Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

"WP:RSN" redirects here. For "Wikipedia will be ready real soon now", see meta:Eventualism.

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.

Click here to start a new discussion thread

NGO Monitor as a source for Marc Garlasco

Resolved

NGO Monitor is a political organization which monitors and responds to what it perceives to be anti-Israeli bias. Marc Garlasco is an analyst for Human Rights Watch. Are allegation made by NGO Monitor suitable for a BLP if they are outside of NGO Monitor's expertise and not picked up by reliable news organizations? Should tags on the statements be removed instantaneously? Thanks, --99.130.161.159 (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

NGO Monitor is a propaganda mill and is in no way acceptable as a sourcce for claims of fact in a BLP. L0b0t (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to remove the material and have been rebuffed, and then I have attemped to place tags on the statement and article and I have been repeatedly reverted[1][2][3][4][5]. I am attempting to have a discussion on the article's talk page with limited success and have been told that including tags about the discussion of credibility is POV.

To clarify, I originally questioned all usage of NGO Monitor. I am now questioning the use of it as a primary source for the article.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems to me that they are RS for their views, but that they do fail somewhat as RS for BLP. Given that they do seem to reply on Rumour and inuendo (and unchriticly report blog accusations) for their facts about people.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

To me there is a very strong burden for inclusion in a BLP and if they have any negative reputation for rumour and innuendo then they aren't appropriate for a BLP.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The above two users - the latter IP editing under multiple IPs, by the way - have POV reasons for stating that NGO Monitor is political and unreliable, namely that the international press have quoted NGO Monitor's criticism of Marc Garlasco's work at Human Rights Watch, as well as the recent notoriety NGO Monitor has had during the outing of Garlasco as an avid German/Nazi war memorabilia devotee, and they seek purging these references. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

According to NGO Monitor's article, they were founded by a Jewish public relations group and they are run by an Israeli political scientist who was formerly paid as a consultant to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Nevertheless, I don't contest they have been quoted by some media for an Israeli response to the incident. I don't feel this qualifies them as a primary source for a BLP.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems to me that they are RS for their views, but that they do fail somewhat as RS for BLP. Given that they do seem to reply on Rumour and inuendo (and unchriticly report blog accusations) for their facts about people. "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims. See Wikipedia:Libel.

"

Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely unacceptable as a source in a BLP. User:A Sniper should give WP:AGF a thorough reading as well. L0b0t (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And you should sign your posts LoBoT ;) A Sniper (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The question is not are they RS for their views, they are and I do not object to their use on a non BLP. The question is do they breach the rules for RS on BLP, I think they do. But I agree thyat signing posts here would avoid the invetialbe accusations.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Inevitable accusations aren't part of a civil discussion.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

They are not a reliable source, especially for a BLP. That said, if what they have said about Garlasco has been repeated by reliable secondary sources it can go in. But you cant use NGO Monitor itself as the source, you have to show that a secondary source actually cared about what they said. (Also, a note was left at WT:JUDAISM asking for others to help oppose a zealous effort at Marc Garlasco to purge all references to NGO Monitor. Just dont be surprised to see some people come in and just say "Support". nableezy - 16:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

NGO Monitor has been referenced by many mainstream news sources, even allowing Steinberg to write articles: Wall Street Journal, The National, The Guardian, The Telegraph. Yes, I alerted a user project to the discussion, without stating one way or the other how folks should edit. All the above is is an attempt to censor by a small band of four users, POV-motivated. A Sniper (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

and in accordance with the rules on BLP'S where they are referenced by third party sources the reference can be used. But they are not suitable to be used as a source according to those same rules. Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The first NGO Monitor reference is based on Garlasco's work, not on Garlasco himself. Similarly, the second reference is about a noted news story that broke concerning allegations made about Garlasco that were carried internationally. How is this in violation of BLP? A Sniper (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If it’s not about Garlasco then why is in on the page about him? If it is not about him then it should be removed. The second is not in breach of the rules because it is a reference to a third party source reporting what NGO monitor said.--Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I only have issues with the first reference, but on reliability grounds. They are making allegations outside their field of expertise and the allegations aren't being carried by a reliable source.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

