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

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

Facebook as a source

[1] Is Facebook permissible as a source to provide how many people are fans of something? Grsz 11 19:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Forums, blogs and wikis aren't reliable sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been discussed before and there might actually be some leeway (not sure). However, the lines you are presenting are not only a probable sourcing issue but an original research issue. The article is not an essay for editors to present their thoughts. If the comparison being made is not laid out in RS then it isn't really worthy or appropriate to mention.Cptnono (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Facebook does not have any editorial control over how many fans a page has; such numbers can be gamed electronically. Facebook loses out as a reliable source for the number of sports fans a team has, especially when placed up against a wider study by Sport+Markt, one which takes into account all fans, not just ones that are online and aware of Facebook. Facebook cannot ever tell us how many fans a sports team has in total. I would remove that bit in the article, until a paragraph is introduced saying how Facebook is important to one or both of the teams. Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Facebook is perfectly reliable as a primary source for how many fans something has in a facebook sense. But it is such a stupid measure of support for something that it would rarely have any place in a WP article. As is said above, it is not an accurate measure of support, so it is improper to imply any consequence from the primary data. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source for anything... except (perhaps) a statement as to what appeared on a specific facebook page on a given date (and I don't really see a situation in which such a statement would be relevant or appropriate). Blueboar (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I can think of an instance where saying what was posted on a facebook page would prove to be a reliable source: Some celeb posts on their facebook page that they've gotten engaged, become pregnant, etc. as their first announcement of such. Other than that, it's not really a good source for anything, especially how many fans something has, because it's not taken from a wide demographic. Most facebook users are in the 15-25 age range, which isn't a wide sample. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 20:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I basically agree with that position but we do seem to allow self published content of the type included in a "official" personal site from the subject of an article about him or herself in a limited manner as set out in WP:SELFPUB and as Blueboar says, occasionally I have seen it and not removed it when it links to search results refering to coverage of an internet viral event or person... like this... The news gained prominence following sustained pressure on social networking sites Twitter 1 and Facebook 2 - Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, that assumes we can verify that the person posting to the social network page actually is the person we think it is. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Twitter has some kind of seal-thing it places on the profiles of "official" accounts. The thing can only be placed on the profile by twitter itself, and only after twitter has verified that the account does, indeed, belong to who it claims to belong to. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 22:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Facebook is a reliable source if you want to post "FC Barcelona Facebook page indicates 7,213,782 People Like This as of 13:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC) and Real Madrid C.F. Facebook page indicates 6,111,074 People Like This as of 13:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)." However, by itself, that satement would only be relevant on Wikipedia's Facebook article (primary sources are permitted if used carefully) and would be kept out of Wikipedia's Facebook article because its significance to the Facebook topic is very low. If you use Facebook as the source for that statement on the El Clásico page, then you run into trouble with Original Research, particularly Synthesis of published material that advances a position. In sum, remove this sentence and in your edit summary post "Removed sentence per WP:SYNTHESIS." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I would have no objection to something like "On July 14, 2011, The Potheads announced on their Facebook page that they would be touring Europe." However, as their web site would not doubt pick up the tour information in due course, I would not keep the ref there long.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

What about Facebook as a source for a deceased person's date of birth? For example, if a woman's Facebook lists her daughter's birthdate and the day she died in a blog and no other reliable source can be located to confirm a DOB, could that count as a reliable source? And before anyone asks how we know for sure that the Facebook is actually hers (in this one example) I would point out the videos in which she directs people to her FB, Myspace, and website. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 14:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I have difficulty believing that Facebook would actually be the only source for that information... birth and death dates can usually be reliably sourced to newspaper obituaries. And if it is true that no other source thinks the daughter's date of birth and death is worth mentioning, I have to wonder whether the information is worth mentioning in Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

What about MyDeathSpace.com -- could that be considered a reliable source? The problem we are having setting a specific DOB for Michelle Thomas is that some secondary sources report the year as 1968, while others report the year as 1969. The date given here[2] is consistent with the age given in People[3], Jet magazine[4], the NY Times[5], and her mother's Myspace and Facebook accounts. Even IMDB.com, which has been identified as non-reliable lists a different year than Allmovie.com. All available sources give the same day and month; it is just the year that is different. One editor in particular will cite the opposite source to cancel out the first source given. I attempted to compromise and list both years (as seen at Audrey Tautou) but that was turned down. At what point can multiple reliable sources be used in an "or" situation for a date of birth? At what point, in the absence of matching secondary sources, should we use a primary source (such as a social security death index or birth certificate) to confirm a date of birth? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 17:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't agree with using MySpace, MyDeathSpace, Twitter, Linkd, or any similar sites. Seems to me that the compromise solution of including and sourcing both dates is the only way to go, assuming that the sources giving each date are reliable secondary sources. —J04n(talk page) 01:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

FaceBook should not be used for any material like this, including the statement "FC Barcelona Facebook page indicates 7,213,782 People Like This as of 13:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)", which is original research based on primary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what the research would be? Maybe I am missing something about the example, but isn't this just a case of reporting raw primary materials without analysis or explanation added? That seems allowed under WP:PRIMARY?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• On a related note, is it reliable to use the official Facebook page of a company as a source for information? From what I am taking, the information posted on their Facebook page is similar to information they would give out on their website. Dough4872 02:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Aftermath of World War II

There is disagreement over the reliability of Ambient Conflicts: History of Relations between Countries with Different Social Systems, Yefim Chernyak, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987.[6] Additional input would be appreciated. Edward321 (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks reliable to me. I am going to guess that the argument against is... it's a Communist source and therefor "unreliable" (yes?) If so, that is a false argument. The fact that a published source supports a particular POV does not make it unreliable. The trick is to make the reader aware of the source's POV and to balance it with statements based on sources that support other POVs. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Progress is a widely known international publisher of professional and academic texts. Basic snippet analysis of the google books entry indicates that it is an academic volume. Given its era (1987) the work is unlikely to contain fundamental methodological flaws. However, like all academic works, it will represent a methodological and theoretical tradition. Read, classify according to the literature typography of the field, represent opinions contained within the work as scholarly opinions from the discrete literature group. As reliable as any other HQRS. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

RS/N editors should be aware of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Military_history_POV-bias in this context. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

RS. Only a handful citations in the West; the Russian original edition Вековые конфликты is somewhat more widely cited by Russian scholarly sources. --JN466 13:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite many Russian authors have Soviet background and repeat Soviet propaganda. One has to be an expert to understand the difference between Russian nationalists, post-Soviets, independent scholars. Some writers work for FSB, Russian Army, Russian government. The Russian texts you quote are - 80 anniversary of Chernyak, Tobolsk teacher's college curriculum, a Renaissance article, nothin serious. Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Any Soviet and Soviet Block book was censored, both negatively - removed parts of the text, and positively - either the whole book or parts of it were designed by political leaders. Zhukov's Diary has several versions, all of them manipulated. Brezhnyev's "deeds" were created and described by many authors, including standard WWII books. So any censored text should be described as censored and quoted with extreme caution. Many Russian authors reject Soviet texts.Xx236 (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's my concern. Books published under totalitarian regimes discussing the views of their ideological opponents can't be assumed to be free of censorship, and better sources should be available for the material in question. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh... have you read any US Sovietology? The problem isn't confined to "totalitarian" regimes, in itself a problematic and US biased theoretical construction of social ordering. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo is right on target. Totalitarian regimes don't have a monopoly on dubious sources. Consider for instance the Cold War incorporation of US Information Agency (USIA) into the US government’s Psychological Operations Co-ordinating Committee, and its funding of a book publishing programme in the late 1950s at a cost of $100,000 annually. American readers were unaware that many of the supposedly independent books they were buying and reading were actually subsidised with their own tax money. When books condemning the "Red menace" did not meet commercial standards, USIA obligingly eliminated the publisher's risk by surreptitiously buying up sufficient copies to cover production costs. (Saturday Evening Post, 22 May 1967, p.12.21).The CIA considered books to “differ from all other propaganda media, primarily because one single book can significantly change the reader's attitude and action to an extent unmatched by the impact of any other single medium." (Thomas C Sorensen, The Word War: The story of American propaganda, New York, Harper and Row, 1968, pp.69-70). Communicat (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If this [7] is a correct copy of the Saturday Evening Post article, it does not support anything that you say. Edward321 (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Mibeis HaGenozim - Treasures From The Chabad Library

Is Mibeis HaGenozim - Treasures From The Chabad Library by Shalom Dovber Levine, published by the Kehot Publication Society, reliable for the claim that Yitzchok Hutner had a deep respect for Menachem Mendel Schneerson, asked him for his explanations on Jewish subjects, and requested his blessings? I think Levine runs the Library Of Agudas Chassidei Chabad, Kehot Publication Society is the publishing arm of the Chabad movement (which was led for decades by Schneerson), and Mibeis HaGenozim appears to be a coffee-table book. Other sources (e.g. Goldberg, Hillel. Between Berlin and Slobodka: Jewish transition figures from Eastern Europe, Ktav Publishing House, 1989) state that Hutner was a fierce critic of the Chabad movement and its cult of personality around Schneerson. Goldberg's bio can be found here. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It may be that Hutner respected Schneerson personally but not the cult around him. On the other hand, Chabad has form for claiming that all sorts of people relied on the Rebbe for advice and counsel. JFW | T@lk 22:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Any other views on this? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say it doesn't quite pass the smell taste because of the closeness of the publisher and the topic, and the contentiousness of the claim. But it could possibly be used with attribution. Dlabtot (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with "could possibly be used with attribution". Blueboar (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Can a youtube video be used as a source?

Can it? For example if an identifiable person in subject is stating something, then his / her statement can be used in his / her article on wiki? Userpd (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the video a reproduction of something that appeared on TV? Is it a college lecture or some other expert speaking on a particular subject matter? Is the information available anywhere else? For me it would not be an issue because "it's on Youtube" but would depend on exactly what is on Youtube and its source. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 20:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Also remember that interpretation of material like this is not as straightforward as the interpretation of actual printed text. For all we know, the video could have been doctored by the use of Final Cut Pro or other software; the "identifiable person" could actually be an impersonator or imitator; etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No it's not reproduction of TV, it's exclusive in its form, an interview of a skit show. But contains a viable information about the subject to whom the article is dedicated. I fail to see why shouldn't this information be included and as an checkout be put the youtube link where the person had said stated it by himself / herself. Of course if printed version other than YT was available then it would be preferred over, but here we talk about youtube links. Also, other than inteview, let's say a monologue of a person, self-recording on youtube, can his words / statements be used in his wiki entry and the yt link as a reference? Userpd (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Youtube does not faithfully retransmit video material, it does not exercise editorial control. Other publishers may host content on Youtube, but, in almost all circumstance, Youtube should not be used as a source for retransmissions of previously broadcast works, or for original transmissions of video work. Only when the institution which originally broadcast the work republishes it on Youtube, and only when that institution in itself is a reliable publisher, should works on youtube be linked to, and the reference should contain the original broadcaster as publisher, with full original video citation. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I am plugging my on essay: WP:VIDEOLINK

There are multiple issues with YouTube videos. Would you mind providing specific information?Cptnono (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Treat Youtube as a video-photocopier. It isn't a publisher. You wouldn't take random photocopies off a guy in the street with an underfed dog and treat the photocopies as RS, especially when he's demonstrated he feeds pages, especially the bibliography and publication information to his dog.
• In all other respects apply normal RS and V policies as to video. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• In a general sense, only Youtube videos that are hosted on accounts that, for all intents and purposes, appear to be official accounts for that news service (or whomever you're talking about) are allowed. Thus, music videos hosted on Youtube on the official channel of the publisher should be okay, as would news reports hosted on the official channels of those news broadcasters. However, videos of news reports hosted on random users on Youtube are not allowed, as they could have been tampered with and we have no way to know or verify their reliability. So, really, take Youtube videos with a grain of salt. Silverseren^C 18:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Advice columns in general, Dan Savage in particular

Three interrelated questions. For questions of disputed fact,

1. How reliable are advice columns in general?
2. How reliable is Dan Savage in general?
3. How reliable is Dan Savage's Savage Love advice column in particular?

