Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. Please post new topics in a new section. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The Policies that most directly relate are: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to WT:V.

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Slayer

Resolved

• Fortes, Michael (2007-03-20). "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Slayer". jefitoblog. Retrieved 2007-03-21. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

As a citation for this information in Backmasking:

Slayer included at the start of the band's 1985 album Hell Awaits a deep backmasked voice chanting "Join Us" over and over at increasing volumes.

Though it is posted at a blog, I find this article well-written and credible. Others have disagreed at the talk page. Λυδαcιτγ 20:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me quote relevant policies:

• from WP:RSEX:
  • 'Popular culture and fiction' section: Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included.
  • 'Use of electronic or online sources' section: 'Material from bulletin boards and forum sites, Usenet, wikis, blogs and comments associated with blog entries should not normally be used as sources.'
• from WP:ATT/FAQ:
  • 'Are weblogs reliable sources?' section: In most cases, no. Most weblogs ("blogs"), especially those hosted by blog-hosting services such as Blogger, are self-published sources; many of them published pseudonymously. There is no fact-checking process and no guarantee of quality of reliability. Information from a blog may be usable in an article about that blog or blogger under the self-publication provision of WP:ATT. Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university or employer (a typical example is Language Log, which is already cited in several articles, e.g. Snowclone, Drudge Report). Usually, subject experts will publish in sources with greater levels of editorial control such as research journals, which should be preferred over blog entries if such sources are available. Blogs must never be used as secondary sources on living persons; see WP:BLP.

My advice is as follows: if the information is not contradicted by more reliable sources, use it with a note that it was published on a blog, and add information about its author, publisher, fact-checking (or lack of thereof), pay attention to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight (if the extra information blog provies are not very notable, they should be used with caustion). If the information is contradicted by more reliable sources, it should not be used.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean a note within the article, like this?:

According to Michael Fortes' "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Slayer", published at jefitoblog, Slayer included at the start of the band's 1985 album Hell Awaits a deep backmasked voice chanting "Join Us" over and over at increasing volumes.

The information does not seem controversial enough to require attribution to a specific person - Fortes simply happened to mention it, but he is not the discoverer or a proponent of this information, just the best source for it. Or do you mean a cautionary note in the reference? Λυδαcιτγ 02:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The attribution in text, noting its a blog, seems enough if the information is not controversial. If some opponent of this wants to elaborate on unreliability of blogs in a note, it would be ok, too. Bottom line is its a self-published source with no fact-checking, so its not very reliable, but if the information is plausible and not contradictory, and type of source (blog) and other info are mentioned, it seems ok to note it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett

Resolved

There is an ongoing dispute on Stephen Barrett that may come down to the reliability of the sources provided. In short, Stephen Barrett is not board certified. This information has been verified by several primary sources including Stephen Barrett himself at Wikipedia and some legal documents[1] [2]. The question is open about the necessity of secondary sources to support these primary sources and whether any of secondary sources we have meet reliability per Wikipedia policy.

The two sources which we are examining now are:

• Anti-chiropractic groups spreading ‘stroke’ lies online World Chiropractic Alliance
• Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Trial in Hometown Dynamic Chiropractic

Other sources to be examined include:

• Quackwatch Founder Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Case in his own Hometown
• Examining the Truth By Terry S. Friedmann, MD, ABHM and Sabina DeVita, EdD, DNM, RNCP with Karen Boren PDF
• Wathing the Quacker By Terry S. Friedmann, MD, and Karen Boren PDF
• Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases Canadian Lyme Disease Foundation
• True Lies About Anti-Aging and Growth Hormone by Fintan Dunne for MyLongLife.com.

The content which will need support will essentially say: "Dr. Barrett is not board certified." Third-party opinions about the reliability of these sources to support this content will be most appreciated and will certainly help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are enough for factual statements, but not for making interpretations. See WP:ATT#Primary_and_secondary_sources: Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. If there is consensus that the primary sources you have are stating he has no board certification, they are enough for it; of course the more sources, the merrier. Are there any contradictory sources stating he has a board certification? PS. Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#Types_of_source_material and Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources give some examples of primary sources if clarification is needed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No there are no contradictory statements in any sources thus far presented. Thank you for your input here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This confirms our previous consensus that the information is indeed verfied. What we don't have consensus on is if we have any "secondary sources which verify and give weight to this information" (quoting Levine2112 - see Talk:Stephen_Barrett#No_agreement_on_existance_of_reliable_secondary_sources and Talk:Stephen_Barrett#No_consensus_on_existance_of_reliable_secondary_sources). If you'd like to look at the sources in this context, please do so. There are WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:NOT and WP:WEIGHT issues here. I'll be happy to summarize them if anyone's interested given that this dispute goes back over 15 months. -- Ronz  19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think weight is an issue here. All we are wanting to include is the verified fact that Barrett is indeed not board certified. That's all. This isn't a minority opinion; it is a verified fact. Weight isn't an issue here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Others think WEIGHT is an issue. I don't know what to make the inconsistency of your comments above and the quote of yours just above ("and give weight"). -- Ronz  19:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why WEIGHT is an issue then, but let's bring this back to Talk:Stephen Barrett. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In an earlier phase of this discussion I made an extensive argument about the reliability and notability of the source Dynamic Chiropractic ( found here: [[3]] ). This trade magazine can not just be dismissed. MaxPont 21:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Imho, it is not necessary to support primary documents with secondary ones. If a primary document says "he is not board-certified" then that may be quoted and cited and you're done. Wjhonson 21:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Wjhonson. This is a great help. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Wjhonson, I agree that primary sources are enough, but if secondary would add something new, they can be used - if they are reliable. May I suggest describing each secondary source in a subsection here, and listing arguments pro- and con- against it? A simple solution is to note in article that X from publication Y claims that, but indeed if there are problems with undue weight this is not enough, as the question is whether the source should be used at all or not; however note that there is a difference between minor source and minor claim, and a difference between minor and unreliable source.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. But I don't think we want to say anything other than that Barrett is not Board certified - a fact which the primary sources support. The secondary sources say this and more, but we are not interested at this juncture in the "more". As you know, our primary sources include two court documents and a statement by the subject himself on Wikipedia. All explicitly state that Barrett is not Board Certified. It doesn't sound like we need anything else to insert this information other than the primary sources. Correct?

Here are our main secondary sources:

• Anti-chiropractic groups spreading ‘stroke’ lies online World Chiropractic Alliance - article claims that Barrett is not Board Certified and that he failed the certification exam to become Board Certified.
• Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Trial in Hometown Dynamic Chiropractic - article claims that Barrett is not Board Certified and that he failed the certification exam to become Board Certified and that he had to admit this on the stand during trial.

This has been a contentious issue for us on Talk:Stephen Barrett and in the interest of settling this, we are currently looking to compromise by only stating that Barrett is not Board Certified and leave off the part that he failed the exam (even though, Barrett confirmed this information on Wikipedia). Again, we are only interested in inserting that he is not Board Certified, a fact verified by several primary and secondary sources. Are there any other issues which we should be considering?

Thanks again. Your input is a tremendous help. Thanks so much for setting up this page. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"But I don't think we want to say anything other than that Barrett is not Board certified" There is no consensus on this, and in fact many editors such as myself argue that taking Barrett's certification status out of the context of the sources we're using is a violation of WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NOT, as well as an attempt to get around WP:BLP. -- Ronz  23:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You cannot say he failed the exam, or anything else, on the basis of a posting to Wikipedia, because we have no way of knowing whether or not it is true. that would not just be using a primary source, but using ourselves as a primary source. If you want to say he failed the exam, you should try to find it in a court record.

But I think the real question is whether the fact that he is not board certified means that he is deceptive in calling himself a psychiatrist. From the court hearing referred to, he gave what I personally consider a totally misleading but technically true statement that an MD does not have to be board certified to practice as a psychiatrist. Legally, an MD can practice any speciality (I think that's still true). And , of course, almost any doctor practices some basic psychiatry--or so we hope. But that's not the way the words would be taken. How to express this at WP is a puzzle--we cant give it as our interpretation--we have to find someone reliable who said it.

The chiropractic sources listed above are not in my opinion RSs for anything other than their opinion on the subject, any more than he is a RS for the nature of chiropractic. I think you could use a quote as their opinion giving the source--anyone would be able to tell the likely bias. After all, you're not going to find them admitting his claims about them are correct. DGG 05:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your input, DGG. I am curious, did you have a chance to review these sources: [4][5] [6]? These are the primary sources which verify that Barrett is not board certified. (One of which is Barrett himself at Wikipedia confirming htis information.) The Fonorow suit shows that while Barrett objected to the manner in which it was presented (that he was forced to admit this under oath), he doesn't disagree that he isn;t board certified. His comments at Wikipedia confirm that he isn't board certified. If all we want to insert is that Barrett is not board certified (and leave out that he failed the exam), can we do so with the sources provided? Piotrus and Jhonson believe so, but I would really appreciate your thoughts here as well. Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

DGG, if I am not mistaken(!) I believe you misunderstand the situation, and thereby are doing Barrett an injustice with this statement:

• "But I think the real question is whether the fact that he is not board certified means that he is deceptive in calling himself a psychiatrist. From the court hearing referred to, he gave what I personally consider a totally misleading but technically true statement that an MD does not have to be board certified to practice as a psychiatrist. Legally, an MD can practice any speciality (I think that's still true)."

There are three points to clarify here:

1. The difference between specialization and certification. They are not the same. Specialization is an extension of the basic medical education, while board certification is a step beyond that. At the time Barrett took and failed the exam, only 1/3 of psychiatrists were board certified and his lack of certification was never a problem during his entire career. He was able to testify as a psychiatric expert witness without any problems.

2. It is not necessary to be an MD, an MD specialist, or even a board certified MD, to be considered by courts to be an expert witness on a medical subject. There are examples of persons who have established their expertise on subjects outside of their own profession, who are admitted by courts as expert witnesses. This also applies outside of the medical and scientific fields. While it may be unusual, it does happen.

Barrett's status as an expert witness in the later years (since his retirement) has not normally (if ever) been as a psychiatrist, but as an expert in quackery and healthfraud, and in that capacity he is considered by many to be one of (if not "the") the foremost expert(s) in the world. His expertise on those subjects has been recognized by numerous private and governmental organizations and consumer protection agencies. It is not necessary to be educated in a quack field (such as homeopathy) to be able to use common sense, knowledge of what is legal or illegal, knowledge of consumer protection laws, knowledge of ethics, and knowledge of scientific matters, to be able to judge whether a claim is proper or improper, and thus classify it as quackery, healthfraud, or something like it.

3. I'm not sure that it is legal for an MD who has not passed specialty exams to claim to be a specialist. The same would apply to board certification.

I hope that my explanations help. I could be mistaken on some minor details about the legalities about point three. I just wish to clear up a misunderstanding that is injurious and unfair. He has not been deceptive or misleading in this matter. On the contrary, it is Bolen who has been misleading, weaselly, and libelous in his attacks on Barrett, and he is being sued for it. We don't want to repeat, support, or participate in his perfidy here at Wikipedia. -- Fyslee/talk 08:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In regard to this:

You cannot say he failed the exam, or anything else, on the basis of a posting to Wikipedia, because we have no way of knowing whether or not it is true. that would not just be using a primary source, but using ourselves as a primary source.

