Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. The reliability of sourcing is heavily dependent upon context, so please include not only the source in question, but the article in which it is being cited, as well as links to any relevant talk page discussions or article diffs. 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.

Examiner.com

I was wondering if we had a stance on the use of this site. Is it considered to be a blog network or does the "expert status" of the individuals take preference? Guest9999 (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say it is more of a blog network Unomi (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the discussion from the last time this came up.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not even close to reliable. It's doubtful any person on examiner.com has an legitimate "expert status". They're just bloggers selected based upon applying for a certain topic in a certain city. No actual expertise at all is required to be demonstrated to get a position there, just a desire to blog and drive traffic for advertising dollars. There's also no oversight to speak of. The site is no better than some random personal blog picked at random. DreamGuy (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, is there any progress in getting this blacklisted? Was someone working on that? What do we have to do to make that happen? DreamGuy (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I cross posted at the Spam talk page[2]], but there was no response, and I still don't know what that means. There's been another 136 links added (which I didn't check very closely this time), but the website is clearly being used frequently as a reliable source and the articles are clearly user-generated articles by non-experts and little to no editorial oversight. I don't know the solution, but 1,200 links is soon going to be double that. Flowanda | Talk 16:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe we need to demonstrate that it's actually being spammed instead of just being unreliable in order to get the spam people to take notice. Considering there are a lot more potential people that could be spamming (every blogger there could list their own articles) it migh be hard to track down, but I bet there are people systematically linking to all their stuff. I've got a lot of cleaning up after chronic problem edits going on already right now, but maybe I'll try to tackle this soon. Silly red tape. DreamGuy (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Consider asking for an XLinkBot, which reverts blog-type links often added by new users, instead of a full blacklist. Blacklisting should only be used as a last resort. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Err, let's hold on for just a moment. I think that the original link to the RS noticeboard seems to be rife with errors of cherry-picked references. People getting paid to write makes them unreliable? Really? So, we can exclude anyone who writes for a living, like speech writers, newspaper reporters, etc? I imagine the wiki will get a lot more sparse from culling every article of references written by people doing so for a paycheck. As Examiner has editorial oversight, I am unclear as to the real issue here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, in its current form, examiner.com doesn't seem to have editorial oversight anymore. San Francisco and Washington, which have print versions of the Examiner newspaper may be different, but other cities covered don't, and they seem to be nothing more than hosting sites. oknazevad (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't realize Arcayne also showed up here (instead of just below where he was already chastised for his wikistalking) to make false accusations such as "rife with errors of cherry-picked references"?!? What a joke. Examiner does NOT have editorial oversight, as mentioned several times, and the authors are not subject matter experts on the topics they write about. The sites fails WP:RS rules pretty much every way any site could, as agreed by an extremely strong consensus (see also the section below). One editor pretending otherwise as an opportunity to make personal attacks won't change that. DreamGuy (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• the Washington Examiner is a daily newspaper paper. True, it takes a right-wing political stand, so does the Wall Street Journal, and the St Petersburg Times takes a famously left-wing editorial stand. I see no difference between the print edition of the Washington Examiner and any other newspapers with an editorial stand except that it is, of course, it smaller and newer than many. Historicist (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That is http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ not http://www.examiner.com/dc. nableezy - 23:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• I know this is confusing but http://www.washingtonexaminer.com is the web site of a real, honest-to-gosh, print newspaper with real journalists. I am listening right now to one of their correspondents being interviewed on NRR. They are right-of-center, but they are a real newspaper and a Wikipedia reliable source.Historicist (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I realize that, but this isnt about washingtonexaminer.com it is about examiner.com. nableezy - 18:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of privately published material in a biographical article

I would like to contribute material to an existing short biographical article on a deceased relative Harry Hammon Lyster who was awarded the Victoria Cross in 1858. I have a good deal of information to start from which was collected about 100 years ago by another relative who privately published a family history. This quotes from a letter the writer of the book received from HHL directly giving details of his experiences during the Indian Mutiny and makes several references to published books and newspapers etc. of the time. My reading of Wikipaedia guidance though suggests that privately published material is not regarded as a verifiable source. How does this work in such a case where this is really the only extant source of biographical information on an interesting person? Presumably much authoratative biography is originally based on personal recollections, letters etc. which are all ultimately subjective. Given that the subject matter is likely to be uncontentious would it be appropriate to use this source initially but then to seek to trace the references quoted where possible to improve the quality of the material? Any advice on this would be helpful. Erwfaethlon (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Being an interesting person is not enough to get a Wikipedia article: one must also be notable. If the only source of biographical info is private, then the person wouldn't be notable, at least by Wikipedia's standards. DreamGuy (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well... winning the VC is notable. In fact, there is already an article on this fellow (I have edited Erwfaethlon's link above to make that clear). The problem is the lack of published info to expand the article. Essentially, Wikipedia is the wrong place to introduce previously unpublished material. But don't let that discourage you, Erwfaethlon. You just need to find a venue that is more appropriate. The article says he was involved in the Indian Mutiny... and if so there are a ton of Military History magazines that cover the period. Perhaps you could submit a story using your Bio information to one of them. (And if they do publish it, then someone can use that magazine article to expand the article in Wikipedia!). Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Dream Guy, there already exist basic articles on all Victoria Cross holders, there are plenty of published sources that give basi details, covering at least the how, where, when and why of the award, and usually something of their wider military service. The original question is whether it is at all possible to use the source described in Wikipedia. Although primary sources are not necessarily entirely ruled out, the main problem does appear to be verfiability, by its nature there are unlikely to be many copies, and those that exist won't be readily publicly accessible, so I don't think it's presently suitable for use here. Blue Boar suggestion is a good one. David Underdown (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I was taking the editor at his/her word that the only source of info was in private hands. That was the point I was addressing. If you say there are sources that are not private that show notability, great. DreamGuy (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Cumberland House Publishing

I'm seeking an opinion regarding Cumberland House Publishing in general, and Baskerville, S (2007). Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family. Cumberland House Publishing. ISBN 1-58182-594-3. in specific. CHP appears to be a subsidiary of Sourcebooks (per [3] and [4]), which is from what I can tell an independent book publisher. The Cumberland subsidiary may be a reference publisher, though in the past it did publish fiction. From what I can tell they aren't vanity press.

Baskerville isn't on their authors page [5], but I don't know the implications of this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

CHP looks like a legit publishing house to me. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

How would it compare in reliability to say, a university press, ABC-CLIO, Greenwood or other publishers recognized as scholarly? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not really a relevant question... looking at the publishing house can help with reliability issues, but only so far. For example, examining the publisher can give us an indication that something is self-published, or Fringe (if the publisher is known for being a vanity press, or if it specializes in a particular Fringe topic)... but beyond that, looking at the publisher does not really tell us much about reliability. Very scholarly work can come out of a non-scholarly press (and scholarly presses can publish crap). What we really need to look at is the actual source (ie the work being cited), and the reputation of the author in relation to the subject.

I suppose you could look at the reputation of the publisher as a tie breaker when choosing between two equally reliable sources that essentially say the same thing... but otherwise comparing one house to another isn't really relevant. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors won't accept source

In a section above I asked for feedback on a vlog as a source for information about the vlogger. The feedback I got was that the source was sufficient for referring to her as a violinist, but an edit war continues regardless, with one editor opining that my inquiry here did not accurately represent the issue. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you evaluate whether you want to continue this fight. See Talk:Natalie Tran. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's simply more aggressive language on your part, SchuminWeb. I want to hear from the person I first approached regarding this. And I will be asking the people above you what they think of your conduct. Perhaps you will wish to evaluate if you want to keep being a bully. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Preston. My problem is the following: You claim "She is explicit in her vlog about being a violinist and attending art school". I have asked you to point me to the sources where this is said (the videos you linked do not contain it), and you haven't responded to this argument. The admin telling you it was OK didn't watch the videos, but just relied on the sentence of you I just quoted. Show me the source! Rror (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I did choose the wrong word, "explicit." That does seem to imply she says "I am a violinist" or equivalent words. Instead she talks generally about playing the violin in a future video. I didn't include a link to the video where she says she attends arts college but another user -- perhaps yourself -- changed the statement to saying she attends such-and-such university, with a cite of the supporting article. Regarding whether she's a violinist, I think playing the violin and demonstrating advanced skill with it, which no one can argue otherwise, establishes that she plays the violin. I have now changed the sentence to say she is an amateur violinist, which I believe should satisfy the on substantive objection raised to her being called a plain violinist: that it inaccurately causes people to think she is a professional violinist. I think the suggestion that I merely say she plays the violin in one of her videos is needlessly soulless and insufficient for describing her demonstrated facility with the instrument. Saying only that she plays the violin in one webisode sounds like mere trivia that wouldn't belong in an article that, otherwise, mentions only notable items. And it also implies she just grabbed up a violin as a prop during the video. But she doesn't just scratch a bow across the strings, and acknowledging that she is an amateur violinist is a non-POV way of communicating that she is familiar with the instrument, rather than a bulkier, trivial and POV-sounding mention that "in one webisode she plays the violin and does it really well."

The two other objections were non-applicable: that we don't know whether violin-playing is central to her self-identity, and that she is not famous for playing the violin.

I'm re-watching her videos to see where she discussed taking violin lessons, in case someone says they think her demonstration was CGI. I acknowledge that, although I considered her demonstration clear and explicit documentation, she was not explicit in saying she is a violinist, so on my part that was a poor choice of words. However, now that I acknowledge the technical accuracy of your objection, I wonder if you can accept whether the source supports the revised statement that she is an amateur violinist (emphasis added to aid other readers in seeing the nutshell issue, not for shouting at anyone). I think it puts it in proper perspective and is supported by her vlog, and is not a matter of interpretation. However, I am of course willing to be schooled regarding this by those who specialize in this area and haven't already clouded the issue with frivolous objections. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with you personally (why should I, you're just some dude on the Internet) and you seem to feel strongly about that, so please don't take this the wrong way. You think that a simple mention of her playing is "is needlessly soulless and insufficient for describing her demonstrated facility with the instrument" - I'm sorry to tell you but an encyclopedia is not the place for your or any other editor's personal feelings, regardless of how well meaning they are. Statements should be bone dry, without any emotion. I can understand that you want to share your positive feelings about her playing and that music is evoking emotion, but Wikipedia is not the place for this. Rror (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. I just made a similar point on a discussion page for another article, where someone was arguing for using pretty words that were hard to understand. I agree with your basic sentiment, because we aren't supposed to speculate or use deduction, nor are we supposed to use POV statements. I simply believe the facility she demonstrates is sufficient to justify saying she's a violinist -- yes, an amateur violinist -- and I also think, as I tried to explain, that the bone-dry but also overly detailed description is misleading. It sounds like a piece of trivia that doesn't fit with the rest of the article, like we're not describing a skill she has, but just describing one skit out of her many others. I think once again this is just you saying you don't think the source is sufficient to clearly establish she is a "violinist"; or in other words, you're saying that we can't conclude from the video that she has noteworthy familiarity and facility with the instrument. Am I wrong? --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

emercedesbenz.com used in a number of M-B articles

• emercedesbenz.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

The above site is used as a reference in a number of Mercedes-Benz related articles. It is a blog-format site publishing reviews and news articles about M-B and its products. Articles on the site do feature very prominent advertising - both google adwords and large banners at the side and bottom. However, I contend that as a news and opinion aggregator it is of interest to M-B fans, but is not a reliable source of reference for Wikipedia articles. One thing that makes me think these links have been added for the purpose of generating traffic to the site rather than by well meaning editors is looking (for example) at the edit history of Ashleyrude (talk · contribs) whose only contributions have been to add this link to Wikipedia articles.

I am going to address the question of whether this site is a spam link that should be blacklisted separately so that's not what I am raising here. I would simply like people's opinion on whether emercedesbenz.com is a reliable source or not. I believe that it is not. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the page meta title says it all eMercedesBenz - The Unofficial Mercedes-Benz Weblog. Definitely not RS, but as always there may be exceptions. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The-Numbers.com

I was looking for a movie budget for Star Trek:First Contact which I found here as being $46 million, my edit was reverted with the reason that "better sources than The numbers say $45" (although no source was provided). So I guess the question is simple enough. Do you think that www.the-numbers.com is a reliable source, or an unreliable source, for movie budgets? Thanks for your time. --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 04:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed a reliable source. But I think it is quite possible that there are be better (more reliable) sources. However, to change the article and state the lower number, we would need a citation to one of those better sources. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Rolling Stone review

This is the review in question. Is this reliable? For starters, it gets a fact wrong: it says this is the fourth album, but it is in fact the third. On top of that, it's less than a paragraph in length. However, given the circumstance I don't think these facts stack up. The page in question where I want to place this review currently only has four reviews, counting this one; much below the standard number of reviews. Further, I don't think it's significant that it gets the fact wrong, as long as they were indeed listening to this album instead of the band's fourth. However, the review indicating specific songs from the album indicates it was listening to the right album, so how is it relevant that they thought it was the fourth? It isn't relevant to the content we want to use.

In closing, I really could see replacing this review with something else given the opportunity, but the opportunity isn't available. Without this review, the page in question only has three professional reviews; not enough for me to be willing to forgo this one. I also know that the Rolling Stone is generally a reliable source, but that this review specifically is questionable. So my inquiry is, given the circumstance above, is this a reliable source? Not the Rolling Stone generally, but this specific review. The Guy ^(edits) 18:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"The page in question where I want to place this review currently only has four reviews, counting this one; much below the standard number of reviews." What? Why would you need a bunch of reviews? Four sounds like too many for most cases to me. If it's iffy, toss it. There's no source quota that forces us to use bad sources just to use more sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamGuy (talk • contribs)

I agree in principle: nothing forces people to add iffy reviews to achieve a count, and this review doesn't say anything unique and meaty enough to cause me to argue differently in this case. The norm for reviews in the infobox is ten, however, and that's a figure that I support. If we go much below that, people start to cherry-pick reviews to support their own notion of what the "right" review for the album is. At ten, it's easier to make sure there's a reasonably balanced cross-section spanning positive and negative reviews in reasonable proportion to the actual percentages of positive and negative reviews.—Kww(talk) 19:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually Ten Thousand Fists is the fourth album, but only the third studio album. The reviewer doesn't say fourth studio album. Music as a Weapon II was released before Fists. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ten reviews? Ten?!? That's a ridiculous number. Wikipedia editors are suppose4d to pick the most bnotable and relevant reviews, not include wayu more than necessary as a feeble way to avoid editors making bad decisions -- now we just have a lot of bad decisions piled together. We're not a web directory in general, nor a review directory. DreamGuy (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This is quite off topic, as we're currently discussing the reliability of a source. But, yes, ten. I find that's a good number to balance the positive and negative reviews unless it's overly simple, like absolutely neutral, or overwhelmingly positive/negative. Further, I fail to find where it says to select the most relevant and notable reviews, just that reviews should generally be notable; not necessarily that we should limit the number due to that. Now, back to the topic: Is this source reliable? If you would like, we can discuss its placement a different day. Right now that's not the focus. The Guy ^(edits) 17:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)I wasn't by any means saying there was a clearly defined standard (I do agree 10 is a good number, though), just that if we had more reviews, a bigger wealth of them, I would be definitely tempted to throw this out. However, I don't believe 3 is good enough. I also do believe this review is reliable, and therefore shouldn't be thrown out, even if I don't like it at all. I wasn't at all implying we should put in bad sources to comply with a number, then, only saying I would be willing to get rid of a good source if we had more good sources. Therefore, because of a dispute, I brought the review here for quality evaluation. I think it's questionable, but not unreliable. The Rolling Stone is generally a reliable publication. The Guy ^(edits) 19:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There's also the thing Jezhotwells brought up: this is TECHNICALLY Disturbed's fourth album, and we have no idea if Rolling Stone was referring to studio albums or just albums in general. The Guy ^(edits) 19:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You have to take into account their history when deciding this as well, out of four album reviews, only one is without mistakes. Their review of the first album is not a review in any sense, but a generic article on the state of "nu-metal" with almost no mention of Disturbed, then this one failed to fact check and was shoddily thrown together for inclusion in their miniature review section of the magazine. The latest review decided to offer an incorrect opinion on the meaning of a song that was easily the most widely discussed part of interviews relating to the album and the source of controversy, which shows a distinct lack of fact checking and reliability as well as knowledge of the industry.

