page number, and if one knows who added the ref, they can be asked to provide the numbers, but if those options fail, and the reference remains without page numbers, is it a good idea to remove the ref, because it is not complete to the ideal extent? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we have an example of such as source? Also I would argue that if its a GAn then it would realy have to obey the rules on sourceing. I would say (as I have now looked at the edit in question) that Yes it is resonable to remove poor sourcing from a GAN. The fact it does not have page numbers (and looks a bit confused, it seems to be refering to two sources so may be synthatsis) I would say that without a page number (or I should say page numbers) are needed. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, if an article has a reference which says, for instance, "Dumbroski, Albert. Cucumbers of Northern Australia Cambridge: Notlob Press, 1976.", which tells us where the information cited came from, it improves the article to remove the reference because it doesn't indicate any page numbers, despite the fact that the article now presents to the reader no source for the information? That seems counter-intuitive to me, and goes against the general principle that we don't remove material because it is badly formatted. Since the vast majority of references on Wikipedia that could have page numbers do not have them, you would seem to be advocating denuding the project of a considerable amount of its refs. I don't see that as a productive interpretation of policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

He's not suggesting that the article use poor sourcing. He's trying to improve the sourcing. What he's saying is that it would be more of an improvement to find the page, or ask for a page number, rather than removing the source. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Where the source is a book, I would say it generally is okay to remove material that is sourced without page numbers, because this material is not properly verifiable. There might be an issue where the result is to make nonsense of the article, but since the editor is aiming for GA this doesn't seem like it applies here. So I think they are behaving properly. --FormerIP (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not just use the template, or find the page number in the index? It seems like it would be more productive than deleting information, or leaving an unsourced statement in the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(after reading the last comment) If they are removing the reference but not the information is supports then no, this would not be improving the article. They should remove both or neither. --FormerIP (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Or just add the template or find the page number themselves, leaving us with a more comprehensive article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

My argument would be the opposite - if such a reference is removed, it is then impossible for me to find the book and determine which pages should be included, and then to update the reference. We assume that the editor adding the reference has verified that the source does indeed back the statement, even without page numbers - unless the information is questioned, that should be sufficient. Now, including no reference? Different story. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

But the editor is trying for GA. An article that cites books without page numbers shouldn't pass GA, so the editor has a few choices. Either find the page numbers, find alternative sourcing or remove the relevant material. If they are removing the cites but not the material then not only are they not improving the article, but it also probably won't pass GA anyway because it will be insufficiently sourced. --FormerIP (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

One should only meet a GA standard by improving an article, not by removing stuff that's useful, informative and legitimate but doesn't happen to meet GA standards. If an article has legit refs without page numbers, and the page numbers can't be found, then the article just can't be brought to GA status at that time. (There's nothing wrong with that, most of our articles will never be GAs, including many that are fine, useful articles.) Removing deficient refs isn't fixing the article, it's simply hiding the warts so no one will see them.

Our goal should be to have our articles be as useful as possible to the reader. To the extent that bringing articles to GA status helps to achieve that goal, it's a good thing, but if making an article a GA starts to actually decrease the usefullness of the article by removing stuff that's deficient but still of value, then the intermediate goal of reaching GA has started to get in the way of the ultimate goal, and that's a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The source being there very likely means someone put the effort in to do research on the topic, and it is a shame to waste their effort and lose useful information out of sheer laziness (i.e. "I don't feel like making the effort to find the page number"). This is exactly what the template is for. They should request a page number, or find it themselves. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is plain disruptive nonsense. By this logic, references to online versions of IEEE Spectrum or Die Presse must be removed because they (unlike the New York Times archive) don't provide page numbers of their hardcopy versions. Books from Project Gutenberg and archive org (example: long text with no page numbers or same text) are also banned until the editor... well of course the editor will not storm the LOC, neither invent fake page numbers. That GA rules do not mention any page numbers is, of course, none of your business. You just delete references, delete referenced content and enjoy the sunshine. East of Borschov 20:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not right at all, East of, because guidance only recommends page numbers for sources that have pages. If your source is HTML then the page numbers requirement does not apply. We don't need to argue about the logic though, because it's just a matter of policy (WP:Page numbers).

I think the long and short of this is that any editor, provided they are not being tendentious, pointy etc, is entitled to remove any material that doesn't conform to policy if they want to. The editor is right to point to BoE. Any editor is also entitled to begin preparing any article for GA at any time, as far as I can see. --FormerIP (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And before deleting it and throwing away another editor's contributions, they could say and wait for a few days at least. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I fail to understand why someone would remove perfectly good citations just because they don't have page numbers. Even if the book/journal physically has page numbers, since, as pointed out, many sources don't. If available, it obviously would be a good idea and helpful to include page numbers, and we should. But not to the point of removing them if they don't. I agree with Beyond My Ken that removing citations just because they don't have page numbers (when they are available) actually harms the article. BTW, where is the link to a policy that says pages number are required? — Becksguy (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:Page numbers --FormerIP (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Note. The question is whether the editor is allowed to remove this material, not whether that is the best thing to do. The material technically fails to meet policy requirements, so removing it is allowed. It may be a minor defect compared to, say, not being sourced at all, but the main thing is that anyone who cares enough can find the page number and restore the material. --FormerIP (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is totally disruptive to remove these references just because they lack page numbers. Make page numbers a criterion to pass GA if need be, add the page numbers if you know them or replace the reference with one where you have page numbers, but certainly don't nuke them out of the article. Readers are presumably smart enough to use indexes and tables of contents if they bother to go to a library to pick the book up. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So go to the appropriate forum and make the case for changing the policy. An editor can't be blamed for following policy. --FormerIP (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Except that's not "following policy". WP:Page numbers which is a guideline, not a policy, explicitly states "Page numbers are especially important for lengthy, non-indexed books, but they are not required for a reference to the source as a whole, for example when describing a complete book or article or when the source is used to illustrate a particular point of view." Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If any of those exceptions applies in this case then fine, but it doesn't look like that is the case. --FormerIP (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:Page numbers might not be policy, but Wikipedia:Verifiability certainly is, and that says "The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate". O Fenian (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And that "where appropriate" is a clear indication that page numbers are not a "deal breaker" in regard to citations. Also. while it is true that any editor can remove something from an article that goes against policy, that is not the case with a citation without page numbers, which is deficient from what policy describes as the ideal but does not transgress policy. Such a removal is, sorry to repeat myself, harmful to the article and to the reader because it removes information that is valuable even if it isn't everything it ought to be. We should never be making articles less useful to readers simply to honor some mechanical interpretation of policy: we are human, we have brains, and we're supposed to use them to make reasoned judgements, that's what IAR is all about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And where a source is being misused but can't be checked because there's no page number? If there's no page number, the reference should be removed (unless there's a tag I don't know). 'Where appropriate' refers to the majority of cases where referring to the book as a whole isn't what is being done. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It refers to books which aren't indexed, which are a minority when it comes to reference works. If you need to draw attention to missing pages in the ref, just use {{page needed}}. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you really trying to suggest that WP:Page numbers doesn't apply to books that have an index, Headbomb? You can use {{page needed}} if you want or you can remove the material. There doesn't appear to be a rule to say which is preferable. The tag is really only a notice for other editors saying that material is deficient and may be removed. But the editor here is preparing for a GA reveiw, so we shouldn't expect them to be leaving things for other editors to fix. --FormerIP (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If an editor insists on removing references simply because they believe that references without page numbers will prevent a quick GA, that editor is performing disruptive editing that is harming the article, and the editor should be asked to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that's tendentious editing. I'm just saying that books, indexed or not, should have page numbers in most cases, and I'd expect that in a GA article as FormerIP says, we shouldn't be leaving that for someone else, and it is policy to have them. Dougweller (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you exmplain how you think it is tendentious, though. The editor does not appear to be skewing the article. They appear to be engaging in a review process and responding to things raised by the reviewer. In this context, what is wrong with removing poorly-sourced material? --FormerIP (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think if someone is going around just removing citations that don't have page numbers on sight, that's a problem. If, however, they're removing incomplete citations in the course of actively improving an article, for instance by replacing them with new, properly cited sources or reworking the material based on what can actually be verified, that's just common sense.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The dispute seems to have arisen becuase an editor inserted a phrase into the text of the article during the GA review, but the nominator felt it wasn't clear what the phrase inserted meant and removed it on the basis that there was no page number (this is totally understandable, because the insufficiently sourced addition could have meant a GA failure). The nominator also seems to be willing to try to find the page number themselves and re-insert. How are they doing anything wrong?--FormerIP (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, it doesn't appear to me that they are doing anything wrong.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't that specific incident that sparked my question, but the editor's statement that "i am in the middle of removing/replacing all those [refs] that do not give page numbers". Replacing deficient refs is, of course, a good thing, but to my inquiry as to whether they were removing refs simply on the basis of not having page numbers, the response was "Yes i will remove a ref 'simply because they don't have page numbers?". It was this response that provoked my question, and it is this behavior that it appears consensus is saying is not good editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes I think that is okay in itself, provided there is nothing tendentious or pointy about the edit and providing it doesn't make nonsense of the article. We are allowed to remove any material that isn't properly sourced according to our guidelines - otherwise, what is the point of the guidelines? --FormerIP (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The point of the guidelines is to aid us in improving the encyclopedia. Removing "proper" but formally deficient references is not improving the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not so clear. Including a reference that doesn't actually verify gives a false impression to the reader that the material (and citation) are valid. However, a book citation, without a page number, cannot really be verified. Without a page number, there's no straightforward way of checking to see that the source backs up the claim. If a page number cannot be produced, then the footnote will eventually have to go. I'd give editors a little while to produce one, but if they can't, then removing it is best. An unverifiable footnote is worse than none at all; the latter, at least, gives an obvious indication of a problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, an unverifiable or incompleted verified footnote is the best posssible indication of a problem, because it is obviously incomplete or marked as unverified. An absence of a footnote gives no indication whatsoever whether there is a problem, or what the problem is. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

a book citation, without a page number, cannot really be verified. Without a page number, there's no straightforward way of checking to see that the source backs up the claim. Oh my goodness, that's wny non-fiction books generally have an index, and even without an index, any decent researcher can, with the expenditure of a small amount of effort, find a specific reference within a specific book - I do it all the time! The idea that a reference which is legitimate and proper but which is merely formally deficient can be removed is just utterly silly. You've got a source, you just don't have all the information about the source we'd like and prefer to have. That doesn't make it harmful and removable, that makes it in need of being fixed - just as we don't remove sentences because they're badly written or spelled, we fix them. When you've got the editor who added the source on the line (so to speak) and ask them to provide page numbers, if they refuse or can't do it, there might be sufficient reason to be suspicious of the ref (but there's always AGF to consider), but when upgrading an article and refs from some time ago need to be fixed and perhaps the editor isn't active, removal of the ref has got to be considered detrimental to the article, and not an improvement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Beyond My Ken on this one. Fixing is the better way. Removing suspicious sources is good, but simply lacking a page number seems a pretty poor practice. The chances of removing a decent source are pretty high. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Indices are often incomplete, and it's not at all an easy thing to find a specific reference in a book of several hundred pages. Such a citation fails WP:V, which states "The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article." Jayjg ^(talk) 05:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Could someone explain why this is an issue for this board? Which source are we being asked to comment on the reliability of? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources without page numbers. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources (presumably) have page numbers. It's the citations that don't. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Beyond My Ken. When encountered by important information, backed by a high quality source that is only lacking a page number, I think it would be better to use the template, and wait a couple of days before throwing away an editor's time spent researching and writing the content. Or they could find the page number themselves. It's a shame to throw away good work, rather than improving it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers are a nice to have. They may be required for FA, but are not required for GA, per WP:WIAGA. The entire idea of removing non-paginated references is wrongheaded--tag them or fix them yourself, if you want to see things perfected. The rest of us are happy to live in the real world. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The rest of us are happy to live in the real world. Precisely! Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers are required for WP:V, which means it's required for all articles, regardless of whether they are FAs, GAs, or simply stubs. Complying with WP:V is also a specific requirement of WP:WIAGA. The "real world" doesn't have WP:V; Wikipedia does. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Again -- nobody is saying that we shouldn't have page numbers. Why does this straw man keep getting repeated ad nauseum? What people are saying is that if a citation doesn't have page numbers, then we should add them or ask someone else to with the template, rather than deleting the citation and wasting somebody's valuable research time. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but sooner or later a page number has to be provided. How long does a tagged citation like that stay in an article - a week? a month? a year? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no deadline on Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 08:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on the argument by DGG, I'm changing my argument. Absent Google Books, or an on-line database with page numbers, or walking into a library and checking, having dead tree citations without page numbers are red flags, and they run the risk of being citations that do not support the content. It's possible that the only on-line verification is an abstract, which essentially says the book exists and covers a general area, but does not verify the actual content. If there is any reason to doubt the citation, then follow WP:V and add the page numbers, or if the citation cannot be verified, then delete if appropriate on a case by case basis. However, I don't think we should delete citations just because they don't have page numbers, if there is no other reason to doubt them. As mentioned above, real world constraints are such than not all citations can be checked on any realistic basis. — Becksguy (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Bitterlemons.org website

There is a small dispute ongoing in Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy whether this article http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl281002ed39.html should be used as a source for material in the article. I'm tending to the negative, since this appears to be a website dedicated to publishing opinion pieces, without peer review or editorial control of content. The pieces are probably OK as indications on the authors' opinion, but in my opinion they shouldn't be used as indications that the viewpoints have representation in WP:RS, which is done to assess whether including the viewpoints are WP:UNDUE. My view would be that the viewpoint should be covered also in WP:RS with editorial control in order for it's inclusion to not be WP:UNDUE. An exception might be if the author is very highly thought of in the field. Comments from others? --Dailycare (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no obvious reason to use this as a source for anything more than the writers' opinions about a topic. Whether those writers are significant or learned enough to have their opinions included in articles here at all is a matter for another discussion, pegged to the specifics of what folks are seeking to insert in the article. — e. ripley\^talk 19:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Are there examples of individual authors to be discussed?--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The example author is identified in the article as "Diana Buttu is a lawyer and serves as an advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization with the Negotiations Support Unit." and the specific information being proposed for inclusion relates to advice the "Negotiations Support Unit" has, according to Buttu, given to the PLO leadership. --Dailycare (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

In any event, neither of the cited Leon T. Hadar articles even mention Butto or Bitterlemons. Butto certainly did NOT say that her expert legal opinion was derived from the editorial written by Edward Said. That is a very far-fetched WP:Synth connection that originated with Wikipedia and editor, Tempered.

Butto actually said "given the facts on the ground" the leadership is going to have to start reassessing whether it really should be pushing for a two-state solution or whether we should start pushing for equal citizenship and an anti-apartheid campaign along the same lines as South Africa." I'm pretty sure WP:BLP policy frowns upon editors who try to demonize practicing lawyers. Butto clearly advised her clients to base their legal strategies upon the facts, not upon an analogy or an Op-Ed piece.

FYI in the subsequent ICJ Wall case, both the members of the Negotiations Support Unit (Koury, Chopra, Shehadeh, et al) and the UN Secretary General based their dossiers, in part, upon reliable published reports that Israel was pursuing a policy of "Bantustanization" and other published allegations of apartheid. The Court found both the Wall and the associated Israeli regime illegal (not the actions of the PLO Negotiations Support Unit). harlan (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Issues about Buttu are not directly relevant, at this point, and divert attention from the actual issue (although Harlan is incorrect in several of his assertions; e.g., Hadar does indeed cite Said, Buttu and bitterlemons.org where the cited interview with her appeared; besides, the issue even in regard to Buttu is not whether her or Hadar's assertions agree with Harlan's anti-Israel POV, but simply that she is in fact cited by Hadar in support of his own pro-Israel views: neutral POV - cf. WP:NPOV - requires that this citation be allowed without negative POV slanting or attempts at in-text refutation and/or silencing by editors).

Furthermore, Dailycare has already reverted any reference in the main article to a pro-Israel refutation of the "apartheid" terminology, in an essay that appeared in bitterlemons.org written by a former Israeli ambassador and Director General of the Israel Foreign Ministry, on the grounds of bitterlemons.org "unreliability," so the issue goes beyond Buttu.

The question in the first instance is simply whether bitterlemons.org is a reliable source according to Wikipedia guidelines for articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not anything specific concerning what Buttu "meant" (which in any case should be debated on the relevant Talk page, not here). I am afraid that Dailycare, who from the start has tried to prevent bitterlemons.org being used as a source for pro-Israel interpretations, has badly misrepresented the site here on this board. He says that bitterlemons.org "appears to be a website dedicated to publishing opinion pieces, without peer review or editorial control of content." He is wrong. The editors are leading academic and political authorities on both the Palestinian and Israeli side, and they alone invite and edit the articles that appear on the site. Uninvited articles do not appear. The articles are solicited solely from leading figures in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, often representatives of their respective governments, and their statements are therefore of unusual significance and authority. In fact, I have already shown that all this is so on the "Talk" page of the relevant article, so that Dailycare's statements are hard to justify. On the Talk page, I stated on the 24th of August before he posted on this noticeboard that "bitterlemons.org has been widely cited by all sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and justifiably so, since it is run by a team of leading Israeli and Palestinian academics/politicians, and scrupulously aims to air the views of top authorities and spokespeople in both areas. There is strict editorial review, limiting contributions to only the highest level of responsible commentary. The "About" (Us) link at the bitterlemons.org "Home" webpage informs us [see http://www.bitterlemons.org/about/about.html] that "Bitterlemons.org is a website that presents Israeli and Palestinian viewpoints on prominent issues of concern. It focuses on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and peace process. It is produced, edited and partially written by Ghassan Khatib, a Palestinian, and Yossi Alpher, an Israeli. Its goal is to contribute to mutual understanding through the open exchange of ideas. Bitterlemons.org aspires to impact the way Palestinians, Israelis and others worldwide think about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Bitterlemons.org is directed toward the interested public and policymakers in the region and elsewhere. Each weekly edition of bitterlemons.org is posted on our website. Each edition addresses a specific issue of controversy. Articles by Alpher and Khatib are accompanied by additional articles by, or interviews with, a prominent Israeli and a prominent Palestinian--selected by the appropriate editor. No intelligent and articulate views are considered taboo. Bitterlemons.org maintains complete organizational and institutional symmetry between its Palestinian and Israeli components. It draws financial support from the European Union and additional philanthropic sources based outside the region. Ghassan Khatib is coeditor of the bitterlemons.org family of internet publications. He is vice-president for community outreach at Birzeit University and a former Palestinian Authority minister of planning and labor. He holds a PhD in Middle East politics from the University of Durham. He is also the founder of the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center, which specializes in research, opinion polling and media affairs, and was a member of the Palestinian delegation for the Madrid Middle East Peace Conference in 1991 and the subsequent bilateral negotiations in Washington from 1991-93. Yossi Alpher is a writer and consultant on regional strategic issues, and director of the Political Security Domain (PSD), an independent NGO. He has served as director and acting head of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University; as director of the American Jewish Committee's Israel/Middle East Office in Jerusalem; and as a senior official in the Mossad. While at the Jaffee Center, he coordinated and coedited the JCSS research project on options for a Palestinian settlement, and produced "The Alpher Plan" for an Israeli-Palestinian final settlement. Since 1992, he has coordinated several Track II dialogues between Israelis and Arabs. In July 2000 he served as special adviser to the prime minister of Israel, concentrating on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. In late 2001 he published (in Hebrew) And the Wolf Shall Dwell with the Wolf: the Settlers and the Palestinians." It seems hard to get more reliable and responsible spokespeople and editors of current opinion in the Israeli and Palestinian arenas than this."

So I wrote on the 24th. I also added, in a subsequent contribution of the same date, that "Bitterlemons.org is reliable, has scrupulous editorial review, represents authoritative academic and political leadership opinion on both sides of these issues and is not a blog." So it cannot be justifiably claimed after these clarifications that it is merely open for "publishing opinion pieces without peer review or editorial control of content." I regret that due to travel and other distractions, I missed the early discussion on this issue in this noticeboard (although it was I who first brought up the need to consult this noticeboard to resolve the issue, on the "Talk" page of the Israel and the Apartheid Analogy article). Due to my absence, I am afraid, much of which has been written here is entirely misleading or beside the point, and so I would like to ask now, in light of my clarifications above, for a clear ruling on the reliability of bitterlemons.org for purposes of citation in articles relating to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Thank you.Tempered (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you show us where exactly this site is shown to have "scrupulous editorial review" and "represents authoritative academic and political leadership on both sides of these issues"? Because I don't see it in any obvious place on the website. — e. ripley\^talk 13:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have already shown that, with the appropriate reference to the site's own editors, each a leading political figure and academic within Israel and within the Palestinian Authority. Each has advanced academic degrees and publications, and is a respected, even a high-status, university scholar, one at Tel Aviv University, the other at BirZeit University. Both are also prominent and well-respected political figures. Read my statement and quote from the site immediately above: I presume you have not done so. As I wrote already, it is hard to see how there could be any more authoritative and responsible editors on this subject. Each editor invites leading authorities from their respective societies. And the very fact that leading figures from both sides accept these invitations, including top officials in each of the governments, and contribute essays indicates the high respect they have for the editors and managers of the site and the high standing of the site itself in both groups. These "leading figures" contribute to each issue, so their details are available at the site itself. I suggest you go to http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous.html to scan a list of these "authoritative academic and political leadership on both sides of these issues" in recent and earlier issues (e.g., the former Ambassador to South Africa, and former Director General of the Israel Foreign Ministry, Alon Liel, contributed his criticism of the "apartheid" analogy to the issue of August 12, 2002, in a symposium that also drew on other leading figures; this was also reverted by Dailycare because the site was "unreliable" even though the writer of the article was an authority in his own right and entirely "reliable" as a source for his own opinion - as you point out in your first comment above to this topic of bitterlemons.org, Ripley. Dailycare's revert reason is therefore not acceptable in any case).Tempered (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me note here that I discovered just now that the discussion of this issue has been taken up more fully below, under the heading "Bitterlemons.org. issue unresolved," opened 2 September, and probably should continue there. So discussion here probably should not persist, to avoid duplication, and interested parties are referred to the entries under the more recent heading below.Tempered (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hustler magazine as a source

Okay, I'm in a dispute over a link and I want to bring it up to the larger community. The specific link in question is this one:

http://www.hustlermagazine.com/features/band-interviews/wendy-lisa-women-of-the-revolution

This link is being used as source for the article on Lisa Coleman (musician), specificly for this statement: "Coleman introduced her girlfriend Wendy Melvoin". It has been removed by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on the grounds that it is not a reliable source. I contend that it is a reliable source in that it is clearly an interview done with the people in question. Additionally, the website has a number of other interviews with bands.

And just to be upfront, the only other debate I could find to Hustler magazine as a source was Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 24#Hustler magazine a reliable source for World Affairs? where the debate (to my eyes) ended up as no decision.

So... what does the community in general think? Tabercil (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" There is no indication that Hustler has a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, particularly as required for sourcing a BLP (and this discussion would be better served at BLPN). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What part of the Hustler article backs up the statement "introduced her girlfriend Wendy Melvoin"? Are you citing it to show that Melvoin was Coleman's girlfriend, or that she was introduced, or what? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's the edit in question [3] — e. ripley\^talk 18:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Browsing through what little (unrelated) discussion there is on the talk page, it appears that there's some question about whether this lady is LGBT, so I'm guessing this edit principally is intended to establish her sexuality. Also, this link is to a Hustler Q&A, so trying to cast doubt on its appropriateness as a source based on whether Hustler checks facts is functionally irrelevant. There's no writer interpretation here, either you believe that Hustler faithfully reprinted this woman's words, or you don't. I see no reason to think that Hustler would have falsified a Q&A. It's not the Washington Post, but it's not someone's fanzine, either. However, it should probably be attributed to her in the article, i.e., "Melvoin said Coleman introduced her to..." — e. ripley\^talk 19:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I edit conflicted with e. ripley while trying to post a comment which essentially said the same thing: as an interview, problems of fact-checking and accuracy are not nearly as significant, especially in the lack of evidence that either of the subjects have publicly objected that they were misquoted. Given that, I'd say it's acceptable in this circumstance, and I agree that it's better that the action be attributed.