AFAICT, it doesn't matter if the post is to a Wikipedia talk or user page or to elsewhere, as long as it meets the requirements of WP:V for self-published sources in articles about themselves. The most likely objection is reasonable doubt as to the identity of the Wikipedia editor claiming to be the subject of the article. Anomie 14:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Sbinfo is definitely believed by all to be Stephen Barrett. Again, I don't want to put in any attacks on Barrett (a la Bolen); I just want to put in the relevant info which Barrett himself has verified here - that he is not Board Certified. I would Wikilink "Board Certified" to American Board of Medical Specialties so any questions about what this means would be answered by following the link. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia afterall. . . It's better! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Per the discussion here (at this most helpful page), I have put forth a proposal to add the information that Barrett is not Board Certified. Please feel free to drop by and weigh in on this proposal. Hopefully the guidance provided here will help with the resolution to this long dispute. Thanks again. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is still no consensus to include this verifiable and relevant content. I have brought up your guidance on WP:RS at Talk:Stephen Barrett, but it is being ignored and I am being accused of having an agenda to include biased material. I don't understand. Stephen Barrett isn't Board Certified. This isn't a point of view. This contains no bias. Barrett has come to Wikipedia and told us this, and what's more, he has told us that he is open to sharing this information. Aside from Barrett at Wikipedia, we have several primary sources verifying this information (listed above) and a number of secondary sources (also listed above). Now the editors wishing to keep this information out of the article are insisting on a tertiary source. Any other help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources

There is still disagreement at Talk:Stephen Barrett over inserting the verified content that Barrett is not board certified, despite the finding here that say our primary sources are reliable and sufficient. Above, it is stated that when it comes to sources, the more the merrier. I would appreciate an analysis of the following two secondary sources (which will be used to support the reliable primary sources discussed above).

• Anti-chiropractic groups spreading ‘stroke’ lies online World Chiropractic Alliance - article claims that Barrett is not Board Certified and that he failed the certification exam to become Board Certified.
• Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Trial in Hometown Dynamic Chiropractic - article claims that Barrett is not Board Certified and that he failed the certification exam to become Board Certified and that he had to admit this on the stand during trial.

Both articles come from widely read trade publications. Are these sources reliable in terms of secondary sources of the information (that Barrett is not Board Certified)? Basically, those editors who are in favor of excluding this content feel that we would need a reliable secondary source to provide the context and weight for this issue. Judging by your comments above, I don't know that this is necessary, but if it is a chance to end this long dispute, I certainly welcome your expert analysis. Thanks for your time and guidance in this matter. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe Levine and I think you'll agree that the main contention is something on the lines of "Whether or not he is board-certified is irrelevant" or "Simply saying he's not board certified emphacizes a meaningless distinction." Perhaps you could better sum up what the argument from the other side is exactly, if it's not the above. Wjhonson 02:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the main contention from "the other side" is similar to what you have stated here; but in terms of policy they have stated their contention to be per WP:WEIGHT - without a reliable secondary source, there is no way for us to determine the relevance of Barrett's lack of Board Certification. Sure, the fact that he is not Board Certified is completely verifiable. We all agree that he is not Board Certified. The primary sources are certainly reliable and abolutely confirm this. However, those supporting excluding this information believe that a reliable secondary source is necessary, WP:WEIGHT cannot be determined. Since we are not dealing with a viewpoint, but rather a verifiable statement, the section of WP:WEIGHT which would apply reads as follows:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

What I have proposed (as a compromise), I believe satisfies this requirement. The wording would be: Barrett is not Board Certified. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't believe that the secondary sources provided are even necessary to state this; especially in terms of WP:WEIGHT (a policy which states nothing about a secondary source requirement).

Now then, there is another contention that this content doesn't satisfy WP:NPOV in general (WEIGHT is a "sub-policy" of NPOV). The secondary sources provided above tell a point-of-view; that while on the courtroom stand, Barrett was forced to admit that he had failed the Board Certification exam. While Barrett's point-of-view (as he has stated here at Wikipedia) is that he is not ashamed of nor reluctant to admit that he failed his Board Certification exam. Clearly, there are two point-of-views here in terms of Barrett's willingness to admit that he is not Board Certified. The solution: Don't mention whether or not he is reluctant to admit this. Make the general and verifiable statement: Barrett is not Board Certified. And be done with it. We are not saying that he is reluctant or open with this information. Hence, WP:NPOV has been acheive (simply by avoiding any point-of-view and just sticking to the verifiable facts rather than the verifiable opinions).

So, while I don't think that the secondary sources are necessarily required to satisfy either of these contentions, I would not mind an expert opinion of their reliability in terms of being secondary sources of this content. If there are any other contentions (a recent one which was debunked was WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content), it would be nice to know whether or not be have reliable secondary sources. Again, all I (and the majority of editors at Talk:Stephen Barrett) want to include is a simple and verifiable statement: Barrett is not Board Certified. Any insight which you can give will be most appreciated. Thanks! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you can agree that it sounds a bit derogatory to say that someone is not "board-certified". As you know, he or his counsel answers this statement by saying "It is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry." It seems a neutral way to present the information would be:

"He is not board certified (citation), but he responds by stating that 'It is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry'" (citation)

Wjhonson 18:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That to me would be a neutral expression presenting both *sides* of that topic. Wjhonson 18:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think that is a workable solution. I definitely see your point with regards to WP:NPOV. Let's see what the editors currently favouring exclusion think of your suggestion. Thanks so much for your input. I really appreciate your expertise! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is one editor who still feels that this information is in violation of WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content. I think this is unfounded as this material is certainly not malicious, and given Jhonson's extra NPOV precaution, it is certainly not biased. It is a verifiable fact which the subject himself has confirmed as true here at Wikipedia. (BTW, I realize that this isn't the "BLP noticeboard", so if this is way out of place here, I apologize.) Any guidance or thoughts on this editor's concern? Thanks again! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, going to BLP noticeboard may be a good idea; I think reliability issues are settled. For the record, I don't think this editor is right and BLP does not apply here, but better experts than me are available there to address that particular issue.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thank you for your help on the reliability of sources issue (and I appreciate your insight on BLP as well). I tend to agree with you, but let's see what they say at the BLP noticeboard. Much gratitude to all the editors who helped us out here! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Search engine optimization

Resolved

Search engine optimization is a featured article candidate. Due to the nature of the subject, we have relied heavily on web sources, including several prominent blogs.

• SearchEngineLand.com - Industry journal published in blog format
• SearchEngineWatch.com - Industry journal published in zine format
• Matt Cutts' blog - Personal blog of a Google insider, used as a primary source about Google

A reviewer has asked for community input as to whether these sources, and others used in the article, are reliable or not. Please comment here or there. Jehochman ^Talk 01:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

See my reply about blog reliability at #The Complete Idiot's Guide to Slayer. Briefly: 1) are the blog claims controversial or contradicted? If yes, consider removing that info, if not, keep it but add in text information that the source comes from blog X by Y.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment there are a lot more articles and stubs that have the same problem. What was said for the SEO article is also true for a lot of existing and missing articles about any type of internet marketing. Its the platform of choice. All print publications in affiliate marketing switched to blogs over the years as their online publishing CMS. A lot of other sites did as well, including sites that were always online publications only, but used some sort of CMS in the past. See my comments here at discussion for the SEO nomination as featured article candidate (starts at the first line, I created an anchor). Jeochman also started a discussion about some rephrasing or changes to Wikipedia guidelines to more reflect reality than they do now see here. We will run into the issue time and again and I have to say that it is getting old in some cases where you have to explain over and over again that site xyz is a reliable news source that happened to switch their CMS to WordPress. That did not change their editorial process nor the way how they research facts. The switch to a blog did not make those publications become sloppy. I think this issue should be addressed as soon as possible, because it will only get worse --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 02:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that a key point is whether the source is fact checked; if it is than it doesn't matter if they publish via blog, paper of papyrus :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for the comments. This article was promoted. Jehochman ^Talk 01:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"How do you pronounce SNES?"

Resolved

Every once in a while someone tries to "correct" the Super Nintendo Entertainment System article with their pronunciation, which usually results in a few pointless edits until we reach a compromise. So I decided to research the issue, and discovered (unsurprisingly) that people pronounce it in many different ways: "sness", "snez", "s-nes", "s-n-e-s", "super nes", "super nintendo", etc. The ideal statement for the article then would be along the lines of "English speakers pronounce SNES in various ways, including ...". The hard part is finding a reliable source, as AFAICT no one has bothered to write an article on the subject. I have an argument for using what is normally an unreliable source, but I suspect my line of reasoning will be opposed by some editors. Step by step, the reasoning is:

1. If someone posted their claimed pronunciation to a blog or forum, WP:V says we could use that under the following conditions:
   1. The source is used in an article about that person.
   2. The claim is relevant to the person's notability. This is more about whether the statement should be in Wikipedia at all rather than whether this source should be used to source the statement.
   3. The claim is not contentious. I suppose this means "No one reasonably thinks the author is lying"?
   4. The claim is not unduly self-serving.
   5. The claim is not about third parties or events. This is satisfied by the definition of the post being considered.
   6. We can verify the identity of the author.
2. While it's not explicitly allowed, as WP:RS and WP:V generally consider a source's merit only as a secondary source, I can think of no reason that blog or forum post couldn't be a primary source for the statement "Person X pronounces SNES as P" in any article (besides "Oh noes! It's a forum post, and forum posts are not allowed!"). This relaxes the first WP:V criterion to "The source is used in an article about the author or to source a statement (in any article) that the author makes the claim". Also, the second criterion shifts to whether the new statement is appropriate for its article, rather than whether it is relevant to the author's article. We still have to meet criteria 3–6.
3. Of course, we don't particularly care about Person X in this case, just the fact that someone pronounces it that way; this blog or forum post could be used for that purpose as well if you accept step 2. Since "someone" doesn't depend on knowing the identity of that someone, the sixth WP:V criterion no longer really makes sense (the author is trivially identifiable as "someone"). Note that criteria 3–5 still apply, as do the modified 1 and 2.
4. A statement "someone pronounces SNES as P" is not particularly notable, of course. We can cite a number of such forum/blog posts to strengthen it to "some people pronounce SNES as P". Note that "a number of forum posts" could all be in a single thread, so the number of actual <ref>s need not grow unmanageable.
5. If we have statements "some people pronounce SNES as P1" and "some people pronounce SNES as P2" sourced as in step 4, we can rewrite them as "People pronounce SNES in different ways, such as P1 and P2". Note that one thread could have both posts supporting P1 and posts supporting P2, further reducing the number of <ref>s required. P3, P4, and so on can be added similarly.

In general, this sort of thing could support a statement of existence like "Some people believe Y about X" or "People believe different things about X, including but not limited to Y1 and Y2". It cannot be used to support statements like "Everyone/No one believes Y about X", or any quantitative statement about levels of belief or non-belief in Y, or "few/many/most" semi-quantitative statements, or any indication as to whether Y is actually true or false.

This could also apply to use of voodoo polls, although they may often be disqualified under criterion 3 on the argument that people lie to screw with the poll results.

Any thoughts? I've read some of the past discussion in various talk archives, but it only went as far as step 2 in anything I've found. Sometimes there was consensus, and sometimes not. Anomie 22:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• as there is no consensus--or the balance may be changing-- and as opinion about this varies with whom you ask, simply use the best source you can, and word it in the clearest way. For disputed pronuciation or spelling, I like the wording, "It is sometimes written/pronounced X, and sometimes Y." The only problem is when there are conventional RSs for X, and only a blog for Y. In general, your description of the situation above is--in my opinion,as always-- the fullest presentation of it that has yet been written. DGG 04:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have such a statement already, I'm mainly looking for comments on my reasoning for use of forum threads in this unorthodox manner. Especially if the consensus here is "that's acceptable", I can point to this discussion in support of the use. Anomie 23:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DGG. Give a full presentation of pros and cos for various names, either in a separate section or a footnote.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the "pros and cons" of the various pronunciations are relevant to the article, and I certainly can't source any such presentation. The current footnote just mentions the existence of the various pronunciations, and the effect this has on choice of indefinite article in English.