What makes it even more difficult is they are not peer reviewed, so whatever abhorrent mistakes they make can only be cited by individuals, this creates a permanent paradox in which reliability/notability is heavily overvalued by editors, other editors show distinct contradictions in the content, and the first simply point to their reliability/notability. There is no system in place to challenge those two traits that are so heavily overvalued when selecting musical reviews, because the only system in place to do that does not function in this sphere of critical journalism. Taking the entire thing in the context of right versus wrong, IGN is technically more reliable than the Rolling Stone in this instance, because they have two out of three reviews with fact checking and are well over a paragraph in length.

Basically, there are three instances where the Rolling Stone fails the reliability test, and overvaluing "notability" is not appropriate, the IGN review is suitable and professional while being notable enough for inclusion, meeting the four review norm. I will say, as a side note, I doubt they are referring to their live/behind the scenes DVD, as it is not a live CD or a compilation and therefore falls outside their area of expertise, I Feel it was a blatant mistake indicative of their notorious "speed reviewing", I attribute the terseness of the "review" to this as well. Revrant (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to throw in a few notes here. First, show me where it says they do not peer review. In all reality, this could be used to build a case against the source, as reliability is mostly based on the fact-checking and editorial process. Second, notability is not to be overvalued, but it's also not to be undervalued. Notability determines the weight of the sources we use. It determines which sources' opinions are "worth more" than others (for lack of a better term). In this case, Rolling Stone is a giant of a magazine publication, definitely more notable, and therefore carries more weight. However, as you implied, notability =/= reliability and an unreliable source should be left out regardless of weight. However, if both are reliable, the more notable one should arguably be given the spot. Thirdly, just because the Rolling Stone's review of The Sickness should basically be sub-titled "History of nu metal", that doesn't discredit it technically as a source. It's not unreliable because of that factor. Lastly, just because you assume they weren't referring to Music as a Weapon II doesn't give us any sort of incentive to say that they weren't. In fact, they are technically correct: Ten Thousand Fists is the fourth album if you count Music as a Weapon II. Considering they're technically correct, we can't just assume they didn't involve the live compilation album just to discredit the source. In essence, the source is actually solid. It sounds to me that you're trying to discredit the Rolling Stone publication itself as a source, in which case, this might not be the place for that. The Guy ^(edits) 21:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

They aren't, none of the musical review sphere has a peer review system in place, http://www.acquirecontent.com/titles/rolling-stone and there's what you asked for. I didn't imply it at all, I explicitly stated it, it is true in all circumstances, and unfortunately this type of incident is a ruling factor in the Wikipedia editorial process because of there being nothing to challenge reliability, leading to nonsense edit warring and arguing in perpetuity until one editor yields without consensus or amicable understanding.

Yes, it does discredit it as a source for a review, because it should be titled "A Brief History in Nu Metal with James Lipton: and mention of recent bands", and that I'm not being hyperbolic is enough to discredit it entirely as a review, because it shows zero reliability. Now if you want to argue it's reliability as a source for the Nu metal article, I'd have no argument to make against it, because it would fit in there. I see, the other DVD, that is also not an album, but a live DVD, and their history shows they do not include that rhetoric in reviews of studio albums.

It isn't a live compilation album, it's a live compilation DVD of the artists that performed there, going even further, it is not Disturbed's live compilation DVD, it is a tour live compilation DVD, which is why I thought they were referring to M.O.L. because it is disqualified as "theirs" to begin with. It sounds to me like you're carrying on with weasel words, and that isn't the place for it either, and that's the common ground, there is no place for either of such challenges on Wikipedia as I cannot, nor can anyone else, challenge the reliability and notability of the Rolling Stone. Revrant (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If I were you, I would use that link to build a case against the publication itself. I honestly don't care for Rolling Stone myself, but they have been deemed more notable than a lot of other publications out there, hence if the specific sources are reliable we have to give them due weight. I was also was using implied incorrectly, however, I know you know what I meant so there was no need to correct me. As for the content of the Rolling Stone review of The Sickness discrediting it as a review source, I frankly disagree. Not personally, but from an editor point-of-view. As far as I see, it gets no facts wrong, it has a scoring complex, and it does mention the album among the rubble of other information debris. That hardly makes it unreliable according to Wikipedia standards, no matter how abysmal it may be to you personally. That's just the system. As for Music as a Weapon II, it's a live album and DVD. That is, it was released as a CD, yet also a CD/DVD. CD/DVD I would like to note, too, that the album is widely credited to Disturbed, as they helmed and starred the tour, as well as the album being published and printed by the record label they are signed to. As for Rolling Stone not reviewing live compilation releases, that surely does not discredit the potential, and it doesn't mean that they solely won't mention them, either. Savvy? The Guy ^(edits) 21:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no system to do that, Wikipedia has no place to attribute that article to in which their status could be challenged. You overvalue notability, we had this debate when you joined and were obsessing over notability, it's quite clear in the policy that notability is simply a factor, not the only variable, in deciding a source's validity. I'm sure everyone else would agree a massive article that makes bare mention of the subject it's 'supposed' to be about is a valid critique on that subject, and if you couldn't detect my sarcasm, now you know, just because you personally go by notability over all other factors does not mean Wikipedia does.

This is getting pedantic and obsessive, the Rolling Stone doesn't mention them, you need only review any of their critiques of any album after the first by any artist to see their rhetoric makes no mention of live compilation DVDs, albums, or the like, in determining the number of albums released, it was quite clearly another of their notorious mistakes, obsessing over a "live" or "DVD" release does not add validity to their argument, indeed, it only hurts it, because if you were to include it, you would also include M.O.L., therefore regardless of if they included one, they failed to mention the other, and it was a clear mistake in both circumstances. Revrant (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There is actually a place to build a case against sources themselves. This is one of them, WP:RS talk page is another. As for notability, I am firm. I do not overvalue it. I give it due weight, like the other policies. Reliability comes first, and if a source passes that, then the notability comes in. It's very obvious that we give the more notable sources their due weight. If two sources say the same thing, why wouldn't we use the more notable one? It's like a celebrity showing up for a movie premiere: would you give them the best seat, or some vaguely known person? Generally, Rolling Stone is more reliable in relation to the subject at hand than the International Gaming Network. Therefore, if the source isn't unreliable, we have got to give Rolling Stone more weight because they are more reliable in relation to the subject at hand. It's just common sense. Nor is it personal taste, it's written in WP:RS: "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Again, is IGN (International Gaming Network) or Rolling Stone more reliable when it comes to music (assuming both sources are good)? I agree that this is getting rather pedantic, but I disagree; it's not getting obsessive. You seem obsessed with disregarding me as obsessive (see what I did therrre?). In any case, the source is correct, even if it didn't intend to be correct: Ten Thousand Fists is technically Disturbed's fourth album if you count MAAWII. I believe I've already said that, but it's only true; the source is correct, even if it didn't mean to be. M.O.L. wouldn't count, as that was released as a documentary DVD, not a live album. M.O.L. wasn't an album at all, just a DVD. Therefore, it wouldn't be counted as a Disturbed album, just a Disturbed release, whereas many sites (which I could link here, if you want) refer to MAAWII as a Disturbed album. The album even charted. So, bottom line, even if the source didn't mean to be correct, it is correct. The Guy ^(edits) 17:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean there was no place period, obviously I'm on this board right now and I understand its purpose, I meant taking into context the paradoxical nature of "it's reliable because it's known" means this board is useless for determining its reliability, a massive factor for determining this through the course of policy is peer review or outside perspective, of which there is none, only original research.

I'm sorry, but both analogies were heavily flawed, a more apt analogy would be the Rolling Stone versus Allmusic, Allmusic is considerably less notable, but of a greater quality and reliability, it delves into the subject matter in depth and eschews one-paragraph reviews for fact checking and editor responsibility. Generally speaking, notability would be an important factor, if down the line one or the other had to be chosen, but to you the only one, and that is not the policy. When confronted with an excellent professional review from IGN's editor in chief of the Music channel, versus a snide one paragraph review with a blatant mistake from the Rolling Stone, it is of my opinion that notability need not be considered and the answer obvious.

I'm tired of this obsessive nonsense, I will not reply to this aspect further, you are extensively qualifying a flawed stance with what "is" and "isn't" allowed in order to be correct. I'm glad you feel you can explicitly state what is and is not an album under your own definitions, but original research is simply not allowed. They don't refer to it in that way, that's more weasel wording, simply because a generic discography listing doesn't go in depth does not mean they are classified equally, I need only google M.O.L. and find it listed in duality as an album, so your pedantic argument is becoming rather insufferable by forcing all of these qualifiers to support a stilted argument, and I reiterate, I will not indulge it further.

So, bottom line, the source is wrong both ways, and there is a more reliable source to fill the void when the two are compared.Revrant (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well then I appear to have misinterpreted you, again, sorry. I am as eager as anybody to de-throne the Rolling Stone, trust me when I say that. However, you have two definitions of reliability, generally: yours, and Wikipedia's. As an example, somebody recently used Steve Kmak's personal MySpace to cite info concerning the recent events of his life. Now, I personally know that's Kmak's MySpace, it's definitely solid enough to prove it on a personal level, but it certainly just doesn't fulfill Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing, despite that fact that any person with a shred of sense would tell you it's impossible for somebody to fake that MySpace. That's a prime example of personal reliability versus Wikipedia reliability. I am of the belief that editors often use shaky sources (by Wikipedia's standards) simply because it's enough for them to believe in personally, yet skip other sources that would be considered reliable to Wikipedia because it has something missing, or even wrong. That's probably, as you said, the number one issue here: Wikipedia reliability, and personal reliability, and editors mixing the two up. The only thing that I see generally trumps the concept of notable reliability is numbers: if a large number of sources has the same information, it could definitely be used against a notable source with misinformation. It's definitely a flawed system that even fails to enforce itself on many occasions. That said, it's still the system. As you said, the more notable source would have to definitely be cited over the less notable source if both are considered reliable. On the same token, though, the flawed part is that if both sources have similar-but-different information, the notable source is generally viewed as more reliable.

As for my one analogy (it was only one), it's only flawed because I placed the "celebrity" (notable source) and the "vaguely known person" (non-notable source) in a "movie premiere" (article). Really, though, a movie premiere is a special events and we're talking about everyday articles here. Oh well, the analogy wasn't meant by any means to be convincing, it was just me rambling. As for your analogy of the Rolling Stone versus Allmusic, I agree personally. Again, personally. That doesn't necessarily mean that because Allmusic and the Rolling Stone have differing information that we could use Allmusic to disprove the Rolling Stone. Generally speaking, I don't understand what you're trying to say by, "but to you the only one, and that is not the policy." Please explain that a little better. Ah, the one snag in your logic: "it is of my opinion." Your opinion doesn't matter in that situation; there are policies to deal with such a decision. If you really want to sound more credible in your thinking, first take out the phrases "excellent professional", "from IGN's editor in chief of the Music channel", "snide one paragraph", "with a blatant mistake", and "it is of my opinion that notability need not be considered". Obviously the "excellent professional" is purely your opinion, and I could just as well say the review is flawed. As for "from IGN's editor-in-chief", it doesn't really matter, again, who the author is; just the publication, and the fact-checking process. And again, "snide" is your opinion, with "one paragraph" being of little significance in determining reliability. "With a blatant mistake" could in fact be a mistake, again, but I've told you that even if it is, it's a true mistake. "It is of my opinion that notability need not be considered"; do I even need to explain this? That leaves us with, "When confronted with a review from IGN, versus a review from the Rolling Stone, the answer obvious." Just as you told somebody on the Disturbed talk page, you would do well to keep your personal opinion out of a debate, as the above is all that you said in that sentence that's credible, without personal bias. Generally speaking, I see very few Featured Articles with vague reviews, if any. Most have reviews only from notable sources and publications, despite very good, very professional reviews being present elsewhere. These are Featured articles; the golden standard of Wikipedia. Therefore, if we're speaking on Wikipedia's terms, I could be embellishing notability, but you're certainly also downplaying it. I admire you, though, because you would rather have quality. I do admire that, and I admire you for fighting to make quality reviews present instead of exclusively notable ones, but again, I see very few Featured Articles that go by anything but notability (of course only if the sources are reliable) in regards to reviews.

As for M.O.L. and MAAWII, wow, what? If you need sources to confirm M.O.L. as a DVD, here: [6] [7] [8] [9]. Then you can also have some sources to determine that MAAWII is, in fact, an album, not a DVD documentary, and can therefore be put into Disturbed's discography, not their filmography with M.O.L.: [10] [11] [12] [13]. But whatever. I'm dropping this for now. I will accept not including the Rolling Stone review for now, but I assure you I will pick this back up later. I just can't be further bothered with it immediately. Good day to you, Revrant. The Guy ^(edits) 22:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding the same to be true of you, indeed Wikipedia's policy supports parts of both of our arguments. Yes I saw that occur, however, that's another bad example; reliable sources pertaining to MySpace shows that all you would need is confirmation to include that source, but scrutiny is necessary. You have intrinsically linked notable and reliable, they are not the same, you've even coined a phrase binding them together, I assert yet again, they are not the same, and notability is not intrinsically linked to reliability, or to be put above verifiability, indeed it isn't truly equal, as I personally feel it is a consideration, according to Wikipedia policy notability is not typically used to dictate the content of an article, or its sources, thus you are wrong, and to a lesser degree so am I, if only because I lack your zeal in regard to notability.

