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.

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.

Is Juan Cole's blog a RS?

Can someone help with the edit warring at MEMRI? The issue is whether Juan Cole's blog is acceptable under WP:SELFPUB for purposes of commenting om MEMRI. There is consensus that Cole's commentary is relevant to issues raised in the entry. WP:SELFPUB says:

[A] Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

and

[B] However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source.

Cole certainly qualifies under [A]. He's an established expert on the Middle East. He's an academic with many scholarly publications, he's published many articles in major newspapers and magazines such as the New York Times, he's frequently quoted in major news sources, and he appears on major radio and TV programs in the English-speaking and Arabic-speaking world.

The question is whether Cole is disqualified under [B]. Some editors read [B] as saying that Cole's blog "can't be used here". Others read the guideline provision that blogs "may sometimes be cited" as applying to Cole's blog.

The editors who oppose Cole read [B] as saying that, instead of quoting Cole's blog, we must find a reliable source that cites Cole. However, this subject, criticism of the Arab media, is specialized and most of the people who critique MEMRI are in Cole's position. So the alternative reading of [B] is that non-self-published sources are preferable but if they don't exist self-published sources are acceptable.

Does SELFPUB allow Cole's blog? Does it forbid Cole's blog? How do we decide? Nbauman (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's permissible so long as it is sourced solely as to Juan Cole's opinions, and so long as those opinions are not about living people. Your "alternative" reading of B is the correct one: we prefer non-SPS, but when it's not available for highly specialized areas like this, it's not unusual that the main opinion pieces are found on blogs, in which case we hold our nose where the author qualifies under (A). NB the WP:WEIGHT issue, though: the article shouldn't become a WP:COATRACK for Cole's criticism. THF (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

THF is correct (IMO) that it is a weight issue. Cole is certainly an expert for certain specific topic areas. However, he does not contain his thoughts to those topic areas. So long as we are careful to use his blog only where he is a noted expert and only in proportion to the significance of his views, we should be fine. In practice, that means use references to the blog sparingly. Protonk (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The page in question already lists numerous criticisms under the same section, from reliable sources. It is not at all clear why we should use a personal blog to repeat arguments that are already present in the article, in the very same section, from sources that are not problematic. Per Protonk, we should use blog sparingly - there does not seem to be any reason to do so in this case. NoCal100 (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

cole's criticism, which is included in the article, comprises one sentence/two lines. this "section" is clearly attributable to him. his arguments/observations were not existent there before, therefore it's not a repetition.--Severino (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Protonk NoCal100, the page cites Juan Cole as saying, "On more than one occasion I have seen, say, a bigotted Arabic article translated by MEMRI and when I went to the source on the Web, found that it was on the same op-ed page with other, moderate articles arguing for tolerance. These latter were not translated."

Cole reads Arabic, and he is in a unique position to tell us that MEMRI is selective in this way. I didn't see any other criticisms on the page which made this point. He's the only one who said that, even when there are side-by-side articles, MEMRI will choose the bigoted one and ignore the tolerant one. Who else said that? What specific criticisms are you referring to? Could you quote one? If it actually was duplication, you might have a case, but I think Cole is making a separate point. Nbauman (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

the section is titled 'selectivity', and two of the quotes in it, on eof which is by somone who reads and speaks Arabic better than Cole, make this exact point, that MEMRI is selective in choosing to highlight extreme views. There is nothing that the Cole quote, from his personal blog, adds to this section that is not already in it. NoCal100 (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

NoCal100, I don't understand what you're referring to. In my reading, the other quotes make different points. Cole said he saw Arabic sources with bigoted and tolerant viewpoints, and MEMRI chose only the bigoted viewpoint. He's the only one who said that. None of the other quotes said that. Could you copy the quotes here that you think said that? Nbauman (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"MEMRI's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world" - Hooper

"[MEMRI] consistently picks the most violent, hateful rubbish it can find, translates it and distributes it" - Lalami

Both these make the exact same point, and were published in reliable sources, so there's no need for Cole's quote, from his personal blog, making the same point. NoCal100 (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. We use the SPS when we can't find the more conventional reliable source. Once we have it, there's no reason to use the SPS. THF (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

cole doesn't really make the same point as hooper and lalami. of course it too centers on selectivity - thats the title of the section. but his observation is not mirrored in the other statements.--Severino (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cole said, "On more than one occasion I have seen, say, a [bigoted] Arabic article translated by MEMRI and when I went to the source on the Web, found that it was on the same op-ed page with other, moderate articles arguing for tolerance. These latter were not translated."

Hooper and Lalami do not make the "exact" same point. They're making the claim in general, while Cole gave specific examples. Cole gives a more specific, and therefore better, idea of what MEMRI does than Hooper and Lalami. Therefore, the Cole quote contributes to the article. Therefore, we should preserve it. Nbauman (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a material distinction between the Cole quote and the Hooper and Lalami quotes -- other than that the Hooper and Lalami quotes are not only in superior RS, but they're also more concise, and thus convey the same idea in fewer words, which any acolyte of Strunk & White would find preferable. But three editors fighting over this is a poor use of skilled resources. !Vote for one or two of the three quotes (depending on whether the length of the article supports that level of balance) and move on. THF (talk)

I'm an acolyte of Strunk & White, and I find Cole preferable. Strunk & White said to omit needless words. Supporting evidence is not needless words. Strunk & White said that writing should be specific. Cole was more specific. He said MEMRI found two opinion pieces side by side, one bigoted and one tolerant, and MEMRI used the bigoted piece and ignored the tolerant piece. Nbauman (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's really a distinction without a difference, but I'm making the problem 33% worse by continuing that aspect of the discussion. The much larger problem is that, now that I look at it, the section is a set of competing WP:COATRACKs. The controversy section needs to be entirely rewritten. Since it does seem that the regular editors on the page have particular points of view they prefer, each side should pick the 200-250 words and five or six cites they like most, and then collaborate to weave it into one coherent set of prose rather than competing lists of quotes. THF (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how WP:COATRACK applies. That essay (not a guideline) says:

"A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats".

What's the nominal subject? What's the bias subject? Nbauman (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hooper and Lalami quotes are more concise and clear, and found in reliable sources. The Cole quote is overly wordy, and not found in a reliable source. I think the issue is pretty much settled. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

jayg, am I correct in assuming that you disagree with Cole? Nbauman (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA - WP:RS?

Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America

Apologies in advance - I've dug around in my inept manner and can't find any concrete decision or guidelines where partisan sources such as CAMERA are used.

It seems to be a never-ending fight, which I am sure others must be familiar with.

Please please please can I get some guidance? Having to rip apart every daft article of theirs is getting tedious. I've had more trouble tearing apart National Enquirer... I'm almost tempted to pull up some of their articles and complain that it should be accepted as a reliable source.

Help? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they're unreliable based on thier wikihitstory, but please provide links and specify articles. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Involved editor - the first RSN on CAMERA was swamped by involved editors (and I regret to say that I then joined in). However, the result (from the uninvolved editors) was clear and summed up in my words: "the community, as discovered from this noticeboard, finds that CAMERA is a source that should only be used with great care".

There was a second such RSN cut short when some objected to it being characterised as a hate source. But the conclusion from amongst the uninvolved editors was the same.

The wikihistory of CAMERA is that one of their staff (the director?) sought editors who would subvert the processes of the project, and found an enthusiastic ally in an active editor, who proceeded to plot to create faux administrators. On that occasion they were detected very early on and this one editor was indef-blocked. Please note, there have been persistent efforts to claim that this affair concerned a tiff between CAMERA and Electronic Intifada (eg here), this was not the case. I regret to say that this account I'm using has a history of wiki-stalking, so if a large number of other involved editors arrive, it may be considered important that they identify themselves as such. PR^talk 09:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah. Use with care. My advice would be use it minimally. It is an advocacy organization which has a history of interfering with Wikipedia. It isn't outside the realm of possibility to envision them releasing materials with the express purpose of impacting debate here. That notwithstanding, we can treat them like we treat any other advocacy source--with grave caution. Where those sources have a history of fact checking and responsibility (e.g. Brennan Center for Justice, Southern Poverty Law Center or the Center for Public Integrity), we can feel comfortable summarizing published material that they create in articles which relate to their areas of expertise. Where those sources do not, we should use them exceedingly rarely. Protonk (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Such sources can definitely be used for statements of opinion, attributed to the source... for statements of fact, reliability often depends on exactly what is being said in the article. If there is doubt, it is probably better to find another source. Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

@Protonk -- a question. Does CAMERA have a history of fact checking? Not clear what "responsibility" means in this context. Appreciate an expansion of your comment. Thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki campaign or no really has no bearing on CAMERA's reliability or lack of. Even bias does not necessarily speak to reliability. In fact, I can't find anything in RS that would count CAMERA or other advocacy groups out. If the particular item being referred to is challenged, CAMERA should not be the sole source. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA breaches the same policies as does David Irving, hate-speech and falsification of sources. It's partisanship is so extreme, and its concerns so trivial that the assistant editor of a major Israeli newspaper said of them (copying in CAMERA's Israel Director Tamar Sternthal!) "In the event that this [CAMERA complaint] gets to you: We have a quasi 'policy,' on the orders of [editor-in-chief] David [Landau], to ignore this organization and all of its complaints, including not responding to telephone messages and screening calls from Tamar Sternhal [sic], director of CAMERA. Otherwise, we will never finish with them." PR^talk 10:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

David Irving is the notorious English Holocaust denier and pseudo-historian who was exposed as a fraud and a racist in a court of law. He associates with neo-Nazis and served a prison sentence in Austria. Not a single reasonable person takes Irving seriously as an academic, historian, or even as a responsible human being. Comparing pro-Israel advocacy groups to this racist is embarrassingly falsifiable at best and offensive and disgusting at worst. Being a professional, habitual racist is worse than being a professional researcher. PalestineRemembered has been asked multiple times to stop using this false analogy and ad hominem. [1] I ask him once more that he stop this foolishness that hasn't helped his cause even once and will never help his cause. --GHcool (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a bit of a Godwin's, innit. B'er Rabbit (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It is rare that comparing one's ideological opponents to Hitler is useful - but using David Irving as a touchstone against which to compare RS is valuable. Racism and falsification march hand in hand - we've seen lots of evidence of both at previous RSNs and on TalkPages. PR^talk 22:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Christ, PR, give it a rest. <eleland/talkedits> 22:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, I believe we have all had enough of your comparisons of pro-Israel scholars to Holocaust deniers. I am warning you that sooner or later I will report you for violating WP:CIVIL if you continue using this hateful false analogy/reductio ad Hitlerum. You have been asked to stop more than 8 times now.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] I suggest you take my request seriously this time. --GHcool (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they're a very useful source, actually. I find they are quoted in The New York Times "Not only the A.D.L. and other watchdog groups, like the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America..." [10] and Boston Globe "The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, a Boston-based organization that argues media coverage of the conflict is biased against Israel..." [11]. Though I notice, weirdly, they are not linked to Holocaust deniers, I think we can safely say they have useful information to impart. IronDuke 18:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume IronDuke's comment that CAMERA "weirdly [isn't] linked to Holocaust deniers" is tongue in cheek. --GHcool (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your assumption would be correct. IronDuke 22:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

:) --GHcool (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a RS, but should be used sparingly because of the crap you're going to get if you do use it. See WP:IDONTNEEDTHISCRAP (forthcoming)--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So that makes 7 people who commented saying that CAMERA is an RS (however, it ought to be used with care) and 2 people who commented saying that CAMERA is not an RS. --GHcool (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Docstoc.com

Is this website acceptable for use as a reliable source? It seems like anyone could post there. The article is for BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant and the link[12] is a legal document. I'm concerned it's being used as a primary source instead of what newsmedia are reporting in the high-profile case. -- Banjeboi 20:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Using legal documents as primary sources is always a minefield, and should only be done with great care. That said, legal documents can be found hosted on many websites and when they are actual scans their veracity can be judged without much concern about which site is hosting them. However I see in this instance that the document is unsigned and doesn't have a clerk's stamp, so it could be a draft or an unsubmitted document. Regardless of the site hosting it, I'd say it's a dubious source. At best it gives the defense's lawyer's viewpoint but should not be relied upon for any factual matters.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's only being cited for the defense lawyer's viewpoint. A large proportion of legal documents these days are physically unsigned because they are signed through electronic filing procedures. THF (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's probably true that most documents are submitted eletronically nowadays but that has an impact on their verifiability from our viewpoint. While a scan of a signed and stamped document would be hard to casually alter, it'd take no great effort for anyone to produce a document like the one linked. How can we authenticate it?   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Authentication.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Very good. When the article is unlocked, we can replace the docstoc with the more reliable sfchron link. THF (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Question. How is sfgate publishing it make it authentic? Maybe they got it from Wikipedia?