The only qualm I have is that the word "girlfriend" is not necessarily an indication of sexuality, since it's frequently used (although perhaps less so than earlier) between two female friends with no connotation of a sexual relationship. So, if the quote is being used as a source for a subject being a lesbian, I think that could problematic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Actually the lesbian bit is nailed down by a different cite elsewhere in the article to Out magazine. I remember that cause I was the one who introduced it (see here for diff). And Hullo, the issue is whether Hustler is a reliable source, thus this noticeboard and not BLPN, IMO. Tabercil (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliability is contextual not absolute. We have no reason to quote Hustler on the military career of Napoleon, but we can reasonably conclude that they accurately transcribe interviews, since that's standard journalistic practice. No-one would agree to be interviewed by Hustler if they had a reputation for putting made up words into people's mouths. Paul B (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Mmmmm...looks aight :) Jrod2 (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hustler is an insufficient source for a claim about a living person. It is doubtful that they are the only place this information (whatever it is; the context of the edit is unclear) will have appeared.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? Because it has pictures of naked lasses in it? How does that make the content of interviews unreliable? Paul B (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No, because it is not demonstrated to be a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. We ain't talkin' Playboy here. A gentleman knows the difference. If something appears in Hustler and in no other source, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it has a clear de facto reputation for accuracy in this area, since there is no history or lawsuits for misquotation, and the mag has to conform to norms of journalism if only to avoid being sued. Paul B (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We have a much higher standard for what qualifies as a reliable source than simply "not having a history of getting sued". In any event the magazine has, in fact, been sued for (among other things) what one could easily call lack of journalistic integrity, if not for actually misquoting interviewees. The fix is simply finding a better source for the information, though it's difficult in this circumstance because it's not clear what exactly the cite is supposed to be supporting.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagee. I cannot believe that if this were non-porn magazine that we would having this debate. Reputations are defined precicely by such matters as legal history. You are, I think, confusing respectability with reliabilty. The Daily Telegraph, for example, is deeply respectable, but has a reputation for tendentious unreliability in the reporting of some matters (eg global warming). I dont know if has been sued more or less often that Hustler, but it certainly has been sued. This is not a matter of having "higher" standards, but of relevant and appropriate ones. Paul B (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of what is meant by "reliability", thank you. On the lawsuit issue, it's not just that the magazine has been sued (as it has, famously); it's that it has been sued specifically for libel, and lost. This has happened at least twice that I know of. I'd say being found guilty of publishing defamation is a pretty severe hit to the old "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Perhaps you could give us some concrete examples of why the magazine should be considered reliable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This describes a grudge match in which legal nicelties are being used to get one over on opponents. The terrible libel here is writing 'has' instead of 'had'. however, it indicates laxity nearly thirty years ago. Paul B (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Read more: http://vlex.com/vid/guccione-hustler-magazine-flynt-distributing-37113881#ixzz0xd1z1fkm

You're greatly underestimating here. In one case Hustler was sued for falsely asserting the plaintiff committed adultery; the plaintiff won.[4] In another, a woman claimed Hustler had maliciously asserted she had contracted an STD and had published nude photos that it falsely identified as her; she won.[5][6] Additionally, Jackie Collins successfully sued Hustler's publisher Larry Flynt Publications, and Flynt himself, for publishing nude photos that they falsely claimed were of her. Not seeing a lot of editorial credibility in this outfit.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)h

So you have found two cases in a 30 year period. By most standards that's a remarkably clean record. Also, these cases date from the early 1980s, when Flynt saw himself as some sort of counter-culture warrior. That is a long, long, gone era. Virtually every newspaper has been sued at one time or another for mistakes. The Daily Telegraph, to continue the comparison, was sued successfully for libel in 2004 by George Galloway. [7] Is it therefore an unreliable source? That was 6 years ago, not 27 years ago. I think you are using double standards, but I'm sure you will never accept that. As far as I can see we have more evidence that the modern Telegraph is unreliable than that Hustler is. But I suspect you intuit that Hustler is unreliable, and so will hold to these decades old cases. Paul B (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Double standard?" Sorry, that's just a straw man argument. You're the one who brought up the Daily Telegraph, I never said anything about it. I don't know enough about that paper to comment on it, and it's quite irrelevant to this discussion anyway. For the last time, my argument is still that Hustler is a very poor source with no detectable reputation for accuracy; any source this poor should be avoided in a real encyclopedia, especially in a biography. I do not appreciate your comments about what you "suspect" my true thoughts are.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be the only editor insisting on this view. I have already explained why the reputation is detectable. Yes, I brought up the Telegraph - precisely because it has been repeatedly asserted here to be a reliable source, including in a section below. I was attempting to demonstrate what I consider to be the unsustainability of your argument, since you asserted "On the lawsuit issue, it's not just that the magazine has been sued (as it has, famously); it's that it has been sued specifically for libel, and lost." If that's the issue, then the Telegraph is an unreliiable source. Paul B (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

But it's an interview with two people, and it's them talking about stuff they did. Doesn't that fall under WP:SELFPUB - "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves..."? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Which part of the interview supports "Coleman introduced her girlfriend Wendy Melvoin"? I don't see the word "girlfriend" or "intro" anywhere in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That was actually the first question I asked before. I couldn't find anything similar to that text, but I thought I may have missed something. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The article supports the statement. From the article: "WENDY:We grew up together in Los Angeles... When I turned about 15 years old, I came back one summer, and Lisa and I hooked up when we reconnected in our teens and both realized we were gay. (Laughs.) We started a relationship that lasted for about 20 years." So that's from age 15 to 35, or from about 1980 to about 2000 and her joining the Revolution fell in between those dates. And later "WENDY: I joined the band because of Lisa. I spent some time with her on the road during the 1999 tour. Prince’s guitarist [Dez Dickerson] wasn’t showing up to sound checks, and I just happened to be there at the right time. I had already been playing guitar since I was very young. Prince heard me play and asked me to join in on a sound check for “Controversy” with the band." Tabercil (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I think this is a reliable source for this article. I'm bit unsure about how it's being used. I'm not sure how exactly to articulate this, but it seems to require a bit of analysis to draw the conclusions you're getting from the interview, I'm not sure. I would be interested in hearing other editors' opinions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I can rephrase to more closely align with what the Hustler article states, but I'd first want to know if the source is deemed reliable before going through that effort. Tabercil (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the text above can be translated into "Coleman introduced her girlfriend Wendy Melvoin". It sounds more incidental; perhaps "Coleman was approached by Prince while on the road with Melvoin" or something like that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

While I applaud Hustlers adamant First Ammendment protection stance and the guts to investigate the Bush administration when the rest of the media was cowardly repeating the WMD mantra and playing the drums of war, Hustler does NOT have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and should only be used for non-controversial claims about itself. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 23:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

?? Aren't you kinda contradicting yourself there? On the one hand you applaud them for doing investigative work, which (to me) implies doing due diligence and fact checking, and on the other hand excoriating them for not doing their fact-checking... and to HelloAnnyong: as I said, I can rephrase (your wording is probably close to what I'd end up with). Tabercil (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That someone can be an advocate for Free Speech and yet not be a source for Reliable information is not in any way a contradiction. And the fact that they in one or two instances have done important reporting does not overcome the fact that in general they are not a reliable source. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Tabercil: Yes, in my opinion, this Hustler article is a reliable source for Lisa Coleman (musician). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How does a publication come by a reputation for fact checking anyway? Is Hustler renowned for making unsubstantiated claims that turn out to be false? Does it often get sued for libel? It is a mainstream publication, so unless there is a reason for doubting the authenticity of its journalism then it probably meets the criteria for being a reliable source. Obviously, when it publishes an interview it is only reliably reporting what the interviewee is saying. Betty Logan (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Few things to note over here...Is it stating-implying that she is a lesbian a problem??....Is the subject famous enuff to warrant this guideline protection?? Whichever the reason for your inclusion-exclusion of that content, the point of all this is to find out if users think Hustler's circulation is wide enuff to be considered a major (maybe a mid level) reliable publication.... or if Hustler has been historically negligent for not conducting good editorial practices to regard it completely unreliable. I say Hustler, even though they have provocative images (ehmmm:)), it has made efforts to be a relevant entertainment publication n' it does have a full editorial oversight. Jrod2 (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem. It's not at all clear what the citation is supposed to support. There are (obviously) other sources for for Coleman and Malvoin being partners; a very quick google news search turned up this interview on the St. Petersburg Times website.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Turns out that source has already been added to the article. Problem solved!--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The question asked her was about the use of Hustler as a source for interviews. Surely, we do not "resolve" a question by evading it. Paul B (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The question was whether that particular interview in Hustler could be used as a source for this material. Since we now have a source for the same material that is indisputably reliable, the question is rather dissolved. That is, the St. Pete Times backs up the information on her relationship with Melvoin; I think we're still all unclear on whether that's the bit the cite was need at or not.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Agreed Paul. The Hustler interview gives details about how Melvoin came to join the band; the St Petersburg article doesn't. Tabercil (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then that's a bit of a different question. My arguments above stand: Hustler has no particular "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as is required especially in BLPs; it has been successfully sued at least twice for libel, etc.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This is all still irrelevant. It's a transcribed Q&A with a subject. Either we believe that Hustler is reputable enough not to make up blockquotes from someone, or we don't. I have no reason to doubt that it's a faithful reproduction. So as long as the information being used is properly attributed (Melvoin said that something happened), it's fair game for articles here, subject to the rest of our policies. — e. ripley\^talk 14:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm arguing that we should not be trusting Hustler to accurately reproduce anything, especially in a BLP. If material appears in this magazine and nowhere else, it has no business being in Wikipedia. If it is truly important to the subject, some other source will contain the information.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand your argument, I just think it's wrong. Your position is far too absolutist. We rarely blanket-ban a source here, much depends on context. If this were an actual article that made these assertions outside of quotations, I could understand it coming in for more scrutiny, particularly as part of a BLP. But this is a binary question; either we trust this publication to make a faithful reproduction of someone's responses to a question, or we don't. My position is that we can trust the magazine to do that, absent some sort of uproar about being misquoted from the person they're quoting, which I haven't seen anywhere. I'm sure you don't. That's fine, we can agree to disagree. — e. ripley\^talk 15:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree with this. I think it'd be wrong to say that Hustler cannot be used at any point on any article ever. There's no reasonable reason to think that they've doctored this interview, so I think it's okay to use here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So.... in summary then: can it be used or not? Tabercil (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the consensus is that the source can be used for this specific instance. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabercil (talk • contribs) 16:42, August 25, 2010

This is the same Hustler that Robyn Douglass sued for falsely claiming that she was a lesbian page 410? Of course it's not a reliable source. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because the magazine may not happen to have got something wrong in an interview does not make it a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy: it makes it a source which can get things right occasionally. If the assertion is correct, it will be well-reported in other publications with a better reputation. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And that article is being used to support negative claims about a different person and why they left the band. Clearly and unambiguously NOT APPROPRIATE. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 16:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Tabercil: Yes, in my opinion, this is a reliable source for this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What?!? As best as I can tell, the only item in question that's a claim is that Lisa Coleman replaced Gayle Chapman in the band, and that Wendy Melvoin replaced Dez Dickerson. Which is to me a simple statement, and one which is pretty much self-evident. At the least, CNN viewed it that way because that's how their biography of Prince reads. The Hustler article is no different that that. Tabercil (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

India related article - Iyer

A while back I asked for a re-assessment of Iyer because I noticed many of the sources cited were either inaccessible or did not have good editorial oversight (no reputation of fact checking, no details of who the editors were, etc). One of the websites often used as a source in the article Tamilnation.org is now defunct.

Perhaps this board can help in determining if the sources listed are relable or not. Details at: Talk:Iyer/GA1 Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If a web site is no longer extant, it would be worth checking to see if it is still available in the internet wayback machine archives. Can you provide a couple of examples of sources you feel are problematic, bearing in mind that just because a source is not available via the internet, that does not make it unreliable. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Conflict regarding source for Conservapedia

Hello. Recently, several editors have been discussing on on the talk page of the Conservapedia article regarding the correct interpretation of a source. The statement in the Conservapedia article that is in question is the following:

Vandalism edits by both RationalWiki members and vandals from elsewhere have included the addition of errors, pornographic photos and satire.

The statement is sourced by this LA Times article, in which the following statement is where the statement in the article is derived from:

In recent months, Conservapedia's articles have been hit frequently by interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere. The vandals have inserted errors, pornographic photos and satire [...]

The problem that has been brought up is whether or not the source backs up the statement that RationalWikians have vandalized Conservapedia by inserting errors, pornographic photos, and satire. The article states that members of RationalWiki have vandalized Conservapedia, and the article states that vandals have introduces errors, pornographic photos, and satire, but the question lies in whether the latter includes RationalWiki members or whether it does not. Thanks for you time. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the latimes is clearly implying that at least some of the vandalism (errors, porno, satire) was done by RationalWiki members. However, the "and elsewhere" implies that others are involved as well. I suggest that this is a case where exactly quoting the source is in order. Blueboar (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"vandals" automatically refers to "interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere" unless otherwise stated. The comment you have currently is correct. I refuse to believe this is actually being argued about elsewhere on Wikipedia, and will now take the position that you have placed this here at ANI as some sort of joke. I am so confident in this I will not even go to the Conservapedia article to make sure it isn't really being discussed there.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Um... Wikiposter... this isn't ANI... this is the Reliable sources/noticeboard (RSN)... which was set up so editors could get guidance and second opinions on exactly this sort of question. Blueboar (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not totally clear, so use a quote. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think just a rewrite would do it: something like, "RationalWiki members and others have inserted vandalism edits into Conservapedia; such edits have introduced errors, pornographic images, and satire."--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Cucullan's paraphrasing. "Hit" sounds a lot like a compact way to say what we mean by vandalism. Also a direct quote would be OK, but a bit less elegant. --Dailycare (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Chattahbox.com

How reliable would you say chattahbox.com is? It is clearly a news website, and although it seems to have a left-leaning political viewpoint, it is written as one would expect a news site to be. Any thoughts? Throwaway85 (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look to be an appropriate source for anything. No idea who the people behind it are, no evidence of journalistic credentials, fact-checking or other editorial rigor. It's also described as a subsidiary of "Global EStore LLC" which doesn't sound promising. — e. ripley\^talk 14:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No information on editorial oversight, no reputation for fact-checking. Fails WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

ESOWatch.com

Can it be considered a reliable source? It has been used by an editor. In a previous discussion here another user said that "it's an open wiki with seven users and 21 articles. It's not a reliable source and we shouldn't be using it directly for biography information." The editor, however, persists in including the info. Please kindly advise. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 17:19, --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you answered the question right there - it's a Wiki (closed, actually; they don't have open registration) so the text on there is easily edited and easily changed. I would say it's not reliable and shouldn't be used. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If (my mistake) it's actually a closed wiki, and is merely the chosen publishing platform for a small group of people, then it may be acceptable under WP:SPS, depending on the authority of its writers. Note that it's up against a non-peer-reviewed comic-sans PDF, and falls somewhere under WP:PARITY for fringe theories. --McGeddon (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

We'd have to know who the writers were to even use it as a self-published source, and they're not particularly forthcoming with this information at their FAQ. As it is it's definitely not reliable, but some of the sources they use may be; I see they link to an article from The Guardian.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur, there's no realistic way of assessing the reliability of the authors on esowatch, nor to verify the information if they do not provide a reference to what we would consider a reliable source. It's no more reliable than we are. Nuujinn (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur, their general disclaimer states that As a consequence of our work, we name methods and products of quackery and deceit. The perpetrators don't like that at all. This is why EsoWatch works anonymously, to protect the authors from trouble". There is no way for us to understand who or what is behind the site and as far as I can tell, anyone can join and contribute. It's not RS. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is about Prahlad Jani who has lived for seventy years without eating or drinking, and an investigation has "confirmed" that he does not need food or water! We do not need gold-plated reliable sources to insert contrary views in such an article. Per WP:PARITY and WP:REDFLAG, the closed wiki is perfectly satisfactory for the modest statement (diff): "ESOWatch stated that Jani's doctors' claims of no evidence of dehydration were inconsistent with the test results." Obviously, no really reliable source would even bother considering the nonsensical claims made in the article, so we have to rely on other PARITY sources. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would Wikipedia care what ESOWatch states on this matter or any other? Wikipedia only cares what reliable secondary sources write about. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous closed wiki. Fails WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:PARITY exists for exactly this purpose. These are the ingredients: (a) There is an obviously bogus claim (someone has lived for many years without eating or drinking). (b) An investigation has confirmed that the person does not need to eat or drink (WP:REDFLAG should rule out such absurd claims). (c) Any reliable source would not bother to even think about the nonsense. Wikipedia has to choose: Promote spurious claims unchecked (because no quality source will bother with a response); or, invoke WP:REDFLAG to rule out the claims (because exceptional claims require exceptional and multiple sources); or, invoke WP:PARITY to permit contrary views from corresponding sources. Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this reasoning. We cannot live with an article giving credence to the idea that human beings can live without food and water. A no-brainer. --FormerIP (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the source is not reliable, I don't agree with the above reasoning--we're not about truth, but what is verifiable and reported in reliable sources. Nuujinn (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is about WP:PARITY. We cannot accept claims from fringe sources (any source that says people can live off thin air is clearly a fringe source) and then reject alternative points of view on the grounds that only marginal sources have seen fit to comment. --FormerIP (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The current status of the Prahlad Jani article is unbalanced with great reverence shown to the sources which seem to verify his claims. And this is after massive reversals and counter-reversals of content. Just look at the history of the article. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) "any source that says people can live off thin air is clearly a fringe source" puts truth ahead of verifiability and policy regarding reliability, although I readily admit the point is moot, since ESOWatch is not reliable. Nuujinn (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the case may be with ESSO watch this article currently reads like a news outlet for Prahlad Jani's medical team. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course we cannot use this source, as it fails WP:RS. Nuujinn is exactly right, and we can't say "well, they say crazy stuff, so we can bend the rules to get back at them." WP:PARITY merely states that we need not always use "peer reviewed journals" as sources. And it's quite quick to add "Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability policy is not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory." Wikipedia's purpose is not to proselytize or expose fraud. We're not investigative journalists, crimebusters, or debunkers. We are an encyclopedia, and we stick closely to WP:V and WP:NOR. We reproduce what reliable secondary sources say, that's all. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

These points you are making are self-evident. I don't think anyone here spoke about busting crime or exposing fraud or getting a free pass on policies. If you are happy with the current state of the article that is altogether another matter, but still it is your prerogative. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for participating. I agree with the view that we can not use any means just to debunk exceptional claims. All the reasoning suggested by the detractors of Jani's claims above is their own reasoning, based on their own analysis, outlook and personal logic. We do not even know if it can be trusted outside of their own imagination, because they have absolutely no credible proofs to support their views, except for the fact that the claims they oppose are rare and exceptional, and don't fit into their own understanding of how the things should be. If we start bending the neutrality principle based on such feelings of individual editors we never get a reliable encyclopedic reference, because everyone will try to push his/her own understanding, imagination and views into the article. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, that article is shocking - I'll take a closer look after the bank holiday. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

haha. that article is glorious, it shows the true power of The Great Mother. सत्यमेव जयते -- Nazar (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Aquatic Ape Hypothesis & www.aquaticape.org

There has been a near-perpetual conflict on Aquatic_ape_hypothesis concerning a single source - www.aquaticape.org [8] by Jim Moore. The conflict is "resolved" only when one group or another simply gets tired of arguing and the page lapses into stasis, only to re-emerge with the next editing activity. The problem is that AAH is, depending on how charitable you are, at best an unverified hypothesis which is not taken seriously by the scholarly community and at worst pseudoscience/fringe completely lacking in coherent hypotheses, testable predictions or any substantial evidence. The entire origin of the theory (which we cannot ignore, obviously) is from a non-peer-reviewed science magazine article (spawned from a purely speculative lecture at a non-technical setting) and a non-scientific text by a non-academic publisher, so right there the bar gets set fairly low - all scientific, peer-reviewed sources are either inconclusive, extremely brief, or critical of the idea, including a prominent paper by Langdon which basically tears the theory apart bit by bit. Unfortunately, several claims are not addressed by Langdon, and other sources must be found. Myself and other users have included and argued for the inclusion of the above website due to its extensive nature (printed out, it would take hundreds of pages), excellent use of citations (as much as possible is properly cited to legit scientific papers), prominence (I've never seen a debate on the topic where it *isn't* cited, in part due to the fact that, as a website, it's far more accessible than journal articles), and detailed criticism. Opponents object based on the fact that it's not a peer-review publication (ignoring that the original texts of the idea aren't either), that the author isn't an anthropologist (ignoring that the great recent popularizer of AAH isn't either), that it's unfairly biased against AAH, and simply that it's a website. In the context of this topic (a theory most reputable scientists consider too laughable to bother with), I contend that those who oppose it are simply looking for an excuse to exclude it. However, any argument about it inevitably devolves into the same argument between the same 4-5 people. Requests for help at numerous Wikiprojects have met with either total silence or drive-by opinions.

Frankly, I'm sick of the whole argument, and I'd like a final ruling on whether http://www.aquaticape.org/ is a reliable source or not, especially given the fringe nature of the page topic as a whole. Mokele (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPS says no. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

However, Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Notability_versus_acceptance specifically states "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. For example, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. By parity of sources critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer reviewed." Mokele (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If Moore used good sources, then we can always use his sources.

The exception for fringe ideas is made because there often is no RS for a lot of it. But when there is, we use that. For example, there are plenty of RS's debunking astrology, so we don't need to stoop to self-published websites. For the AAH, we have Langdon. The contrast between Langdon's paper, worthy of a peer-reviewed journal, and Moore's rant is extreme, and nicely illustrates why we prefer peer-reviewed papers. Even when we use non-peer reviewed material for fringe theories, we at least try to keep them reputable, and Moore fails on that account. It's not a matter of censorship, but only of using quality sources. Your argument that we need crack-pot sources to debunk crack-pot ideas cannot be taken seriously.