How are they "making allegations outside their field of expertise"? Steinberg is a university prof specializing in Middle East diplomacy and security. NGO Monitor lawyer Anne Herzberg has assisted at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and has published on the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia. How is this any more or less than the expertise of Marc Garlasco himself, based on his own credentials studying International Relations? A Sniper (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If a third party source referances the allegations use that, argument over. If not then it breaches the rules on BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

NGO Monitor's primary purpose is to offer defense of Israel, not evaluate human rights. Further, they have no third-party recognition evaluating human rights. Their work is still appropriate on their own article page or when it is picked up by a main stream news organization. I just removed a blog from someone representing HRW and replaced it with a quote which was carried by NPR, so see if you can do the same for NGO Monitor or find a quote which did appear in a reliable publication.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If you all want to just continue the same argument with the same participants do it on the article talk page. If you want to get uninvolved opinions stop arguing. Make your points and see what others have to say. This type of arguing makes it exceedingly unlikely that others will even try to get involved. nableezy - 18:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy - this is just a re-tread of what we're already doing at the talk page for the article. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thirded. IronDuke 22:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Fourthed as we have determined they are unreliable as a source by themselves but ok if attributed from a reliable source.--70.236.45.99 (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Al Jazeera

Is Al Jazeera a reliable source for 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt? A user has recently deleted material from this article arguing that Al Jazeera is not a RS.diff. --JRSP (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Al Jazeera is generally considered a reliable source. I also find the referenced article to be unsurprising and without any red flags. Good source. If you want to strengthen it further, try finding the AFP/Reuters/AP reports of the Carter interview - typically, these are taken over more or less one to one. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely a reliable source. The only thing that I could think of where it may be a questionable source is the internal politics of Qatar where it may be a reliable secondary source or it may be a primary source as it is state funded. nableezy - 21:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes Al Jazeera is reliable. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, RS for uses in the diff. Please ref-improve by providing full citations. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a solid reliable source with a good reputation. Dlabtot (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera has often been criticized for its lack of neutrality when it comes to Arab-related matters (being an Arab source, such criticism would surface whether or not it is justified), but here we are talking about a topic that bears no relation whatsoever with the Middle East, and Al-Jazeera being the Middle East's CNN, it is as reliable as any other major news source. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, they did pay for and held a party for a released child killer.[6] Not something you'd expect from a journalistic source that tries to uphold a semblance of neutrality. The problem with Venezuela's stories is the country's leadership is, much like al-Jazeera, what analysts call "pro-Mukawama". Putting this into consideration, I think they should be avoided where possible in this topic. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

al-Jazeera is a RS, regardless of what you think of their editorial stance on issues. nableezy - 21:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

When a source issues a public mea culpa for a mistake, that is an indication of reliability, not unreliability. Unless we are in Bizarro World. Dlabtot (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what value there is in an apology that comes only after sanctions are handed down. In fact, that they actually funded a birthday party for a child killing terrorist is beyond repair, IMHO. You can't just shrug it off since the people behind this party are still working for them.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

bookrags.com

Is bookrags.com a reliable source? It is used on hundreds of Wikipedia articles, either as a reference or as an external link. Our article BookRags says the content is written in part by students. I would be inclined to think bookrags.com shouldn't be used as a reference, but it might be OK as an external link. I am interested to hear others' opinions. Also, many of the pages linked to at bookrags.com have nothing but ads on them, and many just have links to content hosted on other sites (including Wikipedia itself). These seem like links that violate Wikipedia's external links policy. What should be done? Peacock (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit hesitant to say that its an acceptable external link; as most information on there can be properly cited into articles. A blanket ban isn't in order, as there are always exceptions to the rule, but most of the pages on the site don't really add anything that cannot be incorporated into our articles, which is the point of WP:ELNO #1. I also doubt that it's a reliable source, as it doesn't give attribution to its writers nor does it publish any sort of quality control guidelines. Also, I note the site has an "as is" warranty in their terms of service [7] where they don't guarantee the accuracy of any of the information posted there. ThemFromSpace 19:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a blanket ban would be appropriate, as I can't imagine any page on the site meeting WP:RS or WP:EL rules. DreamGuy (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What then do you think should be done about the ~2000 links to bookrags.com? Peacock (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing of band genres