Maybe we'll find out that Sfgate gets all of their news from Wikipedia, but for now they're considered a reliable source.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Question. Is not this a primary source. Are no secondary sources available?(unsigned)

Yes -- documents are intrinsically "primary sources" about which reams of electronic paper have been used on the appropriate noticeboards. In practice, it means that you should only use the precise wording in the document, and avoid making any conjectures whatever otherwise. And if conjecture is needed, then you absolutely need a different source. IMHO. Collect (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In this case there are hundreds of reliable sources. Why are we trying to use any primary sources? Perhaps Wikipedia should wait until some reliable secondary sources report the material instead?

I think it could be very carefully used with inline sourcing for a statement of the ex-officer's position on bail. I would not use it for much else. Speaking as a lawyer, who has filed bond motions, they are pure and simple, advocacy. You're trying to put the judge in a favorable frame of mind towards what you want, which is to get your client out of jail with a minimum of bail. And sometimes the allegations you put in, in perfect good faith, don't turn out to be so, because you're acting with haste and an imperfect understanding of the facts.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If it is a primary source which is POV slanted it would seem better to leave it off. If it must be included then it should be matched u with corresponding POV primary sources representing the other legal side of the argument. It would probably be best to leave them both off and use reliable secondary sources instead. This case is wisely covered so why not a neutral summary in lieu of two POV statements from primary sources?

The RSN issue has been addressed; we should leave the content dispute on the talk page of the article to avoid WP:MULTI. THF (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There remains doubt if this is an authentic document even though a media source has also posted a copy. And it remains a primary source with an obvious bias. This is cited to at least five statement in the article. If reliable sources cover those statements then this is not needed. If they don't cover those statements then maybe the statements should be left out. There is eagerness to use faulty sourcing when we should instead focus on neutral writing.

It's not a reliable source to verify assertions made by the authors, but it is a reliable source for the fact that the authors have made those assertions.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been put in again[13] and even expanded when no consensus for the use has materialized. Maybe we should use secondary sources here instead of primary sources when there are so many available. This case is in the headlines regularly so there is little need for Wikipedia to quote court documents. This seem to go against neutrality. Also the talkpage discussion was favoring removing all the speculation and strip down the POV material.

You raise some valid concerns that would be appropriately mentioned at the article talk page. The only issue here at this page is whether the source is a WP:RS, and it seems to clearly be that. A leading California newspaper confirms the authenticity of the document. Incidentally, please sign each of your comments with four tildes(~). Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I followed the article talk page here, the discussion on the talk page favored leaving POV material out so I wondered why it was re-added. The discussion there leans towards bullying as far as I can tell so I do not wish to be a part of that. (~)

Werner Cohn "The Jews are Bad!" - reliable?

This book review:

http://www.wernercohn.com/Shahak.html

Used in article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shahak

Issue:
[1] Web link is supposedly of his review published in Israel Horizons, but it seems to have been edited extensively. Postscripts, addendums - what else was changed?

[2] No way of telling whether or not this publication is widespread or respected enough to be considered reliable. The publisher Meretz does not give any circulation information, which sets off alarm bells for me. In my experience, any publication that doesn't trumpet its circulation numbers is usually very limited. Reputation is part of WP:RS - with few publications referring to the magazine (that I can find), should it really qualify, as is required by WP:RS, "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"?

[3] Amateurish writing style - for example, "I did take the trouble to question my orthodox rabbi nephew to find...". No identified expert referred to? His nephew? I couldn't get away with using my mommy as a reference back in grade 5. Should one really consider such a poorly written article to be WP:RS? Doesn't the amateurish writing indicate that it's not up to quality for use as a reliable source?

[4] The article completely misrepresents the facts - he states, "Gore Vidal tells us that an (unnamed) "American Zionist" brought Harry Truman two million dollars", where the actual introduction has it as a humorous anecdote - or in his words, "a funny story". Yes, yes - no original research. But the misrepresentation of facts seems to be enough grounds for it to bring into question it's applicability for use as a WP:RS, aside from use as a source of colorful and inflammatory language to use to discredit Israel Shahak, hopefully misleading any reader who doesn't take the time to check the actual material being referred to.

In a nutshell, my opinion is that it's an incredibly poor WP:RS, and really doesn't deserve mention in a Wikipedia article. More professional, informed sources are surely available; written by people who actually take their time to check with experts and present arguments which don't completely misrepresent the facts.

Or is it entirely valid to use any old published material, so long as it adheres to the bare minimum of WP:RS? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No opinion on the majority of this question, but if a book review appeared in a reliable source, use the reliable source, to an unreliable copy. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, since it's such a tiny publication, it has no reputation to meet WP:RS guidelines, "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - or does it say somewhere that the default reputation of any publication meets those standards and editors contesting it have to prove otherwise? Doesn't it say somewhere that the burden of proof on the shoulders of the editor adding the material - which implies that default state for an unknown publication is not reliable?

Being a reprint on the author's site, there's no way to verify its accuracy (what he puts on his web site as opposed to the edited and printed version) - WP:V seems to be questionable.

Really, these guidelines are kind of vague and sometimes contradictory. I'm not certain which side of the line this one falls on. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought Israel Horizons was a magazine (based on this very cursory search). We generally just call magazines reliable without requiring another source to say "they're reliable". Searches like this can help you tell how other sources feel. It looks like they're reliable, but no powerhouse. They've been around since 1952 and they look to be a real magazine, therefore probably reliable. They may be biased, in which case you want to attribute anything they say to them. They may be a tabloid, in which case they're not reliable for controversial material. Like I said earlier, I'm not getting to specific, but these are the things you look for, and I would say it is reliable. If you think the author is being shady, look to the magazine and not his website. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm taking a closer look. 1) use the magazine and not the website if the info is contested. 2) not listing circulation doesn't matter. If we removed all sources that don't list circulation, or left all the ones that did, that would be a poor way to judge sources. Ex. scholarly magazines vs. tabloids. As far as "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", it meets it, but not by a mile. 3) Remarking on the writing style is commonly brought up here, and generally rejected as original research. We can't use our own opinions to decide reliability. 4) Sounds like OR, or more likely Synthesis. Basically, there may be several guidelines or policies that prohibit thie sources use, but I don't think RS (for the actual magazine article) is one of them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, it's WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH to look at the collective information availability, and judge whether or not a source is WP:RS? I thought they (OR and SYNTH) only applied to the actual integration of the source's information into the article, and not the evaluation of the source's reliability and relevance to the article. That pre-integration evaluation Wiki guidelines seemed to be to me, as I read it, more based on common sense than dictated rules.

Or am I wrong here - in that any source, no matter how partisan, fantastical or poorly researched, is valid for inclusion in an article so long as WP:RS bare minimums are met? It's against Wiki guidelines to take any stance to oppose their inclusion in an article (re:WP:OR and WP:SYNTH) - if the source isn't explicitly shown to fail WP:RS?

Would that be a correct interpretation? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It depends. A book review is, quite often, an opinion piece, even if it is not explicitly marked as such. This one surely is. It is, thus, reliable only for statements of opinion, not for statements of fact. Opinions can be included if they are notable - that's a matter of editorial discretion and WP:WEIGHT, but they must be properly attributed ("According to so and so..."). I would not accept this for, say, a statement like "Shakak is a retired teacher" or "Shahak's nose is longer than Pinocchio's". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's contradictory to what Peregrine says, however. If the source is WP:RS, then Wiki editors are required, unless they can show a specific reason (ex: uncited, clearly crackpot) to allow it in. If it's reliable, to cast any question or doubt is WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH - it has to go in. So if one user thinks it's important to state the size of Shahak's nose - then if you complain - it's OR/SYNTH - he sticks it in, and there's no clear grounds for reverting it (and since he's put it in first, under 3RR it stays on as long as he wants it to). Questioning what's notable enough for entry into an article is, as Peregrine said - OR/SYNTH - so it's disallowed. Sooo.... there's no checks? No balance? It all comes down, ultimately, to sticking to your guns and getting in the first shot with a 3RR contest? Correct? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, and I don't find your tone particularly helpful. Reliability depends on context. An opinion piece is usually a reliable source for an opinion, not for a fact. A NYT article is usually reliable for politics and events, but has to be taken with a shovel of sand for science. PNAS is usually good for science, but I would not accept it for the artistic quality of a painting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A polemicist prone to personal smears and exaggerations, not RS The clip in use at the article Israel Shahak is this one: "Dr. Shahak, whose nose is longer than Pinocchio's in any case, does not tell us the whole story of the incident." a review in 1994. I don't expect to see writing like this in an encyclopaedia, not even if the views of Werner Cohn were notable and Shahak was a fringe politician or notorious propagandist, publishing for political effect. (and neither is the case).
According to another notorious polemicist, Werner Cohn goes to great effort to link Noam Chomsky to the views of a Holocaust Denier for whom Chomsky once signed a petition. This is "guilt by association", a classic McCarthyism, and Cohn dabbles in it himself, eg here on Obama.
I think using this source (and the clip in question) raises serious questions about the balance of the whole article. Werner Cohn is most certainly not an RS, with "fact-checking" and an "editorial board" as required by policy and should not be used for anything factual or substantive in any article.
(I should add that I'm aware of the Shahak article and think it's atrocious, but I'm too frightened to have tried to edit it, ever). PR^talk 15:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you are not reading well, PR. This link that Cohn made had little to do with a petition Chomsky signed, but the fact that Chomsky wrote the preface for this Holocaust denier's "pamphlet". [14] That is not "guilt by association," or McCarthyism, but simple research and factual accuracy. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky did not write a preface for Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson's book, Mémoire en defense. Werner Cohn has been totally discredited on this point. Both Christopher Hitchens and Chomsky (plus almost 500 other intellectuals) signed a petition defending Faurisson's right to freedom of speech, but Chomsky was singled out and criticised. In response to these attacks, he wrote an essay called "Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression" and handed it to Faurisson. Robert Faurisson then used this text as an introduction to his book without informing Noam Chomsky or seeking his permission. Consequently, Werner Cohn accused Chomsky of collaborating with Faurisson in Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers. See this short video for more information It is detrimental to this project that Cohn's output should be given so much weight by editors Jayjg, Canadian Monkey, NoCal100, Brewcrewer and Malcolm Schosha. Dynablaster (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Werner Cohn has an academic background as a sociologist. At some point late in his career, he turned to polemics. None of the cautions for evidence, and argument, which characterize his earlier work are in evidence in the scrappy comment he makes on Shahak. He tries to engage more closely with Chomsky, and indeed dedicated a considerable amount of time trying to pin Chomsky down in an exchange of letters. The Shahak piece is flaky, fluff, an outburst, if you like, and I do not think that these off-the-cuffs opinions warrant inclusion in an article dealing with a scholar. What we need is serious reviews of Shahak's work, not just name-slinging (Werner Cohn is a 'name' of sorts) + mudslinging. One could even cite the following

‘Now a retired chemist, Shahak travels the world to propound a simple thesis: Jews)with only a rare exception – guess who that might be) are evil. The Talmud teaches them to be criminal, and Zionism compounds the evil. Naturally, Shahak is an active, enthusiastic supporter of the most militant Arab terrorists’ Werner Cohn, Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers, Avukah Press, (1988) 1995 p.18

But to what effect. It was not published under a serious imprint, has but a page which contains several lies, since Shahak never said Jews were evil, save for himself. Nor did he teach that the Talmud taught Jews to be criminal; nor was he an enthusiastic supporter of the most militant Arab terrorists (Shahak was in private a very strong critic of extremist tendencies in the PLO as in Israel). So, again three lies, in a virtually self-published text, that only have value if you think Werner Cohn's private war of hate against Shahak is notable. It is not. He never troubled to study the subject, nor to inform himself of who Shahak was, a man greatly respected by his Jewish colleagues, in and beyond Israel. So it's just shitshovelling, and deserves no notice.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, from the comments so far, it seems that whether or not the source makes any logical sense, or it improves the article in any way - any source that IS NOT EXPLICITLY proved to be not WP:RS has to be included in the article when it's represented. It doesn't matter if they say, "Shahak has a nose 1 foot long and is the love child of Elvis" - if it's published, and an editor wants it in - then it has to go in. Questioning the size of Shahak's nostril or his ancestry is a WP:OR and/or a WP:SYNTH violation. Or that's the Wiki guidelines as I understand. Since the article in question hasn't been shown to be under the minimal bar for WP:RS - if someone wants it in - then into the article it goes. Odd as that sounds, it does give one an incredible degree of liberty to (ab)use, since any complaint of a source - is a violation of Wiki policies.