I am interested in a discussion of the merits of my argument for considering a forum thread to be a reliable source for this particular type of statement. Anomie 01:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Basicially forum thread is a reliable source only if no more reliable source can be presented. See WP:ATT/FAQ#Are_web_forums_and_blog_talkbacks_reliable_sources.3F and WP:RSEX#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources. This would be an exception, as we usually don't accept forums as reliable sources - but if no better refs are presented, I think it can be mentioned.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That strikes me as an "Oh noes! It's a forum post!" response. Your two wikilinks seem to be considering reliability as a secondary source, or assume the "there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it" criterion of WP:V#SELF cannot be met. In this case, the use is as a primary source supporting the fact that someone states the opinion that the author states in the post. The use is along the same lines as sourcing the fact "Some cows are brown" by citing a number of photographs of brown cows: proof of existence by presentation of direct evidence. Anomie 01:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the reasoning, although you may want to consider whether this is not bordering on WP:OR (I'd think not but it's close...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad my reasoning makes sense, and thank you for your input. Specifically, I'd be concerned about it being WP:SYN, but I agree it isn't quite there. The reasoning depends on a bit of logic and a bit of summary, but there doesn't seem to be any novel conclusion. Anomie 19:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there a ''Nintendo Power'' which clarified that it is pronounced "Super NES"?--Flamgirlant 21:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a quote from the September 2000 issue of Nintendo Power here, but "after checking with our legal team and passing a survey around the lunchroom" doesn't sound that official—it sounds to me like legal said "no official pronunciation we know of" so they took a small survey. Perhaps that forum post is inaccurate, or perhaps there is a second issue addressing the question, but until someone supplies the citation information and relevant quote.... Anomie 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we consider this discussion resolved?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wizards.com use as source for Magic related articles

Wizards of the Coast, a subsidiary of Hasbro, produces the CCG Magic: The Gathering. As part of their website, [7], they regularly produce informational columns [8] and provide specific information on cards [9]. They also answer questions [10] . Sometimes the articles can be a bit silly (I included one for an example), but in general, I feel it's clearly a professional site with an acceptable standard for accuracy. Now there may be concerns about marketing bias and other such issues, but I think that the appropriate response is to use them with a slight level of caution, and if other reliable sources contradict them, to include that contradiction if it comes up. IOW, I believe that usage of the site is acceptable in general, and only individual specific concerns are worth covering. Is this acceptable or not? I've invited the person who disagrees with this to make their position clear, but you can also read about it on the MTG Wikiproject's discussion page. Mister.Manticore 16:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As a magic player myself, I am actually familiar with the website, and would certainly agree it has many valuable informations. There is indeed concern about marketing and bias, this is addressed by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves - however I don't think this would be much of a case here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, this is a gross misrepresentation. I've only been removing a narrow case of references; claims of "Notable cards" sourced only to WOTC's website. Since when do we cite the publisher of a product as a source for opinionated claims about their product? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Would a possible compromise be: card X is considered notable by the publisher'?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's why I suggested you add your perspective here. Perhaps instead of saying I'm wrong, you can be more clear on your position, since the previous discussion I've had with you indicates that you're not just concerned about this particular usage, but about overall usage of Wizards.com in general. Am I wrong about that? And in this case,I think you're mistaken in your representation of the situation as well. in many cases, there weren't opinions about cards (though sometimes there were, but those were often unsourced to anywhere, let alone wizards.com), but instead nothing but facts about specific cards. If you'd just edited the various iffy examples of notable cards, that'd be one thing, but your methods to me indicated a wider problem with using wizards.com at all. Do you have no objection to using them in some cases, such as to say which was the first card to have a given attribute? Or the last? That's not exactly an opinionated statement, is it? Why then, do you remove it here [11] and here [12]Mister.Manticore 23:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, we wouldn't have these bulleted lists of trivia; instead, incorporating them into the body of the article. The first thing we need to do with eliminate this heavy element of parroting WOTC's party line on their products. Why are we citing the official site of the publisher of a product for critical reception of that product? Why should we mention their faux critical reception at all? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first would be a style issue, not well-addressed here. It's not about sources at all. The second would be, um, confusing to me. As what critical reception is apparent in "this is the first card to have double-digit power and toughness" ? I'm afraid I don't see your comment as applicable to the individual situations over all. Perhaps if you gave an example of a usage that concerns you? Mister.Manticore 17:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we shouldn't be parroting WoTC, you're right. And maybe I'm misunderstanding what you've been removing, but if a source is an article on wizards.com, it is certainly quotable, as it is not actually the entity that is Wizards of the Coast itself, but one person writing an article. And if a source is gatherer...well, that should be a statistical resource, and should still be fine. If the source was just "wizards.com," then that's wrong. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Every card that isn't a stock reprint of something is the first card to do something. Every single card introduces something new, even if it's something trivially new (such as a new combination of old ideas). Why are we saying that such-and-such card is notable when the only source is a form of advertising? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Because there's nothing wrong with use of self-published sources, and Wizards.com is a reputable site that isn't simply blind advertising, but a professional website that provides content which you haven't actually impeached. Mister.Manticore 20:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the question of whether what a card does is unique or not, that's one that exists regardless of sources, so I don't feel it's relevant here. When it comes right down to it, I could probably find unique and verifiable information about a huge number of cards. I believe some editorial discretion will be needed. Mister.Manticore 21:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Every card is unique, and deciding on our own which ones are most unique is definitely original research. Now, using reliable sources (SCG, Inquest, Scrye, MTGS, etc.) would be different, but deciding on your own or using a company mouthpiece isn't a good way to do it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

According to this Gatherer page, Spellweaver Volute is the only card that enchants an instant. Is that original research? --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because it's original research to claim that that is important. Fugitive Wizard is the first 1/1 Wizard with no game text. Kavu Glider is the first Kavu with enemy-colored activated abilities. Every card is unique. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Our deciding what cards are most unique may be original opinion, but our deciding what cards to cover on a given page is nothing more than editorial discretion. It's not original research to use our own opinions and reasoning to write a page. If it were, we couldn't write any pages at all. In any case, I'm still not seeing a clearly articulated specific objection to wizards.com. Mister.Manticore 21:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That editorial discretion, as with all NPOV disputes, needs to flow from the form that the reliable sources take. I'm disputing that any card not covered by a third-party source isn't noteworthy. (Most of the "notable" cards, before I first started trimming these lists, were pretty silly.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

To repeat my statement, I'm still not seeing a clearly articulated specific objection to wizards.com. That's the problem here. You can't even accept the invitational cards if verified solely at Wizards.com. I'm sorry, but your opposition is excessive and not supported by actual examples. Mister.Manticore 22:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote earlier, as long as those guidelines are followed, wizard.com can be used as a source. Let's review them one by one:

• it is relevant to their notability; -> from the preceding discussion, the answer seems yes
• it is not contentious; -> from an online dict. "involving or likely to cause controversy"; I don't see any arguments that the information would be controversial
• it is not unduly self-serving; -> again, I don't see that much bias on wizards.com, although care should be taken to distinguish articles from purely marketing pages
• it does not involve claims about third parties; -> I don't believe so?
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; -> I don't believe so?
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it. -> this is important - read: state that the source is publisher's webpage, wizards.com, in the article.

Bottom line is that if its only a producer who says its product is notable, we shouldn't repeat their claims, but if the producer is also a publisher of a widely respect (correct me if I am wrong) journal or informative website, that source can be considered more reliable, but it should be made clear in the text that a possibility of bias or unreliability is higher - so if there is no clear consensus of for or against (as seems to be the case), I suggest stating in text (or via dedicated footnote) that the claim about notability comes from wizards.com. PS. I'd suggest discussing the reliability of publications on wizard.com - is it a respectable site or 'company's mouthpiece' - as crucial in solving this debate.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the official site is being used as a source of importance for trivial claims, ones made nowhere else. WOTC had a promotional contest! (Source: WOTC's contest) WOTC made a card based on a design submitted by the winner of a WOTC-run tournament! (Source: WOTC) WOTC considers such-and-such card from an old set influential in their new product, out next week! (Source: WOTC)

Generating interest and claiming that the game is important is unduly self-serving. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please convince me how the content of Wizards.com is unduly self-serving, with examples and explanations. You do realize that the keyword is unduly, which means that it would be self-serving beyond a reasonable amount. That Wizards produces content as a benefit to increasing their product sales is understood. This doesn't mean that their content is nothing but advertising pap with no reasonable material on it at all. See, that's the problem, your objection is not based on any particulars. It's a blanket prohibition that's not supported with any actual reason for it other than a conceptual one. Sorry, but I don't feel there's an inherent problem with Wizards.com content. It only merits reasonably caution. Oh, if you don't believe that the Invitational and YMTC were covered by third parties, please go to Starcitygames.com where you can look it up. I don't think adding those sources would be meaningful to these articles, as I feel it's only neccessary to add sources to demonstrate the truth of certain statements, nothing more. But if you feel a desire to do so, go ahead. [User:Mister.Manticore|Mister.Manticore]] 21:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Out next week? That's not good, per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. I think talking about notability of already printed cards, especially older, using wizards.com, is fine, but new ones? Nope, per CB ref.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Predictions aren't really at issue. My point is rather that WOTC has an interest in promoting even their older sets, as they are frequently mined for reprinted cards and ideas; in fact, every core set (a yearly release) and indeed the next set and the last four sets were based on making nostalgic references to older sets. There's lots of "Wasn't Invasion a great set? I know I sure liked it. By the way, there are new versions of the Invasion characters in Planar Chaos, on sale right now!" It's not quite that blatant, but it is self-serving. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Give me some examples and explanations of unduly self-serving. Simply saying "Here's this, and here's this now" might conceivable be beneficial to them, but is it unduly so? I don't see you convincing anybody of that yet. Mister.Manticore 22:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WOTC just released four sets in a row that relied heavily on reprints or references to previous sets, and a fifth is on the way. Do you not understand how generating interest in older sets is self-serving, given this? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but once again, I have to ask you to provide examples. You're merely asking me to assume they're biased because it's logical to you. But this doesn't demonstrate actual unduly self-serving bias on their part. That doesn't fly. If you want to say "We should use caution in using this" fine, I agree. But that means examination of each individual situation as it comes up. Can you provide one single example at all of an actual problem with the content of Wizards.com, preferably with a rebuttal from another reliable source so we're not relying on your opinion that it's wrong? You haven't so far, and I'm not even requiring you to provide a third-party rebuttal if you can just provide a decent case example. Mister.Manticore 23:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:N. Where's the skepticism? In all other subjects, we assume that the publisher of a product has a vested interest in promoting interest in their product. Why is this suddenly different for Magic? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read: WP:N#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. See also WP:SPS. Therefore, I suggest you reserve objection to any use of Wizards.com content to the particulars of the circumstances. Mister.Manticore 23:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are we throwing skepticism out the window because of the specific wording of Wikipedia policy, when the obvious intent of Wikipedia's sourcing policies are to keep us citing independent, reliable sources instead of those with a vested interest in promoting their employers' products?

Why are we citing promotional stunts themselves as sources that such-and-such promotional stunt is worth noting? Why are we citing the home page of a tournament's operator that such-and-such tournament winner's prize is worth commenting on?