As to the first question, how confident may we be that advice columnists don't just make up (or heavily edit) their letters? Advice columns are basically entertainment, not serious scholarship or journalism (right?). I suppose it depends on the reputation of the venue - Dear Prudie in Slate and so forth presumably has editors ensuring that she has proof that her letters are real, right?

As to the second question Dan Savage. I realize a person's reliability may vary with circumstance, such as rigor of editorial oversight on a given project, but trying to get an overall sense. Based on his Wikipedia article and the article on his column (Savage Love), he doesn't look reliable at all. Points against him being:

• No formal training or work whatsoever in his field (sexology) that I can see (undergraduate work mostly in theater, no grad work or work as a therapist, researcher, etc.)
• He's a political/cultural activist with a definite strong agenda. (Not saying it's a bad agenda, just that he is a polemicist as well as an entertainer.) (I wonder how many of our accepted scholarly and journalistic sources are responsible for material like "Carl Romanelli should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there's nothing left but the rope"? Not to cherry-pick that one quote, be he does seem more a man on a mission than a dispassionate observer or scholar.)
• His article describes him as a journalist, but it also says the he joined a political campaign in order to infect the candidate and his staff with disease, and purposely contaminated items to this end. Or maybe he was kidding when he said this. Either way, strange ethics for a journalist, and it does have to make you wonder about the guy's character.

As to Savage's advice column in particular:

• It's published by The Onion's A.V. Club and (I think) also syndicated in some free giveaway tabloids. The A.V. club is described in its article lead as an "entertainment newspaper and website", so it's not a scholarly or serious journalistic undertaking, I wouldn't think.
• According to Dan Savage, "Savage typed up a sample column" to get the initial job. He must have made up the reader inquiries, and it does make you wonder if that's the only time he's done that. It further says "[H]e began the column with the express purpose of providing mocking advice to heterosexuals" so again, that doesn't inspire confidence that his main purpose is to provide advice to real individuals with real questions.
• The Savage Love article (which states that he "uses the column as a forum for his strong opinions") is mainly a list of words that Savage has made up. Since he's being cited in articles mainly for word definitions, this also doesn't inspire confidence.

On the other hand, he has publisher four books and contributed to another. But (except for one that's a collection of his columns), they are all memoirs.

All in all, I have zero confidence that Savage doesn't just make up his letters, writes whatever he thinks will advance his agenda, and has zero editorial oversight. My guess is that for statements of facts his advice column is probably a little less reliable than (say) Rush Limbaugh's radio show. If Limbaugh's show is considered a reliable source for matters of fact (I hope not, but I don't know), than Savage Love might be OK, but if not, not. But maybe I'm missing something.

(N.B. Savage Love is used as a source in more than one article (I think) but the particular refs in question are this and this in the article Snowballing (sexual practice). I'm not contending that snowballing isn't a real term (it is), only interested in vetting those refs (and getting a sense of how this board feels about Savage in general).) Thanking you all in advance for your time and consideration, Herostratus (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not exactly a fan of Dan Savage but he is recognized as a decent sized voice in the topic of sexuality and is used in a handful of articles here on Wikipedia. He is a published author who also has a column (Savage Love) is syndicated. He has also won some awards and been invited to host them (not the Emmy's of course) [8][9][10]. The Stranger (newspaper) is an alternative paper but it has wide circulation and a professional structure that meets the requirements of WP:RELIABLE. Is snowballing only done in pornography and not in real life? It does happen outside of porn sometimes and think this column (along with others) supports that.Cptnono (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Some kind ords form te New York Times, Newseek, and the Village Voice[11]

It also looks like his writing has appeared in The New York Times Magazine, the op-ed pages of The New York Times, Rolling Stone, and other publications. He has also contributed numerous pieces to This American Life on NPR. And, according to the publisher (Penguin Books) He is very popular.Cptnono (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of the comparison between Dan Savage and Michael Savage:

• Both are named "Savage".
• Like Dan Savage, Michael Savage does not have formal education in his field (politics). Michael Savage does have a Ph.D, though (although not in politics), while Dan Savage has a high school diploma.
• Like Dan Savage, Michal Savage is a polemicist. Michael Savage is extremely polemical, but Dan Savage is pretty damn polemical too.
• Like Dan Savage, Michael Savage has published several books. However, Michael Savage has published a lot more books, and several have been NYT bestsellers, which none of Dan Savage's have been, I don't think.
• Dan Savage has an advice column that is fairly widely distributed. Michael Savage has a radio show that is fairly widely distributed. (Michael Savage also had a TV show on a major network (MSNBC), which Dan Savage hasn't.)
• Dan Savage has won an obscure award. Michael Savage has won an obscure award.[url=http://newsblaze.com/story/20070328082543nnnn.np/newsblaze/NEWSWIRE/NewsBlaze-Wire.html]
• Dan Savage's writings have appeared in major publications. Michael Savage has had his own show on a major network (MSNBC).
• Dan Savage and Michael Savage are both minor celebrities with Wikipedia article. They are probably roughly comparable in fame.
• Dan Savage makes up whatever he wants and is about as reliable a source for facts as Poppin' Fresh, the Pillsbury Doughboy. Michael Savage makes up whatever he wants and is about as reliable a source for facts as Charlie the Tuna.

There are some differences - Dan Savage is funny, and Michael Savage isn't; Dan Savage is annoying, but Michale Savage is infuriating. In all fairness and honesty, they seem pretty comparable to me. If we can use one Savage as a reliable source on matters of fact then we can use the other Savage, I would think. Herostratus (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if we can use Michael Savage or not. You will have to open up a separate discussion for that.Cptnono (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Back to the original question, though; like so much on this board, the answer depends on just what Savage is being used to back up. He's certainly reliable to back up what a widely syndicated alternative sex advice column wrote on a certain date. He's not reliable to back up most facts in Precambrian history or subatomic physics. There's a wide range in between. For the Snowballing article, it seems he's being used appropriately, to back up that there is such an alternative sexual practice; as a widely syndicated sexual advice columnist, it seems he is reliable for that factoid. For other questions, you'll have to ask given the other specific facts he's being cited to back up. --GRuban (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources for the meaning of the book of Revelation

The edit in question is this section:

John's declaration established a triunism (or trinity, or typology) of three distinct and compartmentalized iterations of Daniel's prophecies--one pertaining to ancient Jewish history, one pertaining to the intermediate history of Christianity, and one pertaining to the End of the Age.

The sources are:

• http://thetriunist.weebly.com triunism
• http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=10

Are these WP:RS substantiating this edit? --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I am no expert on this, but: there is a huge amount of scholarship on the New Testament in general and the Book of Revelation in particular published in reputable books and journals by people holding professorships at well-known universities.

Why would a couple of apparently sectarian websites even be considered? --Hegvald (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so I'm not alone in this. The editor in question deleted my referenced material from a work published by the Cambridge University Press as "sectarian", which I thought was odd considering the source was secular.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• I would point out that "triunism" isn't listed in either the OED or MW. 'Triune' is both the noun and the adjective (according to both dictionaries), and means "three in one", not "three distinct and compartmentalized". I would suspect that the whole claim is more than a little idiosyncratic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's highly idiosyncratic. The first link is a site which is advertising his book. This whole "triunism" interpretation is his own.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

These do not look like Reliable Sources. The first, as pointed out above, is a SPS touting a book. And, as near as I can tell from the link, it is touting a "triunist" methodology of exegesis. The second is a transcript of a sermon being reproduced at a SPS website. I am at a loss to understand how the text in question is supported by this source. Are the authors recognized experts whose work on the subject has been previously published in independent scholarly or other reliable sources? Unless that can be shown to be the case, these sources cannot be used at all; if, on the other hand, that can be established, then these sources can only be used with proper attribution to the source and author. Fladrif (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, the link to the weebly.com site as a hotlink in the text for the word "triune", not even as a source or a reference, is completly improper and looks suspiciously like a WP:SPAM link which should be immediately removed. Fladrif (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources for Longevity claims

I've cleared out a number of cases with dubious sources. What do we think about Trend Azerbaijan as a source for the fact that someone was claimed to have lived to 130 (not the fact that she did)? The specific article. There are a lot more cases sourced to various media around the world. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Trend News Agency appears to be a bona-fide news source. It is one of the news sites monitored by the BBC and its reports frequently cited by it. I would think that it is a RS for this person claiming to be 130.Fladrif (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm looking at the rest of the sources bit by bit but won't enquire about ones of that kind of standing. 18:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Harry Hodgkinson's “Scanderbeg: From Ottoman Captive to Albanian Hero”, in Skanderbeg article

Is book “Scanderbeg: From Ottoman Captive to Albanian Hero” whose main author is Harry Hodgkinson with coauthors: Bejtullah D. Destani, Westrow Cooper and David Abulafia, published by The Centre for Albanian Studies in 1999 reliable source?

Please take in consideration that:

• Professor James Pettifer, British academic, who has specialised in Balkan affairs, educated in Oxford, professor in the Institute of Balkan Studies, a member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs...... etc.... wrote here that Harry Hodgkinson “left school at the age of 16” and that “throughout his life he took up strong anti-Serb and anti-Bulgarian positions” being "intelligence officer".
• Bejtullah D. Dostani is founder and owner of The Centre for Albanian Studies
• "goals of the CAS are to publish books, pamphlets and to also organise conferences and seminars relating to Albania, Kosova and Albanian speaking world"
• Bejtullah D. Destani (founder and owner of The Centre for Albanian Studies) is in this letter written by Noel Malcolm described as man who "pay for the basic costs (editorial work, layout, and printing) of each book. Far from gaining financially himself, he is constantly spending his own money on these projects;"
• Here is link to site with biography of Westrow Cooper, another coeditor of Harry Hodgkison's Skanderbeg. He is " freelance writer and designer."

