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 Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to the Verifiability talk page.

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.

This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, not articles. General questions about articles, including "which sources in Article X are reliable?" may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard and may be better handled on the article talk page or the talk page of an interested WikiProject.

Plaques at historical sights

I am using a plaque that I have taken a photo of and uploaded to the commons as a source for an article. I have submitted this article for GA review and the reviewer says such a source is unreliable. I disagree, why is a plaque less reliable than any other published source, especially since it is at the site itself. The plaque is not making an outstanding claims, rather it is simply describing the construction date of the hall and its contents. What is everyone else's opinion? Zeus1234 (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• The Shanxi Colourful group donated the money to get the plaques put up. They are not a charitable organization, therefore we don't know who is responsible for the information. Zeus1234 (talk) 06:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see why the GA review questioned it. The issue comes down to whether there is fact checking and editorial oversite for the source... The plaque states that it is presented by the "Sha'anxi Colorful Group". So, do we know anything about this group? Is it a historical society who are likely to get the facts right, or is it a tourist board who is likely to be less reliable. Do we know what sort of research they conducted before creating the plaque? Blueboar (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly a notable or primary source, so saying "according to a plaque at the temple, ...." would certainly be OK. If something on the plaque is disputed by RS's, one should either not mention the contentious fact or include and cite the opposing view.John Z (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see this challenged. The information is "published", it's "checked" (world experts and numbers of English-speaking visitors see it and we can presume they don't object) and most of it is in no way "surprising". The only part that could be debatable is "best artistic work of Ming Dynasty", but we needn't suppose our readers were born yesterday. Is there a danger of the standards of the project slipping? No, not that I can see. Is there a danger of people offering faked holiday photographs? Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. PR^talk 16:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As a GA reviewer I questioned it because i am not sure about "Sha'anxi Colorful Group". The reliability of the plaque depends on the reliability of Sha'anxi Colorful Group. I searched for the group on the net, but did not find any reference to it's nature. Answer to the simple question: What is "Sha'anxi Colorful Group" ?, determines the reliability of the plaque. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

They appear to run some sort of business, but I am not quite sure what. They are not a historical group. I suspect that they donate money to charitable causes. Their webpage says that they have donated money to the Sichuan Earthquake. Here is the link (only in Chinese) to the Colorful Group. It may say 'Wonderful Enterprises Group' on the webpage, but has been translated differently on the plaque.Zeus1234 (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The link is translated by Google translate reads:

Can not find the page You are the search page may have been deleted, renamed or is temporarily unavailable.

Please try the following:

* Ensure that the browser's address bar of the Web site address and format of the spelling is correct. * If you arrive by clicking on the link and the page, please contact the site administrator, informing them of the link format is incorrect. * Click the Back button to try another link.

HTTP Error 404 - file or directory not found. Internet Information Services (IIS)

Information technology (for the provision of technical support staff)

* Go to Microsoft Product Support Services and search, including "HTTP" and "404" title. * Open the "IIS Help" (in IIS Manager (inetmgr) access), and then search for the title of the "Web site set up," "conventional management" and "on the custom error message". Chinese

Need a better link.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It works fine for me, but is a bit slow. Perhaps that is because I am in China. Interesting. They appear to sell clothes. Zeus1234 (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a translation. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The name of the group in Chinese (which you can confirm by looking at the large picture of the hall on the commons to see the Chinese plaque) is 陕西多彩集团 which literally translates to 'Shaanxi colorful group'. The web address literally means 'Shaanxi Colorful'. Zeus1234 (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• I consider this is a primary source and as wikipedia is based on second and third party sources, it's use should be avoided. --neon white talk 15:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Neon's point on primary sources... primary sources do not need to be avoided quite as strenuously as he/she indicates. For example, if the plaque had been erected by a notable historical society I would consider it quite reliable. However, I do agree that since it was not erected by such, but instead erected by what appears to be a clothing company, we can not consider it reliable. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Policy dictates that wikipedia is based on secondary sources and synthesis of primary sources is not permissable. The issue here is whether it is in fact a primary source or a reliable secondary source as you suggest (if it had been erected by a notable historical society, it would be a secondary source). My first instinct was that it was primary but it could be considered secondary too. However there is no indication that the publisher is verifiable so i'd avoid it's use. --neon white talk 14:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Policy dictates its mainly based on those, not completely, policy also states To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. As long as the primary source isn't doing those things its fine. An article shouldn't contain that much info from primary sources, however some descriptive things, and certain histories can only be drawn from primary sources (not just these articles, but other articles)--Crossmr (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Express Milwaukee

Is Express Milwaukee [1] considered a reliable source, specifically for classifying a band's genre, and also when the exact author of the article in question is unknown? Prophaniti (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a standard local paper. OK for uncontroversial info but disregard it if there are better sources available. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Express Milwaukee is the web face of the Shepherd Express, an alternative weekly published in milwaukee. They are so so as far as reliability goes. They police their content and hire real journalists, but anything political is likely to be printed on the basis of its slant rather than strictly factual content. Protonk (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ta for the info so far. The reason I'm suspicious is because it's a "Tonight at X club" article. Those sort don't seem generally that reliable as it is, because they're more like advertisements or "What's going on locally?" things than articles focused on the music/bands. In addition, in this case, it simply says "By Shepard Express Staff", which means the actual authorship is highly ambiguous. Prophaniti (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Their advertising department offers calendar listings for free, but those are typically less than 100 words and come in a list. Content that is more than a few paragraphs is done in house and isn't an advertisement. It is probably much easier to see the difference with a copy of the physical paper in hand. :) Protonk (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement might not have been the best word, all I meant is it doesn't seem quite the same as a full review/biography of the band. Plus, as I say, we don't know who actually wrote it. Prophaniti (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So general view would be that they can be used, but are iffy? Even taking into account that this particular article is anonymous? Prophaniti (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia content hosted on Answers.com and Highbeam (encyclopedia.com)

Answers.com includes content from 3rd-party publications, including various encyclopedias. Here are two examples.

Do any editors have any experience with the reliability of this hosted content? In other words, can we rely on Answers.com to quote the exact content of the encyclopedias concerned? The encyclopedias themselves are undoubtedly reliable sources. But verifying that what Answers.com hosts is exactly the same as the source given, without additions or deletions, is often a bit tricky. Some of these encyclopedias cost several hundred dollars to buy or are currently unavailable, plus Answers.com does not always make it clear which edition of the encyclopedia it is quoting. Any thoughts? Jayen466 16:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I just discovered this: Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-10-24/Answers.com_partnership. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that many of the articles on Answers.com are based heavily on Wikipedia, if not outright copies of it, I would say no... it is not reliable for our purposes. Blueboar (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree as far as answers.com content based on Wikipedia is concerned; that is obviously off limits. But that was not what my question was about. I was asking about content that answers.com specifically marks as taken from encyclopedias published by reputable publishing houses, like the Columbia Encyclopedia (published by Columbia University Press). How should we handle these cases? To see examples, click here and select one of the entries in the Columbia Encyclopedia table of contents page that is displayed. Jayen466 21:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • Well, I did as you suggest and clicked here and then on "Shamash", one of the entries listed, and got what ended up to be a Wikipedia article, if you scroll on down.[2]. So it is confusing. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • • That is normal; an answers.com page lists entries from all affiliated encyclopedias that have an entry on the topic. But each entry listed on the page has a heading that indicates the source the entry is taken from. On this page, one of these, indeed, is Wikipedia. The others on the page in question are the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, and the Columbia Encyclopedia, whose print or electronic versions would easily qualify as WP:RS. The question is, should we accept these texts reproduced from them as WP:RS, or should we insist that editors consult the print, amazon preview or google books versions? Jayen466 23:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I am beginning to think no. It would not be good to send readers to a page that lists both reliable and unreliable sources, I don't think. The link is not clear enough that you are referring only to the little subsection at the top, which is a very small bit of information compared to the whole page. Would you list the source as answers.com? Or the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, or what? The link to Highbeam Encyclopedia seems clearer, at least, and not so cluttered with extraneous information. However, I notice that no one has answered your question!—Mattisse (Talk) 01:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
          • I noticed that too! :-)) Cheers, Jayen466 01:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
          • What I've done in Henry Sweet now is this. I agree that the Highbeam page is clearer. Answers.com has some sources though that Highbeam does not. Jayen466 12:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
            • On the Henry Sweet, I think the footnote reference should state that it is as link to passage from the Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language hosted on encyclopedia.com, as the link below does: The Columbia Encyclopedia article on "Wine", as hosted on encyclopedia.com. It is misleading to suggest that the link goes directly to the Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language page. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
              • • Noted and duly amended. Jayen466 20:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• I guess we have a similar situation with the Highbeam Encyclopedia – again, these are not wikis, but reference articles that the site claims are taken from named, reliable sources, many of them by university presses. Jayen466 21:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, the fact that some encyclopedias are both on highbeam AND answers.com allows some crosschecking to be done.

• The Columbia Encyclopedia article on "Wine", as hosted on encyclopedia.com

• The answers.com page on wine, which also includes the Columbia Encyclopedia article among its entries

• Comparing the two versions of the article, they appear to be word-identical. However, encyclopedia.com has a couple of bibliographies (under the "French wine" and "American wine" sections) that answers.com has failed to include, and encyclopedia.com gives the Columbia Encyclopedia edition and publication year, which answers.com does not.

• Btw, I know we would not usually be relying primarily on other encyclopedias. However, I have for example cited the Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language and the Columbia Encyclopedia, based on pages at encyclopedia.com, in the article on Henry Sweet, to source biographical details that were not easily available elsewhere. Jayen466 21:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This question remains essentially unanswered. Is this because there is no answer? —Mattisse (Talk) 04:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• I would not use Answers.com as a source myself; I would go straight to the original source in question if possible as a best practise, or have someone who has access to the encyclopedia themselves look it up. ThePointblank (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that sources like Answers.com are a good place to do initial background research, but are not reliable for citation on Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• So, for a preliminary summing-up of input so far, could we say that Highbeam pages quoting a licensed reliable source seem to be fine, as they don't mix it with other content, but that reference citations and links to answers.com should be avoided, as their pages tend to present a mix of reliable and unreliable sources? Jayen466 14:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

  I think with the spirit of the Reliable Sources guidelines, both websites are decent for initial research, but they should not be used as citations within Wikipedia articles. ThePointblank (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Given that some of the books hosted there cost several hundred dollars and may only be available in larger libraries, I think that would go too far, based on a cost-benefit argument. I would agree though that WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies. Jayen466 20:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• If you do need to cite content from another encyclopedia and it's hosted on Answers.com, how about using two citations in the footnote? A "cite encyclopedia" for the original source, then "via" or "as reprinted on" and then a "cite web" for Answers.com. I've often cited anthologies this way, so the original journal article and the book both appear in the notes. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I think this would do. Jayen466 15:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center

Resolved

This may already be asked and answered. If so, please provide a link. In the meantime, is the Southern Poverty Law Center a reliable source for labeling groups as "hate" groups? Yes, the definition of "hate" is an issue, but set that aside for now. For example, some wiki pages about certain organizations say the groups are "hate" groups and cite to the SPLC for a reliable source. Is this concordant with Wikipedia policy?

As to the definition of a "hate" group, is that defined by the SPLC? Is the SPLC's definition actually used on Wikipedia?

Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

With watchdog groups, it's often best to do the cite as an opinion, i.e. "the SPLC says that group X is a hate group". If it's something like the KKK that's pretty much famous for being a hate group, you could probably write it as "Group X is widely considered a hate group", with footnotes to, say, five different sources. I'd also like to add that "hate group" is an inflammatory term, and it's better to work in understatement and use precise terms like "white separatist", "black nationalist", "anti-gay", "far-right", etc. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The term “far-right” should really be avoided, as it gets used for anything that is not on the political left or center — authoritarian populism, Buckleyesque conservatism, or Libertarianism — and for some things that are arguably actually on the left, but now with poor reputation. —SlamDiego_←T 07:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the term "far-right", the idea of left-right politics goes all the way back to the French Revolution. The only issues are that it is a one-dimensional scale, so it doesn't always fit politics that are very statist or very individualistic. The other issue is while the term is common in the US, other countries may not use the left-right model or may include nationalist groups in a third category. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is OK to use "far-right" (or "far-left"), but I think it is one of those things where you need to clearly attribute the statement and not apply your own judgement. It is important for the reader to know who is applying the label to the person or group in question. Blueboar (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Quotations are permitted to contain anything, including gibberish, so long as the quotation is indeed relevant and attributed. But that's not really use; that's mention. —SlamDiego_←T 04:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The idea of left-right politics indeed goes all the way back to the French Revolution, and in its beginning, the farthest left that one could go was extreme classical liberalism (now “libertarianism”), and the farthest right was monarchism, and socialists simply weren't counted — which just goes to show how poor the whole scheme has been. As to it not fitting when the party is very statist, well, that's when it's most often applied. Since, unfortunately, it is still frequently applied to other beliefs, it's an utterly unscientific, unscholarly, unencyclopedic designation. —SlamDiego_←T 04:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a little like saying we shouldn't use the terms "East" and "West", because some things in the world are north and south, or up and down. While we should use the most precise term that's supported by the references, I can see the use of the less-specific "far-right" in the intro section of a page when there's incomplete or conflicting information in the cited sources. For example, if there's a disagreement whether an obviously conservative cause is "reactionary", "fundamentalist", "populist", and so on. Or, if it's something that is very conservative but doesn't trend either way on the statist/individualist axis. Another example of a good use of the term is when modifying another term.... "far-right libertarian" implies different values than "far-left libertarian" Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you are still talking about it after I marked it resolved, let me ask this. Is there any problem with this: "In March 2008, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a non-profit organization that tracks what it describes as "hate groups," listed MassResistance as an anti-gay 'Active U.S. Hate Group' on its website.[18]" See talk on this if you want. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

For my part, I see no problem with this wording. The designation is not endorsed by the wording, and we have a fairly clear idea of what SPLC is claiming. —SlamDiego_←T 18:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say, no, that's straying from NPOV and getting into "undue weight" on one group's opinion. I would expect that SPLC, as a watchdog group, would have a much wider idea of what constitutes a "hate group" than other sources, and we should use undersatement and simply say that "SPLC lists X as an anti-gay group" Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, because “east” and “west” are reasonably well defined, while (political) “left” and “right” are not. If people used “glorp” sometimes to mean “south”, sometimes “east”, sometimes “north”, and occasionally the ugly parts of the west, then I'd say that we shouldn't use that term either. We couldn't get any agreement over a term such as “far-right libertarian” or “far-left libertarian”, so I don't know why you offer them as if they are useful. Indeed, if we return to your analogy of the points of a compass, and if it held better, then we would be trying to talk about the far-east far-north and far-west far-north. —SlamDiego_←T 18:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Your opinions are at odds with much of the political language used in the United States. It's pretty well-understood that "far-right libertarian" would include survivalist and antitax groups, while "far-left libertarian" would include, well, hippies. We can move this debate over to "Village Pump", its straying very far from debating SPLC as a source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Outside of parts of what is now called the political left, the term “libertarian” is only used for classical liberal extremists. The more typical individual sees this liberalism not as far-right, but as a strange fusion of left and right. Those who are more well versed will instead conceptualize things with something like the Nolan Chart, and see these liberals as neither left nor right nor a fusion thereof. Terms like “left-wing libertarian” began to be used by part of the left in an attempt to soak-up a bit of the “cred” that had been acquired by philosophers such as Nozick and by the Libertarian Party. (There is an old French term that could plausibly be translated as “libertarian socialism”, but that's different fromt eh English term “libertarian socialism” having had any currency.) Mercifully, such terms haven't really caught-on outside of the left. —SlamDiego_←T 04:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Marilyn Manson#Church of Satan

Hi, is this a reliable source? If not can anyone suggest an alternative? ϢereSpielChequers 07:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think it could be considered a reliable source. It appears to be a message board post, which in turn is quoting from a web site, which in turn appears to be quoting from several different interviews in several different sources. The underlying interviews themselves are identified only as to publication, but not as to date, etc. If the underlying interviews could be located and cited, those might be reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Metropolitan, ϢereSpielChequers 17:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

odishatoday.com

Regarding this edit. Can anyone comment on odishatoday.com? Is it a reliable source? --Googlean ^Results 10:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont see any other articles expect one linking to the site ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch/*.odishatoday.com) . -- Tinu Cherian - 10:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

SO you concluded that it was unreliable.See http://www.odishatoday.com/About_us.html .It does not have any political affiliations. -Bharatveer (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyone know Kariali TV ( in Kerala) is CPM ( community party ) funded , does their site say http://www.kairalitv.in/tv/AboutUs.htm say so ? Do you except websites to declare their political or social baises ? , lol. -- Tinu Cherian - 11:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A quick search in odishatoday.com tells for the word "Christian" would give you a list of articles [3] [4] undoubtedly showing its anti-Christian stance. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that they don't just report news, but add their own comments with no primary source to it. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 12:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments are not good enough to make it NON-WP:RS.-Bharatveer (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

May be not good enough reasons for you, but not for Wikipedia. May be you should wait for third parties to comment on. How is that its only Odishatoday that publishes the news that you want to? Isn't there no other third party news sites that report what Odishatoday does? You probably don't realise that for the high claims you are trying to make, you need high quality references. You really think its worth your time trying to resurrect a dead horse? Think about it, is all I can say. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 12:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. WP is not you or tinu either. Let WP community decide. Till that time, those refs should stay in the article.-Bharatveer (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets do a small RS test.

• Is it an Academic source ?
• Does it have third party scrutiny ?
• Is it a respected mainstream publication - (unless you have sources who call it as such)
• It is not a wiki ?
• Is it a Questionable source ?
• Is it self published by an expert ? -(Authors should be acknowledged experts in their fields- we see no names given)

Does it pass? You decide. How come you have not answered why is Odishatoday only reports anti-Christian articles and also that you can't find anyother news agencies for the news you quote? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 12:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Odishatoday doesn't only report anti-Christian articles. It certainly meets WP:RS, of which being academic is not a requirement but a recommendation (Al-Jazeera for instance is not academic). The journalists on the staff include Anurjay Dhal of the Pioneer (a newspaper par excellence in India), Sai Prasan of the financial express, Kautuk Mitra (who graduated from one of Orissa's best communications schools) and others. This would entail the scrutiny, as the board from the site does consist of journalists. What seems to be occurring is that editors are using its views to disqualify it from WP:RS which is certainly not an acceptable method of critique.Pectore^talk 00:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I stopped reading when I got as far as "the Pioneer is a newspaper par excellence". In actual fact I understand the Pioneer's a very sad party rag, the owner-editor of which is actually an MP for the party that uses his paper as a mouthpiece. I imagine that this Odishatoday thing is similarly doubtful. Almost certainly funded by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh paramilitaries. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly your "understanding" is flawed, as reliable sources merely call it right-of-center. Interestingly, Chandan Mitra (editor of the pioneer) is an accomplished journalist, not the Khaki shorts wearing, lathi-charging maniac you make him out to be.Pectore^talk 21:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh an Wikiality, Bharatveer through viewing any Gujarati or Hindi news source would find news from reliable sources backing up his views. Its a matter of convenience, why go to Hindi and translate when you have English?Pectore^talk 00:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yea, Wiki San Roze has raised some points and I see that Pectore and Bharathveer have not reached a perfectly satisfactory justification to him. First of all, I want to say that by using Odishatoday, the sock of banned user jobxavier (evidence) started pushing his pov’s all along with other vandalism into those Anti-X articles, which was later supported by other pov editors. Additionally, I could not see odishatoday have published any credible materials (as pointed by Tinu cherian [1]) or reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and therefore undoubtedly failing WP:RS and WP:V. --Googlean ^Results 05:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Many times I wonder why people try this hard to push a POV when it is common sense that they are just wasting their's and other's time on it. The issue discussed here is similar to TamilNET, which is pro Tamil rebel website and Asian tribune which is pro Sinhala. Using those sources are OK as long as it is not shown as neutral parties. So Pectore, you are telling me that in spite of so much coverage of English media (both Indian and others) on Orissa violence, no other English media reports the news you want other than odishatoday? O please, stop wasting everyone's time here. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 08:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your edits Wikiality, one might assume the same action on your part, citing the AICC as a "gospel source" on pages. On top of these peculiarities are your fallacious appeals to common sense (which judging by the way other members of this discussion edit, is hardly "common") considering that English language dailies have a scant fraction of the circulation that Hindi language dailies have, which would generally report in a manner friendlier to Bharatveer's point of view in a reliable manner. Sorry if I am wasting your time by speaking coherently, intelligently, and logically, but I don't speak the tongue of ideologues.Pectore^talk 21:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What is wasting other's time is, not to have read what they said. If you pan a bit up, you will see me pointing out, you need high quality references for stating that there are evidence that a aleged rape which made headlines throughout the world did not occur at all. So no other English daily or new site is reporting forensic findings? This argument is cohenrent, intelligent and logical? Brilliant!!! Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 10:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero, can you reveal who is the MP related to dailypioneer? Apparently an IP editor added lots of stuff , all referenced to pioneer . I am suspecting it is another POV pushing -- Tinu Cherian - 09:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.livemint.com/2008/02/09001315/Pioneer-promoters-looking-to-s.html
• Chandan_Mitra, the BJP RajyaSabha MP is the editor and managing director of The Pioneer newspaper. No wonder it is baised and obviously Bharatveer is interested in this:) -- Tinu Cherian - 09:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC) -- Tinu Cherian - 09:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments do not make any sense. However I am trying to get "ownership" details of this particular org, which would establish its "independent" status.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess some haven't gotten the point that Mitra is an accomplished journalist who went into politics, not a politician who dabbles in journalism. He doesn't just write for the Pioneer, he writed for outlook India and other sources.Pectore^talk 08:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Considered Reliable?