Why are we not following the lead set by the independent coverage, and instead giving undue weight to the company mouthpiece? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've said this to you many times before, you're welcome to be skeptical. That means caution and an individual examination of the circumstances behind any decision, not a blanket refusal to use them. Concern means you carefully look for a problem before doing something, not that there is an over-riding problem that prevents it. Do you see the difference? Therefore, I once again, ask you to demonstrate an actual problem with Wizards's content. If you can't, then I must say, be cautious, be skeptical, but don't deny it without individual examination of the circumstances. Mister.Manticore 23:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with WOTC's content is that WOTC has a vested interest in giving undue weight to their own products, as all corporate mouthpieces are generally assumed to be doing. (Why else would they exist?)

The question I pose to you is such: when has wizards.com been critical of a product they're selling? When have they ever seen fit not to cover WOTC's latest tournament or set as unimportant? Why can we trust them to be impartial about what is important and what is not, regarding their own products? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Give me an example of them giving undue weight to anything. Not being independently critical is not the same as being unduly self-serving. But to answer your question, well here: [13]. In any case, I still don't see any actual problems being demonstrated by you. Can you give me a reliable source that shows them not owning up to a mistake or problem? Show me any kind of cover-up or astro-turfing on their part? Mister.Manticore 00:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't have any sort of examples of gross malfeasance on their part. Merely a promotional tone and emphasis on self-promotion. Isn't that enough? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope. See WP:V again. Your assumption there is a problem doesn't mean there is a problem. Also see WP:IAR. You seem to be stuck on the particulars and missing the spirit. Mister.Manticore 00:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If wizards.com isn't a promotional outlet, what is it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is no demonstrated objection to a problem with content overall on Wizards.com, then the concern must be with specific content. Go for it. Name some examples. Point out some problems. Perhaps I might even agree with you. But you'll have to make a good case. Mister.Manticore 00:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Wizards.com is a promotional outlet" is the demonstrated objection. Every single new set is described in glowing terms. Information is rationed according to WOTC's promotional plan. Wizards.com doesn't comment on WOTC's ongoing legal matters. Promotional activities (You Make The Card, upcoming events, previews of upcoming sets) are intermixed freely with coverage of current events, with little dsitinction drawn between them.

The problems are more ones of omission and tone, ones that are part and parcel of the editors being hired by WOTC and the whole site belonging to WOTC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you haven't demonstrated an actual problem with specific content being unduly self-serving. Please do that, or try to consider it in terms of individual situations. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to support your assumption that there is a problem which merits blanket rejection of wizards.com. Any problems that do occur should be handled as they occur. Mister.Manticore 01:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's good, because I'm not blanket rejecting wizards.com. I'm rejecting it as a source for the implicit claim that a specific card or group of cards is noteworthy, as they have an interest in claiming that their products are noteworthy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So, who has suggested that use of Criteria from Wizards.com for what makes a card notable or not? I'm not even aware they have criteria. Mister.Manticore 01:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody. I'm merely removing both unsourced claims that cards are notable, as well as claims that cards are notable based on insuffucient sources, such as self-published fansites and wizards.com. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think it's obvious that wizards.com is a source of verifiable information. Which means of course, they can be used to verify whether or not a card meets the criteria established for notability. If you disagree as to what makes a card notable or not, then I suggest you go to the discussion on that subject. Make your points there. Mister.Manticore 01:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wizards.com is not a good source of claims that such-and-such card is noteworthy. It's a passable source of certain types of information, however. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not what's being done here, sorry. The idea of what characteristics determined whether a card is notable or not is not related to any claims by wizards.com as far as I know. Mister.Manticore 02:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The characteristic of being notable, on Wikipedia, is having been covered in an independent, reliable source. Wizards.com isn't independent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Notable" is used in the English sense in the "Notable cards" sections, not in the WP:N sense. Individual game pieces are rarely notable, and there is ample precedent for mentioning them in articles without establishing their notability in the Wikipedia sense. If you disagree, go argue with the Settlers of Catan editors about how the desert tile is mentioned in the article without proof of its notability. --Ashenai 02:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The question of WP:N is not relevant here. You are confused, perhaps because in English, things can have multiple usages where their meanings are not quite identical. If you'd like, I suppose we could change the title of the section to "Selected Cards" or some other such title. Mister.Manticore 02:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Does someone have, handy, a non-subjective definition of notable? Right now, in the articles, it seems to be "any card someone thought was neat," which isn't very helpful, or "whatever card Wizards has seen fit to advertise," which doesn't serve the purpose of an encyclopedia.

By the way, if anyone wants an example of the promotional tone, I suggest this article, written shortly after the release of Fifth Dawn and currently being used in Fifth Dawn as a source to indicate that a card that was created in a publicity stunt is noteworthy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There's an existing discussion I've pointed you to on the subject of what criteria makes a card notable. Of course, you could well argue that it's ultimately subjective anyway, but then, I've always said the whole concept of notability is subjective. That's an ongoing debate which isn't likely to be resolved, and is in fact, getting steadily more complicated. (see the recent addition to WP:NOT for an example.) Mister.Manticore 02:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And what's the problem with the content of the article? Give me some direct examples. I wouldn't use it as a source for anything, but that's because [14] is much better. Mister.Manticore 02:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That discussion sucks. It's people arguing about their own subjective interpretations of what cards are notable. Again, back to the "any card someone thought was neat" but with WP:MTG replaced with "someone." Not a significant improvement.

As for the problems with that article, any article on Wizards.com touting WOTC's latest product as "possibly the greatest Johnny set of all time" needs to be immediately discarded as a potential source, as does the wrap-up for a publicity stunt. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I suggest instead of insulting the discussion, which helps nobody, you contribute your own clearly articulated position on the subject and see if you can develop consensus for it. But your opposition to the wizards.com articles makes no sense to me. For the quote you gave, I'd simply say "person x described it as the greatest Johnny set of all time". But then, I'd do that no matter who said or where. That kind of statement merits a quotation, not a simple usage. Mister.Manticore 03:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the other source, I think it's quite a valid one for information on the process of how the card was chosen. Do you believe there's a problem with it, if so what? Mister.Manticore 03:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a valid source to justify mention of the contest in the first place. Once we've justified mention of the contest at all, it's a passable source for describing the contest. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is, given the standard in WP:SPS, even if we leave aside the issue of the criteria for what makes a notable card. And if you think that the idea that "A card which was developed through the input of a player through a contest by Wizards" isn't a valid criteria for a notable card, then I only have to say you can easily be proven wrong. So don't even begin to suggest it or I'll think you're just being stubborn. Mister.Manticore 03:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, have you reached a compromise? Or do you need further input on reliability?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. Mister.Manticore 15:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, where I am is here: Don't make lists of notable cards (or example cards or whatever) with no sources or WOTC-owned sources, because these sections will need to be incorporated into the article body, and personal observations and opinions aren't useful for that.

I dunno about anyone else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

al Jazeera video

I would like to know if the al Jazeera video and transcript linked in naked short selling (see end of "media coverage" is a reliable source and thus is worthwhile to be linked. My tendency is to think that it is not, but I am interested in hearing other views.--Samiharris 19:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the entire media section is full of refs to popular press. Since I am not aware of any connection between Al Jazeera and the subject matter, it seems to me that it is as reliable as any other mainstream media outlet.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly not its reputation, but if that is Wikipedia's policy on Al Jazeera I of course will not dispute it.--Samiharris 14:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't have a policy on Al Jazeera. But I am not aware it is considered unreliable - you are free to make your case for it, but please inform editors on that article's talk page, as well as on related noticeboards and projects (media, etc.) that we are discussing this, because the outcome could influence more than one article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I consider the english version of Al Jazeera highly reliable on all subjects, including the Middle East, and certainly including topics like these. Ask me for help with evidence if needed. I strongly doubt the other language versions are even approximately identical, and they would have to be discussed by those who can read them. DGG 06:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we consider this dicussion resolved?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not believe it has. While I respect the opinions that have been offered, I do not see how a propaganda outlet run by a Persian Guilf government can be said to produce reports that are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia.--Samiharris 15:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can present sources to back up your opinion, it would help. So far, I would only recommend noting in text that the given reference, if controversial, is to Al Jazeera - and let readers read article on it and decide for themselves if they think it biased or unreliable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Yogurt Connection

Resolved

Article deleted a couple of times at The Yogurt Connection: Pioneering Drug Ring for lack of notability sourcing, it is now at Linda Leary, Richard and Paul Heilbrunn, And The Yogurt Connection. I've been in contact with the author, and the unwieldy current name is a known, separate issue from what I am bringing to this noticeboard. The article actually does have sourcing, but they are all offline sources, and thus cannot be easily verified. I'm no expert on sourcing myself, and after talks with the author I decided to get some consultation from those who do consider themselves more expert in sourcing. Do the external, offline, sources as given meet requirements for the article, or is more needed. Thanks in advance for any time/effort on this issue. - TexasAndroid 21:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Article moved to The Yogurt Connection and online sourcing added

Article has been moved to The Yogurt Connection and online sourcing has been added to two of four sources. The Time, NY Time and AP sources were discovered in a proprietary LexisNexis database. The indictment is a paper document obtained by me from the federal court. Also, the article is now, inexplicably to me, no longer visible. Thank you. --I3142p168 22:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the reliability matter solved then? Or do involved editors have any further questions?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I consider the sourcing adequate, and there is no requirement at all that the sources be accessible freely--people are assumed to have access to libraries. DGG 06:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we consider this dicussion resolved?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Sorry for not responding in atimely manner. - TexasAndroid 14:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Oxford University Chess Club

I am concerned if this site is a reliable source: [15]. It neither lists where the information comes from, or even gives a date for the club's founding. I am concern that it's not suitable, and that a better source should be found. I can't even find out anything about the person responsible for the site's content. How do we know David Hayes (the person claiming the copyright) knows what the oldest anything is? I'm just not sure it should be trusted. This isn't to say the information is controversial and needs to be removed but I think a better source would be appropriate. Mister.Manticore 19:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The author is Bill Wall as is stated elsewhere on the website. Wall is a chess author (e.g. Wall, Bill (1988). Grob's Attack. Chess Enterprises. ISBN 0-931462-86-X. ) who specialises in chess history and has his own website here. I am not arguing that it meets WP:RS and I am looking for a better source if that helps the discussion here. However, the question as to whether this source should be cited, pending a successful search for a better reference, is for the talk page of the article and that is where you should be seeking a consensus. BlueValour 20:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

But the page itself doesn't mention Bill Wall, and exactly why should we trust David Hayes to know whether or not Bill Wall knows the truth? As for Bill Wall himself, unfortunately, publishing a book (or several) on Chess doesn't an expert in history make. Especially since the book isn't directly related to Oxford or Chess History. Where can we find his credentials endorsed by anyone else? I'm not even sure Chess Enterprises is a reliable publisher. If it's the one describe here [16] (and if that is indeed an accurate description, which it might not be, but I don't know that it isn't.), then it's a publishing out of a garage. Which makes for a vanity press. Therefore, I'm not inclined to rely on it. I'm also concerned that you replaced a SPS with the same source under a different flag. That doesn't fix the problem, it just repeats it. Again, I suggest looking for a better source, or if you can't do that, referring it directly to the claim by the club itself. That would be far more acceptable. Heck, I'm not even removing the information, just objecting to use the current sources. Mister.Manticore 20:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream websites published and maintained by notable media outlets are reliable. A minor webpage or a book publisher are less reliable, but unless the information is contradictory to something else we have it can stay - although it may be a good idea to mention a source in the text (ex. Bill Wall states that...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism

• “Partisans of Israel often make false accusations of anti-Semitism to silence Israel’s critics. The ‘antisemite!’ libel is harmful not only because it censors debate about Israel’s racism and human rights abuses but because it trivializes the ugly history of Jew-hatred.”
  • Handleman, Scott, "Trivializing Jew-Hatred," in The Politics of Anti-Semitism, ed. Alexander Cockburn. AK Press, 2003, p. 13.
• “Apologists for Israel’s repression of Palestinians toss the word “anti-Semite” at any critic of what Zionism has meant in practice for Palestinians on the receiving end.”
  • Cockburn, Alexander and St. Clair, Jeffrey, preface to The Politics of Anti-Semitism, ed. Alexander Cockburn. AK Press, 2003, p.vii.
• "More importantly, Finkelstein exposes the nastiness of smearing the label of anti-Semitism on Israel's critics. Mostly, he tells us what we already know."
  • Paul, Ari. "Norman Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Antisemitism and the Abuse of History". Tikkun, October 11, 2005.
• "Instead of seriously engaging with the issues raised (e.g. to what extent are Israel's current policies similar to those of apartehid and to what extent are they not?), the Jewish establishment and media responds by attacking the people who raise these or any other critiques--shifting the discourse to the legitimacy of the messenger and thus avoiding the substance of the criticisms. Knowing this, many people become fearful that they too will be labeled "anti-Semitic" if they question the wisdom of Israeli policies or if they seek to organize politically to challenge those policies."
  • Rabbi Michael Lerner. "There's no New Anti-Semitism". Baltimore Sun, February 7, 2007.
• “The lack of debate is, of course, a measure of the power of the Israel lobby to suppress discussion of its role, and the fear the lobby stirs among American writers, especially non-Jewish liberals who cannot afford to be tarred as anti-Semites, a death sentence in the profession."
  • Shatz, Adam. "Dialogue of the Deaf". The Guardian, March 24, 2006.
• "'I’ve been hurt — and so has my family — by some of the reaction,' Carter said. 'It’s the first time in my life I’ve ever been called a liar. A bigot. An anti-Semite. A coward. A plagiarist. He paused after each epithet. 'This has hurt,' he said."
  • Cohler-Esses, Larry. "Carter Faces, and Disarms, Jewish Crowd". The Jewish Week, January 26 2007.
• “The Great Silencer: No discussion of how the Lobby operates would be complete without examining one of its most important weapons: the charge of anti-Semitism. Anyone who criticizes Israeli actions or says that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over U.S. Middle East policy – an influence that AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of getting labeled an anti-Semite.”
  • Mearsheimer, John and Walt, Stephen. "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy". KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series, Harvard University, March 2006.

As a citation for this information in Antisemitism:

Some have argued that the charge of antisemitism is being misused as a way to silence criticism of Israel.

---

• “The charge has been leveled at Jimmy Carter over his recent book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." I, too, didn't like the book...Still, Carter's overall point about Israeli occupation of the West Bank is apt, and calling him all sorts of names does not change that...It's astonishing that in the 60 years since the Nazi extermination camps were liberated, anti-Semitism has revived and thrived. Still, it hardly makes sense to fight it by promiscuously throwing around the word "anti-Semite" so that it loses its punch or to flay Jewish critics of Israel."
  • Cohen, Richard. "Cheapening the Fight Against Hatred". Washington Post, February 6, 2007.)
• Philadelphia Inquirer: Truth at Last

As a citation for this information in Antisemitism:

After Jimmy Carter published his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid he was labelled an antisemite.

---

• ADC Denounces New Efforts to Chill Academic Freedom, Press Release, Arab Americans Anti-Discrimination Committee, September 26 2002

As a citation for this information in Antisemitism:

Rashid Khalidi, a Director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University and a target of Campus Watch says:

"This noxious campaign is intended to silence such perfectly legitimate criticism, by tarring it with the brush of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, truly loathsome charges. They reveal the lengths that these people apparently feel impelled to go to in order to silence a true debate on campus."

I find the sources reliable. They are from a collection of print news media as well as scolars in the field of politics. Others have disagreed at the talk page. // Liftarn

Your examples here look acceptable to me. However, the reliability of your sources doesn't seem to be the real issue on the talk page discussion you cited; rather, the issue seems to be that others don't want these additions in the article at all. On that front, I have two suggestions for you. First, either establish your case that one of the books you cite is a scholarly work or find a paper in a respected peer-reviewed journal to bolster your position; this will be unlikely to convince the others, but will help your case in step 2. Second, take the matter to an official channel for dispute resolution, such as Mediation, as I think anything less isn't going to settle the issue. Anomie 12:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

While you are probably correct in your belief that no matter of sources will ever convince them. It will not matter if the source is a scholarly work or a paper in a respected, peer-reviewed journal as that issue already have been adressed ("They are not scholars of antisemitism"). As they are only used as source for "Some have argued" the demand of a scolary work by an expert on antisemitism published on a peer-reviewed stone tablet handed down from the sky by God is way too much. // Liftarn

In fact, the issues here are much more complex, and it's rather disappointing that User:Liftarn uses this board to mis-characterize them, in an attempt to get support for his position. To begin with, the sources used are not scholarly sources about antisemitism, but for the most part are people who have voiced fairly extreme views, then claimed that they have been, or perhaps will be, accused of antisemitism. These claims are entirely self-serving, and in no case actually provide any example of who has accused them of antisemitism; they're just vague smears. Second, the material itself is not relevant to the antisemitism article, which is about actual antisemitism, not vague claims that people have been accused of antisemitism but deny the charges. Third, it is a truism that everyone accused of antisemitism insists that they are not antisemitic, and is being targeted for political reasons - David Duke says it, Jew Watch says it, etc. Even if we had more than a vague claim from someone that they had been accused of antisemitism, the protestations of innocence are predictable, and not notable. Fourth, the entire topic is not particularly notable; one would never find this kind of vague, self-serving, political material in a real encyclopedia. Fifth, the material has already been rejected by AfD processes - Liftarn has been trying to shop this material around encyclopedia articles for a year now, including it in the List of political epithets article, and at least a half-dozen others. The material has been rejected by a wide variety of editors, and User:Liftarn's edits at this point are disruptive. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that Jayjg is a bit overzealous in protecting what he perhaps view as an attack on his political views, but the facts are

1. the sources used are scholarly sources or from other reliable sources
2. the people cited are not extremists (that he says so may say more about him than the sources)
3. the claims are clearly not self-serving (with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter)
4. the material is relevant to the article, but I have asked for suggestion where it would be better placed with no luck (what Jayjg refers to as "to shop this material around")
5. I don't see Jayjg trying to remove the criticism section from the islamophobia article
6. the subject is notable enough to have been the subject of at least two books (The Politics of Anti-Semitism and Beyond Chutzpah)
7. this material has not been "rejected by AfD processes"
8. it is true that some editors don't like it and go to some lenghts fighting over this
9. bringing in David Duke and Jew Watch seems like an attempt at poisoning the well

// Liftarn

Regarding Liftarn's claims,

1. In fact only one (Mearsheimer and Walt) could be even claimed to be scholarly, that one is highly controversial, and in any event the scholarship of the authors does not extend to antisemitism.
2. The people cited have generally made extreme claims, and Liftarn needs to focus on edits, not editors.
3. All the sources except Paul Ari and Adam Shatz are self-serving.
4. The material is not relevant to the article, which is about actual antisemitism, not political posturing and self-serving whining.
5. I don't much about Islamophobia, and I have no idea why Liftarn would insist I have to edit that article.
6. Both works are polemics, and if Liftarn is looking for a place to shop this nonsense around, those articles would be likely candidates.
7. This material was indeed rejected by AfD processes; it was Liftarn's insistence on including the material in List of political epithets that finally exposed the absurdity of the list, and led to its deletion.
8. Attempts to mis-characterize the reasons for opposition to this material are dishonest at best.
9. Rather than poisoning the well, bringing Duke and Jew Watch points out that everyone rejects the charge of antisemitism; it is essentially a tautology to state that a person accused of antisemitism rejects the charge. Even the most obvious candidates (and their followers) will insist that they are not, so even if one were able to find reliable scholarly sources discussing actual examples (not vague innuendo), the statement that a person so accused rejects the charge adds no information or value. If someone, anyone, actually accepted the charge of antisemitism, that would be noteworthy.

Jayjg ^(talk) 14:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Strawman agrument. It is not required that they are scolars of antisemitism, they are scolars of politics and that makes their views relevant since it deals with the misuse of antisemitism as a political tool.
2. Ad hominem attack and false.
3. Dubious and any way irrelevant.
4. the misuse of antisemitism as a political tool is relevant to the article (if you have a suggestion for a more suitable article please say so)
5. Just pointing out your double standards.
6. False, and in any care still irrelevant.
7. But not everyone rejects it when it's applied to others. The sources talk about the use of the charge of antisemitism as a political weapon in general terms, not that they specificly have been targeted

// Liftarn

1. Actually, it is required they be scholars of antisemitism. As explained elsewhere, the claim that this is an example of "misuse of antisemitism as a political tool" and therefore "scholars of politics" can comment on it is circular - there is no evidence that this is an "misuse of antisemitism as a political tool" except from those who make the claims in the first place. Moreover, most of the sources are not even "scholars of politics".
2. You have misunderstood/misused the term "ad hominem".
3. Highly relevant; people commenting about themselves are recognized to have a built-in bias which makes them inherently less reliable.
4. The claim of such misuse by people who allege they have been accused of it, without any evidence of that claim, is not relevant to an article about actual antisemitism. I've already suggested where such material might be more appropriate.
5. Please avoid uncivil statements; there are 1.5 million articles on Wikipedia that I do not edit, and it is not a "double standard" for me not to edit them. I don't know what the contents of the article are, and have no idea if the situations are at all comparable, but in any event attempts to bully me into editing it fall on deaf ears.
6. Not sure what you're referring to at this point.
7. Supporters of Duke and Jew Watch reject the charge of antisemitism when applied to them. Supporters of anyone accused of antisemitism invariably reject the charge. And certainly Carter is talking about being specifically targeted; Mearsheimer and Walt pretty much are as well, in a pre-emptive way. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As a general comment, I tend to be wary of statements that say "some people argue". A statement like that raises a huge red flag for me, in that it is so often misused as a weasle phrase to make a relatively Fringe view seem more significant than it is. I immediately suspect such a statement, and want to know who exactly is making the argument and why. I almost alwasys come to the conculsion that the statement should be directly attributed to the individuals who are making the claims. I am not saying that this is the case in this situation... but it does make me suspicious.

In this situation, I would be inclined to accept the citations as being reliable sources if they were broken out into individual claims and attributed to their authors. However, that would expose each to scrutiny as being Undue Weight and Fringe. In other words... taken out of the context of the article in question, I would call these reliable, but I have difficulty doing so within that context. And used to support a "some people" claim I am even more reluctant to accept them. I would want any citation in support of such a statement to demonstrate that "some" is actually a sizable number... more than just "a couple of people with chips on their sholders".