1. A full citation of the source in question: Hodgkinson, Harry (1999), Scanderbeg: From Ottoman Captive to Albanian Hero, Centre for Albanian Studies, ISBN 9781873928134
2. A link to the source in question.: snippet view, since not available online
3. The article in which it is being used.: Skanderbeg
4. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting.: Please find list below.
5. Links to relevant talk page discussion.: Scanderbeg discussion page with diff here

Please find below list of statements referenced with this source:

1. Skanderbeg is derived from the combination of Iskender (a Turkish word derived from Alexander) and the Turkish appellative Bey (for Lord or Prince).
2. Coat of arms

   

   Coat of arms of the Kastrioti family<ref name=Hodgkinson2005>{{harvnb|Hodgkinson|2005|p=xix}}</ref>

3. Gjergj Arianit Komneni, who was a distant relation of the Byzantine Komnenos dynasty through one of his great-grandmothers)<ref name="Hodgkinson2005p240">{{harvnb|Hodgkinson|2005|p=240}}</ref>
4. Skanderbeg...... had absolute control over the men from his own dominions, and had to convince the other princes to follow his policies and tactics.<ref name="Hodgkinson2005p240"/>
5. About 8,000 Turks were killed and 2,000 were captured.<ref name="Hodgkinson2005p240"/>
6. At the same time, he besieged the towns of Durazzo (modern Durrës) and Lezhë which were then under Venetian rule.<ref name=Hodgkinson1999p85>{{harvnb|Hodgkinson|1999|p=85}}</ref>
7. In late summer 1448, due to a lack of potable water, the Albanian garrison eventually surrendered the castle with the condition of safe passage through the Ottoman besieging forces, a condition which was accepted and respected by Sultan Murad II.<ref name=Hodgkinson1999p102>{{harvnb|Hodgkinson|1999|p=102}}</ref>
8. Although his loss of men was minimal, Skanderbeg lost the castle of Svetigrad, which was an important stronghold that controlled the fields of Macedonia to the east.<ref name=Hodgkinson1999p102/>
9. The Second Siege of Krujë was eventually broken, resulting in the death of Ballaban Pasha by an Albanian arquebusier<ref name="Hodgkinson2005p240"/><ref name=Noli2009p35/>
10. Skanderbeg is considered today a commanding figure not only in the national consciousness of Albania but also of 15th-century European history.<ref name=Hodgkinson2005pix>{{harvnb|Hodgkinson|2005|p=ix}}</ref>
11. According to archival documents, there is no doubt that Skanderbeg had already achieved a reputation as a hero in his own time.<ref name=Hodgkinson2005pxii>{{harvnb|Hodgkinson|2005|p=xii}}</ref>
12. The failure of most European nations, with the exception of Naples, to give him support, along with the failure of Pope Pius II's plans to organize a promised crusade against the Turks meant that none of Skanderbeg's victories permanently hindered the Ottomans from invading the Western Balkans.<ref name=Hodgkinson2005pxii/>
13. When in 1481 Sultan Mehmet II captured Otranto, he massacred the male population, thus proving what Skanderbeg had been warning about.<ref name=Hodgkinson2005pxii/>
14. Skanderbeg's main legacy was the inspiration he gave to all of those who saw in him a symbol of the struggle of Christendom against the Ottoman Empire.<ref name=Hodgkinson2005pxiii>{{harvnb|Hodgkinson|2005|p=xiii}}</ref>
15. With much of the Balkans under Ottoman rule and with the Turks at the gates of Vienna in 1683, nothing could have captivated readers in the West more than an action-packed tale of heroic Christian resistance to the "Moslem hordes".<ref name=Hodgkinson2005pxii/>

This is first time that I approached to WP:RS noticeboard. Therefore, besides checking reliability of this source please feel free to comment on any mistake I made in this comment on the WP:RS noticeboard. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for presenting this information clearly! I know this might be a frustrating answer, but I think your concerns above are concerning WP:POV and not WP:RS. Concerning WP:RS this noticeboard can often (not always) give clear advice. But concerning "point of view" and "neutrality" Wikipedians generally have to find ways to work together. I say this because to me this source looks fine for use on Wikipedia. Source reliability is not affected by a source having a point of view. All sources may have a point of view. I note there are three authors by the way. I've read works by David Abulafia before which were about other parts of the Mediterranean. Having said that, when a source is thought to have a very strong point of view it is sometimes appropriate to present its information carefully IF it is being used to say something controversial. For example instead of "Skanderbeg had superhuman powers" you could adjust it to "according to some commentators, Skanderbeg had superhuman powers" (exaggerating for the sake of clarity). Looking through your bullet points however, most do not seem terribly controversial. If you are just asking "on principle" that a source do not be used because it is has a pro-Skanderbeg point of view, I do not think the community will agree with you. A more acceptable approach, if your aim is balance, is to go get more good sources and give the article whatever you think it is missing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have some concern that one of the authors of the book also is the founder of the institute that published it. That raises the question of WP:SPS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, I am not "just asking "on principle" that a source do not be used because it has pro-Skanderbeg point of view". I was not trying to resolve disputes on numerous POV issues in the article by making it more balanced with disqualifying source with certain POV using opinions from this noticeboard. My main and only simple aim was to get some opinion about reliability of the source. That is what this noticeboard is for.

Regardless of my concerns and aims about POV of the article, regardless my bullet points and lack (?) of their controversy, I think that we should focus on policies of wikipedia. I believe that this source is not reliable and that using this source is violating three wikipedia policies connected with reliability of the source (WP:RS, WP:SPS and even WP:NPOV). According to WP:RS only those sources that are "published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both" may be considered reliable. According to WP:SPS " self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.". Publisher violated NPOV by self-publishing works, and Hodgkinson's authoritativeness and neutrality were disputed by very credible expert in his obituary.

I believe that violation of fundamental principles and policies of wikipedia by excessive (15 statements) using of sources that are not reliable should not be tolerated, even if Scanderbeg article was not nominated for GA.

If I am wrong, I will not be frustrated, but happy that I learned something new. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz said he could see reason to raise the issue of SPS, but no one here has yet gone beyond raising the issue. Having founded an institute that publishes something you wrote is a lead to check, but not yet conclusive. Are you saying the institute is just a vehicle for self-publication like a "vanity press"? What I understood from your first posts was that the institute is an entity with its own existence and activities. Your original concern indeed, seemed to be that you thought it showed a very strong point of view.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The book is a posthumous publication (HH died 1994, the earliest edition I can find is 1999). This suggests to me that the other authors listed may have played a significant part in assembling the book. I've found that although my local University library has a range of books on Scanderbeg dating back to 1664 it doesn't have a copy of HH's book- maybe the price tag of 40 GBP for a 240-page paperback put them off! The first page, available as a preview on Amazon, is written in purple prose not indicative of a serious historical work. I wouldn't consider it as an RS. Ning-ning (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't find Hodgkinson conclusions or citations, as fringe or controversial. Practically you can find the same things on other sources related to Scanderbeg. Take the case of Noli (XXth century main biographer in English literature of Scanderbeg). Noli was himself a priest but just take a look at citations of his work. I don't remember any scholar dealing with the topic claiming "Hey this Noli was a priest, therefore his work is not RS" ..on the contrary, his work on Scanderbeg is highly considered among historians. Returning to Hodgkinson, his work on Scanderbeg has been cited also.

P.S. Remember that there are too few biographers of Scanderbeg in English language in XXth century, and none of the so called "great historians of XXth century" has dealt with Scanderbeg alone. When they do have to mention Scanderbeg war the mostly refer to Noli (his first biography on Scanderbeg was in 1921 and the last revision in 1960') and others. On the other side we have many Albanian scholars (Frasheri, Bicoku etc) who have written Scanderbeg biographies even after 1990 and 2000, but unfortunately they are in Albanian so practically unknown on English speakers (Apart professional historians who do know their works) Aigest (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Academic historical texts in Albanian can be used; translations can be arranged so that we can see if they are reflected accurately. Another possibility is to use more general historical works, even if what they say about Skanderbeg is a bit limited. For history articles we should use the work of mainstream academic historians. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I do find some Hodkingson conclusions very controversial, this is not noticeboard that deals with content of the source, but relevance of the source itself. If somebody self-published work of person who died 5 years before, and who was not scholar because he ran away from school when he was 16 and later was intelligence officer famous for his anti-Serb and anti-Bulgarian positions then, (I believe and would appreciate other users comments), using such text as source on wikipedia violates WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:NPOV, although “there are too few biographers of Scanderbeg in English language in XXth century”. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

[Edit conflict with Antidiskriminator:] This is an odd publication. British libraries don't seem to have got it, in spite of copyright laws. Library of Congress has a copy, and credits the author, the two editors, and David Abulafia who wrote the introduction. I can't look inside (Amazon won't let me, for some reason).

The author, I gather from above, is said to have been a Balkan expert but not a scholar. Well, to write a reliable book on 15th century history you would have to be a historical scholar or very good at pasting; being a modern Balkan expert doesn't cut it. You would also have to be alive: not only did Hodgkinson die in 1994, the other books he wrote were published in 1952 and 1955 (and were strongly political).

Scholarship might be added by the two editors or by Abulafia. So far as we can tell from the LoC catalogue, Abulafia didn't touch the text; what the introduction amounts to, we don't know. Was it even newly written for this book? We don't know. Bejtullah Destani (as indicated above) is the Centre for Albanian Studies, which has a friendly link with the publisher of the reprint, I. B. Tauris. Westrow Cooper is a "copywriter" (so I gather from googling him): at a guess (but this could be quite wrong) he took an unpublishable manuscript or set of notes left by Hodgkinson and made it publishable.

Anyone with better knowledge of the book's history might correct me at many points. Without such knowledge, I wouldn't risk treating this book as a reliable source on Scanderbeg. Andrew Dalby 13:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I had not realized that David Abulafia only did the intro, which is what some are asserting above, so the facts arrayed now make the source sound less authoritative. Nevertheless, if he wrote the intro then, given that we all agree this is about WP:RS and not about WP:POV, it is not for us to judge why he put his stamp of approval on the book but it sounds like something that would normally be considered a good sign here. A couple of arguments I find unconvincing above:-

• "one of the authors of the book also is the founder of the institute that published it. That raises the question of WP:SPS." Raises a question, but does not answer it. I think that without further information there is no reason to equate the institute with the author as an SPS vehicle.
• "to write a reliable book on 15th century history you would have to be a historical scholar or very good at pasting; being a modern Balkan expert doesn't cut it". That would be an example of Wikipedians deciding what makes a good author, not the field. We do not get to judge like this generally. It is sometimes argued that we are allowed to be judgemental about things like qualifications when there are WP:REDFLAG conclusions being drawn but the things being sourced do not look like red flags to me.

I would think it relevant to check whether this book is being cited or reviewed by historians. But for now I see no reason to delete materials cited by it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, thank you for your comments, but I am not sure if you find this source reliable or not since you agree that there is question about WP:SPS and propose to investigate if this work is cited and reviewed by historians, but still would not "delete materials cited by it". This is first time I wrote on this noticeboard and I may be inexperienced user that does not understand this noticeboard completely, and therefore I apologize if I will make mistake with below comment.