Beyond that, if there's a dispute. Just make sure you get in the first shot, so he breaks 3RR, and edit-war any complaints down. Or so it seems that's the way of things, from WP:ANI GrizzledOldMan (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's reliable source for his opinion. We use New York Times book reviews for their opinion as well. Reviews are not a good source for contested information. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Grizzly, I think you're not totally understand what is being written above. The question you posed is "Is this considered a reliable source?" and so some of the answers have focused on that individual question alone. The general sense seems to be that the magazine might barely meet the requirements, but that anything included from it should be attributed to the magazine and the author. The next step of the question is "is Werner Cohn a reliable source" - the general sense on that is "only for his own opinion." Neither address whether the information should be included in the article - all reliable sources aren't guaranteed space, and inclusion is a separate editorial decision. In this case, it seems obvious that Cohn's comments should be excluded. Avruch ^T 16:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, how much rumour and innuendo, as opposed to scholarly critique, should be used. Cohn is very interesting on Gypsies. He has nothing of substance to say about Shahak. It is all hyperbolic and inflammatory smearing, which has no anchor in the realities of Shahak's life and thought, and belongs to that degenerate form of polemic we associate with tabloids. Years ago I found two pieces of criticism by students of the Talmud, which analysed Shahak's use of sources critically, and argued he had distorted or been less than comprehensive in his interpretation. That is the sort of thing that should be cited. As it is, we have great attention on the false imputation he was both a liar and a fabricator, and the use of his work by antisemites, and no attention given to scholarly rebuttals of his approach. I think this impoverishes the aim of the encyclopedia, which in the I/P area tends to personalize thought, as just a pro/contra facing off of prejudices. Cohn, Neuwirth, and Bogdanor are there for this reason, they are plunked in to set off suspicions (which, in several years of reading I have personally found no basis for), and draw the casual reader to overlook the fact that little if anything is being said of what Shahak actually wrote, much is asserted as if true that has no basis in Shahak's writings. A scholarly critique, such as Shahak wrote, should be paraphrased, and then, to it, one should append what others scholars say in disagreement. To substitute this with guttersniping that says 'Don't read the books. This is dangerous bigotry' is to undermine the ideal of an encyclopedia. But of course, this comment has little to do with the question of RS. Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Restaurant menus?

Just a quick query. What do people reckon to the status of restaurant menus with respect to providing reliable evidence that a particular dish is a) widely available; b) commonly composed of a fixed set of ingredients; and c) commonly identified as an entity separate of its constituent ingredients? Pyrope 19:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• A single menu is not wide and not common (unless it's a McDonalds recipe, but it's the least thing I'd like to read...). It's an isolated, ephemeral episode that does not say much of a particular culture. Compiling different menus is a far shot at WP:SYN. NVO (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Restaurant menus also don't qualify as being 'published'. At best, some (like those of large corporations) are self-published. All in all, I think this would be a very weak source at best. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It would seem, at least to me, that cookbooks, cooking magazines, and the food columns in local newspapers would be the preferred sources to be researching. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

To what particular dish are you referring? L0b0t (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback people. The dish I had in mind specifically is pizza-ghetti. I know from personal experience that it is a widespread and popular dish in Quebec so it would seem to deserve an article. However, the only sources online are blogs and restaurant menus (and yes, synthesizing them would verge on WP:OR). As the dish is fairly low-brow in its appeal it is hardly likely to ever be the subject of major print media attention (let alone cookbooks!) so getting a source that fully conforms to WP:V is nigh on impossible. To delete the page seems silly and narrow-minded, but by Wikipedia policy there seems to be very little way of fending off the protocol junkies bent on its demise. Pyrope 16:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably not as hard as you fear. Web cook sites have recipes for it (not just blogs), and even if a "primary source" for the existence of the recipe, the existence of recipes should be non-controversial. Collect (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Those have come up in discussions and the point has been made that an awful lot of such sites have user-contributed content and a fairly sketchy reputation for checking facts. Pyrope 15:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue came up many years ago on a computer service provider I worked for -- the actual recipes are not copyrightable, but the wording of them, to the extent it is more than mix, bake at a temp etc. can be. The issue here is not even that, but whether a recipe for something called "pizza-ghetti" exists, which is not a matter of the site making claims as to fact, but the simple fact of recipes existing <g>. Collect (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Mariah Carey discography sources

There is an ongoing edit war in the Mariah Carey discography article regarding figures and sources for album sales. (The problem is much more widespread, but this is as good example as any.) The problem is that centrally located, publicly accessible information regarding world-wide album sales figures is not generally available (that I know of), and press releases and news stories from primary and secondary sources are spotty and often dated. Tertiary sources (such as fan sites) may provide more up-to-date information, but the reliability and verifiability of the information has been questioned. Several editors disagree as to what figures and sources should be used.

I consider myself a passer-by who took an interest in trying to resolve some of these sourcing issues. However, I am not familiar enough with the industry nor am I sufficiently knowledgeable in Wikipedia reliable source guidelines to know what the best solution would be. So I am inviting any of you who read this to join this discussion to express your views. More specifically, I also would like to solicit opinions on the use of "http://www.mariahdaily.com/infozone/charts/albums/worldwide/index.shtml" and "http://www.undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=4687" as sources. Thank you. -- Tcncv (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I may be breaking protocol, but I'm moving this to the end in another attempt to get some attention. Are there any RS regulars here here who could evaluate and comment on the sourcing problems in the Mariah Carey discography article?. I'm ready to punt and move on otherwise. Thank you. -- Tcncv (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Try billboard.com, they are the industry leader.(~)

Thank you. I'm familiar with billboard and several other industry sites. My dilemma is that these sites and other preferred sources such as mainstream media to not regularly release detailed information such as sales figures. If such sources are available, often they are dated. My question was could less well known sources such as "http://www.mariahdaily.com/infozone/charts/albums/worldwide/index.shtml" and "http://www.undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=4687" be considered reliable sources for more up-to-date information. Several editors of the Mariah Carey discography article were insisting on using such sources. I did not think these sources were acceptable and was looking other opinions here. (I'm still waiting for an answer.) -- Tcncv (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like mariahdaily.com is reliable. I don't see anything on their site about editorial oversight. Undercover.com is harder to judge, based on this and this. They're probably very borderline, if acceptable at all. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) After a quick review of those sites, here's some feedback on your question:

• http://www.mariahdaily.com - not a reliable source, because they state on the page with their sales charts: "These worldwide sales figures are based on both press releases from credible sources and certifications in the top music markets in the world. Keep in mind, that world sales reported by labels and the media are basedon certifications/shipment figures from around the world and not actual sales." So they acknowledge the figures are inaccurate, and in addition, some of the info is repeating self-published sources (press releases).

• http://www.undercover.com.au - might be reliable, but not enough info to be sure. Their "about us" page states they report info from their own staff and from AP, Reuters, etc, but we don't know the level of fact-checking. If someone knows more about them and can show that their reputation is solid, they could be a reliable source. Without that supporting info, the way I would handle that site is to use attribution when mentioning information sourced to that site. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. Out of interest, what are you (Peregrine Fisher) looking at in the results of the google search? -- Tcncv (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference to Published Correspondence

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to ask your advice in relation to a situation arising on the Scriptural Reasoning article.

There are three users, all of whom arrived simultaneously on or around 27 November 2008, all of whom are employed by or otherwise connected to the same organisation, who have repeatedly removed material on the article which is critical of the organisation by which they are employed or connected -- I have raised the issue of "Conflict of Interest" with them repeatedly.

The specific question here today, relates to a reference to some correspondence which has been publicly circulated by its author, David Ford (a third party from the other side of the debate -- which both sides accept as a reliable author), and is published on the website:

http://www.cambridgeinterfaithprogramme.org/

The correspondence states:

"The solution proposed [to the dispute around faith leadership of an SR group in London] is in terms of a governance model using principles of equality, symmetry, neutrality, etc. This holds out the hope of an immediate 'fix' in legal/constitutional terms rather like the way secular modernity responded to religious conflicts...but Scriptural Reasoning in my experience has so far not been convinced by it. The "asymmetries of hospitality" (e.g. the role of Anglicans in initiating St Ethelburga's) are part of the messiness (and providence!) of actual history, which always requires making the most of particular resources and rarely conforms to our abstract principles."

Publicly Circulated Correspondence from David Ford, Director of the Cambridge Interfaith Programme, 24 January 2007

The correspondence was circulated publicly by the author. All parties agree and do not dispute that all the correspondence is true, but the other party are suggesting that it can't be referenced in the Wikipedia article because all references in Wikipedia need to come from academic journals, academic books, and the like.

From the point of view of Verifiability not only is the correspondence referenced to date and authorship, but there is also an address, telephone number, fax and e-mail to the ORIGINAL AUTHOR - in other words, it is fact-checkable:

The accuracy of all the above written statements may be VERIFIED by contacting the authors directly at:

The Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme, Faculty of Divinity, West Road, Cambridge CB3 9BS, United Kingdom Telephone: +44 1223 763013 Fax: +44 1223 763014 E-mail: cip@divinity.cam.ac.uk sr@divinity.cam.ac.uk

Furthermore, of course, in order that the published correspondence does in fact support the point being made, all the words of the reference were quoted IN FULL in the footnoted reference on the Wikipedia article.

However, the other party (who are employed or connected to the organisation in question) keep reverting and removing this reference -- primarily I believe, because this publicly circulated correspondence is an embarassment for them. The organisation The Scriptural Reasoning Society Board of Trustees cites the correspondence above, to support their assertions around "asymmetries of hospitality" in Scriptural Reasoning.

Please would you let me know that given that every means of verifiablity directly to the original author himself who publicly circulated it in the first place is made available including means of telephone/e-mail communication, that this is admissible as a third party statement which is published and which may easily be verified.

• It is clear from all the statements made by all editors on both sides, that none of the users on -- either side of the debate -- disputes or challenges the accuracy of the statements which were made and referred to above. Neither side disagrees that the stated emails are indeed genuine, and that they were made by the authors they purport to be, on that date -- ie. everyone agrees that the e-mail is entirely accurate and true. A major reason for this consensus is that "Scriptural Reasoning" is a tiny world, and both sides of the debate know each other very well, and we all know the author of the published e-mails in the first place, and there is no dispute on this point of factual accuracy.

• Given the above agreement, the dispute appears (in my personal opinion) to be essentially a way of the other side of the debate preventing a fact upon which we all agree, and a source whose truth upon which we all agree, coming into the public domain by the other party asserting that however much they and we are in agreement, Wikipedia rules that all references must be published in reputable academic journals, newspapers and the like only. The facts and claims are not disputed by either side, the e-mail and its authorship and content are not disputed by either side, what is being asserted by one side is that Wikipedia regulations do not allow its publication because it isn't in an academic journal or reputable newspaper.

From what I have been advised, am I correct in saying that this isn't the case, but rather Wikipedia regulations are more fluid and guided by particular case, and the question of whether the facts are being disputed -- so if the facts/claims contained in the above reference were disputed by either party (which is not the case here), then indeed only a strongly reputable scientific journal or academic source would do?

I am very sorry to trouble you, but would really appreciate your advice on this one. Many thanks.

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Not looking too closely, but if it's definitely written by that well published author, then it can be used. Whether it should be used is an editorial decision. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Very many thanks for your kind assistance with this. This is extremely helpful. Thank you.

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, though. Firstly, it needs clarifying that while academic sources are good, the reliabiity requirement isn't as stringent as that: books and news sources of origins generally considered as reliable are OK.

As to the specifics, though, "X wrote this; you can contact them at ... wherever ... to verify it" is never viewed as acceptable sourcing. If the material is essentially ephemera, we just have to do without it unless it's reliably recorded (i.e. neutral context).