I meant explicitly notability, at least in my opinion, is not a major factor, but merely a variable, granted, Wikipedia shares neither of our views, but that is my opinion. Yes by your technical pedantic cherry picking it is indeed correct, but using that same technical cherry picking I can quite clearly show it is wrong, going by the intended meaning, the article is wrong, simply. Mocking the artist in the space of a paragraph, while I may consider it snide, I agree that is subjective, for the Rolling Stone mocking the subject is the norm. You work constantly with your personal opinion, most editors do, your golden standard of notability above all else is a personal opinion that has no policy to back it, my view that a source be of excellent quality is a personal opinion that has no policy to back it.

You are deeply mistaken on the subject of notability, most seem to be, I'm being very generous towards notability, unlike Wikipedia I do feel it has a "notable" amount of merit, as ethereal as it is, and I work within those guidelines. I agree, notability is lorded over content, but it should not be, and Featured Articles are prime examples, Disturbed is an article lacking notable sources but filled generously with information, lacking the proper grammar and structure necessary to other propel it forward, yet other articles of lesser length and quality are FA due to the notability of their sources. The issue is largely human of course, with administrative users everything is entirely subjective, when these users abuse an article, much as the nomination not long ago, simply because it doesn't have enough "known" or "notable" sources, it damages the credibility of Wikipedia. They qualify it as both, indeed both of them, one is categorized as a DVD, one as a combo, and both are described similarly, so I think the point stands, to include one and not the other is a mistake, to include one when intending to include studio albums is a mistake. Revrant (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, to a degree Wikipedia supports both of our arguments; of course not every aspect, however. Also, yes I realize that I would just need confirmation; but we had none, so it couldn't be included. Top that with WP:SELFPUB #5: "the article can not rely primarily on these sources", and the only source the article would have had was that one. So I suppose you're right that it certainly doesn't pertain to the issue at hand, but in retrospect little of what I say does, as I tend to rant. I would like to assert again, that I do not intrinsically link notability and reliability, by Wikipedia's standards. That is, I would like to think I don't. As I said before, if a source is notable, that doesn't make it reliable. On the flip side, if it's reliable, that doesn't mean it's notable. Both ideals factor in significantly when contributing content. But yes, this is abundantly clear: me and you both view the policies quite differently, and I'm sure we both view each others application of policies quite differently as well, i.e. you think I intrinsically link notability with reliability, but I don't see it. I also don't see myself as a big notability nut, I do however see that I am making myself out to be. I apologize; I really do not consider notability this heavily when I make any number of edits, usually unless a dispute directly involves notability (such as this one). However, none of this is here nor there. As for my coined phrase, though, do you mean "notable reliability?" I would only apply that term in cases where two sources say the same thing and you have to pick the more notable one. Reliability has nothing to do with that, really; as both sources are reliable anyways.

I'm just going to skip right to the end of the second paragraph and say that I do not say, "notability above all else." If you would consider my contribution list, I rarely actually put my own words into action, just admittedly whip them out to my advantage. This facade of a stance is not something I actually support as strongly as I make myself out to support. It's very odd as well, as you would think I would be doing it because I like the content, but in truth, I agree that the Rolling Stone reviews are generally snide and mistake-ridden. I would rather not include them. That, and I generally take whatever source I can get; I don't go out of my way for the most notable; my contribution list as my witness.

Again, we are agreeable in practice that notability should not necessarily be lorded over content. There is no policy to say it should. I disagree that the Disturbed article has a generous amount of content, though; it really should be picked through and edited for grammar and scope. For example, for some reason we list B-side tracks in that article, in-paragraph. I don't know how that ties in to a biography of the band, and so I can see, even if the present content was sourced and refined, how the scope would fail standards. Bottom line, there seem to be a lot of generally accepted practices that have become unwritten rules here. Anyways, as I had said, I just want to drop this now. The Guy ^(edits) 04:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Rolling Stone is an established magazine and careers can get made based on a good review from them. Is the primary objection to the inclusion really because they gave the album a low rating or is there a valid belief that they weren't reviewing this particular album? And why can't both be included? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't implied or stated anywhere that the objection was a low rating. The main objection is that they say it's the band's fourth album, which is incorrect. It is evident they're reviewing the correct album regardless, as they cite specific songs. Still, the one wrong fact qualifies it as unreliable. The Guy ^(edits) 03:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• The NY Times has published mistakes from time to time, even fabricated articles, but we still accept them as a RS. If it is clear they are reviewing that album, then using it shouldn't be an issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• No one has objected to the rating, the rating was never called into question and had you read the arguments you would know that as well. The NY Times is peer reviewed, and they not only correct themselves when they are wrong, they apologize and own up to said mistakes, that is a definitive reliability difference, the Rolling Stone does not correct their mistakes and indeed refuses to even admit to them. Revrant (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe you are aware of some history with Rolling Stone that I'm not. I do know that it is a pretty well established publication and I think that most editors would consider it a reliable source. BTW, I don't think the NYT actually considers itself to be "peer reviewed". They just know that their peers will jump on any mistakes they make (just as they would do to their peers) and similarly, Rolling Stone would get jumped on by other magazines. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Considering I'm an avid music listener, that may be the case. Many editors do, unfortunately most of these editors do not use reliability as a reason, they use notability and popularity, the NYT is peer reviewed, the Rolling Stone isn't, that was my meaning, and no one jumps on the Rolling Stone's mistakes, though they appear consistently. Revrant (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Edilworth/Grace Welch

I would really appreciate some feedback on which sources are considered "notable" in this article. How many notable sources does an article need to pass?

User:Edilworth/Grace Welch

Thanks edilworth 18:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The newspapers show just as links at the moment are fine, the blogs are not. It isn't so much numbers as quality. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Medal groups - Display in reputable museums

An ongoing discussion in many articles regarding Honours and Awards is to identify exactly what medals/ribbons an individual was awarded. See for the latest example of this the most recent Australian award of the Victoria Cross, Talk:Mark Donaldson#Citation requests for honours and awards section. The basic question is - does the visual sighting (and subsequent photograph) of a display in a reputable museum like the Australian War Memorial count as a reputable source. In this case, the photograph in question is File:Donaldson VC medals AWM March09.jpg. PalawanOz (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to verify that the medals shown in the photo do indeed come from the Australian War Memorial... or that the medals shown were awarded to Donaldson? We can assume good faith, but that may not be enough. Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded the original photo and have just I've uploaded a different view of the medals taken on the same day at File:Donaldson medals AWM March09 2.JPG. Donaldson's name can be seen on the certificate at the upper-left of the photo and his signature is clearly shown on the program for the investiture ceremony on 16 January 2009 at the bottom right. The sign on the right side of the photo talks about the Victoria Cross for Australia - as Donaldson is the first and only person to have received this medal it provides further confirmation that these are indeed his medals. The AWM's website has material on Donaldson loaning his VC and the AWM displaying it with all his medals at: [14], The act of loaning the medal was also widely reported in the media, eg: [15] and [16] As this is the only Victoria Cross for Australia and the AWM website states that they planned to display it with all his other medals, I think that this should be enough to establish that these medals are indeed his. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you don't need to use the photo of the medals as a source... between the documents in the display at the museum (primary sources) and the Museum web page (a secondary source) you have written sources. Use them instead. Blueboar (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I just found a source listing his medals, and added that as a source. Case closed! Nick-D (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Marketing websites for films

Living With Fibromyalgia is a film made by a husband and wife about fibromyalgia and they market it on their web site. I put it on AfD bc there was one source, a deadlink, i find no RS about it or reviews or any thing which could make it WP:NF a notable film. There is no review in RS, no reporting in independant source. People are saying now, it is notable film BC it is the first film about fibromyalgia, source is the web site for a chronic fatigue syndrome club] in Australia, and it is notable film BC it was one from 872 films getting an award at an independent film festival in 2008, source is a primary list from 872 awards and the film-makers web site. The article has as source also the order page for the DVD on the film-makers web site and a blog-message board about sleep disorders.

My view point, this article is an advertisement for a film with no independant coverage, people oppose the articles deletion bc they think it is a good film and it is a servece to "the world community" and "highly thought of" but i think it needs RS still. Are these sources reliable sources? Thx RetroS1mone talk 04:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it seems that several independant sources have been found... so I assume the RS issue has been resolved. Never mind... I see that the other sources have their own issues. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

galge.com a RS?

Is Galge (NSFW), which is owned by the Japanese company Vector Inc, reliable? Vector describes themselves as "the largest software download site in Japan. The products include PCs and peripherals as well as software download.[17].陣内_Jinnai 06:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

How and where is it being used as a citation? What context? Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Specifically I want to use some of the information for Popotan and List of Popotan characters with the related games. However I would like to add this as a source for the visual novel task force and wanted to know if it could be reliable and ifso, anything that wasn't being used as a major retailer and a major news outlet for Bishojou games.陣内_Jinnai 20:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know Japanese, but it sounds like it would be reliable like Amazon.com is reliable. Basically for existence of a game, the game's publisher, and maybe when it was released. Are you trying to use it for very basic facts, or for reviews, or what? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There are some actual feature articles as well. The site also appears to list news as well.陣内_Jinnai 07:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you know Japanese, and the rest of us don't, you'll probably have to decide for yourself. Look to the Japanese google news (or whatever), their listing of employees, and whatnot, to decide if other reliable sources use their articles, and whether they have an editorial staff that will week out junk if a writer submits it. If you come to a conclusion, you should post it here in case it ever comes up again. If you can't find anything like I've mentioned, then they are probably not reliable beyond very basic facts. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there is at least one news source that reviewsed them [18] ,Kadokawa Shoten. Considering they are a subsidary of Vector and would that be enough?陣内_Jinnai 06:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive of American Television

Interview with Jim Brooks from Archive of American Television on Youtube. As video interviews I don't doubt that these are reliable. However my question is how should I source to it? As far as I can tell the interview is only kept on their offical Youtube channel. Is that acceptable? Thanks. Gran² 14:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we know who posted the video to Youtube? Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As said, it was posted on the organisations own channel. Gran² 14:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

OK... the question with most youtube videos is two fold... 1) is the posting a copyrite vio? and 2) do we have any guarentee that the video has not be edited or altered from original? However, since this comes to youtube from a known and trusted source (the Archive) and not some random member of the public, we can call it reliable (It is unlikely that they to posted copy vios or edited the video). Ideally you should cite the original production information (original program Title, production company, original air date, etc.) and then note the use of the Archive of American Television's copy as a courtecy link. Blueboar (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the interview (and all of the 600 others) were recorded by the archive and they uploaded them to the internet. The Academy of Television Arts and Sciences site links to this official blogspot site which hosts the links to the interview on Youtube. I'll use cite interview, but as it is the companies chosen source for the interview (and I don't think they've 'aired' as such, anywhere else) I'll link it to Youtube. Thanks, Gran² 21:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

ASTM International

How reliable are the publications of the American Society for Testing and Materials with respect data for this article about Gypsum Board? Does Wikipedia agree that this ASTM is a legitimate source for information about this topic?--Teda13 (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it is reliable... at least I don't see anything that would make me call it unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Incredibly reliable with respect to data etc. on Gypsum Board. Collect (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be from a debate on the Drywall talk page about whether gypsum board means the same thing. Anyway, Google News Archive shows plenty of articles written for the layman that lead with "Gypsum board is commonly called drywall or plasterboard" or similar. Just search for the terms together. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. ASTM reliable source?--Teda13 (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)--Teda13 (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Football sources reliability check

The following sources are currently being used as references in an article. They information within them is not very large, as most of them are relatively short in their information. Could anybody here please examine them and give their opinion on whether they are reliable or not. I think if you could add a simple "Y" after each source that is found to be reliable is good enough to satisfy the issue.

• http://www.ecuadorexplorer.com/html/pride_match.html

appears to be a blog-type post, so not RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.eloratings.net/

should be able to use Fifa.com for these type of stats. I can't determine whether this is authoritative. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• http://gosouthamerica.about.com/od/callao/Callao_Peru.htm

I don't think about.com is considered RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.fussballtempel.net/conmebol/listeconmebol.html

Looks like a personal website. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• http://journalperu.com/?p=859

Again blog-type. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.planetworldcup.com/GUESTS/matt20020826.html

Another personal web site. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.futbolplanet.de/asia/friendly_tournaments/kirin_cup_2005.htm

Hmmmm, no indications of reliability. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.worldfootballers.com/player.php/nolberto--solano-186.html

Again no indication of reliability.Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for your help. I've been here before a couple of times before and the contributors here did an excellent job. So congratulations on your efficiency.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest asking at WP:WikiProject Football. I don't think any of these are RS, but there is such a profusion of football stats sites. WP:WikiProject Football/Links#Multi-national gives an overview of RS which should help. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jezhotwells.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Rap Basement

Can I get a second (or more) opinion on *http://www.rapbasement.com . I'm involved in an article where a user is relying heavily on it as a source and I don't believe it qualifies as a WP:RS. Although it calls itself a news site, it relies on user submissions and seems to be mostly promotional in nature. Although it does contain information, I don't think it qualifies as a RS. Opinions? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear reliable. This is from their About page: The RapBasement.com Network was established in 1999 with a group of fan sites coming together to create one of the largest, most trafficked, fan networks in the world. Creators, David Murray and Jason Wagner, went on to create RapBasement.com in 2002, expanding to become a leading authority in the Rap & Hip Hop lifestyle. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. That's one of the things that put it over the threshold for me. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Film premiere

Is a advertisement or schedule in a newspaper, in print before the film premiere RS for when a film premiere happened? My opinion, there should have a review or article after the event to say when it happened. The problem is at Living With Fibromyalgia. RetroS1mone talk 05:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

National Review on Darwin's Black Box

Is the National Review a RS for reviewing Darwin's Black Box (in its 'Non-Fiction 100' list), particularly given that George Gilder (co-founder of the Discovery Institute, which promotes, as does DBB, intelligent design, and of which Michael Behe, DBB's author, is a Fellow) was on the selection panel? This question is at the heart of a WP:RFC that has been called at Talk:Darwin's Black Box#Inclusion of National Review ranking. Input from noticeboard regulars is therefore requested. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Source

Is this webpage a reliable source? The article is published by a company called Frog Design, which seems to be a reputable company. However, I know the pdf is missing author information. TechOutsider (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• What are you trying to make it a reference for? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Modern Amazons book