Hi, I was here a little while ago, [5]

Anyway. I've been working on the Potential Superpower pages. There, we're trying to get reliable sources for the page, (though, it's really hard when lots of IPs are trying to push their view and argue with us using news article when it discusses very little on the subject, and wikipedia policy states to use academic sources on topics like this).

Recently, I got two books that might help, [6] and [7]. But the problem is, Potential Superpower falls under the subject of International Relations/Political Science/Geopolitics. The authors of these two books from what I can tell are journalists, and don't have a degree in International Relations/Political Science/Geopolitics.Deavenger (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think journalistic sources are just fine. BTW, have you had any luck with George Friedman of Stratfor, who is both an academic and a journalist who has written widely on the balance of power? Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm looking at the articles. George Friedman I would consider reliable in the first place as he has degrees in Political Science. Stratfor seems like a very good source. But so much of it is off limits to me, which is really frustrating as the many of the articles are written by people who have degrees in the subject, and would be very very helpful. However, most journalists and news sources, I wouldn't trust for subjects that aren't news. Deavenger (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be overemphasizing academic credentials. Lots of people have a PhD, but not all of them have decades of business experience using that PhD. For Stratfor, you would want the free geopolitical essays as discussed above. He has also written several books that your library may have; a couple of them may cover emerging superpowers. As far as journalists, some journalists are very good. But what you want from them is a book or an "analysis" piece, not a breaking news article or a partisan opinion piece. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I know that my wikiproject says that we should avoid media sources, as many of them tend to overestimate something, or not go into detail. For instance, Many news sources said Russia is a superpower, without going into detail why, except saying it invaded Georgia, it's the return of the cold war. In fact, there's lots of IPs who are trying to post links saying Russia is a superpower, but don't go into detail, then accuse us of pushing for US and saying no to every other country.

Anyway, The books I posted above I was going to use, as other users on my wikiproject have said it's basically an academic source. I also hope I can get some books from the people on Stratfor. As when I was looking at some of the articles, I was really amazed as they basically had geopolitcs for ________ and all that stuff. I'm going to try finding some of the writers books, though it's a shame that I can't access the full site. Deavenger (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper article not available on the web

Is a newspaper article, published by the Herald Sun in 2004 considered to be a verifiable source, even if copies of the article are not available for free on the web, but must be obtained via electronic newspaper archives such as Factiva or a trip to the library? --Slp1 (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Being available online is convenient, but has no effect on reliability. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much.--Slp1 (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only does the content not have to be freely available on the Web; it doesn't have to be on the Web at all, though it's obviously a real advantage if it is. The alternative policy would reduce Wikipedia to a sort of summary of the “reliable” part of the Web, and it couldn't realize its more fundamental aspirations in that case. —SlamDiego_←T 13:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

However, if it is used to document something controversial, and especially if perhaps something controversial in BLP, it is reasonable to ask for an exact quotation of the relevant portion, either in the text or a footnote; context can matter. It helps in asking questions here generally here to give the Wikipedia issue involved, because what is considered RS varies depending of the use--almost nothing is absolutely (or never) a RS. In this case, apparently the article in question is Fathers' rights movement and the edit [8]. The source is being used to support allegations of criminal behavior. I would like to see the exact quotation, at least in the talk page, because he question is whether the actual article supports that it is the activities of the group itself, rather than that of individuals. If it merely says people associated with the group, the WP article must be worded that way, and it might be questioned whether using it in an article about the group is fair--it might or it might not be. I notice also that it is apparently being used to support a general statement about the group from one specific case--that might not be a legitimate use of references. DGG (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would totally agree that asking for the exact quotation is the appropriate and reasonable first step if one doubts verifiability, not deleting the citation out of hand. I'll actually put the exact quote here, to keep things together: "Blackshirts leader John Abbott has vowed to mend his protesting ways after being spared jail for stalking. The outspoken fathers' rights campaigner, who was sentenced by a County Court judge to a suspended term of four months, said he had learned his lesson[...] Abbott, 58, was convicted early this week of one count of stalking a divorced mother when he staged two demonstrations outside her East Doncaster home in September 2001. The jury was told Abbott led a group of three or four men wearing black uniforms and masks to her house, where he used a loud speaker and distributed inflammatory leaflets to neighbours." These activities of the Blackshirts have been fiscussed and linked to the larger issue of FR around the world, including this NYT article [9], this BBC article [10], this The Scotsman article [11], and this Telegraph article [12] (and there are more). So it seems quite appropriate that our article include the information too.--Slp1 (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ben10toys.com as a source for Alien X

• Is this site a good source for Alien X's homeworld? doubtful. 70.116.85.225 (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It is only a parking page. —SlamDiego_←T 17:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    • That wasn't me, but I recommended posting here. Anyways, I think the above is a typo, try http://ben10toys.net/ Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the clarification. ben10toys.net looks like “guys with a website”. In plain English, it might be perfectly reliable, but it's not “reliable”. —SlamDiego_←T 19:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of self-published sources in Rick Ross (consultant)#Branch Davidians

I would appreciate wider community input on the permissibility of using self-published sources in the Rick Ross (consultant) article, specificially the section covering Mr Ross's involvement as a BATF and FBI consultant in the Waco Branch Davidian standoff. The self-published sources concerned are (1) a letter Mr Ross states he wrote as a rebuttal of assertions in a Department of Justice report, and (2) a critique by Mr Ross of various websites and scholars that have published criticism about him.

I provide some background below, for those editors who are not familiar with the history.

The history below is far too detailed for someone not familiar with the subject matter to sift through. Could you please summarize what you think the problem is. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Short version: The old wording used to state that according to a Department of Justice report, Mr Ross was only interviewed by the FBI at his own request, and that his offers of assistance were politely declined. Some months later, a government-commissioned expert, who is critical of Mr Ross, suggested in her report that Mr Ross's role appears to have been somewhat more significant. The present wording no longer discusses the issue of how intensely Mr Ross was involved (partly because so far I haven't found any secondary sources discussing the question). Mr Ross has said on the article's talk page he liked the old wording much better. The old wording cited two self-published documents by Mr Ross:

(1) a letter by Mr Ross saying that the Department of Justice report was wrong (the main assertions of Mr Ross's letter were reproduced in the old wording, some without explicit citation);

(2) a self-published web page that suggested that the government-commissioned expert and various other scholars critical of Mr Ross were cult apologists and/or envious of the access he had to the press.

The question is, is it legitimate to use Mr Ross's self-published sources in this section, given WP:SPS and WP:SELFQUEST? Each source has a section to itself below, with link. Cheers, Jayen466 19:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayen466 failed to mention an edit he did. The original text read "Nancy Ammerman insisted the FBI relied too much on Ross, a view which is not shared by the other three experts reporting to the Justice department." Out of 4 experts reporting to the Justice Department only Ammerman mentioned me as an issue. The others did not. She stood alone, 1 out of 4 experts, in her opinions about my role at Waco. None of the other 4 experts thought my involvement was noteworthy enough to even mention. Jayen466 knows this and he cut it out. This is an example of the way he has contrived to project his POV through editing.

Ammerman had her own political agenda regarding the issue of "cults," which she prefers to call "new religious movmentts." She and a relatively small group of academics attempted to use Waco as a means of discrediting those that disagreed with their opinions about cults and the potential dangers they often pose for society. These few academics tried to spin Waco to their ideological and professional advantage. But the facts about David Koresh and the Waco Davidians, as they were disclosed historically through two congressional investigations (one Republican and one by Democrats), the independent Danforth investigation, criminal trials, civil trials and the work of mental health professionals with Davidian children and others, discredited this group of academics. Ammerman and the other academics Jayen466 chose to quote would seemingly have us believe (1) David Koresh was not "a dangerous cult leader" (2) the Waco Davidians did not fit "the generalized pattern of a destructive cult." These are neither credible conclusions or reliable opinions given the facts established repeatedly and objectively about Waco historically.Rick A. Ross (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Background

A 1993 Department of Justice report to the US Attorney General stated the following concerning Mr Ross's involvement in the Waco standoff:

The FBI did not solicit advice from any "cult experts" or "cult deprogrammers." The FBI did receive a number of unsolicited offers of assistance from former Branch Davidian member Marc Breault (who has since published a paperback book about Koresh and the Branch Davidians). The FBI also received input from two self-described cult experts, Rick Ross (who moved to a hotel in Dallas, and later to Waco, during the standoff and appeared on local television programs, as well as the CNN broadcast of March 10 that upset Dr. Dietz) ... Ross contacted the FBI on March 4, 1993 and requested that he be interviewed regarding his knowledge of cults in general and the Branch Davidians in particular. Ross said that he had been familiar with the Branch Davidians for several years, and had known several former Davidians. Ross provided information about Koresh to the Waco Tribune Herald for its series about the Branch Davidians. Ross also had been in contact with Steve Schneider's sister, who had asked him to help devise a strategy to "deprogram" Schneider. The ATF also contacted Ross in January 1993 for information about Koresh. Ross also telephoned the FBI on March 27 and March 28, offering advice about negotiation strategies. Ross suggested that the FBI attempt to embarrass Koresh by informing other members of the compound about Koresh's faults and failures in life, in order to convince them that Koresh was not the prophet they had been led to believe. The FBI did not "rely" on Ross for advice whatsoever during the standoff. The FBI interviewed Ross only at Ross' request, and politely declined his unsolicited offers of assistance throughout the standoff. The FBI treated the information Ross supplied as it would any other unsolicited information received from the public: it evaluated the credibility of the information and treated it accordingly.

Following the Waco tragedy, the US government commissioned reports from four scholars tasked with writing critical appraisals of law enforcement actions in the Waco siege. All four of these scholars criticised the authorities for failing to consult religious experts familiar with the belief system of the Branch Davidians. Nancy Ammerman, a professor of sociology of religion at Boston University, discussed Mr Ross's involvement specifically in her September 1993 report to the Treasury and Justice Departments:

Mr. Rick Ross, who often works in conjunction with the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), has been quoted as saying that he was "consulted" by the BATF. My suspicion is that he was merely one among many the BATF interviewed in its background checks on the group and on Koresh. However, it is unclear how information gained from him was evaluated. The Network and Mr. Ross have a direct ideological (and financial) interest in arousing suspicion and antagonism against what they call "cults". These same persons seem to have been major sources for the series of stories run by the Waco newspaper, beginning February 27. It seems clear that people within the "anti-cult" community had targeted the Branch Davidians for attention. Although these people often call themselves "cult experts," they are certainly not recognized as such by the academic community. The activities of the CAN are seen by the National Council of Churches (among others) as a danger to religious liberty, and deprogramming tactics have been increasingly found to fall outside the law. At the very least, Mr. Ross and any ex-members he was associated with should have been seen as questionable sources of information. Having no access to information from the larger social science community, however, BATF had no way to put in perspective what they may have heard from angry ex-members and eager deprogrammers.
[A week later, having received additional documentation, Ammerman provided an addendum in which she corrected some of the above suppositions:] The interview transcripts document that Mr. Rick Ross was, in fact, closely involved with both the ATF and the FBI. He supplied ATF with "all information he had regarding the Branch Davidian cult," including the name of an ex-member he believed would have important strategic information. He also supplied information to the Waco newspaper and talked with the FBI both in early March and in late March. He clearly had the most extensive access to both agencies of any person on the "cult expert" list, and he was apparently listened to more attentively. The ATF interviewed the persons he directed them to and evidently used information from those interviews in planning their February 28 raid. In late March, Ross recommended that agents attempt to publicly humiliate Koresh, hoping to drive a wedge between him and his followers. While Ross's suggestions may not have been followed to the letter, such embarrassment tactics were indeed tried.
The FBI interview report includes the note that Ross "has a personal hatred for all religious cults" and would willingly aid law enforcement in an attempt to "destroy a cult." The FBI report does not include any mention of the numerous legal challenges to the tactics employed by Mr. Ross in extricating members from the groups he hates.
Both the seriousness with which agents treated Ross and the lack of seriousness with which they treated various theologians demonstrate again the inability of agents on the scene to make informed judgements about the information to which they had access and their inability to seek out better information. It also demonstrates the preference given to anti-cult psychological tactics over strategies that would meet the group on grounds that took faith seriously.

As can be seen, Ammerman attributes a more significant role to Mr Ross than the official Department of Justice report to the Attorney General. To that extent, she is in agreement with Mr Ross, who claims in his letter that the FBI approached him for advice.

I have over the past few weeks significantly revised the Rick Ross (consultant) article. While the disputed question concerning the extent of Mr Ross's involvement was discussed in previous versions of this article section, the present version does not raise this issue. Here are the old and new versions, for comparison:

• This is the status of the relevant section of the article as it was a month ago; it included a description of Mr Ross as a "spurious self-styled expert[s]", sourced to an unpublished paper by Professor Catherine Wessinger, marked "Do not reproduce or quote without the consent of the author." I considered this to fail the requirements for a BLP and replaced this content with properly published equivalents. This old version of the section also contained a number of unsourced statements, including content evidently taken from the self-published documents with which we are here concerned.
• This is the current status of the section, following extensive revision. It includes new material sourced to University Press-published scholars. It also does without some of the more colourful ad-hominems ("has a hatred for cults", as well as Wessinger's "spurious self-styled expert").

Mr Ross has posted on the talk page of the article, expressing disappointment with the changes, and has several times sought a return to the version of a month ago, including the statements from his self-published sources. In order to accommodate his wish to have content from these self-published sources reinstated, we have to look at whether their use would be in line with our policies and guidelines, which is where I would appreciate editors' input.

The self-published sources are located on Mr Ross's website, rickross.com. They are the following:

1. Davidian Tragedy - Letters Re: Attorney General
2. "Flaming Web Sites"

Given their status as self-published sources, their eligibility for use falls under WP:SPS and WP:SELFQUEST. WP:SPS and WP:SELFQUEST state, among other things:

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed;
2. it is not contentious;
3. it is not unduly self-serving;
4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Editors may well wish to assess each of the two sources differently. I suggest therefore that editors comment in the two separate Comments subsections available at the very end of this post, outlining their thoughts on each.

Source 1: Letter to the Attorney General

The first of these sources is a letter by Mr Ross to the Attorney General and various cc recipients. No one to date has asserted that it has been published by a third-party source, and as far as I know, it is only available on rickross.com. It asserts, among other things, that the FBI did contact Ross for advice.

The question is, if we reintroduce the issue of the extent of Mr Ross's involvement (which would add considerably to the length of the section), should we incorporate this letter as an encyclopedic source, and if so, should we quote from it, or describe its content, or should we just include a mention that it exists, with a link in the reference?

Initially, my feeling was that this self-published source should not be used, as we don't usually cite personal correspondence unless published by a RS. In the interest of fairness, given that the facts as presented in the Department of Justice report are contradicted by both Mr Ross and Ammerman, I removed both the FBI assertions as to Mr Ross's more marginal role, i.e. having offered only unsolicited advice, and the rebuttal asserting a more substantial involvement sourced to this letter by Mr Ross. However, I would be interested in other editors' views, in particular the applicability of WP:SPS and WP:SELFQUEST to the use of this letter.

Source 2: Flaming Web Sites

The "Flaming Web Sites" page (it also has a section on Wikipedia) has in the past been used to source the following content in the article, included after Wessinger's characterisation of Mr Ross as a "spurious self-styled expert[s]":

This rather long-winded "scholarly" review regarding media coverage of the Waco Davidian Standoff was written by cult apologist Catherine Wessinger. [...]. Ms. Wessinger snipes about "spurious self-styled experts" [...] getting too much media attention. The professor then stuffs her footnotes with what looks like a Scientologist's historical guide concerning my past. Could it be that she is angry that the press doesn't quote her more?

As I said, the reference to Wessinger's paper has been deleted (although a brief mention of a published book by her is still included), making this quote somewhat superfluous. However, apart from calling Catherine Wessinger a cult apologist, the Flaming Web Sites page also applies this label to the above-cited Nancy Ammerman, who was one of the government-appointed experts, as well as to Eileen Barker, James T. Richardson, Jeffrey K. Hadden, Gordon J. Melton, Anson Shupe, Massimo Introvigne, David Bromley and Dick Anthony. (For anyone not familiar with these names, they are some of the world's most prominent scholars in this field, with a long string of publications in peer-reviewed journals and books published by top university presses and academic publishers.)

In my estimation, the use of this self-published source to cast aspersions against these scholars is inappropriate as per WP:SPS ("Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources"), and inappropriate as per WP:SELFQUEST, specifically points 2 (contentious), 3 (unduly self-serving), 4 (involving claims about third parties), and possibly 5 (claims about events not directly related to the subject). It also fails WP:TONE.

Related pages

• WP:COIN
• AfD
• Talk:Rick Ross (consultant) – Rick A. Ross (talk · contribs) has various times alleged on the talk page that I edit in bad faith, and accused me of conflicts of interest on several talk pages. Editors may wish to verify the accusation of bad-faith editing for themselves. The current version of the article is here. The version of a month ago, prior to my edits, is here. I have removed the most strident criticisms (in fact I deleted the entire criticism section, much of which was poorly sourced and an ungainly to and fro of name-calling); I have included praise of Mr Ross where I found it; and I have cooperated with him on the talk page to address concerns he had, and looked for sources making his point where he was unable to provide such sources. However, he is a notable and controversial person, and such significant criticism as there has been of his work by notable scholars is represented in the article as it stands.