I think that we should focus and write opinion about reliability of this source based on informations about this source:

1. coedited by Bejtullah Dostani
2. published by Bejtullah Dostani
3. in publishing company founded and solely owned by Bejtullah Dostani
4. which name is The Centre for Albanian Studies, which main aim is “to publish books, pamphlets and to also organise conferences and seminars relating to Albania, Kosova and Albanian speaking world” (click here if it still does not ring the bell)
5. with costs connected with editing, printing and publishing paid by Bejtullah Dostani
6. man (Harry Hodgkinson) who was presented as main author of the book about 15th century history ran away from school when he was 16, died 5 years before this book is published, has never wrote a book on history in his life, was "intelligence officer", published 2 books on politics 42 and 39 years before he died and was described (by professor James Pettifer, British academic, who has specialised in Balkan affairs, educated in Oxford, professor in the Institute of Balkan Studies, a member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, etc.) that “throughout his life he took up strong anti-Serb and anti-Bulgarian positions”

In WP:IRS it is clearly written that reliable source has three related meanings:

1. piece of work itself
2. creator of the work
3. publisher of the work

"All three can affect reliability" Is this work reliable source for Skanderbeg article in the way requested by WP:RS policy? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, no I did not say I see it as a self published source. I indicated that I thought it might be a question worth raising, but I also indicated that it did not seem like one from what you've said so far. Indeed in your new post you are trying to judge the author yourself, and to remind you once more, that is not how we generally work on Wikipedia. What is your argument for saying the Institute which published this book is like a vanity press?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No Andrew Lancaster, you did not say that "it might be a question worth raising". You said: “Raises a question, but does not answer it.” Please forget about me, my judgement of the author, my concerns about POV of the article, my reasons for aproaching to this noticeboard, me probably being frustrated with your answers, me "just asking "on principle" that a source do not be used because it is has a pro-Skanderbeg point of view", my aims about POV of the article, my bullet points and lack (?) of their controversy, my ..... anything. Please, (for the third time) focus on policies of wikipedia and write opinion about reliability of this source in context of using in Skanderbeg article. If “that is not how we generally work on Wikipedia” please help me and inform me how we generally work on Wikipedia?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

[Commenting on a couple of points raised by Andrew lancaster:] "Vanity press" isn't the right term, I'd say. My impression from Web sources is that the Institute doesn't appear to have any existence independent of Destani: he perhaps uses it as a name under which to publish books he chooses, but surely not for reasons of vanity, more likely to forward his point of view on Albania and its neighbours.

As for Abulafia, the fact that he wrote an introduction (this is what the Library of Congress says, it's not an unsupported assertion) might mean that he put his stamp of approval on the book, but it might not. We would need to read his introduction to know. Andrew Dalby 22:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the best way to check is to see if this work is being cited by more clear reliable sources as if it were a reliable source. I continue to feel some caution about deletions of relatively uncontroversial materials based on the concerns of one editor whose main concern is obviously POV rather than reliability.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, citations in other historical work will be the crucial factor in deciding whether this book is reliable or not. Andrew Dalby 09:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliability is defined by WP:RS. Besides WP:RS, "reliability is often dependent upon context". Therefore it is requested to provide links to five things (name of source, link to source, article, statements and talk page discussions). Based on this, I have to state that I don't agree with you Andrew Dalby, Andrew Lancaster and Aigest. There are following main reasons:

1. You were not focused on request of WP:RS and three related meanings of reliability of the source (work, author, publisher). Your opinion that this source could be accepted as reliable if there are "citations in other historical work" because you believe that it contains “relatively uncontroversial materials” does not consider all “three related meanings of reliability of the source” requested by WP:RS
2. Context. Maybe most important reason for me not agreeing with three of you is that I think you were not focused on second important thing for determining reliability of the source.Context of the article and relevant talk page discussion. Instead, some users considered me and my concerns and context of my question here. I believe that if you take in consideration context of the article and relevant talk page discussions you would notice following things: article has been subject to numerous heated discussions, numerous disputes that are affecting not only certain sentences, but used perspective for writing the article, there are two groups of editors that participated in editing and discussing the article, one group reached consensus that article is "massive POV" and submitted almost hundred sources aimed to balance perspective of the article and make it NPOV and another described by some users as "editors struggling to preserve nationalistic POV of the article", almost hundred different sources were disqualified by "editors struggling to preserve nationalistic POV of the article" (many of them written by authoritative scholars for history, published by reliable publishing companies with citation list that would take hundreds of pages to be presented), ... If three of you conclude that this source is reliable, you would make precedent that could intensify conflicts and disputes, because editors from both groups could misuse this precedent in the conflict. One group to continue their “struggling to preserve nationalistic POV of the article” and another to introduce more sources that do not correspond with reliability defined by WP:RS (based on precedent you could make). I believe that sources that should be used in articles with so much dispute and conflicts should, at least, not have lower limits for reliability than requested by WP:RS

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well no, this discussion would not be setting a precedent because this kind of debate happens all the time, with the Balkans coming up often. The approach I have been describing has developed partly as the least bad solution that actually works in precisely such cases. We separate reliability from neutrality, and then we say that concerning neutrality our aim is to present all points of view, not delete any unless they are both un-notable and un-sourceable. You object to a source which you think is pro-Albanian and anti-Serbian and anti-Bulgarian. The solution we keep finding works best is saying that it is better for you to find pro-Serbian and pro-Bulgarian sources to get balance, rather than trying to filter and censor. The difficulty in practice then sometimes comes with deciding how exactly to present the various sources, but that is not normally a question for this noticeboard. (But how would a pro Serbian source disagree with a pro-Albanian source concerning a coat of arms for example?) Anyway, it still seems to me that your own concerns are more to do with neutrality and point of view than with reliability.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I find your advice: “it is better for you to find pro-Serbian and pro-Bulgarian sources to get balance” directly opposed to the requirements of WP:RS and WP:NPOV that state “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources” and only “when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance.” I think that your advice “it is better for you to find pro-Serbian and pro-Bulgarian sources to get balance” is like advice to extinguish fire with gasoline. I understood completely your position but I do not agree with you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It does not sound like you do get what I mean. You emphasize the word reputable, but almost every concern you've expressed is about the principle of neutrality - not about reliability (and also not about any concrete neutrality issues). I distinguish that it seems to only be about the principle and not concrete neutrality issues because perhaps my advice does not make sense in the real case, because perhaps there is not real disagreement between pro-Albanian and pro-Serbian sources concerning, for example, a coat of arms? And so perhaps there would be no real point to "balancing" the positions being cited anyway. I am just saying that being a reliable partisan for a particular position does not make you unreliable. That is the way we split up reliability and neutrality here on Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I made mistake with emphasizing. I should emphasize reliable (the way how we here on Wikipedia describe it as "three related meanings of reliability of the source" (work, author, publisher).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There are scholars who do use him or recommend him.

1. The grand Turk: Sultan Mehmet II, conqueror of Constantinople and master of an empire Author John Freely Publisher Penguin, 2009 ISBN 1590202481, 9781590202487 link
2. Das Sein der Dauer Volume 34 of Miscellanea mediaevalia Authors Andreas Speer, David Wirmer Editors Andreas Speer, David Wirmer Edition illustrated Publisher de Gruyter, 2008 ISBN 311020309X, 9783110203097 link
3. Archeologia medievale, Volume 30 Publisher All'Insegna del Giglio, 2003 ISBN 8878142255, 9788878142251 link
4. Civic Christianity in renaissance Italy: the Hospital of Treviso, 1400-1530 Author David Michael D'Andrea Edition illustrated, annotated Publisher University Rochester Press, 2007 ISBN 1580462391, 9781580462396 link
5. New Turkes: dramatizing Islam and the Ottomans in early modern England Author Matthew Dimmock Edition illustrated Publisher Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2005 ISBN 0754650227, 9780754650225 link
6. Raumstrukturen und Grenzen in Südosteuropa Author Cay Lienau Editor Cay Lienau Publisher Südosteuropa-Gesellschaft, ISBN 3925450947, 9783925450945 link
7. The Rule of Law in Comparative Perspective Author Mortimer Sellers Editors Mortimer Sellers, Tadeusz Tomaszewski Publisher Springer, 2010 ISBN 9048137489, 9789048137480 link
8. Staatsbürger aus Widerruf: Juden und Muslime als Alteritätspartner im rumänischen und serbischen Nationscode : ethnonationale Staatsbürgerschaftskonzepte 1878-1941 Volume 41 of Balkanologische Veröffentlichungen Volume 41 of Balkanologische Veröffentichungen Osteuropa-Institut der Freien Universität Berlin Author Dietmar Müller Publisher Harrassowitz, 2005 ISBN 3447052481, 9783447052481 link

Aigest (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

To me at least these sources seem to make the source reliable in the sense of showing that people who are published in this field treat it as reliable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks for doing the legwork, Aigest. Andrew Dalby 11:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I made mistake and failed to include this section of the discussion talk of the article that shows that work of Harry Hodgkinson is used to disqualify work of Karl Hopf. I am not sure if it can affect this discussion, but since it is context that is propositioned to be taken in consideration, I am providing this link.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. I do not know how to conclude this discussion, since this is first time I am participating in some discussion here. Till now we had three users that had opinion that above mentioned source is reliable:

1. Andrew Lancaster
2. alby
3. Aigest

and we had other users that did not had opinion that mentioned source is reliable:

1. Antidiskriminator
2. Stephan Schulz
3. Itsmejudith
4. Ning-ning

What is conclusion of this discussion? Is it too early to make conclusion that no consensus has been made?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, if you want to try to get people voting, then if I had to choose I'd say keep. So I accept where you've pigeon-holed me. I say this also after noting your latest diffs, which are about a 19th century scholar whose WP article is a stub you started. I also went to the talk page debate you noted as evidence and saw yet more editors noting very similar concerns about your position and apparent lack of policy-based rationale. It is starting to look like you are going to keep asking the same questions, ignoring the answers, until someone gives the answer you want. I fail to see any major RS concern here of a type serious enough to raise concerns about the material being cited.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your input, it is appreciated, and sorry about the conversation turning down unfruitful paths, since this is first time I am participating in some discussion here. Next time I will try to avoid lack of policy-based rationale. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Twitter, Rolling Stone magazine and The Guardian

We could use some uninvolved editors to help settle a content dispute at Michael (album). Last week, Michael Jackson's brother, Randy tweeted his doubts regarding the authenticity of some of the songs on Michael's upcoming posthumous album. The Tweets were picked up and reported by secondary reliable sources including Rolling Stone magazine[12] and The Guardian.[13] More secondary sources can be found here.[14] Originally, the dispute was about citing Twitter alone. But there are still objections even though secondary reliable sources have been provided. The link to the current discussion is here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't weigh in on the earlier discussion above, but this question goes to the heart of what I was thinking about writing. I have serious doubts about using someone's social media site as a source, but when a reliable secondary source then reports a story about what someone posted on their twitter or facebook or whatever account, that's a different story. Rolling Stone and The Guardian are clearly reliable sources, and can certainly be used to support a statement like "RS A and B reported that X tweeted ...." Fladrif (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That's basically what I posted at the discussion. the RS of Rolling Stone or the Guardian now can be used to support the fact (and only this fact) that "X said Y in a twitter message", but cannot be used to source "Y" without any other clarification. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, this is a verified Twitter account.[15] According to Twitter's FAQ on verification, the blue and white check mark indicates that the account has been verified.[16] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that twitter is a self published source and can be used in a minimal way to add details about the living subject only, minimal being the optimum word. Like if there is no available DOB and the subject says on his twitter, I am having a great day today is my 32nd birthday. Verified is the best but there are also a few celebs that have not bothered to verify, as it so is clearly them, a bit like the queen of england never carries any money because no one ever asks her for any. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to go to the article in question, but I agree with Masem. If Rolling Stone and The Guardian have published stories saying Randy Jackson tweeted that he doubted the authenticity of parts of the album, that's what we can say in the article, using the Rolling Stone and The Guardian articles as sources. But those articles don't allow us to bootstrap the Twitter account itself as somehow being a RS. And it certainly doesn't allow us to conclude whether or not the album is or isn't authentic. Whether it is or isn't a verified account doesn't affect my reading of the RS policy or guidelines on that. Let's assume it's authentic, but it is unquestionably a SPS and a primary source. A SPS cannot be used for claims about third parties or claims about events not directly related to the source per WP:SELFPUB. Fladrif (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