Is Warrior Women On-Screen (the book, not the wiki article) a reliable source (about female characters in various media)? --Malkinann (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see why it wouldn't be. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Should it be considered reliable, keep in mind, though, that use of it as a source may be a violation of WP:COI/WP:SPAM and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. I bring that up as the article for the book seems ever the top promotional, essentially claiming it's the best thing since Jesus, etc. This suggests editors not being particularly objective in their assessment of its relative value as a source. DreamGuy (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't hold a reviewers words against the book or author. It appears to be more of a compilation of roles and some minor analysis. It really depends on what the editor is trying to use it as a source for. What COI are you talking about?Niteshift36 (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The COI of the person who made the Wikipedia article about the book and also made articles about the author, etc. with extremely promotional, peacock style language. The book is not all that significant in the grand scheme of things and should not be used in excess to its relative worth as a source. DreamGuy (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The poster made it clear that he wanted to use the actual book, not the wiki article. So the style of the article is not relevent to the question. Further, he hasn't said to what extent he wants to use the book or what he wants to reference from it, so there is some significant assumption on your part. Have you read the book? I looked it up on Amazon and saw the following: " . . . a sociologically sound study of strong women in film and TV . . ." -- The New Haven Advocate, April 6, 2006. Well the New Haven Advocate seems to have thought well of it. "[an] enthusiastically recommended addition to personal, film school, and community library Film Studies reference collections and supplemental reading lists." -- Reviewer's Bookwatch, a publication of Midwest Book Review, April 2006. I guess that reputable source seemed to think it was ok too. ". . . written with unpretentious academic authority." -- Arizona Daily Star, May 5, 2006. So did the Arizona Daily Star. Maybe the book isn't the lightweight piece of fluff you seem to believe. On what basis do you call it "not all that significant"? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Preemptive question - Becky Quick

The Becky Quick article has seen a bit of edit warring over the past few days between several users and one anon who has now been blocked twice in three days. The issue has been about whether to include information about a previous marriage. Prior to the two blocks, there was no attempt to source the information. On their talk page, they've now linked to this newsletter as a source. They've also stated that the information will be added to the article again as soon as their block has expired. Searching a bit on google using the name found in the caption of one of that newsletters pictures, I came upon a profile for her on CNBCfix and through CNBCfix, this page.
Would any of these be considered reliable sources? If the information can be sourced, I have no interest in the content dispute that may continue over whether or not this information is then relevant to the article. I'm just not finding many potential sources, and to me, they don't look that strong. --Onorem♠Dil 12:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Not directly related to the question, but here's another article from CNBCfix a few months ago about the censorship happening at the Becky Quick page. --Onorem♠Dil 12:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would concur with much of Onerom's commentary. But the paucity of sources shouldn't diminish the reliability of the ones available, in particular photographic evidence. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk • contribs)

note that the above comment is the anon in question, jumping ips. Syrthiss (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Peruheroico.com

This website is being used to reference the alleged British involvement in the War of the Pacific. Especifically, this article is being used:

http://peruheroico.com/inicio/plinio-esquinarila-bellido/86-plinio-esquinarila-bellido/175-inglaterra-uso-a-chile-contra-el-peru.html

I examined the website before I even posted the information up, in order to meet Wikipedia standards of reliable sources. Check out their main page:

http://www.peruheroico.com/inicio/

It looks highly reliable to me, and quite professional too. They have about 12 people for the staff, and have a series of photos, documents, and a series of other things from Peruvian, Bolivian, and Chilean sources. Moreover, the website has parts currently under construction that allegedly will involve many other information of significant importance for the matter.

However, the reliability of the website is being challenged as "extremist" POV.

Nonetheless, in the article regarding the British involvement, the website provides the names of historians and newspapers, and their opinions on the matter.

Also, the whole idea that Great Britain was involved in the War of the Pacific is quite important to mention. I'm sure there are "more" reliable sources out there, but is there any reason to completely throw this one out "to the trash"?--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I’m the editor challenging the reliability AND neutrality of that "source". It seems Marshall conveniently forgot to mention two minor details: 1) the name of the website is “Peru Heroico” which translates as Heroic Peru and 2) It’s being used as a source in the War of the pacific article which involved Peru and Chile. Marshall has recently added opinion from Heroic Peru as fact, with the intention (I believe) of showing that Peru fought against the almighty British empire as well as Chile.
Very heroic, indeed. Likeminas (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't forgot to mention anything "conveniently." Why don't you assume WP:GF? The name of this section is "Peruheroico.com," moreover, what does the title of the website have to do with anything? It would be like saying that "Yahoo.com" should not be taken seriously because its title say the people there are a bunch of "yahoos." I also mentioned and wikilinked the War of the Pacific article. So I really don't know what you're trying to come up with here Likeminas.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I added information from the article regarding Great Britain into the section speficially meant for the actions of Great Britain, and nowhere else in the article: War_of_the_Pacific#Great_Britain. Also, as I mentioned in the opening post, they are not opinions from the website, but rather they are the statements of historians such as Englishman Sir Clement Markham and Santiago Paulovic (whom I believe is Chilean). You essentially do not want for the information to be included in the article because you do not agree with it, which goes completely against WP:OR, WP:OWN, and WP:GF.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You ask; what does the title of the website have to do with anything?

Simple. A nationalistic website used in a War article from one of the parties invloved called Heroic doesn't quite scream reliable, much less Neutral.

And yes, you’re right I don’t want that information to be included. But not because I don’t agree or like it, but rather because it comes from a shady source.

You claim you’re sure there are more reliable sources out there corroborating Heroic Peru’s information. How about getting some, so that we don’t have to go through this kind basic disputes?

Likeminas (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

People can name a website whatever name they want to name it. That has nothing to do with reliability. If you're going to judge a website's reliableness by its title, then you seriously need to rework your thoughts. Some more information, the article in question is written by Plinio Esquinarila, a Peruvian historian and journalist.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are some more sources that agree with the idea expressed in Peruheroico.com of British aid and involvement to Chile during the War of the Pacific:

1. http://www.boliviaweb.com/mar/capitulo5.htm (Bolivian source)
2. http://www.educabolivia.bo/Portal.Base/Web/VerContenido.aspx?GUID=35cb3ac9-05dd-4dd0-9164-428b1f659c4f&ID=139273 (Bolivian source)
3. http://www.escolar.com/article-php-sid=244.html (Nationality unknown)
4. http://www.granvalparaiso.cl/v2/2009/03/21/los-ingleses-de-america/ (Chilean source)
5. http://www.archivochile.com/Gobiernos/varios_otros_gob/GOBotros0006.pdf (Chilean source)
6. http://www.la-razon.com/versiones/20090323_006675/nota_244_782485.htm (Peruvian source)
7. http://www.elcorreo.eu.org/esp/article.php3?id_article=3426 (Argentinean source)

Should I bring up any more?--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes please. It would be great if you could use something in English (for the English Wikipedia you know). Did you try using Google books?

Likeminas (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to look for things, look them up yourself. I have already done my job by providing further references that support the idea presented in Peruheroico.com. However, google books was a good idea, so here are some I found (Also certifying the idea that the British aided Chile in the War of the Pacific):

• Historia secreta de la guerra del Pacífico By Edgar Oblitas Fernández: [19]
• La política británica en la Guerra del Pacífico By Enrique Amayo: [20]

On the other hand, I have found no official source that denies the information. Would you care to provide anything that refutes the information I have provided as non-reliable?--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Was I disputing the source or the information?

Please update the links on the article. Tonight I will be reviewing them for accuracy. Thanks.

Likeminas (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do your own work. I'm not your student, and you're by no means my teacher. If you want to update the page with the new articles, feel free to do so. I'll update it when I have the time to do so and if I have the notion to do so.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest to finish the War of the Pacific. The site peruheroico.com defines itself in every footer of a page as "PATRONATO PARA LA DIFUSION PATRIOTICA" (Institut for patriotic difusion) and consideres the 1879-1883 war as a preámbulo a las prácticas, en el siglo siguiente, de las tropas nazis en Europa (transl.: "preambel to the practice, in next century, of the nazi troops"). Is that the neutrality and reliability needed for Wikipedia?

The ultra nacionalistic and revanchist site ist visited to 80.2% by people who think the war is still going on! Cree Ud. que ha terminado la guerra iniciada por Chile en 1879?*. Websites oriented to such readership shouldn't be used as reliable sources.

(*Transl.: Do you think that it is over the war initiated by Chile in 1879?)

--Keysanger (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The only reference you provide for your statement is that of the poll. Also, as I said above, the information being used is solely for the British involvement in the War of the Pacific. Nothing else from the website is being used.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

DMNews

Is Direct Market News a RS? It's one of a large number of marginal-seeming (to outright rubbish) sources that have been added to IncrediMail, to replace the original ubiquitous sourcing to their own website. DMNews feels iffy, but I can't quite put my finger on why. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

They appear to be reliable, based on their about page. It looks like some of their stuff is news, and some is editorials by direct marketing people. The latter should be used only for their opinion. I would be careful about using either if it involves a WP:BLP. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Gonzalo Bulnes

This character, Gonzalo Bulnes, and especifically this book regarding the War of the Pacific: [21].

I really would like some sort of RS check for this as it seems to be completely biased and seems to hold POV pro-Chile. It is being used as reference in articles such as Treaty of defensive alliance between Peru and Bolivia of 1873 (for which it serves as the only reference), and the War of the Pacific article. Bulnes is by no means a third-party source and, to make matters worse, his books do not have a bibliography and do not explain where he got the information he claims to be facts in his books. In other words, for all anybody could know, the man could be making up everything he is writing in his book.

I would agree if this character is referenced from a third-party source, but a direct usage of him seems to be clearly POV; and also breaks WP:OR as Bulnes's information is obviously first-party accounts. However, I would like to hear the opinions of the more knowledgeable people working here at the Reliable Sources noticeboard.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Gonzalo Bulnes's work is considered "The classic narrative of the War of the Pacific" by the "The Cambridge history of Latin America" of Leslie Bethell, and that is a academic book and her statement is done within a academic context, within a comparison of the study sources. --Keysanger (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Even you declare Gonzalo Bulnes to be a biased author. Here is a direct quote from you, " His interpretations of the facts are Chile-biased, yes." The proof: [22]. Gonzalo Bulnes, a biased author, is not a reliable source.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

He's a historian. Do you know of any historian that isn't?

Likeminas (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL. What kind of response is that? So you're basically also agreeing that Gonzalo Bulnes is a biased, Pro-Chilean POV source. And yet, you justify that with, "do you know of any historian that isn't?" Seriously. Thus far it's three people, Me, Keysanger, and Likeminas, that say that Gonzalo Bulnes is a biased, pro-Chilean POV author. As such, I ask once more, is he a reliable source?--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Gonzalo Bulnes is a historian and as most people he has a POV. Nonetheless, having a POV does not make him unreliable.

Do we consider The Economist, BBC, and NYT reports as unreliable because of their editorial stance?

Gonzalo Bulnes is one of the few dispassionate accounts of the war. His book, Guerra del Pacifico (War of the Pacific), having more than 100,000 pages organized over three volumes, is by far the most complete and cited work of the war.

Needless is to say that several other plublications such as books, journals and encyclopedias use it as well. [23] [24][25][26][27]

Likeminas (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

They use him because he serves as a primary source. We're supposed to be using third-party sources in order to avoid WP:OR. By using Bulnes, we are promoting WP:OR from taking place. Also, I repeat myself once again: Biased sources are not reliable sources. The editorial stance of the BBC, NYT, and The Economist (like any other article from a newspaper) should be carefully used only as a method of recording the information that they and other sources support (Which achieves NPOV).--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's wikipolicy on primary sources: Wikipedia:PSTS#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

fpif.org

I'd appreciate some comments on whether www.fpif.org (Foreign Policy In Focus) should/could be regarded as a reliable source. This partly pertains to a discussion on Talk:Anti-Americanism#Edit Warring, but it would be useful to know in the long-term. --WebHamster 20:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a (liberal-leaning) think tank, and its publications should be reliable sources for (at least some of) its members' views. Whether these are views are noteworthy enough to include in an article will depend on the author of the publication, the subject area, whether these views have been quoted by third-party sources etc. Additionally, some FPIF reports may be reliable sources for facts or "attributed facts" - depending upon the particular circumstances.

In short, it is difficult to give a definitive answer here without knowing what particular publication of FPIF you want to cite and what statement it is intended to support. Can you summarize the basic dispute at Talk:Anti-Americanism#Edit Warring ina couple of sentences ? Abecedare (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Asif Ali Zardari's religion: Book by Vali Nasr

We use a book by Vali Nasr, The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future (W. W. Norton, 2006) as a source to label Asif Ali Zardari as a Shia muslim (plus some less reliable sources, including HuffPo). Is that a reliable source, or does Nasr have pro-Shia biases that make him unreliable? Inline attribution is not an option since the info is in Zardari's infobox. Discussion is at Talk:Asif Ali Zardari#NPOV issues. Huon (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nasr is a widely recognized scholar and W. W. Norton & Company is a reputable publisher. I also find the claim to be fairly unexceptional, since about 30% of Pakistani Muslims are Shia, as was the family of Zadari's wife, Benazir Bhutto. Is there any RS that disagrees? If we need to mention the personal organized superstition of each politician, in particular in an infobox, is a different question beyond the scope of this noticeboard. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruches, Pyrrhus J. as a biased POV not RS

To some Albanian related articles this author (Ruches, Pyrrhus J. (1965). Albania's captives. Chicago: Argonaut) has been put as a source. There are many problems with his work related to WW2 in Albania, since his claims are contradicted by well known mainstream sources English, German, Italian, here a short list of his discrepancies [28]

A classical example is Borova massacre case here [29] This is a very well known fact of German reprisals in Albania. While all authors English, German, Italian, maintain that was made by German as a reprisal for a Albanian partisan attack in July 1943, Ruches claims that Ballist and MAVI fought each other on October 1943(?!) and after the battle Balli forces burned the village(?!)

The same happened at History of the Jews in Albania article. Although Ruches claims are contradicted by others see sources here [30] they only keep inserting his reference, neglecting what mainstream sources say. No jews expelled from Albania au contrair they found shelter in Albania and the only accepted case of Jew deportation all sources agree is that of 400 jews from Kosova region.

Another biased version of the story is that of Corfu incident, regarding the murder of Italian General Tellini. Again Ruches maintain that was done by Albanians while mainstream sources have a different version here [31]

At the end we have a very POV author ((see Pettifer note 12 here a hihgly pro greek author) [32]) which tell stories none confirms, moreover the well known mainstream editors and scholars contradicts as explained above. Aigest (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no access to the book itself, but if the following blurb text quoted for it somewhere is authentic, then it seems indeed to be a work of nationalist polemics, not the kind of work we should use as a source without at least heavy precautions: "This is the first complete and definitive account in the English language of a tragic and unknown story – the blunt and cruel delivery by means of diplomacy of a proud people [i.e. the Albanian Greeks] to the raping, looting and massacring bands of barbaric and uncivilized Albanian chieftains" Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources on a little known Christian group

Yeah, I've think we may have heard this one before. Anyway, there is a continuing discussion regarding which sources can be counted as being unreliable SPS regarding the group known as the Christian Conventions. The talk page discusses this issue at some length. Any comments on what sources can be counted as reliable and included are most welcome. Specific challenges relate to books published by Research and Information Services, Inc., the website tellingthetruth at [33], and, apparently, local newspapers. There may be others as well. Any input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Much contention around these sources: (1) Fortt and (2) Daniel. Please do a find on the Talk page for each of these, and I apologize in advance for the ..uh .. noise level, a good portion of which was caused by me.