Jayen has a conflict of interest as follows; (1) He is a devotee of a notorious guru, often called a "cult leader," by the name of Osho/Rajneesh. (2) Despite this bias he has become a primary editor at Wikipedia's Osho entry. His edits can be seen as essentially promoting the guru and subsequently the entry reads at times like an infomercial. (3) The Ross Institute Internet Archives, which is a nonprofit educational effort and an institutional member of the New Jersey Library Association, has an archive subsection about Osho/Rajaneesh that includes news reports from independent reliable media outlets that correctly reflects the guru's deeply troubled history. (4) Jayen466 has begun editing the entry about me in an apparent attempt to discredit online sources of critical information about Osho. If Jayen466 has in fact no association, personal interest or history with Osho/Rajneesh in any way, shape or form, perhaps he should make that clear right now, but that is my understanding. This represents a conflict of interest in my opinion.Rick A. Ross (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Waco Branch Davidian subsection my comments appear below. Also, regarding the Jason Scott case. Admittedly Jayen466 is at times clever in parsing words and playing with edits, he knows how to play the political game here at Wikipedia. On the other hand I am not a Wikipedian. I am here as an individual because a bio about me that I didn't initiate or request has seemingly become a place for people angry at me and/or the Ross Institute to grind their ax. I am not included in any paper and ink encyclopedia that I am aware of anywhere and have requested that my bio be deleted from Wikipedia. It is sad that Wikipedia can be used this way by almost anyone anonymously editing an entry for the purpose of revenge or retaliation. The open source model has the potential to be both good and bad. In the interest of maintaining a reliable source of information with objective historical facts and accuracy, someone should reign in people like Jayen466.Rick A. Ross (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions on use of source 1: Letter to the Attorney General

What do reliable independent sources say about it? If the content is written from primary sources - DoJ or Ross - then we may be violating multiple policies (V, BLP, UNDUE etc.) so I would step back and describe how the issue is presented in independent sources. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess the same could be said to apply to Ammerman's report then, as it was also government-commissioned. Would it be best to cover this only to the extent its content is described in secondary literature? Jayen466 19:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That is precisely what is meant by WP:NOR - we should not synthesise material from primary sources. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- reduced to the extent to which she is cited by Tabor. The citation reference to the online verison of her report is still there; should we keep it or drop it? Jayen466 00:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have commented below regarding the bias and unreliable nature of the scholars Jayen466 has chosen to construct his POV in the Waco Davidian subsection, which isn't supported by the historical facts as gathered from multiple independent historical sources. Based upon the conflict of interest Jayen466 has as an editor concerning this entry he is not a reliable editor.Rick A. Ross (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

While they have their weaknesses, publications, particularly peer reviewed publications, by acknowledged academics in an area of interest are generally considered some of the most reliable sources. Newspapers and self-published websites would be considered a deal removed from them. As I believe has been asked, if you have scholarly sources refuting Jayen466's sources, then please share them and they quite obviously should be given equal weight. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have done this repeatedly, but essentially been dismissed and/or ignored. The scholarly sources are not objective or reliable. Please see my comments below under General Comments. There is a controversy within academia about these sources and their objectivity. The entry should reflect the historical facts not the POV as edited by someone with a conflict of interest.Rick A. Ross (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia aims to cover all significant views on the article topic (or any subtopic covered in an individual article section) published by reliable sources. Contrary to your assertion above, I have been unable to find a single dissenting scholarly view discussing events at Waco. If you have other scholarly sources commenting on this topic (i.e. your involvement in Waco) that express a different view, please present them here.

Looking through google books, I have found one source which discusses the alleged errors in the FBI report concerning your involvement, and has pertinent criticism of Ammermann that is directly related to the article topic. This is the book Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change, by Conway and Siegelman. However, this too appears to be self-published, at least according to our article on it, so its status as a WP:RS is questionable. Jayen466 21:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayen466 your conflict of interest and POV will always be the same. You are not an objective editor. My disputes with your edits are detailed on this page and the Discussion page of my Wikipedia bio. The opinions of Ammerman and the others, which you have decided upon and tailored for the subsection about Waco don't reflect historical reality. It's not a matter of whose book was published by whom, but rather how does history objectively record David Koresh and the Waco Davidians. He wasn't "a dangerous cult leader"? The Davidians didn't fit "the generalized pattern of a destructive cult"? A few academics eager to spin their opinions don't change that and the Waco entry now reads like a fantasy not like objective serious content. I understand that it reads like you want to read, but it doesn't provide meaningful information as a reliable source to the public. Religious Studies professors are not the definitive perspective on Waco, but based upon the quotes you have used a fairly bizarre one. I don't think that Wikipedia wants to be seen as a source for fringe and/or conspiracy theories.Rick A. Ross (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) To the extent other sources discuss Mr. Ross, he is entitled to rebut them with his own self-published sources, particularly in an article on him. This is the essential purpose of WP:SELFQUEST, which is there to enlarge the universe of sources, to modify the two sections above it that restrict the usage of selfpublished or questionable sources. ( I note this section is being modified and actively discussed at WP:V and has changed from the version above. ). This is in the spirit of, indeed essentially enjoined by WP:BLP. A person is a notable, usable source on himself. The question of reliability is not even appropriate. Reliability of Ross as a source begins to come up when he starts making claims about other persons or things which are distinguishable from "they are wrong about what they said about me, about what I said, did, where I was born, etc. This is what (I say) really happened." Ross calling someone an apologist is arguably a fact about him, not the other person. But his reasoning and facts that he bases such statements on probably does fall under illegitimate self-publication / questionability / reliability prohibitions; for even if his SPS were deemed reliable, it would not be good enough for BLP (of these other people)..John Z (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Entitled to rebut them? Please provide quotes from the applicable policy. WP:SELFQUEST comes with seven conditions and two are directly applicable here: 2) it is not unduly self-serving; and 7) the source in question has been mentioned specifically in relation to the article's subject by an independent, reliable source. I'm not sure Mr. Ross' SPS meets those criteria. Also, it should be noted, that the disputed content regarding Waco, is not only about Mr. Ross. It is in fact more significantly about a very notable federal law enforcement agency and the extent to which this law enforcement agency relied on Mr. Ross' advice. Mr. Ross has no special rights, under WP:BLP or WP:SELFQUEST to refute reliable sources on this issue simply because it is in part about him. Lastly I would like to note that it is not in the spirit of any Wikipidia policy to allow individuals to write their own biographies here on Wikipedia, particularly when it comes to notable events in which said individuals were involved and which may in the end be less than flattering to them. Revisionism in these cases, by these individuals, is clearly "unduly self-serving".PelleSmith (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The last condition, #7, is a very recent addition, and can only be understood by looking at the talk page, where the people discussing it note the grammar needs fixing. It can be interpreted to say something ridiculous, that only selfpub sources mentioned in an RS are usable. So a person's website telling us his date of birth is unusable unless the website has been mentioned in an RS. Absurd. The proper reading here is that Rick Ross has been mentioned in RS's in relation to the article's subject - Rick Ross, which is always satisfied by notable sources/individuals. The meaning of #7 is that it clarifies the expansion of usage of selfpub sources to other articles, not necessarily those about the person or entity itself.

I agree that I wrote ("entitled to rebut") in a manner more direct than usual. I should have written that selfpublished sources are usable when blah blah blah. But any person (in good standing) is entitled to edit a wikipedia article, even one about themselves. Ross has no special rights, but neither is he especially prohibited. The unduly self-serving part can be taken care of simply by having neutral editors neutralizing whatever self-published version presented by the subject which is different from that presented in RS's. Of course, Ross's SPS site should not be used for statements about something other than Rick Ross, but neither should RS's be used to say things about a "something other" in an article on Rick Ross.

I think it is worth noting again that WP:SPS and WP:Q are essentially prohibitions (with qualifications) while WP:SELFPUB is an expansion of usable sources, opposing the above two sections (and with a numbered list of qualifications which then amount to prohibitions). People sometimes write as if WP:SELFPUB is only a prohibition, which reverses things.

Here are a couple of things from WT:V that SlimVirgin wrote that explain it well IMHO  : "For example, someone has accused X of something bad, and it's widely accepted that X did it. X responds on his website saying he didn't do it, and offers a convoluted, unconvincing defense that no other source has bothered to publish. We might want to cite that defense, even though we know it's contentious." "As for unduly self-serving, I've always liked that qualification. It's there to stop self-published sources from adding a lot of vanity stuff to their websites then adding it to their WP bio. It means we can consider using it, but have a good reason to turn it down if it's over the top." Regards, John Z (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

So are saying that Mr. Ross' SPS can be used if attributed to him as his version/rebuttal/opinion? If that is the case I agree wholeheartedly. But we can't use his source unless we're explicitly asserting that "Rick Ross claims ..." Reliable third party sources, produced by respected scholars of religion from a variety of methodological backgrounds, exist here. The fact that Mr. Ross' exact version is not replicated by theirs is a strong indicator that his version is ... well simply his self serving version. It is notable that he maintains whatever he maintains, but it must remain explicitly simply what he maintains unless other reliable sources back him up.PelleSmith (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Then we are pretty much in agreement. Since there is a dispute, in-text attribution should be done anyway to produce understandable, non-self-contradictory text. The clause in WP:SELFPUB about not using sps's for contentious points was just removed - with general agreement, because we might want to use them in precisely such cases, like here. It might be a good idea to say something in WP:SELFPUB like "contentious material should be attributed in the text to the SPS" - a lot of policy is just explaining what a good writer would do without thinking. John Z (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What about the part of WP:SELFQUEST concerning statements about third parties? Anyone can publish a website and smear his critics. Should we really consider that an encyclopedic source? Then WP will be just a mouthpiece, rather than a summary of significant views published in reliable sources. Jayen466 14:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering your own bias and agenda as a "cult" devotee (Osho/Rajneesh) are you not using WP as your "mouthpiece" to smear me?Rick A. Ross (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions on use of source 2: Flaming Web Sites

As above. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It can probably be replaced with a scholarly reference, such as this:

• Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin (2003). "Scientology: Religion or racket?". Marburg Journal of Religion. Retrieved 2008-11-10. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

in regards to Eileen Barker, James T. Richardson, Jeffrey K. Hadden, Gordon J. Melton, Anson Shupe, Massimo Introvigne, David Bromley and Dick Anthony. AndroidCat (talk) 11:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

None of whom are cited or mentioned within this section. Jayen466 14:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you listed them above: "For anyone not familiar with these names, they are some of the world's most prominent scholars in this field, with a long string of publications in peer-reviewed journals and books published by top university presses and academic publishers." as seemingly unimpeachable sources, which seems not to be completely true. AndroidCat (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The notion that these scholars are part of some financially beneficial conspiracy masterminded by influential NRMs to whitewash history and distort public perception of "dangerous cults" is absolute rubbish and a clear fringe position. I'm sorry but I am growing increasingly tired of this nonsense. We are talking about the experts in the study of new religious movements, or so says the academy. There are a handful of scholars, with real academic credentials and some recognition, who sit on the other side of the fence of the establishment. Even less of them have written articles like Beit-Hallahmi. It is an irrevocable fact that they are in the minority. To claim otherwise is simply false. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore your conspiracy strawman, but: New CAN professional referrals Oh, and please cite that the American Academy of Religion considers these people to the undisputed experts on NRM and legalist topics, and the other people to be the fringe element. AndroidCat (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"So says the academy," was not a reference to the AAR or any other formal institution. It certainly wasn't a claim that there exists a formal statement of any kind by any such institution. It was a turn of phrase denoting the fact that in academia, across methodological disciplines, this fact is established through the reputations of these scholars and their work. It can be gleaned very easily by even a quick survey of the field--who is publishing in peer-reviewed publications and academic presses, who is receiving accolades for their work, who's work is being cited by other scholars, and so on. In this regard you are citing one source that questions the ethics of the establishment--people who are acknowledged experts in the field, or so one can easily deduce by actually informing oneself of the state of scholarly research on NRMs and "cults".PelleSmith (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's still worth noting that Eugene V. Gallagher, one of those cited in the article who is being accused here of being a venal Scientology POV pusher, is on the board of the AAR. Syllabus materials on the AAR website cite Bromley, Tabor, Gallagher and Chryssides as Required Reading. Those are the authors that are cited in our article. (And yes, Barker and Melton are in the syllabus list as well.) Jayen466 20:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Read the entries on Barker, Beit-Hallahmi, Bromley and others here for example (link leads to Encyclopedia of Religion and Society). Jayen466 11:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The arguments brought forward here are not unlike those of various other pseudoscience fans in Wikipedia claiming that the entire scientific establishment is involved in a great conspiracy to suppress the truth. I am sorry, there is a mainstream view and there is a minority view, and policy is clear on how to present them. Jayen466 12:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Entire scientific establishment" (egads!) isn't the issue here. That some dozen people are the mainstream is easily open to dispute, nor are all of them involved in the three articles (Rick Ross, Jason Scott case, Cult Awareness Network) where you have recently added the same reference some 60 times, based on five pages of a book which, judging by its availability in Canadian public and university library systems, either wasn't taken very seriously or had a print-run in the high dozens, by an academic writing outside his specialty and who gets the outcome of the Ross criminal trial wildly wrong? (I realize that legal cases aren't Shupe's focus, but that's really hard to get wrong.) Let's return to the unclosed and too-soon archived WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_22#Anson_Shupe_and_sources_with_known_inaccuracies. AndroidCat (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You say the mainstream is "easily disputed" by a piece from an International Cultic Studies Association(ISCA) newsletter? The ISCA is the closest thing to an institution representing the minority perspective and their journal often publishes writers without academic credentials and/or expertise. Note that, "cultic studies" is not a field of study recognized by the AAR or the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion. In fact I don't know of any respected academic society focused on religion that would use the term "cultic studies". Some presenters at their meetings or writers publishing in various publications associated with these societies may use the term "cult" now and then, but not cultic studies. On top of this, scholars publishing on NRMs and/or "cults" in mainstream peer reviewed publications in the social sciences and/or the study of religion rarely include references to ISCA publications.PelleSmith (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The "scholars" used by Jayen466 have been publicly exposed as apologists. Lewis was paid to go to Japan courtesy of Aum and he subsequently publicly pronounced the cult innocent of any wrongdoing, which discredits him and his "scholarship." Melton has been paid off by a number of "cults" to do "research," e.g. Children of God and Ramtha. Tabor was once associated both personally and professionally with the Worldwide Church of God, often called a "cult." And the list goes on.Rick A. Ross (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I said your claims that these people are the mainstream, while others are the fringe, are easily disputed. There's a significant difference there. If you don't like the ICSA site then:

• Allen, Charlotte (1998). "Brainwashed! Scholars of cults accuse each other of bad faith". Lingua Franca. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Introvigne, Massimo. "Review of Misunderstanding Cults: Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial Field". CESNUR. where he certainly seems to be be acknowledging two groups (with internal differences and common ground between the groups). AndroidCat (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As you know, Introvigne also points out that the "critics of the anticult position still enjoy a comfortable majority in NRM studies (a fact both acknowledged and lamented by Zablocki and Beit-Hallahmi)." But even if we were to assume that both sides had equal strength, does this make University Press-published authors of the "other" side unreliable sources?

Imagine an article on a Democrat politician. If his or her views on a particular aspect of economic policy have been criticised by several notable, and highly respected (at least by their fellows) Republicans published in top-class sources, would anyone argue that the views of these Republicans should not be represented in the article because they are Republicans and therefore hostile and prejudiced towards Democrats? Or would anyone argue that each comment by such a notable Republican commentator should be flanked by a statement from the Democrat's self-published webpage that seeks to discredit their reputation, by alleging affiliations to, say, the tobacco industry, the arms industry, state-sponsored terrorism or some other issue not directly related to the issue at hand? No, you wikilink the critic, and if there is controversy surrounding him, it will be covered in their article, unless this particular controversy has been brought up in reliable sources in direct relation to his criticism of the Democrat's thoughts on economic policy.

I did as thorough a search as I could on this topic, and the views that are in the article are the only ones I found, and I did not cite the most outspoken criticism. And given a reliable source, I would be very pleased to include a dissenting opinion on this specific topic – but not one that talks about some scholar having attended a Unification Church-sponsored conference in 1998, and alleges that therefore his views on Waco should be discounted, along with those of his co-author, and all other scholars working in the same academic discipline. If the article or this section needs fixing, it wants reliable on-topic sources presenting other viewpoints on the issues discussed. Jayen466 06:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

General comments on the state of the article, and its use of reliable sources

The article now reflects the POV of editor Jayen466, who is a person devoted to a notorious guru often called a cult leader named Osho/Rajneesh. That same guru has a critical archive subsection composed of news articles within the Ross Institute Internet Archives. So this complete re-editing represents a conflict of interest and the personal agenda of Jayen466. Having said that, the Waco section is now dominated by one POV without meaningful balance. That is, a relatively small group of academics known to be sympathetic to groups called "cults," which prefer to call them "new religious movements" (NRMs). The Waco subsection is now largely disconnected from reality, as established through government investigations, independent reports, court trials and records, eye witnesses that testified before congress and in cour and mental health professionals that treated Waco Davidian children and evaluated the erratic behavior of David Koresh. Specifically, history has concluded that David Koresh was a deeply disturbed psychopath and cult leader, and that the Waco Davidans were a destructive cult comparable and often listed with other destructive cults such as Jim Jones and Jonestown, another group that ended in a mass murder/suicide ordered by its leader. The "scholars" critical of me quoted in the current Wikipedia version edited by Jayen466 raise the issue that I "acting as an informant for government agencies and media journalists, was instrumental in establishing a simplified image of Koresh as a dangerous cult leader, using the generalized pattern of a destructive cult, and that [my] activities, along with those of apostates, significantly shaped the viewpoints of government parties acting in the case." Also called into question by these supposedly knowledgeable men is my "statements may be evaluated in the context of the financial and ideological stakes anticult workers...have in 'cultbusting.'" This is entire line of criticism patently ridiculous and raises serious questions about the entry and its current bias (1) are these scholars seriously positing the theory that David Koresh was not "a dangerous cult leader"? (2)That the Branch Davidians did not fit the "generalized pattern of a destructive cult"? The general historical consensus based upon the objective facts is that Koresh was a dangerous cult leader and the group did fit the generalized pattern of a destructive cult. Then these critics engage in name calling attempting to label me an "informant," which I was not, and rudely calling former members that came forward with testimony about the gross abuses within the cult "apostates." None of this belongs in an supposedly objective encyclopedia entry. Moreover the opinions of Nancy Ammerman were NOT shared by the three other experts reporting to the Justice Department, which was noted in the entry before Jayen466 edited this fact out. Specifically, the other reporting experts didn't even mention my role, let alone that I was somehow relied upon too much by the FBI. Ammerman who has been lauded for her opinions by the Church of Scientology in its publication "Freedom Magazine" and the other academics quoted such as Tabor, Wright and Lewis have been repeatedly recommended as "resources" or "experts" by Scientology. This has garnered them a reputation as "cult apologists." Moreover James Lewis who is quoted in the Waco section, once stupidly claimed that Aum, the notorious cult that gassed the Tokyo subway system, was not guilty and falsely accused. Aum paid for all of Lewis' travel expenses to come to Japan. Other scholars in the same camp ideologically as Lewis have also received financial funding, expenses etc. from groups called "cults." This calls into question "the financial and ideological stakes" they have regarding this subject.Rick A. Ross (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Jason Scott case entry has likewise been edited by Jayen466 to represent his POV. He uses edited comments from "jurors" that reportedly said, "prosecutors had not proved Ross participated in restraining Scott." In this way he hopes to minimize the "not guilty" verdict and narrow its scope, rather than admit that I was acquitted of all charges by a jury that only was out two hours. He wants readers to think I was escaped due a technicality, which is false and deliberately misleading. Jayen466 then goes on to attempt to present the POV that Jason Scott was subjected to "verbal abuse" in an effort to get him to "renounce his faith." This is based upon one-sided and very selective quoting of court testimony. Also, edited out significantly is the fact, which was previously included in the entry, that after Jason Scott settled the multi-million dollar judgment he had against me for only $5,000 and 200 hours of additional deprogramming time, the Scientology lawyer Jason fired (Kendrick Moxon) attempted to revoke the settlement on the grounds that Jason Scott was incompetent and unable to make decisions for himself. This is important because supposedly Moxon was fighting for Jason's right to make his own individual choices, which exposes the hypocrisy of the court case.Rick A. Ross (talk)

Given the amount time Jayen466 devotes at Wikipedia to editing in a relatively narrow area of interest, i.e. Osho/Rajneesh, cults, cult critics and related subjecte it seems fair to ask the following question; Does he work for or derive any benefits from a group that has ever been referred to as a "cult" and/or someone that at any time has been called a "guru," spiritual mentor of some sort and/or "cult leader"? Again, this goes to his direct conflict of interest and bias as an editor.Rick A. Ross (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

With respect, the person with an obvious and explicit conflict of interest in relation to this article is yourself. Jayen466 21:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• To be fair, most of Mr Ross' contributions are to the talk page, where he has complained about the "partisan editing" by Jayen. Rick A. Ross has made exactly five edits to his own biography, by rectifying an important omission, in a manner totally consistent with WP:COI. I would add that I concur with the restoration made by Mr Ross. I believe it was subsequently removed by Jayen in the volley, and I once again restored it. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Taipei Times

A newspaper from Taiwan has recently had it's reliability questioned based on an allegation (so far not backed up with any evidence) that the newspaper is partially funded by one of the political parties. The editor making the allegation has stated that according to Wikipedia rules, it is up to the person including a statement to "prove that the relevant sources are reliable and unbiased".