Also, the whole point of Wikipedia is that it's based on reliable third-party published sources. Material not third-party reported (e.g. it's not in the newspapers) and only findable on what's clearly a hostile partisan site, is pretty shaky. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be clarified, in case anyone else wants to comment on this, that the website referred to by Scripturalreasoning, on which the published material has appeared, is not under the control of David Ford (the author of the correspondence); he himself has (as far as anyone knows) not published it, or authorised its publication, anywhere. And I can't recall anyone on the talk pages having said that all references should be to academic/scientific sources; this is not the point at issue. For what it's worth. Laysha101 (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's problematic. While a self-published document by an established author (such as David F. Ford) is acceptable, WP:V cautions that "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." We have here a situation where somebody else has done so, but the material has been published in a non-reliable source, and for dubious reasons. I think we can accept something published by David F. Ford himself, or something published by him in a reliable source. But I don't think we can accept material published by a non-reliable source. There is no information about the website other than the statement at the top: "This analysis site - independent of control of the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme - is under construction." We have no named editor or publisher. Given the circumstances I would say that this source can not be used. SilkTork *^YES! 20:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Can this online source be used if it is specified this is the site's view?

Hello, I'd like to know if I can use the following webpage in wikipedia dedicated to a musical genre.I know websites are to be used with caution in general. But I'd like to know if I can quote this page: [15] in specifying this is a view from a website like this:

The website "A Study of Gothic subculture" describes it as being "most characterized by soprano female vocals combined with bass, lead guitar, and drums which creates a surreal, angelic or otherworldly effect e.g...."

Also I have to specify this is not the only source I use, we also use published sources for this article. As I said I'm aware online sources have to be used with caution, but I just like to know if I can use it in specifying this is a view of this site.

Thanks in advance Fred D.Hunter (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like that site has editorial control, or is notable.[16] Basically, it cannot be used. Sorry, I know defining genre's can be really difficult. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Various reviews of The Asylum DVDs

Hello. I am starting a discussion to bring up the reliability of the following sources.

"STEVE ANDERSONs Weekly DVD Reviews". Retrieved 2009-02-06.

"Cinema Crazed Review". Retrieved 2009-02-06.

"Slasherpool Review". Retrieved 2009-02-06.

"Horror Talk Reviews". Retrieved 2009-02-06.

"Slasherpool Review". Retrieved 2009-02-06.

"Cinema Crazed Review". Retrieved 2009-02-06.

"Cinema Crazed Review". Retrieved 2009-02-06.

"4outof10 Review". Retrieved 2009-02-06.

Each of these sources was added by the user Magnius in the article The Asylum. The Asylum is known for producing low-budget films capitalizing on the releases of major Hollywood studios. These releases are sometimes known as "mockbusters". The article for the studio contains a section listing mockbusters and the original studio releases. I had asked editors not to add titles for which reliable sources (such as newspapers, books and NPR) which refer to each title as a "mockbuster" could not be provided. When I questioned Magnius about these sources, he did not respond in any way. He simply blanked his talk page without responding in either his editing description or on my own talk page. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

• Update: Magnius has removed my placement of the possibly unreliable sources within notes, again, with no edit description. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
  • And it seems that this user has had a history of such edits to articles and his talk page, and has been warned against adding content without citing reliable sources. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
    • And now he has added a citation which does not refer to the film cited as a "mockbuster". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
      • I brought this issue up again, and he has once again removed my concerns from his talk page. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

I looked at a few of the sources. They do not appear reliable. That's all we can really do here. There's probably some other page that can help. Not sure which one, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

David Ferguson (impresario) (yeah, again, sorry...)

Okay, here's the issue in a nutshell:

The March/April 2008 issue of NY Arts had an article by Angela Holm. Her byline for the article said:

Angela Holm is a San Francisco-based freelance writer and the Director of Productions at Big Sound, Inc., where she is currently working on the definitive restoration of the 1929 silent film, Pandora’s Box.

The initial version of Ferguson's article said (May 2008):

Ferguson formed Big Sound in 2006 as a means of realizing his ambitions to preserve and present classic silent films in a live setting. ... The German classic Pandora's Box — based on the restoration of the original film funded by Hugh M. Hefner — which starred the American actress and Jazz Age icon, Louise Brooks is the first of Big Sound's restoration efforts. Spearheaded by Ferguson and Big Sound's Vice President of Production Angela Holm, the project also enlisted The George Eastman House, a preeminent leader in film restoration, as its archival sponsor.

My thought: okay, Holm worked for Big Sound (based on her byline). Per the old version of the article, not only did she work for BS, but Ferguson started BS, and they worked together. Easy answer: it's obvious COI, and we can't use her piece as a source.

At a later point, research made it clear that there are no sources for that section at all—not that he founded BS, or even that it ever existed. Consequently, that section got cut. That's fine by me.

However, now an editor (one with an admitted conflict of interest) is claiming that this is trying to have it both ways: WP must either allow something to be in the article with no sourcing (the existence of BS) or WP must allow Holm's biased article to be used as a source (since our article no longer says she works for him).

My take: there are plenty of things in the world that aren't referenced well enough to be used in WP but we know to be true. I think it's a DUCK, and we can't use her piece as a source.

Your thoughts? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to DoriSmith re: David Ferguson (impresario) /Angela Holm false COI accusation

Re: DoriSmith is trying to cloud the RS discussion by again reintroducing as evidence something that she, herself, previously dismissed as unreliable due to lack of verification. Now she is straining to recycle the original David Ferguson (impresario) article to illustrate a COI between Angela Holm and the article's subject, David Ferguson.

To quote DoriSmith from above: "My take: there are plenty of things in the world that aren't referenced well enough to be used in WP but we know to be true."

Is this instinctive knowledge that Dori refers to corroborated by any verifiable third party source?? Funny...but I bet if another user tried that 'plenty of things...but we know to true' nonsense to substantiate or argue for the inclusion of a passage of text in an article, Dori would step in and challenge immediately and be most vociferous in her objection. For example, in addressing user 'Damesmartypants' (who has stocked Ferguson's Discussion page with potentially libelous commentary), DoriSmith wrote:

Could we please stop all talk about "go contact so-and-so" or "it's generally known by insiders" or similar language? If you want to do that kind of writing, go start a blog. That's not what WP is about. If you have any questions, read the above quotation again, and follow the links. How about we instead start discussing when would be a good cutoff for deleting all the stuff for which no one can find a cite? Or alternately, we could start editing the workpage I set up a few weeks ago. Right now, this article is still a disaster area. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 10:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that argument for verifiable sourcing seems to matter little. It was for those very reasons of improper sourcing that the Big Sound passage found in the original article was removed. Now DoriSmith wants to turn around and now use it as a fall-back position to defend what is an unfounded COI allegation. This hypocritical gesture should be confronted and the NY Arts article written by Angela Holm should be allowed to substantiate text for the David Ferguson (impresario) article.

Thank you for reviewing

DrJamesX (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX

Dori, Failing to properly substantiate a COI between Holm and Ferguson (and failing to properly provide a source for a connection between Ferguson and Big Sound) you instead try an over-reach on a different front. You have again improperly characterized my relationship with David Ferguson. Unlike 'uwishiwasjohng' I did not admit to COI in the passage you cite, as you falsely state above. In fact, I disputed 'uwishiwasjohng's COI accusation in this very passage :

And just to address any concerns of COI on my part. I'm not a 'sock puppet' or a 'meat puppet' (though if Kirkson asked me to join the band, I would seriously consider it). I'm not in the employ of Ferguson. I am an independent writer putting together a book on Ferguson and seek to maintain an appropriate professional distance from the subject

You can try to manipulate my acknowledgment of being an independent writer 'putting together a book on Ferguson' as COI but it doesn't fly. It is possible to write or engage in scholarship about a subject and maintain objectivity or a balanced point of view. Please refrain from trying to twist my words to your advantage and from issuing such baseless accusations.

DrJamesX (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX

familytreelegends.com

What do people think of this? I ran across it here and when I saw the citation I was like "how on earth do I know for sure that this is the celebrity, and not someone with the same name?" I then did a link search and saw that this site is currently used over 500 on wikipedia. And suppose that a public figure, like a celebrity, does not want to have their birthday published, and they have successfully made sure that the birthdate has been kept out of the media, is it appropriate for wikipedia to dig up county records and publish the birthday for the first time? Anyway, what do others think about this site in general, and this case specifically?-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought this would be a no-go, but it's associated with some published software. So I don't know. If it was a published book, it would be fine. As far as their being more than one Amanda Michalka about the same age, good question. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew c, in this particular case, you seem to really want to keep the birthdates of the Michalka‎ sisters a secret, you've deleted it several times in the past. Any particular reason? Their ages (and hence their birth year) is pretty common knowledge and easy to verify and many sites list the same birthdays for them that we have here. Why are you convinced that they do 'not want to have their birthday published'? --Judgeking (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, do you really think it's likely that 2 girls with the exact first, middle and last name would be born in the same city in the same year? Especially with a name like Michalka? --Judgeking (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of what I think is likely or not. It is a matter of verifiability and reliable sourcing, both wikipedia policies. Without using original research, how on earth can we verify this content? In terms of our policy, specifically how does this source qualify as "reliable" (please cite our policy). It seems like you are suggesting we ignore the rules here because this information is "common knowledge", yet not a single unarguably reliable source can be presented (what does it say on their official website?) Hope this helps explain where I am coming from.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

When dealing with biographies of living persons, an unarguably reliable source is rare. Most, like FamilyTreeLegends, are "cautiously reliable". This is valid, according to our policy; nowhere does it state that all references need to be "unarguably reliable". It does state that "Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published". This is not libelous information, it's just their birthdays. Show me the "unarguably reliable" citation for Charles Darwin's birthday!
This software is sold on Amazon.com, recommended by a published magazine (http://www.familytreemagazine.com/softwareguide) and recommened by Dick Eastman, Assistant Executive Director for Technology of the New England Historic Genealogical Society. It's also currently used as a reference for hundreds of Wikipedia pages, which means that thousands of users are, at the very least, optimistically cautious about this source. --Judgeking (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, in regard to their birth year, I've already explained in my update that several cited articles state their current ages as well as the article publication date, which tells us their birth year. --Judgeking (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, if something is widely published, then cite it. You said nothing regarding my concern of verifiability. How do we know these are the celebrities? Having a sort of unique name is not a good enough reason, IMO. Either their birthdays are already published and we can attribute them to their published sources, or we can't. Can we get a third opinion here please?-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

They were the only girls born in the entire state of California with those names in the year of their birth, that's how we know it's them. And it's not a 'sort of unique name', it's a very, very unique name, there are only 23 Michalka's listed in the entire state of California on 411.com. And if you want to see how widely published their birthdays are, Google 'Michalka ("March 25" OR "April 10")' to get a few thousand examples. --Judgeking (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why not cite one of those few thousand sources instead?-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth

There has been an ongoing dispute at Larry Sanger about whether the assertion "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth" is verifiable. Two sources have been used for this information.

The first is a piece in the Telegraph providing a bulleted list of items about Wikipedia. The only blurb mentioning "consensus" is a collection of quotes from The Colbert Report describing Wikipedia as "truth by consensus".

The second is a column in The Times by guest contributor Oliver Kamm. The relevant quotation from that column is "Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices."

Are either of these sources sufficient to assert "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth" as fact and not opinion?

(There remain disagreements over whether this fact is relevant to the article in question anyway, but I'd appreciate feedback on the verifiability of the assertion.) Rvcx (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• The text was restored by SDJ.
• The text was restored by Jennavecia.
• The text was restored by SqueakBox.
• The text was restored by QuackGuru.
• Crohnie agrees with restoring the text.
• There is consensus to keep the relevant text in the article. The sourced text is relevant. Most editors want to include the text.

On Wikipedia, we write text according to reliable references presented. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. See WP:V. Kamm, Oliver (August 16, 2007). "Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds". The Times. Retrieved 2009-01-07. Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices. Here is the exact text from the source. The referenced text accurately reflects the source presented. There is clear consensus to include the text.[17][18][19][20][21] QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what is asked to be verified. That Larry Sanger said "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth"? Or that he asserts it? The Colbert Report and quote from the Times do not seem to uphold that. The most accurate way to word that is that Wikipedia is perceived to promote consensus over truth. It's own policies as cited in WP:V refute the issue of truth at all. The entire section is unclear and poorly written, against MOS iwth bullet points and use of cquotes. It should be rewritten --Moni3 (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been rewritten, but QuackGuru has reverted the rewrite many times. Matters of style aside, the current question is whether "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth" is a verifiable fact and can be presented as such and not as an individual opinion. (I think it's completely obvious that the provided sources don't support it as Sanger's opinion.) Rvcx (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be obvious to someone with Wiki experience who will click on the sources and check them out. It is not obvious to a general reader, and no one should assume a general reader will click on to check sources. It should be written clearly in the first place. As an editor with much experience, I could not understand what the section was trying to say. --Moni3 (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy we assume a general reader will click on a source to verify the text if they want to verify it. This is basic Wikipedia policy.