I 'think' all editors would like to use the TTT web site. (find 'TTT') I hope that is a fair statement, maybe not.

Finally, there is a large body of polemical work against the movement (my characterization). These often consist of single chapters in anti-cult books, especially prior to PC days. Any advice, guidelines or cautions in how to use these books concerning beliefs and practices of the group would be beneficial.

Note, the group has no published doctrine of its own.

All editors agree at least to the following RS - Melton Encyclopedia of American Religion article on 'Two by Twos', Parker 'Secret Sect'. The latter is listed by Melton.209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I would only add that the Secret Sect book is apparently (I haven't seen it myself) a recounting of former members of the group of their lives with the group. John Carter (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A very interesting account about this seminal work on the TTT web site here. [34]209.162.236.195 (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Except for the introduction, which briefly mentions the authors' experience, the Secret Sect book is straight history. Perhaps the title was confused with one of the other books out there which deal with member experiences (not indexed, so I personally didn't feel motivated to hunt through those).

Secret Sect/Parker and Parker is mentioned in several of the relatively few unquestionable reliable sources which give references. Fortt and Daniel are mentioned in fewer, but still some. The same may be said for Rule, Woster, Paul, Irvine, Enroth, Roberts, Mann, Nervig. The Dair Rioga reference is RS (published by a government history project), as is Johnson (Sex, Lies, and Sanctity is an official publication of the Association for the Sociology of Religion). Wilson and Barker are/were respected academic authorities on new religious movements at Oxford. As for older newspaper articles, they are mostly cited with backups (a few, non-controversial exceptions), and portions of several of the same articles are referenced by other authors. • Astynax ^talk 23:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have seen no RS references to Daniel or Fortt, although this has been stated several times by Astynax. Wilson and Barker may be respected authorities but they wrote exactly one sentence about the group, and that was quoted from Parker and Parker. :) [35] page 299. Roberts is the niece of Edward Cooney and self-published a book about him. I've not seen references to Woster. Paul is a source for Melton, 5th ed, so is RS on that basis. Irvine is the founder/originator of the group; his letters have been published on the web. Enroth is published by Zondervan, now out of print, and available on-line, but his book Churches_that_Abuse has only a few pages on the group, and frankly is absurd. Mann is another omnibus cult/ new movement book as is Nervig. Hope this saves some checking for everyone. Summary - This list parses into two sections. (1) Omnibus cult books from legitimate publishers with typically brief references to the 2x2s, tending to be older works but not all. (2) More lengthy treatments which tend to be self-published on-line or in print. These include Woster, Lewis, Kropp, Daniel and Fortt. Parker and Parker were self-published but because of its seminal status is widely quoted and referenced. As far as I'm concerned question marks exist around: Woster, Lewis, Kropp, Daniel and Fortt. Of these, Kropp is well known, high profile, and has a pretty good rep for fact checking and sourcing although she is anti- the group. She also runs the TTT web site.64.7.157.40 (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm personally not sure about your repeated allegations of SPS—i.e., that Roberts, Woster, Lewis, Danie, Fortt, or even Parker and Parker are self-published. But regardless, they are referenced elsewhere. I haven't been keeping a list of books which reference those books, but from what I have in front of me...

• Secret Sect (at least), contains references from Roberts, and her book contains text of the material cited in Parker and Parker.
• Woster is referenced in Sex, Lies, and Sanctity.
• Daniel is ref'd in All in Good Faith
• Fortt is also ref'd in All in Good Faith, an Italian encyclopedia entry I've printed but have yet to translate, plus one or two other books I've encountered (which I would have to go back to the library to find again).
• Lewis is unimpeachably RS.

I'll now keep an eye out and note others in print sources as I have time. As for web resources, Fortt, Woster and Daniel are listed as sources on the religioustolerance.org article on this church. Fortt is listed in the bibliography for the Univ. of Virginia's New Religious Movements article on the group (site currently being updated).

Wilson and Barker have written more than just a sentence on this group, nor is the passage a quote from Parker and Parker (that I can find—just a reference for further info). Both have written elsewhere on the church, and I have a copy of another of their papers coming, which I've yet to go through.

I was referring to the only book you provided as a source in the CC article, and a link is provided above, so anyone can check. You can also get to the index and look up 'Cooneyites', as the group are known in the UK. I'm not sure why this matters.209.162.236.195 (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Irvine you included from the references is the editor of Heresies Exposed—a book which has gone through over 30 printings—not the "founder/originator of the group."

Sorry about that. That is often a point of confusion. I thought your reference to Irvine was to his letters, which have been published on the TTT site.209.162.236.195 (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Kropp's is the only non-print source/website in the list, which you accept as reliable and which also lists the print titles raised here. • Astynax ^talk 08:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Kropp's web site (TTT) provides a comprehensive listing of every book and article available; that doesn't mean she has gone to any of Lewis, Fortt, Daniel's publications to source material. I doubt very much she has, as she works directly with primary materials and some earlier works. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"Secret Sect (at least), contains references from Roberts, "

Something doesn't seem right with that;

Parker, Doug and Helen. 1982. The Secret Sect
Roberts, Patricia. 1990. The Life and Ministry of Edward Cooney 1867–1960

JesseLackman (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dair Rioga Local History Group; All in Good Faith; Leinster Leader, Naas, Co. Kildare; 2005; See: Chapter 70 - The Church With No Name, p.322; About the history in County Meath, Ireland

Since this local history book is not easy to get, could you tell us what information this local history group sourced from Daniel and Fortt.209.162.236.195 (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

To someone looking in, this must be a lot of detail, and maybe confusing. Your effort in looking deeply into this issue would be very much appreciated, as this question of 'reliable sources' has been lingering over the article for a long time. Personally, I feel closure would help greatly no matter what the resolution is. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above editor. One point I would like to add is that, at least in my opinion, James R. Lewis, along with J. Gordon Melton and Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, is among the most widely respected academic sources on new religious movements out there, and I have to question why anyone would challenge his credibility as a source. Anyway, the sources in question, to summarize, seem to be the following, in no particular order. I also think that it might be best if any sources which anyone specifically wants to be addressed be added to the list below.

• Daniel, Kevin N. 1993. Reinventing the Truth: Historical Claims of One of the World's Largest Nameless Sects. Bend, Oregon: Research and Information Services, Inc. ISBN 978-0-9639419-0-9
• Fortt, Lloyd. 1994. A Search for the Truth: The Workers' Words Exposed. Bend, Oregon: Research and Information Services, Inc. ISBN 978-0-9639419-2-3
• Parker, Doug and Helen. 1982. The Secret Sect. Sydney, Australia: Macarthur Press Pty. Ltd. ISBN 0-9593398-0-9.
• Woster, Carol. 1988. The No-Name Fellowship. Belfast: Great Joy Publications.
• Irvine, Wm. C. (editor). 1929. Heresies Exposed. Tenth edition. Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers (reprint by Kessinger Publishing). ISBN 978-0-7661426-9-5. John Carter (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

and I have to question why anyone would challenge his credibility as a source
I didn't. My comments about 'Lewis' are with respect to the self-published book, The Church without a Name by Kathleen Lewis. Here [36]. Sorry about the confusion. Perhaps we should all stick to full names, what with 2 Lewis's and 2 Irvine's.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC).

Responding to the responses above...

• Regarding Wilson and Barker: whether the reference in the article is to one sentence or fifty, there is no question that both authors are RS.
• Regarding how Dair Rioga used any of the sources it lists: I have no idea, and short of interviewing the authors, I can't imagine how that could be determined. But the question did make me re-check the sources listed at the end of the chapter and also listed are the Roberts book cited in the CC article, and the Kropp website. It seems unreasonable to ask Wiki editors to know or have to determine how sources mentioned in books being cited were used by their authors. I don't know where else that is expected, or how it could even be done, short of making a trip and interviewing those authors.
• Regarding Roberts and Secret Sect: she was quoted before her book came out. Her book contains actual texts which were summarized or quoted in part by Parker and Parker.

The Church without a Name is cited nowhere in the article—nor do the references contain any citations by other authors named Lewis or Irvine—so I'm not sure how anyone here was confused. The number of books and articles I've come across dealing with this subject and which have been published in the last 10-15 years makes a very thin stack. The majority of even unquestioned RS materials do not list references. But the point is that such do exist. The little list above is hardly the result of an exhaustive search, just what I happen to have. • Astynax ^talk 17:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Wilson and Barker: whether the reference in the article is to one sentence or fifty, there is no question that both authors are RS.

I thought it somehow relevant, since you introduced them, and wanted an examination, but you are correct. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding how Dair Rioga used any of the sources it lists: I have no idea, and short of interviewing the authors, I can't imagine how that could be determined. But the question did make me re-check the sources listed at the end of the chapter and also listed are the Roberts book cited in the CC article, and the Kropp website. It seems unreasonable to ask Wiki editors to know or have to determine how sources mentioned in books being cited were used by their authors. I don't know where else that is expected, or how it could even be done, short of making a trip and interviewing those authors.

I was hoping for footnotes or notes that typically show where the author has obtained the material and what they obtained. Since the case for these authors being RS is based on their being cited by respected authorities I would think any light shed on how and where their work is used would work to your advantage.209.162.236.195 (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Church without a Name is cited nowhere in the article—nor do the references contain any citations by other authors named Lewis or Irvine—so I'm not sure how anyone here was confused.

I suppose I was confused when you said Lewis, because she has written a substantial book length work and many people 'are' familiar with it. Sorry.209.162.236.195 (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Again regarding Dair Rioga: Their footnotes are only used to expand upon items in the text, with a source list at the end of each chapter. They do not source each statement. Please avoid interspersing your comments into original posts, which makes it very difficult to determine who wrote what. Waiting until some fresh eyes come in to comment before needlessly lengthening this thread. • Astynax ^talk 19:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought it best in this particular case as these are distinct points, but would you mind sticking your sig back on your comments that I orphaned. I don't think I can do it. Again, sorry about that. 209.162.236.197 (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

WE REALLY NEED HELP, FRIENDS!

The editors of Christian Conventions have run into a wall: that's why we've asked for assistance and guidance here. We really need some disinterested parties to get involved and provide outside input. Otherwise, it's just like moving the discussion from the kitchen to the patio.--Nemonoman (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a looooong running dispute and some sort of clarification, any sort of clarification really, would probably be welcomed by all sides. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

When you read through the archives and consider the reasons for the "looooong running dispute" it seems to me the roots are in editors and sources with clear conflicts of interest (COI) re objectivity. By conflict of interest I mean sources and editors that are former members, are current members, or have personal connections with current or former members. This might be easier to see for someone who has studied the dispute/debate across the various places on interent it shows up, I've done that for the past couple years. I just posted some thoughts, observations, and suggestions about this on the CC talk section "Care with newspaper articles".[37]

For what it's worth, JesseLackman (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

-->> My comments were moved to the "Conflict of interest?" section here -->> [38]JesseLackman (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Lifou

Would http://www.mapsouthpacific.com/resources/index.html be considered a reliable source for the article Lifou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? I can't find any information about who runs the site, etc....thoughts?

No, its just a site aggregating links to other sites. What are you trying to reference. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This site {http://www.province-iles.nc/} looks to be fairly official, you could use babelfish to translate, perhaps. There may be something at the main French government sites or in French newspapers. Sadly the French Wikipedia doesn't have any references. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The index page you linked to would definitely not be reliable ... perhaps you meant to link to one of the other pages at mapsoutpacific.com? Blueboar (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I somehow forgot to sign the first time around. The URL I was actually planning to use was http://www.mapsouthpacific.com/new_caledonia/lifou-map.html. Would that work better? Thanks for the good advice! Fleetflame 00:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It is essentially a tourist guide to the island. While I don't think it is unreliable, it isn't the best of sources. Suggest you look for better. Blueboar (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your help! Fleetflame 01:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

SAM position paper

To the school corporal punishment article I added[39] a quotation from a position paper by the Society for Adolescent Medicine. A user altered[40] (subsequently brought up by me on WP:NORN) and then removed[41] this quotation with the the motivation that the original paper constituted an unreliable source.

My question is, in the article school corporal punishment, is the following in violation of WP:RS? Gabbe (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A 2003 paper by the Society for Adolescent Medicine concluded "that corporal punishment in schools is an ineffective, dangerous, and unacceptable method of discipline" and recommends "that it be banned and urge that nonviolent methods of classroom control be utilized".<ref>Greydanus DE, Pratt HD, Richard Spates C, Blake-Dreher AE, Greydanus-Gearhart MA, Patel DR (2003). "Corporal punishment in schools: position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine" (PDF). J Adolesc Health. 32 (5): 385–93. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(03)00042-9. PMID 12729988. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)</ref>

This is also being discussed at WP:NORN#School corporal punishment... I would suggest that people read that thread before replying here. Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

From the SAM webpage here.

For over 20 years, the pre-eminent authoritative peer-reviewed journal in the field of adolescent health. This is the official journal of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Valuable information for' an interdisciplinary readership of researchers and clinicians. Cited in Index Medicus/MEDLINE, Current Contents, Science Citation Index and all other major indices.