Is this true, that the person wishing to include the statement must "prove" the reliability and neutrality of the source?

If such proof is required, what is the standard of proof? And how does one go about proving such a thing? The article on Reliable sources provides the Washington Post as an example of a source whose input is welcome, yet plenty of people, including myself, dispute the "unbiased" nature of the Washington Post (I believe the post is pretty reliable on facts, but is not unbiased). Readin (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers have political slants, sources have biases. So long as it is made clear that the Taipei Times is the source of the information, whatever it is, that's generally going to be sufficient. But significant news-type material should generally be reported by more than one newspaper and Taiwan has three main English-language papers to choose from, each with its own political position. If they give differing accounts, that should be made clear in the article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 03:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that, I am the editor who opposes the source being used. In this case, Readin extracted some statements from an article of a pro-independence leaning newspaper, reporting opinions of some pro-independence leaning experts "condemning" Taiwan's new pro-unification government of "serious violation of the rule of law and human rights abuse". As Taiwan is commonly considered to be democratic, I would consider these opinions as exceptional claims and the quality of the sources isn't high enough to justify these claims. No other newspapers in my knowledge have reported on these opinions.--pyl (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You can tell you're living in a free society when newspapers are able to report, whether accurately or not, a "serious violation of the rule of law and human rights abuse". As I said, if there are two sides to the story, tell them both. All three Taiwanese English-language papers have well-known political leanings. You can't ignore their reporting because of that. Having read the report, I don't see this as cherry-picking. The allegations and the endorsements are the story. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I am trying to ignore the report just because of the "political leaning" of Taipei Times. I wouldn't just describe the connection between the DPP and Taipei Times as just "political leaning" as Taipei Times is partly owned by the DPP as well as DPP politicians, always reporting from the DPP's POV. As I pointed out above, there are no two sides to the story, there is only one side. I will reply the rest of your comments together with Readin's below.

This is what was added in a new subsection titled "Rule of Law and Human Rights":

In February 2008 experts on Taiwan from the US, Canada and Australia issued a joint statement condemning a wave of detentions of present and former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) officials by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), calling them a serious violation of the rule of law and human rights.

<ref>{{cite news 
  | last = Snyder
  | first = Charles
  | title = Experts on Taiwan slam recent detentions
  | language = English
  | publisher = Taipei Times
  | date = 06 November 2008
  | url = http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2008/11/06/2003427868
  | accessdate = 06 November 2008}}
</ref>

The names of the experts are available at the source Experts on Taiwan slam recent detentions. Very basic information about what qualifies them as experts is also available.

Pyl, when you first deleted the information, you said that your complaint was that the Taipei Times fails reliable source rules. That is a serious charge. If the entire newspaper fails as a reliable source, we can't use it for much of anything. If instead your contention is that this particular statement represents an overemphasis on a minor incident, that is a different matter entirely, and we can take the issue back to the main article. However, if your intention is to discredit newspapers that may present information that supports a POV you disagree with, then we need to be clear on what is a reliable source and what is not. Readin (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the rules says "if the entire newspaper fails as a reliable source, we can't use it for much of anything". The reliability of sources are decided on a case by case basis. Also, whether I agree with the POV of this report is beside the point. I have issues with this particular source being in this particular context because it fails Wikipedia's requirements. I will quote the relevant section of the rules so we can just focus on it. Under WP:REDFLAG, it says:-

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
• ....
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

As I pointed out above, as Taiwan is generally considered to be democratic, having an article taken from a newspaper reporting on a couple of experts "condemning" the government and calling the government's action "a serious violation of the rule of law and human rights" will be an exceptional claim according to my highlight section of the rules. To make the material available on Wikipedia, it will thus require high quality sources. As we have all agreed Taipei Times is a biased source against the government: It is a partly opposition owned newspaper, always reporting the opposition's POV. Some of these "experts" are biased if you check the credentials.

Further, this report is exaggerated. If you read the original text of the joint statement, it says "serious concerns", not "condemn". The statement never called the government's actions "a serious violation of the rule of law and human rights". Instead it says, "the procedures followed by the prosecutor’s offices are severely flawed", "This is a severe contravention of the writ of habeas corpus and a basic violation of due process, justice and the rule of law". In respect of human rights, it says "[w]e do firmly believe that any alleged wrongdoings must be dealt with in a fair and open manner in an impartial court. Justice through the rule of law is essential to Taiwan’s efforts to consolidate democracy and protect fundamental human rights". These "experts" never directly or indirectly described the government's actions as a serious violation of human rights. This fails Wikipedia's NPOV requirement as well as WP:SOURCES. The report does not "substantiate material within articles".

WP:SOURCES also says:-

All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.

This is a single POV taken in a biased newspaper reporting the opinions of a couple of biased people in an exaggerated manner. There are no opposing POVs being reported.

I am not saying that this story cannot be used for Wikipedia at all. That's another issue. But in this case on the reliable sources board, we are concerned with whether the sources cited are reliable. In this case, I am saying this source violates the Wikipedia rules which I cited above.

WP:BURDEN also says:-

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

Readin should be the person who establishes the sources are reliable. I shouldn't be the person who bears the onus of proof. The starting position should be, now the reliability is challenged, Readin should prove with evidence and show that the sources are reliable. At this stage, I do not see any evidence being shown.--pyl (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• As I understand it, we're talking about the article Ma Ying-jeou, which states that 20 Taiwan experts from other countries condemned Ma's KMT government for detaining seven officials from the DPP. The problem, as I see it, is that these detentions are sourced only to the article about the condemnation letter. Wasn't there any news coverage of the underlying events, namely, the detentions or alleged detentions, before the foreign experts condemned them? And how did Ma's administration respond to the charges? Did they say "We didn't detain those people", or "We did detain those people, but only with due process of law", or what? To discuss this, there ought to be sources reporting both sides, which may include both pro-DPP and pro-KMT newspapers. Media from other countries which have no ax to grind in favor of either party should be consulted as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with your viewpoint. If appropriate, Wikipedia can of course state the concerns of various parties for the apparent lack of due process in this matter. But at present no evidence was provided for a more balanced POV. The information we have at hand is from a single article published by a biased newspaper reporting in an exaggerated manner on the opinions of a couple of biased "experts". Taipei Times is not a high-quality source as required by Wikipedia's rules.--pyl (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"It is a partly opposition owned newspaper". This is plausible, but I still would like to see some evidence for this claim. Readin (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"condemning" the government and calling the government's action "a serious violation of the rule of law and human rights". Even before checking this page I recognized that the wording needed some fixing for NPOV concerns, and the statement in the article on Ma Ying-jeou has been modified.

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." This is actually my biggest concern. What standard of evidence is to be used?

User:Metropolitan90 has valid concerns about the NPOV of the statement due to lack of response from the government/KMT. As I said earlier, we should address those on the talk:Ma Ying-jeou page. Readin (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to start by establishing that Taipei Times in this case is a "high quality" source as required by the rules? As User:Metropolitan90 puts it, "[t]he problem, as I see it, is that these detentions are sourced only to the article about the condemnation letter". The article has a one-sided POV.

The ownership of the newspaper is common knowledge in Taiwan. I don't have the time to look for it at the moment. If you have some free time, you might like to start first. If you cannot find it, then I will help you with that by looking at the Chinese version. As I am going to be unavailable for a couple of weeks soon, I might not be able to help you with that right away. Besides the ownership issue, I don't think it is disputed that Taipei Times is a biased newspaper against the government.

NPOV is another issue besides the reliability of sources issue. I would like to sort them out separately. If the sources are not reliable, then the materials cannot be made available according to the rules I cited above: we don't need to proceed to fine-tune the wording of materials in Ma Ying-jeou.--pyl (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to dispute te bias because I have have found that nearly all newspapers are biased, including ones that Wikipedia lists as good examples of reliable sources like the Washington Post.

As for establishing the "high quality", I ask again how one establishes that. That is very subjective criteria.

I haven't been able to find ownership information for Taipei Times other than that its parent company is "Liberty Times Group", which I have not found ownership information for. Such information seems hard to find as I haven't found ownership information for other major Taiwan English-language news sources. You'll need to provide that evidence if you want to use that argument. Readin (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why I am put in the position where I have to provide evidence. The rule clearly states that you do. At this stage, you have not provided any evidence that the source in this situation is reliable, not to mention satisfying the "high quality" standard.--pyl (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to provide evidence about ownership so long as you're not going to make that claim. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but if the dependent is going to make an exonerating claim like "despite the fingerprints, DNA, and witnesses, I couldn't have possibly committed the crime because I was 10,000 miles away in Hawaii", then the dependent is expected to back up that claim somehow. If you're going to make a claim, then you should have some back up. Otherwise when considering any evidence I produce (and I still don't see how this is to be done), we won't consider your claim about Taipei Times ownership. Readin (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The burden of proof that you cite is referring for the need for reliable sources. It says that the editor adding the data has the burden of providing a reliable source. It doesn't directly say that the editor has the burden of proving the source is reliable. I believe that in trying to apply that you are engaging in wp:wikilawyering, specifically

1. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its principles;
2. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express;
3. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

I'll ask at the wp:burden discussion page how to apply the "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" statement." Although the footnote given at that page, "When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is that this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references. Alternative conventions exist, and are acceptable if they provide clear and precise attribution for the article's assertions, but inline citations are considered 'best practice' under this rationale. For more details, please consult Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How to cite sources." seems to reinforce the idea that the burden is met by providing the citation, not that the editor has to also prove the source is reliable. Readin (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misrepresenting the facts here. This is not a criminal trial. The reason why the burden of the proof lies on the editor who adds or restores material is because the materials don't have to be added at the first place. If any editor can add materials without the need to back up the reliability of the sources, then the quality of Wikipedia will invariably suffer. That's essentially the case here, as you have not shown any proof. You are essentially trying to argue the way out of having to show anything.

I don't believe I am engaging in wp:wikilawyering here as I was just quoting the rule from the wp:burden and show that you have not provided any proof that the source is reliable, not to mention the standard required for high quality proof. You quoted wp:wikilawyering without explaining how I am violating the rules, specifically:-

1. what principles am I violating?
2. am I asserting a technical interpretation? The rule says "burden of the proof lies on the editor who adds or restores material". The language is plain and simple.
3. what inappropriate actions are you alleging that I am trying to do?

there is a board that deals with wp:wikilawyering, you are welcome to consult them or the administrators about the rules.

I don't believe that it is fair for an editor to assert materials (without showing any evidence of the reliability of the source) then accuse another editor of wp:wikilawyering because this other editor challenges the reliability of the source.

As I said, I will be unavailable for a couple of weeks soon so I don't have the time to find the ownership. I did a quick search on ownership on the net but I don't think it is available. Ownership of the newspaper is common knowledge in Taiwan, but since I don't have the time to look for it, I can easily show that it is biased against the government, which is sufficient in this case. Just do a Google Search on "Liberty Times" "Pro-independence", then you will get plenty of related results. For example, this one [13] is one of the results. It is common knowledge in Taiwan that Taipei Times/Liberty Times is pro-independence and biased against the government. You might have already realised that when you see it doing an exaggerated report in this case.

Now I have shown that Liberty Times/Taipei Times is biased. Please let us know why Taipei Times is a reliable source? Why is Taipei Times a high quality source?--pyl (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to make sure nobody misunderstands the point I was making above. I am not saying, "Don't use the Taipei Times, it's biased and unreliable." I am saying, "If you use the Taipei Times, also use a pro-KMT paper for balance. And if you use the Taipei Times, use the original articles that reported on the detentions, not just a later article about foreign reaction." Right now the Ma Ying-jeou article is using the wrong articles from the Taipei Times to cover these detentions. If the KMT administration was detaining DPP members, I would expect a pro-DPP newspaper to report on that as soon as they could. I don't think the newspaper would have waited until foreigners spoke out before they ran such an article. But from Ma Ying-jeou, that's the impression I get now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Special Constabulary

Resolved

I would like to know if this is considered to be a reliable source, as it is being used on a controversial article. Likewise, this book is also being used The B-Specials: A History of the Ulster Special Constabulary (1972) Sir Arthur Hazlett ISBN 0854682724. The reason I ask is according to the Telegraph The article states "Hezlet was commissioned to write a history of the Northern Irish police. However The "B" Specials, a History of the Ulster Special Constabulary (1972) was later dismissed as merely a defence of policing in the province." The commission was from the "B" Specials commanding officer. Thanks for the help, and advice, --Domer48_'fenian' 17:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally, orgainizational websites are considered "self-published" sources. That means they are reliable for some types of statements but not for others (see WP:SELFPUB). As for the book, even if it is "merely a defence of policing in the province", it seems to be reliably published. I don't see any basis for challenging it. If there is any question as to the accuracy of a statement cited to it, just add counter-statements cited to other books. Blueboar (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, very helpful indeed. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

globaldomination.se

Another quick question: could this [14] be used as a RS on Avenged Sevenfold's genre? My inclination would be towards no. It does have writers staff, but there's nothing to indicate whether the writer (in this case certainly) is any kind of expert, qualified or otherwise, and the very tone of the site (as seen here [15] outlining what they look for in their writers) doesn't exactly sound encouraging. But what do others say? Prophaniti (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

well they do say the reviewer is a cock smoker, I'm not sure if that's a putdown, a qualification or a complement. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. That tone, combined with the anonymity of the author in this case, is what leads me to think it shouldn't be used as a source on band genres. Prophaniti (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Linux.com

How reliable is Linux.com? See usage in the OpenOffice.org Writer article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Same situation in PhpGedView. Is it a reliable source? They actively solicit article submissions, but I'm unclear on how much reviewing, editing, and fact-checking they do. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There's some confusion about linux.com. Basically, they have a professional core editorial team, and they accept two types of submissions:

• one paragraph "newsvac" reports, which are submitted for no pay here
• articles for which they pay

The latter can be considered quite reliable, as they are subject to a normal editorial process, and are not significantly different from other sites that publish articles from freelance writers/journalists, e.g. IBM developerworks, although the latter doesn't always pay a fee.

I have no idea about the Php site. VG ☎ 01:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

John Wilkes Booth escape theory

There is a section near the bottom of the article on John Wilkes Booth called Booth Escaped Theories that has citations that do not meet wikipedias guidlines on verifiability. Although there are citations, the authors are very suspect and caution should be used in adding this particular theory as it does not meet wikipedias policies on Fringe theories nor weight as well. I have been attempting to add a refimprove tag to the section, but one editor has removed the tag twice. Of the three citations that support the theory, the oldest, The Escape and Suicide of John Wilkes Booth, is based on a death bed confession that only the author heard. The author heard the confession, then toured the country making money off of displaying the mummified remains. He only wrote the book, to support his claim. The next citation, The Lincoln Conspiracy was written by a movie producer who wanted to promote a movie he was making in the 70's. This same producer has also produced movies called The Search for Heaven, Encounters with the Unexplained, The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark, and Uncovering the Truth About Jesus. The third citation by a man named Theodore Nottingham, claiming to be a decendant of Booth and is based on information his grandfather told him. And not much more.

These authors hardly have a reputation for fact finding. With the verifiability problem, added to the problems of WP:Weight and WP:Fringe, this entire section needs to go, but I can't handle a stubborn editor who refuses to let me even add the refimprove tag. What do I do.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Other inline citations used as reliable sources, not mentioned by Jojhutton, are The New York Times, The Baltimore Sun, University of Baltimore Law Forum published by University of Baltimore School of Law, and the Maryland Historical Society's magazine. (Disclosure: I am an involved editor)  JGHowes  ^talk 16:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The theory does seem to be notable enough that it meets the inclusion requirements set out by WP:FRINGE (there is more than passing reference to it in multiple mainstream sources), so some mention of it should be included in the article. The question then becomes how to mention it and how much space to give it. I agree that the current section is over the top... it really does not deserve more than a brief mention (per WP:UNDUE). A brief statement that the theory exists and is discounted by serious historians is all that is needed. Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The citations mentioned by JGHowes are not the problem citations. If the other citations are removed, then the ones mentioned by JGHowes are not needed.

When the problem with weight was brought up on the talk page, some editors responded by actually making the section longer. Again, I have attempted to place a tag on the section, but an editor somehow keeps taking it down. I want to add the tag, so that other editors and readers will know that a discussion is ongoing on the talk page.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss content, just the reliability of cited sources. When Jojhutton originally complained at Talk:John Wilkes Booth that there were no reliable sources discussing the escape stories, these inline citations were added per WP:FRINGE for verifiability that the stories, however implausible, have in fact been the subject of widely-read books and a movie (having their own en-wiki articles), and lengthy commentary in mainstream newspapers and, hence, meet WP:N for inclusion in the article. Now he complains that by adding such sources for verifiability, the section was "made longer". It should be evident that his claim of lack of reliable sources is utterly baseless and the real objection is to content, as shown by his statement that if the fringe theory content is removed, then the unchallenged citations "are not needed".  JGHowes  ^talk 02:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

How then are those three citations worthy of verifiability? What reason would you give to keep those citations in the article? Using WP:verifiability, do the citations meet the criteria?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe you have a very basic misunderstanding of our verifiability policy, Jojhutton. As has been pointed out to you, the verifiability tags you keep insisting be there cannot accomlish what you want them to. WP:V refers to the ability to prove that the source cited did indeed state what is being used and cited. You are using the v-tag to attempt to challenge the verifiability of the sources themselves (ie, the verifiability of the claims the authors make in their books). As editors, we don't do that. We are not suitable or notable enough to act as counterweight to a cited source.

I think yo have realized this, and have since switched tactics, aiming to have the information removed as per WP:FRINGE. I am not really sure how that is going to be any more successful, as the sources and the theories predate the Kennedy Assassination conssipracies by almost 100 years. Books were written then as now, and there have been documentary films made on the subject.

Clearly, you don't want the info in the article but, like the good Professor Mick said, "Yu can't always get what you want." You might have to suffer the indignity of the Booth Escaped theories 'staining' the Booth article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources for porn star articles

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#Reliable sources over the reliability of commonly used sources in porn star articles, such as AInews.com, XBiz.com, Rogreviews.com and XFanz.com. The WikiProject really needs some outside views on this. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

From a quick glance, I don't see how most of these could be considered reliable sources. With the exception of Rogreviews, they seem to be just republishing press releases and the like from others, without any indication at all that there is any fact-checking. --Ronz (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Is a writer reliable if he is cited by reliable sources?