By itself, the verified Twitter account is an SPS, and can't be used for claims about third parties. It's debatable whether immediate family is really a third party, but let's set that aside for now. The claims have been repeated in published secondary sources, so they may be important enough to include in the article. Now, being cited that way doesn't bootstrap the Twitter feed into a published secondary source, but it is a primary source that the news article relied on, and it may be appropriate for us to include a supplemental link so that our readers can see the original for themselves. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Money multiplier

It is my contention that the idea that the reserve ratio puts a cap on the amount of money that can be created from a given monetary base is simply a convenient "story" used for teaching purposes, much like the concept of "electron shells" is a convenient way of teaching students about chemical bonds. The "professional" chemists know that there are no such thing as electron shells. I have made this challenge (and have had support) on the fractional reserve banking discussion page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fractional-reserve_banking#This_article_indicates_that_much_of_the_FRB_article_is_wrong I have suggested that the reference given for the statement "The most common mechanism used to measure this increase in the money supply is typically called the money multiplier. It calculates the maximum amount of money that an initial deposit can be expanded to with a given reserve ratio." is not sufficient quality because it is "teaching material" rather than a refereed paper. Reissgo (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Dismiss This notice is vague on sources and doesn't really seem appropriate here. If it is to be discussed here, then, Reissgo has been asserting that the thoroughly-sourced (and generally accepted/largely uncontroversial) material is incorrect. To my understanding of policy, such Everything The Experts Have Taught You Is Wrong sort of claim requires exceptional sources, which Reissgo has been unable to provide. BigK HeX (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I would in fact go further with respect to the quality of reference required to support the quote. There have been a great many peer reviewed papers refuting the claim made in the quote. If it is the case that I'm wrong and the money multiplier story as indeed taken seriously by central bankers, then it is virtually certain that there will exist peer reviewed papers or internal academic central bank papers along the lines of "the critics of the money multiplier story are wrong and here's why". So a very old reference that makes no mention of critics of the idea would IMHO not be a reliable source. Reissgo (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The difference between "electron shells" and Reissgo's attempted analogy is that chemistry teachers TELL you that it's a teaching aid that is not literal; Reissgo's sourcing doesn't seem to indicate this is done with fractional reserve. BigK HeX (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• what gives you the right to stick the word "dismiss" in bold with a bullet point next to your comment making it look all official? I have come to this forum to get an independent opinion on the dispute between us. Please don't try to make it look as if the result has already been determined in your favor. Reissgo (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorely tempted to hat the above back-and-forth, but will refrain. The source in question is a teaching aid published by McGraw Hill. Notwithstanding that MH is a respected academic publisher, I would not use this source. Nothing in the RS guidelines leads me to think that this could be used as a source on Wikipedia. There are certainly textbooks and other publications that make the identical statement. Those should be used in preference to that. If there are reliable sources which state that this formulation is wrong, there is no problem in including that information as well and those sources. I have not seen a specific question about those sources so I am not in a position to give an opinion on any particular such source. Fladrif (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

With regard "If there are reliable sources which state that this formulation is wrong, there is no problem in including that information as well and those sources. I have not seen a specific question about those sources", here is an example: http://college.holycross.edu/RePEc/eej/Archive/Volume18/V18N3P305_314.pdf - would you consider this reliable? It appears to have originally come from the Eastern Economic Journal, 1992, vol. 18, issue 3, pages 305-314 Reissgo (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The Eastern Economic Journal is certainly a reliable source. In the context of the article, it should be used with attribution to the journal and the author as his views on the subject. Glancing at it, it seems like it would also be a perfectly good source for the formulation that is ill-sourced by the M-H teaching aid as well. Fladrif (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"If there are reliable sources which state that this formulation is wrong, there is no problem in including that information as well"

I'd say there certainly is a problem. Reissgo has already received advisement from numerous editors on the article talk page that his material seems undue based on the sources provided so far. His use of isolated non-notable works to dispute assertions almost universally written about throughout academic sources has been characterized as WP:UNDUE so far, and may be unacceptably sketchy. There is plenty of academic discussion on fractional reserve banking, so there could well be acceptable sourcing for the assertion Reissgo is attempting, but many editors don't think that the evidence provided so far indicates the viewpoint is significant at the moment. As I've noted above, other venues are likely more appropriate for this discussion. BigK HeX (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a question of WP:Weight that is outside the scope of this noticeboard. The article in the Eastern Economic Journal is certainly a reliable source. The author is a widely-published professor at Penn State. Whether those are mainstream or fringe views and how to treat them in the article other than "Professor X in Article Y in Journal Z disagrees" is outside my and this board's ken. Fladrif (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

St. Bernard (dog)

There's a slow-burning issue at this page that hasn't erupted into a full edit war, but has been going on and off for a while now. The largest verified dog in history was an English mastiff named Zorba, however there is a claim about a Swiss St. Bernard named Benedictine floating around. In the article, this claim is sourced to this website, which appears to be a tertiary source. Furthermore, one user has claimed that the dog's full name was Benedictine Daily Double, which sounds prima facie preposterous for a dog's name in Switzerland. Another user and I were unable to find anything that definitively supported this claim, so in late October I/we decided to let the claim sit in the St. Bernard article for a while and see if someone came up with a reliable source. In that time, someone inserted a source for this claim from a website called [www.brainyhistory.com] (specifically [17]), which is problematic on two fronts. First of all, this website takes submissions from random people, and does not appear to have a fact-checking process (if there is one, they don't have it up on their website). Furthermore, this only appears to have popped up on the website AFTER we pointed out that a Swiss dog is highly unlikely to have a name like Benedictine Daily Double, which has led me and this other user to believe that the submission originated from the article, not the other way around. I suppose I'm asking about two sources here; how reliable should the varietykennel.com website be deemed, and is brainyhistory.com a reliable source at all? I will notify the other two editors involved of this discussion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And something else I forgot to mention; the brainyhistory.com site says that "Benedictine Daily Double" reached this height and weight and lived to be 14. As our article on St. Bernards says, "a few may live beyond 10 years, but this is highly unusual", it leads me to believe that this is not a particularly reliable source. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The varietykennel.com website is not a reliable source... it is the personal/business website of a kennel owner in India, who happens to be a fan of the breed. As for the brainyhistory.com website, I think you have a good case for saying that the source took its information on "Benedictine Daily Double" from Wikipedia, and thus should not be considered reliable for that information. In short... I would simply remove the mention of Benedictine entirely, as being unverifiable. Blueboar (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither source meets the requirements of WP:RS. The first is a WP:SPS, the second has user-submitted content and no significant editorial oversight. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what I've thought all along, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to have people who know more about this look at it. Thank you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Walker Arnold

Can Thomas Walker Arnold be considered a reliable source? He seems quite dated to me (100+years). Many perceptions have changed since then. I am asking because I know of at least one instance when a lot of material from this author was added to an article. Athenean (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In many cases there would be sources that are reliable and much more recent. It all depends what he's being used as a source for. Can you provide a link? Andrew Dalby 12:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. It is used here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greek_Muslims&action=historysubmit&diff=396732203&oldid=393480215. Not sure about it, especially the block quotes. Athenean (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The source seems reliable to me, and that perceptions have changed do not necessarily mean that this source is less accurate. I see that there may be a problem in that the section relies too heavily on the one source, but that's a different issue. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Parties and Elections in Europe

Re: National conservatism

Is the website ""Parties and Elections in Europe, a website run by Wolfram Nordsieck a reliable source? If it is a reliable source for election results, is it also a reliable source for descriptions of party ideologies? The website is used extensively as a source for articles.

TFD (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It does not appear to have any POV from its author, and also appears to have a correct calendar of elections etc. Would direct party sources be better? Likely so, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the best way to improve fact-based articles. And this is decidely an issue better suited to the article talk page than to RSN at this point, from looking at that article's talk page and recent AfD nomination. Collect (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This source appears to be cited in 83 articles.[18] TFD (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be self-published, but it is cited in the scholarly literature quite a lot [19]. I would accept it at least for election results and candidates. I'd be more careful about secondary information like classifications of parties and definitions of political directions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be a WP:SPS, run by a lawyer (not a political scientist, historian of modern European history, etc.) - i.e. a non-expert. It's a very well-done website, which is no doubt why other sources cite it, but other sources don't have our sourcing requirements, and we're often more strict than them. I see no indication it meets WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I contend, and I think it is quite widely accepted on WP, that citations are an obvious indication of "reputation for fact checking" which is a critical requirement for WP:RS. Furthermore the spirit and wording of all our policies looked at together seem to me to make it clear that the opinion of obvious experts citing a source must be considered much more important for our judgements about the reliability of any source than the opinions of Wikipedians who are judging based on their own research into things like qualifications. Such research into the personal background of sources is effectively OR as far as I can see.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

How to source folk song lyrics

I'm trying to figure out how to source the words to some folk songs, and, to be clear, I'm only interested in finding a source for the words, not to establish notability or connect the song or the subject of the song to any other topic. Would either of these: [20] [21] be considered a reliable source for that narrow purpose? And if not, can anyone point me to a reliable online source for song lyrics? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Iffy... Neither website gives any indication of having an editorial policy... ie we don't know who runs the website, compiles the lyrics and checks them for accuracy. Something else to consider... many folk songs have multiple versions of the lyrics... the same song (or a line within a song) may be adapted and changed to suit different moments in history. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, iffy indeed. But we're also on a line close to movie/tv plots, and it seems a less than contentious issue, so the question is, how can we source song lyrics? O Fenian brought up the copyright issue, so hibeam is probably right out, but I'm still curious in general how we should treat this issue. Am I correct in assuming that if there's no copyright issues, and we put the lyrics up on wikisource, could we link to that? Or if we can determine that a site is associated with the artist, and the lyrics are up there, it should be ok to link to that, I think. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, would this work for the songs attributed to Christy Moore? The web site appears to be official, and for his writing and performances there should be no copyright issues. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Why limit yourself to online sources? Most large libraries would probably have lots of sources for you. Dlabtot (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not, been using google books and news to try to dig out book titles, I've been combing lexis-nexis, muse, jstor and my local library's catalog trying to locate sources. Have one book on order, and to be honest, I'm surprised there's not more out there. But on the other hand, folks songs are by their nature communicated somewhat differently than other music, and it's hard to imagine one folk singer suing another over copyright, although I'm sure it's happened. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Brief Chronicles

Is Brief Chronicles a reliable source for Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford?

The online journal claims to be peer-reviewed, and I suppose that’s true since it promotes the theory that Oxford was the true author of Shakespeare’s works and its editorial board is made up of Oxfordians.

NinaGreen (talk · contribs), a relatively new editor who is very knowledgeable about the life of Oxford, has been editing the article and making what I consider to be some very valuable contributions. However, she believes that Brief Chronicles is WP:RS because of the educational qualifications of its editorial board, it is included in the Modern Language Association and World Shakespeare Bibliography databases, and a number of the articles in the journal come up on a Google Scholar search.