So, if we cannot find a RS to refute that element of the AAH, we can either leave it as 'citation needed', or remove it. As you've said, Langdon "basically tears the theory apart bit by bit", and we note that it's essentially ignored within anthropology. Isn't that sufficient? — kwami (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How, exactly, is Moore's site "not reputable" or "crack-pot". Further, point to anything that's actually a "rant". Your sole criterion for the exclusion of Moore is that he disagrees with you and you can hide behind selective application of the rules (which, in fairness, show AAH as a whole is non-notable) to exclude him. Mokele (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, firstly it's at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Sourcing_and_attribution. Secondly, WP:SPS is part of WP:V, which is policy and WP:PARITY is only a guideline. Thirdly, it calls for a "reliable website", and presumably that means, at least, "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" -- which isn't the case here. So it's still no. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see this - the guidelines for WP:fringe state that we can use lesser sources when peer-review consideration of the topic is lacking, yet you're applying the non-fringe level of scrutiny to the source, which defeats the purpose of even having a separate set of guidelines when dealing with fringe topics. Mokele (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The exceptions for fringe topics are to allow debunking when we cannot find RSs, not when we can. The requirements for quality/expertise hold regardless. — kwami (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So if we cannot find a refutation of a particular point in Langdon, but can in Moore, why not use it? You should also know that there's a *tremendous* amount of WP sources to websites considerably less authoritative than Moore - huge sections of the reptile/amphibian pages are sourced to "big name breeders" who have zero academic standing. A quick search reveals 61 separate pages on WP with references to one particular (very helpful, very reliable) self-published website by a non-academic amateur herpetoculutrist. Conversely, the AAH page cites Medical Hypotheses, which is a NON-peer review "medical" journal whose output is nothing but bullshit and newage woo, and that's being charitable. It seems that not only are the rules being inconsistently applied on the AAH page, but also throughout WP, with the stricter versions only being applied if a source becomes the issue of a conflict. Mokele (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If an idea is not controversial, we often don't bother to source it at all, and if we do, no-one's likely to care about the quality of the ref unless the article's up for GA or FA. If the amateur herp sites are being used irresponsibly, then you should delete the refs and mark them 'cn'. I haven't seen the MH ref at AAH; perhaps it should go to. But saying 'these other articles use shoddy research, so I should be allowed to use shoddy research too' has never been considered a valid argument.

But you're exactly right: people only get particular about sourcing when there's some conflict about the claims. The vast majority of WP articles have no sources whatsoever. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

All I ask for is consistency. And my argument is far from what you claim, but rather that sites such as Moore's and anapsid.org should be regarded as reliable sources. Knowledgeable non-academics *can* have meaningful contributions, and to simply discard any website, however well-researched and knowledgeable, over whether they've got nifty abbreviations after their name is a serious flaw in the RS guidelines, IMHO. Mokele (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have half followed the issues at Aquatic Ape Hypothesis and want to point out that the problems with the article would disappear if the anti-AAH views could be toned down because the AAH is not anti-science in the same way that is evident in many other mistaken ideas. The Moore source is fine for use in opposition to any equally unreliable pro-AAH sources (such as Morgan herself), but it should not be used as a contradiction in every sentence, and it should not be used to dismiss the subject before the lead manages even to describe the topic. In summary, the Moore source would be ok if used judiciously, but you cannot rely on it to rubbish the topic (it is not that reliable, and as a matter of fact, it is not a reliable source but might be used infrequently per WP:PARITY). Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

'Parity' is specifically about fringe ideas, however, and the AAH is not fringe. (It's marginal/unprofessional, but not WP:Fringe as we use the term.) It's simply an amateur hypothesis which is not inherently unreasonable, but which has never been substantiated, never gained academic acceptance, and which most of the field can't be bothered with. Langdon summarizes that well. The whole point of Moore is to rubbish the idea, rather than to actually evaluate it, and since we have a balanced and peer-reviewed critique, there's no need to stoop to that level. As Kenilworth pointed out, Moore is not even a reliable website, which it would need to be even for the Parity guidelines. (If Leakey had written that site, or even responded to it in a blog, that would be a different matter.) — kwami (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:Fringe, fringe ideas "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study", which describes AAH perfectly. It further specifies a list of examples of fringe ideas, including "...ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support...", which again perfectly describes AAH. So yes, AAH is fringe, and claiming otherwise won't make support for it materialize out of thin air.

As for Moore's "rubbishing the idea", it's called "criticism". Science is not the media; we have no obligation to 'present both sides'. If we think an idea is rubbish, we say so. Hell, I've seen someone stand up at a conference and disprove 3 years of a student's work with a single sentence. We are under no obligation to be nice, nor to give author's a pat on the head and a gold star for trying. Welcome to science; if you can't take the heat, go watch cartoons.Mokele (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

'Fringe' has not been used on WP to mean marginal ideas with little support, but for demonstrable nonsense like crystal power and UFOs building the pyramids.

Then why does the official page say otherwise? We're being all official about this in terms of WP:RS, WP:PARITY, WP:Verify - well according to the rules as laid out explicitly on the page, AAH is WP:fringe. Deal. Mokele (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What Moore is trying to do is not science, but rhetoric: make the other side look bad by any means necessary. Langdon doesn't stoop to that: his criticisms are deserved and fair, and he doesn't attempt to prove what he cannot. Anyway, the point is moot, because we have RSs for the article that adequately illustrate why the AAH is not taken seriously by academia, and even if we didn't, Moore's site would not be acceptable for the reasons Kenilworth gave: We don't pretend to give expert opinion from non-experts. — kwami (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Show me where Moore makes and unfair criticism. Link to it. Show me where he engages is ad hom. Link to it.

Furthermore, Kenilworth never explained why, in spite of the WP:fringe page indicating relaxed guidelines on sources, this page is unacceptable, nor have you aside from your knee-jerk dislike of Moore.

What I came here for was actual explanations, and if it turns out that Moore really isn't a reliable source even under the relaxed WP:fringe rules, fine. What I did NOT come here for was yet another argument with you, kwami; I can have that on the AAH page. You've managed to once again drown out any other conversation in a torrent of bias. Now please, shut the hell up and let someone who ISN'T INVESTED IN THE ISSUE get a word in edgewise. I hoped for a discussion on this topic and outside opinions, not the same old fight with the same old person, something more sophisticated that blindly reading the rules to me.

Hmm, it's a bit difficult to discuss the issue at length as you demand and shut the hell up at the same time. But as you've said, I can have this level of discourse with you on the AAH page. — kwami (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, discussion reboot: AAH is a WP:fringe idea not taken seriously by any reputable scientist. However, it is also notable enough to warrant it's own page. This creates a problem in terms of sources - most only mention it in passing (a few lines here and there), with the entire origin of the theory in two sources (neither of which meets WP:RS), and only a single substantial critique that does meet WP:RS.

So, when a WP:Fringe subject clearly warrants an article, but sources are thin on the ground, what then? Is it acceptable to use a potentially non-RS website to address a claim from a non-RS book? Especially when leaving the claim unaddressed leads to problems with WP:UNDUE and WP:PARITY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokele (talk • contribs) 03:03, August 26, 2010

Per my comment above: The Moore source fails WP:IRS because it presents commentary on evolutionary topics written by an amateur ("I don't have any formal credentials in evolutionary science"[9]). However, the source may be sufficiently reliable (per WP:PARITY) for judicious use: do not use it to rubbish the AAH (Moore is not sufficiently reliable for that); do not use it counter every point in the article (one unreliable source is not sufficient for that); do not use it to dismiss the subject before explaining the topic. Moore's source is a self-published site dedicated to attacking the AAH, so even if you know that everything on the site is correct, it is still not a suitable source to conclude that the AAH is rubbish. Johnuniq (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so we've got one absolute against (Kenilworth) and one OK if used sparingly (Johnuniq). Anyone else? Mokele (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think no. To reiterate what others have said already, WP:PARITY says that debunking sources don't necessarily need to be as high quality as a peer reviewed journal (though those are preferred if available), but they still need to be reliable. I don't see any support for this site being an RS.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

First as to the WP:FRINGE issue... WP:FRINGE is more about what fringe material may be included in Wikipedia (and how to include it) than it is about what can not be included. The guideline states that we may include Fringe topics if mainstream sources (not necessarily academic sources) have discussed it (even if that discussion is to rip it to shreds or disparage it). So the very fact that Langdon has ripped it to shreds means that it is worthy of a Wikipeida article.

So we now come to how to write about it. It sounds as if people are trying to use these sources to either "prove" that AAH is correct, or "Prove" that AAH is rubbish. If so, that is the wrong approach (see WP:NPOV)... What we should be do is bluntly and neutrally state the facts about the theory: Starting with a basic outline telling the reader what the AAH is a theory proposes. We can then move to neutral discussion of what proponents say about the theory and then what critics say about the theory. End of article.

Since the main proponent of AAH is Moore, his opinion on the AAH matters within in the context of this article. NPOV demands that we state what his opinion on AAH is (giving it due weight). In doing so we should phrase any discussion of his opinion as being an opinion. The same goes for Langdon as the main critic. NPOV demands that we discuss his views on AAH (giving them due weight), however we should also phrase it as being an opinion. Don't attempt to "prove" anything... just give the bald narrative facts. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Moore is an opponent of AAH, along with Langdon (Moore's site simply covers more stuff), with Morgan being the main proponent. Does that change your view on using his site? Mokele (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Johnuniq and Blueboar. I think the source can be used, but with extreme restraint, to document Moore's view of AAH in view of the controversy surrounding the topic. We're outside the realm of hard science here, and the AAH proponents also lack credentials, so I see no reason to exclude Moore on that basis --Nuujinn (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Moore is a critic, not a proponent. But he's still not a reliable source as far as I can tell.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the issue is simply the structure of the article which "allows " fringe theory claims because no mainstream scientist has taken them seriously enough to debunk them and a restructure of the entire article will allow the "theory" and its "impact" to be placed in appropriate context and addressed in an valid encyclopedic fashion that is solely based on WP:RS wihtout WP:UNDUE. I am not sure what that restructuring might looke like, but those more familiar with the sources out there may. Active Banana  ::::( ^bananaphone 19:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with WLU and your assessment of the article structure. Unfortunately, I'm *swamped* with RL work at the moment, and the thought of a sustained fight with kwami, chakazul, and the other AAH proponents over every slightly critical sentence is just too draining; I have *real* science to do. Mokele (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we've got some more No responses and more Limited Use responses. Anyone else? I'm hoping for some stronger level of consensus, to forestall future arguments on the page. Mokele (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful to clarify what Moore can and cannot be used for in the general sense. For example, Johnuniq's list of how Moore should not be used above seems reasonable to me at first blush. Nuujinn 18:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Islamic Quarterly

Can the Islamic Quarterly, and more specifically this [10] be considered a reliable source in history of science-type articles? My own feeling is that it isn't, but I would like a second opinion. It is not a scholarly, peer-reviewed publication on the subject, nor do its articles provide bibliography. It was heavily used by User:Jagged 85, subject of this RfC/U [11] for using shoddy sources for agenda-based editing, among other things. As part of a proposed cleanup following the RfC/U, I would like to know if this source should be allowed to stand or be removed. Athenean (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's not a RS, for the reasons you give. If valid, those claims should be verifiable in peer-reviewed articles or respectable books on the history of Islamic science, but the lack of a bibliography makes them problematic.

I don't know about IQ, but I've seen other religious publications claim that their religion predicted later scientific findings, so such claims need to be taken with a lot of salt. For example, in the case of Islam, I've seen claims that the Koran correctly describes the Earth orbiting the Sun, though I've never seen a translation which reflects this, and with my limited Arabic it would appear it does not say it. — kwami (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a piece of propaganda designed to "prove" the superiority of Islam in a backhanded way. The claim that the al-Jahiz influence Lamarck and Darwin is, frankly, laughably absurd. It's a revisionist piece created to support a predetermined outcome. Having read that one article, i'd consider the whole publication suspect.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would we want to use something like that when there are scientific journals on every subject under the sun? Looking at the home page, I can't find anything about the editorial board, editorial policies or well.. anything, it seems to be a black-hole. I would remove as non-RS unless someone can make a convincing argument otherwise. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The best link to use for people wanting a quick overview of the problem is WP:Jagged 85 cleanup.

No, the source is not reliable for such WP:REDFLAG claims. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a website authored by an English professor, an Arabic translator/Qur'an teacher, and someone who has written several "How to" books on Islam from obscure publishers. It would not qualify as a WP:RS for science or history (or history of science) topics. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the others; it would appear that the site itself isn't reliable, and the "evolution" article more so.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Blog reproducing the Irish Daily Mail

I made this revert on the basis that it was wasn't sourced correctly. The source is a reproduction of an Irish Daily Mail article in blog. The paper itself doesn't reproduce online. Could this info be re-introduced in the basis of the current source? GainLine ♠ _♥ 21:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the specific source being cited? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's reproduced in a post on a forum, which is ultimately the source regardless of where it originated. However a quick google on the story brings up a copy archived at "Findarticles.com" so you can replace the source with that: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_8003/is_2010_Feb_21/ai_n50161869/. Betty Logan (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Forum posts are almost never reliable for anything, even for convenience links to what might otherwise be considered reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorted, another source has been found, thanks folks! GainLine ♠ _♥ 08:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Central bank

An editor recently added a POV tag to the top of the Somalia article based on a few sentences in the economy section, which he suggested advanced an 'Austrian economic' agenda. Although the statements in question were actually factual assertions and not value judgements, after much arguing back and forth, I nonetheless attempted to accommodate the user's concerns by replacing those sentences altogether with material from the Central Bank of Somalia, among other reliable sources. However, according to the user, the Central Bank of Somalia itself is now apparently also an unreliable source. In his words, it represents a "source with a conflict of interest in describing Somalia's economy" and is "also not an organization of economists, not necessarily reliable". Basically, it's like arguing that the Federal Reserve is not a reliable source on the US economy; it's a tall order. I have tried reasoning with the editor, and explained to him that the Central Bank of Somalia is actually the nation's monetary authority and that the former Governor of the Bank [12] is also the Alternate Governor of the Islamic Development Bank Group. However, to no apparent effect. I would therefore like to know what is Wikipedia's policy on this issue, and whether economic material from a country's own central bank indeed qualifies as unreliable. Middayexpress (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess it could be perceived as not being impartial, especially if its policy and decisions impact on the economy. The best type of sources for economic appraisal are economists who write for high quality newspapers, especially those with an economic specialism like The Wall Street Journal or The Financial Times. Obviously news organisations aren't always impartial but at least they are third-party. Betty Logan (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I've already cited material from reliable third-party sources such as the CIA and the British Chambers of Commerce, but he has complained about those too as being 'unreliable'. That same "conflict of interest" argument could also conceivably be leveled at most other government agencies/publications, although ironically those are more often than not the very source of most economic information on a given country; no other authority has quite the insight into a country's economy as its own chief economic agencies. This is why, for example, the US article repeatedly cites various figures and economic facts from the Federal Reserve regarding that country's own economy. The same goes for the Malaysia article and its central bank. The user specifically claimed that it's a conflict of interest issue; however, I've consulted the relevant WP:COI policy, and it only pertains to editors, not to sources. So I don't think a policy actually exists which forbids the use of government publications/material vis-a-vis a country's own sectors. Middayexpress (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Material from the CIA World Factbook, the British Chamber of Commerce, and the Central Bank of Somalia would all be considered reliable sources for these purposes, particularly the first two. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. That is precisely what I figured. Middayexpress (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand that it may seem obvious that a Central Bank would be a good source of information on the economy. However, if you actually take a look at the [Bank of Somalia page] cited by Middayexpress, it is very descriptive and has good statistics, but is also clearly entrenched in marketing the Somalian economy. He is not citing it for statistics, for the most part, but rather, is using it to say that the Somalian economy is not impoverished. That is not included on that website, because they do not want people to know. In the majority of other reliable sources, the poverty of Somalia is always stated. That includes the BCC, a World Bank paper he removed (after I pointed out that it conflicted with the point he was trying to make), and other sources on the Somalia page (and other sources in general).

By the way, he or she added that after what I said without telling me. He or she seems to be trying to claim that I disagreed with that as a reliable source, most likely to discredit me, but that is misleading because I never criticized that source. He also removed other sources that I pointed out stated that Somalia was in poverty, such as a World Bank source previously included) state that Somalia is impoverished. This user is engaging in highly aggressive tactics of obfuscation, intimidation, and filibustering. Nikurasu (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I know that second paragraph sounds testy, and it is not directly relevant. He is basically harassing me though, trying to incite me, and doing subtle ad hominem and defamation. He's also violating numerous other Wikipedia policies, especially generally doing bad faith editing to try to enforce his viewpoint, and no one is doing anything about it. If the evaluation is sound, is that not a legitimate concern? I am not sure what the point of policies preventing harassment or ad hominem are if being upset is a criteria to exclude you from saying you are feeling harassed or being attacked personally. I would think being upset, at least briefly, is a direct result. As you can see though, I have cooled down. Where can I take these concerns? To the RFC page?

I also never cited WP:COI as Midday claims I did. I merely mentioned that a conflict of interest is a way to judge bias. I have seen administrators decide that a page was biased for taking the description almost directly off of a coroporate website, for example. I am pretty sure that is against some policy. Middayexpress also did not change the substance of the economy section. He merely added statistics solely supporting the point of view that was already in place, and changed the citations that I criticized as biased. In one case, he did not even change the wording, but just removed sources. I specifically stated that the exclusion of the fact that Somalia was impoverished did not reflect most reliable sources, and it was not NPOV. He did not address that concern. He did not debunk. What he did was change the sources on the page, and deny every source that said Somalia was impoverished. He would not even discuss them, eventually. He would just get a new source, and refuse to acknowledge the other source. I would also like to mention that none of the changes he has made have been consensus. All have been unilateral action. Nikurasu (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried to discuss it on the article page? If you have done, and there are just two parties involved in the discussion then request a third opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There have actually been about 5 or 6 people participating in this discussion, but Middayexpress has scared every single one away aside from me with intimidation, filibustering, and harassment. At the moment, only he or she and I are left. To be totally clear though, I came in after those people had left, and one came back (albeit briefly) to state that he or she would not continue the discussion. I could request a third opinion, but there already is a third opinion. Midday is essentially just ruling the page with his unchecked inappropriate behavior.Nikurasu (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, all of those previous discussions on that talk page pertain to earlier versions of the article, not to the present. The page has been majorly rewritten since then; this is something I have repeatedly pointed out too. Middayexpress (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

So many factual untruths. For starters, the user indicates that the Central Bank of Somalia (or "they" in his words) "do not want people to know" that the Somali economy is apparently "impoverished". This is rather interesting, since the Central Bank itself voluntarily cites Somalia's GDP per capita as well as the percentage of the population that lives on less than a dollar a day -- both of which I've in turn cited in the Wikipedia article (also note that the GDP per capita that the Central Bank cites is actually lower than that reported by the CIA, odd for an apparently self-serving institution). Contrary to what has been suggested, the British Chambers of Commerce likewise does not in any way contradict what the Central Bank of Somalia asserts; it actually summarizes the economy as follows: "Despite the absence of a state structure, many sectors are operating successfully and entrepreneurs are making good in Somalia". Furthermore, the World Bank source that the user alludes to is a very old one, which is why I removed it in the first place as I already explained to that user. It describes the state of the economy from over seven years ago, not the present. The "scarcity of capital" it alludes to caused by the "absence of any formal banking" sector, for starters, is a thing of the past. The Central Bank of Somalia was of course recently re-opened by the Transitional Federal Government that was established in 2004 (also after the report was both prepared and published), and as the CBS itself points out [13], money transfer operators have acted as informal banking networks: "Besides the outright cash transactions, the payment system in the country is fairly advanced despite the absence of a Central Monetary Authority over the past fifteen years of civil war; thanks to the investments in telecommunications network by the private sector that have enabled operations of private remittance companies to make both local and international monetary transactions possible". Many of these money transfer operators are even "expected to seek for licenses so as to graduate into full fledged commercial banks in the near future and thereby broaden the scope of payments system in the country to include cheques which will reinforce effectiveness of use of monetary policy in the macroeconomic management." As for the user's claim that he "never criticized" that British Chambers of Commerce source that I added to the article, even if it were true (it likely isn't since his very next edit after I had added material from that source and the Central Bank was to indicate that they represented "fringe viewpoints" [14]), it still doesn't make it or what it asserts any less reliable. Lastly, I never indicated that he "never cited WP:COI", as the user falsely claims. As can clearly be seen in my comments above, I said that the "user specifically claimed that it's a conflict of interest issue". And of course, the relevant policy for that is WP:COI, which only pertains to editors, not to sources. Middayexpress (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right, you did add that to the article. I no longer have any dispute. Thank you. I apologize for being so aggressive.Nikurasu (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. We all make mistakes. Middayexpress (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:No footnotes

This is not directly about what is a reliable source, but rather where in an article a reliable source may be considered to be cited.

There is a proposal to alter the Template:No footnotes from

• This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations.

to

• This article includes a list of references,related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations.

The request was initially made back December 2009 in Template talk:No footnotes#Clarification. I made a bold edit to remove "related reading or external links," but it was reversed.

The conversation is split over two talk pages and a user's talk page

• Template talk:No footnotes#Clarification
• User talk:Jeepday#Template:no footnotes (User:Jeepday quoted the project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles the wording of which has since been changed).
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced articles#If the article has even one reference or external link

It would be most useful if people who regularly contribute to this talk page were to discuss on Template talk:No footnotes#Clarification whether the string "related reading or external links," should or should not be removed from the template. -- PBS (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Danielle R. Sassoon, The Unmaking of U.N. Resolution 242

The Security Council Resolution 242 article contains a subsection, about a common law maxim "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" which is sourced to Danielle R. Sassoon, "The Unmaking of U.N. Resolution 242: The Story of how Resolution 242 was Undone Before it was Even Finished", New Society, Harvard College Student Middle East Journal, September 7, 2007.[15]

The author was an undergraduate (class of 2008) majoring in history and literature. The article was posted to the student blog by the founding editor of the "New Society, Harvard College Student Middle East Journal", Julia Bertelsmann, a junior at Harvard College studying Economics.[16] I think the article gives undue weight to the legal opinions of an author with no apparent qualifications.

Sassoon says "The legal principle “expression unis et exclusion alterus” affirms that excluded terms must be understood as deliberately excluded and the document’s interpretation must be tailored correspondingly." She cites an Abba Eban quote from Sydney Bailey, The Making of Resolution 242. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1985. page 155. Neither Bailey nor Eban mention the common law maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius". Many UN member states do not have legal systems that incorporate the maxims of English common law. In addition, many legal scholars have written that the inclusion of explicit clauses about the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war, and the requirement for respect of territorial integrity and sovereignty of every state in the area demonstrates that the Security Council did not intend to create loopholes in the norms of international law for Israel's benefit. See The Impact of Peremptory Norms on the Interpretation and Application of United Nations Security Council Resolutions', by Alexander Orakhelashvili, The European Journal of International Law Vol. 16 no.1 [17]

Sassoon incorrectly claims "the condemnation of territorial acquisition is confined to and separated in the preamble, detached from the actual outline of principles for a negotiation." The official 'Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council' [18] contains an analytical table of Security Council decisions (Chapter 8) for 1966-1968 which explicitly states that the preamble of resolution 242 contains several substantial measures that govern the settlement. See for example "IV Measures for Settlement" - "E. Provisions bearing on issues of substance including terms of settlement" - "1. Enunciation or affirmation of principles governing settlement" - "(a) Inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war, Situation in the Middle East(II): decision of 22 November 1967 (resolution 242 (1967)) preamble", on page 5, column 2:[19]

Sassoon argues that the French version of the resolution is not authoritative: "As the official document, the English text holds the authority, but the French and Soviets maintained otherwise." In fact, US Secretary of State Rusk and UK Foreign Minister Brown both stated the French version was equally authentic and legitimate. Brown said that he had discussed that issue with the Israeli government, and that they were aware of it. See Rusk "As I Saw It", Dean and Richard Rusk, W.W. Norton, 1990, ISBN 0393026507, page 389; and Palestine and the law: guidelines for the resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict, by Musa E. Mazzawi, Ithaca Press, 1997, ISBN: 0863722229, page 209 [20]

Sassoon argues that the omission of the definite article in the English version makes the intention clear and that Ambassador Goldberg's remarks to the Security Council on 7 November 1967 confirm that fact. However, Goldberg was instructed on 9 November 1967 to make a statement to the Security Council on behalf of the US government that the text of the resolution would not prejudice the position of those directly concerned, See the verbatim minutes of the Security Council, para 190, page 22: [21] and Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, Document 521, para 5 & 6 [22] harlan (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a RS to me - I would remove it myself but that would then involve me with batshit crazy I/P mentalists and I try and avoid that at all costs. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a blog post by an undergrad can be considered an RS for something as contentious as an opinion on international law relating to I/P. --FormerIP (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree it is most likely not an RS, she is not qualified in the field. However, the sources she cites may or may not be useful. Agree with CS, I also avoid the area having been burned by it years ago. I take it we are talking about the bit in Res 242 calling on Israel to withdraw from "territories" rather than "the territories" in question?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The source that Sassoon cited is Sydney Bailey's book on resolution 242. It does not mention the legal maxim "expression unis et exclusion alterus". harlan (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• unreliable source. An unqualified undergraduates opinion? Under no circumstances. If this was some eminent legal scholar, you might use this sort of thing for their opinion (this would be a highly controversial and unconventional claim, but again, if they were a somebody you might mention their view), but as it is it's a nobody. A whole argument hinging on the absence of "the?" Bali ultimate (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Not usable IMO, wp:irs says that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable 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" and a Sassoon probably doesn't come even near to qualifying as such a person. --Dailycare (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

LIterateur.com (Interviews with authors)

The online literary magazine Literateur publishes interviews with poets, novelists, etc. containing biographical material that is often not available elsewhere. As per WP:IRS, it seems to me that these interviews would be an acceptable external link or reference for author biographies in Wikipedia as long as (quoting here from the policy)

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

In the course of an editorial dispute resulting from the publisher of Literateur adding links to some interviews, later links made from other accounts were dismissed as spam and the site listed for blacklisting.