Full discussion here, short summary: a person's works (a book) is cited by several reliable scholars. It is however hard to find out any information about the person itself - we can't find out if he has any academic credentials, or any significant facts from his bio. Can this person (his works/books) be considered reliable? One one side he is, after all, cited by reliable scholars who presumably did their research. On the other - other than him being an author of some books and articles, and a website, we know nothing about him. Is he reliable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If his book is cited by scholars, then I would call it reliable, even though the author is not an academic (perhaps it could be looked at as being a primary source, with the cautions and limitations thereof?). The only exception that I can think of would be if scholars all cite him in order to refute what he says. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have doubts about Pefina Press - while I see that it appears in Google Scholar as being cited by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz and Peter Stachura, the publisher is listed as being based in Toronto, Chicago, and New York - but no website, phone number, or other info is otherwise available. A Worldcat search shows a single library holding a book from this press. This is not in compliance with one clause of the guideline: "published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses." Cited by these authors, yes, but not originally published by a peer-reviewed or academic press. Novickas (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User submitted source question

I have noticed that "Jam Base" is getting used a lot for citations here on Wikipedia in order to either show "Significant Coverage" or to verify facts. At first glance it seems ok but per Wikipedia policy on Self-published sources it seems to fall under open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources that are largely not acceptable. It is a combination of a social networking site and a fanzine/blog where fans of Jam Music can create an account and post stories either in a "article" form or in a "journal" form. From the sites "About Us" page it says, in part, "Established in 1998, JamBase has grown into a community of passionate live music fans over half a million strong." and "JamBase works closely with leading concert promoters and record labels like Live Nation, AEG-Live, Warner Brothers Records and Universal Records. Equally important is working closely with the best independent promoters, venues and labels worldwide." The FAQ section has information that points toward the "open wiki" scenario with answers such as "Since JamBase relies on user-generated content, no one person has control of artist pages. All of our users can submit content as long as they have a My JamBase account". This seems along the lines of the Wikipedia:Ownership of articles Policy. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. In terms of reliability, their article guideline suggests editorial review, at least now: "All submissions now work on at "pitch basis," meaning you must send an email pitch to the appropriate editor before covering an event, reviewing a CD or writing a feature. Only pieces pitched in advance will be considered for publication." I can't tell from that the degree to which "newswire tips" are vetted, but their reviews & articles may be okay. Newswire tips may cite to reliable sources, though they may not be themselves. The forum and "my jambase journal" would clearly be SPS. (I'm not sure what you mean with respect to WP:OWN, though.) Do you know anything about the general reputation of this website? Is it respected in the industry? Cited by respectable journalists? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In respect to Wikipedia Policy it states "You cannot stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you have posted it to Wikipedia." And on Jambase it says ""Since JamBase relies on user-generated content, no one person has control of artist pages. All of our users can submit content as long as they have a My JamBase account" In basic terms anyone can create an artist page on Wikipedia and the exact same goes for Jambase. The "editorial review" is akin to what Wikipedia does with it's guidlines but to a lesser degree. An editor could not write a "review" as an article on Wikipedia but we could for JamBase and all that needs to be done is to verify that a show actually happened. Beyond that is not much different than posting the same review on a blog except a blog can not be used as a "Significant source", Jambase currently is being used. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation for "common usage"

I am sorry, I cannot see how the book Roman Catholicism: The Basics, by Michael Walsh can be considered a reliable source for the statement in the article Roman Catholic Church: "In common usage 'catholic' refers to the body also known as Roman Catholic Church". On page 18, that book says: "'Catholic' is regularly also used in opposition to 'Protestant', and it is used also in opposition to the term 'Orthodox' ... In common usage, however, the matter is not quite so straightforward. ..." To me the book seems to disagree with the statement in support of which it is cited. But User:NancyHeise affirms that the citation is valid support for the statement, and that a consensus declares it to be so. Am I indeed wrong? Note that I am not questioning the statement, but only the use of this source as support for it. It may well be that I am putting this question in the wrong place. If I am, please forgive me, and let me know where I should post it. Soidi (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Reasoning dialogue, rather than mere declarations that the matter is already settled, has begun. The problem is solved. Soidi (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

H2G2

This is a BBC-sponsored endeavour which is self-contributed articles; problem is that although some of it is peer-reviewed (although we have no guarantees as to the quality of the reviewers), some of it is not. Arising from an editor seeking to use it as a source, a search shows we have about 900 references to it, some of which will be about h2g2, but some using it as a reliable source. I'm wondering if this has been looked at before, since it seems largely comparable with IMDb; your input would be welcome. If there is a reliable way of sorting the good from the poor, other sources should be sought if necessary. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 23:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Practically a wiki, with corresponding unreliability. I seem to recall one of the articles -- on the Taj Mahal -- quoting with approval P.N. Oak's batty theories. Avoid like the plague, I'd say. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of a commissioned but still unpublished paper

Please see [16] - this paper has not yet been published although I expect it will be published. My point is that it might be changed before publication, and we should not use pre-publication papers. (This article is extremely hard to edit if you are not a fan of the subject, by the way). Comments? Thanks. dougweller (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. Wait until the paper is actually published. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

A brief question, should WorldNetDaily be used as RS? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

For Verbal Diarrhoea? Sorry, that would be used as an example, not a source. It depends as a RS for what I guess. Got an example? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 12:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Can this be used as RS in the article Hindu Taliban? --Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say it depends as to whether World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty Commission is regarded as a reliable source on Christianity affairs in India, as this is who they source most of their material for this material from it seems. Is there anything to indicate that the WEA is a RS? On sensitive topics such as this, that would need to be established first. On a sidenote though, as a neologism, wouldn't this be best described as part of Christianity_in_India#Hindu-Christian_conflict? There would be more than enough material available in that a split of the Hindu-Christian conflict could be made, and all of this information provided; it would be my opinion it is probably best served in that regard so that it is possible to put all subject matter into context. What do you think about that? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 13:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I should avoid partisan source which is why I am not using WorldNetDaily. In American Taliban also no partisan source is used. I will use mainstream newspaper sources and scholarly sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ronn Torossian/5W Public Relations

Mosmof as a user and a few others are intent on destroying the bio of Ronn Torossian, a living person, and his firm 5W Public Relations. They abritarily say blogs arent reliable (when it comes to Sundance major celebrity events) and the richest man in Europe who 5WPR represents. When it comes to obscure Jewish issues, they cite bloggers endlessly. Pls. help and intervene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.103.203.218 (talk • contribs) 22:43, November 9, 2008

My position is that Jeffrey Goldberg's blog on the Atlantic Monthly's website is a perfectly reliable source for opinions held by Jeffrey Goldberg, who formerly wrote for The New Yorker and now writes for Atlantic.--Mosmof (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Source doesn't actually look much like a blog comment, more like a signed essay by a leading contributor, but I'm finding the Atlantic's website difficult to get a handle on. Is it perhaps a signed piece that is meant to generate comments by readers, like The Guardian's Comment is free? In this case it is probably RS, but do take especial care with a BLP. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a common setup in major US publications (not sure about papers in UK) - an op-ed columnist writes weekly columns that appear both in print and online, and would also post shorter, more frequent blog entries. Paul Krugman of the New York Times, for example, has his regular column and a blog. Both are subject to NY Times' editorial policies. I think the problem here is we don't always mean the same thing when we say "blog" - technically, it's just a publishing platform, and there isn't a great divide between bloggers and serious writers. It's just that the majority of bloggers are not notable and under editorial oversight, so as a shorthand, we say "blogs shouldn't be used as a source", but we mean bloggers who are self-published and of questionable notability. Mosmof (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

For about a year now, those of us who regularly answer questions on this noticeboard have recognized that there is a difference between an opinion piece that happens to be written in blog format, and is published under the editorial control of a major newspaper... and a self published Blog. We have also recognized that some self published Blogs are reliable (specifically those that have won major journalism awards). I think it may finally be time to amend the guideline, and spell out that certain (very limited) kinds of blogs that are acceptable.Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Listen, Administrator, editors who have not yet touched this page, please, take a look rationally. See passed the "credible sources" and the solid references. Understand that just because a reference is valid doesn't make the placement on Wikipedia right or acceptable. Mosmof says she or he is just being a good Wikipedian, but likes to put in "valid references" that show the downside and other bad issues. This user has become as obsessed with Torossian as the single article IP addresses users seem to be. Maybe the best course here is to take the page down. Maybe there is no need for Torossian to have a page. It is not unbiased, it is awful, and the editors seems to take great pains to make "valid" edits that show a history of bad, while the fact that the company and the CEO have clients, have staff, are well regarded by the hundreds of clients who use them should be worth something, yet the editors who destroy this page and the 5W page seem to think that 5 years of history is summed up by Jeff Goldberg and FailedMessiah - footnotes, not features. Footnotes my friends, not features. TLVEWR (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Mosmof is the same person who on 5W page removed consistent sourcing from blogs, including that of the largest newspaper in the Ukraine, and E Entertainment. What is not inconsistent in that matter ? Goldberg is a political pundit, very far on the extreme left vis a vis Israel and wasnt under Atlantic Monthly's auspicies. That said, would one publish what Artutz 7 (a right leaning Israeli blog) publishes re Ronn ? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.103.203.218 (talk

I was asked for a comment here. The Goldberg material is usable. He's not a blogger, but a columnist. As Blueboar said, many columns now appear in the format of blogs. /The miscellaneous reader write-in comments are generally unacceptable for BLP, and count only as old-fashioned letters to the editor-- unless that material is known to be edited under the responsibility of the publication and comes from an authority of some sort, but the opinion of a notable columnist are considered as if they were published as part of his print column in the magazine in the old-fashioned way. A great many news sources now call themselves blogs, but the actual news items at their head are news--the same goes for opinion. If it could be used if printed, it can be used here also, even for negative blp, if it appears under the byline of a noted columnist. Goldberg's piece in the Atlantic is therefore usable as opinion. But I don't see the point of using it just to source a general negative opinion, when there are specific things he said that would be more informative. He is a source, for example, that RT's clients typically represent RT's poliitical point of view. DGG (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I realize that the complaint is less about whether Goldberg's blog on Atlantic is a valid source for Goldberg's opinion, but more about my edits in general. And if the complaint is that I removed blog-sourced content from 5W Public Relations, probably this edit, and I'm somehow being inconsistent, then that complaint is misguided.

Sourcing was one of the problems, but not the only or the biggest. Certainly, the first three sources cited were an online video (what is the policy on using video, btw?), a forum, and a self-published blog. Those, I thought, were non-starters. The other two were Fox News and an E! blog, which wouldn't be inappropriate per se, but there was some serious WP:SYNTH going on - mentions of the agency's party at Sundance Festival were being used to support a claim that it had "top notch celebrity relationships" or some such. So we're comparing apples and oranges here.

And whatever inconsistency or injustice there might be doesn't excuse the sockpuppetry and constant whitewashing of negative opinion and unpleasant news from these articles. --Mosmof (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Public court records

Question about public court records, which are not available to the general public online (but can be viewed by the general public at the courthouse).

1 - are they deemed verifiable, or is verifiability of a source dependent on whether there is a hyperlink leading to it?

2 - are they deemed original research? And if so, how then how exactly do they become more worthy of citation by virtue of a third-party (i.e. a newspaper) reporting on them?

3 - if the answer depends on the purpose/content of the citation, where is the line drawn? (i.e. "Joe Blow was convicted of theft and sentenced to two years in prison" or "Jane Blow is scheduled to appear for sentencing on May 1st" or "Joe Blow sued Jane Blowhard for $100,000 for negligence").

4 - if they are permissible, what would be the appropriate citation format (particularly where the source cannot be hyperlinked)?

--Lawduck (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My view is that public court records are verifiable and valid for use - but they are primary sources so must be used carefully, as with any primary source. Original research can become an issue if an article makes an interpretation of the meaning or implications of the court records. A simple citation to establish the facts reported in the document would not be a problem. Citation format is not a reliable sources issue, check out WP:MOS or WP:CITE for that. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Extensive previous discussion has concluded that they should generally not be used, unless reported in a secondary source, particularly if they contain contentious material. Anyone can say anything they want in court, but unless it gains wider circulation, it's not appropriate for wikipedia. Ty 06:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant when I wrote that they are primary sources. In other words, it can be used to report what happened or was said in the court proceeding, but not to draw any conclusions about the content or accuracy of the reported statement or use it as support for anything other than a description of what happened during the court case. For example, it could be used to report that there was a conviction or acquittal in a particular case, that would be a valid use as a primary source.

If the prior discussion you mentioned disqualifies court records even as primary sources, I would be interested in reading that to update my understanding of the consensus on this. Do you happen to have a link to where it was discussed? Thanks... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no discussion. I reverted an edit in the Janine Lindemulder article due to BLP issues. I don't question the verifiability of the primary source claims. BLP frowns on editors digging into court records where no reliable secondary source has done so due to privacy reasons along with the idea that editors are not supposed to be reporters. This discussion should be in WP:BLPN. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This simply enhances the absurdity of any literal application the policy without considering context, and raises significant issues about the reliability of Wikipedia in general. Real information is banned because a newspaper (for example) hasn't reported on it yet. Being both a former journalist and current lawyer, I am painfully aware of the idiocy of relying on media to comprehend, much less properly report on, legal documents and proceedings. Yet, apparently, that same idiocy is the minimum threshold for acceptance. That's nonsense, and raises the very real spectre of Wikipedia knowingly providing false information. The specific case referenced above is a prime example. Court dockets (date, time, place) and charging decisions (i.e. title of crimes) are not open to debate or interpretation. The "reliable secondary source" relied on in the Wiki article in question is (1) out of date, (2) wrong, and (3) incomplete and inaccurate. But because it was wrongly reported in a secondary source, it passes muster. Go figure. Worse, the reversion to the edit, which updated the correct docketing information reflecting a continuance of the sentencing hearing to a later date, re-inserts information stating that sentencing will be done on a date now well in the past. Consequently, because an "editor" who apparently doesn't understand context decided that literal, if misguided, application of rules trumps truth and accuracy. This is bad. Very, very bad, and certainly precludes me from ever again relying on a Wiki entry as anything other than a starting point for further research, and even that with a very large grain of salt.Lawduck (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Chechenpress a reliable source?

An article by Alexander Litvinenko published by Chechenpress is being used in the Litvinenko article to engage in speculation by Litvinenko that Putin is a paedophile. I have removed the comments from the article, due to reasons which I have explained here and here. As I have explained in detail who Chechenpress is and who is behind it, it needs to be ascertained whether they can be regarded as a reliable source for purposes of WP, particularly when it involves a real, BLP issue. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 07:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Chechenpress is the website of a government in exile, just like for example the Tibetan government in exile. It seems reliable to me, also because Litvinenko was close to one of the key leaders of this government in exile.[17] Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

reliable means it has a history of fact-checking. I don't believe it does. The Daily Mail called the claims "sensational and unsubstantiated". Others have called many of Litvinenko's claims "wild". Opinions from uninvolved editors is requested. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Realiable in this case means that Litvinenko actually wrote said article, which he did. If his claims are true or not is completely unrelated, because his claims aren't presented as fact, but as "litvinenko accused putin of..." and are only presented on litvinenko's biography. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a perfectly reliable source of articles written by Litvinenko. According to many other sources, including books, Litvinenko collaborated with Chechen government in exile and published numerous materials in their press.Biophys (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is yet another case where we need to make the distinction between a source being reliable for a statement of opinion vs a source being reliable for a statement of fact. Chechenpress is a reliable source for the attributed statement: "According to Alexander Livinenko, Putin is a Paedophile" or "Alexander Livinenko has accused Putin of being a paedophile". But Chechenpress is not a reliable source for the blunt statement: "Putin is a paedophile". Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Biophys (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Blueboar's comment also. This type of use requires attribution, but the source is reliable for reporting that Alexander Livinenko stated the allegation. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. It is only a "reliable source" to demonstrate the existence of the claim/article. It is not a reliable source for information contained in the article, as it does not have a demonstrated history or reputation of fact-checking, which is one of the key components of WP:V and WP:RS.

Everyone agreed that this is a reliable source per WP:RS. No one disputed their fact checking policy. Everyone also agreed that proper attribution to the source and author of the publication is required, as always.Biophys (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, you have misunderstood what has been said. It can be used as a reference to his claim actually existing, but it most certainly can not be used as a WP:RS as to the veracity of the claims therein. For if it was a RS for the claims, we would be writing "Putin is a paedophile" as a matter of fact, rather than reverting back to WP:BLP in order to ensure that nothing that can be regarded as libel against a living person is present in the article. Therein lies the difference. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 01:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski as a reliable source

Is Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski a reliable source in history articles? List of WP articles that cite him: [18]. He is not a historian by training; the advantage of being an amateur is the lack of professional accountability. Sample statements from his website: "The author, Jeff Sarlet is so far the only journalist who succeeded in documenting the activities of the hidden elite, headquartered in Arlington, on the outskirts of Washington DC, “The Family,” at the core of American fundamentalist Protestant power, was originally created along the lines of European fascism in 1935 by Abraham Vereide, who organized the wealthy internationalist elite...They have had an enormous impact on the beliefs of Americans in the 20th century and on U.S. imperialist policy in the 21st century, through their secret machinations which have been unsuspected by most Americans." [19]. Yikes. Novickas (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that citations of this author could be reliable or not. They would have to be evaluated individually. For example, who published the book or article? If it is a publisher with a good reputation for fact checking and overall academic quality, that would support reliability. On the other hand, his essay on his own website, such as the one you posted the diff for, is self-published and therefore not reliable as a source - unless he is clearly a notable expert as recognized by other reliable sources. That does not appear to be the case but would need more research to determine for sure. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

guardian.co.uk/blog

guardian.co.uk is a reliable source. Are posts on guardian.co.uk blog by Tom Service (home) such as this one also reliable? It is a blog, but published by a reliable source. Is it a usable source?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 23:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It would depend largely on whether or not the blog posts were subject to editoral oversight, and whether the posts were fact-oriented or opinion-oriented. I know there's a guideline that addresses newspaper-hosted blogs somewhere, but I can't seem to find it at the moment. the skomorokh 23:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That's correct, it's addressed in WP:Verifiability, differentiating newspaper-published blogs from "personal and group blogs.", as follows:

Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested ..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

That text is in footnote 5 of the policy page as of the current time-stamp. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you a lot for your great answer! One question more: The author is Tom Service. BBC says about him:

Tom Service was born in 1976 in Glasgow. He studied music at the University of York, took a Masters at the University of Southampton, and completed a doctorate there on the music of John Zorn. He writes about music for the Guardian, and is a regular contributor to the BBC Music Magazine, Opera, and Tempo. His articles have appeared in books and music dictionaries, and in journals in France and Germany. He teaches at Trinity College of Music, and has given pre-concert talks and written programme notes for many of the festivals, orchestras, and opera companies in the UK. He began broadcasting on Radio 3 on Hear and Now in 2001, becoming one of the show's regular presenters, and has presented Music Matters since the autumn of 2003.