If this is true and we do not have any reason to doubt it. I fail to see how is this not a reliable source per WP:RS. I would be very interested to hear counter-arguments.--LexCorp (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The main counter-argument is that the Society for Adolescent Medicine's "Ad Hoc Committee on Corporal Punishment" don't know what they are talking about. They say "Corporal punishment ... includes a wide variety of methods such as hitting, slapping, spanking, punching, kicking, pinching, shaking, shoving, choking, use of various objects (wooden paddles, belts, stick, pins or others), painful body postures (as placing in closed spaces), use of electric shock, use of excessive exercise drills, or prevention of urine or stool elimination". This is absolutely grotesque! The fact is that corporal punishment in U.S. schools (and the S.A.M. is a U.S. organisation and it is clear from the context that the universe of discourse here is meant to be the United States) includes hardly any of those things, as you can see from any of the vast amount of coverage of the issue more or less anywhere you care to look, starting perhaps with the various rules and regulations that US states and their school districts themselves lay down about what is allowed.[42] Anyone familiar with U.S. education would know that any teacher or school administrator who did most of those things would be immediately out on their ear, if not actually prosecuted in a court of law, whether or not they are in a school district where corporal punishment is allowed. Alarics (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

the Society for Adolescent Medicine's "Ad Hoc Committee on Corporal Punishment" don't know what they are talking about You need to substantiate this statement with a source. Your opinion could be very well be true but for such a contentious statement you really need to substantiate with another source. Maybe you are over-interpreting too much as to their position. I read the paper as to say that all those methods can be constructed as to be CP not that all of them must be present concurrently in order to be CP. Or that anyone that uses CP must necessarily employ every single one of the methods. But that is neither here nor there because both my impressions and yours about the paper when put into the article become WP:SYN.--LexCorp (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to call this unreliable. I certainly don't think we can call it unreliable simply because it includes things that some other source doesn't. People disagree on how to define things all the time. The solution is to discuss those differences and attribute the various views to the people who hold them. Blueboar (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be true, if there were a genuine difference of view among the people involved as to what constitutes corporal punishment in American schools. Then of course we could and should "discuss those differences and attribute the various views to the people who hold them". But if you look at all the school handbooks and school board regulations cited and the various press articles in such reliable sources as the New York Times and many others, referenced in the article, not a single one of them is talking about choking the students or kicking them or giving them electric shocks. They are all talking about two or three licks on the butt with an official paddle, carried out with a witness in a recognised procedure and properly recorded as required in the regulations. That's what corporal punishment in American schools actually is. Some people approve of it and others don't, and that is the debate we are trying to reflect in the article. Can you find me a single example where U.S. school students are being choked or kicked or electrocuted as punishment? If that were so, believe me, we'd be hearing all about it and nobody would be trying to claim that it was defensible as "corporal punishment".

It's not just a question of the SAM position paper "including things that some other source doesn't". It's completely detached from reality. For that reason, I have substituted in the article a different representative of the same point of view but without the absurdly tendentious definition. Alarics (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You're shifting the burden of proof. The onus is not on us to verify the findings or definitions of a paper. And there are several examples of teachers in the US choking and shocking students with impunity in the name of punishment, for example. Gabbe (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The electric shock case doesn't relate to an ordinary school but to an institution for the severely disturbed and disabled, and it seems as though it is more in the way of a medical treatment; in the report, they are not claiming it is corporal punishment -- which anyway is already banned in Massachusetts, so how is that relevant to the S.A.M. calling for corporal punishment to be banned? As for the choking case in Georgia, the court found it was "inappropriate" and "untraditional", which tends to support my case that this is not what people mean when they talk about corporal punishment in school. And the teacher in the case was suspended and has now resigned (so it was not "with impunity" as you claim), which supports what I said earlier, that on the rare occasions such things do happen they are not acceptable to the authorities because they are not regarded as corporal punishment in the terms in which c.p. is permitted (which in Georgia it is, but not this). The school district's attorney "disagreed with Claxton [lawyer for the student's mother] that the appellate opinion makes choking a permissible form of corporal punishment. 'I don't think that's what they are saying at all,' he said of the panel. 'They are saying that not every confrontation between a student and a teacher rises to the level of a constitutional claim.'" And if you look at most school handbooks or school district policies in places where there is paddling, they usually draw a distinction between "corporal punishment" as a formal premeditated penalty which is an understood part of the disciplinary procedures laid down, on one hand, and "use of force" on the other hand, e.g. to quell a disturbance or restrain an out-of-control student, and this choking incident in Georgia plainly falls into the latter category. Indeed, school districts in places where c.p. is NOT allowed often spell out that the ban on c.p. does not preclude the "use of force" in the case of that kind of emergency, which reinforces my contention that that kind of thing is not what they mean when they talk about corporal punishment. Alarics (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to get some easy cases on RSN sometimes. The paper is clearly reliable with reputable authors, reputable publishers, and being a recent review and statement on the subject by a reputable professional organization. It has even been discussed approvingly by other scholarly sources on the subject, eg. Rami Benbenishty, Ron Asṭor (2005). School violence in context: culture, neighborhood, family, school, and gender. Oxford University Press.. Abecedare (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. No pun intended, but I'm shocked, especially by the second source above on students wearing shock devices. Is this the 21st century? But this goes beyond the scope here. The SAM article is a peer-reviewed article in a widely cited and indexed medical journal. It is a reliable source for the claims it makes. Discussion of how these claims apply to the article should be taken to the article talk page, or possibly to WP:NPOVN if you cannot reach agreement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you're confusing different things here. Sure the authors are reputable in their field, they are professors of pediatrics or psychology. And I have no doubt they read all the literature which led them perfectly reasonably to their conclusions. I am not querying their conclusion here; you would expect such a body so be opposed to corporal punishment, anyway, because people like that always are. What I am saying is that they clearly know nothing about what actually happens in present-day U.S. schools in the name of corporal punishment, so their starting definition is completely wrong. The paper is, of course, a "reliable source" as to what the S.A.M. thinks; it just isn't a "reliable source" as to the practical facts on the ground, where school corporal punishment is concerned, because that's not their field.

I don't understand why people are making such heavy weather over this. I have replaced the paragraph in question in the School corporal punishment article with a different paragraph citing a different a better source for the same point of view (i.e. that corporal punishment in schools should be banned), viz. the American Academy of Pediatrics. Surely that ought to be an end of the matter. Alarics (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Alarics, you seem to be attempting to substitute your own views on the subject ("What I am saying is that they clearly know nothing about ..., so their starting definition is completely wrong.") for those of a reliable scholarly source. That goes against wikipedia's core content policies, and you are unlikely to find much support for such a strategy. I am glad that you have added AAP's position to the article. That is certainly a notable organization, but I fail to see why it is being used to replace rather than complement this even more recent source. Abecedare (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we are beginning to go round in circles here. I wish people would read what I wrote further up this page. I am certainly not "attempting to substitute my own views". My views don't come into it one way or the other. It is a question of the overwhelming consensus as to what constitutes corporal punishment in present-day schools. I am simply saying that, while the S.A.M. journal is obviously a "reliable scholarly source", it happens to have got it wrong on that particular question in that particular paper - not about its opinions and recommendations, which are not at issue, but as to the facts on the ground, which can be verified by reference to many other sources cited in the article, as I have already said.

Not every assertion in every issue of every scholarly peer-reviewed journal is necessarily absolutely correct. As User:Nemonoman wrote yesterday over at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Fine_tuning_reliable_source_defintion,

I have been an editor for AAAS (Science Magazine), for Duke University Press, especially for its (at that time) 7 scholarly journals, and for the college textbook division of Science Research Associates, among other jobs. I've also had two books about India published by St Martins. So I've seen several different editorial and review processes at work in multiple environments. The processes are NOT fail-safe. Often the processes are not even that careful. Believe me -- if you saw how the sausage was made (as I have), you'd make sure it was well-cooked before you ate it.

I just find it very troubling that if, as a result of our article, somebody with no knowledge of corporal punishment in U.S. schools goes to that S.A.M. paper to find out more on the subject, they will come away thinking, good heavens, in American schools the punishments include electrocution and punching and kicking and choking. And they will have been utterly misled. Alarics (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Again this may very well be true but it is not up to us the editors to identify those errors. Other reliable sources must make the criticisms. On an aside note when I read the paper I don't draw the same conclusions as you do. It seems to me you are overprotecting the average reader. The article should just present the information and it is the reader who should interpret it. As far as WP:RS the paper is a reliable source and if an editor thinks its inclusion improves the article them you must object on other grounds but not on WP:RS. Still you make the claim that you are not projecting your own view but those of the majority of sources. That is fine when done directly by the sources. But when you do so it is WP:SYN.--LexCorp (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a triumph of blind WP dogma over common sense. Alarics (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

While I do not agree with you in this particular example. I do agree with you in that Wikipedia Policy is far from perfect. Wikipedia in general is distancing itself more a more from its stated aim to be a free encyclopedia (this is my personal view mind you). I left Wikipedia for years because of this reason. Now I just try to distance myself from viewing Wikipedia as a perfect encyclopedia. That way I save myself a lot of grief. You should do the same. You have done an excellent job with that set of articles. But no article in Wikipedia is stable for long. My advice to you is to let it be and find other reliable sources with different views. Any person really interested in the subject will no doubt consult Wikipedia and if they see some conflicting views then the hope is that they will dig, independently of Wikipedia, more deeply about the subject.--LexCorp (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"Conflicting views" are not the problem here. We expect those. It is incorrect facts that I am concerned about. Alarics (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As a non-American, I can say that when I read the quote under discussion, or even the source itself, I don't even remotely assume it means those "extra" definitions are common in American schools. I suggest the simplest solution to the dispute is include the quote, and also a sentence saying something like "SAM's definition of corporal punishment includes ...". That way the casual reader knows the paper goes further than the more commonly used definitions. Personally I think the definitions they use only matters if they make it stricter than commonly used (eg not considering spanking as CP) or considerably broader (eg sit in the corner). So ... let the reader know the use a different definition, and the reader can decide what to make of it. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

We really have come full circle now, because I did indeed originally add a comment to that effect. It was when I was told that I wasn't allowed to do that, because it constituted "original research" or "synthesis", that I moved to delete the reference altogether. Alarics (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It depends how you phrase it. Simply state what the paper says, don't make any judgements or claims about it, such as actively comparing it with other definitions. --Insider201283 (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

What is a more reliable source for wikipedia article - TV documentary or Court verdict on the same issue ?

2006 Alaya Rahm's Failed Superior Court LawSuit on Sathya Sai Baba, BBC and Seduced Documentary:

• The Pioneer reported that Alaya Rahm filed a sexual abuse allegation case on Sathya Sai Baba in the 'Superior Court of California' on January 6, 2005 (Case No. 05cc01931). Sathya Sai Baba was accused by Alaya Rahm of sexual abuse from 1995 - 1999.
• The trial was set for April 28, 2006. In the following trial's thorough investigation it was found that Alaya Rahm and his family members had praised Sathya Sai Baba in number of recorded retreats and conferences during the years '1995 - 1999' contradicting Alaya Rahm's sexual abuse claims
• In the trial Alaya Rahm admitted to being a daily user of illegal street drugs and alcohol from 1995 to 2005 when he made those sexual abuse allegations on Sathya Sai Baba in BBC, Seduced documentary interviews and in the Daily Telegraph.
• Alaya Rahm self dismissed the case on April 7th 2006 when witness 'Mr Lewis Kreydick' filed his testimonies. He was the one who brought Alaya Rahm's tickets to India and had also accompanied him to India to visit Sathya Sai Baba. Alaya Rahm had a personal, close and confidential relationship with Kreydick from 1995 to 1997. Alaya Rahm had spoken about his positive experiences with Sathya Sai Baba and no incident about any wrong doings by Sathya Sai Baba.

2006 Superior Court Verdict:

• Alaya Rahm allegation case on Sathya Sai Baba society was dismissed as “with prejudice” and is binding under the international doctrine of res judicata. That means Alaya Rahm cannot fail another lawsuit on Sathya Sai Baba in US or in India. Pretty much the trial found Alaya Rahm guilty of making those false allegations. Sathya Sai Baba name was cleared.
• Court records of Alaya Rahm's self-dismissed law suit: http://www.saisathyasai.com/Rahm-Public-Court-Records/scans-dismissal/
• Daily Pioneer article link: http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html

Earlier 2004 BBC, Seduced documentary and Daily Telegraph based on Alaya Rahm Allegations:

• In June of 2004 7 months before the actual Supreme Court case BBC produced the documentary 'Secret Swami' based on Alaya Rahm allegations. In the documentary BBC strongly accused Sathya Sai Baba of sexual abuse allegations based on Alaya Rahm's claims.
• Alaya Rahms allegations were also published in Britain by (The Daily Telegraph). The BBC documentary was also broadcast in Australia and by the CBC in Canada.
• Based on Alaya Rahm allegations Seduced By Sai Baba, was produced by Denmark's national television and radio broadcaster Danish radio. It was aired in Denmark, Australia and Norway.
• BBC Full Transcript: http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/A-AlayaRahm/secret_swami17_06_04.txt
• BBC Secret Swami links:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/3813469.stm,
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/3791921.stm,

Here's the Problem:

• In wikipedia - Sathya Sai Baba is strongly criticized and accused of Sexual abuse based on the 2004 BBC, CBC, Seduced and Daily Telegraph.
• All these accusations were made based on Alaya Rahm's allegations and interviews to these documentaries.
• The Pioneer also reported that no alleged person has ever filed a police or court case against Sathya Sai Baba in India for alleged improprieties.

Solution

• Shouldn't the Superior Court of California verdict on Alaya Rahm case in 2006 a more reliable source than 2004 BBC, Seduced TV documentaries and Daily Telegraph article?
• Can the criticism and accusations sourced to BBC, CBC, Seduced and Daily telegraph based on Alaya Rahm allegations be removed from the article since Alaya Rahm was found guilty?
• In fairness to Sathya Sai Baba can the article be corrected as per the Superior Court of California verdict?.

Please do reply. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked through the sources deeply enough, but have a few comments and questions:

1. The case you refer to was filed in the Orange county superior court, not the California supreme court. County superior courts are the lowest level trial courts, while the State Supreme Court is the highest (as far as state law goes).
2. The Daily Pioneer article you link to is a opinion column by Sandhya Jain and not a news report. As such, it is a reliable source only for the columnist's views and not for facts.
3. You mention several reputed sources that pre-date the end of the trial: BBC documentary, the Denmark national television documentary (link ?), some Daily Telegraph article (link ?). Are there any third party sources (besides the court document hosted by Sai Baba's website) that post-date the trial ?
4. In particular is there any reliable source that says that "Alaya Rahm was found guilty" ? I find this contention odd because I haven't heard of the plaintiffs being found guilty at trials, but possibly there were counter-suits which you have not mentioned. Can you clarify ?

Finally, note that this board is mainly for determining whether a specified source can be considered reliable for a given statement. Broader and more complicated issues are better handled at the article talk page or through RFC's. Abecedare (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Response from Radiantenergy:

• I corrected the Court Name. A Superior court is not exactly a lower court. The Superior Court of California in Orange County has handled several high profile cases. They have unlimited jurisdiction with regard to civil and criminal legal cases. I don't see why their verdict should be treated lesser than any other court verdict.
• Was there a real case by Alaya Rahm on Sathya Sai Society in the Superior Court of California? Yes.

Proof of the 2006 Alaya Rahm civil case from the Superior Court Of California Website:

• Case No. Case Title Case Type Filing Date Category
• 05CC01931 RAHM VS BABA PROPERTY DAMAGE - OTHER 01/06/2005 CIVIL
• Case Link: https://ocapps.occourts.org/CivilPubv2/DisplayCaseInformation.do?caseNbr=05CC01931&caseYear=&source=case_src_dtl#top_page. Please press 'Accept the Terms' and press the 'Search' button. Then you will see the case.