To quote one contribution to the discussion there, "This might meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. Even then, I think any decision to use an interview from such a site should be only made by trusted, established, neutral editors after a talk page discussion as to how that source uniquely benefits the article in providing information not otherwise available." I feel that such a requirement presents an unnecessarily high hurdle. I would prefer to see "trusted, established, neutral editors" discuss the matter here, and reach a decision. The following thread also references this source: [23] Questionic (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's unhelpful to advocate for a site that has been spammed into Wikipedia. I have given the person who is promoting the site some good advice at WP:ELN#I am not Pohick2! (take a break, do some other editing, approach a WikiProject, proceed slowly). It would be better for Wikipedia if other editors were to support that advice because it is disruptive when someone arrives and does almost nothing other than to add links in multiple articles to one website. Actually, it was two registered users and eight IP addresses who added links (see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#literateur.com). Suppose you are correct, and the site is great, and should be linked from multiple articles. The best strategy is still what I outlined above. There is no deadline and we do not need these links added urgently. Even giving it a rest for a week, then starting slowly, with discussion on an appropriate subject talk page, would suffice. There is no need to ram it through. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the appropriate place to seek the opinion of experienced editors about interviews published by the site literateur.com. Looking back at the history of this dispute, it was on April 1, 2010 that Youngpossum complained that all links to Literateur.com, whether posted by himself or by some other person, were being systematically hunted down and deleted as spam by one editor. The fact that over a period of at least 5 months, 2 other registered users and 8 IP addresses who are presumably not experienced editors tried to add links to the magazine -- is that the threshold for declaring a spam attack, worthy of blacklisting the site? I agree that spamlinks are disruptive and am grateful that admins work hard to block them. If the Encyclopedia Britannica had first been linked to inexperienced enthusiasts, would that make it "a site that has been spammed into Wikipedia"? The issue of which sites are good sources of information should be entirely separate from the strategy of educating or punishing newbies who have violated Wikipedia policy. Questionic (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

First, my bona fides: I have no connection to Literateur.com and only marginal interest in James S. Shapiro. I'm also an opponent of spam and self-promotion. But when I read the Literateur.com interview posted at Shapiro's article, I liked it. It is quality work. It seems unreasonable to me that an interview that might have been published in a major print journal should be disallowed just because of the way it got to Wikipedia.--John Foxe (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources mentioning fan-created content for video-game

I know the headline is confusing, but hear me out. I primarily edit video-game articles on Wikipedia, and I've found that a lot of the articles contain info about "unofficial" content, whether it's unofficial patches or "mods". Most of the time, such content has not received any coverage in by independent, reliable sources, while some do, but in a way that I'm unsure about, like the article Precursors. This link [www.gamebanshee.com/news/99349-the-precursors-and-white-gold-war-in-paradise-english-translation-patches.html] was used to support keeping mention of a translation patch in the article, and I see three problems here: The editor who added mention of the patch, is the patch's creator. The next one is the most important: The source, GameBanshee, has been listed as reliable, but the article was written about a week ago, and says that the creator contacted them. Having had disputes with the same guy on other pages about similar patches he has produced and added mention of to other articles, I'd say that disqualifies the source because he himself contacted them to get attention for the patch, and, most probably, to get a chance to re-add the patch with a reliable source. Am I off-base when I think this is a violation of WP:SPS? I don't think that's fair play when you cite a reliable source that you yourself contacted to get your content listed/noticed, in connection with a content dispute. This might seem awfully specific for this section, but this is a situation that I find myself in often when I clean up video-game articles, and that's why I'm drawing on this particular example: I need to know if coverage similar to the article above -- very short article with mostly info from the patch/creator -- acceptable? And does it make a difference if the author of the content is shown as having contacted the site/source? Another example of what I mean can be found here[24], and [25]. These are sources that are currently being discussed in the Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines, and I'd like to get some feedback on these kinds of sources -- short mentions in reliable sources, often instigated by the authors themselves. I'm gonna run into this situation again, so I need to clear this up first. Sorry if this was written in a confusing way, but it is a confusing issue. Eik Corell (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Eik Corell: What makes you think that gamebanshee.com is a reliable source? It looks like a fan site to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

World (magazine)

Is the Christian news publication World (magazine) a reliable sources for reporting facts about another Christian publication, Sojourners? It reported on issues of the funding of Sojourners by outside groups. An editor has challenged its reliable source status. Drrll (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I just did a quick-check and it wasn't so much a general RS check on World as on the particular use. The editor here seems to concerned with the use of an opinion piece as a reliable source for funding, and I'd have to say I'm inclined to agree. Perhaps there are better sources for that information? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I could use other sources, but as far as I know, it was World that first reported this information in the opinion piece, and my understanding of WP:RS is that opinion pieces can be used as long as there is attribution to the author of the piece. Drrll (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you're using the source as proof that Sojourners accepted the money, which goes beyond the exception carved out in WP:RS#Statements of opinion. Also, we don't worry about who published something first--if there's another, reliable source, that source should be cited instead. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The language in WP:RS#Statements of opinion seems to clearly allow use of opinion pieces for statements of fact, as long as there is proper attribution:

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author.

Drrll (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Reread the sentence you just quoted, concentrating on not for statements of fact without attribution. If an op-ed column attributes the statement of fact, go look at their source; if they don't, it's bloviation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

So the "attribution" refers to others sources, and not "attribution" to the author of the opinion piece? Drrll (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, to the sources the op-ed uses; if we meant to distinguish anonymous op-eds (which are extremely rare) we would have said so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ghanaians in the United Kingdom

Over at Ghanaians in the United Kingdom, this book is being used as a source for a statement that there are 1.5 million Ghanaians in the UK, according to the Ghanaian High Commission in London. That's a very high figure. The Office for National Statistics estimates that there are 93,000 Ghanaian-born people in the UK, and the total number of black Africans in the 2001 census was only 485,277. Moreover, the source states that there may be 850,000 Ghanaians in London alone. If this were true, they'd make up 10 per cent of the capital's population. I'm a bit suspicious of these figures, to say the least. It seems odd to me that the source states "estimates suggest that the number of Ghanaians who are officially registered with the Ghana High Commission...". Surely this isn't something that would be estimated? People are either registered or not, so no estimate needs to be made. What are people's thoughts on this? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Larry, we should take care to represent official figures and if they are disputed then possibly comment about them with attribution but a excessive figure that sits in isolation is undue to report. Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the book's estimate could be mentioned in a footnote or something (because it's from a seemingly reliable source), but it seems implausible and probably inaccurate nonetheless. According to Black British, there are only about 1.5 million Black British people total, and surely not every single one of them is Ghanaian. I agree that "estimating" the number of officially registered people doesn't make sense. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Internet Movie Firearms Database

Is the imfdb considered a reliable source? My guess is that it is not, considering that it is a Wiki, with entirely user-generated content. I removed it from the external links of a film article, and wanted to get some opinions from other editors about its appropriateness. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Since this was in the external links section and wasn't being used to reference material, the designation of being a "reliable source" doesn't really matter. WP:EL applies instead of WP:RS. I do agree with the removal since the link was to an open wiki and (at least in my opinion) contains an objectionable amount of copyright violations (unless they have permission to host all of those screenshots). ThemFromSpace 01:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

External links have their own criteria. The one that applies here is WP:ELNO:12 which states "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." So the only consideration is whether the IMFDb fulfils those criteria for inclusion. Personally I don't have a clue. Maybe the best way to look at it is to consider whether the link leads to something that is informative and could enhance the reader's understanding of the article topic. Betty Logan (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe it would "enhance the reader's understanding of the article topic." What it amounts to, it seems to me, is a great deal of speculation and original research (I just took some time and perused the site and their standard for inclusion are very low) on the part of movie fans. It's interesting, perhaps, but is one's understanding of the film enhanced by knowing what sort of pistol Al Pacino was carrying? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess it would depend on what you want out of your movie experience. Some people do like that sort of minutiae. However I picked a few articles at random and none of them are sourced, so I'm not sure how useful it really is. This probably isn't a very helpful comment, sorry about that. I guess given the lack of sourcing I would place it somewhere in the same camp with a fan site or fan blog. — e. ripley\^talk 02:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR does not apply. It would be a case by case basis thing. What's the article, and what's the link. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Also, there's a difference between maximal fair use (which we don't allow), and copy vios (which we can't even link to). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The page is Heat (1995 film), the site is http://www.imfdb.org/index.php?title=Heat, one of the edits in question is [26]. I'd say it looks beyond fair use to me. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That's probably not appropriate to link to, but you'd be surprised how many screenshots you can use if you comment on each one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

imfdb.org has existed since May of 2007, the main page of which has over 6.5 million hits, and has in excess of 1,700 named movie articles, as well as 900 individual weapons articles, contributed to by over 900 editors. I am not even a registered user there - but as a firearms enthusiast - it is very well known in the community as the go-to place for cross-referencing weapons and tv/cinema. It is clearly obvious that the site is quite significant and with valid substance. While being far from complete - it is of course growing, and might I remind you all that WP started small once - with even fewer articles and editors - and is just as open of a wiki. Just because it isn't WP doesn't mean it isn't a valid resource. The fact that it is using screenshots in violation of copyright is inconsequential to WP, and is far from the first sourced site to do so. Just my $.02 Srobak (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

My main problem is that it seems almost completely unsourced. As such there's no way to check their work, so to speak. — e. ripley\^talk 18:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Screenshots of the actual weapons from footage would serve as a pretty good source, no? There are enough contributors who are very well versed in the weapons listed that it would be corrected or edited as needed - much like how WP is. Besides - it is the first real resource of it's kind, short of the WP List of Firearms which can also be used to verify particular firearms themselves, but lacks any cross with film or tv. Sorry - I just don't think it is exactly fair to discount something like this as a frame of reference just because it has never been done before. Another resource of this nature simply does not exist - and if it did it would be the result of the exact same methodology. There simply are no other resources to cite other than your very own eyes. It is obviously the work of some very dedicated individuals who do see a need for something like this, and honestly functions very much in the same fashion as the IMDB - 99% of which refers to itself for its references - yet is sourced very frequently here on WP. Other resources like IMDB and WP exist due to the very same roots. Srobak (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think screenshots are acceptable as a source. Wikipedians aren't sources for anything, and unless you're some sort of recognized firearms expert, I don't see why I or you or anybody else here should be relied upon to give their opinions based on their viewing a photograph of a gun. Just because something else doesn't exist, doesn't make what does exist a WP:RS. Also, IMDB often is not considered a particularly good source, so that's not such a good comparison for the purposes of supporting your argument. Beyond which, isn't this an open wiki? That disqualifies it on its face, any other arguments aside. It still doesn't pass muster with me, I'm afraid. — e. ripley\^talk 21:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you ran a search on the number of times WP articles cite IMDB articles as sources - you would probably crash the whole darned thing. :) Shall we begin pruning now, or do we want to re-think that point of invalidity? Yes, I'd like a serious answer to that. WP is as much of an open wiki as IMFDB is. Other than clarification on the IMDB thing - I can see we are going to get nowhere on this, and that is truly disappointing. Who is anyone here as individuals or a collective to invalidate the work of someone else or another group of people whose mission and goal is the same as that of WP? Srobak (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This is all really irrelevant, since as an open wiki it's not considered a WP:RS. Incidentally, Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source, either. — e. ripley\^talk 21:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for not answering. I'll start pruning IMDB links and refs immediately, citing your statement for foundation. Thanks! Srobak (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have answered; this is not a reliable source. Please don't put words in my mouth (though I have no love for IMDB as a source on a personal level). If you want a consensus answer about imdb as a source, search the reliable sources noticeboard archives (here's the last discussion about it [27] although it's by no means the only one). Also, don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. — e. ripley\^talk 19:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not making a point, no one is putting words in your mouth (your exact words are cited), and it is no more of a disruption than removing IMFDB is from articles. It's called applying equal logic. If support for an argument works in one case with certain criteria, then it works in another case which has the same or similar criteria. Bending arguments to suit needs is counter-intuitive and counter-productive to the WP mission. The same logic that applies to that archived consensus for IMDB applies for IMFDB. This isn't about having your cake and eating someone else's too. Uniform Logic & Application of Standards is a Good Thing (tm) Srobak (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting info on Koçi Xoxe and Enver Hoxha

Two articles have conflicting info. A guy named Xoxe was executed in Albania by Enver Hoxha and company. In Hoxha's article Xoxe was shot by firing squad. In Xoxe's article he was hanged. Well, which one was it or did they do both to make sure? Special:Contributions/173.67.0.169\173.67.0.169 (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2010

Hagelstein's cold fusion review in Naturwissenschaften

This section was archived by a "bot" before a significant number of opinions (compared to other requests posted on this page) were offered. Given all the controversy at the cold fusion pages, there are not enough opinions here, by far! CAN the article described below be used as a secondary source for various primary sources? V (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The peer reviewed interdisciplinary science journal Naturwissenschaften has published a number of articles on cold fusion over the past five years, some of which are used in that article. However, Hagelstein, P.L. (2010) "Constraints on energetic particles in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment" Naturwissenschaften 97(4):345-52 is the first review they have published on the subject, being based on a search "through more than a thousand papers in the published and unpublished literature on the Fleischmann–Pons experiment to find results we could use to develop estimates for upper limits of particle emission per unit energy" (p. 346; PDF p. 2.)

Is that review a reliable secondary source in the context of the cold fusion article for the following claims, which appear verbatim earlier on the same page:

1. "⁴He has been observed in the gas phase in amounts in proportion with the energy produced"; and
2. "Such a large amount of excess energy produced with commensurate ⁴He as a product can be interpreted as indicative of a new physical process"?

Thank you for considering this question. Ura Ursa (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not a review article, and it does not support cold fusion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Why does it say "REVIEW" across the top of the first page? Ura Ursa (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It does not have the style and format of a review article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a general topical review, but it is a wide-ranging review of particular data which it summarizes. Does that make it any less authoritative as a reliable source for the article? More importantly, why would or wouldn't it count as a secondary source for the two claims excerpted above? Ura Ursa (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is not a review of helium production in such experiments, and it does not evaluate those two claims. But you seem more interested in wikilawyering than in science. Bye. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a decent source, but it's not a review article even if the journal decided to paste "REVIEW" at the top. It's more like a commentary. Fences&Windows 23:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. They went through 1000+ sources tabulating data for summarization. In the process they noted helium correlations, which they reported along with a summarization of their results in a graph. How is that like a commentary? Ura Ursa (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether a source is reliable or not is one thing, but when have editors ever before contradicted a respected, peer-reviewed journal as to whether a paper is a review or not? This whole topic has been the bizarro-world stinking armpit of wikipedia for years. 208.54.14.57 (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I "second" that question. Naturwissenschaften was previously argued-about by anti-CF editors here, that it could not be a Reliable Source journal, just because it dared to publish a cold fusion article or three, among all the other types of articles it publishes. The anti-CF editors lost that particular debate (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cryptic_C62/Cold_fusion#Use_of_Naturwissenschaften_article ), so they have since focussed on whether or not particular articles can qualify as sources for used on the main Cold fusion page. I suspect in this particular case, the anti-CF crowd might have to admit that this new article is a Review, which theoretically means that earlier Naturwissenschaften articles might now be allowed to be mentioned in the main CF page, --but that the anti-CF group will also be able to prevent referring to this new article there, because it itself has not been mentioned by other authors in other articles. And, obviously, if this article can't yet be referenced, then the other articles still can't be referenced! My new Question is, then, how may "layers" of reviews of reviews must the rest of the Wikipedia editors wait for, before any of those primary-reliable-source articles can be referenced???? V (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, good point. So let me add another question here:

3. Whether or not it is a review, is it a secondary source for the purposes of including the primary sources it discusses in the cold fusion article? Ura Ursa (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a secondary source published by a reliable publishing house (Springer Verlag). It's not necessary to clarify whether the article is a review or not. In addition, any original thought in this paper may be used as an expert opinion, but this is a different matter that should be discussed separately from the question of whether the source can be used to present the papers and positions it is presenting.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

??? What could be the problem? If it is a secondary source that references various primary Reliable Sources, then what in Wikipedia's rules could possibly prevent those primary sources from being referenced in the cold fusion article? V (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Should this be moved to the cold fusion talk page? It looks like it's about to be archived here. Ura Ursa (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think no. THIS is the place where the Question posed is most appropriate, to await an Answer. (oops, wasn't logged in) V (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there is a lull in the conversation, I will have a go at saying something. I have never edited (and scarcely looked at) CF articles. The article reads to me like a research paper. Its Introduction is by way of a review of the current state of the art (as is normal in research papers). In part Hagelstein analyses observations gleaned from other papers and so this lends a broad scope to his paper. The claims numbered 1 and 2 Ura Ursa quotes result from only four papers, one by Hagelstein himself. To me this provides rather a weak review of only speculative claims. In claim 2 “can be interpreted” seems to mean “it is possible for it to be interpreted” rather than “is to be interpreted”. The main conclusion of the paper, which is not by way of review, I take as being that any ⁴He does not seem to be coming from alpha particles produced by nuclear fusion: “Efforts to account for excess energy in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment based on models that involve energetic particles are unlikely to be successful in light of the upper limits discussed here”. So, the “new physical process” in claim 2, Hagelstein suggests, is not a process of cold fusion involving energetic particles.

I feel it would unbalanced to report the (secondary) two claims without reporting the (primary) conclusion and to report the latter would be premature. I do not know why the paper is labelled “review” and to me it does not matter either way. The thousand papers part is irrelevant. Hagelstein merely says he surveyed these papers to find which ones had observations enabling him to make his analysis and reach his conclusions.

In answer to question 3, I think the paper is a secondary source for the two claims but that things would need to be put in a clear context, particularly bearing in mind the paper’s conclusion. This makes the whole matter very abstruse and difficult to convey succinctly. So, as an editorial decision, I would not put any of this into the CF article. However, I would not a priori preclude the two claims quoted on grounds of WP:V, etc.

I hope this helps (though I fear it may not!). Thincat (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I must confess that the copy of the article that I have been able to obtain is corrupted or something --can't open it on my local system. So I have not been able to determine if this Hagelstein paper contains references to an approximate replication of Arata's experiment (involving pressurized deuterium and not electrolysis) that was published in Physics Letters A last year --we've been waiting for a secondary source for that --or if it references certain SPAWAR "co-deposition" electrolysis experiments that were also published in Naturwissenschaften (we've been waiting for a secondary source for those, also!). V (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Try [28] but I think the answer is "no". Thincat (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I ran into a paywall...and my funds are tight right now. V (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone else here find out if this Hagelstein article references the RS primary publications that I mentioned three paragraphs above? Thanks! V (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to also point out that the "review" article under discussion here appears to mention a number of experiments that detected X-rays. This could be very important! If X-rays have indeed been detected, then despite the fact that they are not the desired gamma rays that hot-fusion physicists have claimed should be produced, they are still something more than ANY ordinary chemical reaction can produce. Nor can any ordinary electrochemical cell, running at just a few Volts, generate X-rays, either. Something really unusual would have to be happening in those experiments, if X-rays have been undeniably detected. 208.103.154.105 (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

SpikeTV and Asia Carrera

Is this source reliable for this birth information? Another editor has opined that it is not, and that it may have simply gotten that info from Wikipedia itself. Nightscream (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking blogs aren't reliable sources of information. Especially not for living people. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you consider pro-football-reference.com reliable?

I'm considering bringing an NFL article to FA, and many of the existing cites are to Pro-Football-Reference.com. Here is a link to the "about" page.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt: Yes, I would consider Pro-Football-Reference.com a reliable source. This site is operated by Sports Reference which has been previously found to be reliable at WP:RSN.[29][30] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Would this book be ok to use?

[31] for this edit, In their book Climate of Extremes, Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling wrote "For our money the best climate blog out there is Climate Audit" mark nutley (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

For what edit? Looie496 (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

For the edit i proposed above :) now in italics so it`s clearer :) sorry about that mark nutley (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay then, for what article? Might be okay for some, coatrack for others. Looie496 (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry again, it`s for Climate Audit comments and crit section mark nutley (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviews from rpg.net

It has been suggested at Talk:Master_of_Magic#RPG.net that rpg.net site is not a reliable source. User:Jappalang wrote: "rpg.net has nothing to demonstrate its reliability in the Wikipedia sense. It is simply "an independent web site about tabletop roleplaying games" with no editorial policy nor heavy reliance by academic, scholarly, or media sources." I agree with Jappalang second sentence, but I do wonder if this makes the site unreliable? It is a notable website that posts game reviews; in fact our article on the website even has a section dedicated to their reviews :) Sure, it is not peer reviewed, but is it not a valid source of uncontroversial game information? PS. If the consensus is that it is not a reliable source, those links need to be checked. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

SpicyNodes

The creator of this article has asked if the 'notability' tag can be removed, and I'm not sure; they've added lots of references, but most are probably not reliable sources, and e.g. the BBC reference really is the barest of passing mentions; it will take some time to check through, hence asking for input from others here. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  19:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Joshua Project

I think it has been asked already, but I have to ask this question: Is Joshua Project project reliable? It does not seem to be neutral. Can it be used as a source? For example, White Argentine and Kurdish diaspora articles use this project for finding the numbers of particular ethnic groups. Kavas (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been discussed here in the past, but without any definitive conclusion. It is in the website's interest to have as accurate information as possible, and, despite their "mission", they would not have any particular reason to distort the numbers in any way. However, their authoring process, and editorial oversight and controls are unclear to me. I'm having a hard time assessing this one. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sourcewatch

SourceWatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am writing to take issue with the suggestions that our site, SourceWatch, cannot be considered a reliable source for information about corporate PR and front groups and other topics we cover.