A discussion is going on at Talk:Nightwish#Genres.2C_part_2 about what would be an appropriate way to source the genre of a band. Is a single review enough? As this is potentially a wider issue than just at this article, I'm interested in getting the opinions of a wider audience. —Ruud 10:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the number of sources necessary to make a specific statement seems to be a question beyond the scope of this noticeboard. Gabbe (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion I linked to is one specific instance of a more general problem which repeatedly appears at a large number of articles, so I don't think "specific statement" really applies. I'm also looking more for a qualitative than a quantitative answer. —Ruud 16:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is beyond the scope of this noticeboard.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If only one source mentions the genre of the band, then examine the quality of that source, and perhaps wonder why other sources don't mention it. If other sources give a different genre, then you should either report both sides or go with what the majority of reliable sources say. Refer closely to WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If one source mentions a genre, that's OK. If their choice is a little different that what you'd consider the genre of the band, then attribute. "Source X described band B as style G". Where articles run into problems is when they get five different sources each describing a band as a different but overlapping genre. That leads to edit conflicts. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A Wordpress.com interview as a source

Hi, I have been editing and improving this article for some time and currently I am using this interview with some of the band members as a source. Now I know as a blog Wordpress is usually not reliable but as this is a primary interview with the band I'm unsure whether or not to remove it. The blogger is named Nadine O'Regan, who is a journalist, and I'm fairly confident the article is not a fake interview. Considering that parts of the article may contain her bias I'm only using some of the quotes from the members. As such I'm wondering is it acceptable to use the interview just for the band quotes.
Thanks, --RavensFists (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not an acceptable source, as per WP:SPS. Dlabtot (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, --RavensFists (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the journalist could be considered an expert on music interviews, so assuming you're sure the article was in fact written by her, then yes it's citable as an expert SPS. Also consider using it as an external link which doesn't have as strict requirements. I would go ahead and use it, assuming it's not to source anything derogatory or controversial. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

www.catholic.org

I've seen this website cited on wikipedia already but I wasn't sure whether it is actually a reliable source and thought it might be considered biased. Munci (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It does not give any indication to show that it is anything other than a personal website (dispite the ".org" suffix)... the website gives no listing of editors or staff, it lists no office address, and there is nothing to show it represents the "official" views of the Church (no "stamp of approval" from any Diocese, or from the Vatican). So, no... I don't think it can be considered reliable by our rules. Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to see at first, them being linked to halfway down the page rather than at the top like on most websites, but there are "About", "Contact Us" and "Writers & Contributors" sections. The contributors include a deacon so that maybe sorts the stamp of approval issue. I don't see anything in the way of the Vatican supporting it though. It seems to be (almost) exclusively American as well which makes me doubt it even more as an official Church website. But the list of contributors also includes Robert Spencer, who is already decided non-reliable so I think at the least, any articles cited to pages on the website written by Spencer should no longer use that as a citation. Munci (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a private, for-profit, website based out of Bakersfield, CA, as per here and here, and, so far as I can tell, the site doesn't list the names of anyone involved in its operation. My guess, on that basis, would be that it probably shouldn't be used as a source. Somehow, I rather doubt that it is the only possible source for material relevant to Catholicism out there, so I can't really see any reason for it being used, except, maybe, in rare cases, if it is the only place that reprints an article from some very low-run newspaper which can't be accessed otherwise or if for whatever reason one of the signed contributors to a given piece it runs is considered separately reliable. John Carter (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Not reliable source: A very expensive example of SELF publishing and a Vanity press. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am just so surprised that even with their money woes resulting from the whole "touching boys" problem that the Catholic Church has not found it worthwhile to simply buy that domain name, and that they didnt think about that long ago and snatched it up over a decade ago before anyone else. Kinda a commonsense name they shouldve bought long ago.Camelbinky (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm torn on this one. According to this May 2008 article in Bakersfield Now, there's some very serious problems with that site.[8] On the other hand, I'm not sure that has any bearing on the quality of what was written. If we consider it self-published, besides looking for alternate sources, we could consider the merits of each article. I'm assuming that articles written by priests would be considered expert SPS, and articles written by bishops could be considered a publication of their diocese. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"eNotes"