• Did Alaya Rahm self dismiss the allegation case in the middle of the trial?: Yes

• The trial would have continued if Alaya Rahm did not self dismiss the case himself after the Sathya Sai Society produced a strong case of evidence bringing witness - 'Mr Lewis Kreydick'.

• What was the Verdict on the case: The case was dismissed by the court as “with prejudice”.

• What does that mean: With in legal civil procedure - Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment in a civil case. The dismissal is a judgment against the plaintiff in this case Alaya Rahm "on the merits" of the case, and extinguishes the claim that was being sued over.

• Can Alaya Rahm file another lawsuit in an other court on Sathya Sai Baba in US or in India: No.Under the international doctrine of res judicata he cannot do that.
• Did the trial find any wrong doing by Sathya Sai Baba: No

• Did Sathya Sai Society was asked by the judge to offer any Monetary or other compenstions to Alaya Rahm: No

• The verdict was pretty much in favor of Sathya Sai Baba if otherwise Alaya Rahm would have received monetary compensations from the Sathya Sai Baba Society or the right to refile the case in another court of law.

BBC, Seduced and Daily Telegraph Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba based on Alaya Rahm :

• The Earlier 2004 BBC, Seduced documentaries did not do a thorough research on the allegations. They strongly criticized Sathya Sai baba on 'Sexual abuse allegation charges' based on Alaya Rahm allegations. However the following 2006 'Superior Court California Alaya Rahm trial' did not find any wrong doings by Sathya Sai Baba.
• It is definitely a WP:BLP violation to accuse Sathya Sai Baba of a crime he was never proved to have commited based on TV documentaries.
• The strong criticism and accusations sourced to BBC, CBC, Seduced and Daily telegraph based on Alaya Rahm allegations should be removed from the article to fix the WP:BLP violations.

This is more complicated sourcing issue I don't think it could be resolved in the talk page. That's the reason I am asking help here in the reliable source noticeboard.

Wikipedia lays great emphasis on the Biography of Living Person article. I think this WP:BLP violation in the article has to be corrected.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy, My points numbered 1 and 2 in the earlier posts were just factual comments for your information. Can you address my questions about sources in points 3 and 4 ? Specifically:

• Can you provide links (if available) to the Danish documentary and the Dail Telegraph article ?
• Is there any secondary source (besides the Pioneer opinion column) that post-dates the case ?

Lets try to simply list and analyze the reliability of sources on this board. Abecedare (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with abecedare that this is better taken up on the BLP noticeboard. At a simple level, both sources (BBC as well as the court verdict) can be considered reliable. The BBC source for saying that there are allegations of sexual abuse and the court verdict for saying that, at least in the case of Alaya Rahm, these allegations were found to be untrue. Assuming, of course, that the two sources use more or less the language that I'm using. I think this is more a matter of what it is appropriate to say on a blp. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points:

• The court case was dismissed at Alaya Rahm's request. AFAIK, that mean that no judgment was reached on the veracity of the charges, so it would be wrong to state that the allegations were "found to be not true".
• The case is listed as a "PROPERTY DAMAGE - OTHER" case on the court website and is a civil case; I am not sure whether the alleged sexual abuse was even the (direct) subject in the case.

The above two points demonstrate why it is a bad idea for us to try and interpret primary legal documents (which we haven't even seen!). I would advice against mentioning the case or its dismissal in any article, unless we have a reliable secondary source talking about it. Note that the BBC documentary pre-dates the filing of the lawsuit and I don't think it mentions the case at all (please correct me if I am wrong on the last point; I haven't read through the transcript or watched the documentary).

As far as the BBC documentary goes; it is a reliable source, but how much weight it should be given in an article is best determined at the WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN board. Abecedare (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have provided the actual court documents from Superior Court of California website. I don't see what more evidence I can provide? The problem is during the 2004 BBC documentary Alaya Rahm case was not analyzed in depth. Based on Alaya Rahm's and his family interviews BBC strongly accused Sathya Sai Baba of 'Sexual Abuse allegations'. It even went further questioning the political leaders in India 'Why no action was taken on Sathya Sai Baba'.
• As I mentioned above in the 2006 trial in Superior Court Of California - Alaya Rahm was found to be making those allegations using illegal Drugs and he self-dismissed the case. Sathya Sai Baba was not proved to have commited any wrongdoings in the trial. My point is its seems baised and unfair to continue accusing some one of serious sexual abuse allegations based on an old outdated documentary and inspite of Sathya Sai Baba being cleared by Superior Court of California. In the article there is whole paragraph citing BBC and other TV documentaries allegations based on Alaya Rahm's claims. Can this be removed? Radiantenergy (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the highest standards. A TV documentary on BBC would normally be considered a reliable source, but if subsequent information brought a source into doubt, I think we would disregard the original source. A court trial is a primary source. We as Wikipedia editors are not competent to analyze what a court decision means. Was this court decision covered in any reliable secondary sources? Jehochman ^Talk 20:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Jehochman, The Superior Court of California trial and the verdict was covered in detail by an article in the 'Daily Pioneer' Newspaper. Here is the link to the article from the Daily Pioneer - http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html. I have given more information about this newspaper.
• Daily Pioneer Newspaper: "The Pioneer" - a well established Newspaper. Its been online since 10th May 1999. The daily Pioneer has epaper link: http://epaper.dailypioneer.com/Thepioneer/Pioneer/2009/04/14/index.shtml. The daily Pioneer website has 63,460 page views in the past 3 months. As per the traffic statistics this epaper is linked in 612 websites. Can the Pioneer article be considered as a secondary source to the trial?.
• Other than the original court documents about 'Alaya Rahm's Case' and the daily Pioneer article dealing with the trial there are no other secondary sources.

Court Documents:

Links to Alaya Rahm's case from the Superior Court of California Website:

• https://ocapps.occourts.org/CivilPubv2/DisplayCaseInformation.do?caseNbr=05CC01931&caseYear=&source=case_src_dtl#top_page. Please press 'Accept the Terms' and press the 'Search' button. Then you will see the case.
• Link with the Court records of Alaya Rahm's self-dismissed allegation lawsuit: http://www.saisathyasai.com/Rahm-Public-Court-Records/scans-dismissal/

• Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the daily pioneer source can be assumed to be reporting the facts of the case correctly (not necessarily the hyperbole though) since you also have the court dismissal as a reference. The question is whether the Alaya Rahm accusations were one amongst many in the BBC documentary or were the central to the documentary? If they were central to the documentary, then my blp monitor says that it is better not to use the material at all. If not, then it depends. The issue of centrality would, unfortunately, seem to require a reliable source of its own and, I assume, that this documentary and the Alaya Rahm case are not the only accusations of sexual misconduct on the part of the baba. But, in general, I suggest erring on the side of not including inflammatory material in a blp. (Note: The court case would, IMO, be ok if it's language was very specific, as in the allegations were found to be untrue. I realize on rereading that this is unlikely since the case was withdrawn.)--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that the Pioneer column is a reliable source for anything beyond the facts that a case was filed and a case was dismissed (for which the OC Superior court website suffices anyway). A reading through Sandhya Jain's columns is worthwhile; for example in the latest column US unequal to India, she writes

"Indians will be shocked to know that America’s Black adult citizens don’t have an automatic right to vote, like Whites do. That privilege is granted for 10 years at a time by the reigning American President since John F Kennedy; Mr George W Bush granted the latest extension, and no amendment has been mooted to end this mockery of Black citizenship."

This is an apparent reference to Voting_Rights_Act#Periodic_renewal, but not only is the presentation biased, even the basic facts are wrong!

We should remember that BLP applies not only to the subject of the article but also to other individuals including, Alaya Rahm. I concur that this is a subject better suited for the BLPN board, but at this board we should be clear that the Daily Pioneer column is not a reliable source for anything beyond the columnist's views. Abecedare (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, I hold the opposite view. I think the daily pioneer column is a reasonably reliable source for stating that the case was withdrawn by Rahm but that the columnists views (the hyperbole reference I made somewhere in the mess above or below) is not something that is includable in the article. I'm having second thoughts about the BBC documentary being reliable though. I haven't seen it but documentaries of this sort typically rely on story telling ("In 1972, a young John Doe arrived at the gates of the ashram ......", that sort of thing) and also do a good job of obfuscating on actionable matters ("was this young man's broken dream all in his mind or did something happen at the ashram?"). I seriously doubt that the documentary made outright accusations in the first place. Print sources are usually a better bet. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is referencing the 'Voting Rights Act of 1965'. The Law outlawed the discriminatory voting practices on African Americans in the United States and its provisions prevented limited voting discriminations in the South. Initially there were objection to its renewal by Republicans in 2006. But President George W. Bush signed the 25 year extension on it.

I was surprised when I came across this article about Criticism of the BBC -'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC'. BBC has been criticized for its bias on 'Racism', 'Alleged Anti and Pro Israeli Bias', 'Alleged Anti-American Bias' and other biases. The article also said that In January 2005, the BBC aired the Jerry Springer: The Opera, ultimately resulting in around 55,000 complaints to the BBC from those upset at the opera's alleged blasphemies against the Christian religion. The whole article deals with the complaints about BBC. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Response from Radiantenergy to RegentsPark Question:

Hi RegentsPark. You had asked the following question. The question is whether the Alaya Rahm accusations were one amongst many in the BBC documentary or were the central to the documentary?

• Alaya Rahm allegations was the central / core theme in the BBC documentory. That's the main part of the problem using the 2004 outdated BBC documentary. I have attached the BBC full transcript below. BBC documentary included interviews with Alaya Rahm and his parents and questions to the Sathya Sai officials - Dr Michael Goldstein and Isaac Tigrett about the Alaya Rahm allegations. It also includes the questions to political leaders like Dr Murli Manohar Joshi and their response to these allegations.
• Here's the full version of the BBC transcript : http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/A-AlayaRahm/secret_swami17_06_04.txt.
• My answer to your next question is that I am only interested in removing the strong BBC and other TV documentaries criticism on Sathya Sai Baba which were based on 'Alaya Rahm allegations'. Leaving it in the article is definitely unfair to Sathya Sai Baba and WP:BLP violation.
• Based on the Superior Court verdict which is more reliable source its better to decide if we can get rid of the outdated BBC and other TV documentary which were solely based on Alaya Rahm allegations.
• I don't see the reason why the same issue has to be taken to another discussion forum in wikipedia. We may go through the same cycle again and again unable to conclude on this issue.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it should be taken to the BLP noticeboard because there is a line being drawn here between when allegations become notable enough to be included in a blp and when they should be excluded. That is a question that is not easy to answer here. My core responses are the same as before. Both the BBC documentary, as well as the court case are reliable provided they make clear statements. The daily pioneer article is likely reliable for asserting that the case was withdrawn, especially considering that you have the judgement as a source as well. So, what we have are allegations that have not been proved. Whether these allegations cross the notability threshold is probably better addressed on the BLP noticeboard where you'll get a much better idea of where the line should be drawn. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the combination of one older BBC video, plus other maybe marginally reliable sources that dispute or update it, brings into play the core BLP guideline of "We must get the article right". This isn't about reliable sources as much as it is about BLP, which holds the trump card ("getting it right"). For that reason, I don't think the material should be covered in the article at all, since there is so much to question about it. For that reason also, I think that a primary source can be used to show that a BLP article isn't getting it right (as much as I am normally opposed to primary sources). Priyanath ^talk 21:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

To Clarify: The BBC video as a source, by itself, clearly doesn't "get the article right". I don't think it belongs in the article. However, if the BBC video as a source remains, then the other two sources must also be allowed in order to fulfill WP:BLP. Priyanath ^talk 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.bionet-skola.com

I was wondering if we had a stance on the use of this website. This website edit serbian biologists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caladont (talk • contribs)

It looks like a Wiki, and as such is explicitly not a reliable source in the WP:RS sense. Even if its a closed Wiki (is it?), it's hard to use the WP:SPS exception, as articles will have mixed authorship. It also is not in English, making it hard to evaluate for me and many others. Is there anything in there that cannot be reliable sourced from more accessible sources? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Bionet skola only uses the wiki, but does not work like Wikipedia. All rights reserved. Each text has one author and his first and last name written below the text. --Caladont (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Do they explicitly state any editorial policy such as peer review or credentials checking? Are articles in general well referenced? If not, then I would defer opinion to editors that can read the page.--LexCorp (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)--LexCorp (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Administrator checks each text. At the end of each text is a list of relevant references. A large number of texts is referenced in the Serbian Wikipedia. --Caladont (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It is really hard to say. The question may hinge as to who can edit those articles and how do the page owners satisfied themselves that the editors are biologists with the relevant expertise. I would err on the side of caution and say that it is not really a WP:RS. Funnily hypocritical if you consider how Wikipedia works.--LexCorp (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Download pages as source for notability?

The Icon editor article has list of icon editing software at the bottom of the article. Several of the programs mentioned strike me as non-notable, but another editor is justifying their notability and inclusion with weak sources including download pages, saying these sources are reliable and meet Wikipedia standards. I strongly disagree but discussion isn't going anywhere, so assistance is needed. Some guy (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A quick look makes me thing these are primary source materials... which, while they can be used in articles (in a limited way)... do not establish notability. If I have missed something, let me know. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:NOTLINK apply here? I would feel comfortable deleting the whole bunch, with a pointer to a DMOZ or similar. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if NOTLINK directly applies because the article isn't only links. I think he's just Googling things and deciding "I found a page that mentions it, therefore it's notable". I guess I should the mention specific links. This page [43] uses icon sushi as part of the tutorial - does that make it a source for notability? I don't see why this tutorial is notable or that software it mentions is notable. Same with this tutorial [44]. This download page [45] has a short four-paragraph editorial review, which again is being used to justify notability - and again, that strikes me as invalid. This little "we added a program to our directory" blurb [46] seems worthless as a source. This [47] is the stupidest one, it's clearly a download page in German, but after I removed it he replaced it with the bizarre rationale "I have also discovered that winfuture.de links are used in other places on Wikipedia, which mean it is very likely to be a reliable source".

This is the only one I'm really not sure about [48] - it sounds like a press release written by the company that makes the software, but it says the software won an industry award - is that a source for proof of notability?