• User:Arzel asserts that the site is a "partisan source," which is incorrect. We are a non-partisan not-for-profit organization, and our sites have presented critical information about both major political parties and policies. Arzel also asserts that we are an "open wiki," but we have had professional editors on staff since SourceWatch's founding, unlike Wikipedia, and we have always had a strict referencing policy, unlike Wikipedia until some of its recent changes. We do allow people to volunteer and add content, which does result in some stub articles and other articles that are not complete, it is not fair to suggest that SourceWatch is an open wiki, end of story. Also, while we do have some older articles that do reference wikipedia, the overwhelming majority of the sources that are cited on our site are not Wikipedia.
• Similarly, User:Niteshift36 suggests that SourceWatch cannot be a reliable source based on WP:ELNO#12, "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." But, SourceWatch is one of the oldest wikis and has been a stable site since its founding seven years ago. It is not a mirror or fork of Wikipedia.
• User:Arzel also objects based on our standard disclaimer, which is parallel to Wikipedia's disclaimer. Under this rationale, Wikipedia could never be cited as a source by others. And, as noted above, while there is not fact-checking in the sense of a newspaper site, the fact is that our site unlike Wikipedia has always employed professional editors to try to ensure that our strict referencing policy is followed.
• User:BullRangifer actually libels us by calling us a "hate site," which is baseless and false. We do document extremist groups so that people can understand who is funding them. As User:Squidfryerchef rightly questioned, where is this claim coming from. I object to this spurious statement by BullRangifer. Such a malicious and undocumented claim should certainly not be the basis of any decision by Wikipedian editors.
• User:Richard repeats the assertion that we are an open wiki without any acknowledgment of our long-standing professional editing policy.
• User:BullRangifer claims that we are not a stable site and asserts that SourceWatch is filled with "rants," "libelous material," "unsourced material, etc." In fact, SourceWatch has long had a history of requiring strict referencing, but it is certainly possible for someone like BullRangifer to attempt to malign us based on the exceptions out of the almost 50,000 articles on our site. This is really a smear job. The one article he references includes an example of criticism of the organization at issue. He claims our articles are "more like blogs or social networking sites," another unsupported claim. Here are links to a handful of the tens of thousand articles on our site:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Total_Wall_Street_Bailout_Cost

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_skeptics/common_claims_and_rebuttal

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Carbon_Capture_and_Storage_%28CCS%29

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_United

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sewage_sludge

I'm not sure why BullRangifer has it in for SourceWatch, but claiming that we are a libelous site is simply unsupported by the record (there has never been any such successful suit); that our site is filled with rants--any more than occasionally slip through on Wikipedia before editors catch them and correct them; that our site is filled with unsourced material when we had a stricter sourcing protocol than Wikipedia for years; that our articles are more like "blogs," which is not the case and in fact our PRWatch site is where our blogs are posted, not SourceWatch (although we do link to some of them on our front page); and that our articles are like a social networking site, another ridiculous baseless claim.

• Similarly, User:Jayjg suggests that as a wiki SourceWatch should not even be used as an external link, if not as a source again as a "open wiki." But, SourceWatch has nearly a dozen long-term active editors, including a paid staff of six paid editors.

I hope those who are actually unbiased, unlike BullRangifer, will re-consider his claims and the unfair maligning of our site. LisaFromSourceWatch (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Lisa Graves, Executive Director of the Center for Media and Democracy, publisher of SourceWatch.org, PRWatch.org, and BanksterUSA.org

LisaFromSourceWatch, the simple fact is that sourcewatch fails wp:rs as it is an open wiki, wikipedia also fails as a reliable source here, so it`s not just your place :) mark nutley (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, please do not blank/hat my comments. All the other sites listed have their comments and discussion intact. We do not fail the tests as a reliable source--we are a stable, professionally edited wiki. Readers of this section are entitled to hear a different point of view than your declaration.LisaFromSourceWatch (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, it is not appropriate to hide comments in an attempt to forestall discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! LisaFromSourceWatch (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• - Hi Lisa, although for the most part SourceWatch is as such not a WP RS as this wikipedia is not either there are presently 1711 links to your website from here, so it is clearly not so cut and dried as some comments may make out. I do think people should not demean your site but it clearly has only limited use as a WP:RS to support content here, just as we do not use or claim that this site is a reliable source either. Off2riorob (talk)

Thank you for your detailed response. Much appreciated! LisaFromSourceWatch (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Lisa -- I think that SourceWatch is an excellent site and a useful resource, and I think many people here would agree. But it does not classify as a reliable source under Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines in WP:RS, so it cannot be used to back assertions in the text of Wikipedia articles. However, what you could do is use the sources from sourcewatch that do meet the criteria for WP:RS and use those to back the assertions in Wikipedia articles. Many of the articles on SourceWatch are very well researched and are backed by reliable sources. All you would need to do is take the information from the SourceWatch article, and include it in the Wikipedia article, citing the source you used to back the assertion in the SourceWatch article (rather than citing the SourceWatch article itself). SourceWatch is a great place to learn about things, and is a very useful research tool for finding reliable sources, but it is not a reliable source itself for the same reasons that we can't cite other Wikipedia articles as sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this helpful advice! I appreciate it. By the way, we have just added some new original material from one of our FOIA requests on the sludge issue, here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SFPUC_Sludge_Controversy_Timeline LisaFromSourceWatch (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely, in fact I was in the midst of composing a comment that said exactly the same thing when I saw yours. Dlabtot (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Dlabtot!! LisaFromSourceWatch (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As an open wiki, SourceWatch quite obviously fails WP:RS, just as all open wikis (e.g. Conservapedia do). Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you actually read Lisa's post? Whether the entire site is an "open wiki" is unclear. And comparing the site to Conservapedia is not particularly helpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. Lisa didn't dispute that it was an open wiki, she just claimed that it had paid editorial staff. Why is comparing it to Conservapedia "not particularly helpful"? Conservapedia is under pretty strict "editorial control". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg my reading is like Boris' that Lisa is saying that she thinks the term open wiki is not consistent with having editorial control. She does seem to be disputing that Sourcewatch is an "open wiki".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

What does "open wiki" have to do with the "editorial control"? They are unrelated concepts. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if I read the discussion so far this is something not everyone seems to agree on. Indeed you seem to be the only one saying this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Where have others said that "editorial control" precludes something being an "open wiki"? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Lisa wrote, for example, "asserts that we are an "open wiki," but we have had professional editors on staff" and "repeats the assertion that we are an open wiki without any acknowledgment of our long-standing professional editing policy", etc. I can not read sentences like that and then agree that she does not dispute what you are saying she does not dispute. I just wanted to point out that you seem to have misread her.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, it's unclear what that means; "but" in this case may mean "but we are not a open wiki because we have had professional editors etc." or it may mean "but the fact that we are an open wiki is countered by the fact that we have had professional editors etc." We'll never know now what Lisa actually meant, since any response she would make would be colored by knowledge of this conversation. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We'll never know? Hmmm. Looked quite clear to me, and apparently Boris read it the same way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Lisa, the important point is whether your staff exerts editorial control over the material that appears on it. Wikipedia's criteria require that any source have editorial mechanisms in place for fact-checking and accuracy. It's not entirely clear, but your comments suggest that some parts of your site are under editorial control while others are not. Is that the case? If so, then it may be that some aspects of SourceWatch are citeable here but not others. Could you point out which parts of the site are under editorial control and which are not? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are also under some sort of "editorial control". Wikipedia has editorial policies, standards, reviewers, etc. It still doesn't make Wikipedia a WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:BURO. WP does not have what most people would call editorial control. All Wikipedians are potential editors, and potential contributors to policy discussion, whereas "editorial control" implies a management hierarchy over normal editing as such.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrew! Articles related to our various portals are those we have managed closely or written with our staff or partners. Examples include articles that are in the following subject areas: Climate, Coal, Water/Fracking, Sludge, Economic/Financial Crisis issues, Corporate Rights, Tobacco, Global Corporations, Nuclear issues, and Congresspedia as well as those relating to PR and spin. The articles associated with those topics probably represent the bulk of the articles on our site. LisaFromSourceWatch (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Lisa, I am not taking a position, but taking the question of Boris further, if we assume there is a part of Sourcewatch which has editorial control, this does not end the discussion. I think two questions come up next:-

• Would it be clear to anyone trying to verify a citation of Sourcewatch, whether a particular part was under editorial control or not?
• Not all editorial policies are taken equally seriously in the world, and so having one does not guarantee that a source is reliable according to WP policy. It would make the case much stronger if you could show that Sourcewatch is frequently cited by sources which are themselves strong ones.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BURO is irrelevant to whether or not Wikipedia has editorial controls. And, as pointed out, other wikis, such as Conservapedia, have very tight, top-down editorial controls, but are also not considered reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg. The relevance is, I think, that WP:BURO means any attempt to create what most people would call editorial control would actually be against basic WP policy. Sorry if I misunderstood your intentions, but that seemed relevant to your claim that Wikipedia has editorial control? Concerning Conservapedia I am not familiar with the case but I am interested. Is there a specific policy or RS/N I can read about them?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Editorial control" and "bureaucracy" are not synonyms. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone equated those two terms? "X is not equal to Y" does not mean "X is irrelevant to Y"? Concerning Conservapedia, I understood you to be saying that there is a community consensus on some issue which is pertinent here? Can you give a diff or url?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, lots of things are relevant to lots of others, but WP:BURO in no way precludes Wikipedia having "editorial control" of its articles. As for Conservapedia, what kind of "community consensus" are you talking about? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BURO definitely does preclude what most people would describe as editorial control. You just have to read it. It is not between the lines. I can imagine it might be possible to argue it allows something like editorial control, that some people might even choose to call editorial control, but I think that is really stretching things. Concerning Conservapedia, you seemed to be referring to something. You've mentioned it several times as if relevant. I'm just asking what the relevance is. I'm interested to understand what you're saying.-Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As "it is not between the lines", perhaps you can quote what you think are the relevant sentences of WP:BURO that refer to "editorial control". Conservapedia is an example of an open-wiki that is not considered a reliable source, yet it has tight editorial control. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is obvious that Wikipedia policy precludes what most people would call editorial control. If you really can't see that right now, then honestly I am not sure how to explain it, and maybe that is just going too far from the subject anyway. Concerning Conservapedia, you are saying it is a similar case and that there is a clear WP precedent, which I suppose must be something you can you give a diff or url for?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, you said "it is not between the lines", so quote the lines. "it is obvious" won't do. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, just for example, "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus." Of course I could cite similar lines from policies other than WP:BURO. But basically anyone can edit and anyone can contribute to the consensus which controls that editing. Editorial "control" is only based on WP:CONSENSUS. The controllers are the controlled. The term "editorial control" seems to me to normally imply a distinction between controlled writers and controlling editors. Does that make sense? I am still unsure what your point was about Conservapedia though, and I see you've stopped answering. As far as I can see that citation of a parallel with Conservapedia was your main point, so it seemed important.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Sourcewatch could be an external link - that person Niteshift36 is just plain wrong on that one. But it's not a "reliable source" because it is an open wiki. I have an account at Sourcewatch and I have openly edited it. If it were to be cited, one would have to be careful to cite a particular version of it. Anyone, Sourcewatch usually has sources - why not use the sources inside of it? I'm sorry about the vitriol that's been directed at it - this probably has to do with rather conservative Wikipedia editors. II | (t - c) 19:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Where is it in a guideline that open wikis are good as external links, I don't think so. Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't much care about external links in this instance, but it's clearly not a reliable source (it's anyone can edit, or close enough as to make no difference).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

ELNO - Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors - personally I wouldn't accept any open wiki as an external and would dispute that any such site could have a substantial history of stability - this wikipedia could not claim that and I don't think any open wikipedia could. Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that User:Off2riorob went ahead and changed WP:ELNO to reflect his thoughts (diff), which I reverted. Not saying it's bad to be aggressive, but there's little chance I would accept this change - wikis are an increasingly important source of very well-organized information, whether we're talking about science, video games, politics, or whatever else, and we routinely encourage people to visit other wikis to find more detailed information which is arguably too detailed here (particularly for fictional worlds). II | (t - c) 20:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• We should use Sourcewatch as a helpful resource for finding reliable sources, but should not generally use it as a reliable source itself. It is an open-wiki, and is clearly not considered a reliable source per WP:RS. However, if there is (a) a clear way to distinguish certain parts that have high-quality editorial control by notable experts, from "anyone can edit" parts, and (b) the page is used as a source or considered reliable by other reliable sources, then the editorially controlled parts could possibly be used in some cases as a reliable source, depending on context. For now, the best route in most cases will be to scavenge reliable sources from the Sourcewatch article, and then cite them directly as sources in the Wikipedia articles. The citations directly to Sourcewatch should probably be removed or relocated to the "External links" section. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletion nominations of Transformers

There is a mass nomination of Transformer related articles such as Buzzsaw (Transformers), Alice (Transformers) and a few others. My concern is some article use websites such as [32] and [33] as third person sources. Surely these websites aren't considered reliable or independent sources of information are or they not is the question. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard William Hunt

This article (not a BLP, the subject died in 1979) has been flagged for notability. The only source used in it is http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2001/hunt-autobio.html, which is the autobiography of the subject's son, Nobel Prize winner Tim Hunt. Would that count as a reliable source given the author's reputation, or does WP:NOTINHERITED still apply regardless? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if he did not win the nobel i don`t see how he can claim notability for it :) I`d have to say no mark nutley (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In the end, the issue became moot, as additional references were added by someone presumably alerted by this very thread. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Swedish language source

I want to use this Swedish language source on the List of best selling music artists article. The source which is on Norrköpings Tidningar's (newspaper) website states Roxette has sold 60m records. How reliable is this source ? thanks. Mattg82 (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Mattg82: Yes, Norrköpings Tidningar appears to be a daily newspaper with editorial oversight. Unless there is some reason to believe that 60 million records sold is wrong, I don't see a problem using this source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Roxette - I wouldn't use it on its own to present the figure as if fact. As I have seen it most of the record sales figures are estimates, informed guess and promotional exaggerations . Off2riorob (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

After reading Off2riorob's comment and taking a closer look at List of best selling music artists, I see now that the article's criteria requires multiple third-party reliable sources and notes that sales figures are frequently inflated by record companies for promotional purposes. It looks like you'll need stronger sourcing that this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A second Swedish source from Göteborgs-Posten (another newspaper) which also says 60m. Roxette is already on the list with 70m but that seems like a figure that is used for promotional purposes. I wanted to add on a more realistic total. Mattg82 (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

weeklywire.com

This magazine is now defunct but is used as a source in the lede here Old Souls. It is a review of the book [34] and appears to me to be ok, but one user has tagged it so we need a consensus on it`s reliability mark nutley (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley: I'm not familiar with weeklywire.com, but I don't see any evidence of any editorial oversight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The article in question seems to have been taken originally from the Weekly Alibi (you can see this if you find the navigation page linking to the article [35]), so I think there is a case for saying it is an RS. The question is whether we can take this at face value - but I don't know which way to call that. --FormerIP (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times and The New Yorker magazine as sources in a WP:BLP

Would the following two articles be reliable sources in a WP:BLP article of an American individual about his connections to American political groups?

• An article published in The New York Times on page WK8 (is this the weekly supplement?) by an essayist who became an op-ed columnist at the newspaper in 1994
• An article published in The New Yorker magazine by an investigative journalist who has been a staff writer for the magazine since 1995

What the articles are used to source is the fact that the individual has financed certain organizations. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Not quite true - the use of "coke" as being their name is clearly not supportable, WP has pronunciation guidelines for all of this, and the claim that they have ulterior motives uis also opinion at best, as is almost all of the material being cited here. Including the claim that the American Liberty League was somehow subversive under the control of the evil DuPonts <g>. When face with clearly editorial claims, they do not belong in a BLP. Collect (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The first case, if it is an essay, it is probably only worth including if attributed and identified as an opinion piece (if it is indeed such). The 2nd one would seem to be reliable. -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Petri, is this the edit in question? [36] — e. ripley\^talk 18:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The New Yorker is noted for the rigour of its fact-checking. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As always, if the matter is clearly opinion, WP:BLP requires it be clearly stated as opinion. Also if the claims are contentious, an opinion piece is likely unsuitable at all. Collect (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Opinion pieces should not be used as citations for facts. Dlabtot (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the conventions of the American press. I can only comment based on what I know of the Finnish press.

In Finland any printed journal, tabloid or not, is considered reliable. If a factual inaccuracy was printed of any importance, it would be revoked in a printed correction. The ultimate guardian of factual correctness is the Council for Mass Media in Finland. It would not make any difference if the factual inaccuracy was printed in the news section or in an opinion column.

Some ten years ago a letter in the opinions section of the Finnish tabloid Ilta-Sanomat claimed that my three sister had somehow acquired council flats in downtown Helsinki. In fact all three of them owned their own apartments in the housing cooperatives. The implication was that they had somehow used their influence in Helsinki city politics to get an unfounded benefit. In what may have been a landmark case, the Council decided that the newspaper's responsibility for fact checking even extends to letters from the public. The paper had to print half a page of the Council's damning ruling.

Based on this insight I cannot see what difference it makes in which section of the paper a certain statement of fact is printed. I would believe the fact checking of The New York Times extends equally to news and staff opinions. Let's say for example, that The New York Times printed a statement that John D. Rockefeller, Jr. was the chief financier of the Communist Party of the United States of America. Would it make any difference from the point-of-view reliability if this statement was published in some news article or on the op-ed page in and opinion by a long time editor with critical commentary? On such a major issue I would in fact argue, that op-ed column was more reliable.

The opposition here seems to argue that the American press is not reliable. The New York Times has no established standards for fact checking. The press has the liberty to lie as they please. If they are taken to court, they can always do as Fox News and argue that lying is their First amendment privilege. No other safeguards exist. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The New Yorker piece is a news item from a publication with an excellent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and is clearly BLP-appropriate, subject to conscientious representation of its content. The New York Times piece is essentially an opinion piece, which does not make it categorically inadmissible, but which does mandate a much greater degree of care and circumspection in how it's used. Without specific examples of article text and citations, that's the best I can do with generalities. MastCell ^Talk 20:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

MastCell has it right... and his last point is important ... these are generalities. We are not at this point saying that these sources reliably support the information stated in any specific Wikipedia article. For us to do that, we would need to know more specific information. Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have intentionally left out the context to get uninvolved opinions without political bias. You can replace John D. Rockefeller, Jr. with David H. Koch & brother and the Communist Party of the United States of America with the Tea Party movement. The two sources are these (the New Yorker article appeared first, despite its date):

• Mayer, Jane (August 30, 2010). "Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama". The New Yorker.
• Rich, Frank (August 29, 2010). "The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party". The New York Times: WK8.

Sticking to these two sources is no longer necessary, as according to Google, the story seems to have been repeated "about 328,000 times" (search for Koch "tea party") -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Google hits are not a "reliable source" for any claims at all. Collect (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No source, one source or several independent sources?

I have a general question concerning sources. It relates to a problem with certain page I am dealing with. Here is the situation:

Someone had a conflict with a person and wrote his own book describing the matter. Five years later someone else wrote a book, and paraphrased the info about the conflict using an original book as a reference. So, now we have two books writing about the same situation...

Ten years later someone else wrote another book mentioning the conflict, and used the two previous books for references. So, now we have third book talking about the same event, but quoting the original and second book in footnotes.

My questions is. Do we have three independent sources as a proof of the conflict or do we have one? The first one is written by a person in conflict, so can we say that it is objective reliable source? So, maybe there is none?

I am asking, because such sources are being used to accuse someone, but do we really have a proof? And can subsequent books, which only quote previous ones, be considered independent sources?

If this is a matter in BLP this is serious issue and problem. Not so many editors have time to go around and research every single source for reliability.Spt51 (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific about which books we're talking about so we can look into them? Or where we can see some history of the conflict? And is this a question of asserting notability of the subject, or just to determine which sources should and shouldn't be used? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This Noticeboard can't answer general questions. The best place to discuss general questions about sources is WT:Identifying reliable sources.

Also, it doesn't sound like a general question. It sounds like a very specific question with all of the relevant information stripped out. Dlabtot (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not want to go into details because the discussion about this contentious page has been going on for months now. Please take a look at my last comment today in the BLPN [37] and at Talk page in Eido Tai Shimano. Original source of the allegation came from the book by Aitken, published by him in 1996, though he much earlier published essays included in several magazines. The other author who did some more research was Tworkov. As I looked through other references these two sources, Aitken and Tworkov are included in several books as references published much later. All the later books are included as additional citations. But really all they rely on the two first books. There are not many independent sources to prove the allegations. As far as I am concerned only three, at most. And I am not sure about Aitken book too. Therefore my question.Spt51 (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a difficult question. On the one hand, each later book citing the previous is theoretically a sign of additional editorial oversight, which would make the original more reliable, and thus all three valuable. In practice, however, it's quite rare that a later author would actually check the credibility/factuality of the claims made in the earlier work (unless he was actually responding to claims made in the work, rather than simply citing it). I don't think there is a good general answer. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sudhirneuro.org

Please kindly advice if the site in heading can be used as a source of information about the tests and investigations performed by a group of researchers, of which Dr. Sudhir Shah was one of the participants. The tests were to verify the ability of Prahlad Jani and Hira Ratan Manek to survive healthily without food and eventually water for the period of testing. http://Sudhirneuro.org has been used to publish official updates and press releases from the team of researchers on both cases. I'm bringing the issue up here per advice of Nuujinn, as expressed in this discussion. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like garbage to me (typical content Can you imagine a human being staying alive & doing all routine activities even at age of 70, just by Sungazing – i.e – Surviving on cosmic – Solar energy. Aren’t you excited?), I wouldn't consider it a reliable source for... well anything. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

hmmm. can you please provide an exact link to that citation? is it somehow related to the subject of Prahlad Jani, which has brought up the issue? while I do believe it might be somewhere there, I don't really think that the press references used in the same context are any better. actually, in most cases they are even more sensational and not academic at all. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

also, is it really civil to call legitimate opinions (even though sensational) published by respected authors a 'garbage'? Isn't that a bit too much of a baseless personal offense? -- Nazar (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is that this site is essentially a case of self-publishing. If you read the about us page, there's no mention of anyone but Dr. Shah. I can't find any other contributors to the site, there's apparently no editorial review of the material, and the impression I get is that the purpose of the site is to promote Dr. Shah and his clinic. Without peer review (as would be the case in a scientific journal), we have no way to evaluate the validity of his experiments or claims, and I think this would be considered pseudoscience. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

unreliable source. Non peer-reviewed pseudo-scientific self-published hookum out to cover it.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, this is unreliable, except maybe for statements Dr Shah makes about himself, so long as they are not self-serving. I can barely read the article because of all the red flags in the way.--FormerIP (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I see the trend, and it does make some sense to me, though, as I said, I doubt that the press refs we can use are of any better quality. In this connection Nuujinn suggested to remove the refs to a few more sites, based on the same reasons as Sudhirneuro.org. I'm bringing them up below to have a future reference in case of any doubts. -- Nazar (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It would still be nice to have a few more opinions, as I feel the informative value of the article will significantly decrease when we remove all these refs and leave only press information. Yet, I'll respect the expressed consensus in any case. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Skepdic.com and rationalistinternational.com

The reasoning for them to be unreliable is the same as in the above discussion about Sudhirneuro.org, as suggested by Nuujinn. Please kindly comment. -- Nazar (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Rationalist International appears to mainly aggregate material from other sources, so in each case it will depend on the reliablity of the source the material originally came from. Those websites should be cited, rather than rationalistinternational.com. This looks like an RS: [38], although it is also an opinion piece and should be treated as such.