The Mezzanine is exclusively sourced to something called "eNotes", which looks at first sight like snippets from the forest-slaughtering Gale production Contemporary Literary Criticism with extra wobbly bits and GoogleAds for $cientology on the side. Is this really CLC (and if so, is the reproduction authorized) or is it merely something akin to a well-written wiki? -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Not acceptable, SELF. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The source would be CLC, with a convenience link to eNotes, ( eNotes even provides a citation button to generate a cite to CLC ), so it wouldn't be self-published. And there seems to be some sort of editorial process to eNotes, so no, not selfpub. What I would watch for is copyright. But I would assume that a site like this would have obtained permission to reproduce the materials. This isn't somebody's home fileserver. Oh, and I didn't see any "wobbly bits" and my Google Ads were all about flour and baking supplies ( the author's name is Baker ). Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

NY Times Survey as Reliable Source for Shakespeare Authorship section?

Can this NY Times Survey of Shakespeare professors [[9]] be used as a source for this line in the Authorship section of the William Shakespeare [[10]] article: "Although in academic circles these doubts are held by a (small) minority". The inclusion of an article note, reporting the survey results, has generated a discussion[[11]] about the validity of the note itself, and in the course of this discussion, the Times survey has come under question as a reliable source. Comments from the editors of this page might prove helpful. Smatprt (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with using the NY Times survey, so long as you don't over-interpret what it shows. The newspaper explains how the survey was carried out, and from their description it was done properly. The response rate was good. We can trust that the NYT actually did what it said, and that the results are accurately reported. Interesting question; there may be other views here. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You could try attributing this directly and add a "probably", "Although the New York Times reported that in academic circles these doubts are probably held by a (small) minority." Tim Vickers (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree w/ itsmejudith. The methodology is clearly laid out, the questions are reasonable and the source is reliable (in other words, I don't really expect the NYT to fudge or falsify data). the authorship question in general is entangled with a lot of other issues which the polled professors may find valuable (e.g. which versions of the plays were authored alone, how the revision process worked, etc.), so I think the usefulness of the survey is limited. Protonk (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I have a followup question. Here is the note that was attached to the article:

"A March 2007 New York Times ("Education Life" section) survey among Shakespeare professors at 556 American colleges that offered degrees in English Literature found that 17 percent of the 265 respondents answered either "possibly" or "yes" when asked if there was "good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon"."

Do you feel that this accurately reflects the survey in relation to the line in the article ("Although in academic circles these doubts are held by a (small) minority")? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

17 doesn't seem that small of a minority. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Academics often like to take questions literally. A lot of the professionals who answered "yes" might believe that William Shakespeare of Stratford was the principal author of the plays: they could be answering "yes" just because they know that literary attributions can be incorrect and/or just because they think some of the works might have been misattributed. They may not be convinced that someone else wrote all the plays in the canon. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