This is an evidence for his professionality. But how do I find out whether the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 18:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think I got it: guardian.co.uk Terms of service:

Disclaimer of liability

To the extent permitted at law, we do not accept any responsibility for any statement in the material. You must not rely on any statement we have published on guardian.co.uk without first taking specialist professional advice. Nothing in the material is provided for any specific purpose or at the request of any particular person

Is this the answer?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 19:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My take is that these signed pieces that spark off comments by readers are exactly as reliable as feature articles in the newspaper. They are virtually always opinion rather than fact. Another way to approach this particular case is that Tom Service is an academic who presumably publishes in a variety of peer-reviewed outlets, and that this counts as academic-writing-in-blog. It seems to be a review of a concert, he is as suitable a person to review concerts as any, and so long as opinion and fact aren't confused, then this counts as RS. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The paper has to take responsibility for these pieces as publisher since they commission the writer to do them, as opposed to the subsequent reader responses, where they could presumably claim merely to be the "carrier", not the publisher. They commission people who they consider are suitably qualified to pronounce on the relevant subject, and there are not likely to be gross factual errors. I would see the pieces to be fairly sound as sources. Ty 04:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's my understanding as well. In the early days of blogs, they were all personal, so the blog as a format was considered an inherently unreliable source. But now the blog format is just one more way that information is presented by both reliable and unreliable sources. So to determine if a particular blog is reliable or not as a source, the publisher along with their editorial policy and reputation are the key. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Flags of the World website

Would the Flags of the World website be considered a reliable source? They list an editorial staff, display an ISSN identifier here, and feature an extensive bibliography section. I have used this website in an article that is currently a featured article candidate and the reliability of the source has been questioned. Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Although a web site written and edited by amateur hobbyists, as FOTW seems to be, would not usually be considered a reliable source, I think FOTW should qualify at least as a somewhat reliable source. In particular, it (or its editors) have been cited in mainstream media and other reliable sources, such as The Economic Times, Voice of America News, and a book published by Wesleyan University Press. Furthermore, the site has been in existence for 14 years and attributes its articles to their authors. Finally, the site does cite references as to where it got its information, and those sources are generally reliable. In the case of the featured article candidacy, it appears that the information being cited currently to FOTW was derived by FOTW from National Geographic Magazine, so that information should be confirmed by looking at the magazine itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Video as primary source

If I take a video of someone famous being interviewed, i.e. http://www.screenwritingexpo.com, can I cite it later as a primary source? –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Depends what you want to use it for. "Fred Bloggs described the mating behavior of frogs in January" should be OK, but it's not alright to say "Fred Bloggs's observations of frogs mating in January proves that global warming has reached Alaska". PR^talk 19:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is a another question here... an editor using his/her own self-created video might constitute a No Original Resarch violation. you should ask at WT:NOR Blueboar (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to be more specific. I am going to the 2008 Screenwriting Expo in Los Angeles, where notable movie and TV writers give seminars, interviews or panels. I am hoping to film executive producers/writers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse as they discuss the TV show Lost. If I post this video on the Internet, may I cite it as it is an original source (an interview with the creative/production team behind a television show) in an article about the television show? –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. It could fall under OR if you asked the questions, SYN if you took someone else's video and recapped the words etc. Consider the text equivalent: If you or someone else wrote a transcript and cited it on your or their own blog, it would not be RS either, so in this case it likely makes no difference whether it is a video or not. IMHO. Collect (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A transcript cannot be verified, though. And doesn't recapping someone from a video fall under "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning"? Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It well might. I suppose I should have said "a transcript from what is notmally considered RS"? I think videos, in general, fail the RS test. Collect (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, this was dealt with previous regarding interviews for Wikinews. I believe in that case, after much discussion, the interviews were allowed, but I may be wrong. As for a video interview produced by an otherwise reliable site, like ABC news, it'd certainly be a reliable source for the statements made by the interviewee. It wouldn't require a transcript, but if the video goes off the web, and if there's no reliably published transcript, then it's no longer verifiable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This issue arises in other articles as well, so this is an important discussion. For example, where a "youtube" video of part of an event is posted, but has been edited so that much of the event is not included, can that video be used as RS for the event and the nature of the event? With or without a transcript? Collect (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's going beyond the original question, which concerned interviews. If there was an appearance of editing that skewed the content, that'd be a concern, but that can happen with transcripts as well. As for your broader question, describing the nature of an event based on a video would tend to get into OR, depending on many variables. If the video shows a bunch of people running around, it might be OR to call it a riot. OTOH, if it's a clip from CNN and the bottom crawl describes it as a riot then that wouldn't be OR. As I say, they are many variables that would need to be considered in using a video as a source for an event. But interviews are much simpler. If the identity of the interviewee is clear, and if his words are clear, then reporting those words based on a verifiable video should be OK. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals

Here's a blog post with a couple of links about Elsevier’s Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals. Also posted at the Fringe theories Noticeboard. Anybody familiar with these issues? Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to wait on that one. There's definitely a scandal brewing - it's currently the talk of the science skeptics circuit - but no sign so far of it being discussed anywheere except mathematical physics blogs. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the Daily Mail a reliable source

Is the Daily Mail a reliable source or a tabloid.It was a broadsheet paper now being published in tabloid format.One article which is being used is this [20].Can you please clarify on this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

American usage of "tabloid" is not just a function of format. The NY Daily News, for example, is a "tabloid" in format, but used as RS in WP. Rather, the American usage is to refer to the most lurid supermarket "newspapers" (generally issued weekly) which carry no "hard news." Papers which have "Jimmy Smoots' Secret Love Affair" in large red letters are what are not usable as RS. The Daily Mail carries stock tables, hard news etc. and is certainly RS. The article on it, however, looks like it needs a lot of work! Collect (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that tabloid-format dailies are generally reliable, the New York tabloids tend to have looser editorial standards and a penchant for sensationalism. The New York Post likes do the big bold punny headlines, and uses pejoratives like "sicko" in its articles, so you'd have to be more careful about what you pull from the Post or NYDN. And even in the UK, there's a clear difference in standards between the traditional broadsheets and the tabloids - The Sun's coverage of the Hillsborough disaster comes to mind. I realize the Daily Mail isn't going to suddenly turn in to the News of the World, but I think it's worth keeping in mind that it's not just a matter of printing format. --Mosmof (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Even the NY Times has used puns in headlines at times. The NYPost is considered a RS by WP standards as its actual articles do conform to normal standards. As for low standards, try looking at the papers from the late 1890s. Collect (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean that puns were necessarily a bad thing - it's just that the Post often uses pejorative or presumptuous descriptors for the sake of pun or sensationalism. I think it's perfectly fine for verifying facts, but phrases like "pervy pol", which would never make a hard news story on a paper of record, shouldn't be pulled as quotes or as statements of facts. --Mosmof (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you name any mass-market paper which has not used any "colorful" language? Usually the pun is in the headline, not the text of the article. Collect (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be good to find other sources corroborating the story. I wouldn't cite it extensively, or without attribution, if it's the only such story around. The Daily Mail is so-so. Jayen466 17:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not find any archives which found the Daily Mail not to be RS, but it took a while. All contentious claims should have a second cite, but that is widely not followed. Collect (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jayen466 - it's 'so-so'. Anyone know anything about the actual reporter? I've seen some really fringe stuff in it in the fields of history and archaeology (not news articles). Anything like this shouldn't rely on the Daily Mail alone. dougweller (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Mail gets sued quite regularly. It often ends up having to issue an apology or retraction and pay damages. [21] [22] [23] [24] etc. That's not what one would hope for from a first-class encyclopedic source. Jayen466 17:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, from my perspective, the Daily Mail coverage of medical and scientific issues is atrocious, on a good day. A wise man once noted that they're on a crusade to divide every susbtance known to man into those that cause cancer and those that cure cancer. It's not categortically unreliable, but should definitely be taken with a grain of salt and vetted on a case-by-case basis. I would be very hesitant to use it as the sole source for tabloid-like claims in a WP:BLP - after all, Wikipedia is not (supposed to be) a tabloid. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The related discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 19#Daily Mirror might be of interest as well. My take on the Mail is that it's semi-reliable. There are certain areas in which I would not trust it at all (medicine and history/archaeology have rightly been mentioned). However, its general news reporting, other than on UK politics - on which it's highly slanted - is of quite a good standard. The specific item quoted by the original poster is a piece by its foreign correspondents; I see no reason not to regard that as a reliable source. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom a reliable source?

In the Alexander Litvinenko article, I have used a source from the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom to provide various information into the article. The report is published by the CSRC, and the author of the piece I am quoting is named Henry Plater-Zyberk, a senior lecturer and analyst of the CSRC. He is well regarded as a specialist in this area, and as a scholar has published and been cited, both in scholarly works and books. There is no doubt that both the CSRC and the author are reliable sources by the letter of WP:RS. An editor is now removing sourced information from the article, because Plater-Zyberk in his work is critical of Litvinenko and because all CSRC publications carry the disclaimer:

The views expressed in this paper are entirely and solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect official thinking and policy either of Her Majesty’s Government or of the Ministry of Defence.

It is the opinion of the editor that this is an editorial due to the existence of this disclaimer.

Note in the information introduced into the article that I have not placed information stating that this is the view of the British government, nor of the Ministry of Defence. Such disclaimers are standard when experts in their field are employed by a government and they write on subjects in their field of expertise.

The report in question can be found here.

Can others please confirm or deny that these are reliable sources. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"The views expressed in this paper are entirely and solely those of the authors" This indicates that we're dealing with an editorial. It's ok to use objective information from that article, in that case it is a reliable source, but for example how he calls Litvinenko a "one-man disinformation bureau" is merely the editors opinion. There's also scholars who described Vladimir Putin as someone who accuses and prosecutes people without evidence, yet you don't present that as fact either, let alone put it in the articles lead. Grey Fox (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note, Grey Fox is the editor I have mentioned. The problem is he has only removed "unproven" from the lead (ok, that word may go), but he has removed much more information which is critical of Litvinenko, and the way the media dealt with his claims. As I have explained to said editors, WP is not a memorial, advocacy, etc, we are an encyclopaedia where all views get presented within the confines of policy. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You're now talking about the Advanced Research and Assessment Group as CSRC has now been absorbed into that body. The process that the papers published go through is pretty rigorous, but the questions asked to initiate the paper can be quite open, hence the caveats.

As ever you need to be clear about what you're using the publication for and where in the article you're using it. Where you're extrating something that appears to be opinion, then attribute it in text.

ALR (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look at the information introduced, the citations have been completely attributed, both within the text and references. As I said above, the "unproven" in the lead can go, but leave the reference there. Is that a fair thing? Or does that assertion in the lead (without "unproven") need a citation at all? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's way to WP:POINTish to put something like "unproven" in the lead. Not only did Litvinenko provide evidence of some sort for his allegations, he was also murdered and therefore unable to continue providing evidence. Grey Fox (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You ask the question is ARAG reliable?. Generally yes, inasmuch as any government political and military research facility is reliable. The issue will always be around how one wishes to use the source. No source should ever be given an absolute label of reliability whichever direciton it tends.

ALR (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry ALR, I missed this reply from you. I absolutely totally agree with you. I don't believe the way it has been cited in the article is indicative of the absolute label of reliability, as that would lead to an inherent POV, which just isn't on. As stated, it needs to be made clear it is opinion of so-and-so, and attribute it as such. You can be sure that before I jumped into this article, I resolved myself keeping the absolute NPOV line. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, the ARAG acts much like any scientific journal, where even though the journal states that the opinions are those of the author, by publishing the article, it furnishes a presumption of reasonableness. This falls into the use of a person acknowledged as an expert on a topic by the ARAG. Trying to separate "editorial opinion" from "expert opinion" is not a simple issue. Collect (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The way that I see it is, this person is employed in a government institution, and is charged with helping to frame the minds of future British military leaders. Although he is not speaking on behalf of the British government or the UK MOD, the fact that he is recognised as an expert in his field and published by that government institution, says words about how suitable he is as a WP:RS. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It certainly goes a long way towards implying that the authors are reliable... but given the explicit disclaimer, I agree that attribuion is the way to go. In other words... the source in question is solidly reliable for a statement of opinion, but questionable for a statement of fact. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And it was clearly attributed in the article as one can see here. Or is it not attributed clearly enough in your opinion?, as that can be easily fixed. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain it to you Russavia, you're now using the opinion of an author because it matches your opinion of Litvinenko whom you think was a nutcase as you admitted yourself. However if that's how wikipedia works it could also work against you. For example in another article on the same site from the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom an author speaks about Chechen genocide commited by Russia[25] I don't think you would agree if I start presenting that as fact now under the disguise of a reliable source now right? No, because these are merely opinions from an author, not necessarily facts. Grey Fox (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me respond to that. I must say, that for a western, in particular a British, source writing about Russia in such an objective fashion is not only rare, but absolutely refreshing. I have gone thru a lot of their reports already and have no qualms with them being used as a source at all. So if you want to use it as a source for atrocities committed by Russians in Chechnya, then go ahead and do so. Unlike some, I do not believe that Putin (and Russians in general) eat babies for breakfast, but at the same time I realise that Russia is not a perfect country and some criticism is warranted. This being an encyclopaedia means that we bring objectivity to anything that we as editors place on this site, and although we all have our own opinions (which I readily admit to, unlike many others), we can not allow our own opinions to guide how we edit, but we edit inline with WP:FIVE. So, as Putin himself retorted in reply to Cheney's criticism, your reasoning above was "an unsuccessful hunting shot". --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

An additional comment if I may. You comment "No, because these are merely opinions from an author, not necessarily facts." May I point you towards the kew policy on WP; WP:V, which states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." If fact were to be the threshold, then I can say that the Litvinenko article would be quite bare, because nothing is "fact"; it's all "allegations this" and "accusations that", but no facts. You can't have it both ways I am afraid, so you have to decide here and now, do we follow WP:V, or do we ignore that policy and work on facts only, because I can guarantee that if we were to decide that we do that, and I go and blank the entire page apart from a brief bio, that I would have accusations thrown at me from every angle. But no, I am a firm believer in WP:V and WP:FIVE, not of "facts". --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you would agree to putting how Putin is responsible for genocide in the lead section of his article, right? Or how that's the conclusion of the "Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom". Yes wikipedia works with veriebility, but it also works with a lot of other policies such as Avoid editorial opinion. I'm glad there are, because I think readers should themselves drawn their own conclusion and not have it chewed out by cherry picked scholars or journalists. Grey Fox (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I have stated, all that needs to be done is to remove "unproven". If the rest of that sentence in the lead requires a citation, it can possibly act as a citation. If the rest of the sentence in the lead does not require a citation, then remove the citation. But as to the rest of the article, it is verifiable information, and has been attributed correctly to the author. I believe you are missing the entire point of how WP operates. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The materials are not a subject to a peer review if I understand correctly. Hence this is mostly an opinion piece, something like an editorial.Biophys (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Henry Plater-Zyberk is but an author of the one piece in question. The entire publication is edited by Dr Andrew Monaghan, who is a Global Fellow of the Foreign Policy Centre, and a visiting lecturer at the Defence Academy of Great Britain. He holds an MA in War Studies from the Department of War Studies at King's College, London and wrote his PhD on Russia-EU relations. So it is a safe bet that this is peer reviewed. In any case, I can assure you that it is reviewed more than this fabulous source and this ever reliable source, yet they are found plastered all over WP. I think its time to stop with the "editorial" line, and fess up as to why you both really don't want, what 3 uninvolved editors have stated is a reliable source with attribution. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Uhm no, what they said was that it was indeed an editorial and his opinions should not be presented as fact. What we can use from the article is objective information. As for the sources you're now making fun of, they are not used for stating opinions but for publishing statements and biographies of involved parties and such. That's completely different. Grey Fox (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No, they have not stated any such thing. They have stated, and I am paraphrasing, the source qualifies as a reliable source, the authors position can be used to demonstrate he is an expert in his field, and it is up to us as editors how we use that information and that it can be used with attribution. Additionally, the information has not been presented as fact, blind freddy can see that. The only problem is, is that the information is critical and this takes away from the "memorial"-like article, you yourself stated you wanted. People who make extraordinary claims, are going to receive a lot of flack in return, and its our "job" as WP editors to present all sides of the story in an NPOV way, and not allow unfounded claims of every order used in order not to include information. I've seen too much flip-flopping on this article by both of you, and it's getting somewhat irritating now. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's cleary mentioned how "the source in question is solidly reliable for a statement of opinion, but questionable for a statement of fact", and your version of the page clearly presents the authors opinion as a fact, as well as that it's supposedly the conclusion of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom while it's only the opinion of a single author. Also any flip-flopping of the article can be attributed to your persistent and cocksure behaviour, as well as disregard for the 3rr rule. You don't seem to be willing at all to co-operate with other editors (on this article that is). Grey Fox (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at what was written:

A report by the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, in which the author states that Litvinenko was a "one-man disinformation bureau", suggests the claim was made with "no evidence to support" it, and further stated that this claim, and Litvinenko's claim that the FSB was behind the Beslan school hostage crisis, was accepted without challenge by the British media.

Just where is the statement of fact here? It is obvious it is his opinion. It could do with a little copy-edit, but to remove it without an actual attempt to reword it yourself, and all other sourced claims to this, on the basis of flimsy excuses that I have seen both here and on the talk page, is not quite excusable. As to the Armenian shooting, you are still going to claim that it was the authors opinion that Litvinenko claimed it was ostensibly to derail the Nagorno-Karabakh peace agreement? Even when presented with this source which states:

"Pursuing certain political aims, the Russian special services often turn to subversive activity. Many know in highest echelons of Russia's special services that the shooting of the Armenian parliament in 1999 was organized by RMR. This sabotage enabled Russia's political elite to prevent signing of the agreement on Karabakh settlement. If I am not mistaken, it was said that president Aliyev and Kocharian were to sign a memorandum at the Istanbul summit of OSCE. The peaceful process was developing aloof from Russia's control and that made Russian special services to carry out the special mission in the Armenian parliament", Litvinenko told Real Azerbaijan online newspaper.

Can you now see that your and Biophys' "editorial" line just doesn't cut it. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well let's first start with how the paragraph shouldn't start with "A report by the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom" but instead with "According to Andrew Monaghan". You should drop the part where he calls Litvinenko a "one-man disinformation bureau". That's the part which is truly just the authors opinion, with that line he discredits all of Litvinenko's books and work. It's not a fact because does he have a proof that Litvinenko's allegations are all "disinformation" or "lies"? No, that's just his own guess. The part that says "he made the allegation without providing evidence" is alright, but rather useless since Litvinenko was not able to provide evidence if he had any because he was murdered not long after. Grey Fox (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with including the statement if attributed as follows: "According to Andrew Monaghan, in a report he wrote for the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, 'Litvinenko was a one man disinformation bureau.'" This reliably reflects the fact that the statement is simply Monaghan's opinion, but also accurately points out where he stated it. Blueboar (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that but where does it end? We can add 75 opinions from a various amount of scholars, but is that what we're after on wikipedia? And assuming we're not, then how do we select which ones to use to avoid random and cherry picked opinions? Grey Fox (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It ends at the point where what remains are opinions that are not “notable”. —SlamDiego_←T 13:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And where the various sources share similar POVs ... we can choose which ones to use. We attempy to determine which of the sources best represent a given viewpoint, and use the ones are the most reliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SlamDiego about not placing non-notable content to WP articles. We should also place factual information rather tha opinions. If someone tells: "this man is a lier" (as in the example by Russavia) - that represent merely a slander and non-encyclopedic content. However if someone tells: "this man has been caught with promoring such and such proven disinformation", that could be a content deserving to be included to an article. This is not a matter of the source.Biophys (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

How is "In various interviews Litvinenko accused the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General-Staff of the Russian armed forces had organised the 1999 Armenian parliament shooting that killed Prime Minister of Armenia Vazgen Sargsyan, ostensibly to derail the peace process which would have resolved the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, but he offered no evidence to support the accusation. an opinion? As demonstrated above, Litvinenko did claim it was to rerail the peace process, and here we have a scholar in a peer-reviewed journal stating that he claimed that it was to derail the peace process, and stated that he offered no evidence to support the accusation. Here is another article which states "The bombing of four Russian apartment buildings in 1999 that left hundreds dead; the Moscow theater siege that killed 129 people; the 2004 explosion on the Moscow metro that killed dozens of commuters -- all the work of one of the KGB's post-Soviet successors, the Federal Security Service (FSB), according to Litvinenko. He once contended that Osama bin Laden's right-hand man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was trained by the FSB in 1998 before mysteriously being released to organize attacks against the United States. Even last year's controversy over the publication in a Danish newspaper of editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Mohammed, he claimed, was orchestrated by the FSB to punish Denmark for its refusal to extradite Chechen separatists. None of it could ever be proved, of course, but Litvinenko knew that the secret to good conspiracy theories is that they feed on the absence of proof. And the more outlandish the claim, the harder it may be to disprove." And there are plenty more sources which state as such. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 08:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Kavkaz Center - a reliable source?

As it's just been brought up, it would be nice to know if it really qualifies as a reliable source. Lots of links [26] eg Camp Eggers. I don't see how it can be seen as a RS if the article on it is correct. The BBC calls it a 'Chechen rebel website'. [27] dougweller (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not an official website for the chechen rebels and it's a rather extremist website, so no it's not a reliable source, but it's used for image material and statements from rebel leaders etc. The site is also often cited in the news, but always with a prefix such as "according to Kavkaz Center"Grey Fox (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The only article I've looked at is the Camp Eggers one, and there it is used as a source for the CIA using a particular hotel, nothing about rebels. dougweller (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It would not be a good source no, but it's publishing a message from Al Jazeera, so the actual source for the article is Al Jazeera. Grey Fox (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And how about Battle of Hill 776 where it is used to source this: "The Chechen separatist news agency Kavkazcenter claims in losing only 12 men killed on the Hill 776 and 13 more in related fighting in the area near the villages of Ulus-Kert and Selmentauzen at the time, including three Turkish volunteers.[10][11] They claim Russian losses at up to 200 killed, including about 100 "so-called Pskov commandos".[12]" That's different from the Camp Eggers use, but I'm still not clear if it can be used like that. In Said-Magomed Kakiyev it's used as though it's an ordinary RS, no suggestion as to what it is. Here [28] it's actually used as a source for what a French press agency reported!.