She uses the journal for this edit, which is very technical:

Although he had reached the age of majority and had married, Oxford was still not in possession of his inheritance. After suing his livery,[41] Oxford was licenced to enter on his lands on 30 May 1572.[42] However this privilege came at a price. The fines assessed against Oxford in the Court of Wards included £2000 for his wardship and marriage, £1257 18s 3/4d for his livery, and £48 19s 9-1/4d for mean rates, a total of £3306 17s 10d. To guarantee payment, Oxford entered into bonds to the Court of Wards totalling £11,000. Oxford's own bonds to the Court of Wards were in turn guaranteed by bonds to the Court of Wards in the amount of £5000 apiece entered into by two guarantors, John, Lord Darcy of Chiche, and Sir William Waldegrave. In return for these guarantees, Oxford entered into two statutes of £6000 apiece to Darcy and Waldegrave.[43]

In her explanation on the talk page, she says that "The only published source for this information is my article in Brief Chronicles, which I've cited" and "If other editors want this paragraph removed, I'll take it out. The problem will be what to replace it with." Here is a link to that article (PDF): [22]

My response was to inform her that it was a fringe source and that WP:PARITY applied, which states "Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable." I also said that if no other source exists for the statement, then it shouldn’t be in the article.

Earlier this year another WP:RS/N discussion about the journal occurred, with no clear consensus about its use in the Shakespeare authorship question article, although the current page does not use it as a source. Nina contends that since no clear determination was made that Brief Chronicles could not be cited, it should therefore be acceptable as a source for this article.

Since then a long discussion has followed, as can be seen on the talk page in this section and this one. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Based solely on the Brief Chronicles Wikipedia article, and the information above, I'm inclined to think that the source might qualify per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship The questions I have would be is this a "reputable peer reviewed source"? Does the particular article in question show up in other scholarly citations in citation indexes? I can see that this is a journal dedicated to publishing works on Shakespeare authorship questions and that it does not distingush between "amateurs" and "experts", so I am questioning whether it meets the sixth bullet point about promoting a POV, whether there is any actual peer review, or whether the scope of peer review encompasses the wider academic community. I guess I don't have enough information to actually answer these questions. Fladrif (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that citations and reviews can be helpful to judge this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

What I don't see, when I use Google Scholar [23] are any of the articles in this journal being cited in any other scholarly papers. (To be perfectly accurate, I see one article - not the one at issue here - cited once in one journal on psychology, not literature.) I realize that it is a brand-new journal and that there is a lag involved, but I'm inclined to think that this failure is fatal to the reliability of this source at this time. If other scholars are not citing this journal as a source, neither should Wikipedia. If and when they start, maybe Wikipedia can follow suit. Fladrif (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Another thing that makes the journal look fringe is that it isn't distributed by one of the main academic journal publishers like Sage, Taylor & Francis, Oxford, Brill etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to draw attention to the fact that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford is a biographical article, involving a strong element of history (apart from literary criticism). Both the Modern Language Association and World Shakespeare Bibliography are databases concerned with language and literature, not history. Nina Green's article in Brief Chronicles presents an interpretation of historical facts and hypotheses radically different from mainstream scholarly publications on both Oxford and Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester (exemplified, for example, by entries in the ODNB, but also any other works like biographies or articles). Its thesis argues for another murder on the supposed list of murders committed by Robert Dudley, which is a staple theme with at least some Oxfordians (e.g. Paul Streitz: Oxford. Son of Elizabeth I, where Robert Dudley murders King Edward VI of England, or Paul Altrocchi: Malice Aforethought: the Killing of a Unique Genius, where the same argument is made as in this article). So far, books and articles of this kind seem to have been ignored by the historical community. On pp. 64–65 a supposed parallel between Hamlet and Edward de Vere's life is suggested, which answers the question whether this journal/article promotes an Oxfordian POV. A the talkpage I've had this discussion with Nina Green about her article (I've capitulated before absurdity by now). Buchraeumer (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Does the particular article in question show up in other scholarly citations in citation indexes?" is not an adequate measure of humanities relevance, the citation indicies and citation habits of the humanities preclude citation index density and impact factors being useful measures. Let us move on: is Oxfordianism a FRINGE theory, or a non-mainstream position? If it is truely FRINGE, then the journal is a clear FRINGE work and shouldn't be used. If it is merely a non-mainstream position within the academic community, then cite and attribute. "In her [year] [work], [real name] in the Oxfordian journal claims that…" The paragraph cited doesn't appear to be particularly subject to an Oxfordian bias though. This, actually, is an example of where Wikipedia has great difficulty in handling the variety of academic views; nPOV doesn't apply, we ought to represent all POVs in balance with their scholarly or in the case of popular articles impact on RS literature: classify, characterise, attribute. Humanities RS are not a "verifiable truth" but rather a series of "verifiable POVs with differences in literary impact." Fifelfoo (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

All such theories that someone else wrote Shakespeare are considered fringe theories by the mainstream academic community. The source in question is used to cite a fact, not an opinion, so it would be a bit awkward to say

Although he had reached the age of majority and had married, Oxford was still not in possession of his inheritance. After suing his livery,[41] Oxford was licenced to enter on his lands on 30 May 1572.[42] However this privilege came at a price. In her 2009 "The Fall of the House of Oxford", Nina Green in the Oxfordian journal Brief Chronicles claims that the fines assessed against Oxford in the Court of Wards included £2000 for his wardship and marriage, £1257 18s 3/4d for his livery, and £48 19s 9-1/4d for mean rates, a total of £3306 17s 10d. To guarantee payment, Oxford entered into bonds to the Court of Wards totalling £11,000. Oxford's own bonds to the Court of Wards were in turn guaranteed by bonds to the Court of Wards in the amount of £5000 apiece entered into by two guarantors, John, Lord Darcy of Chiche, and Sir William Waldegrave. In return for these guarantees, Oxford entered into two statutes of £6000 apiece to Darcy and Waldegrave.[43]

In fact I've never seen such a construction in any Wikipedia article where such a caveat is used to cite a fringe journal for a fact in a mainstream article. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand the distinction being made. The source is not being used to support a statement about Shakespearean authorship; it is being proposed for more mundane matters. But I don't think that matters. I don't think this publication clears the minimum bar to be a reliable source for even these mundane matters. Fladrif (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of thenewamerican.com

Hi. In reverting an editor wanting to alter the consensus-based, well-sourced lede of the John Birch Society, I've found that he's been updating references that are to the New American, referred to here at RSN only recently as the propaganda arm of the John Birch Society. And so I've seen for how many articles this site has been used as a reference. Here are the user contributions: Special:Contributions/Vitacore. He hasn't been putting all of them in himself - at least some have been used inadvertently by other editors. I don't want to go through and remove them, as I've just been in a minor (2RR) revert war with this particular editor. What do other people think? thenewamerican isn't RS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The New American is published by the JBS. It is, of course, not a RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Publications of advocacy groups may meet RS, but are generally cited with attribution. For instance, the ACLU, NRA, SPLC, ADL, and EFF are often cited for their points of view on subjects where their views are notable. I don't see any reason why an established organization like the John Birch Society couldn't be cited in that fashion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

heh. I really wouldn't compare the ACLU with JBS in terms of notability! I think I didn't state my request clearly: I think these uses of newamerican are not justified in terms of "the JBS" said, they are used as if it was mainstream media, like an ordinary newspaper - not as the opinion of the JBS. But as I have been reverting this user, I was reluctant to start chasing round and removing the material from articles myself.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't use it like a mainstream newspaper, but I could see using it on topics like the anticommunist movement or places where a "hard" right-wing or producerist opinion would be warranted. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

But see Recreate 68 - about a leftwing coalition, where it is being used to cite statements about what the group has said. Somehow I don't see it a reliable source, and it does look as though some of these links may be there more to push the organisation/publication than for any other reason. Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Questionable master's thesis?

A graduate thesis “Doing it for the lulz?”: Online Communities of Practice and Offline Tactical Media is being used in the article Facepalm (an internet slang term). Since I deleted the other sources which were clearly not acceptable (urban dictionary, etc.), this thesis now remains as the sole source.

My first reaction was "Wow, somebody spent their entire grad school career browsing 4chan and ED, and then he managed to pass it off as an MS thesis?" This reaction alone makes me biased in reviewing this reference, so I don't want to delete or modify it based on my own opinions. I thought it might be an elaborate trolling attempt hosted on student webspace at the university, but it checks out as a genuine Georgia Tech publication, albeit a surprising one to me. My understanding of a published student thesis is that they are acceptable on their specific topic and then should be used sparingly on other, related topics when alternatives cannot be found. In this case though, the nature of the subject makes it seem less reliable to me - whereas most theses are completed under ostensibly close supervision of the committee, it's a little hard to imagine such supervision producing content like this:

One example of Anonymous trolling involved sending particularly inflammatory messages to the messageboard of The Oprah Winfrey Show...The apparent misreading of the post by Oprah led to many members of Anonymous re-appropriating the clip, re-mixing the audio with music or using the image of Oprah in the episode and mixing it with other elements familiar to Anonymous such as the “Over 9000” meme and the “pedobear” meme.

(The entire section is unsourced, but followed by an image macro which is also unsourced.)

Two questions, first does the questionable academic value of this thesis make it unacceptable? Obviously I don't think too much of it, considering 4chan itself and various anonymous posters are cited by post number as part of the references - though it does contain legit sources as well. However I don't want to remove it simply because of my personal thoughts on the quality. If this were a book by a reliable publisher, it would be acceptable no matter how "bad" it is, and the fact that four Ga Tech professors accepted it certainly establishes an editorial process...still, well, it's a thesis about memes.

Second question, even if this ref is acceptable, is it enough on its own to establish notability for the article? The subject of the article (facepalm) actually occurs as an unsourced footnote within the thesis in question. In other words, the information came from the student's own general knowledge (presumably from browsing the aforementioned websites). Personally I think that is inadequate to establish third-party coverage, but I'm just a lowly IP and some moderators seem to disagree strongly about this so I'd like to hear what others' think. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Generally, we don't consider a Masters thesis a reliable source. Even a Doctoral dissertation can be iffy. Blueboar (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Doctoral dissertations are acceptable once they are published. It is unfinished dissertations that are not allowed. See WP:Reliable_sources#Scholarship.

And when the dissertation is published, the reliability is a function of the academic journal in which it is published, not on the fact of it being a dissertation. Wikiant (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Most doctoral dissertations aren't published in academic journals, but by UMI, as stated in that section I linked to. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as a masters thesis, it conceivably could be used as per the above guideline as long as it has been published. MA theses--even unpublished ones--at one time were routinely cited in published papers, but they are not seen as often nowadays. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

HAs it been published?Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that it has been published in any publication. Georgia Institute of Technology is listed as the publisher, but that's it.[24] Siawase (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Georgia Institute of Technology is an acceptable publisher, IMO. Looking at the thesis itself, the second page lists his committee members, all of them doctorates, so it fulfills the requirement of being vetted by the academic community. For the purpose of this article, I would say it is WP:RS. Whether the topic is notable or not is a different question altogether. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. In the US, IME, a thesis is usually only a local publication, and the committee that approves it does so in the limited context of passing it as one requirement for completion of the degree. Mine sits in my uni's library, and a copy is in the department's library if the shelf hasn't gotten too full. It is far from an equivalent to publication in a peer reviewed journal. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Masters and doctoral theses are both published "locally", yet doctoral dissertations (also just one of several requirements for completion of the degree) are acceptable once they are published in that manner. MA theses are available in the same place PhD theses are: UMI (you remember that fee you had to pay them, right?), and neither of them are published in a peer-reviewed journal unless the recipient revises it and goes through the publication process.