See WP:V: 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.

I checked the source and the text can easily be verfiied when reading the reference. See WP:Consensus, not truth. QuackGuru (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:RS is relevant here: "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact". The source provided is clearly an opinion piece, and thus can be used only as a source for Kamm's opinion, not for any fact about Wikipedia. There are serious WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH issues about including such opinions in the article at hand, but that's not relevant to the discussion here. Rvcx (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any disagreement among reliable sources that Wikipedia promotes consensus. Adding additional attribution seems unecessary. See WP:ASF. The source is clearly reliable and no evidence to the contrary has been provided. QuackGuru (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Fancy rat

Another editor and I have a question about whether an established club can be used as a reference on standards in a hobby. Specifically, whether the websites of the National Fancy Rat Society and American Fancy Rat and Mouse Assoc. can be used for claims about standards in coat colors, types, etc. for pet rats. My argument is that this is not unlike sourcing the American Kennel Club, or other such long-standing club when discussing standards, and it provides the most current and accessible reference. PSWG1920 would prefer to use books on pet rat care as they would be a more secondary source. Please respond at Talk:Fancy rat. Thanks! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, it's not that I would necessarily prefer books, I just have some doubts about whether the aforementioned associations would be considered RS by Wikipedia standards. I'm trying to make sure that this is an objectively good article before I pass it. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking into them. NFRS[22][23][24] AFRA[25][26][27] It looks like they're both notable, so their opinions on rats should be OK if attributed to them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Reviews on naxos.com reliable?

Specifically this one of Segovia: http://www.naxos.com/reviews/reviews.asp?reviewdate=2/0-0/2008&rvwtyp=2008/2&reviewtype=david#8.111092

Thanks, --Rogerb67 (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Burkhard Heim/Mutual UFO Network

Is this article (in German) from the German affiliate of the Mutual UFO Network a RS for historical/biographical information on Burkhard Heim, a German physicist working mostly in the area of gravity control? An editor on the article claims that MUFON's work has been incorporated by Peter A. Sturrock in a report, but I'm still sceptical as to their reliability. The German MUFON article is the main source for the Heim article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I would avoid it as self-published and way fringe (disclaimer: I only read the babelfish version). Doubly so given that Heim has been discussed by solidly reliable sources. I would advise just sticking with what those say. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So, an obituary by a MUFON-CES officer is not reliable because it was not published in a peer reviewed journal and was authored by a MUFON-CES official. Fascinating reliability assurance measures.Tcisco (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

jdorama.com

I'm trying to use this as a source/external link for Bengoshi no Kuzu. Japanese television drama, Miho Kanno, Naohito Fujiki, Sora Aoi, just to name a few, all cite jdorama.com as reference or external link. Is the information reliable? Extremepro (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a self-published website by Jakob Persson. He does not appear to claim to be a "recognised authority" in the field, and the website does not appear to be widely cited in the news, books or scholarly articles. As such it appears to be a self-published site not by an acknowledged expert nor the subject of the article, and thus not reliable. User comments and forum entries are of course totally unreliable. --Rogerb67 (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Medpedia

Could some expert take a look at Medpedia - currently preview as not launched yet & see whether it would be considered relaible because of the contributors - even though its a wiki?— Rod ^talk 11:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

While contributors certainly appear to require some kind of medical background, this disclaimer seems to suggest there is not full editorial oversight: "[I]nformation provided on Medpedia is written and monitored by a large community of people that are not employees of Medpedia or controlled by Medpedia.com" (emphasis mine). This part is similar to a regular Wiki. the signup page says: "to qualify to edit or contribute to the main content, you must have an M.D. or Ph.D. in a biomedical field", i.e. any medical doctor or PhD in a medically-related field can potentially edit the content, without editorial oversight. Thus these are effectively self-published, and not every PhD or MD is a "recognised expert" in every conceivable field in medicine. In general, these are not reliable. If articles are properly referenced, it may be a good place for finding reliable sources however. --Rogerb67 (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Internet encyclopedia as sources

hello

Anybody there to enlighten us about the use of internet-published encyclopedia as sources for debated points? We have a certain debate of using figures for ethnic groups and percentages from the following sources (there are no official figures on this subject):

• Encarta[28]
• www.pu.go.id, which seems to--Ilyacadiz (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC) be an Indonesian government site.
• Nations online
• Populstat

My question: is any of these sources considered a reliable source? If some of these are not considered reliable, should they be deleted speedily or could they be kept as to give an overview of what figures are given around on internet?

Thanks for any answer--Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I am always cautions when it comes to citing figures for ethnic groups... the statistics can be skewed, even in the best sources.

• Encarta is usually reliable... and it does list its sources (which are reliable themselves). so this is your best option.
• I do not see any indication of authorship or reliability on the pu.go.id site
• nationsonline.com lists Wikipedia as a source, so we should definitely be cautious. We could be citing ourselves. Essentially we need to know if they took their figures from us or from some other source (and which one).
• populstat is a personal website. According to the About page and the Sources page, the page's owner seems to use use good methodology and sources ... but we have no way to know for sure. Not reliable.

So... The only one that can really be relied on with any certainty is Encarta. The others are questionable at best. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Blueboar, that helps me a lot further. I'll keep only Encarta.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Oxford University Press a reliable source?

I am interested in third opinions. At present, myself and another editor are in disagreement whether a passage from the book published by Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5, meets Wikipedia standards for inclusion in the article. This is the edit in dispute. This discussion is ongoing on the talk page Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Saul_Cornell_paid_mouthpiece_of_the_Joyce_Foundation_-_POV_bias_issue and I would welcome some third opinions in the discussion there. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This is more a WEIGHT and NPOV issue than an RS issue. Your edit fails to note that Cornell's view is controversial. Phrase it as Cornell's POV, fairly note that it's disputed and that more reputable scholars like Amar disagree with him, and there shouldn't be a problem. THF (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Who's Who

Is Canadian Who's Who a reliable source for a WP biography about an individual listed there? In addition to other sources? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a reputable press. I'd say yes for sourcing, though not enough to establish notability by itself. THF (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

JKRowling.com

Is JKRowling.com a reliable source to show that a fansite is notable? [29] --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be bootstrapping, I think (notability doesn't transfer, etc.). It may or may not be worth including in the article if the fansite is otherwise notable, but it doesn't demonstrate notability on its own. THF (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

So, can it be used as one of the reliable sources required by Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria? --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2009

As I said, no. By its own terms:

This criterion includes reliable published works ... websites... except for the following:

• • Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address,...

This is just a link, and is the sort of trivial coverage that does not constitute significant independent coverage. THF (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The link points to more coverage about the fansite, so it is not trivial but that's not important if it does not qualify as an independent source. Thanks for your help! --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Citing stories from newswire

Hi all

Don't know the right place to ask this but am certain that many of you here will help. I have a strong view that citations to wire stories should be cited to the wire rather than to another publication (even if properly identified with the "agency" tag), as the implication that the other publication has created the content changes (sometimes dramatically—and not always in the same direction) inferences about the weight of authority.

Anyone know where discussions of this sort of thing belongs?

Thanks, Bongomatic 00:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was about to ask something like this but arguing the opposite point. It seems to me a wire story is easier to verify if cited in dead-tree format. Also wire stories can be updated instantaneously, and it can take sifting through "retrieved on" tags, article history, and "updated on" if times (with time zones) are included in the data citation. It may not be easy to track down a years-old wire story, but you can walk into any library and get microfiche of the New York Times.

However, I do share the concern that the name of the wire service should be prominent in the citation. I don't know how these are usually handled; does the wire service become the author? Or do we just add "via (name of wire service)" to the cite?

While the newspapers usually don't change the wire service material, occasionally you see articles where the newspaper adds its own content to the wire story. Usually those have one of their reporter's names plus a statement like "The Associated Press contributed to this report". Whether that should show up in our cites I don't know.

But if we do come up with a standard way of choosing a newspaper to reference wire stories, that would be an interesting discussion. Do we choose the first, latest, widest circulation, geographically closest to the news story, stories that add their own material, cleanest website design, what?

Also, aren't a lot of wire stories actually written by the member news outlets who then sell the rights to the wire service? Is there a way to tell which outlet wrote the story? Maybe that should be the one cited. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is something I've wondered about too. I sometimes just throw "AP Wire" or whatever in for the author, but that's not very satisfying. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Erika Friedman RS for yuri related anime & manga

Hi,

Someone suggested to bring the issue here
The issue : Are Erika Friedman and her blog RS for yuri related anime & manga articles ?
The available clues :

Erica Friedman's Guide to Yuri (AfterEllen.com)

guest lectured at the University of Illinois

talked at MIT

She is also the president ALC Publishing, a publishing house dedicated to yuri manga.
Thanks for your insights --KrebMarkt 12:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Let's rephrase this:

The issue is whether Erika Friedman and her blog qualifies as an appropriate self published source for yuri related articles. WP:VERIFY's requirements are being an "expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications".

More of the available credentials (will collect more when I have some time):

Interview: Erica Friedman (About.com)

Erica Friedman's Top 10 Yuri Manga (About.com)

I think she meets this requirements, but let's see what you guys have to say about it. Kazu-kun (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say that she is an expert. She's the head of a publishing house (although I think it's a small one) and universities and about.com seem to think her opinion is important. And so do a few other RSs. It's close though. I wouldn't use her for anything controversial, or BLP related. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Neanderthal genome project

Since Neanderthal genome project is currently featured on a news blurb on the main page, could someone please look at this question? My concern is that the article is giving a critique from a fairly low-profile journal far too much weight. I have not even read the section in question very deeply, but from a credibility of sources perspective, it seems very wrong. Thanks, Vesal (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

PLoS Genetics is a recognized high-quality source. Within its domain, I would rank it quite comparable to Nature and Science, although these have wider appeal and are better known. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good. I will let people know on the page. Thank you, Vesal (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Webbed toes

Bit of a odd question. This was made to the article. The problem is that the site that hosts the video will only play them if you live in the US. Is someone willing to look at the video and confirm that it does show that he has webbed toes? Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 15:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Clear original research, even if it's true. Feel free to cut it. THF (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 18:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Political allegiance of newspapers

We have some specific wrangling about sources at Talk:Daily Mail#political bent but this is a more general issue. The infobox for newspapers has a Political allegiance entry and this encourages editors to fill something in. This seems an invitation to OR since only official party organs such as Pravda or the Daily Worker can easily be said to have a specific party allegiance. Independent newspapers with a long history will tend to have adopted various positions over time and so it seems difficult to attribute a single party position to them. What might be an acceptable source for this, if anything? Thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It is better to state the query in a neutral manner, commodore. The Daily Mail endorses the Tories, has a majority Tory readership, and , per your insistence, even has a RS cite for it being Tory in allegieance. Moreover, The Guardian says so but you aver "The Guardian is obviously not a reliable source." And "No, we have assorted suggestions such as fascist and populist and so is there is no consensus. I myself think of the Daily Mail as a woman's newspaper. Since the matter is controversial, our core policy requires good sourcing, "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles." In short, you are more willing to think that calling it "fascist" is not damaging, but calling it "Conservative" is damaging? As for the RS provided, you aver "It is a paper presented by a couple of academics and does not seem especially authoritative or comprehensive." So a claim made by a journalist is not RS, a claim made by the newspaper itself is not fine, a poll of readership is irrelevant, and claims made by "academics" are not RS? <g> But a claim that a paper is "fascist" is fine? Interesting sort of position, indeed <g>. Collect (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me a field like that in the infobox is just asking for trouble. Look at all the silliness going on right now with music genre infoboxes. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The colonel cites you as a group of editors who all agree that infoboxes on newspapers should say nothing about their slant -- to which I said he needed to go to the template discussion rather than just work on a single paper. Unless, of course, you do have Multiple Editor Disorder? <g> Collect (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Xcitement.com - Evan Seinfeld

Xcitement is an online published magazine covering the adult entertainment industry. While it's hardly the biggest fish in the pond, I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of its interview transcripts.