Kavkaz Center is also used by media such as the bbc for when they post casualty numbers, such as here: [29] Like I said, their reports should be taken with a grain of salt, but they often publish reports of guerrilla leaders and such. Casualty numbers from Russian officials during warfare are also not considered reliable (such as also stated in that same afp link), still they are posted, but not as fact. Grey Fox (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly ok to use Kavkaz Center to source the fact that Kavkaz Center itself has made certain claims, as above. It would not be ok to use it to show that these claims are true, but it is not used in such a way. Colchicum (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The use in the article refers to a report by Human Rights Watch and a New York times article anyway, so it would be better to source from them directly. The final paragraph of the interrogation holding section is editorial opinion and should probably be removed.

ALR (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Is a tour guide commentary a reliable source?

I would appreciate an opinion here whether commentaries provided by tour guides/tour guest lecturers are a reliable source. The argument for is that these people are often experts on the subject; the argument against is that no record of the commentary exists and the content is therefore unverifiable. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If there's no record, a verbal commentary isn't even a published source; and I agree with the argument about the unverifiabiity (WP:V specifies that readers should be able to "find the text that supports the article content in question"). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've used tour guides that are indeed experts, and others that make it up as they go along. Even if published it wouldn't necessarily be a RS. dougweller (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

True (local ones here quite often repeat apocryphal stories like folk etymologies for placenames). If the information's solid, it'll be published somewhere anyway. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Two separate issues. "Tour guides" are frequently chosen more as entertainers than anything else. On different tours of the same sites, I have heard widely disparate statements of "fact." "Guest lecturers" are a whole different kettle of fish. They may work from printed materials, and are as valid as any other lecturers (costs of such tours tend to be high). They often are noted professors from major universities, and in such cases the material they present is beyond reproach (especially for ones who provide printed notes). Check and see if the "guest expert" has written on the subject, you will likely find what you wish to cite. Collect (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Published information from tourist locations, particularly pamphlets and promotional materials, should be considered for the source and nature of statement. A cave owned by a commercial business offering tours whose promotional materials claim the cave was a hideout of Jesse James should not be considered to have as much credibility as a Smithsonian pamphlet claiming a particular picture was painted in 1548. Readin (talk) 12:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that tour guides are not reliable. On the other hand... there should be no problem with including a short statement to the effect that: "According to local tradition, the cave was used as a hideout by outlaw Jesse James <cite to promotional pamphlet writen by owner of cave>". The key is not to give the claim all that much weight. Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

http://townhall.com/

How reliable is this site? --neon white talk 13:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Mixed... parts are reliable, and parts are not. Much will depend on exactly what you are trying to use the source to support. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The site is mostly opinion columns. It looks like the columnists are mostly mainstream and respected, but they provide opinion, not investigative journalism. They're facts are usually going to be correct, but not always. Since they are simply offering opinion on news they've read, you should be able to find a better source for any information you find there. So if you find something on that site that you think is worth mentioning, it's probably correct information but you should really search for that same information from another source - and if the information is correct you should have no trouble finding it. Readin (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The news is usable (almost all from AP, in fact.) And news makes up a lot of the site. Since the articles are AP, they are citable. They are not "simply offering opinion on news they've read." Opinions are ... opinions, and generally marked as such. When citing them, treat them as opinion. Townhall.com is more reliable than Salon, not as reliable as The NY Times. But even the NY Times can be unreliable -- what you are claiming in a RS is that the facts are generally right and subject to editorial oversight. If you look for AP, you will likely find the exact same articles. Collect (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Collect is right. I missed that there were news articles on the page. The columnists have a significant presence and should be treated as I described above. But the news articles are as reliable as their source. Readin (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to take this...editor admits sources fail V/RS but wants them still

I've got a situation here and I'm not quite sure how to handle this guy. Talk:Konglish#Konglish_References. He seems have immediately gone to a position of WP:IDHT and basically seems to be flat-out refusing to listen to the fact that what he wants violates numerous policies. He even admits early in the discussion that the sources don't pass WP:V, but thinks he can create a local consensus to ignore that, even though I've pointed out WP:CONSENSUS doesn't permit that. Since this involves WP:RS in a way, perhaps if one or two people could go there and further explain it, it might become more clear. The references basically consist of random blogs and (I kid you not) things like images..without text.. for example the citation for the korean word for "couple shirt" (meaning a couple wearing a similar shirt/outfit) was just a picture of two people wearing the same shirt..no text, no evidence of the word, spelling, meaning, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This Answers.com article

• http://www.answers.com/topic/idemitsu-kosan-co-ltd

The article appears to be based on a Hoover's Profile and the Gale Group's International Directory of Company Histories. Both those seem to be reliable sources, but how about the Answers.com article? Of course it would be better if I could go directly to the original sources, but they appear to be quite expensive. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Sounds like the same question I asked above: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Encyclopedia_content_hosted_on_Answers.com_and_Highbeam_.28encyclopedia.com.29. It never really got an entirely definitive answer. Perhaps we'll get there second time round? For my part, I'd say follow Squidfryerchef's advice, at the bottom of the thread above. Cite the original work, and cite answers.com to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Jayen466 21:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Find a RS with Hoovers on it and cite that. Answers.com is very weak as RS for sure! Your local library probably has hard copies of what you need as well -- WP does allow cites of real books <g>. Collect (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Where answers.com quotes an original source, you can cite the original and use answers as a "convenience link" to the text. For example, if answers.com quotes the "Ultimate Dictionary" for the definition of the word "dweegle" (a made up source and word just to use as an example), you would cite it as: "Definition of 'dweegle' from the Ultimate Dictionary, Mega Publishing Co, New York, 1985 - as quoted on answers.com" (and link the word answers.com to the definition on answers.com).

Of course, if there is a better source, use that insead. Also... have you considered going to a library... you do not have to own the source to cite it. Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

IFcomp.org reliable?

http://ifcomp.org/ is the web site for the Interactive Fiction Competition. It is a relatively small competition, but has been recognized by sites including The Wall Street Journal, Hackszine published by O'Reilly Media, Destructoid published by ModernMethod, Slashdot (article) published by SourceForge, Inc., Joystiq (article) published by Weblogs, Inc., mediabistro published by Jupitermedia, GameSetWatch published by Think Services, and the book the book Twisty Little Passages. As such I think it's a notable enough to include in articles about interactive fiction, limited to claims that the competition itself is reliable on: rules, who competed, and final results. For example, in the article Floatpoint, one might claim:

"Floatpoint won first place in the 2006 Interactive Fiction Competition[30] with an average score of 8.41[31], making it the highest scoring game game from 1999 through 2008.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]"

The competition is third-party to the subject of the article, but first-party to the specific claims. While first-party, they are the most authoritative source for the information; all any third-party source could do is reprint the claims. This would be like sourcing claims about a film winning an Oscar to http://oscar.com/oscarnight/winners/index . As such, I think the citations would be reliable and appropriate. Obviously there is disagreement, or I wouldn't be inquiring. (If the previous link is a bit overwhelming, but you want to check out the discussion, you might start here. where a fourth editor joined the discussion.) So, is IFComp.org a reliable source for claims about the competitions rules, competitors, and final results? — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Creation_according_to_Genesis

Can someone please help us assess the reliability of some sources at Talk:Creation_according_to_Genesis#Tjbergsma.27s_edits. please? At the moment it's 1 vs. 1 so we're not really getting anywhere. Cheers, Ben (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, a Bible comment by an evangelical group that assumes biblical inerrancy is not remotely a reliable source for mainstream scholarly opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber New York Times "rejected" as a source

Now the silliness in JtP has reached the point where the New York Times is "rejected" as a source for calling Joe tha Plumber a plumber. "I've reread it too. Everything in the NY Times citation that Collect refers to seems to be based on Joe's testimony. We know that just because the NY Times regurgitates Joe's presentation of himself isn't enough for a RS. That's tantamount to self-promotion. Also, more neutral sources don't depend on Joe's testimony. Certainly no one expects Joe to come out and independently and impartially proclaim that he has been working on an apprenticeship since 2003 and has no independent plumbing license. Only an independent, neutral source is likely to do so. Collect, it seems we have to reject the citation on that basis, even though it is definitely from the honorable NY Times. VictorC (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC) " " OK. Well in case anyone's paying attention, let's reject Collect's citation from the NY Times. I have three possible reasons for this: 1) There are more recent citations; 2) The reason we are using the citation is based on Joe's statements - not an impartial source - and; 3) The statements are among the quotes from Joe that he is "getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year,” that he "told Mr. Obama he has been a plumber for 15 years," the first of which has been debunked as not too reliable, the second of which Collect is basing his RS on. So, I propose that this source is no longer reliable: 1) it's outdated; 2) it's not based on an impartial source; 3) the source has been shown to have dubious reliability. If we can agree to drop this specific NY Times citation, let's agree on using a different source. Let's find one that's more up to date; uses a more impartial source (than the individual himself); and shows itself to be less dubious. VictorC (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)"

This is a tad inane since these folks rejected the opinions in WP:BLP/N that Joe the Plumber is a plmber as far as "occupation" is concerned -- so now they have to reject the NYT mainly because it does not agree with what the few people want it to say. Now the issue is this -- is not liking what a RS says a valid reason for "rejecting" it? Collect (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

1)Ignore. 2)Ignore. 3)Ignore. All done. 'This is a diminutizing adjective - ridicule since... -- so now accusation of at best self-delusion and at worst fraud. Now the real issue that you'll waste valuable time answering is 4)repeat accusation. Anarchangel (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't have a dog in this particular fight over "sources" but before anyone gets drawn into this, be warned that this will get messy. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Occupation_of_Joe_the_Plumber and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#is_Joe_the_Plumber_a_.22nickname.22_or_a_.22sobriquet.22. Mattnad (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, but you do indeed have multiple dogs in the article talk page <g>. Collect (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey dog, how's it going. Collect's the big dog in these debates, and he's like a dog with bone when it comes to making a point - doggone it.Mattnad (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Since this is the noticeboard for reliable source issues, we're not going to decide here if Joe is a plumber or not. We already know that the New York Times a reliable source in general, so the question for this forum as far as I can tell is: is there some reason the New York Times should be disqualified from use as a source in this particular situation? If a fact reported in the New York Times turns out to be incorrect, that does not make the source unreliable, but it does indicate the source was incorrect on that point, ie, they made a mistake. But unless the mistake is commented upon by another reliable source, it's original research to compare the fact with other facts and make a determination in Wikipedia about which source was correct.

Therefore, the best approach may be to attribute the statement to the source and clearly identify what was actually stated. In other words, not "Joe is a plumber" and then a New York Times footnote, instead: "According to the New York Times, Joe described himself as a plumber" (or something like that; I'm not addressing the details of the use, only the source question). If the NY Times article does not have solid footing for determining Joe's occupation, maybe there are other sources that would be better to use for that. On the other hand, the way it's presented in the NY Times might still have use for the Wikipedia article - that is an editorial decision, not a WP:RS decision. As far as declaring the New York Times to be unreliable as a source in factual reporting of current events, that does not seem like an appropriate option.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This citation is being sought by Collect for use in the infobox to support the single word, "Plumber", as Joe's occupation. There's a roiling argument on whether Joe is a "Plumber" or some subordinate occupation like "Plumber's Assistant" or "Plumber's Apprentice" or even "Unlicensed Plumber". The infobox will not permit a nuanced exposition on the NYT citation, vs. others that do not present Joe as a Plumber, but someone under the supervision of a licensed Plumber. Collect failed to provide that bit of context. Hope that helps. Mattnad (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The NYT specifically calls him a "plumber" and does not ascribe the claim to Joe. Thus it is a statement of fact made by an RS. As EVERY neutral person said "plumber" is correct in WP/BLP/N , Mattnad et al are simply edit warring such that the page is locked over and over. And NO RS is furnished to state anything other than "plumber" for the infobox. Collect (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's an editorial content dispute and not a reliable source issue. This noticeboard is the wrong forum. What you need is wider consensus with input from more editors. I suggest you try posting a neutrally-worded article request for comments. Those have the best chance of success if you organize the presentation of the issue question clearly in advance. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The "decision" asserted was one specifically of finding that the NYT was not a "reliable source" -- as for RfCs, I take it that you have not visited the talk page for the article <g>. Collect (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

NYT is generally a reliable source, but unfortunately not a definitive source on what's Joe's occupation. That's the crux of the issue in the Joe the Plumber talk page. Other editors have cited other reliable, and perhaps more authoritative, sources that state Joe is not "a real plumber". Collect has taken a different position and picked the NYT article to support his viewpoint. In the end, Jack-A-Row correctly identified the underlying editorial problem. Again, hope this helps. Mattnad (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As I have already stated at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Occupation_of_Joe_the_Plumber, he mwwts the Wikipedia definition of a Plumber. The sources, including the one in question from The New York Times, describe him as a plumber. It's still unclear if the issue is that he does not have a license, but that still does not affect the nature of his profession. Alansohn (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe there is no source where he called himself a plumber. Also, let's make sure no one is operating from the WP:POV or even WP:COI that anyone not "licensed" cannot be a "real" plumber. Carol Moore 02:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

As I mentioned earlier, Collect has not been clear on the context of this dispute (so see my comments above), but just as the Times mentioned joe as "a plumber" immediately after he became known, later on the National Post explains the distinction between a plumber and what Joe is [42]. So here you have two reliable sources that say different things about Joe's occupation. Collect would like the article's infobox to use the NYT as the source (Plumber), others would like to use other sources they feel are more accurate,like the NP article (Plumber's Assistant, or Unlicensed Plumber). So in the end, Collect is asking you guys to weigh in on something that's actually an editorial dispute. Mattnad (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from misstatements here. I did not think the infobox needed a cite as a general rule, but when it was demanded of me that I give a cite, I did so. The New York Times. The article was not from the day of the debate, but from well after the debate. The NP is a Canadian tabloid (in naturem, not that it has a compact format), with no special status as RS, nor special status as RS for US personalities. It is a reliable source for a number of statements like "Itan is going to require badges for Jews and Christians." I have no quarrel with any properly cited adjectives in the corpus of the article. I think that using POV adjectives in the infobox is silly. I do not think "Unlicensed Plumber" is an "occupation" -- one try was for "illegal plumber" as occupation! Collect (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Freeport (Long Island) history blog

Is the Freeport Long Island History blog a reliable source? I know the topic reasonably well (it's where I grew up) and everything there looks well researched. The blogger identifies herself as "Regina, a librarian at the Freeport Memorial Library" and the library prominently links to the blog and says that it is "a joint project between the Freeport Library and the Freeport Historical Society." Sounds OK to me, but I know there is a strong presumption against blogs. - Jmabel | Talk 08:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me too. Just because a site calls itself a blog shouldn't disqualify it; it seems as reliable for local history as the two sponsors, the Freeport Library and the Freeport Historical Society.John Z (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is editorial oversight, "This blog is maintained by Regina, a librarian at the Freeport Memorial Library", and the blog is used as a convenient means of uploading (usually sourced) information. Ty 15:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Food Chemical News, published by Informa, used in aspartame controversy

Moved to the no original research noticeboard here.

Resolved

An article entitled "Aspartame Adverse Reaction Reports Down in 1994 From 1985 Peak". from Food Chemical News, an industry trade publication published by Informa, has some information related to reported adverse effects of aspartame. User:Eldereft removed it, questioning its reliability. I reverted his removal, and he reverted me back. I started a thread about it, and he never commented. I've now verified the source myself and added it back (not logged in).[43] User:Verbal reverted me, and has also neglected to comment. Now User:ScienceApologist states that "the article in question is not about "Aspartame Controversy". The information added:

In 1995, FDA Epidemiology Branch Chief Thomas Wilcox reported that aspartame complaints represented 75% of all reports of adverse reactions to substances in the food supply from 1981 to 1995. He stated that "there is still concern" about the substance and that "some people have an intolerance [to aspartame]".

II | (t - c) 08:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, Food Chemical News is a trade publication for the industry. They have no incentive to distort facts or misrepresent statements from the FDA. IMO, this is a blatantly Reliable Source. MaxPont (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The statements are being used to support the "ongoing" controversy stance, and to support the thesis that aspartame is controversial according to the FDA. This is not what the article says, as far as has been ascertained, and is synthesis. It is, maybe, a reliable source, but it isn't being used honestly. This may be accidental, but it is a violation of the project's policies. Verbal chat 13:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this noticeboard is to assess if this is a WP:RS, not to discuss how the source is used in the article. MaxPont (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The complaints on the talk page seem to be of the nature I describe, hence this request here doesn't seem that useful. The original request above also makes reference to this dispute and seems to be asking for it to be decided whether this article makes reference to "Aspartame controversy," and includes an excerpt of how the reference is used in the article. I do not support that use, and if it isn't the job of this noticeboard then the original poster should strike that section. These issues are separate, and conflating them seems to be intentionally confusing the issue. Also, the comment "They have no incentive to distort facts or misrepresent statements from the FDA" because they are a "trade publication" is clearly flawed. Many trade publications have notable biases. In this case I'd expect them to be pro-aspartame, so there you go. Verbal chat 17:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was kind of my point. IF there is a bias in this publication, it is pro-Aspartame. If this publication runs a story with negative facts about Aspartame we can assume that it is rigourously fact-checked. And hence reliable. MaxPont (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have copied my comment about the possible misuse of this source to the article talk page. I will strike it from here if the points referencing this dispute are redacted from the original request. Thanks, Verbal chat 17:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Food Chemical News appears to be a reliable source in the ordinary sense. The statement sent up redflags for me, and I erroneously concluded that it is a partisan source analogous to Natural News. I am refocusing my wikitime towards more normal science articles to save on headaches and drama - sorry for drifting in and out of that article as I did. I render no opinion regarding whether the source is being used properly or, well, anything else about the history of public perceptions of aspartame. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Tobacco.org

An online source titled Tobacco Timeline is added after the sentence "Anti-tobacco movements grew in many nations from the beginning of the 20th century" in the first paragraph of the article Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. This fact is already supported by this scholarly reference written by Richard Doll. The Tobacco.org source is written by a person named Gene Borio. I google searched to know more about Borio. What I found is that Gene Borio is a blogger, [44] an anti-tobacco activist [45] and the webmaster [46] of Tobacco.org. Borio runs a daily blog Tobacco On Trial. The site Tobacco.org is described as "the top international website for tobacco control news" in a blog [47]. The site Tobacco.org was also featured in the BMJ [48]. Here is an image of Gene Borio. I found a comment on Gene Borio in the Internet: " Ace anti-tobacco reporter Gene Borio, operating from a smoke-free gopher hole deep in New York City, combed through hundreds of thousands of tobacco industry documents, finally uncovering, on one of the tobacco papers web sites, a shocking account of tobacco company perfidy the like of which has never before been seen" [49]. Another comment on Borio: "Gene Borio has compiled an impressiveamount of information regarding tobacco marketing strategies (some of this will shock you.), health and prevention information, as well as updates on many legal actions involving cigarette manufacturers". [50] Historian Muhammad Tariq Ghazi labels Gene Borio as a "tobacco historian" [51]. New York Times describes Gene Borio as an "Internet writer" [52]. The impression I got from the google search is that Gene Borio has achieved somewhat Internet celebrity like status among the anti-smoking community in the Internet. If search for Gene Borio + tobacco, google news returns 16 ghits.