And as WP:Reliable_sources#Overview states, "The term 'published' is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online", which means that when read in context with the rest of WP:RS an online publication by a reliable source (in this case Georgia Institute of Technology) is an acceptable source as long as it meets the rest of the criteria. The policy itself in that section states that the examples given are not exhaustive, and it also says that "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." I think in the context of this article, Facepalm (an Internet slang term), this source is more than acceptable. For an article on, say, Philosophy, Politics and Economics? No, but Wikipedia policies encourage us to use common sense and editorial judgement, and IMO that is what is needed here.

And again, that has no bearing on whether the topic is notable enough to have its own article. If it were up to me I'd have to say no to that question. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• "does the questionable academic value of this thesis make it unacceptable" Wikipedia editors are not practicing sociologists, cultural studies academics, or anthropologists while they are editors. We rely upon the institution (GIT, a research intensive institution) and the proof of acceptance (yup, it was accepted). However, definitionally, Masters Theses are not original scholarly contributions to knowledge. They aren't held to that standard. I would be very reluctant to allow a Masters thesis be used to establish notability. Additionally the discussion on "published" status is a bit septic. Publication covers two things, "Has the work been reviewed by an external body prior to publication, such as by editors or by peer reviewers?" Yes, it was assessed by a scholarly committe. "Is the work available for consultation?" In this case yes. Not useful for establishing the notability of facepalms, really. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• @Tom Reedy, "you remember that fee you had to pay them, right?" No, as a matter of fact, because I didn't, and they don't have my thesis, as far as I know. I just looked for it, and can't find it via proquest. At my uni, paying that fee was required for the dissertation, but not the thesis. Please note that Wikipedia:Rs#Scholarship mentions dissertations, but not master theses, and notes that dissertation are cited often in other scholarly works. Theses, generally, are not. Also, I looked up the author and the title of the thesis in question on proquest, and no joy. Have you verified that the thesis has been published by UMI, and if so, can you provide a link to same? Also, if you believe the subject isn't notable, why argue for reliability of the source? If there's significant coverage in reliable sources, GNG is met. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Can you explain your distinction between "dissertation" and "thesis" which is not present in my academic system? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why am I arguing? Because it's an interesting topic, it's not simple, and I want to find out. (IMO Wikipedians need to get back to the Socratic idea of argument instead of the in-your-face toxic idea that arguments are only to convince someone that your side is right and theirs is wrong.) Also back before a PhD was required for being a custodian plenty of respected and widely-published scholars held only an MA (also the fact that I only have an MA myself might be an unconscious motivation!).

But as I suspected, this topic has been thoroughly discussed, and more than once. It appears to me that the consensus is that a masters theses should be avoided if there is any other source, but that on some occasions they can be used with great care when they are recognized within the field as reliable sources. I doubt this one meets that standard. As far as PhD dissertations, they are specifically allowed by WP:RS policy. (And the difference in usage is that of geography: In the U.S. a thesis is written for an MA and a dissertation for a PhD; in the UK it's usually the opposite.) Tom Reedy (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A master's thesis is pretty much on the edge of RS. They might be useful to cite on subjects that are highly technical and matter-of-fact, or in pop-culture articles where sourcing is thin. But it provides only a weak claim to notability. I'd treat it almost like a primary source, OK for non-contentious facts, but not enough to establish notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say that while some Master's Theses are undoubtedly fine works, the oversight process at least as far as I am familiar with it in the UK context, is not strict enough for silly opinions or syntheses to be struck out in the final version. People can pass with a poor thesis that doesn't drag them down into failing. There isn't typically the formal reiterative process of viva voce, outside independent input, followed by revisions, followed by a further submission and so on, which tips PhDs, in my view (and depending on the country) over the line in terms of RS. (Meaning I think they're useable if there is nothing better available). On the other hand, I think Masters' Theses can provide excellent bibliographies. Is there nothing in the thesis you could raid for use here? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

First, thanks to all users who responded, the discourse was very helpful. Personally, I don't really care if an article like Facepalm exists or not, but I do care about what the acceptance of certain sources says about the quality of the encyclopedia as a whole. It's not my wish to personally attack the student that wrote the thesis either. (If it were my university I'd probably voice my concern regarding the acceptance of such a thesis, but it isn't, and I'm not -- after all some departments will give you a thesis for just about anything.)

The real issue seems to be the context of how the thesis is used. In this case, the article cites a footnote placed in the thesis, in which the student explains the slang term for the committee faculty (who are, presumably, unaware of the term's meaning). While I'm not arguing the "truth" of this statement, I am questioning the verifiability since there is neither demonstration of independent research nor sources cited for the author's claim in this case. In other words, the author simply stated it based on his own general knowledge as a point of clarification. Other types of publications could rely upon the author's own knowledge and the presumption that the author is an expert in his/her field, but by definition that is not yet the case for a student writing a thesis as a degree requirement.

Regarding VsevolodKrolikov's question: The only part of the thesis which has anything to do with the article in question is aforementioned footnote, and again it was given without any explanation of where it comes from. In the article in question, there were two moderators who seemed keen on stopping the article from being deleted, despite a positive vote in the RFD - and this thesis is the only thing keeping that article alive. For me, a lowly IP, to delete the reference without some consensus on the source's acceptability would be stepping on their toes. I'm trying to play nice. :)

Let me put forward as a consensus that a thesis for an M.S. degree is acceptable in some cases where (a)it is needed to support an important point, (b)no suitable alternatives can be found, and (c)the methods and results leading to the specific conclusion for which the thesis is cited are clearly stated. Because of this specific instance not meeting criterion (c), the thesis is not an acceptable source for this particular subject. It seems like the takeaway from this discussion regarding the article in question, but if someone feels I'm in error please say so. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit late with this, but see WP:IRS#Scholarship. Also (out of purview here), WP:N says, "[Sources] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability", and "Multiple sources are generally expected", with clarifying footnotes there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have marked some absolutely rubbish Masters theses. One problem is, what is a Masters thesis? In the UK it can be a relatively short paper done at the end of a taught course, where the grade is mainly based on an examination. I'd say that unless it has been cited multiple times in reliable sources it shouldn't be used. In this specific case, it appears that either a thesis or project work is 1/6th of the credits required for this 2 year degree. Dougweller (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it looks like we might need to reword the relevant policy. I'm in the southeastern US, and my experience is that the masters thesis is primarily a demonstration of the candidate's potential to complete a doctoral dissertation. I would suggest that one requirement for use as a source under WP:V would be that the paper in question be published fairly widely, for example, be available via Proquest, or in multiple libraries. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree the policy needs to be made clearer, especially since this question seems to be an evergreen on the noticeboard. If I had to choose between an outright ban on using MA theses or allowing them all, right now I lean toward a ban. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Only rarely to be regarded as reliable sources. We can make an exception if there is evidence that the thesis has been referred to by other scholars. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. It sounds like there are instances where it could be used sparingly, but in a case like this where the quality is more like an ED article than a scholarly work, it is a definite no. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Progressive creationism ate my hamster

IS this [Genesis, Evolution and Natural Selection] RS, it seems SPS. Iut being used to suppor this passage, “Both theistic and progressive creationists accept the evolution over millions of years. Contrary to theistic creationists however, progressive creationists reject natural selection because they consider it scientifically non-proven. They often see speciation as independent adult creations out of dust according to Genesis, at least for man. Another variant accepts the view that all species came out of former ones (common descent) through kind of divine "in vitro fertilisation" in a female of a former species thus solving the problem of adult creation.” In the Progressive creationism article.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC) It also appears to be a work in progess and not the finished articel [[25]], so it may be that what is writen here could change. I think this fails RS.Slatersteven (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Totally fails WP:RS, except as evidence of what the people who run that website believe. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Its what I thought, but the user pusing it will not accept (up till now) that it fails RS, I'll direct him here.Slatersteven (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe at Conservapedia it is, but then again they think dinosaurs are 6000 years old. I don't see anyone arguing over whether or not to include Xenu in the creation of the universe here... so I suppose it's really a question of how many followers does Xenu have vs. the god of Genesis. IMHO science and reason should always trump any belief in the supernatural. Until "the creator" (your god, his god, their god, he, she, or its god) publishes his/her/its own firsthand account of the universe in an unambiguous/ non-goat herder kind of way and/or appears on Meet the Press, I say we stick to science and leave the fairytales where they belong. Oh, and even if that book ever is written and even if he/she/it does appear on Meet the Press, I think we should make sure any source materials can be WP:verified. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 20:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

These opinions on whether certain beliefs are correct do not help to advance the discussion here, which is on whether this source is reliable on the question of who believes what. Kenilworth Terrace (talk)

My opinion was on whether or not the source was reliable. I was just being honest in my lighthearted response. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 20:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

So, for the record, what was that opinion as to reliability? It rather got lost in your need to be "honest". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that it was not. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 20:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm here for a different section but felt the need to chime in. Because you were discussing the theological issues which relate to the article, it could give the perception of bias regarding the reliability of the source due to your own theological beliefs (as signaled by the use of "IMHO"). You want to avoid that as carefully as possible, even if it makes your writing seem less "light-hearted" as a result, because it only invites ad hominem opposition. To answer Kenilworth Terrace's question, the website is very clearly self-published if you look around the index page. Anyone can pay to have a book published, but unless the user in question can provide citation for substantial and reputable third-party coverage, then the site is definitely not an acceptable source. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

So much depends on exactly what the source is being used to support. For a statement as to the religious beliefs of the authors, the source is reliable. It might be reliable for a statement as to the beliefs of a specific group of people. It would not be reliable for a statement as to scientific fact, or to "counter" a statement of scientific fact. And at this point, I point you to WP:NPOV, and to WP:FRINGE (both being relevant policies in all this). Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

He's being used as the voice of modern progressive creationism, in spite of the fact that he appears to have no particular following in that crowd. We have however found a reliable secondary source to replace and/or contradict this one, so it's been eliminated (at least for now). And I would like to point out that, on the basis of voluminous research (currently buried in a peat bog for security reasons), I can inform you that progressive creationists eat gerbils, not hamsters. So there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

gamasutra.com

Is this website considered reliable, especially for BLP? It appears to have user-contributed content and to publish on an "as is" basis. I'm thinking of Tim Sweeney (game developer), for example, for which it's the only source. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the article for Gamasutra, and the website itself, I'd say it's borderline but probably okay for reliability. Notability might be a different story, and if it were a request for deletion, I'd call Gamasutra too "fringe" and vote delete. They list the email addresses of five individuals, which probably could be considered an editorial process, but there's no way to know if every article is reviewed by more than one person (as with any fringe publication). I'd say it can be used when no alternative can be found, but if it's the only article and you've made a good faith effort to find other sources, put up a RFD.