Specifically, the matter involves an interview with Evan Seinfeld's wife - Tera Patrick, in which she states his ethnic background as Jewish. I see no reason why the magazine would distort this information, nor her, nor Evan (to his wife).

However, another editor seems to insist that it isn't WP:RS, and is insistent on reverting edits such as this one. Any comments here? Given the number of online sources used in articles, I see no valid reason to doubt Xcitement's reliability in the matter. For economic forecasting - well, perhaps not... GrizzledOldMan (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The article in question is a WP:BLP - it requires sources of the highest quality. Sourcing any material, let alone contentious claims regarding the subject's ethnicity, to an on-line porn magazine is an indication that you have not read or understood WP:RS, nor WP:BLP. NoCal100 (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

How is his ethnicity contentious, or subject to question, especially since it's quoting his -WIFE-? Also, you have a problem with understanding the difference between a porn rag, and a magazine that covers the industry. Xcitement seems as good or better than most of the industry rags out there. Well, whatever your whinge might be, I've replaced it from an interview reprinted on his own band's web site. Or are you going to claim that they're unreliable? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#On-line porn magazines - reliable_sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Darren M. Jackson

I was wondering if "Andrews, John E (2001). "Fracas at the Fair". Romany Routes 5 (4)." would be a reliable source for claiming someone has fought in illegal bare knuckle fights. The source was previously brought up at RSN here, but in a different context. Also, is claiming "Jackson is related to Henry Jackson, King of the Gypsies" with "GRO Census 1881 of Births and Marriages" as a source OK - or is following a record of births and marriages original research? Thanks! --aktsu ^(t / c) 22:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

should we not get the answer first, before removing, The Andrews John E, was sourced after the first ADf and was eccepted by admin and editors.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove first and take it to the talk page, when it comes to biographies. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Diamonddannyboy is disputing its unreliability for such a claim - hence why I'm here. --aktsu ^(t / c) 14:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Freddy Garcia

There's currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Freddy García and sources of birthdates about the reliability of sources for baseball players birthdates. Input would be appreciated.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want help from editors on this page, please provide a short summary of the issues. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources for University Rankings

Could you please advise whether the following 10 sources can be considered reliable in order to verify and include a reference to the 4icu.org University rankings in the College and university rankings article?

1) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Education and Social Science Library
Debuted in 1997, The College and University Rankings Web page is maintained by librarians at the Education and Social Science Library, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. It contains selected rankings and provides "caution & controversy" information related to some academic university rankings.

2) Indiana University IU News Room
Press release produced by the Indiana University communication office, and published in their website, mentioning their position in the 4icu.org ranking.

3) IOL Diario
Article published in a Portuguese newspaper about the position of the Coimbra University (founded in 1290) in the 4icu.org ranking.

4) Tribuna do Norte
Article published in a Brazilian regional newspaper about the position of the UEL University in the 4icu.org ranking. This is probably based on a press news that UEL has autonomously decided to release after evaluating their ranking in the 4icu.org directory.

5) Wikipedia - Shahjalal University of Science and Technology
Wikipedia article on the Bangladeshi Shahjalal University of Science and Technology mentioning the 4icu.org ranking.

6) Wikipedia - Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology
Same as above

7) Wikipedia - Keio University
Same as above but for the Japanese Keio University established in 1858

8) Wikipedia - Education in Tokyo
Rankings overview for higher education organisations in Tokyo mentioning the 4icu.org ranking

9) Wikipedia - Clasificación académica de universidades de Colombia
Article in Spanish about rankings of higher education organisations in Colombia mentioning the 4icu.org ranking

10) Wikipedia - Ranking de universidades españolas
Article in Spanish about rankings of higher education organisations in Spain mentioning the 4icu.org ranking

Are the above sources, according to your experience and knowledge of the wikipedia guidelines, sufficient to include the following paragraph in the above mentioned Wikipedia article?

The 4icu.org Web Popularity Ranking of world universities is produced by the 4 International Colleges and Universities higher education search engine and directory. The 4icu.org ranking is not based on academic criteria and intends to identify which Universities' websites are the most popular in terms of online international presence and popularity. It is based on three independent web metrics and indicators, Page Rank, Traffic Rank, and Total Link Popularity, extracted from three search engines: Google, Alexa and Yahoo!. The 4icu.org Web Popularity Ranking is provided at international, continent and country level.

What you have are primary sources (of varying quality). What you need is a good secondary source that describes 4ICU. And, btw, the 5 Wikipedia articles are completely unusable as sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The UIUC site may be usable as a secondary source assessing the ranking. But I'm not sure where ranking of how much traffic a college's web site gets would fit in to our College and university rankings article, which is mainly about academics and student life. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. Stephan what about this article published in 2007 on the Journal of Institutional Research, Australasian Association for Institutional Research, written by a researcher from the Monash University: The Impact of Ranking Systems on Higher Education and its Stakeholders (pp 87–88). Squidfryerchef the 4icu.org ranking algorythm includes 3 different web metrics; only one of them is related to traffic (Alexa). Moreover the current wikipedia article already contains at least 2 University rankings, Webometrics and G-Factor, which are based on non academic web related metrics.

How to use a primary source?

I consider an interview which was broadcasted by a news network to be a primary source illustrating the line of thought of the interviewee. Therefore I would say it is a source that can be added as a reference to a biography on this person (under sources or external links). Am I right about this?--AdeleivdVelden (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources may be used: "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" (WP:PRIMARY). In particular "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". "Illustrating the line of thought of the interviewee" as you want to will almost certainly involve interpretation, so you will need to tread with extreme care. Additionally, you'll need a reliable permanent record of the interview (i.e. not YouTube) to refer to to provide verifiability. --Rogerb67 (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We use primary sources all the time on WP. There is an ambiguity on what is considered a primary source, because that can mean either from the point of view of the encyclopedia editor, from where the source is in the chain of reporting, or whether its part of a class of sources ( patents, corporate filings, etc ), that are routinely used here for primary sources. The real issue here is WP:V. There's material being broadcasted all the time but not archived anywhere accessible, so we shouldn't rely on them. Try and see if the news org has a video, or better yet, a transcript of the interview online. Maybe Burrelles keeps transcripts of the show. Youtube may be usable if you can show that the video was uploaded by the media organization itself, because you want to avoid possible hoaxes or copyright problems. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Also... be careful not to violate WP:BLP if the subject of the article is a living person. Wikipeida should not repeat rumors or accusations, no matter who made them. Blueboar (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right in the abstract, but we can speak to the issue a lot better if we are given more facts. Who said it? To whom did they say it? Are any statements controbeverial? etc. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Church websites reliability regarding internal structure of that church

This question is specifically about the Church of Scientology, but I doubt that's particularly relevant. However, do the rest of you think that a website owned by this or any other reasonably large church would qualify as a reliable source for information regarding the locations (churches, etc.) operated by that church? So, in short, if the church's website says it has a church in Paris, would that be a sufficient source for inclusion of such information? John Carter (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith that any organization wouldn't lie about where it has an office, it's reliable. If any cause for doubt can be shown, it can always be attributed in the wording, eg "xyz organization claims to have an office in Paris on its website". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been editing the article in question. The source the article cites at present is from December 2007 and quotes the BfV German domestic intelligence service as saying that there are 10 Scientology Churches and 14 Scientology Missions in Germany. The source also draws attention to the fact that Scientology's own website does not list the Missions, and lists only 9 Churches rather than 10. This latter statement is still correct today: [30] Give both versions? Other suggestions? Jayen466 19:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we could point out the discrepancy, especially if the first source does. We could even mention if the first source speculates on the reason for the discrepancy - as long as we didn't introduce any speculation of our own. I can't read German, though, so I don't know if the first source actually does this, or what it says. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I would think that in cases like this the church's website wouldn' be given exclusive authority. Basically, if it names 9 locations, then those 9 locations would be accepted as accurate. If some other reliable source lists others, they could presumably be included as well. I know from experience that sites of churches often aren't completely updated, as not all locations necessarily have internet, which is one of the main reasons for listing on such webpages. That doesn't mean the others don't exist, just that they're not accessible through the net or other ways yet and there's no direct benefit to listing them. Even so, I would welcome further input from those who frequent these boards. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the good thing is that another Church website does list 10 churches in Germany, in agreement with the German intelligence services quoted by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. The additional one is the Celebrity Center in Munich; theta.com does not give a URL or e-mail address for it, providing a possible explanation for its absence in the scientology.de list, along the lines John Carter surmised above. (The Munich Celebrity Center does have a website though: [31].) I think that resolves the issue. Jayen466 02:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Towns' websites as a source for history again

This topic was raised before, but IMHO the answers weren't that satisfying, that's why I ask again. I currently edit this page. The claims of the town website are refuted by several academic sources. I'm not sure how to resolve this conflict. The statements can't be merged since they contradict each other. Any help is greatly appreciated. Karasek (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Not looking into this closely, but two contradictory sources are OK. Just say what each one says, and attribute it to them. If one is normally reliable, but wrong, this is the best way to go. People who read the wiki page, and the other wrong page, will wonder which is correct. If you say "according to this site x, but according to this paper y" then people will know they're not crazy, and that we have looked into both and provided them with the facts. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• User Karasek fails to mention his blanket, disruptive reverts of some major improvements to this article including references, images and proper formatting. His confrontational attitude might require administrative help if it continues. For now, contrary to his claims from above, his new WP:POV campaign relies solely on offline Cold War publishing from Federal Germany. Hardly a solution. --Poeticbent talk 18:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Offline Cold War publishing from Federal Germany? All my sources were published in the last 9 years! What you call Cold War publishing was the first edition of a book I never used. I use the second, expanded and improved edition from 2003. And most academic publications are offline, they are called books. I offer four academic sources, but the respective article is largely based on a website. Are town websites more reliable sources? Who wrote the corresponding article? A historian? A webmaster? A trainee? What sources do they use? Old Polish propaganda or modern publications? Right now the article paints a interesting picture: the version of one website is the majority view, whereas several academic sources represent a minority view. Karasek (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you should find the answer at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources, quote:

"Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text."

Academic works trump other sources, although I agree with Peregrine Fisher that the municipality's own view should also be represented. Jasy jatere (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• The whole array of brick and mortar publications are accessible via Google Books these days. However, the Google search for the above German musings from the Cold War are not available for confirmation by any means available. By the way, there’s nothing “academic” about commercial books in foreign languages which are lacking true academic overviews. --Poeticbent talk 20:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • So, you complain that you can't find the book via Google Books and therefore don't know it, but at the same time you know that it isn't academic and lacks a "true academic overview" simply because it isn't accesible via Google books. Now that's convincing. But it isn't even true. You can find it here: click me. FYI: the author is a respected historian and was director of the Gottfried Herder institute in Marburg, one of Germany's leading centres for the historical research on East Central Europe, until 1995. The book is co-written by a plethora of other academics. One of my other sources, Thum, is actually a dissertation! Karasek (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Should be treated like any other primary source. Dlabtot (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This question has also been raised at WT:V#on-line sources vs. off-line sources... with the same response... both viewpoints should be discussed (see: WP:NPOV). Blueboar (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Rummel's stories about Poland

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP7.ADDENDA.HTM

Professor Rummel isn't an expert in Polish matters. He quotes selected pro-German sources. The result is absurd. Xx236 (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a reliable source for Rummel's idiosyncratic point of view, and WP:WEIGHT covers the extent to which it should be addressed in Wikipedia; if it ever makes it into the article, the crticisms of Rummel should be included, also. THF (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean Expulsion of Germans after World War II, where the link is included in External links.Xx236 (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the external links section. See WP:EL and WP:LINKFARM. Cite to the book if there's call to cite to the book in the main text; if not, then it certainly doesn't belong in the external links section. THF (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

First, if they are controversial, statements by Rudolph J. Rummel (Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Hawaii) should be attributed. Second: has any other scholar criticized Rummel? Not all scholars are reliable, but to say that one is not one needs reliable sources saying so.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree (with Piotrus 15:10). THF (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have another question - which scholars recognise emeritus Rummel as a scholar? Xx236 (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I found multiple citations to his work in Google Books, so someone does, though it usually seemed to be people seeking the most dramatic statistics available. But that's a WEIGHT issue, not an RS issue. THF (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Um... the other scholars at the University of Hawaii obviously recognize him as a scholar (he would not be a Prof emeritus with them if they didn't).