We have to be aware of the context here. Firstly, the auithorship of many Shakespeare plays is in dispute. For example several collaborators may have worked on the Henry VI plays, and Pericles, Prince of Tyre is generally accepted to have been part-written by other authors. These claims about collaborations, alterations, cuts and other attributions are a standard part of Shakespeare scholarship in just the same way that they are of other authors and artists. To give an analogy, art historians will dispute whether this or that painting is the work of Rembrandt, or by one of his pupils or imitators. There is a whole "Rembrandt Project" dedicated to this. This is wholly different from the claim that the entire works of Rembrandt were actually painted by the Prince of Orange, or whoever. In other words there are two "authorship" debates, the mainstream one concerning attribution, and the "conspiracy theory" one that says Bacon or Oxford or whoever wrote the entire canon. The problem with this survey is that the question as asked does not allow the respondent to distinguish between the two controversies. The wording was, is there "good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon." Note the phrase "principal author". There is good reason to believe that he was not the principal author of several plays, so we don't know whether those who answered 'possibly' or 'yes' were accepting that he was not the principal author of some of the plays, or of poems such as A Lover's Complaint. The question seems to be carefully phrased to produce a positive response from some scholars. Furthermore the "possibly" respose may imply simply an acceptance that we can never wholly rule out anything. Possibly Milton did not write Paradise Lost. Who can be absolutely certain? The 'possibly's may simply reflect the scholars' need to indicate their open-mindedness. Also, the survey, as reported merges the 'possibly' responses with the 'yes' responses. And as I said above, even the 'yes' responses could easily be a result of the respondents acceptance that Shakespeare was not the "principal author" of some of the plays. So the problem here is that the survey itself is fundamentally flawed and misleading. Paul B (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be fundamentally flawed and misleading unless you start from the premise that authorship of the plays is in dispute and then reject conclusions that are contrary to that premise. Protonk (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I am at a loss to understand what you are saying. It is flawed because it confuses the different "authorship controversies", the mainstream one and the conspiracy one. It's not people who "start from the premise that authorship of the plays is in dispute" who are questioning this survey. It is people who start from the opposite premise. The survey appears to have been designed by people who want "the premise that authorship of the plays is in dispute" to be more widely accepted, though I admit I don't actually know who commisioned it. Paul B (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it conflates the two at all, though if the questions were asked in the order they were printed, the first answer might be skewed somewhat. I trust that the population from which the sample was drawn would take "How much thought have you given to the controversy over the authorship of the Shakespeare works?" to refer to controversial assertions that Shakespeare wasn't the principal author of the works outside the Apocrypha. The following questions would seem to make this abundantly clear. Listing of authors advocating various alternative principal authors (Mark Anderson (writer), Delia Bacon, etc.). Asking specifically "Do you think that there is good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon?". These are not ambiguous questions and the response seems to be fairly clear: most of the surveyed professors don't give much credence to the authorship question. Protonk (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the survey as a whole places the issue in the context of the "conspiracy" authorship question. But it is this specific question that is being used and is at issue, and this question refers to whether WS was the "principal" author of plays in the canon, and thus includes room for varied interpretation. (ps, it's not just the Shakespeare Apocrypha that are in mainstream dispute, but several 'canonical' First Folio works). Paul B (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many valid interpretations there can be of the responses to "Do you think that there is good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon?". 82% of the surveyed professors said no. Yes was third, behind possibly. For the relatively narrow question of "what does a survey of Shakespeare academics say about attitudes toward the authorship controversy" there seems to be only one real answer. It obviously can't answer questions about mixed authorship, revision, or plays outside the canon. Protonk (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

While I think Paul raises a good question, I think the results of the survey clearly show that the professors knew what they were answering. With a distinct and large majority answering "no", it's pretty obvious that these Shakespeare professors (who all certainly know about collaborations, Apocrypha, etc.) took the question in context of the whole survey, which was all about the "conspiracy" authorship question. If not, then the yes answers would have been 100%, and not the 6% that answered "yes" and the 11% that answered "possibly". I do notice that Paul has focused on the phrase "principal author". What I don't understand about Paul's argument is that even given the circumstances he describes (that some canonical plays are in mainstream dispute), that number is only a handful of plays out of 37 works in the canon, so no matter how you look at it, the mainstream feeling would still be that Shakespeare of Stratford was their principal author. In fact, even if he were credited for only 20 of the 37, he would still be the "principal" author. I also don't understand the accusation that the survey was designed with a hidden agenda. If it was, after all is said and done, it failed miserably! If the NY Times really wanted to influence the survey, they would have done a far better job in creating more leading questions. Smatprt (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The question referred to "the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon." That might be interpreted to mean EVERY play or ALL plays. There's just enough room for ambiguity that a small number of academics may interpret it in the way I suggested. Simple. BTW, I now notice that Protonk above has already noted that "the authorship question in general is entangled with a lot of other issues which the polled professors may find valuable (e.g. which versions of the plays were authored alone, how the revision process worked, etc.), so I think the usefulness of the survey is limited." So I don't really understand why he now appears to be saying something different. Paul B (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying something different. The survey answers the questions it poses pretty completely and legitimately. It doesn't, obviously, resolve the factual consideration of authorship (we can't now say that authorship critics are wrong by virtue of the survey). It doesn't resolve any of the other authorship questions which are not related to the main "authorship controversy" (which I and the NYT take to mean the assertion that someone not shakespeare wrote the bulk of the work we consider canonically his), the question of revision, memorial reconstruction, alternate ur-texts, and so forth. All of those questions relate to some meta-question of "how Shakespearean are Shakespeare's works" and none of them are connected to the survey. So I could really only use the survey to support the assertion that a large majority of Shakespeare experts polled by the NYT felt that there was no good reason to question Shakespeare's position as principal author of the works in his canon. That is a relatively strong statement, but it is pretty narrow given the breadth of textual questions around Shakespeare's work. So as a general source, its usefulness is limited. But I don't agree with your repeated assertions that the boundaries of the canon are so diffuse that we should reject the results of the poll. I also don't agree with your assertion that considerable academic consensus exists that Shakespeare is not the author of some plays in his canon. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the survey is attached to a note referencing this line in the Shakespeare article's "authorship" section:

"Although in academic circles these doubts are held by a (small) minority"

I still don't understand the objection. The paragraph leading up to, and the line in the article itself, is all about "doubt" the "doubters". The survey results, in regards to these doubters are reported accurately in the note, and are then linked to the full survey results. The bottom line of the survey is in complete agreement with mainstream academia. Where are these huge mistakes?Smatprt (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the survey is fundamentally flawed, but I am not opposed to mention of it. I can no point whatever in putting brackets round the word 'small'. Either it is or it isn't small. Paul B (talk)

I agree with the "small" comment (not that the comment itself was "small"!). I didn't post the original note so have no idea why the brackets were used. But Paul is right - there is no need for them.Smatprt (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:(small). "Small" is subjective, see for example user Peregrine Fisher comment above: "17 doesn't seem that small of a minority." The brackets were to avoid pushing an interpretation. Afasmit (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a lot smaller than 49%, which is also a minority. And you only get 17% if you add "yes" and "possibly" (from q. 15) together. If you just take "yes" it becomes 6%. So given the margin of error and the possibility that everyone who answered "possibly" meant something like "yes", we could say that the most support among the population likely (indicated by this poll) is ~22%, which is still a small but not insignificant minority. Protonk (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I objected to the note because it actually overstates the proportion of academics who think there might be something to antiStratfordism. Here are my reasons:

1. The survey misleadingly overstates the support of antiStratfordism among college professors. It suffers from selection bias in that it states the results only for those who deigned to answer the survey, which logically selected out those who considered the survey's topic too ridiculous to spend time answering, and given the evangelical nature of antiStratfordists, it included a larger percentage of them than is actually the case in the academic population. 2. This article is about Shakespeare, not about antiStratfordism. A misleading survey done by a newspaper is not the place for it. 3. The note is misleading because only 16 out of 265 surveyed answered “yes” to the question, while 217 answered “no,” about as close to “universally rejected” as you’re going to get. I think a good case could be made that a lot of the non-respondents thought it was a silly waste of time because of the survey topic, and that the true percentage of antiStratfordians is closer to 3-4 percent instead of 6 percent, especially given that 93 percent of those surveyed called it "A theory without convincing evidence" or "A waste of time and classroom distraction." 4. The note is misleading in the context of the statement because it surveyed only American universities. 5. The note is irrelevant to the article because the article accepts the authorship of William Shakespeare of Stratford; it only includes the mention of antiStratfordianism to avoid a tedious edit war; and it is not the place for misleading statistical campaigns. 6. Finally, the form of the authorship mention was hacked out in a long and contentious dispute during the drive to promote the articleto feature status, and the person who wants this note included has defended it from others who wanted to add more material that questioned the primacy of Oxford as the leading contender. Introducing another change will do nothing but cause another long and unnecessary dispute, as this discussion illustrates.Tom Reedy (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In regards to Tom's comments above:

1) There is no data to support any of Tom's assumptions. (And I am mystified at the complaint that the survey only provides results from those who took part in it. I mean, duh!)

2) Yes, the article is about Shakespeare, and includes numerous sections on various speculations: Authorship, Religion, even supposed Paintings. The survey is entirely relevant to the Authorship section, and the article itself. The fact that it was done by a newspaper is immaterial, and as it is the NY Times, it is obviously a Reliable Source, with oversight and review policies.

3) Again, there is no data to back-up these assumptions, logical or not. As has already been noted, the term "universally rejected" was misleading and an extremely poor interpretation of available data, especially considering the NY Times survey.

4) As long as it is acknowledged that the survey was taken at American universities (which the survey does), I don't see how the term "misleading" applies.

5) This is addressed in my note #2. Labeling the survey as "irrelevant" is simply personal opinion or OR.

6) This has nothing to do with this discussion, the survey as a RS or the article. But it does show the long-lasting ill will involved on these pages, as well as a lack of Good Faith.