Skepdic.com appears to be the personal website of a published expert on hoaxes, possible hoaxes and scepticism. So it should be considered a reliable source, but not for claims about named third parties. --FormerIP (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Skepdic.com appears to be the personal website of a published expert on hoaxes, possible hoaxes and scepticism. So it should be considered a reliable source" -- shouldn't we consider Shah's site a reliable source based on same reasoning? It's a website of a published expert on research into neurology and other medicinal research. Shah is an internationally known and recognized scientist and researcher. We also have independent reviews and endorsements of his publications and press releases related to Prahlad Jani's testing, both from India's governmental agencies, and from independent organizations like SRISTI... -- Nazar (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Shah's site might in some situations be reliable if he is considered to be an established, published authority on a topic, if the material is not unduly self-serving and if the material is not about a third party. So material where he either makes positive claims about his research methods or talks about any other person (such as Jani) would not be allowed. --FormerIP (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What about his describing of the testing procedure he was involved into, as one of the experts? These are not 'claims about his research methods', neither his opinions about a third party (such as Jani). -- Nazar (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to imagine how the testing procedures could be described without the material not being about Jani in some sense (he's the subject of the observations after all). --FormerIP (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, based on that reasoning I can just go through all the articles where Skepdic.com is used and massively remove it all (and I don't think you'd wanna me do it, because there are literally hundreds of skeptic refs to this site in multiple articles here), because you can hardly find any subject where the skepticism from that site is not in some sense related to a third party... Unless you want to be tendentiously selective and push a skeptic POV into PJ article, I think we need a bit more neutral acceptance here... In my opinion, both Sudhirneuro.org and Skepdic.com are to be accepted as relatively reliable self-published sources. They both are attributed to an author of international renown. Shah's status is also confirmed by his multiple memberships and scientific titles... Shah also explicitly states that "we can not really comment for or against Mr. Prahlad Jani’s claims". The information published on his site focuses solely on an overview of the testing procedure, and also comes on behalf of the research team and not on his own behalf... -- Nazar (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To put it a different way, neither Skepdic.com or Shah's website are reliable for claims about Prahlad Jani, because they are both self-published sources and as such cannot be used for claims about living third parties. Describing the conditions under which a third party was observed by doctors is pretty clearly information about that third party. You don't have the option of anonymising Jani, because his name is the title of the article. --FormerIP (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You must have forgotten that the press release in question comes based on Jani's own consent, and the tests were performed with his personal cooperation. He has explicitly expressed his "desire to be useful to the cause of humanity(and Indian soldiers in particular) by offering his body for noninvasive scientific tests". While Skepdic.com obviously does not have any such consent to hypothesize about possible frauds and deception during these tests. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, it's still an SPS committing about a third party. What don't we cut to the chase here? What's your agenda, because it seems clear to me you aren't actually after anything but getting a POV article accepted on this subject. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The NPOV has always been my topmost priority. Check my editing. I never personally initiated the removals of any skeptic information. I'm an inclusionist as far as it goes. -- Nazar (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, both Sudhirneuro.org and Skepdic.com are to be accepted as relatively reliable self-published sources, I haven't read these other sites but it's clearly that there is NO consensus to consider Sudhirneuro.org as Reliable and for you to and do so would go against the discussion here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

We haven't finished the discussion yet. My personal view is that Nuujinn's logic here is sound and balanced. It will, however, have far-reaching consequences to many other articles, if applied without any mitigations. In my opinion, this logic is just. But it sets the requirements for the quality of sources just too high to be realistic if followed completely. Therefore, I call for a milder approach. AllSome other opinions expressed here so far have been more or less touched by tendentious desire to push a skeptic POV into the article in question. They also express too much disrespect towards views which are not supported by them personally. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean "dire" consequences, but really, those are not a concern, since we are engaged in improving articles, and there is the mitigation that we are dealing with a BLP here, and not all articles using Skepdic.com are BLPs. I also strongly object to your characterization that "All other opinions expressed here so far have been more or less touched by tendentious desire to push a skeptic POV into the article in question", and respectfully ask that you strike that, as it could be considered a personal attack against several editors. I would also ask you to note that a number of us regard Skepdic.com and rationalistinternational as unreliable as sources--removing badly sourced material from both "sides" of the issue is not pushing a single POV. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"All other opinions..." haha. ok. not all, just some :) and please kindly don't start the 'personal attack' theme again, because "What's your agenda, ... it seems clear to me you aren't actually after anything but getting a POV article accepted on this subject" by Cameron Scott has been very personal and aimed directly at me. If we continue this way we may drown ourselves in a new wave of fruitless arguments. I'd suggest "everyone maintain civility as we move through discussion, and comment on content, not the contributor", as you wisely said before :) -- Nazar (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to ask Cameron Scott to strike a comment, please feel free. I'm asking you again to strike yours, and I'm not laughing. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Is that a threat or warning? I said I do not wish to engage into fruitless arguments. I'm sorry if my comment was too general, and I did amend it, by saying "not all, just some", to take into account the diversity of views expressed about skepdic.com by various editors. My feeling is, however, that many opinions related to the editing of PJ article have been very tendentious and in favor of pushing an unsubstantiated skeptic POV into it. That is my position. I'm doing my best to defend the neutrality of the article in question. Your repeated request sounds a bit like an order and a threat, which does not make me very happy. Please think about it before you repeat it again. I also do not fully understand what do you mean by 'striking'. Do you want a line which strikes the 'All' word? You have my permission to do that, if that makes you happy, because I could not find it in the editor myself. Strike the 'All' and replace it by 'some'. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It is neither a threat nor a warning--you laughed, indicating that this amuses you. I am not amused, but I am not ordering you to do anything nor threatening you in any way. I asked you to do something, and you are perfectly entitled to not grant that request. You strike text thusly, it leaves the comment readable but indicates you've retracted it. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there any problem with me being amused? I have a lot of fun editing Wikipedia. I think it is supposed to be this way. I've done what you asked for, hope that makes you happy. Still could not find it in the editor, copied the tags instead... -- Nazar (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for striking part of your comment. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Anytime :) -- Nazar (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the discussion of Sudhirneuro.org is one paragraph ^ that away. In regard to Rationalist International, as FormerIP points out, we can use the sources they use, if those are reliable, and I concur with them regarding Skepdic.com. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Railway Template

Follwing an aborted attempt at an index, I created a template to cover the articles revolving round the Festiniog Railway, in N Wales, UK. Template:Festiniog Railway Company That was back in 2008, and seemed acceptable at the time. This template containing links to other related wikipedia articles, and external sites, sits at the bottom of related articles on wikipedia. It also replaced a number of individual external links within the "See also/External links" sections of articles.

An editor has now decided that he feels this does not meet with current wikipedia policy, as it contains a number of external links. On reading the quoted documentation, I feel it does meet the guidelines, and uses commonsense.

The fact the edits made now make the panel look ludicrous by 2 major edits: The first made all links internal - even though by titles they wernt meant to be - obvious under a second edit = such as

• Line "Company WebSites" originaly linked to the company home page - first amended to direct back to the company relevant Wikipedia page (which is usually contained in article) - but has subsequently deleted as it now duplicated Line "Current Operators"
• Line "External Wiki site" originaly linked to the relevant page on Festipedia (external Wiki) - first amended to direct back to the company relevant Wikipedia page (which is usually contained in article) - but has subsequently deleted as it now duplicated Line "Current Operators"
• Line "Support Groups" now directs to non-existant Wikipedia pages

Whilst he has also tidied up some articles, on some there are no related external links, so additional information is not available.

Comments please --Keith 15:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know enough (read that as anything) about the UK rail systems to feel qualified to discuss content, but as a general rule Nav templates are for helping readers get around wikipedia. while there's no particular rule against external links on a Nav template, I'd personally expect them to be simple and factually informative links. Beetstra seems conserned that these seem too much like advertising links.

however, this request really does need to be here yet (if at all), because you haven't yet asked Beetstra what the problem is. go to the article talk page, or Beetstra's user talk, and see what he has to say. maybe between the two of you you can work out a compromise. --Ludwigs2 15:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I didnt need to ask - he has stated the problem as he sees it. --Keith 15:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The convention (as far as I am aware) has always been that this type of navigation should be for internal purposes. I would also be against using them for external links. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, please, no external links in nav templates. Dougweller (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Having just read WP:EL, WP:TM. and WP:RS, there doesnt seem to be a convention of this sort. In fact, there is a category, Category:External link templates to cover this sort of thing

I have now also looked at the related pages, and far from just cleaning, there has been a wholesale deletion of external references for more information, and pictures which are not available to wikipedia WHY? --Keith 22:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If I noticed an article where someone replaced Ffestiniog Railway (a link to another article) with an external link, I would revert that as "per WP:EL". That applies more strongly to a template which is used on multiple pages. The "why" is that there has to be a strong resistance to the hundreds of attempts to promote external sites that are made every day. I understand that this case is different from normal because here the only intention is to provide handy links for enthusiasts, but it is still not appropriate for Wikipedia to have a template featuring "Company Web Sites" and "External Wiki Sites" and "Support Groups". Our role does not include providing a directory of links. This issue is more for WP:ELN as "reliable sources" applies to references. Johnuniq (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No-one is replacing internal links with external links. The links in question have never been internal. Indeed, for many of them there is no internal article to link to as the subject matter is not notable in Wikipedia terms although it is notable in the context of the Ffestiniog Railway. Keith's complaint is that external links to additional information not available on Wikipedia are being removed. So it seems that you are saying that Wikipedia users must be denied more detailed information on a subject than would be appropriate on Wikipedia simply because it exists on an external website. Is that really the policy? Given the number of articles that include such links I don't believe that is the policy. Perhaps you are saying that it is ok to put external links as references and in "External links" sections or similar but not to include them in a template which is then used in such sections for a group of related articles? Why? Where does that leave a template like, for example, Template:Finance links? I freely admit that I am not an expert on Wikipedia policy nor even a regular editor, but the policy being suggested here seems to be thoroughly inconsistent with current practise and unhelpful to the average user who is left with no easy way to find the additional information. There is a (rather less active) discussion on WP:ELN. 88.104.46.245 (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops - I failed to notice that Wikipedia logged me out for some reason. The signature on that last comment should have been... Prh47bridge (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I meant if I saw someone put an external link inside an article, I would remove it: we link to other articles, and if an item does not have an article, the link should be red if the topic is notable, or the item should probably not be mentioned otherwise. External links belong in valid references, and sometimes in the "External links" section. I suggest we close this now and keep the discussion at WP:ELN#railways. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note to this, I did not remove references which were pointing to information on this site. However, since the reference points to an open wiki, those probably all be checked and maybe replaced by a reliable source. I am not too worried about the commercial part of this story (if there is any), just that these links are, in most cases where they were used, inappropriate.

Note about the comparison with the templates in Category:External link templates; those link directly to information about the subject, not to the generic homepage; the external link templates are different from the templates discussed here. Note, that I would on many occasions, also remove {{wikia}}-external links per our WP:EL; the existence of such templates does not mean that they should be used without looking at the relevant policies and guidelines. Moreover, please be aware that 'arguments to avoid'/'comments about other links' are not inclusion arguments, they may even be arguments to exclude others. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I am glad you are "not too worried about the commercial part of this story", but like you to expand on this - is there a commercial part? It seems we are moving away from the original point here. So far, I have indulged anyones comment and studied any references thay have made i.e WP:EL, WP:TM. and WP:RS, and as yet cannot find a definitive point where internal and external links cannot co-exist, or be placed at the end of an article.

I note that far from holding off, you have continued to remove any references to our wiki for no other reason than you belief that it is wrong to have external references, which is definitely against Wikipedia policy. --Keith 12:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, commercial not, promotional etc. maybe. Without a meaning of bad faith assumption (I really believe that you are here to write the articles, etc.) - trusts, organisations, etc. still need money, and you see sometimes that such organisations, although there is no commercial intention, spam Wikipedia to have their sites linked, and therefore incoming traffic. But as I said, I don't believe a bit that that is the case here.

I think that was explained throughout. External links are not supposed to be in the body of the text per WP:MOS (Wikipedia:MOS#External_links to be specific, and I don't think that this is some form of exception where the links should be in the text, we can have articles ourselves on most of these topics), so that is that part. And wikis make bad external links and/or reliable sources, so they should not be used as a source (see WP:RS / WP:V - anyone can write anything on a wiki; and I have showed elsewhere that vandalism can stay for hours on the wiki under discussion), or as an external link (see WP:ELNO - similar reason, stability etc.). IMHO, the only place where it could be linked, is on the pages of the organisation itself.

I am not removing external references, I am removing links which are not in line with the policies and guidelines. The intro of WP:EL states it as "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." - linking to a wiki is not ..

Manstaruk, this does not take away the fact that you and some other editors there have done great work, made a large number of good articles, but there are concerns with the external links to the wiki, for which I, and some other uninvolved editors on the different noticeboards think there is no justification for inclusion. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I will make one last point, based on your comment "External links are not supposed to be in the body of the text per WP:MOS". I would agree, but contend that placing them at the end of the article under either a "See Here" or "External Links" subset, does meet WP:etc criteria as per previous messages. Otherwise, if you were to contend placing there is still within the body of text, then no external links would exist within Wikipedia, as they wouldnt be allowed!!. Seperately, I would also agree that links to the external wiki relavent article would be better than links to its home page. However, that would be infinitely more reasonable then systematic removal from all articles, irrespective if they pointed to a related article or home page. At least then a researcher may then use a search box to get information. If there is no link, they cannot do that. --Keith 19:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have answered to most points on WP:EL/N. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Michael Savage

There is a dispute on the assessment section of The Epoch Times article. The quote in particular relates to Michael Savage (commentator):

"In June 2010 the controversial radio host Michael Savage spoke extemporaneously about The Epoch Times for about five minutes of one of his broadcasts. He said, in part: "the journalism is on the highest level, the writing is better than The New York Times, the analysis is superior, and the stories are astonishing... I don’t read anything like this..." He read excerpts from articles for several minutes. He continued: "It says 'Chaos plagues China today...corruption is rife', I couldn’t believe that someone is telling the truth about China."

The editor who added it argued that Savage is inherently notable, thus his opinion matters. I differ, based on the fact that:

1) Michael Savage is not expert on Chinese politics nor Falun Gong and the Epoch Times. According to the source he admitted that he never read the paper until June 2010 - his comment sticks out like a sore thumb amongst others professional journalists and academics

2) According to WP:SPS, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below for the restrictions on using self-published sources in this way. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties." Even on his own article, Savage has been widely criticized exactly for such behaviors. --PCPP (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• In principle, if Savage is quoted by a reliable source as saying something positive (or negative) about Falun Gong or the Epoch Times, and he is qualified to so comment, there is no reason he cannot be quoted if it his commentary is relevant and in context. Firstly, Savage's bio description seems to indicate an inherent bias, as he is "a conservative commentator". Secondly, he appears to me to be a lay commentator, with no qualification in the religious realm - medical anthropology is the closest one gets. I also seem to recall Falun Gong devotees arguing to remove criticism from James Randi as being not sufficiently expert and therefore not relevant to the subject, although I cannot for now recall what the subject may have been - Li Hongzhi, Falun Gong... It would seem to be double standards to admit this and not Randi who, after all, is a noted sceptic and not a million miles from his area of expertise when commenting on pseudo-science matters. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Podcasts of panel experts

There is a dispute on Nightmare House 2 (see Talk:Nightmare_House_2) that a Podcast 17 ( http://www.podcast17.com ) reference is an unreliable source because it is a "fansite". I have disagreed with that definition and I would like additional input from other editors.

Podcast 17 covers game mods made with the SourceSDK and each week brings in a panel of guests including hosts from Moddb and various creators of popular game mods (professional and amateur). The Podcast does focus on SourceSDK mods, but the panels are not limited to such. Also, given the popularity of the SourceSDK I do not believe this to be a narrow fan-only subject, no more than Perl or PHP programming sites would be. The hosts and regular guests of this Podcast are well respected and well-known within the field of game mods.

Also I'd like to have clarified: Are there any issues with using such podcasts overall because the content is audio and not easily verifiable text?

The specific edit that was removed:

Podcast 17 have referred to Nightmare House 2 as "mod of the year" <ref> http://www.podcast17.com/episodes/98/ </ref> , less than a week after its release.

Also on this related dispute, I'm not sure if this is the proper place to ask, but is there any policy regarding conflict-of-interest in relation to source references in this scenario:

The editor who previously requested notability and references is also the editor who has undone the reference source, along with the "Reception" section it was in. This seems a potential conflict-of-interest to me, if he's determined to follow up a subjective opinion of notability by removing references and their section. In good faith, rather than undo his deletions, I have asked the editor in question to step back and allow others to determine reliability and allow the section to become more complete, but he has refused. I haven't asked him to leave the entry alone completely, just to allow reasonable time before obstructive undoes. It seems counter-productive to over-police the requests as they're being met.

In this case, Podcast 17 is the "publisher" of the panel discussion... and we require that publishers have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy... so the first question is... what is the reputation of Podcast 17? Assuming that they have a good reputation, panel shows are like Op-ed columns in news papers... they are opinion pieces. So material taken from them should be phrased as being an opinion. That in turn rests on the reputation and note worthiness of the opinionator. So the second question is... who made the comment that you are citing in the article? Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh fair enough, I see. The comment should be directly credited to William McMahon, the host of Podcast 17, although in this case the panel agreed, which is why I left it simply as Podcast 17. How about then:

William McMahon, the host of Podcast 17, referred to Nightmare House 2 as "mod of the year" and the podcast's panel agreed.

I don't believe the reputation of William is at question to anyone of knowledge and interest to game mods. He has had a wide selection of expert guests and interviews on the subject. Given that Podcast 17 cites references in detail for every podcast, fact-checking and accuracy shouldn't be an issue either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogdor (talk • contribs) 13:40, September 1, 2010

To me it seems little more than a fansite/audioblog. But apparently the primary issue here is even if the Podcast is reliable, would the awards it gives be notable? Rehevkor ✉ 14:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Do other sources mention the awards? If so, they are notable... if not, they are not notable. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not that I have seen. Rehevkor ✉ 16:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This is part of my dispute with Rehevkor. He's not familiar with these sources and made a determination after only a cursory glance. He was mistaken as to the nature of both sites mentioned in our discussion. A strong understanding of the subject matter isn't needed, just not a misunderstanding. I've asked for a third-party answer to my question, but here he is here, redirecting my question.

To your question Blueboar, the source line does not specify these are formal awards, just an informed opinion (or declaration if you'd prefer) from an expert of the field. If the Podcast is reliable and the opinion indeed expert (I believe the podcast's list of contributors and interviewees testiment suitably to that), does the particular opinion qualify as notable?

(venting edited out, see [[39]] if you're interested).

Venting this here probably isn't useful, but it has been helpful to have other eyes and some clarifications on the source reference. I welcome any more. Thank you.

www.damninteresting.com

A website run by author Alan Bellows. Used as a source for Max Headroom broadcast signal intrusion incident and Mooning. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This looks essentially like a self-publication collaboration between the contributors identified in the "About Us" section of the website. I'd say that the material is only an indication of the views of the authors, and the authors would have to be renowned experts in the field in order to be notable in their own right. Of course, who is a "renowned expert" in the topic of mooning is an entirely different matter... --Dailycare (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this. The site is apparently releasing a book though and, provided it is not self-published, the book would be an RS. --FormerIP (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Tate Publishing: The Father of Hollywood

Tate Publishing & Enterprises is generally considered a vanity press. The "Publisher Standards Board", which calls itself "The Self Regulatory Trade Organization (SRTO) for the Book Publishing Industry", lists it as a "misleading book publishing" company and a scam to be avoided.[40] It has been discussed extensively on a 49-page thread in a writers forum, Absolute Write.[41] The blog Writers Beware includes it on their "Two Thumbs Down" list.[42] It was discussed here previously: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 43#Tate Publishing.

The Father of Hollywood is a book written by a descendant of H.J. Whitley, Gaelyn Whitley Keith. It was first printed by Booksurge, the print on demand arm of Amazon.com. More recently, it has been published by Tate Publishing. I cannot find any mainstream reviews of that edition. Internet reviews of the Booksurge edition tend to depict it as a family memoir, based primarily on family papers and diaries, rather than a careful history of Hollywood based on a variety of sources.

Though incidental to the book's reliability, another issue is that the book has been added to many articles as "further reading".[43][44][45] Editors, who may all be the same person, the author, have also removed sourced material from articles which contradicts their version of history, or otherwise reverted changes that minimized the influence of Whitley.[46][47][48][49][50] So it appears that there have been a succession of single-purpose accounts who have promoted this person and this book. However that is not directly related to the book's reliability as a source.

Bottom line: should this book be considered a reliable source outside of the H.J. Whitley article?   Will Beback  talk  21:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. If it were widely cited as a reliable source, or its author was independently known as an expert on the subject, we could probably use it anyway (under WP:SPS), but I see no evidence of that for this book. And the additions of it to the "additional reading" sections of articles that are only vaguely related seems like WP:BOOKSPAM to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the article by the Jonathan Club in Los Angeles?[51] [52] Or perhaps you should look at the book by Catherine Mulholland the daughter of William Mulholland. [53][54]If you read these you will see that H J Whitley is the father of Van Nuys, El Reno, Canoga Park (orginally Owensmouth, Reseda, Corcoran etc. In fact in his life time he founded over 100 towns. Or if you prefer to talk to the curator of the at the San Fernando Valley Museum. His name is Bill Carpenter.

Next I would like to say the links on the Publishers Standard Board go no where. Also how is a website and expert. Where are some published sources. The Publisher has told you they are a traditional publisher and the guidelines of a vanity press on wiki state that: In contrast, commercial publishers, whether major companies or small presses, derive their profit from sales of the book to persons other than the author. Publishers must therefore be cautious and deliberate in choosing to publish works that will sell, particularly as they must recoup their investment in the book (such as an advance payment and royalties to the author, editorial guidance, promotion, marketing, or advertising). To better help sell their books, commercial publishers may also be selective in order to cultivate a reputation for high-quality work, or to specialize in a particular genre. From Tate Publishing website: In 2008, we accepted only a single-digit percentage of authors who submitted manuscripts for publication.

Finally Gaelyn Whitley Keith is an expert. She has been paid to speak at Libraries as an expert numerous times example: Sacramento Central Library [55], spoken on radio shows across the nation and in Canada. You can contact Bill Carpenter at the San Fernando Valley if you want to talk to a live person. I hope that everyone visiting this page will take more time than Will Beback has to actually look at the reference I have offered. I would like this issue settled. I am 86 years old and the grandson of HJ Whitley. Before I die I would like to correct mistakes that others have made. Also you might want to look at the Hollywood Talk page it has more info. As far as Charles Toberman page all I did was take off that he is "The Father of Hollywood" He can not be that as the Father is the original developer. I have no problem with him being "Mr. Hollywood" Also I do not see how the sources on the Toberman page are verifiable. Whithj (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting that Will Beback contacted David Eppstein to make a negative response. What is your agenda Will Beback?Whithj (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I contact David Eppstein because he'd started an earlier thread on Tate, and is presumably a little familiar with them. Considering that you are a single purpose editor promoting your self-described ancestor and a book written either by yourself or a relative, I don't think you are in a good position to question my agenda.

No one is doubting that Whitley was an important person, or any of his specific accomplishments. This thread concerns whether or not a book is a reliable source. Wikipedia has standards for making these determinations, set out at WP:V. self-published sources, such as books published by vanity houses, are allowable under narrow circumstances. I don't think this book meets those criteria, but I'm not even contesting the book's use in the H.J. Whitley article. But it has been used to contradict reliable sources in other articles and has been "spammed" into many articles. That's inappropriate.   Will Beback  talk  01:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

La Piazza di Giovinazzo

WARNING! WARNING! This is slightly complicated, concerns a contentious article (Murder of Meredith Kercher) and the source is in Italian. So, if you like a challenge...