Would you please be so kind to read Rummel to discuss his texts? He "places Poland among the megamurderers". Maybe you have killed many people, I haven't.Xx236 (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly that is a controversal statement, but scholars often make controvercial statements. The key is whether other scholars agree with the statement or not. If other scholars do not agree with him, then we should not give much Weight to his views. It might even be that his views are considered Fringe theories and not worth discussing at all. Indeed, there might be lots of reasons to discount, or even omit his views... but WP:RS is not one of them. That said, if other scholars agree with his views, WP:NPOV says we should discuss them, no matter how wrong or distasteful they may seem to you. Blueboar (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

However, if few or no scholars agree with him, then we have the WP:UNDUE (or FRINGE) case, and his (controversial) views don't belong here. Perhaps this thread should be moved to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Locate TV

I use Locate TV as a source for TV listings. It has all the broadcast times for shows and films (and also seems to have fairly comprehensive listings for individual actors, etc.)

I wanted to post here, and see if many other people ever use the site, and whether you think it fulfils the criteria for being a reliable source - particularly when it comes to broadcast times and season dates. Phinicky (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ti the extent that it shows current showings (within the next two weeks), the information is quite useless for an encyclopedia which is aimed at long term utility for what is in it. The listings are not comprehensive -- it lists the very first person I looked up, Hal Holbrook and lists nothing about his portrayal of Mark Twain which is arguably his single most famous role. And the site insists thet Mark Twain Tonight is not available on DVD -- this is a quite flawed site. Collect (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Barrington Hall

On this particular article, a number of statements that had been long tagged with citation requests were all replaced with one source, described as "Barrington Hall miscellany, 308W.U592.bar, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley". As best I can tell, this is some sort of book or collection that only has one copy and can only be accessed by going to this particular library (assuming it is even available to the public). Is this a reliable source, and would it even be considered "published"?

I'd like to believe it, but based on the history of the article, which has had a history of revert warring restoring unsourced info and adding links to replace "citation needed" tags that didn't actually contain the info being cited, not to mention comments on the talk page insisting the article should be exempt from NOR since a number of editors have firsthand knowledge...well, with an article with a history of unreliable sources, without any way to verify that the source actually contains the info (or even verify that the source actually exists), I have to admit I'm skeptical.

Any uninvolved opinions would be very much welcomed, thanks. --Minderbinder (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• This is an actual source, or at least a collection of actual sources. A search of the University of California-Berkeley libraries (search title keywords for "barrington hall") will show that it is in fact a box (0.4 linear feet) which "[c]ontains policy statements, newsletters, arbitration efforts, etc., about this controversial house of the University of California Students Cooperative Association which closed in 1990." So we know that it exists, and it can apparently accessed upon request, although one must go to the Bancroft Library in Berkeley to use it because it doesn't circulate. The next question is whether it is a reliable source. It appears that the Barrington Hall is using it only as a source for the house constitution and by-laws, which would be a primary source. It is not clear to me why information about notable residents of the hall would appear in the constitution and by-laws, but then I have never seen this document myself. My inclination about using the house constitution and by-laws would be to cite them as a reference only to discuss what was in those particular documents, since those documents are self-published sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A well-meaning editor came along and collapsed *all* references to the Bancroft into one citation. The first time the Bancroft miscellany was used as a reference, several years ago it seems, it was used as a reference for the constitution and by-laws. That is easily reversed. (It should be collapsed so that it isn't cited ten separate times, but to Miscellany, not to "Constitution and By-laws, Miscellany." -Latanya Hearst (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If possible, the actual document used should be identified in each citation, so that anyone who goes to the library to look up these documents will know which ones to look for. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Metropolitan90, thanks for the input. My concern is that since there is no easy way to verify any of the info from that particular source, what is to keep it from becoming an all-purpose "source" for any unsourced statement (whether it actually is or not) since there's no easy way to prove otherwise. What's to stop a prankster from adding a random name to the list and insisting that is the source, which none of us have access to? In addition to the list of residents, it is also being used for all the previously unsourced graffiti quotes, is it really a record of graffiti that appeared there as well as the bylaws and list of all members? --Minderbinder (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's true for any article, and a good reason why our notability standards should be tighter. THF (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So what's the solution? Having just removed a number of links that made no mention of the subject of the article and were only added to make it look like those statements were sourced ("failed citation" tags were removed without actually fixing any of them), and along with the insistence on the article talk page that that article should be an exception to WP:NOR, it's hard not to suspect that the strategy there is to use OR in the article and then when a source is requested, just list the one source that no WP editors have practical access to. I'd also argue that any piece of information that has never been published and can only be found out from looking at a box in a basement is probably not notable enough to include in a WP article either. What would you recommend? --Minderbinder (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the graffiti violates WP:TRIVIA; you don't need RS rules to yank it. The box is a WP:PRIMARY issue; secondary sources are preferred, and your notability argument seems sound to me. THF (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't evaluate the sources in the miscellany box until they are specifically identified, but I tend to agree with THF in this discussion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Reelz.com

Is this post on Reelz.com something we would consider a reliable source here or is it just a blog with uncertain history of fact checking/reliability? Here is what Wikipedia has to say about them ReelzChannel-- The Red Pen of Doom 01:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Might tend to give them a nod in this case, specially when they pull a Wiki and actually include a link to their own source for further verification of their information by readers. Blogmonkeys do not as a rule ever say something and then go source it for their other blogmonkeys. Reelz has a habit of backing up what they print. One man's opinion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Miss Canada International

The Miss Canada International (MCI) articles lists past winners of the title. Unfortunately there's very little independent coverage in general. A 2007 titleholder (Rachel Jaillet) was announced and served several months, but then was quietly dropped by MCI when no contract was signed, and MCI insists she never was a winner. There was a little bit of independent coverage of the initial win by Jaillet, and no coverage of it being revoked. Somebody (claiming to be) with MCI insists that they are the only reliable source, and wants to drop the Jaillet, listing a previous year's winner under two years. Please contribute thoughts to Talk:Miss Canada International. --Rob (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Tucker Max and questions about 2 sources

Source #1 is/was being used to cite the fact that Max's literary style has been referred to as "Gonzo". It was removed from the article with the rationale that the article was only quoting someone rather than making the claim itself. Is this source adequate?

Source #2 is/was being used to cite the claim that TuckerMax.com has received "millions of unique site visitors". It was removed with the rationale that since it required a login, it was unavailable. However, the statement that the source was being used for does not require a login to view. Also I believe it's been said that even websites that require paid registration to read can be used as sources? I'd like some confirmation on that.

McJeff (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Source #1 can be used to cite the fact that Tucker Max's writing style has been described as "gonzo"; Variety magazine is a reliable source, and there they are quoting someone calling Max's style "gonzo". So it is fair to say that his style has indeed been described as gonzo. The link above to Source #2 is not the correct link, but generally speaking it is true that websites that require paid registration can be used as sources. There is no requirement that the source be available free of charge. See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#website traffic for more on the issue of website traffic at Tucker Max's site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

the problem with source 1 is that the producer of tucker's film called his style gonzo, and it's now being used in the lede to call him gonzo. i object to it being in the lede, since it appears to be a minority view from someone who is less than neutral. the author of the article did not call him gonzo, it's just a quote. that one quote is good enough for the lede? Theserialcomma (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's reliable, anything beyond that is an editorial decision. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

seems like a nightmare for a BLP. say we had the ny times quoting obama's cousin saying obama is the best basketball player in the world. that means we can put in an article that obama is the best basketball player in the world and cite the nytimes? because the actual situation is that we have variety quoting tucker's co-worker saying tucker is a gonzo style writer and now suddenly because one coworker of tucker max called him gonzo, it's good enough for the lede? it seems like a trivial mention to be included in the lede. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really an RSN issue. "Max's producer calls Max's writing style 'gonzo.'" solves any NPOV and WEASEL problems. Probably shouldn't be in the lede. THF (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) I was able to find a few sources making the claim that were not just the same quote from the producer being requoted, however, I'm admittedly a poor judge of what makes a website notable or not, as TSC will surely attest to. So here are the links.

• http://artistdirect.com/nad/news/article/0,,4665458,00.html
• http://www.mahalo.com/Tucker_Max
• http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/06/06/darko-to-serve-beer-in-hell/

There was also one on ezinearticles.com which is spam blacklisted, yet seemed to meet WP:RS. All the above are third party, non-self published sources.

McJeff (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sputnik music review

Is this [32] a good source for the band dope's genre? The site does get used in the reviews section of some albums, but my inclination is that it's not. The reviewer seems to just be a registered member, with 9 reviews according to the site, and it even says in that one "This is my first review". But I thought I'd check it up here. Prophaniti (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't appear to be an RS. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not; the reviewer is not a staff member. Even then, it's a bit fishy to use that as a reliable source. It is clearly expressed that Sputnik reviews can be used in infoboxes as reviews (provided that it's a staff review), but I don't think it's a technical "reliable source". But, it's surely, most definitely not if it's a review by a member and not a staff. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Site teaching about unreliable websites: allaboutexplorers.com

• Site's about page
• NYT article.

While the info is so over the top even young kids can spot the errors, be on the lookout for pranksters using it. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-17t09:39z

I love it... It's about time that students learned not to accept everything they read on-line! There may be hope for the future of Wikipedia after all. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.medicalmalpractice.com/

Does this SPAMmy site qualify as a reliable source? (In my mind, it doesn't help that the proposed edit cites to a page that isn't factually accurate.) THF (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no policy against websites with advertisements, only against websites with excessive advertisements. It is normal for someone who did much work in compiling all that information to run advertisements. Lawyers have to make a living too. Plus the so-called advertisements are on-topic. Imagine that some-one's car breaks down and I point them to a repair shop. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw that link and I was trying to decide whether to delete it as junk. I decided to give it the benefit of the doubt. Now that it's an issue, I took a better look.

According to their About Us page, this site was created for marketing purposes, as a client referral service.

Their articles seem to be mostly written without bylines, and without supporting citations. The page at issue, on statutes of limitations, cites the state codes, but it doesn't link to them, and we have no way of knowing whether it's accurate.

It's impossible to tell how reliable this web site is, because the creators don't identify themselves.

Since it's an anonymous web site, and the information and opinions are unverifiable, I would have to say it's not a WP:RS.

It looks like the marketing came first, and the articles came second.

The accuracy and completeness of the data is also an issue. That works against WP:RS. If the articles were better, that might be a redeeming feature, but there are better sources on the Internet. Nbauman (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Stick candy

There is a debate going on at Stick candy as to if a sales website can be used to describe the various dimensions that they are sold in. The sentence is:

Stick candy (also called candy stick, barber pole candy, or barber pole) is a long, cylindrical variety of hard candy, usually four to seven inches in length and 1/4 to 1/2 inch in diameter, but in some extraordinary cases up to 14 inches in length and two inches in diameter.

Some editors wish to use pages like this to get references for the dimensions and typical flavours that they are sold in. Another editor refuses to allow these types of pages to be used as references saying they violate WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOTLINK and WP:OR collectively, however with no other sources available states that the content should not be included as it violates WP:V. I personally have looked and have been unable to find what we would traditionally call reliable sources, not surprising that not a lot of newspaper articles have been written about the sizes you can get of stick candy.

As the page sits now it has been edit protected. The sentences in question are included with opposing editor attaching tags. These tags also appear later in the article regarding typical costs (25¢-75¢ each) and how stick candy is often referred to as "old fashioned" (Note that since then I have found references for the old fashioned portions, but since the page is protected I added it to the talk page for now.)