Not sure what else to tell you. The article for Sweeney's company, Epic Games, is horribly under-cited; otherwise, I'd say use whatever citation that article did. As it is now, they might as well say the board of directors consists of Boba Fett, Queen Elizabeth, and Captain Morgan since there's no way to check it. Wikipedia articles require some 3rd-party coverage beyond a single publication for that particular industry (otherwise, every published professor and corporate executive could have his/her own wiki article). If this particular game developer isn't mentioned in something more widespread than an article in a game development industry magazine, I'd say he's not notable. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

At the Video Game project, Gamasutra is considered a highly reliable source - there is editorial oversight and it is the website frontend of a major game development magazine. Mind you, whether one source is enough for notability, that's a different issue, not a question of whether the website is reliable or not. --MASEM (t) 07:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

mobygames.com

I suspect this is not a reliable source: it claims to "let the public contribute to each entry in the database". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope, for the same reasons that we ourselves are not a reliable source, nor do we claim to be. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

With lack of systematic fact checking being the obvious thing missing. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Politician, not a historian, cited for history?

In the article Reproductive Health Bill (Philippines), the following paragraph appears:

Former Senator Francisco Tatad, who opposes the bill, said that the roots of population control can be traced to what he believed are the ideas and works of the following: the doctrine of Thomas Malthus (+1834), who said that population growth always outstrips food production, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood (1942), who promoted birth control of the unfit, Adolf Hitler (+1945) and the extermination of the Jews, Hugh Moore who in 1954 wrote a pamphlet The Population Bomb, which influenced top businessmen and United States policy, leading to the support of population control activities starting 1961 as part of the US Foreign Assistance Act. In 1968, Paul R. Ehrlich used the same title, The Population Bomb, for his own book; Tatad mentions that Julian Simon countered it and won in the famous Simon–Ehrlich wager, in which Simon and Ehrlich placed a bet on whether the price of certain metals would rise or fall, and with his book on population, The Ultimate Resource.

The citation for this paragraph is: Francisco Tatad (2008-09-14). "Procreative Rights and Reproductive Wrongs". Scribd.

This is a self-published source by Tatad, who has no academic subject matter expertise in reproductive health. He is a prominent supporter of opposition to the bill, but is that enough to make him an authority on the history of reproductive health? Discussion was started Talk:Reproductive Health Bill (Philippines)|here]], but the parties involved are not reaching consensus. Some help would be appreciated. 122.3.45.29 (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember where I heard this, but "a compromise is a solution that no one is happy with". That in mind, consider this consensus:

The politician in question could be cited as a source on his own statements and/or beliefs; or if and only if he holds some sort of representative position within a political party he could be cited as demonstrating that party's opinion. There are situations where self-published sources are acceptable, and citing him on his own opinions is one of those. However, it would be unacceptable to cite him as a source for the topic in general without some sort of caveat, but the block quote you provided does include such a caveat so it's fine.

In the example you gave above, the article clearly states that it is Tatad's own opinion, and it states his position on the issue. The article is not stating that population control has its roots in actions of these historical figures, only that Tatad believes it does. Looks fine to me, as long as it can be verified that he actually said it. I strongly suggest that some citation be given to his position, or as a last resort, tag it as:

"...Francisco Tatad, who opposes the bill,..."

Without quotations, it sounds like the article is interpreting his opinion, which would be considered original research. It would be better in this case to quote him directly - if this cannot be done, then it is not verifiable. A third-party source would be better, of course, so make a good-faith effort to find coverage of his statement. If his opinion is not notable enough to receive significant coverage, then maybe the article should not give so much WP:WEIGHT to his opinion. Just a thought.

In summary, the politician is an acceptable source regarding his own opinion, as in your example. However, he should be quoted directly instead of interpreted. If it is not possible to quote his exact words, then the entire section is not verifiable and should be removed.96.228.129.69 (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The question of whether it is right to cite someone as a source for their own opinions is generally not really an RSN question. The more relevant policies are WP:POV and WP:NOTE. How notable are a minor politician's ideas about the connection between Malthus, Hitler etc and a reproductive bill? That's really not a question for this board. If there is some debate about how to source this person's opinions and be sure we've done so in a verifiable way based on reliable sources for that opinion then what is that debate?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I addressed that a little but I wasn't concise enough, sorry about that. It's OK to quote him directly, or limited paraphrasing. The quote above contains multiple historical figures that are found in different pages on the referenced book. The block quote is more of an essay about the source book, rather than a direct citation to the book itself, and could be considered unreliable original research. It needs to be broken up into direct quotations made by the author, each cited to the source, so that the article is not doing any extensive amount of interpretation.

I was just pointing out that even if it is considered reliable with the caveats above, that has no bearing for or against the source's neutrality and notability which is a question for another page. After reading that article's talk page, I was worried that the opposing side of the debate might misconstrue our conclusion of reliability as a blanket endorsement of "yes, keep the text because the source is reliable" despite possible violation of WP:NPOV. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. We aren't saying keep the text, we are saying his opinion, if it's significant for this article, can be kept. Addressing other issues, I'd say it should be limited to his opinion, not to his arguments in favor of his opinion. Dougweller (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this source reliable?

I made an edit with minor wording:

Revision as of 14:43, 25 October 2010

It said: "...was lecturer at the Picmet, Portland International Conference On Management Of Engineering And Technology" with this reference:

• Reisman Lecturer at Picmet 2003 Picmet.org, Sessions p.88 TB-10.2 [R] Transfer of Technologies: A Meta Taxonomy, Arnold Reisman; Sabanci University, Turkey. Retrieved 2010-10-25.

Later, wording was changed to this, by editor User:SlimVirgin with reference remaining:

"...and in 2003 he spoke at the Portland International Conference On Management Of Engineering And Technology."

• Revision as of 21:52, 9 November 2010

But today, almost a month later, another editor User:Drmies removed this text, along with the reference I inserted. Drmies' edit summary, (rationale,) was this:

→ "he spoke at a conference? wow. rm entirely trivial fact (it's from a sixty-page program) that belongs on a resume"

• Revision as of 22:50, 2 December 2010

I would like to know, whether this text with the reference which I inserted a month ago was/is legitimate:

• "...and in 2003 he spoke at the Portland International Conference On Management Of Engineering And Technology."

Ref.→Reisman Lecturer at Picmet 2003 Picmet.org, Sessions p.88 TB-10.2 [R] Transfer of Technologies: A Meta Taxonomy, Arnold Reisman; Sabanci University, Turkey. Retrieved 2010-10-25.

Thanks. _{Fusion Is the} Future 15:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The dispute over that text and source is clearly regarding notability, not reliability of sources. This is the wrong forum to discuss that issue. Fladrif (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict with Fladrif, who is much more concise than I am.] Fusion, using so many bullets and so many short paragraphs works well on PowerPoint but not here: your lengthy comments are difficult to follow.

If your question is about the source, it seems pretty clear that the reference you provided for Reisman having spoken at the conference should be taken at face value--there is no need to distrust the source. But your real question is about whether including the factoid of his having spoken at a conference is notable and should be included. I have a clear opinion on that, which I explained in the edit summary you cited above. It was clear enough for another editor, who reverted your undoing of my edit, and I have just now explained myself at length on Talk:Arnold Reisman, where such discussion belongs.

This is not a matter for the Reliable Sources noticeboard, plain and simple. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. If we want to be really pedantic we could argue that the conference programme doesn't prove he spoke, only that the conference organisers said he was scheduled to speak, but unless there's some credible reason to doubt that it actually happened the source is okay. You could always obviate that doubt anyway by rewording it as "in 2003 he was invited to speak at...". Barnabypage (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct, Barnaby. However, such reworking kind of deflates the importance of invited speakers. I mean, in that case, I've been invited to speak at maybe twenty conferences...including one where I lectured, in a highly invited manner, to a select and handpicked audience (of five, including the other two presenters and the session chair). Drmies (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Drmies - BTDTGTTS ;) - I don't disagree that the factoid is probably too trivial to be worth mentioning - merely suggesting to Fusion a way to avoid any potential distractions over the status of the source and focus instead on what everybody seems to agree is the key issue, significance. Barnabypage (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you got a shirt? All I got was a badge--and a line on my resume of course. (And I know what you meant, but this was too good to let go--my paper was revolutionary, of course.) Drmies (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under communist regimes

Mao's Great Famine [26] [27] is a book which has been suggested as a source for this article. One editor has stated, however, that the book is too recent, and that the book's author was paid by the Kuomintang. The query, therefore, is this book WP:RS for claims about the Chinese deaths at issue? Collect (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Recentism is not a reason for rejection. As for being a paid advocate, has the user produced any evidacen for this?Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a really high-quality source. Apparently, Dikotter supports the higher end estimates of the death toll associated with the Great Leap Forward, but that's pretty easy to clarify and certainly is no reason to excise it as a source. jps (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The specifics of his opinions and who might benefit from them are not an issue. Ordinarily, there would be no question about reliability since it was published by a reputable and independent publisher. If the editor in question can produce third-party coverage of a majority or significant (not fringe) minority opinion that the work was biased, then we could talk about removal, but otherwise the book meets reliability criteria and should stay in. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Eplates

This site contains a large amount of information about the horribly difficult to reference articles in Category:Bus routes in London. Since it's run by one person with no editorial oversight, it would usually be considered unreliable under WP:SELFPUB. However, on this page it cites a large number of apparently reliable sources used to build the site. This suggests a sort of tertiary source, with all the ambiguity that that particular policy subsection brings. So would we consider it reliable or not? Alzarian16 (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if he wrote a 200-page paper on the London bus routes with hundreds of reliable sources, if he never published it or had any editorial oversight, then it is self-published. This is not automatic disqualification, but it should be used sparingly, only for non-contentious points, and only when no alternative can be found. The question I have to ask is this: if a point needs to be made and eplates.info is the only source that can be found, why is the point important?

I skimmed through some of the articles in that category and saw a lot of sentences describing an incident that occurred on some bus route, usually supported by journalistic coverage. For points like that you wouldn't need a self-published source, unless the incident was non-notable and shouldn't be included. I know your question is not about notability, but bear in mind that to meet the notability criteria, then it must have some coverage from a reliable third-party (not self-published) source.

Let's say for example the eplates.info author makes the claim that "Route 9 is the most dangerous bus route in London" and you want to include that in a Wikipedia article. Is that claim directly supported by any of his sources? If the answer is yes, cite that source and not eplates. If the answer is no, don't include it. If instead he says "Route 9 is a bus route" then obviously it is a general fact and does not require citation. If there is some point that you just have to include in the article but can't be attributed to any source with an editorial process, first ask yourself if it really is important, then you can use eplates cautiously but remember that it is subject to challenge and removal at any time. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely. A good summary of how this should be handled. Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sturmkreig article about the "Russian-Holocaust"

This article (http://sturmkreig.wikkii.com/wiki/Russian-Holocaust) on Sturmkreig has information that would be useful for Rape during the occupation of Germany. It is well cited, uses reliable sources, (also used on our article) and is frequently monitored by Sysops, which increases the reliability of the content and reduces the vandalism risk. There should not be any reason why the information there is not reliable.

--Нэмка Алэкс 21:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be an open wiki and hence unreliable. In addtion, the main page http://sturmkreig.wikkii.com/wiki/Main_Page states that "Sturmkreig was created as a place to tell the story of the Sturmkreig Sub-Empire, a fictional network of planets created as part of the fictional history for the 403rd Army Group, and the Tiger Legion." How could a wiki devoted to a work of fiction possibly be a RS for real life? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)