To sum up... I think the sources are individually reliable under this guideline, but they do not properly support the statement "some people"... and when used in the context of this article, they fail several other policies and guidelines. In fact, I really don't think this is truely an RS issue. It seems much more a NPOV (and especially an Undue weight) issue. Perhaps you should raise this at that policy's talk page? Blueboar 17:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Briefly, I agree with Blueboar that it looks like the Undue Weight/FRINGE issue; a discussion needs to resolve the question whether it is a view important enough to include in the article or not. For the record, I think it is a widely enough heard view to merit an inclusion, but let me try to help the discussion by addressing the concern this board was designed to deal with, that of reliability. are the sources used to back up the above assertion reliable? Per WP:ATT/FAQ: Mainstream websites, newspapers and magazines published and maintained by notable media outlets, Books and journals published by universities and known publishing houses and written by widely published authors. Looking at the sources in question:

1. AK Press publisher: radical, but has some notable names, and is not directly criticized - borderline, but yes
2. Alexander Cockburn author: controversial but has also a number of positive reviews and endorsments
3. Tikkun (magazine): criticized by some but again applouded and endorsed by some, nothing out of ordinary for any magazine, and seems notable enough, same for the author Michael Lerner (rabbi)
4. Baltimore Sun, The Guardian, Washington Post - mainstream newspapers, reliable per our rules
5. The Jewish Week: local newspaper, but doesn't seem unreliable (no criticism reported)
6. KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series, Harvard University - Harvard sais it all, and John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are reliable scholars; their paper (note it has an article on Wiki - The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy) - may be controversial, but seems quite reliable
7. Richard Cohen (Washington Post columnist) - notable mainstream journalist
8. Rashid Khalidi - reliable scholar, if engaged in some heated political disputes, one should distinguish between his academic and non-academic works, the latter should be less reliable

Overall, the sources seem reliable, and the amount of them indicates to me that it is not a 'fringe' view.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have ignored the main issue, that they are vague claims written by non-experts, and reliability is entirely dependent on context. For example, an oped written in the online "Comment is free" section of The Guardian website by Adam Shatz is about as reliable as Adam Shatz himself. It is a reliable source in that we can reliable say Adam Shatz wrote it; but the contents themselves are not The Guardian's position, only Adam Shatz's. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources are OK and prove the fact that was written by Liftarn. --Dezidor 18:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dezidor, could you elaborate on that? It does not help to just declair something OK, without explaining why you think that. Piotrus and I are both saying that we think the sources are reliable, but that they have other issues that need to be looked at... issues that seriously impact whether they can be used in the specific article, Antisemitism. Those issues need to be discussed and resolved (mostly at other policy talk pages and at the article talk page). So... while they do "prove" that someone wrote something, they still may not be "OK". Blueboar 19:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are sources reliable was written by Piotrus and it is needless to write it again. You wrote you think they "do not properly support the statement "some people"..." I think that view is important and sources prove that many authorities have this opinion. --Dezidor 20:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Dezidor, you're also the person who thinks that David Irving has not been discredited. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And you are also the person who thinks that sources like Anti Defamation League are reliable. --Dezidor 14:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Not for everything, but, unlike you, I don't insist they're "extremist" either, and remove links to them and wikistalk others as an IP editor so my edits won't accrue to my account. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dezidor, my point is that even though the sources are reliable, using them in the Antisemitism article may not be "OK" because of what other policies say. RS is not the only issue here. Blueboar 02:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Meltyukhov in general and his 'Soviet-Polish Wars' in particular

Mikhail Meltyukhov is a modern Russian historian, mostly unknown and uncited in the West (which is by no means a hint of his reliability or lack of it, most scholars from non-English speaking countries are unknown and uncited in the West; this only makes estabilishing their reliablity more difficult as it is hard to find reviews and commentary on them in English). His work Stalin's Missed Chance (from 2000, albeit due to poor reference formatting and my lack of command in Russian I cannot vouch for the data of publication) was apparently quite a hit in Russia, in has brought him to the attention of some Western historians. Later, however (2001?), Melt. published a book that has proven to be much more controversial: Soviet-Polish Wars. Political and Military standoff of 1918-1939. The book was first brought to our attention when User:Irpen started using it as a source about attrocities allegedly committed by the Polish Army during the Polish-Soviet War. Since those allegations were quite new to us, questions related to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and particulary Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources were raised. Two academic reviews in English were found, both very highly critical of Melt.'s work in general and this book in particular:

Peter Cheremushkin (from Moscow State University), Russian-Polish Relations: A Long Way From Stereotypes to Reconciliation, InterMarium Volume 5 (an academic journal of nstitute of Political Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences and Columbia University's East Central European Center). With reliability of author and publisher estabilished, let me bring a few quotes from the journal: p18: "Russian historians were unable to take a united stand against those who claim that “nothing wrong happened in Katyn.” Some historical publications have appeared in this context, such as a book by Mikhail Meltyukhov called Soviet-Polish Wars: Military and Political Confrontation in 1918-1939.42."[...] "This [Meltyukhov's - note by P.P.] point of view can be used to justify the execution of the Polish officers in 1940." [...] "But can this point of view be considered correct if it is so close to Stalinist and neoimperial concepts?"

Polish professor of Jagiellonian University, Andrzej Nowak, in his conference paper writes (p.9): "It would be possible to indicate various examples of more subtle apologias for the Empire, linked with the rejection of all arguments for its victims or critics. Examples which dress themselves in the trappings of the most academic monograph. [...] A more brutal example of the same tendency is expressed in the book by the professional historian from Moscow, Mikhail Meltyukhov, dedicated to the Polish-Soviet conflicts of the twentieth century. These conflicts are, for him, fragments of eternal Western aggression against Russia. When Russia (in this case, Soviet Russia) comes into conflict it is only to take what is rightfully hers. Stalin appears as a genial successor to Catherine II. The Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and the involvement of the USSR in the attack on Poland in September 1939 are presented as purely defensive postures, underlining the primacy of Russian raison d’etat. This posture represented not only Stalin’s profound realism but also historical justice and even – argues Meltyukhov – humanitarianism. In this context the mass deportations of more than half a million people from the territory occupied by the Red Army in September 1939 to camps in the depths of the Soviet Union is presented as a “peacekeeping mission” which prevented the murder of those Poles deported to Siberia by protecting them from the Ukrainians panting with thirst for revenge...". Please also note a damning footnote: "M. Meltyukhov, Sovetsko-polskie voiny. Voienno-politicheskoe protivostoianie 1918-1939 gg., Moskva 2001 – compare my comprehensive review concentrating on the shocking falsehoods in this book – in: A. Nowak, Od imperium do imperium. Spojrzenia na historię Europy Wschodniej, Kraków 2004, p. 258-271."

In light of those two reviews, it has been proposed at Talk:Mikhail_Meltyukhov#Criticism and Talk:Mikhail_Meltyukhov#Request_for_positive_reviews_of_Soviet-Polish_Wars, that unless positive academic (and preferably Western) reviews of Melt.'s works are presented (or critical reviews of Cheremushkin and Nowak works as partisan are presented), Melt.'s works should not be used as references for alleged Polish attrocities in particular, and areas where his "Stalinist and neoimperial" bias can affect in general (or at least, that such bias should be noted in text). Since in two weeks since discussions at the above discussion page stopped no requested positive reviews have been presented, I would like to ask editors interested in reliablity whether they feel it would now be justified to remove the controversial references to Melt. from our project? Note that nobody is questioning the Melt's reliablity where the references to his work concern purerly military matters (numbers, dates, strategy), only where they concern the issue of national POV, neutrality and undue weight/fringe to controversial statements (ex. about Polish army alleged attrocities not confirmed by any other work).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Update. Nowak in his 2004 book in detail lists bias and inaccuracies concerning Polish-Russian relations in this book, primarily pointing out that Poland is always portrayed as an aggressor and many instances of Russian aggression toward Poland are ignored: Bar Confederation for him is not a 'pro-Polish independence movement' but only an 'anti-religious tolerance' one; for a comprehensive study of Polish-Russian relations, there is no mention of Polish-Russian War of 1792 nor of Targowica Confederation; in another example, he claims that 60,000 Soviet POWs died in Polish camps during the Polish-Soviet war, and all Polish POWs were returned safely - ignoring the recent finding of both Polish and Russian historians that for both sides, POWs losses were similar (15,000-20,000) (For more on this subject, see Camps for Russian prisoners and internees in Poland (1919-1924) and Polish prisoners and internees in Soviet Union and Lithuania (1919-1921)); Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is declared non-infringing on Soviet-Polish Non-Aggression Pact and as containing no anti-Polish aspects; Soviet invasion of Poland is termed 'peace operation' and 'liberation'; and main concern of Soviet government during its occupation of Poland was... the well-being of Polish citizens (deportations were meant to safeguard Poles from retribution of now-liberated minorities in that region, and Katyn massacre is justifed due to "60,000 Soviet POWs murdered during the Polish-Soviet War". Nowak also criticizes the work on methodological grounds, noting its reliance of Soviet sources like Nikolai Kuzmin Kruszenije trietjego pochoda Ententy (1958) or Paweł Olszański's Riżskij dogowor (1969) and near complete omission of any works from Russian authors who would disagree with his claims, Polish or Western historiography.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Melt. certainly seems to be a biased source... but I hesitate to clasify him as unreliable, even for his POV claims of attrocities. He meets our guidelines for being published etc. Once again, I find that Fringe and undue weight might well apply but not RS. If it must be used, a direct text attribution seems to be the way to go. Blueboar 19:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you expand on your statement "He meets our guidelines for being published etc."? Do you mean that we must accept as reliable every work by him? Balcer 20:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar is certainly correct with pointing out the importance of Fringe and Undue Weight, however I'd like to note that Fringe policy is part of RS (per WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources) and it advocates that mulitplie reliable sources should be presented to back up his exceptional claims. Yet here those claims are backed up only by his work (Soviet-Polish Wars), already criticized by two respected academics and not endorsed by any. Further, WP:ATT/FAQ#What_kinds_of_sources_are_generally_regarded_as_reliable.3F notes that reliable books are ones not just published but published by universities and known publishing houses and written by widely published authors. Melt. has not been widely published outside Russia (and how widely pubished in Russia he is also a matter of debate), and to this day we don't know who was the publisher of his works (for all we know they could have been self-published online). Finally, I believe that WP:ATT/FAQ#Does_this_mean_we_have_to_include_every_crank_view_that_can_get_itself_published.3F answers the issue well, and he cannot be considered a reliable and neutral source on the raised issues.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider it a crank view. I consider it erratic, but necessary to be considered. Once a reputable scholar has published a work, and it has been taken sufficiently seriously by other scholars to refute it in academic periodicals, it may be wrong, it may be fringe, but it is no longer negligible. I've seen the same tendency in other articles to ignore minority views by classifying single books by qualified people that take a strongly revisionist position as crank. . One reputable person is enough. Since other people have commented, you just give all the views. In this case, as his work has not yet been translated into English, you could say that. But his Russian books are held by the major US academic libraries. Minority views do not disappear by calling them crank. Crank in this would be an erratic view expressed only in a blog. DGG 01:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The book is scary, but that might be a reason to keep it. Other editors have added some well-founded criticism to the article. My impression from a quick overview is that Meltyukov may represent a certain current of opinion within Russia, however irrational it might seem to us. Stalin was probably not the only one who thought those massacres were justified. This discussion would be different if he were truly an isolated crank, representing no-one but himself. EdJohnston 18:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That raises an interesting question. When do certain views cross from WP:FRINGE into a controversial but notable mainstream? Fringe is not only, after all, consisted of isolated cranks: there are relatively large communities of neo-Nazis, Holocaust denialers, Stalinism fans and such. Yet despite relatively high notability we don't, for example, cite David Irving or Stalin Society. As Nowak notes in his 2004, indeed, Melt. is not isolated and does indeed represent with his biases a clear trend in Russian historiography. There is however no proof that anybody outside Russia is treating this trend as reliable, and instead, when it's rarely commented upon, we have only critical academic reviews of it. Certainly, this trend is notable enough to be described in articles about it (such as Melt.'s bio) - but I don't see how a view "close to Stalinist and neoimperial concepts" can be considered reliable or even 'duly weighted' and be cited in other articles?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

it can be cited as a direct quote if a brief explanation of his position is included, which can be done as a ref. e.g.The neo-Stalinist [ref] Russian historian Melt. says that " ". I would not use a quote from that book to justify a statement of controverted fact without some qualification, but I see no reason to omit such sources altogether. DGG (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Detstar & GoldenEye 007

I am unsure whether or not Detstar (a GoldenEye 007 fan-site) can be used as a source for information on the GoldenEye 007 article. I do not believe so, as that website is not an official source of information on that game. Of course, given that there are no official GoldenEye websites anymore, could it just be a matter of whose GoldenEye fan-site is the biggest to determine what's "official" and what isn't? SpinyMcSpleen 23:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Unofficial website seems to fail the reliability criteria of being 'mainstream websites published and maintained by notable media outlets'. They may even fall under self-published sources issue. However, I'd say that the bottom line is controversially and attribution: if the information is not controversial, use it, but note in text that it comes from the website in question.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

www.fairlds.org

FAIRlds.org is an apologetic web site operated by Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research. The website has been running since 1998. FAIR is funded by donations and staffed by volunteers. They claim that articles are peer-reviewed, they have an annual conference where papers are presented. More information is available on their [FAQ]. There has been considerable discussion at talk:First_Vision about whether this is a reliable source. Opinions, expert or otherwise, would be appreciated. 74s181 02:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there anybody who is considered reliable and who agrees or disagrees with their claim of being peer reviewed and similar?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

They might be treated like the New Catholic Encyclopedia, an information source that tries to follow the way of thinking of an organized church. They could be a good source of a Mormon standpoint on various issues. Whether they are reliable on matters of fact (for example, 19th century history of that church) would need more study.