Thanks. Some guy (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Honduran media

Can any Honduran media be considered reliable sources, given that there has been something that has internationally been described as a coup d'état, and international reliable sources have reported suppression of free press in Honduras after the events? Or is it reasonable to assume that only the sources favorable to the new government have been allowed to continue publishing, thus leaving no local reliable sources for what concerns the government-related events? --LjL (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any reliable Honduran media sources right now, due to the 2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis#Media_war. See also:

• In Honduras, One-Sided News of Crisis: Critics Cite Slanted Local Coverage, Limits on Pro-Zelaya Outlets, Washington Post.
• Honduras Targets Protesters With Emergency Decree: Media in Country Also Feel Pressure, Washington Post.
• Honduran army smothers media after coup, Reuters.
• Honduras new government is censoring journalists, The Miami Herald.
• Journalists briefly detained by troops in Honduras, Associated Press

-- Rico 19:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• It can be considered as a reliable source as far as reporting what the Honduran press is saying, but not as far as a reliable source as to fact. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought, yes... basically it is to say that everything should be treated as opinion pieces even when they're technically not, isn't it? --LjL (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• As long as you used a nuanced approach, I don't see why you cannot use Honduran newsmedia as a source. They aren't all being censored...generalizing from the few to all is not wise. There are vast differences between, for example, La Prensa, and La Tribuna, and what they choose to report. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use them, only that you should take anything that either writes with a grain of salt and look for outside corroboration. Rsheptak (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You do realize I was mostly asking for third opinions here, I wasn't really intending to bring the discussion among partecipants to Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis here... --LjL (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I don't see why you cannot use Honduran newsmedia as a source."

If, "you should take anything that either writes with a grain of salt," they are not reliable sources. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources states, "Reliable sources are needed to substantiate material within articles".

Most, if not all, of the news media here are unabashedly partisan, Honduran journalists say, with newspapers and broadcast outlets allied with political parties and local power brokers.

In Honduras, One-Sided News of Crisis: Critics Cite Slanted Local Coverage, Limits on Pro-Zelaya Outlets, Washington Post

-- Rico 20:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(Placeholder: My own comment removed per ANI) --LjL (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Link to the whole ANI. -- Rico 22:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this part of that tired debate about whether the coup was really and truly a coup? Is there any material reason why it would not be considered a coup? Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's part of that, but it's also broader than that. I do ask people to forget about "that question" for a moment, and, at least here, just concentrate on determining whether local Honduran sources can be considered reliable, given the state of things (suppression of free press etc.), or not. --LjL (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The New American reliable source and is this appropriate for Immigration Equality (organization)

Immigration Equality (organization) is a group that specifically address LGBT and HIV/AIDS people's immigration issues to the US - the article is about the organization. Another editor wishes to insert:

“ John Vinson, president of the American Immigration Control Foundation, is critical of the effort to lift the HIV travel ban. He explains, "It seems rather odd to let people in with a health problem like that. Why bring on a problem on yourself when you don’t have to?” ”

And uses

• Newman, Alex (2009-07-20). "US May Lift Entry Ban on HIV Patients". The New American Magazine. Retrieved 2009-07-22. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

as the source. Some neutral opinions on is The New American a reliable source and is this the right article for this statement would be appreciated. All help appreciated. -- Banjeboi 19:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The New American is the propaganda arm of the John Birch Society. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear then, do you think it should be considered a reliable source? I have a funny feeling we should be unambiguous if this user or others are utilizing this as a source elsewhere. -- Banjeboi 20:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it as reliable for anything other than reporting the opinions of the John Birch Society. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

So, the source can be used if it is identified as the opinion of the John Birch Society, or whomever is speaking. Lionelt (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In general a person, or in this case, an organization, is considered an expert on themselves. So if they wrote "the John Birch Society believes foo" we could look at if that is notable enough to be included and cite as "according to their publication The New American, the John Birch Society believes foo". In the case brought here there seems no reason to use this source at all and the John Birch Society is simply giving their take against people with AIDS who they see as disease carrying homosexuals. There are likely much more neutral and credible sources to cite for any information about this organization. FWIW, Immigration Equality, from everything I've read is a rather dry, boring and wonkish group of lawyers working in immigration reform which itself is rather dry, boring and wonkish. -- Banjeboi 22:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're putting words in the mouth of the neutral party. I do agree, however, there are always better sources. I think together we can find one that presents a critical view which you would prefer to TNA. Lionelt (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Benjiboi's summation is accurate. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, American Immigration Control Foundation, of which John Vinson is the chairman, is funded in part by the Pioneer Fund, which the Southern Poverty Law Center considers a hate group. I hardly think his position on immigration policy is relevant, despite his organization. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The SPLC is a very reliable source for the opinions of the SPLC. ( hint ) Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Doubtful. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe what's being debated here is whether the John Birch Society's newspaper can be used as a secondary source. I believe it can; we do allow publications of political advocacy groups even as secondary sources. And the quote is clearly attributed to an organization with an obvious conservative stance on the issue. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

But that person has no bearing on the discussion. He's not a doctor, why should his opinion matter? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition, we don't use Stormfront or the Communist Party of America's opinions into articles. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not quite that simple, the user is trying to insert criticism about the concept of the legislation on the article of one group that is working to pass the legislation. John Birch Society is not an authority on any of it and criticism of the legislation itself should likely be taken to that article. They seem to be desperately trying to find muck against Immigration Equality (organization) ever since the prod/delete failed. If any such notable muck or controversies existed I would be more than happy to include them as it would strengthen their notability, there just doesn't seem to be anything. I'm afraid the duck test is quacking towards a soapbox effort based on my previous interactions with this user. If they invested this energy into building up articles on social conservatism I think they'd be actually helping a great deal. -- Banjeboi 00:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Gentleman, I find it very ironic that you're using one politicized source, along with what's probably a minor funding link, to show why AICF isn't relevant to the article, while at the same time saying that another source can't be used because it's too politicized. Both are political watchdog groups: the SPLC against racial/domestic extremism, and the JBS against socialism. Both have strong opinions. But that's no reason why we can't quote their publications in articles.

There's no need for the person quoted to be a doctor either; this is not a self-published work by an individual expert, and this is a political question and not a medical one. There's also no need for the JBS to be an authority on the matter; no more than there would be for the Washington Post to be an authority on the matter. These are secondary sources with editorial boards, not selfpubs by experts.

Now there is a legitimate question as to whether the AICF opinion is relevant in an article about I.E. Is the AICF actually criticizing IE, or is it criticizing the idea of allowing HIV-positive persons to immigrate? If the latter, the criticism may be better placed in an article about the immigration law. If we don't have an article on that law and/or if it's a primary mission of IE to change it, it could go in the article on IE. But if IE is more interested in, say, allowing domestic partners to immigrate the way spouses are now, and the HIV question is a peripheral issue, then the AICF quote wouldn't belong. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a primary mission of IE to remove barriers to allow HIV persons to immigrate. Thus the inclusion. Lionelt (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

But one could probably find criticism of letting the HIV ban expire from places more mainstream than the AICF. It is still a chronic disease that's going to cost money, often public money to treat. Not so unusual to be concerned about. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

We're still straying away from a couple of key points. Is the John Birch Society in any an authority on immigration issues to render an opinion on this legislation - not really, certainly not more than any highly polarized group, and they really weren't commenting on this legislation as much as the concept. Which brings us to the more pressing concern, this is an article about a non-profit group, John Birch Society wasn't commenting on the group or their work at all, just that they disagreed in principle. I welcome any reliably sourced criticism about the group itself but have yet to see any. Pundit opinions on the legislation should go to articles that discuss the concept if they are deemed notable enough for those articles. -- Banjeboi 02:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

We're mixing up the political leanings of the JBS's New American newspaper with the viewpoints of the AICF. The newspaper is being used as a secondary source, and we don't normally expect newspaper publishers to be authorities on the subjects they write about; we only expect them to gather news (the opposite is true when citing self-published experts). The news article is not particularly biased; it quotes Ted Kennedy, IE, Human Rights Campaign, and two prominent doctors in favor of letting the ban expire, it quotes FAIR and AICF in favor of extending the ban, it quotes the CDC for an estimate of what the medical care would cost, and it offers its own opinion about it being an unfunded obligation. But it is legitimate to question whether the news article should be cited in the article about IE. We must have an article or section about the ban itself, perhaps the news article should be used there. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That's like saying we should use Stormfront or Freerepublic, as they're secondary sources, too. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Gentleman, Stormfront is a white supremacist site, and Free Republic is just a blog. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite aware of that. What's your point? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are not secondary sources. Secondary sources have editorial boards. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And the editorial board of the New American has a specific agenda. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The editorial boards of many secondary sources have political leanings. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• The Vinson quote has been reported in another, more reliable, mainstream source, MSNBC.[49]:
  • “It seems rather odd to let people in with a health problem like that,” said John Vinson, president of the American Immigration Control Foundation based in Monterey, Va. “With HIV and the way it’s spread, people have desires and they’ll act on those desires and spread it to other people. Why bring on a problem on yourself when you don’t have to?”
• That also addresses the matter of whether it's a notable viewpoint.   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree it's a better source but disagree that asserts the quote is notable on its own. That is a debate for when it's needed I guess. What you may note from the source is that the quote nor the rest of that article talks about this group at all. It supports a POV about the subject but not the activities of this group which again suggests a WP:Soapboxing concern. I do appreciate you finding a better source however. -- Banjeboi 01:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

filmreference.com

I am finding this site used as a source for a lot of BLPs recently, but can find no meaningful information about the site itself. Any opinions on its reliability would be appreciated. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any kind of editorial review on these pages. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw it being used on a page recently and thought it looked unreliable myself. This was also discussed briefly previously. The company behind it, Advameg.com or Advameg, Inc., also runs a number of other similar sites like referenceforbusiness.com that look equally unreliable. DreamGuy (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And citydata.org which has lots of critics. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

hacktolive.org

This single user Wiki is being added as a source to multiple articles. That's not legit, is it? Yworo (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hell no. That's vandalism, or spam, or an overeager fan of an alternate wiki, or something. I think someone has a bot that revert all their edits, if it's too many to do by hand. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I've brought it up at WikiProject Spam as well, maybe they are the ones that have that bot? Yworo (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. I notice that a lot the links are from it being used as an image source. They may be, in which case that part may require human-style work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This might be useful SF007 (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

reborndollhouse.com

I'm doing a review for Reborn doll, which is part of some class where the students are trying to write GAs. The article uses the site a lot, and I would hate to disallow its use when it was OK (WP:BITE and all). They seem to be a store/fansite. Here's their about page. A typical statement is "Some body slips do not come with cable ties and must be purchased separately. Cable ties are used to connect the extremities and the head." referenced to this page. The review is at Talk:Reborn doll/GA1, if you care. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As the instructor overseeing the course, I am torn. One one hand, it is a SPS. On the other hand, the subject has few reliable sources, and none of those seem to address the issues with a level of detail that are described on that website... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have a feeling that it doesn't meet our RS guideline, unless specific writers are acknowledged experts, which is unlikely due to the obscurity of the subject. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, never knew such a thing existed. Why do they call them -re-born dolls, anyway? I was half-expecting they were store-bought dolls modified to be more realistic, like the "kitbash" phenomenon with sci-fi models. I did notice that one particular paragraph seemed to use the dollhouse site a lot. But because this is part of a school project I'd be wary of being too particular about academic standards in a non-academic topic. I'm assuming the people behind dollhouse know quite a bit about how the dolls are made; a PhD and published papers on the subject shouldn't really be necessary. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Brother Stair - scanned newspaper article

Hopefully a quick question, is a scanned article from a local newspaper placed on a non-independent website considered to be a reliable source for controversial material? ttonyb1 (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll want to cite the newspaper, and not a possibly copyright violating website. Be careful the website hasn't modified their scan in some way. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Per our rules on copyright infringement we absolutely cannot link to a site with a scanned newspaper article unless we for some reason have a good faith sensible reason to think there is no violation -- such as a news article so old it's obviously public domain. If it's controversial material I'd say no way to even citing the paper without the link without being able to check the original for accuracy in some way. DreamGuy (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As said above, we need to be careful that the scan itself was not a fraud. For example, one of Michael Moore's films showed what appeared to be a newspaper headline with a story, and that was supposed to confirm the point he was making. But the headline was not a headline. He had reworked the image. The "story" itself turned out to be nothing more than a letter to the editor.

But we do need to be clear here. It's okay to cite the newspaper without the link. You just need to be sure you're not being fooled.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I believe we are all on the same page. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Is gateworld.net a reliable source

Is http://www.gateworld.net/ a reliable source? I think gateworld.net is not a reliable source as it is a fansite. Gateworld.net is being used as a source in the Stargate, Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis and Stargate Universe articles. Powergate92Talk 05:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Its come up before here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Define "fansite". Gateworld may have been started by a fan but it's definitely grown beyond what you'd normally consider a fansite. They have a relationship with the studio, they interview cast, theyve been spoken well of by the media, they've even been cited in a Nature article. The only issue is that they are specialized to one particular TV show; if there was no Stargate there would be no Gateworld. So I wouldn't use it to settle questions of notability but it should be fine for cast interviews. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

External wikis

External wikis [tend not to be/are pretty much never] reliable sources, right? In particular, I'm looking at this one. Someone added it as a source, and although the information isn't bad, I don't know if it can be kept. Thoughts? BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 16:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's still a wiki. I think it could be a good external link, but not a source.

I'd suggest keeping the material it is sourcing, but marking it as unreferenced, and then putting a note into the article's talk page.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's pretty much what I figured. Gratzias! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 19:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

For dummies series

Would the for dummies series of books be considered a reliable source? thanks--KayPet (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but not for controversial WP:BLP information. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Questionable source used in Bob Marley article

Would Bob Marley Magazine be considered a reliable enough source to make edits such as this? The same information is also being used at User:Jewish Marley and User Talk:Jewish Marley. The talk page may actually be a copyvio as it contains a large portion of the interview. ponyo (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a fansite / web magazine to me [50]. The talk page quotation for the interview may not be copyvio, I leave that to others to decide. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Trying to create a page for a band called o'shea

i have been trying to create a page for a band called o'shea and it keeps getting deleted. i have modeled the page after several pages that already exist on wikipedia and still it seems to be deleted. i have provided reliable sources and they are extremely notable in many ways. i need someone to help me desperately. now they are saying that its been deleted because its been deleted before which i cant seem to understand! please help!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Batesbe (talk • contribs)

Does the band meet WP:BAND? It seems the speedy deletion has nothing to do with the reliable sources.--LexCorp (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources for WW2 losses in Asia

A dispute is developing at Talk:World War II casualties#Werner Gruhl over the choice of sources to be used for the civilian casualtites due to wartime famine in Indonesia, India and French Indochina.

User:23prootie has used the following source:

Werner Gruhl, author of Imperial Japan's World War Two 1931-1945, who is former chief of NASA's Cost and Economic Analysis Branch with a lifetime interest in the study of the First and Second World Wars. He is an active member of the UN Association.[51]

I believe that we should use this source:

John W. Dower War Without Mercy 1986 ISBN 0-394-75172-8

John W. Dower has impeccable academic credentials as a scholar on the WW2 in the Far East.[52]

Werner Gruhl is a not a recognized scholar in the field. I believe we should only post Werner Gruhl's figures in the footnotes as a note showing other opinions on the subject.

I need your guidance in this matter, please advise as to the use of sources--Woogie10w