In short, in lieu of traditional reliable sources not being available to reference the dimensions, are pages like the one listed above acceptable to reference non controversial material such as the length and diameter of which candy is sold?--kelapstick (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is discussed at length and more accurately on the article talk page, starting with Talk:Stick_candy#RfC:_Disagreement_over_sources. I had requested multiple times that editors post here if there were going to continue to assert that these primary sources are reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is no WP:RS available for something, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. That's what WP:V means. http://www.candywarehouse.com/greensticks.html is not WP:RS and can't be used. Dlabtot (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's OR to use those sources. You could say "candy retailer XXX sells them in YYY sizes", but it woulnd't be very encyclopedic. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Whilst the above points are correct according to WP:V policy, there is a case here for using common sense. If every store sells these things at certain sizes with no disagreement and the encyclopedia would be improved by having the info there then i think you can ignore the rules. --neon white talk 03:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently there is disagreement, otherwise we would not be engaging in this discussion. No, this certainly does not appear to be a case where one could justifiably ignore WP:RS and WP:V. Dlabtot (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

sigh, OK. To be honest, I'm amazed that this article has generated so much fuss. To be perfectly frank, I'd be all for a merge to the candy article. But, since I've already responded on the talk page via an RfC, I figure "In for a penny, in for a pound". First let's make clear that WP:RS is a guideline as opposed to a policy, there's a big difference. Second: verbiage such as "ignore" indicates a willful attempt to circumvent the policies and guidelines; and I don't see that as the case at all. This all seems to stem from the desire of the editors to include, and I paraphrase Stick candy is 14" long. Apparently the UP, and API wire services haven't done a whole lot of reporting on stick candy, so finding a good secondary source is the crux of the problem. This leads us to the use of a candystore.com site [sic?] for the reference to the candy size. Now, looking at WP:V, we find the following. "Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources:" My interpretation of this is such that due to the lack of a good secondary source, the candystore.com site which makes this aforementioned candy stick, would be acceptable per the "acceptable to use in some circumstances" part of the WP:V statement, If the candystore isn't blacklisted, and if the editors don't have a COI with the site. I'm not sure about the former, and have no reason to question the later. Even myspace and youtube are cited on a very rare occasion.

I definitely agree that the wording as it is/was (depending on the version at time of PP), needs some major work. That part is easily addressed, and I believe it is being addressed on the talk page. I understand and admire those editors who adhere to the strict letter of the law, but we must not lose sight of the intent either, both in policy and in community goals. Items like WP:BOLD, and WP:IAR (and forgive me for daring to utter those far too often quoted links), are there for a reason. If there indeed is a "Thou shalt never use a store site to verify the size and shape of an item, least ye be struck from all mention within thine wikipedia", I simply have not found it. (was that over the top?...sometimes I just can't tell ;)). Anyway, since I jumped into the pool with the RfC, I figure I may as well swim over here to the deep end to blabber on about my interpertations and perceptions of yon policy. — Ched (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the Reliable Sources noticeboard, and really the only thing relevant here is whether sources meet the criteria for WP:RS. http://www.candywarehouse.com/greensticks.html or similar sites do not in any way meet those criteria, not even as self-published sources. It doesn't even claim to be a source of information - it's a candy store. It's simply totally inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia in any way whatsover, in my opinion. Dlabtot (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We either aim to be as encyclopedic as possible or not (we do). As such, we use the best possible sources. Blanking information such as typical dimensions and flavors from this article, as well as the best possible sources, simply is not helpful in ensuring we have the best, most encyclopedic article possible on this subject. Threatening to merge the Stick candy article (one of the most traditional and historical candies in the United States) to Candy is similarly unhelpful, and perplexingly so. Badagnani (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Permit use. WP:PRIMARY is the key part of the WP:NOR policy here. In relevant part, it states:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

In other words, there are two concerns, and in this case they are easily addressed:

• "Reliably published". Is an online retailer a reliable publisher of the specifications of its wares? Vendors have a tendency to exaggerate product benefits and underestimate the all-in cost to the consumer. Other than these two related issues, vendors are privy to the most not least accurate information about their product. The potential conflicts can addressed (and should be addressed) in either or both of two ways. First, corroborating the information with multiple different vendors would be sufficient unless there were thought to be a widespread coordinated fraud amongst vendors selling $0.15 products. Second, checking for positive reviews of the vendor and lack of negative reviews could establish the reputation of the vendor for fair dealing.
• "Description only". The intended use is only for description, so this poses no issues.

It is mind-boggling to me that this issue has been taken this far. If there are any legitimate issues with the text and the citations that are used to back it, they are whether the information itself is sufficiently notable or encyclopedic to include. While to me this issue appears to me to have been established in the affirmative, but if people disagree, there are other venues for addressing it. Bongomatic 13:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to see so much interest in the candy stick article. I would just like to piont out that while the citations used don't qualify as reliable sources, they are useful for verifying some basics about the candy up until superior sources can be found. They are not being used to make assertions, just to establish basic desciriptions of size, flavoring and pricing. I suppose this information could be taken out, but that would make the article worse not better. My other idea was to hide the citations so they show up on the edit page, but not in article space, if this appeases the enforcer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I have to wonder if the statement that is being made is really accurate, dispite the source... sure, these may be standard sizes and flavors for stick candy being made by big commercial candy companies, but surely there are other, smaller candy manufacturers that make non-standard flavors and non-standard sizes. What about the hand-crafted candy shops? I think it would be safe to use a commercial website for a statement as to what that particular company sells... but not for a broad statement about an entire genre of candy. Blueboar (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I never eat candy... I'd rather prefer not to know the size of a candy stick or just guess it from the picture or - why not - believe it with no source offered (it's hard to imagine somebody would invest much energy only to fool me into a wrong belief about candy stick size) than to link to commercial companies as a good source (even if I've no doubt they'll be accurate about their products) By the way, if the candy page was in need to be edit-protected for a week as to avoid further armed incidents about candy size, don't you think it qualifies for WP:Lamest Edit Wars? Sorry, I just couldn't avoid this comment, you'll excuse me. Cheers and have a sweet day.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• while the citations used don't qualify as reliable sources, they are useful for verifying some basics about the candy up until superior sources can be found - wrong. If they aren't RS (and they're not), they can't be used. Did you notice the period at the end of that sentence? Policy is clear on this point. Dlabtot (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Warsaw_Uprising and Norman Davies

I don't know anything about the details of the Warsaw Uprising, but this FA currently at FAR is haevily based on a book by Norman Davies, whose article has a big criticism section about his work on Polish history for allegedly being very pro-Polish. I'm not sure if he is controversial or non-mainstream, but I wonder if there is an UNDUE problem at that article because of it. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Sure, an anti-Polish bias would be much more reliable and make the article featured. Ignorance in Polish matters (no knowledge of Polish language) is highly mainstream. Xx236 (talk) 09:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Manga/Comics addionals RS

Hi,

I wish to have your opinion about those two manga/comics related websites :

Comics Village

Comic Book Bin

Thanks --KrebMarkt 06:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say comicbookbin.com is an RS based their about page. They have editors, and they pay their reviewers. Harder to say with comicsvillage.com. They do have some sort of editorial policy, but they say "This site has a pretty hands off editorial approach." I wouldn't use either for anything controversial, and I would attribute anything used from comicsvillage.com to them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you very much as some fellows editors will argue forever without the RS notice board. --KrebMarkt 07:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Christina Schori Liang, Europe for the Europeans: The Foreign and Security Policy of the Populist, Ashgate Publishing (2007), ISBN 0754648516.

The way the article Far right in Poland quotes the book suggest that the book is POV. Xx236 (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The book is published by a recognized academic publisher. Schori Liang is only the editor, she is a qualified academic in the field. The authors of individual chapters are also recognized experts. I'd say its an excellent source. However, as it's a collection, the article should cite the proper chapter (e.g. "Michael Minkenberg, Between Tradition and Transition: The Central European Radical Right and the New European Order, in: Christina Schori Liang (ed.), Europe for the Europeans: The Foreign and Security Policy of the Populist, Ashgate Publishing (2007), page 265". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Ashgate specialises in collections of essays of this kind for the purely academic market. The summary given in the article is accurate, but should probably be given as an actual quotation (and it misses out the phrase "sometimes anti-Semitic messages" at the end of the sentence). Attributing the statement to Minkenberg would be fair if you (Xx236) are worried that it is presented as undeniable fact rather than expert opinion. Paul B (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have checked myself. The author misuses the notion of "Right". The book is about different parties branded as Right. In reality some of the parties are more or less Left economically, some of them Third Position. "Right" shouldn't be used here as an invective. In Poland many politicans have chenged their parties and programs since the time described in the book, so the book is about history rather than about current situation. Xx236 (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Page 261 - recent... June 2004. In Poland 2004 isn't recent, it's two political generations back. And if nationalistic socialism is "right", you can prove anything. Xx236 (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Communists also rejected democracy, did it make them "right"? Thank you for such "experts".Xx236 (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Nationalistic positions are usually classified as right. National Socialism is generally considered to be at the extreme right end of the political spectrum, despite the "Socialism" part of the name. You may not like that, and it is true that a one-dimensional classification has limits, but that does not change the prevailing use, both in academia and in popular speech. The source is reliable. It may not agree with your interpretation, but Wikipedia is based on the notion of reliable sources and not on original research or personal opinions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's you OR that Socialism is right.Xx236 (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC) National Socialism contains the string "right" only in "Copyright". Xx236 (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not said that socialism is right. It's usually classified as left. The error is to assume that National Socialism is a form of socialism, and hence shares its position in the political spectrum. But National Socialism is just a label, like "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" or "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques". It shares only very few characteristics with socialism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are all OR. Your personal view of truth does not affect the reliability of a source. Paul B (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

National socialism is a ideological position of the extreme right and Stephen is correct in his comments about reliable sources. I see no problem here. RS consider NS as a position of the extreme right and that's what we use. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

From Nazism "While it incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right". Where exactly is it written here that National Socialism was "right"? Xx236 (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Summarising - you prejudices are reliable and I'm an idiot. Thank you for youer cooperation.Xx236 (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You focus on the economical ideology in the definition of left and right, which is only part of the complete ideology of a political party. It seems the premise of the book (from the summary given here), the article in question and all the other who comments here focus on the overall definition of the parties in question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't see what's the debate about. Personally I believe that National Socialism is rather left, and I hope I can write a thick book about that in a fifty years time BUT as long as I don't, you can and you should quote Minkenberg - he IS a renowned expert and HAS written a lot about that subject - and if he says those guys are right, he's right (no pun intended). Remember, this page is about if a source is good, not what's left or right. Minkenberg is o.k.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

TVSquad.com page

Is this particular page at TVSquad.com a blog-type page, or is Ryan j Budke some type of professional TV critic? The bio to which one is directed when clicking on his name does not indicate the latter.

And btw, why was this section archived into Archive 28 if it wasn't resolved? Is that common? Nightscream (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think TVSquad is a reliable source. I did a bit of research on this a while back at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2#TV Squad as a reliable source (also look at the section above that one). Basically, they're paid, they have editors, and they're (ultimately) part of Time Warner. They call themselves a blog to try and seem hipper than webzine and writers. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Talk:Frank Dux#BIAS AND CENSORSHIP OF VERIFIED FACTUAL EVIDENCE

Can someone more patient and knowledgeable than I about what constitutes a reliable source please address the issues brought up in this diatribe? -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 04:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you give a short summary with links? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, pretty much just www.frankdux.net... I could just curtly point him to WP:Primary sources but I don't want to seem dismissive. I just don't know how I can adequately answer all those questions in a way that would be acceptable and satisfactory for him while also persuasive at the same time so I figured I'd defer to someone who can better articulate precisely what the policy says thereby enlightening him without reflecting badly on Wikipedia. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 07:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I don't really talk like that but all this unnecessary vocab sure makes me look smart don't it? :P -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 07:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Twitchfilm.net

Is this site reliable? Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Until they fill in their [about page, I would have to say no. If you think they are reliable, look for reliable sources that use their information, and indications that they have editors who screen their writers articles and bring it back here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Billboard

Could Billboard magazine be considered secondary source? --Efe (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

2nd Opinion required on Twitchfilm.net

Regarding twitchfilm.net, some info can be found in their FAQ page regarding who runs and edits it, as well as their screening policies [[33]]. As for reliable source which site their articles, it is actually the other way round as due to the nature of the site (as explained in the FAQ page), it posts and cites news articles in most cases i.e. [[34]] where the link to the original news source is found in the bottom.

However, it does get enough exposure in the film circles that it gets quoted as sources i.e. Anime_News_Network [[35]], the biggest Anime news source on the Internet; scifi.com [[36]], the official website for the Sci Fi channel, ComputerAndVideoGames.com; the site for Computer and Video Games magazine, the world's oldest specialist gaming publication; PCGames.de [[37]], a online version of PC Games magazine under Computec Media. The owner/chief editor of the site is also one of the directors of Fantastic Fest, an annual film festivel in Texas as per the press release [[38]]. Being that the site itself is film focused, the face that it is one of the representative judges gives it some credibility as well. ~Zhanzhao