One of the citations to the work of FAIR in the First Vision article is http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/First_Vision_accounts. That particular reference looks to be balanced and informative although not neutral, and I would keep it in the article. It's like a particularly convenient presentation of all the arguments for one side of a debate. Readers of WP are not likely to be misled, and if they care enough about the topic to read the First Vision article at all, chances are they won't mind being referred to this external link.

The reference list of First Vision consists mostly of work written by Mormons or published in Mormon-affiliated journals. That may be unavoidable, if no-one else has taken the trouble to write about the First Vision topic, though it does cry out for more balance. EdJohnston 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Man vs Wild: Sources for criticism section

Ive (unfortunately) gotten myself neck-deep into a longstanding argument on the Man vs. Wild Talk Page, in which one user in particular has attempted to put forth a criticism section that states that elements of the show are staged using sources that myself and a few others feel is flimsy at best. However, as the debate has begun to turn nasty, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if it is agreed to be reliable here.

The following are sources which have been used for criticism sections, all of which was removed.

1. [17] This picture, which user Rei has put forth that it appears that the raft was cut rather than fireburned, as the episode apparently stated. The problem I have with this is that his analysis is not backed up by any source other than photograph itself, which appears to me to be a violation of WP:OR, while another user, grahamdubya, has suggested that the image itself isnt strong enough evidence regardless.

Analysis of a photograph, if controversial, is certainly WP:OR. As such, until a reliable source describes the photograph, this claim should not appear on Wikipedia.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

2. [18] A youtube video of an episode where the unregistered user who used it as a source by stating that at one point in the video, a harness is visible. Again, no secondary source corroborating this claim, only the primary source from which the claim is based.

Analysis of videos posted on youtube with no secondary claim to introduce or corroborate that analysis was common on the original criticism section. For example this video, [19], from 4:44 onward, was used as a reference for a claim that because the cameraman followed the host, Bear Grylls, as he jumped off of a crevasse, the height of the crevasse wasnt as high as he claimed.

The rest of the evidence used for the criticism section can be seen in context here: [20]

YouTube is a source of poor reliability, in essence, a self-published source. See more at Wikipedia:V#SELF.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

3. Forum posts had been frequently implemented to present theories viewers had questioning the narrative presented in the show, including this forum post [21] questioning the opening sequence of the pilot episode.

Forums are not reliable. See WP:ATT/FAQ#Are_web_forums_and_blog_talkbacks_reliable_sources.3F.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

4. The original criticism section also included 2 google searches elsewhere [22][23] in order to show how there is widespread viewer criticism of the shows content.

Google searches are not reliable sources. Somebody there should really read WP:V and WP:RS.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If these are deemed to be acceptable sources, then I will reinstate it myself, but I am highly doubtful that it is.--Tao of tyler 07:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied under your points above. Hope it helps.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC opened on use of translated court documents as source

An RFC has been opened regarding the provenance of material that was originally published by Baker's defense. Talk:Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan)#Request for comments: Use of translated court documents as a source I appreciate comments from uninvolved editors. -- Sparkzilla talk! 16:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Court documents are primary sources and not considered reliable sources. Court decisions may be used, but affidavits, evidence etc/ should not be used in articles, in particular in BLPs, unless discussed in secondary published sources ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This RFC, which was opened on 13 July, was archived that same day to Talk:Nick Baker (chef)/Archive 2#Request_for_comments: Use of translated court documents as a source. I assume that some BLP concern could be behind the speedy archiving. The tide was running heavily against the use of the documents when the archiving occurred, and it was based mostly on skepticism that the documents were real, and absence of the Japanese originals, not so much on the documents being primary. EdJohnston 16:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC regarding source at Right to bear arms

A RFC has been opened regarding the use of a published appellate court opinion as a source in the article Right to bear arms. To what extent does such an opinion constitute a reliable source in articles not about the legal case in which the opinion was issued? PubliusFL 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Jossi's answer in the section right above.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The section above deals with different types of materials, but looking at the applicable part of Jossi's answer, I guess the answer to my question would be "yes"? PubliusFL 17:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What appellate court? In the US? A Federal Court? Please provide context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Federal appellate decision are binding precedent only in the geographic region of appellate jurisdiction, and are just suggestive elsewhere. In the absence of contrary decisions they do represent that state of current legal opinion about what the law is. DGG (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Tommy2.net - Reliable sources?

Discussion is going on at High School Musical 2, as to if the site tommy2.net can be considered a reliable source. The site has been known for breaking news that interests tweens, however my concern is they don't cite sources themselves, and I can't find any third-party mention of the site. I've asked proponents of the site to back up their claims and cite where Tommy2.net is referenced as a source by a media outlet, even Tiger Beat. Meanwhile, I've decided to be responsible and ask folks who are more knowledgeable than I to weigh in :) -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No. The interviews are primary sources and should not be relied on to verify the information in the article. As for the rest of the site it is neither considered an authoritive source nor do we have any guarentees that they check their facts. As an unofficial rule of thumb, sites that would not pass WP:WEB should never be considered reliable sources. It is my firm belief that this site would not pass WP:WEB. There is also the risk of fact laundering where something of otherwise dubious thruthfulness is being passed on as the truth because it was reported by a reliable source. It's an article about an upcoming movie - stick to the bare facts for now and then expand once we have some reliable secondary sources. Keep in mind that we are not a news service. We are editors, not journalists. That's why we don't rely on primary sources. We use secondary reliable sources because that way we know that someone has already checked the facts. The criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. MartinDK 14:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jat Page - Unreliable Sources and Misquotes.

I have serious reservations about the validity of the sources used on this page. Note that Mr John Hill who has tried to correct the misquotes and sources used has recieved considerable abuse and character assasination from my Burdak and DrBrij. The article is a seriously flouting many of wiki's principles of a NPOV. Please see the discussion to the article and you get an idea of what is happening. Also speak to John Hill.--Sikh-history 09:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have my doubts also, though they may not be about the same sources; Cunningham was a 19th century amateur anthropologist, and some of the other sources seem dated. I would be very leery of using such material in discussing ethnic origins. DGG (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mirrors (or not?) of RS on personal websites

I have seen several cases of people using material posted on blogs, personal websites, online forums et.c. that claims to be from a reliable source (like a print newspaper). Even if it's not possible to check if their version of the article is genuine or entierly fictional is it still reliable? // Liftarn 13:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sources don't have to be online at all - so urls that reprint reliable sources in unreliable contexts (on blogs, what have you) are only courtesies, they're not required. Judge the reliability of the source by it's origin (in this case, ask only whether the newspaper is reliable). WilyD 13:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

But they have to verifiable too. // Liftarn

Right. But you verify with the newspaper, book or whatever, not on the blog. WilyD 14:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It's like with Google Print: it's nice if you can link a direct page, but in the end, we are citing the book, and the fact that we can see part of it online is only a bonus. Of course, Google Print will not 'fake' content, and an unscrupulous blogger can - but we should follow the WP:AGF. Sure, if possible, do try to verify the blog or similar citation with directly checking the book - but I would put it on a lower priority then, let's say, verifying completely uncited statement.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know AGF also applied to any random homepage. // Liftarn

It doesn't - it applies to the user who adds it. You should not use the reprint in a blog to write the article - that should definitely use the original newspaper article. But providing a link to an online copy is a nice thing to do, even if it's in an unreliable source WilyD 15:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Medical Science Sources

Can someone advise me whether the Statements and Recommendations of the International Herpes Management Forum (Editors of the Journal ‘Herpes’) and sourced from their website, are considered a Reliable Source and Verifiable? I have been reverted several times now, without discussion on the article pages, but generalised comments made on my talk page and on other editors pages to the effect of unsourced material, quote mining, and lack of peer reveiwed sources? The particular quotes used are listed below.

“Current antiviral therapy for herpes zoster is moderately effective. Aciclovir, valaciclovir and famciclovir initiated within 72 h of rash onset reduce viral shedding, new lesion formation, time to lesion healing and time to pain resolution” “Current antiviral therapies provide a degree of efficacy against varicella infection and herpes zoster,”

Where available “Antiviral drugs are useful (for herpes zoster) but have a limited effect on post-herpetic neuralgia prevention.”

“Antiviral therapy, oral corticosteroids and neural blockade are appropriate in the pharmacologic management of acute pain in herpes zoster”, “There is only limited clinical evidence to support the use of aspirin, acetaminophen/paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, NSAIDs), opioid analgesics (including tramadol), tricyclic antidepressants (especially nortriptyline), gabapentin and pregabalin in the pharmacologic management of acute pain in herpes zoster “

The following has also been reverted without discussion by the same editor on a separate article on the basis of unsourced material and pseudoscience! And so I seek independent opinion on V and RS before engaging in further attempts at discussion.