Background info: This concerns the arrival time of the first police officers at the scene of the crime. According to their testimony, this was 12.35 pm, but there was CCTV footage of their arrival with a time-stamp of 12.48 pm. In the report from the trial of one of the defendants in the case, the judge accepted evidence that the clock on the CCTV was ten minutes fast, thus explaining the discrepancy (in the report concerning the other two defendants, the CCTV footage is not discussed). The reason this matters is that if the police arrived after 12.51 pm then an instance of two of the defendants lying to the police (according to the prosecution) is explained away.

A number of editors want to insert into the article the text: "evidence from a security camera showed that the police arrived at 12:58 pm, just as Sollecito said they did". The source offered in support of this is here: [56] and the relevant text is on page 9.

Italian version: Il loro reale arrivo viene ripreso dalla videocamera alle ore 12,48, momento in cui si accingono a varcare a piedi il cancello del casolare. Per quale motivo due differenti versioni di orario? Semplice: agli agenti della Postale, e non solo a loro, viene riferito che l'orologio delle telecamere registra un errato orario: andrebbe 10 minuti avanti. Solo durante il processo in corso la difesa di Raffaele riesce a dimostrare inequivocabilmente che quell'orologio registra, si, un orario sbagliato, ma di piu di 10 minuti indietro e non avanti, quindi gli orari predetti vanno corretti, aggiungendo almeno 10 minuti e non sottraendo 10 minuti: la Polizia Postale arriva effettivamente sul posto non prima delle ore 12,58.

My translation: Their actual arrival is captured by the camera at 12.48 pm, just as they walk past the gate to the house. Why two different versions of the time? Simple: it was reported to the officials of the Postal Service,and not only to them, that the CCTV clock recorded the wrong time: it was ten minutes fast. Only during the ongoing trial can Raffaele's defence prove unequivocally that the clock did indeed record a wrong time, but that it was slow, not fast, and thus the time should be corrected by adding at least 10 minutes and not by subtracting 10 minutes: in fact, the Postal Police arrived on the scene no earlier than 12.58 pm.

I would say this is speculation (apparently based on nothing) by the journalist who wrote it and cannot be used to support the existence of evidence for the later time as if it were fact. Also, the publication is tiny - it serves a population of 20,000, so probably has a circulation in the low four-figures. I'd invite you to consider the technical standard of its layout. For this reason, I don't think it would even be okay to use its speculation with an attribution, given that the subject matter of the article was a national news story in a number of countries.

Apologies for the length, but I did give you fair warning. --FormerIP (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a link to the actual presentation that one of Sollecito's lawyers delivered during the trial as well as a link to media coverage that summarizes this presentation.

The analysis rests on the fact that the Carabinieri couldn't find the place, so they called for directions. Cellular phone records show that this call was initiated at 1:29 pm, and it lasted 4 minutes 56 seconds. But the arrival of the Carabinieri is shown in a clip from the security camera across the street, with a time stamp of 1:22 pm. Therefore, the camera had to have been at least 10 minutes slow.

This is not speculation. Here are the sources:

http://lnx.giovinazzo.it/images/postale.pdf

http://issuu.com/sergiopisani/docs/la_piazza_di_giovinazzo_dicembre_2009

Charlie wilkes (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"Only during the ongoing trial can Raffaele's defence prove ..." is speculation. A source that confirms whether they did prove this point would be useful, but this isn't it.  pablo 08:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Who do you think put together the presentation with the camera footage and the cell phone records, and for what purpose if not to deliver it during the trial?Charlie wilkes (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Where is the reliable source that says that these documents prove anything? Because it certainly does not seem to be "La Piazza di Giovinazzo".  pablo 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The proof is clear, if you understand the analysis. But I am merely citing a source that describes the argument made by the defense during the trial. Certainly no one has proved that Matteini was right when she wrote in November 2007 that the police arrived before Sollecito called the emergency number.Charlie wilkes (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Charlie, the question is just whether the source can properly be used to support the claim it is cited for. I'm not sure which source you are talking about as describing a defence argument, but the Piazza di Giovinazzo doesn't appear to be doing that, it is just offering up speculation. --FormerIP (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The article was published in December 09, after the defense had concluded its case. The news outlet posted the actual defense presentation along with their summary. A literal English rendering of Italian grammar is not a reasonable basis for saying it is speculation, when the context shows that it is a description of what went on during the trial.

It is important to have this perspective in the WP article, because the present article is derived, for the most part, from sources that did not report the arguments made by the defense.Charlie wilkes (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Political blogs for facts about biographical details or suspected crimes or science?

Hi, I thought I understood the reliable sources policy after reading the fine article, especially the part where the policy says, "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." The biography of living persons policy says, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP," and so on. Yet I have been doing Google searches of Wikipedia articles that cite certain notorious blogs (taking care to choose blogs from "both sides of the aisle" for purposes of illustration), and I find that those blogs are often cited as "sources" for statements about living persons that are very contentious, including accusations of criminal behavior. I'm trying to do a sweep of Wikipedia, with the aid of my Google search results, to delete those statements per WP:BLP section 2.2, but already I'm seeing some deletions I did last night have been reverted, and not by I.P.s but by users with registered Wikipedia editor names. So I'm coming here for a reality check on what Wikipedia's rules are.

Separately, I have observed an editor who has been diligently removing from Wikipedia citations to statements about biology or about biology research from the blog operated by University of Minnesota Morris biology professor PZ Myers, apparently on the general rule that Wikipedia shouldn't cite blogs. Now if it is acceptable to delete citations by a biologist about biology, why is it acceptable to post statements about science that are sourced to purely political blogs whose authors have no peer-reviewed scientific publications and who have no postgraduate scientific training? But I see such blog citations regularly in a variety of Wikipedia articles. So besides the issue of biography of living persons statements from blogs being deletable on sight, aren't statements about science or historical fact from nonexpert blogs also deletable as improperly soured?

Thanks for any advice you can provide. I enjoy compiling source lists to share with other Wikipedians, and as I continue to compile those and begin editing articles more boldly, I want to be sure to be following Wikipedia policy and the best scholarly standards of sourcing statements. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's very difficult to answer generically here; could you show us a couple of examples of information you have removed that has been contested? — e. ripley\^talk 19:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I found one myself: [57], in which you removed information sourced to Huffington Post. There is some level of disagreement about whether Huffington Post can always be used as a reliable source, but I think most people would agree that it sometimes can. In this instance, what's being asserted is that Joanna Krupa posed nude in PETA ads three times. The Huffington Post piece linked actually has a slideshow of those three ads. IMO this was an inappropriate removal of what appears to be appropriately-sourced information.

Almost always, blogs in the context of "Joe Blow's personal blog" are not going to be appropriate. But, as our reliable sources policy notes, some news outlets also have blogs and those are generally acceptable as sources. I would say in this instance Huffington Post qualifies as a news blog.

As an aside, this is a problem with just blanket removing sources. Often much depends on context. — e. ripley\^talk 19:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In your kind reply, you wrote, "I would say in this instance Huffington Post qualifies as a news blog." I hear you, but I think I should ask for a second opinion here, as that was a BLP article, and the BLP and RS sections seem to point to something more like New York Times-hosted blogs and less like Huffington Post as examples of professionally edited news sources that incidentally happen to appear in blog form. I might have been a lot less inclined to delete there, myself, had the article not been a BLP article. (P.S. How about my other concern, political bloggers making statements about science for which they have neither credentials nor responsibility to an editor?) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say those should be discussed thoroughly, since opinions vary about who has proper scientific credentials and who does not. Another thorny issue. Do you have a specific instance we could examine as an example? — e. ripley\^talk 14:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with E. Ripley. Moreover, I would suggest that rather than targeting a source that you feel is questionable and deleting it, it would be better to mention on the talk page that you are unsure of the source and that if no one objects, you'll delete it, as this will give folks a chance to look for other sources. In the case of Krupa, for example, in addition to PETA's web site, and Fur is Dead, which mention it, there are sources from Google News. Huffington may not be the best source, but it can be considered reliable for many issues, and in this case, there are other sources supporting it. Adding those additional sources would be of greater benefit in this case. Yes, this is a BLP, so if the material were considered contentious, extra caution would be required, but this does not appear to be a contentious issue. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

thirteen media challenged

It's contended that the following are not reliable sources when cited in the Feminists Fighting Pornography article: ABA Journal, Boston Globe, LexisNexis (U.S. Senate hearing), Library of Congress (Constitution Annotated), The National Law Journal, The New York Times, Newsweek, off our backs, USA Today, The Village Voice, The Wall Street Journal, and Women's Studies Quarterly. This is discussed on the talk page, but hasn't been replied to by the complainer, who has logged into WP after I asked for a reply.

I'm asking here as a good-faith gesture to the poster of a reliable-sources template that I think can be removed. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you give more concrete examples of how the sources are being used in this case? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The complaint is against all of the third-party media, so any example may miss what the complainant thinks is most unreliable, but here are three, quoted from the article:

Pornography provides the training for incest, assault, and rape, according to Page Mellish.[3]

3. ^ ^{a b c d e f g h i j k l} Women in Flames, by Marcia Pally, in The (New York, N.Y.) Village Voice, vol. XXIX, no. 19, May 8, 1984, p. 23 (microfilm (Bell & Howell, Micro Prints Div.) (Jan.–June 1984)) (author Marcia Pally is a Contributor to the newspaper, per id., p. 33). The Village Voice spelled Ms. Mellish's given name as "Paige" probably in error. It is "Page" in the organization's newsletter, of which she was the Editor, that being The Backlash Times, op. cit., e.g., Summer 1986, p. [2].

FFP's founder and organizer was Page Mellish,[3] formerly of the staff[3] of Women Against Pornography,[7][8][9] and also formerly of Women Against Pornography and Violence in the Media[10] and National Organization for Women, both of San Francisco, California.[3]

7. ^ 300 Join March in Outrage Over Rape, by Wendy Fox, in Boston Globe, Mar. 15, 1983, p. 1 (ProQuest database), as accessed Jan. 24, 2010.

Feminists Fighting Pornography supported the Pornography Victims' Compensation Act of 1991,[11]

11. ^ ^{a b c} Feminists Back Anti-Porn Bill, by Henry J. Reske, ABA Journal (published by American Bar Association), Jun., 1992, vol. 78, p. 32 (ISSN 07470088) (often cited as ABAJ) (ProQuest database), as accessed Jan. 24, 2010, or alternative link.

Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC) (Corrected excess underscoring: Nick Levinson (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC))

And what is the specific objection to these sources? Is it that the objectors do not believe that they say what is claimed for them? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonexistence. "There doesn't appear to be even one single mainstream accessable report about this group . . . ." "Independent third party citations are required to assert notability. The template is to allow independent users to attempt to find some, although personally I don't think there are any." I asked for particulars, but they weren't stated.

It seemed to have been resolved, although subsequently another editor thought there was a "preponderance of primary sources" when 78 percent actually were secondary, not primary (and the primary ones were within WP:PSTS).

I'll see over time how this progresses. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Bitterlemons.org issue unresolved

I would like to redirect attention to the issue of whether bitterlemons.org is a "reliable source" for purposes of citation in articles dealing with the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The topic was discussed back on August 24th-27th. Unfortunately, the characterization of that website was seriously in error as presented in the original request for clarification. I was actually the person on the original Talk page of the Wikipedia article who suggested recourse to this noticeboard, but I have been traveling this past week and did not know about, was not able to go on-line, and therefore could not respond then to the highly misleading description of this website made on the 24th and 27th of August. For a fuller description of that website, I refer the editors here to the discussion above, entitled "Bitterlemons.org website," opened 24 August: there I have just today responded to the claims made by earlier contributors, and presented evidence for the reliability of this website.Tempered (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Internal links to the discussion would be courteous to those you wish to spend time on this. Speaking of spending time on this, have you notified the previous participants in the discussion? Again, just a nice thing to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What's to resolve? I couldn't make out much in the wall of text in the higher thread. Bitterlemons is an online journal of opinion that is credible enough that if it says a piece was written by so-and-so, we can trust that it was written by so-and-so (Yossi Alpher is the editor, i believe). These pieces should generally be presented as representing the writers' own opinions and not be used for bald statements of fact (just as with all opinion pieces). The problem then becomes whether the person is prominent enough, particularly in whatever area they're discussing (so, for instance, a prominent neurologist probably shouldn't be used as a source on military tactics), to make their opinions notable and worthy of inclusion. That's an editorial issue best handled at the talk page or with an RFC if you're particularly stuck.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment in large part (see my comments in the discussion section above), but what Tempered is asserting is that this particular site has the sort of editorial controls that would make it a reliable source not only for opinions but also for factual claims. If I'm misrepresenting your position Tempered please let me know. Since I didn't get an answer to my question from the previous discussion section, I'll reproduce it here with apologies:

Can you show us where exactly this site is shown to have "scrupulous editorial review" and "represents authoritative academic and political leadership on both sides of these issues"? Because I don't see it in any obvious place on the website. — e. ripley\^talk 19:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I have come in late; I have been responding further at the original discussion just above, unaware of this continuation here. I only discovered this discussion here just now. I thought my opening this new thread was simply an invitation to interested parties to revisit the above thread and continue discussion there, and not to consider it already closed on Aug. 27th and a dead issue. My error only reflects my lack of experience on such "boards": I should have assumed that discussion would continue here. In any case, I gave a full answer there to the issue of editorial reliability raised again here by Ripley, and will not repeat this again here, but please feel free to look up above on the board for the answer.

But Ripley has clarified here what he meant with that query; he thinks that I was trying to establish bitterlemons.org as "reliable" as a source of fact, not just as a significant, responsible and reliably edited site for articles by authoritative figures involved with the Israel-Palestinian conflict, but as being reliable like an encyclopedia per se, of impartial and neutral fact. My apologies to Ripley if what I was trying to say was unclear, but he has evidently misunderstood me. I did not wish to claim for bitterlemons.org the status of neutral factuality per se, but simply its reliability as a major resource for authoritative opinions reflecting various views on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It is therefore important and legitimate as a record of such views and interpretations by leading figures, and should be acceptable in Wikipedia as a citation source. Dailycare wanted to eliminate it altogether as a citation source for Wikipedia articles dealing with the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and thereby eliminate all reference to opinions of figures expressed in it, from sections of the article Israel and the Apartheid Analogy dedicated to presenting the pro-Israel criticism of the "Apartheid analogy." Several contributors including myself cited articles in it to back up statements of views on the "apartheid analogy" by pro-Israel figures. (Of course, it can also be legitimately used by anti-Israel editors as a resource for pro-Palestinian opinion, but the present context involves pro-Israel opinion.) The comments by Bali Ultimate (at 19:17, 2 September, just below) are precisely right about the nature of the site, and therefore, it follows, it is justifiable and legitimate to use the opinion-pieces published there as evidence of the views of their authors. That is really all I wished to establish. Apparently Ripley also agrees with this kind of use of the bitterlemons.org site. So it appears that there is a consensus on this. Am I right about this conclusion?Tempered (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There are sometimes excellent articles there, and it does carry a range of opinions. But if memory serves, they're almost always, well, "opinions" (very often from the notable and the learned and so on, but opinions none the less). Alpher and his coeditor (a palestinian guy, forget who) "edit" in the way that an oped editor would curate his own pages. They select good stuff to stimulate discussion, generate ideas, and so forth. This is all a good thing. But very rarely, if ever (leaning "never" though i don't know) do they publish peer-reviewed academic work. So, again, articles used from their should be attributed to their authors. Some of those articles may even be used for some kinds of facts (if, say, a famous Israeli/Palestinian gives an interview to one of the authors and he quotes him --the site is reliable in the sense that fabrication won't be going on there), but for others should be used with great care. A binary anwer just aint available. What is the precise edit and source he wants to use? That could help.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, think i understand now. Bitterlemons ran what looks like a Q&A with "Dianne Buttu" who said some things about advice for a group she was working for (got that right?) In this instance, I don't know why you couldn't write an edit saying "Dianne Buttu said she advised such-and-such in an interview with Bitterlemons." (or if it was signed article then "Buttu wrote such and such in an article.") Seems fairly straightforward and not sure why that would be a problem. Am I missing something? Bali ultimate (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

While this seems like a reasonable approach, it does not appear that Bitterlemons meets the requirements of WP:V. Figureofnine (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

What does that mean ("meets the requirements of V")? If Bitterlemons (which has two editors and is not an open website) publishes an opinion piece that claims to be by Amnon Lord... a senior editor and columnist with Makor Rishon newspaper or by Diana Buttu... a human rights lawyer and a former legal advisor to the Palestinian negotiating team that those identities and biographies are "verified" should be taken as read. The website is a professional outfit. However, that does not mean that everything Lord or Buttu writes has been vetted and care should be taken to attribute their positions to them and not to some entity called Bitterlemons.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I entirely agree, Bali Ultimate.Tempered (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Miranda Vickers study for the Ministry of Defence of the UK a RS for the Greek minority in Albania

Can Miranda Vickers and her study on the Greek minority of Albania be considered a reliable source? [58]. --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Her group is part of the Defence Academy, the academic staff are provided by Cranfield University. Whilst Vickers may be either military or a Civil Serpent she is working in an appropriately rigorous field that it can be considered as reliable.

These research papers are used by MoD, FCO, DFID, Cabinet Office and others to inform policy development.

ALR (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Serpent? Presumably she cites sources in her paper, unless she had direct information she will have found the data in a cited source that might be a better place to start? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually Vickers has been described as clearly pro-Albanian [[59]][[60]]. Moreover the paper says: The views expressed in this paper are entirely and solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official thinking and policy either of Her Majesty’s Government or of the Ministry of Defence (p. 15). I believe this makes it clear that we should avoid biased material such as this.Alexikoua (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The first one doesn't even spell correctly her name(Martha Vickers?), while the second one labels as unreliable all Balkans authors(even Poulton and Pettifer. Btw all military academy papers have the same disclaimer.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The source itself meets the sourcing guidance as being reliable. Your issue may be whether the source is itslef in need of balance. From a quick look at those sources I wouldn't say they were a reliable method of stating that Vickers isn't herself reliable.

That caveat reflects the fact that this is a research paper, not a policy paper. It's used to inform policy debate, but it's not in itself policy. That's not a suggestion that a postgraduate policy and doctrine research outfit isn't reliable.

ALR (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The source meets Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Random Church websites used to source Theology article

Talk:Catholic–Eastern_Orthodox_theological_differences#Using_random_church_websites under this discussion another editor is using random church websites that themselves do not provide their sources, to source an article here. Per the discussion can those websites be used to source the articles content? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A self-published website is generally only acceptable to demonstrate what the publishing organization says about itself. In this case, a church website could be used to document their own take on their own philosophy, if one can establish the degree and level to which the church controls the website. If some inferior organization (diocese, parish, congregation, monastic order, whatever...) owns/runs the website, they can be authoritative for their own perspectives on theology, but not for any other organization's perspectives. That help? Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Per Jclemens, a church website would usually be a reasonably reliable source for its own beliefs. It would also generally be considered a reliable source for other information about itself (e.g. its address, names and histories of its priests, information about its buildings, educational services, etc.). However, given that literally thousands of books have been written about Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and their religious differences, one could easily find significantly better sources for general information on these topics. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Headlines

Are the headlines of a newspaper article are reliable source for an article? In particular, is this Daily Mail headline "Why does Harriet Harman hate marriage" suitable as a source for this edit, which states "Leo McKinstry, Harman's former aide, shared these sentiments accusing her of "hating marriage". Note that quote "hating marriage" is to be found nowhere in the article text. The edit is not currently in the article, but as the editor who included it insists that it was perfectly legitimate edit, I think it is worth clarifying for future reference. Thanks for your opinions. --Slp1 (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No headlines should not be used as reliable sources. If the headline isn't confirmed by the article, then use the article. If the headline is confirmed by the article, then use the article (if it's appropriate and all that jazz). Some publications have provocative headlines like that to draw readers in and then in the first graph or so might even say "Well, Harriet says she doesn't so much hate marriage, as think there are problems with the way approach marriage today" or some such (just making that up in this case; hopefully my point is clear). Some headlines are famous or otherwise notable in their own right (for instance "Headless man found in topless bar") but that's another matter.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Headlines are as Bali says, not reliable to quote and are one of the ways newspapers editors assert uncitable claims as is the case in that article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Headlines are written by headline writers and, sometimes, they bollox the story up no end. Collect (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Goodness, no. Headline writers use all kinds of poetic license, alliteration, and attention grabbing tricks, not to mention lack of context. First Light (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Headlines are generally not good sources for articles, for the reasons given above. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Uboat.net

Uboat.net has been used extensively to reference several articles appearing at WP:FAC. Although this website has been cited in some books (which strangely are not used to source the articles), I can find nothing at their "About us" page that establishes the authors as published experts in the field, per WP:SPS, or that speaks to this website's factchecking, editorial oversight, etce. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it can be considered a reliable source, in the main part because other published resources about the topic recommend it in their reviews of resources [61][62][63][64] [65][66][67][68][69] using words like "superb", "excellent", "authoritative" "definitive information", "comprehensive".--Slp1 (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, "Without doubt the single most important online resource", by the expert Gordon Williamson, whose books on related subjects fill 3 Amazon pages. Also see the discussion at this FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 04:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"Single most important online resource" may of course be damning with faint praise. We need to be looking for the highest quality sources regardless of whether they're online or offline. Malleus Fatuorum 12:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.thehendonmob.com/

Is this a reliable source for results of a poker tournament? The article in question is World Poker Open, a newly recreated version of a previously deleted article. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem reliable to me. Just looks like a self-published site. Are there really no other sites online where you can get results for an event like that? Another thing I'm concerned is that that entire article is basically sourced to that one site (and some strange forum-esque site, I guess). — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Me neither, site is pretty promotional to boot. Check out Google news archives, what's needed is likely there. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Questioning the reliability of several sources

I am conducting a GA review for Ready (Trey Songz album) and there are a few references used where I'm not 100% sure if they're reliable or not: Singersroom.com, Ballerstatus.com, DJbooth.net, and Rapbasement.com. –Chase (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• singersroom.com - traditional editor structure, seems to do original interviews and reporting. Reliable.
• ballerstatus.com - seems connected to singersroom, but lacks a proper masthead and aggregates many stories. I'd say borderline reliable.
• djbooth.net - appears to be a music sharing / peer review site with social networking functionality. They also appear to have a policy of allowing fan commentary to be published. I'd say unreliable.
• rapbasement.com - from their site "The RapBasement.com Network was established in 1999 with a group of fan sites coming together to create one of the largest, most trafficked, fan networks in the world" appears to be a fan network like ign.com. I'd err toward unreliable.

Any of these sites could have excellent content though. Are there specific articles you're looking for an assessment of? Other voices would be appreciated in this review.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva

Note: Prior discussion here.

Is Arutz Sheva a reliable source that can be used without attribution and/or indicating its political background?