Now my question is that, although Gene Borio is an anti-tobacco activist, Internet writer and blogger, I cannot find his educational qualification. A google search for Tobacco.org returns 121,000 ghits, google search in domain edu returns 516 ghits, google news returns 53 ghits. But despite such coverage in the Internet, the problem here is that the sole contributor to this website is Gene Borio who's academic credential is unknown. Borio is owner, developer and writer of this site. So should I use Tobacco.org as a reliable source in a featured article? Please advise. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Timely for many articles which cite experts working for private corporations without any c.v. or qualifications given. They then are "expert" because the newspapers using their press releases see "expert" in the release. People who like their views will defend them as "expert" because a newspaper called them one. Are they indeed experts as a result? Are credentials in any way important, or ought we say that people are who the newspapers say they are (vide "Eisenstadt" of recent fame)? Collect (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Gene Borio is an independent activist, better to say an Internet activist. If an article written by a journalist who's academic qualification is unknown published in The New York Times, we can use it as reliable source because the publication is reliable. But I do not see any credential (in academic sense) of the publication (which is personal website of Gene Borio). Here is my dilemma. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Would that the "expert" was a journalist. Newspapers do not vet who the experts are any more. And recent hoaxes indicate that the reduction in workforces on newspapers are hitting their fact-checking very hard. Collect (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I do understand your argument. But one of the biggest problems with the article in Tobacco.org is that it does not cite any reference for most of the claims with only a few exceptions like the information on Nazi Germany where it cites Robert N. Proctor. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Tobacco.org seems OK to me. If other reliable sources consider it a reliable source (on tobacco), it is (reasonably) reliable. The BMJ giving it a basically positive review is a big plus. One should look hard for criticism of Gene Borio and tobacco.org, but I didn't really find any. In addition to the data given above, tobacco.org gets 133 gbooks hits, which is a very high number for a web site. The US federal courts consider Boria a journalist[53]. Of course academic credentials would help, but I think there is quite enough presented above and out there to support its usage. The only place I see it mentioned on the talk page of the article is in connection with a quibbling about the first modern smoking prohibitions, and in the article by supporting an uncontroversial statement that there were anti-tobacco movements in several countries 100 years ago. If someone wants to use it to make a statement others find dubious, just attribute it in text, which usually solves many problems.John Z (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Music genre cofounder and website

This RS question is whether Stephen Hill, the cofounder of a notable niche music genre, "spacemusic", can be disqualified as a secondary source expert, and have his radio production company's website (= expert's book) reclassified with primary source usage restrictions (results in removal).

The radio production company is Hearts of Space established 25 years ago (35 including the original Music From the Hearts of Space show on KPFA). HoS was historically played on more than 250 USA public radio stations on a scale of 500. This 2004-01-11 San Francisco Chronicle description of Stephen Hill's expertise reads:
"Hill, who coined the term "spacemusic" more than 20 years ago, hosts the "Music From the Hearts of Space" music program, syndicated on 250 National Public Radio stations, including San Francisco's KALW 91.7 FM, which airs two hours of the program at 10 p.m. Sundays. In addition, Hill's Hearts of Space Web site (www.hos.com) provides streaming access to an archive of hundreds of hours of spacemusic artfully blended into one-hour programs combining ambient, electronic, world, New Age and classical music."

The claim as I understand it (maybe I don't), is that a justified primary source reclassification, along with other sources properly reclassified as primary, would cause a synthesis/OR violation in the article titled Space music. The further result would be that the cofounder's detailed analysis, opinions, and other website information would be mostly removed from the article about the genre he cofounded.

The campaigning editor says his most contentious objection is that the name of the genre is a "commercial entity's branding drive". Presumably, he objects strongly to a previously unnoticed form of commercial spam in the Wikipedia article, and a great wrong should be righted by minimizing it. If I correctly understand it, I can only describe this position as extremist.

Spacemusic genre is a case of limited circle fame. Its current USA public radio fans are thinly scattered, but dedicated to its support through public radio fund drives. Its niche music sales amount to less than 1% of the commercial market, so very little is written about spacemusic in major USA music publications dependent on commercial advertising.

(The rest of the 102 Space music sources to be considered for reclassification as primary, and then removed for synthesis/OR, should be handled separately to avoid noticeboard overload.)
Milo 15:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose all this would give some reason for caution in using these sources, and particularly a reason to be careful to try to double-source things and to give all sides where sources disagree, but it sounds to me like Hill would be a perfectly reasonable source. Where he is writing about his own work in fostering the genre, or about his own show, he's primary. Where he's writing about the musicians in the genre, it would seem to me that he is secondary, just like any music critic. - Jmabel | Talk 17:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel on all three points - multiple sources are always recommended when there are differing published views on a topic. On the primary/secondary question - Hill would be a primary source when writing about himself and his own radio show. On third-party topics such as music styles, record albums, musicians, the radio and music business, etc, he'd be a secondary source. I'd say that within his area of expertise, there's no reason not to use his work as a reliable source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear about the encyclopedia-margins deletionist effect of what you are both saying:

Stephen Hill and his Hearts of Space website were previously treated as expert-based secondary sources via WP:V(WP:SPS). The Wikipedia art/music reasoning has previously been that the founder of an art/music genre knows subjectively more about what he/she created than anyone else as a matter of expert opinion. You are changing that.

What a secondary source says can be combined in a point-by-point source-provable editorial analysis. In this case, since there are so few other mainstream sources, many or most of them are presently combined with Hill's previous secondary source expertise to write the article.

But a primary source has fewer rights in an article than a secondary source. What a primary source says cannot be combined with other sources for a standard article editorial analysis, even if every point made by article editors can be proved through analysis of the primary sources.

Art/music experts normally have secondary source rights under WP:V(WP:SPS). You are now removing Hill's secondary source rights, so you are in effect declaring that he is not an expert on the genre he founded. (Yes, you deny that, but the denial is cosmetic.) Since he is no longer an expert on his own work, his dominant presence in an article about his own creations constitutes undue weight, which can be removed by his opponents (and as already declared, will be removed by the campaigning editor).

The big names in creativity won't be affected at Wikipedia, but if one's creative work is notable, yet limited circle famous with few mainstream sources, this appears to be a significant deletionist change at the margins of Wikipedia. The effect is that a marginal creator's expertise is henceforth trumped by a marginal rival's expertise. I assume that hundreds of articles will eventually be affected as the art/music opponent class finds out they can now marginalize their rivals by de-experting and de-weighting them through primary sourcing.

Are you sure you want to go there? Milo 00:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not at all what I meant. I'm surprised you interpreted it that way, did I write so unclearly? I do not see any problem using Hill as a reliable source for the music article noted above. He is a primary source only about the events he observes in and about his personal life, like when someone writes an autobiography. I would consider him to be a reliable secondary source for his writings about music, including the topic of the article in question. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(Roe 03:05): "did I write so unclearly?"

What you wrote first was (Roe 20:14): "Hill would be a primary source when writing about himself and his own radio show..." and "...within his area of expertise, there's no reason not to use his work as a reliable source."

There's a contradictory overlap between those two statements. Since the "spacemusic" genre-of-genres is mostly defined by his radio show, your 20:14 statement causes Hill to be mostly removed from the genre article due to a newly-defined lack of secondary source expertise about his own radio show (using the Milo 00:49 reasoning above).

What you wrote second was (Roe 03:05): "He is a primary source only about the events he observes in and about his personal life, like when someone writes an autobiography."

Ok, that works if we define "personal life" as those factors having an insubstantial connection to Hill's notable creative work.

(Roe 03:05): "I do not see any problem using Hill as a reliable source for the music article noted above." ... "I would consider him to be a reliable secondary source for his writings about music, including the topic of the article in question."

Reliable secondary source creative expertise includes more than writings. The campaigning editor has made an issue out of Hill's verbally broad definition of the "spacemusic" genre-of-genres, which includes segue assemblies of certain slow-paced contemplative pieces found within up to 30 standard genres. The only exact definition of "spacemusic" is the collective example of 850+ archived shows created by Hill's expertise, along with his late cofounder Anna Turner and his production associates.

Per the top question, does Hill's reliable secondary source expertise also cover his HoS.com website that may include publishing the writings of others? Hos.com holds the 850+, 25-year Hearts of Space radio show archive, and its historic playlist server is used to help determine the notability of "spacemusic" genre-of-genre artists. Is HoS.com, a reliable secondary source? Milo 07:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, maybe the way I wrote my first reply there could have been some ambiguity, so I have gone back and modified it to change an "and" to a period, to better split the two separate ideas I was noting. I hope that makes it more clear. As I've tried to say, my view is that Hill is a notable expert and reliable source. I would apply that to his writings and radio show including its website, archives and playlists. I re-read the spacemusic article tonight and I don't see any problem with the way Hill or his radio program are referenced in the article. I'm basing that view on what I've learned about Hill and the radio show since this inquiry was posted, and on my understanding of the policies. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that "space music" is not a musical genre and Hearts of Space did not invent it. The term existed for decades before the 1970s - and particularly in Europe has a very specific association with Kosmische musik - and not the sort of contemplative music broadcast by Hearts of Space in the United States. None of this is currently appropriately weighted within the article - which overabundantly relies on HOS as a primary source.

In the context of the Hearts of Space radio show, "space music" is merely the catch-all marketing term uniquely applied by the show's producers to all of the broadly low-key, relaxational, contemplative music which they typically broadcast - irrespective of genre; much of it is ambient, New Age or electronic, and the rest rest is classical, cool jazz, celtic, world or contemporary instrumental music.

It is important to note that while many other radio programmers, music retailers and music reviewers also make use of the term "space music" - none of them use it in the same over-arching manner that HOS does.

The suggestion that "space music" is 'exactly defined' by a set of playlists from a single radio show (HOS) is not only original research, for which no citable sources exist - it is complete raving nonsense. Musical genres are defined by characteristics inherent to the form and structure of music itself; they are not simply conjured out of thin air by radio producers.

A piece of classical music by Arvo Part does not suddenly, inexplicably instead become part of a genre called "space music" simply because it got played on the Hearts of Space show. A jazz piece by Jan Garbarek does not suddenly, inexplicably instead become part of a genre called "space music" simply because it got played on the Hearts of Space show. A piece of celtic-inspired music by Clannad does does not suddenly, inexplicably instead become part of a genre called "space music" simply because it got played on the Hearts of Space show.

Thus, while the HOS website is a reliable primary source for data about the radio show, the various musical genres from which it's producers draw, and the producers' opinions and philosophical approach to music - it is not and cannot be the sole primary source for the entire article subject - which should properly be about a lot more than merely the self-descriptive terminology one radio show uses to broadly characterise its "sound" - further to which it is entirely inappropriate to liberally cite the show's playlists throughout the article as if the mere fact of doing so "proves" that "every piece of music that's ever been played on Hearts of Space is part of a musical genre called 'space music' ".

Such an asertion is specious and misleading, and it - and any variations of it - simply cannot be insinuated into the WP article on this subject. --Gene_poole (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

When there are multiple reliable sources that disagree, that does not change the reliability of each individual source. In that kind of situation it's important to mention the various viewpoints and not focus only on one, as noted in the neutral point of view policy. Attribution can help to provide context between multiple reliable sources that differ. That said, most of the above discussion describes an editorial content dispute, not a question of determining whether or not a particular source is reliable. This noticeboard is not the appropriate forum for resolving complex editorial matters. For that there are various options of dispute resolution available that may be able to help, such as article request for comments. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO the validity of Hearts of Space as a primary source is not a matter of dispute - although one other editor has disagreed - hence the need to gain clarification via this discussion. The article's broader issues are certainly content and policy-related, as you correctly point out. The article currently lends undue weight to the primary source; it does so by synthesising an original research theory - largely from the fallacious interpretation of multiple citations drawn from the primary source. Informal dispute resolution has already been initiated with the intention of addressing the longstanding opposition to the rectification of these issues. --Gene_poole (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Article protected for 6 weeks now over dispute whether the Voice of America can be used to call someone an expert

Kaveh Farrokh has been blocked for 6 weeks over a dispute about the lead, which calls someone with a PhD thesis on " The relationships among cognitive processes, language experience and errors in Farsi speaking ESL adults.", who works as a college counsellor but has published two books on history, "an expert in the field of Iranian history and linguistics" on the basis of this article [54] -- since it is protected on that version, those of us who think you need a better source to call someone an expert, and indeed that the word expert shouldn't even be used in the lead (see the talk page for numerous examples of undoubted experts whose articles have neutral leads) may as well give up insisting on reliable sources (that is, if we are right of course) as those who are happy to use a journalist to determine if someone is an expert, and happy to use the word expert in the lead, have no incentive to resolve the dispute and the article will stay locked. This seems a ridiculous state of affairs to me, but then I have a POV on the RS issue here. dougweller (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is amazing -- in another article, a press release calling its employee an "expert" was unquestioned, though all I could find was that he was a high school graduate. WP really needs some sort of guidance on whether a source calling someone an "expert" sans any c.v. is to be trusted as RS per se, and at what point it is not opinion to call someone an "expert." I do know that courts have specific rules on "expert testimony" (I only had to testify once) and the judge had broad latitude in deciding who is an "expert." Enough rambling, all I can say is "I don't know." Collect (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems the standard response here is to say "who Radio Free Europe identifies as an expert." Unless you can find some contrary WP:RS information that he is not one. And if it's his main claim to fame, it belongs in the lead. Carol Moore 02:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I agree. Unless it is decided that Radio Free Europe is not a source that can be used on WP, we should identify who is describing Farrokh as an expert, and be done with it. dougweller's original research about Farroks's work, publication history, etc... is interesting, but that's all it is - original research NoCal100 (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What original research are you talking about? I don't recall having done anything that would be called original research. dougweller (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Eponymous laws and "Poe's law"

Hi there. I'd appreciate a third opinion on the current active discussion at Talk:List of eponymous laws if someone has a moment. Thanks. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 21:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A discussion regarding the primary source or secondary source classification of highway maps

Wikipedia talk:No original research#Regarding maps being "primary sources" according to this policy --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Magee Secondary School

Ongoing edit war at Magee Secondary School about who the current school administration is.

• The school's own website is being disputed as a source because the date at the top says 'Tuesday, 07 November 2006'...although the bottom states that it was 'Last Updated ( Friday, 03 October 2008 )'

Discussion from a few days ago can be found at the bottom of this page and here. More recent discussion is here. --Onorem♠Dil 13:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The website uses an interface called Joomla, where webpages are written like articles. It is likely that the page was first created in 2006 (hence the top date), but has been updated many times to present new information, up to its most recent update as of 2008. I would guess that Mr George is the current principal. --Joowwww (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I gather that the underlying issue is that the school's administration may have changed since the 10/3/08 update of the web-page, but there is not yet a reliable source to support this fact. If so, my advice is... wait... have some patience. It will not be long before the school either updates the page or issues a reliable publication under the new administration (at which time you can change the text, citing the revised website or new publication). Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In before photoshop Dustbomber (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Irish Flags

Resolved

I would like to know if this web site here is acceptable to be used as a reliable source on a contentious article? This is the web site page being cited here, and this is were it is being used as a reference in the article here reference no. 2. Thanks very much, --Domer48_'fenian' 14:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no indication that this is not a personal webpage... no "about us" or "who we are" page. Given this, it should not be considered a reliable source. This does not mean that the information is wrong... only that we need a different source for it. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats sound Blueboar thanks for that, --Domer48_'fenian' 15:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Languages by first written account(please help assist)

In the past five years there has been almost 15 magnificiant discoveries dugged up in south India. multiple iron age urn burials in 2005 to magnum opus script inscription lately - but none of this issues made to be published as a book or official jurnouls. All of this have dated Tamil language usage to latest 3rd century BC and earliest to be from 6th to 7 th century BC. Based on thier inscriptions. The only available resources on these are not from journals or books or thesis. but news of reportbased on carbon 14 reports on newspapers and official online such as BBC and so.

I would like to know if this web site [55] - by historian, BBC documentary broadcaaster and prinston teacher; michael woods - is reliable

and this [56]

and this [57]

and this [58]

and this [59] to be used as references on the article about first written Tamil at [60] --Master YODA (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

After viewing those sites, I would consider the BBC, the Times of India, the Centre of Excellence for Classical Tami, and Frontline to be mainstream publishers qulified as reliable sources. The Ultimate World Languages website might have good information, but it's a commercial site selling products, so I would exclude that one, unless there is more information available about how they generate their editorial content that conveys reliability. The BBC link, although the publisher and author are reliable, presents very limited information, so I don't see how that one could be of value to a full article; however, for including the topic in a list article where verification of the list criteria is the only use of the source, it could be OK. So, to summarize, it looks to me like all of those are reliable for this use, except the Ultimate World Languages website. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki

There's an AFD on it, but if anyone wants to they can see if the sources establish notability and are reliable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki (2nd nomination) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Esther Hicks

This New York Post article is used to support the statement "...Hicks claims she was "swindled" out of her fair share of the film's profits..." about the Hicks-Byrne controversy in the Esther Hicks biography. There is an ongoing discussion about this on: Talk:Esther Hicks#Hicks claims she did not receive her fair share of the film's profits. I would very much appreciate input on whether this is a reliable source in the present context. -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

National Post Rejected as Reliable Source

An editor has claimed that an article from the National Post is not a reliable source because the NP is a tabloid in the derogatory sense. To my eyes, the NP is a newspaper that occasionally takes strong, and sometimes controversial positions, but no more so than Fox News, or the NY Times. Any guidance would be appreciate.Mattnad (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? This matter has been under discussion for all of TWO HOURS on Talk:JtP and you come here making inaccurate comments about the dispute? My point is that the "National Post" is currently not just in "compact format" but has been described in many places as "sensational" and publishing inaccurate stories (such as Iran requiring Jews to wear badges), that it does not have a high reputation for fact-checking (the first requirement for a "reliable source", and that it is not a reliable source for US news as it relies on US sources for its own stories. This is not "derogatory" it is a statement of fact. Thus, in legal terminology, it is far from "best evidence" and thus it is not a good replacement for the current New York Times article used as a source (the National Post is the "replacement" ref!) This is, in fact, part and parcel of the NYT discussion already given, with the side benefit of an inaccurate and biassed POV in presenting the issue. As for it taking controversial positions, that is irrelevant entirely. It is relevant that the NP has more than its fair share of libel actions, in a nation where libel actions are rare. Collect (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You're really spoiling for a fight - you say "sensationalist" - OK fine, we'll use that word. I was trying make your point that your weren't referring to "tabloid" in the size sense. So, sometimes sensetional, doesn't mean it's not a reliable source. Fox News has sensational coverage too. As does the NY Times.

So let me quote for this boar your your single sentence on why you wanted the article excluded, "A Canadian tabloid is still a tabloid. Not RS. Collect (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)" Anyway, please let others weigh in. Mattnad (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We have two issues here: 1) Is the NP a reliable source under this guideline... the answer is "yes". 2) Is the NP the best source for the particular statement in a particular article... From what I gather of the facts, the answer is "no". We encourage our editors to use the most reliable sources possible. I would agree that the New York times is more reliable than the National Post. Thus, the Times should be used and not the Post. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I also offered Wash Post cites and more <g>. Collect (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Collect has been selective (no surprise) to make his point - there are other NY Time articles that mirror parts of the national post article. For instance, see this [61]. Still, I see the point that if we had only one source to choose from, we'd err on the side of the NY Times. But what's important here is that it's a reliable source and we can let the editors decide which one makes sense in what part of the article. (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

So you think referring to me by name affects the value of your post? <g> I have proffered now many other articles which are more RS than the NP. Accept one. They are from November, not October 16. And your "new" article does not call him "unlicensed plumber" as an occupation. Which means your "new cite" from 16 October does not support your claim, which is a very interesting way to choose a cite for sure! Collect (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean to tell me that this is yet another argument about Joe the Plummer? For Christs sake folks, does it really matter whether the guy was or was not a licenced plummer? In the long run, I don't think it does. Think about what people reading the article five years from now will care about... what will matter is how "Joe the Plummer" became a concept, a symbol for "the average man". Not whether Joe the person was or was not an actual plummer. Sheesh. Blueboar (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Dan Willis

(Cross-posted to the BLP noticeboard.) Dan Willis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is an ongoing dispute over the consideration and classification of some sources. Specifically, there is disagreement over whether some sources are primary, self-published and/or independent of the subject. This has lead to further disagreement regarding whether or not notability has been established and BLP standards are being met. Outside opinions are needed to help resolve the dispute. Additional comments at Talk:Dan Willis#RfC: Notability would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Vassyana (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)