Medications are available to ameliorate the pain of PHN, but data suggests these agents provide incomplete pain relief and their use is often accompanied by troubling side effects, especially in the populations of the aged and immuno-compromised, who should be monitored closely. Jagra 04:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think dispute resolution would be preferable here since this seems to be more complicated than just a dispute over whether they are reliable sources or not. Try WP:RFC because this seems like a broader content dispute. That said, the sources you provided do seem to be reliable, at least at first glance. Sponsorship of medical research is not uncommon but I would advise you to take this to WP:RFC for further investigation and clarification. The appropriate place to file it is here.MartinDK 09:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Check WP:RSEX for some comment on medical sources. Has any claims been presented that your source is not reliable?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes Piotr, leaving aside generalized accusations that arise from this, made on various user talk pages, such as here but more specifically to RS: here 21st june revert and here 1st july revert

I think dispute resolution should be the last avenue, what I would like to know is there a real issue of RS or just editor prejudices/ opinion?Jagra 03:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

From a policy point of view they are reliable. That does not imply that other reliable sources are wrong. It implies that you can cite them but you need to keep in mind that NPOV means that both views should be represented if reliable sources exist. As for the rest of the content dispute and the various accusations you will want to refer to dispute resolution. MartinDK 10:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Opinions on treatment in professional journals often vary. & I would not necessarily use such statements fro ma research carticle. But these sources are explicitly put forth as representing a medical consensus, and are thus suitable unless challenged. I would still prefer to take such a statement from a source that aimed at a non-professional audience, such as PubMed Plus or some similar source.DGG (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Steam

More specifically, Steam_(content_delivery)#Crossplatform_Support. I dont think this should be there because its interpretation of primary sources and the given secondary sources is digg.com . What does everyone think? Corpx 19:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Forums and other user-edited sources are not reliable. I see no reason not to delete it. There is no way we are going to accept digg.com as a reliable secondary source. That whole section seems like the usual complaining by people who can't tell the difference between Wikipedia and the valve/microsoft/find more yourself complaint department. MartinDK 08:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone might re-word the paragraph in that article about cross-platform support, perhaps reducing it to a single sentence (with a reference). The fact that the Steam (content delivery) providers choose not to offer a Linux version is of interest, but the doings on those forums don't seem notable. EdJohnston 19:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be noted, but I dont think we should be interpreting it as criticism when no other reliable secondary sources do so Corpx 22:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Randall Flagg

In the section concerning his last appearence in the Dark Tower, I wrote how his fate was controversial among the fans. Its easily one of the more controversial topics in the last novel and fans are still debating it to this day. I was wondering if using topics from thedarktower.net (one of the largest Dark Tower websites on the internet) would be good enough citation to show the conflicting views between fans.--CyberGhostface 01:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Genrerally forums are not considered reliable, as we have no way to verify who posts to them, or if what they say is accurate. In this case, using thedarktower.net to demonstrate a controversy would constitute original research as the observation of the conflicting views is your own. What I think you need is a third source that comments upon the debates at thedarktower.net (or on the controversy in general). Blueboar 18:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Conference proceedings

Resolved

Trawick, Prof. Margaret (1999), "Lessons from Kokkodaicholai", Proceedings of Tamil Nationhood & Search for Peace in Sri Lanka, Carleton University, pp. 1–10

Does using this violate WP:RS ? This is Professor Trawicks home page. This has been disputed in the Prawn farm massacre article. Thanks Taprobanus 17:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The book is certainly a reliable source by our standards (it is published by a reputable publishing house). It might count as a biased source... although that is not clear (and is a very different matter - one not within the domain of this guideline ... see WP:NPOV, especially the section on undue weight, for assistance on that), . If so, any statements taken from the book should be phrased as being the view of the author and not stated as fact. Blueboar 18:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean this ?McGowan, William (1992). Only Man Is Vile: The Tragedy of Sri Lanka. Farrar Straus & Giroux. pp. 243–244. ISBN 0374226520. Right ? Because this has also been removed from the article but it is a book, where as the above is a Conference proceedings. I have written to the professor to see whether she has publsihed it anywhere else also Thanks Taprobanus 18:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Conference proceedings are usually published by someone reliable (although sometimes professional organisations, rather than publishing houses.) WilyD 18:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Careful. Not all conferences are peer reviewed. Quite a lot accept papaers based on abstract and are therefore less reliable, however they are published afterwards. Reliable source for what happened at the conference yes, reliable science may be less so. --BozMo talk 18:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I point to them being published by someone reliable. Conference Proceedings published by American Astronomical Society probably are reliable. Conference proceedings published by West Upstairs Hollywood Herbal Medicine Association probably aren't. Look at who's publishing ... WilyD 18:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As a note, depending on context, a conference proceeding may or may not be peer reviewed. Some conferences are very selective about what goes in proceedings, while others will accept anything for a fee and are essentially no better than self-published. You'd have to look closer to know which this is. Dragons flight 18:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So if Prof. Margret's paper is considred self published then it can be used in the article with attribution per this. Am I correct in my reading of self published ? ThanksTaprobanus 18:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can call Prof. Trawick's paper "self published"... I suppose you could make the argument that the "Accademic Society of Tamil Students" (who seemed to have sponcered the conference) are the publishers, but not Prof. Trawick. Blueboar 18:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Her bio page says 1999 “Lessons from Kokkaddichcholai.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Tamil Nationhood and the Search for Peace in Sri Lanka, Ottawa: The Academic Society of Tamil Students. Pages 17-49. that means unless the material is used somewhere else or published by a reliable source, we cannot use it ? Taprobanus 21:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Though the material is not self-published in the literal sense, I think similar considerations as used for WP:SPS broadly apply. Here we have an "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." If it's acceptable to use a blog under those circumstances, it should be equally acceptable to use a conference preprint. (PS: This discussion really should be at WP:RSN, not here.) Raymond Arritt 21:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries, the same information is in Trawick, Margaret (2007). Enemy Lines: Warfare, Childhood and Play in Batticaloa. University of California Press. pp. Chapter 4. ISBN 0520245164. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help). I wil use that instead. Thansk for all your helpTaprobanus 15:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was resolved but the book has been reverted without any comments ? Thanks Taprobanus 15:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone doubt that Enemy Lines is clearly a reliable source under our rules? I have a feeling that what you are dealing with now is a POV content dispute issue and that it should be raised at WP:NPOV. Blueboar 16:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hipgnosis

Hello, Administrator, I have the following situation:

I have been editing the article on Hipgnosis off and on, adding artwork to the article, as Hipgnosis is a graphic design company that designed some of the most famous album covers of the past 30 years, including Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. By way of illustrating their work, I have been including the various album covers that they designed.

However, User:Moe Epsilon consistently reverts the edits, claiming that the use of the album covers in the article violates copyright. There has been a lengthy discussion, principally with other editors. User:Moe Epsilon's reverts are bordering on vandalism, as no reasonable argument will satisfy him/her.

My position (and that of other editors) is that the use of the album covers to illustrate Hipgnosis' work is warranted—after all, they are an important graphic design outfit. Therefore, including the album covers in the article falls under the rubrick of fair use. User:Moe Epsilon, on the other, clearly does not believe that any use of copyrighted material is allowed in the article, regardless of relevance.

I'd ask someone to please settle this issue, as it is becoming irritating. Thank you. --TallulahBelle 22:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

First, very few of those who respond here are actually admins... most of us are just regular editors who care about reliability. Second, while you are discussing an interesting debate, this is not really the right place for it. Copywrite issues do not fall under the category of reliable sources. That said, I would suggest that you raise this issue at WP:COPY or at the Village Pump. You will get a response from people who are much more qualified to respond than we are (such as people who actually know copywrite law and its ramifications. Blueboar 00:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!--TallulahBelle 17:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Salon as a source at a BLP related article under ArbComm special standards

A paragraph was recently added to Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy, an article that needs to comply with WP:BLP and is also subject to this ArbComm remedy. The article has twice gone through a cycle of speedy delete - deletion review overturn - AFD keep. Here is the diff of the addition. The sourcing offered is from Salon.com. I followed the link, saw that it wasn't in the non-subscriber portion of the linked article. So my concerns about the source were aggravated. I then found Talk:Salon.com/as a source for Wikipedia, which seems to demonstrate a consensus that they can be a reliable source used judiciously, but should generally not be used for BLP sensitive details. Since this article is extra sensitive, I removed the paragraph and explained at Talk:Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy#Reversion of book note. Was I correct to do so? Please centralize discussion there. GRBerry 21:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I was able to access the link without being a subscriber or registering or even watching an ad. It looks fine to me. For the citing passage, it's just a review of a book. The author is a regular Salon contributor. Do you see any actual BLP concerns for the statements supported by the Salon source? I don't. The book maybe has an inflammatory title in general, but it's not a BLP concern. ←Ben^B4 05:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The source cited says this:

"Oh god, she is feminism's worst nightmare," said Neil Boyd, an SFU criminology professor who claimed that Marsden harassed him too. Boyd was a vocal critic of SFU's handling of the Donnelly case; his 2004 book "Big Sister: How Extreme Feminism Has Betrayed the Fight for Sexual Equality" was inspired in part by the case. "She used these people, who were only too willing to jump on her bandwagon," said Boyd. "I'm not sure that she ever really presented herself as a feminist as much as she took advantage of an openness to victimization that existed on the university campus at that time."...

By phone, Boyd explained that as he had been a vocal critic of the school's handling of the Donnelly case, he was surprised when Marsden showed up to take one of his classes. The university denied his request to be exempt from teaching her, but agreed that he wouldn't have to evaluate her, since it might be a conflict of interest. Boyd said that partway through the semester, Marsden sent him an e-mail saying that it was going so well, she thought he should be able to grade her. When he refused, he claimed, she began phoning and e-mailing him frequently, asking him out, and "showing up after talks I gave in the community, or after classes, wherever I might be." But Boyd, who has a background in law, kept all her calls and e-mail messages. In 1999, Boyd took these records to the police, who reportedly warned Marsden to stay away from him. According to Boyd, she did.

The passage you removed says:

SFU criminologist Neil Boyd's 2004 book Big Sister: How Extreme Feminism Has Betrayed the Fight for Sexual Equality was partly inspired by these incidents. Boyd had been a vocal critic of the university during the controversy and later had Marsden as one of his students.

Given that those direct quotes by a reputable journalist are substantially more inflammatory than the passage you removed, which really has no BLP issues at all, I would recommend replacing it. ←Ben^B4 06:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah

• "Eyewitness: Anger and mourning in Gaza", BBC News, October 4 2000
• Schary Motro, Helen. "Living among the headlines", Salon, October 7, 2000.
• Orme, William A. "Muhammad al-Durrah: A Young Symbol of Mideast Violence", The New York Times, October 2, 2000. Reprinted at CommonDreams.
• Rees, Matt. "Mohammed al-Dura", Time, December 25 2000.
• "Israel 'sorry' for killing boy", BBC News, October 3 2000.
• "Boy becomes Palestinian martyr", BBC News, October 2 2000.

as well as meny more as citation for this information in Muhammad al-Durrah

was killed

// Liftarn 12:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If your question is whether these are reliable sources... the answer is "Yes". Blueboar 12:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My question is if these sources is enough to be able to say he actually is dead even if there is a person promoting a conspiracy theory that say he isn't. // Liftarn

Liftarn, I think the article as written steers a careful course through the various theories. We talk about the New York Times reporting his injuries; the BBC reporting his death etc. We don't state as a fact that he had certain injuries, but nor have we used any weasel phrases like "his reported death," or "his family claimed that ..." I think most readers will come away with the impression that he is dead but that it's a very confusing story, which would be the right attitude to have, in my view. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The article uses a lot of weasly phrases such as "was reported to have been killed", "the reported shooting", "appears to be injured" and so on. Compare with the Elvis Presley article that says "His death" and so on. // Liftarn

I don't think you can challenge inclusion of the conspiracy theory stuff on reliability grounds, and certainly not based upon the articles you link to above. While they all back the "mainstream view" (that the boy was killed, by one side or the other) ... they don't address the contention that the whole thing was staged and that the boy might not have even been killed. The reports you cite all date from shortly after the event, and are, to some extent, superceded by subsequent information such as the existance of the contention that the event was staged. Note, I am not saying that the conspiracy stuff is 'true'... only that it exists and has not been debunked as of yet. This is the current status of the controvery, and that status affects how we phrase the article.

This is not really a reliability issue... more one for WP:NPOV. How much weight to give the theory that the boy lived is a legitimate debate, but not one to be decided here. Blueboar 17:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that no reliable source say the boy isn't dead it should be no problem. It may be a case of WP:UNDUE. Anyway, there are more recent articles about it like this from 2007, but they don't add anything new. // Liftarn