As a prior discussion remained inconclusive, as far as I can see, I'm starting this assessment with some quotes from reliable sources:

• "pro-settler news outlet Arutz Sheva" — Haaretz
• "Arutz Sheva, an Israeli nationalist Web site" — New York Times
• "Arutz Sheva, the main pro-settler publication in Israel" — Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Google news archive)
• "unlicensed pro-settler Arutz Sheva station" — Haaretz
• "Arutz Sheva which appeals to the national religious and settlers audience" — Jerusalem Post (Google news archive)
• "Arutz Sheva (Right-wing, pro-settler)" — worldpress.org
• "Arutz 7, which formerly called itself Voice of the Gazelle, was established by the Bet-El Thora institution and began broadcasting in October 1988 from a ship anchored off the coast of Israel. [...] It claims to be "the only independent national radio station in Israel", and says it was "established to combat the 'negative thinking' and 'post-Zionist' attitudes so prevalent in Israel's liberal-left media"." — BBC
• "Arutz Sheva, the popular pirate radio station associated with the most right-wing settlers" — Haaretz
• "B'Sheva, the print journal that is published by the settlers' pirate radio station Arutz Sheva" — Haaretz
• "the settler-run news agency Arutz Sheva" — Turkish Weekly

  Cs32en Talk to me  18:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Cs32en: It looks like a reliable source to me. If there is disagreement between sources, then yes, in-text attribution should be used. I'm not sure which article this question is in reference to, but in general, I don't think including a source's political background is a good idea. After all, if the reader wants to find out more about a source, they can simply click on the WikiLink that takes them to our article on the source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, attribute it. It is clearly idenfitied as "pro-settler" or "religious zionist" and any use of it should probably at minimum identify "Arutz Sheva" or "Israel National News/Radio etc..." as the source. It has an interesting history -- was founded as the voice of the settler movement in the 80's, ran as a pirate station on a boat for many years (after it openly opposed the oslo accords in 94 or so it moved into international waters but nevertheless was raided by Israeli forces in an effort to shut it down) until it was legalized/licensed by Israel about 10 years ago. If stuff is controversial (that is, if a wikipedia editor complains about something) it's never bad practice to expressly identify the source (though of course this could be taken to absurd lengths, i.e. "President Ronald Reagan said "Mr. Gorbachov, tear down this wall," the Associated Press reported" would be overkill).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be given a free pass as an RS on all issues. It's not an unreliable source but it's as biased as biased gets on many issues, well, pretty much anything that relates to Israel. Even their review of the recent Israel Museum renovation wasn't immune/spared. If we are attributing for the likes of HRW and Amnesty International we should be attributing for Israel National News. Also, it's a source that is used very extensively in Wikipedia, something that I have long thought needs looking into as it may reflect Wiki political demographics rather than sensible sampling of RS-world. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As this is probably not a question of categorically excluding information based on Arutz Sheva, nor about treating Arutz Sheva as being on a par with Associated Press, a comparison may be helpful. While I don't know whether there is an explicit guideline on this, presenting information in a neutral point of view would probably include that sources of approximately the same status with regard to their reliability and notability should be treated in a similar fashion with regard to attribution or contextualization, as well as in respect to their weight when several sources need to be assessed to determine the due weight of a certain piece of information. A comparison with the following news sources may be helpful to sort out these issues:

• Honest Reporting [70]
• Israel Insider [71]
• DEBKAfile [72]
• Ma'an News [73]
• WAFA [74]
• SANA [75]
• ITAR-TASS [76]
• Fars News Agency [77]
• IRNA [78]

  Cs32en Talk to me  21:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of those are dubious as to their commitment to accuracy and fairness as well and should at minimum be attributed too when used.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva is an RS.

This is frankly a very problematic discussion. No one has been informed that it is taking place and a decision can be made here without anyone coming to present another side. Cs32en, allow me to attract attention.

Given that, Arutz Sheva is a media outlet that is in fact "pro-settler" or "religious zionist" and just as RS as Haaretz which is "anti-settler" and secular". Just because many people do not like it (for being "pro-settler" or "religious zionist") does not make Arutz Sheva, a licensed media by the Israeli government, less reliable. FWIW Cs32en, bringing quotes from Haaretz, the NYT, the BBC, and the Turkish Weekly (?!), all of which who are not sympathetic to Israel, does not help your case one bit. --Shuki (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's controversial, attribute it. What's the big deal? The particular publication in question has a strong point of view. Attribute it. Other publications also have a point of view? Attribute them. Someone get's their feathers ruffled over Haaretz? Attribute that. Etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, this discussion is not related to any current discussion on a talk page. The purpose of it is to ask uninvolved editors for their assessment. That is the reason for which I have not notified any of those editors who hold a strong personal point of view on this issue. If you have reliable sources that are stating that Arutz Sheva is not agenda-driven, or that make any other relevant statements about Arutz Sheva, please present this information here.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If Arutz Sheva is judged to be reliable, a decision should be made that every regularly published "news" source is reliable, since there really isn't anything further from the mainstream than this. I've been involved in several cases in the past where Arutz Sheva published clearly false information, not just their standard far-right spin which appears every day. If their claims could be attributed as the opinions of the settler movement, it wouldn't be so bad, but I doubt Shuki will ever agree to that. Zero^talk 03:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite aside from the 'propaganda' angle the most obvious comparison is to something like The Sun (United Kingdom) which I'm pretty sure we don't treat as a reliable source for anything controversial. Journalistic standards alone would rule them out for blp stuff and, for exapmle, matters of fact about their respective countries wars/politics. Anything they discuss will also be discussed in obviously RS media outlets, so we should go with the latter. Misarxist (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A case has recently come up concerning the Gaza flotilla raid, in the Cargo section concerning this source. Arutz Sheva quotes an Israeli military source word for word. The question is whether the reference should say Arutz Sheva quoted him, or whether an IDF source said such and such. Myself, I find that the potential for pro-Israeli POV is already address when the quote is attributed to the IDF source. The only reason for including Arutz Sheva's name would be if we thought there was potential for the quote to inaccurate, and I think there's no doubt of that (see source). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that this particular example is not typical, as here, Arutz Sheva is not reporting something as a fact, but as a statement of fact from a third part. With Associated Press, I would assume that if an article cites an anonymous source, Associated Press would vouch for the source being a person who could make an informed, reliable judgment. With Arutz Sheva, I would not be sure of that, the source could also be an official, or even a soldier in the IDF that has friendly ties with the controversial news outlet. My personal view, also with regard to this example, would be that it's best to attribute the informatoion explicitly to Arutz Sheva, but I understand why an other editor would not make the same conclusion.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In this specific instance, it's unreliable. We would trust the AP to be a little more responsible in granting/using blind quotes (i.e. unattributed). Given the websites very strong point of view on this particular issue (and the failure even to characterize the IDF source -- is it a buck private? A general? Who knows?). If Arutz Shiva had interviewed a named IDF official and had the same info but with "General so-and-so saying" it, I'd say go ahead and use it (this is the sort of thing that no one would be likely to fudge, and if they did so, they'd get caught). But checking that "unnamed person" asserted something (or evaluating unnamed persons own biases, and so on) is impossible. In general, controversial quotes from unnamed people should always get greater scrutiny, no matter the source (publications with no obvious axes to grind get spun when they grant anonymity all the time). They should probably be used very rarely (think of Deep Throat before his identity was revealed; that's one that you couldn't write about Watergate without). It's also important to ask yourself why anonymity is granted for a scrap of information. The Israeli government has been quite public and open with its criticisms of the flotilla people -- why not go on the record with this assertion? At any rate, this is not one of those rare cases where the unattributed quote should get a free pass. This kind of nuance in deciding when its appropriate to use a source or not is something that wikipedia writ large is terrible at. There are no hard and fast rules for sources like this one -- context is everything.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

But don't you feel that citing this to "An unnamed IDF source" covers that issue? If the source were presenting facts, I would be with you in questioning the reliability. But the source is used to establish the Israeli POV on questioning the flotilla's motives. There are other Israeli sources that do this, but when it comes to the medicines issue, this one is by far the most explicit. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Using Wikia.com

An editor is using a wiki (hosted on Wikia.com) as a reliable source for the Dragon Age II article. I removed it from the article, but the editor says it is a reliable source and maintained by experts (here and here). A second opinion would be great. Cheers,  Davtra  ^(talk) 23:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be an open wiki, which pretty much disqualifies it as a reliable source. People who know a lot about the game may contribute to it, and so I suppose they're "experts" of a sort, but not the sort that satisfies our sourcing policies. — e. ripley\^talk 23:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Open wiki, fails WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Transformers

There have been a recent spate of deletions and arguments about what is acceptable and reliable sources. These sites below have been used as "reliable and independent sources." I feel they are fansites and not reliable thoughts? Dwanyewest (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

[79][80][81][82]][83]

• The first link goes to seibertron.com, whose "About" page says "coming soon" and at the bottom describes itself as an "unofficial fansite." I would be skeptical of any information posted here.
• The second link goes to tfsite.com, which appears to be some sort of memorabilia store. I see no reason to think that's a particularly good source.
• The third link goes to tfwiki.net, which as an open wiki is decidedly not a reliable source.
• The fourth link goes to tformers.com, whose articles are written by people with forum-name bylines, which doesn't exactly inspire confidence. It says it's run by something called "Entertainment News International" (enewsi.com), which appears at least to have peoples' names attached to the articles on the main page, but I don't know about its quality. Perhaps borderline.
• The last link goes to tfw2005.com, which describes itself as a "fan community related to Transformers toys." I don't think a "fan community" can be considered a reliable source.

These largely seem to be inappropriate as sources, in my opinion. — e. ripley\^talk 23:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well you could kindly tell people the people at WikiProject Transformers then "Too much dead wood and no sourced material" Dwanyewest (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The better course would probably be for you to direct them to this discussion. — e. ripley\^talk 01:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem is Transformers articles sourcing the published books, Wired Magazine, USA Today, Toyfare Magazine, etc, are also getting deleted, not just the ones who source fansites. What's the reasoning behind that? Mathewignash (talk) 05:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Are these articles making trivial mentinon of major characters provide examples in USA Today, etc and plus it has to be significant coverage of the subject please provide examples of such claims. I am sceptical of such inclusionist claims. Dwanyewest (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The debate of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energon (power source) is a perfect example of mainstream sources poorly and wilfully misused to further an argument. Dwanyewest (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

scholarlypublishing.org

There is a dispute at Alger Hiss regarding this. My view is that the admission of "digital publication" should prompt suspicion of WP:SELFPUB. The material at issue is by an academic but someone who is writing outside his field of professional expertise. As a professor, the author would understand that for his work to be considered authoritative it ought to be published in a refereed journal. In this case it isn't even published by a fully arm's length publisher of any sort, since when responding to some of my objections here, the author referred to "my website" (emphasis added). The hosting website is http://quod.lib.umich.edu, and given that it also hosts things like UM Campus Area photos, it appears to be analogous to a university department's server that is largely free to use for faculty without any peer review at all. The assistance of support staff in the "publication" does nothing to resolve the issue, in my view. I've allowed that the matter may be grey enough that I have not tried to purge the article of citations to this source, but some want to feature a sentence cited to this source as arguably the most prominent sentence in the whole article. This while material published by Yale University Press, the Journal of Cold War Studies, etc is fundamentally at odds with the general viewpoint of this author.Bdell555 (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but I do not think the mere fact of where the article is hosted matters--many sites can be hosted on the same server--ibiblio.org, for example hosts many different sites. How the author responded to personal correspondence also isn't really relevant, and would constitute original research in any case. The key questions, I think, are the role of SPO, and how to weight the source. It appears that the SPO is an official publishing arm of UM, and thus similar to other university presses, and the author is an academic and has documented his work, so I would argue that the source is basically reliable. That being said, the material is presented as an essay, and as you point out, this area is not the author's area of expertise. Thus to the extent that it does not accord with the findings of professional historians examining the topic, care should be taken to not give this essay undue weight (and using it in the lead would do that, I think). As it stands, the lead in the article is too long--my suggestion would be to move paragraphs 2-4 to other sections below, and keep the lead very small, as that will help ease the problems with weighting. This is apparently a common issue with articles on contentious subjects. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

for his work to be considered authoritative it ought to be published in a refereed journal. That's moving onto very thin ice. It would certainly eliminate most of the so called "publishing" in the whole McCarthy era/reds under every bed/terrorists around every corner mind set. Coulter would be out. Anything done by Regnery Publishing would be out. (Hey, how about that! Coulter uses Regnery... what an amazing coincidence.) Currently much of the publishing on McCarthy era issues sources back to Venona and collections like the FBI Silvermaster File all of which need to be read with great care due to the nature of their purpose & creation. Example: in the 2009 Klehr, Haynes, Vassiliev "Spies" on page 259 Haynes wrote (Klehr denies knowledge & I seriously doubt Vassiliev cares, so by elimination it must be Haynes) A Soviet operative held the first direct covert KGB contact with White in July 1944. Evidently the referees/fact checkers at Yale Press didn't dig deep enough to learn the 31 July 1944 meeting (as described in Venona 1119-1122 http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/venona/1944/4aug_harry_dexter_white.pdf ) and recorded in the 4 August 1944 Venona cable, the covert KGB contact was in fact a Soviet central bank delegate to the recently concluded Bretton Woods conference. For July White was chief organizer at the 3 week, 700 delegate Bretton Woods conference. I duly note that while Venona sources such as Nathan Gregory Silvermaster attended Bretton Woods, there does not seem to be any Venona message traffic about the conference.

A personal observation about the sanctity of "refereed journals." My trade is software. Twenty years ago I found a research paper from MIT's Sloan School (a heavily research oriented school... you have to write a thesis to get an MBA) which said it was going to write on software maintenance. But when I actually read the paper, the author said that when they examined the refereed literature there was so little mention of software maintenance that the paper would be on a different topic. So the absence of refereed papers on software maintenance means software maintenance is either unimportant or doesn't exist? Huh? Point being: refereed journals are not an infallible source of information. DEddy (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

References/Sources at UVB-76 Article

There have been some unresolved concerns of sources being utilized at the article for UVB-76; some have come to a very loose consensus as not being able to pass WP:RS, however, others have been up in the air.

At heart, the main references in question are as follows:

• [84] and [85]; these are copies of newsletters for two Amateur Radio groups, neither of which are hosted under the organizations' own domains. From the information I've been able to locate for these organizations--mostly their own websites--there doesn't appear to be anything that would indicate the contributors to these newsletters are necessarily 'experts'; newsletters of this sort, in my view (which has been opposed), would best fit as 'self-published' WP:SPS, but would not pass muster under those guidelines (and others do not seem to lend much help).

• [86], the 3rd item in the References section, is the item most commonly agreed upon; it is a copy of an old Geocities page that has been archived. It is completely unreferenced and unsourced, and most certainly fails. Reference #1 above largely reproduces this page in it's entirety as the sole mention of UVB-76; whether this fact has bearing on either source or not, I'm not entirely sure of.

• [87], the 4th item, is another newsletter from the group who had published Reference #2 above; neither of these newsletters refer to the station as 'UVB-76', but rather its nickname 'The Buzzer', and very little information is present (this more likely is a notability issue, rather than a reliability one).

• [88], 5th item, is a newsletter from a third radio group , about which little to indicate reliability can be found.

• [89], 6th item (start of 2nd column); this is a website that appears to be run by a Brian Rogers; he appears to have some relationship with the group ENIGMA 2000 (authors of the first reference above), as he links to their site (which is on the same domain of www.brogers.dsl.pipex.com). Nothing locatable to indicate his reliability.

• [90]; 7th item, a page from Wired, the content of which seems largely derived from:
  • A Gizmodo post [91] which refers to the Wikipedia Numbers Station page, and originated from a Mixed Martial Arts forum [92];
  • The above referenced Numbers Station page;
  • A blog, at [[93]];
  • The article itself;
  • Other conjecture that was at least once part of the article (relation to the Dead Hand, possible uses of the station, etc).

--Largely, ciruclar references or ones that we wouldn't normally rely on. This also is the only major site that appears to have provided any coverage whatsoever.

• [94]; 8th item; a thread from a mailing list for one of the above radio groups. Makes mention that sources in the Russian government have confirmed it belongs to a Russian Ministry; this is not reflected elsewhere.

The remaining two references would likely be considerable as reliable sources, but #9 only makes trivial mention of the site itself (I've not been able to ascertain this myself, as it is a book); #10 does not specifically reference the station, but the frequency it runs on and how it can be used (likely removable).

Sorry this has been so long-winded, but I wanted to give as much information as I thought would be necessary to help make a determination. Thanks in advance for any assistance that can be provided in fleshing this out. Aeternitas827 (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Aeternitas827 is right that there are serious sourcing problems. I've tried to trim out some of the poorly sourced content but have been faced with users who reinstate it showing a complete disregard for policies relating to reliable sources and no original research. It seems now difficult to deal with this problem whilst some users are apparently not interested in trying to achieve an article which meets our fundamental policies. I hope we might be able to trim out some of the poorly sourced content and be left with at least something. Adambro (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Library of Congress

I have some issues with regards to accepting Library of Congress as reliable source, need suggestions pertinent to this as few reports of the said organization are roughly contradicting the Pew Research Center, CIA and other reliable studies concerning the demographic studies in South Asia.Humaliwalay (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Of all the ones you mention, the LOC, as a library, is the most agnostic. Without some specifics it's impossible to respond further. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused -- are you talking about Library of Congress Country Studies? I don't see any reason why they couldn't be accepted as a WP:RS if properly attributed. The LOC describes them as The Country Studies Series presents a description and analysis of the historical setting and the social, economic, political, and national security systems and institutions of countries throughout the world. The series examines the interrelationships of those systems and the ways they are shaped by cultural factors. The books represent the analysis of the authors and should not be construed as an expression of an official United States Government position, policy, or decision. The authors have sought to adhere to accepted standards of scholarly objectivity.

I take it that some information in this country study conflicts with Pew and the CIA? Generally, when reliable sources differ, the disputed information is summarized. (X says this, but Y says that.) — e. ripley\^talk 05:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

My Sincere thanks to both of you, I remove ambiguity here I actually meant Library of Congress and asked about the authenticity of Studies but there was another article on Library of Congress Studies. Please suggest again, as can I take the authenticity of Library of Congress as reliable. Well the Idea of specifying sources helped a lot like X says this and Y says this. Thanking in anticipation. I have corrected the headline. Humaliwalay (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue at hand is the that Humaliwalay wishes to remove the Library of Congress Country Studies from Shi'a Islam in Pakistanon the grounds he disagrees with it. Codf1977 (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Codf1977 - I don't disagree with anything reliable hence I asked discussion here, and issue is the claim of Library of Congress doesn't match with any reliable source. Humaliwalay (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Absent some specific argument as to why they aren't reliable, they seem to meet the standard to me. Where reliable sources disagree, we summarize that disagreement. — e. ripley\^talk 13:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me make it easy, Humaliwalay is a Shia Muslim who strongly refuses to accept books of other people. Shias are very specific on what to trust and what not to trust. Library of Congress is located in Washington DC, in the capital of the United States and is the national library of USA. They have a separate section that deals with foreign countries, and under no circumstances can someone say it is biased toward a particular group because USA is a nation of all the people of the world. Wikipedia isn't a fact-finder or a research website, we must accept all reliable sources and anyone who tries to remove such sources from an article will get blocked for vandalism or distruptive actions.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I never stated in any of the discussion about who I am and nor did I generalize another user. AllahLovesYou has generalized me on his assumption which is not appreciated. I hereby request to get this user's actions reviewed. - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

But you're telling us on your user:page who you are, your edits tell us more. Also, you're the one calling me childish (Humaliwalay: "Don't act childish..."), that's a personal attack towards me because I'm not a child as you can see my writings are obviously not of a child.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for saying so, but so far you incited sectarian hatred is worst than a childish act which can be read above. I have reported this ti administrator and asked for protecion of few articles which is getting distirted repeatedly. Thanks - Humaliwalay (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've protected Shi'a Islam in Pakistan and am wondering if Criticism of Sunni Islam needs protection. This is an alternative to actually blocking someone. Humaliwalay, if you are going to suggest an editor is a sock puppet, as you did at ANI, then you should raise it at [[WP:SPI]. I will add that E. Ripley's comments above are correct - attribute your sources and summarise the disagreement (if they are all reliable sources, and the LOC studies, right or wrong, are reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

heffernan

A dispute has arrison ove whetehr a blog entry [[95]] is RS for her caveats about endorsing Watts Up With That?. Based on the fact that blogs canno0t be used as sources about third parties. My popint being is being used as a source for an opinion on her endosemsnt, not about the subjkect of that endorsment.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it can be used, but only in correct context. If you make sure to frame it like "In a response posted by Heffernan on the xyz.com site... insert quote". I would stay away from using it as a source for a claim without this context, it could be construed as misleading. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, if any evidence arises to dispute the validity of Heffernan's identity on that site the information would have to be promptly removed from the article without exception until the validity of the claim is confirmed.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Not only does there appear to be no dispute but the 'retraction' post is in fact repeated on the blog she origionaly endorsed [[96]] so there appears to be no doubt its her comments. In addition the subject of any BLP violation has repeated the material.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. per WP:Bold I'd say insert it, under the criteria above, until anything contrary appears.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is not a blog post, but a comment to a blog post. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

repeated by the subject of the comment on their blog.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that Quest, that's why I think it can pass as long as it's framed correctly and not used as a simple citation. As a regular cite it goes into the dumpster.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Re: blog comments and twitter feeds, WP:RS states:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the material is not unduly self-serving;it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);it does not involve;claims about events not directly related to the subject;there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This comment has claims about third-party people, organizations, or other entities and should not be included. Minor4th 17:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

So we can use the phrasae "she went on to say she does not endorse its views" as that makes no mention of any third party.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the blog is run by David Dobbs.[97] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

To further clarify, where is this being used? I thought this was going into either an article about Heffernan showcasing her views on a topic or into an article about the topic showing this as a citation of critical views of the topic. In the first case it would fall under self-published viewpoint and in the 2nd case it falls under critical review just like a motion picture article. How is this ref going to be used and where?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Torchwoodwho: The article is Watts Up With That?. A lengthy discussion begins here.[98] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Example of the text as it is without the caveat [[99]]. This is the text (with the caveat) [[100]]. Note that if this text is kept (personally I think is fails Undue but there you are) it would go in to the same section as the first Diff.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• No, not a reliable source at all. Even if you were to make any sort of case, you'd need to show the proposed edit. Incidentally, it's unclear what relevance someone with graduate degreesn in English lit ((Heffernan) has on climate change. II | (t - c) 19:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Actualy I agree I bleive that including this womans recomendation fails undue, but that is a different issue.Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Having now seen the context in which this is being used I have to say it falls into undue weight. As shown above there are perfectly good examples of when a citation like this "can" be used, and this is case of when it most likely should be left out. This is a good example of a borderline source, but it doesn't do much to solve the disputed edits. Perhaps this talk would do better moved to the content noticeboard?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

www.answering-ansar.org

User:Humaliwalay is involved in editing Criticism of Sunni Islam and uses this (http://www.answering-ansar.org/index.php) and other similar hate-promoting websites to support his POVs in Wikipedia. For example, Humaliwalay inserted in the article this "The Qur'an states that 'Laa yamassuhu illal Mutahharun' (No one can touch it save the pure) but in it is stated in multiple verdicts of Sunni Scholars that the Chapter of the Quraan Al-Fateha (The Opening) can be written with urine". I asked Humaliwalay where is this stated and he directed me to a Shia hate Sunni website [101] and called me childish in the process. After checking the link that he provided I noticed the above statement about Quran chapter can be written with urine was simply a question asked by a random online user at the answering hate-site. See question 60 The article Criticism of Sunni Islam was created by Humaliwalay and except the intro which I edited, nearly all the rest of the info in that article fails to be verified. He uses these unreliable sources to back up his POVs but argues else where that the Library of Congress in Washington, DC, (USA) is an unreliable source for information. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Library of CongressI need help in dealing with this article and with Humaliwalay to stop his propaganda, and to stop using unreliable sources. Thanks!--AllahLovesYou (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider that site to be reliable. Their join page says it's a "volunteer project" whose "sole objective is to refute the false propaganda perpetuated against the followers of Ahlíul bayt by todayís postmodern cyber takfeeris." Sounds pretty skewed, so I would not use it to make sweeping claims about the Quran. But that's just my take; anyone else? (Oh, and as a side note, I think that article could be considered a POVFORK, and should probably be merged into a larger criticism article.) — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 07:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)