On a related note, I find this discussion helpful, not exceedingly long, and certainly necessary -- especially given the fact that the non-aligned editors of this page have all generally agreed that the survey is indeed a Reliable Source for the purposes of the sentence in question. In fact, the only arguments are coming from the regular long-term article editors who have a strict Stratfordian POV. Given these circumstances, input from neutral editors is invaluable and quite necessary. Smatprt (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Judging by your answer to No. 1 perhaps I haven't explained myself clearly when I say that the survey is skewed because of selection bias. As you know, antiStratfordism is held in contempt by a large proportion of Shakespearians because of its unscholarly methods and double standards, so much so that they won't even talk about it in classes when asked, nor do they acknowledge that there's any authorship "controversy" to be discussed. AntiStratfordians, on the other hand, are usually so fanatical about their beliefs that they flood comment forums when the subject is broached in the media, as can be seen in this recent example [[12]] or in this one: [[13]]

given these conditions, it is highly likely that a good percentage of those college professors who believe antiStratfordism is nonsense are among those who failed to reply to the e-mailed survey, and that close to all of those sympathetic to antiStratfordism did. The only way to get an accurate percentage of both sides would be to either keep pestering the nonrespondents with more requests until they answered, or actually go around and and interview each one. As far as I can tell with this survey, no follow-up e-mails were sent out nor were they even contacted by telephone. Consequently the percentages are skewed upward for the antiStratfordians and downward for those who believe the prevailing view is correct. That in itself should be enoough to disqualify the survey as a reliable source.

As you can see, I am not arbitrarily making an assumption that the survey is inaccurate; I am critically examining the evidence using what I have learned about the authorship community in the 10+ years I've been around it.

As far as No. 2 goes, I have no objections to you using the survey in the authorship article, a link to which is included in the Shakespeare article, but I see no reason why the main Shakespeare article, which is a featured article, should be forced to use a source of a quality considerably below the rest of the sources in the article. We had a similar discussion when you wanted to use a marginal source to show that Shakespearians weren't unanimous in their dating of the plays, including Hamlet.

No. 4: The survey acknowledges that it was taken among American academics, but the sentence you're referencing specifies "academic circles." As you know, Americans are much more susceptible to crank theories than the English are, and on the average English academics are even more opposed to antiStratfordism than American academics are. I think that as far as Shakespeare goes the English are at least as important as the Americans.

No. 5: No, it is not just my "personal opinion," as I hope I have made clear.

Responding to your comments, I think that once the non-aligned editors who have commented on this page think about my points, they will see that the source is not reliable for an article with feature status. And when it comes to matters Shakespearian, I would hope that the opinion of actual Shakespearians (or strict Stratfordians, as you call them) would carry more weight than those who have not studied Shakespeare to the depth that we have. I know this goes against the modern mindset, which values the opinions of radio talk show hosts over the opinions of professional climatologists and scientists and economists, but I hope and pray that the culture of Wikipedia has not yet traveled down that road of madness. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't just assert the existence of selection bias without some justification (presumably the company the NYT contracted to do the survey understands selection bias) or some inference as to how selection bias would skew the survey results. Protonk (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As I tried to explain (not assert), sending out an e-mail survey to a group of which a large percentage is not likely to respond because they think the topic is nonsense is selection bias. As to how that skews the survey results, I think I covered that point pretty well.

As far as I know, NYT's Education Life staff did the survey themselves. They sent e-mail invitations to 637 college professors who teach Shakespeare at some unspecified level to fill out an online survey. 265 responded and answered the survey. Since the respondents were in effect self-selecting, I hold that a large proportion of those who hold the topic in contempt--sure "no" respondents--probably didn't bother to answer, while those who believe in the theory would be sure to answer it, since it is an evangelical community, as those who are familiar with it know. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

265/637 is a response rate that any pollster would kill for. Also a sample size of 265 for a population of (probably) <5000 is pretty solid. I agree that there is the possibility for selection bias in response, but it isn't much worse than selection bias in phone polling and it isn't anywhere near as bad as selection bias in web polls (where the selection occurs very early on and is unrelated to the poll question). Also, I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that the selection bias results in underrepresented Stratfordian professors. I could construct a line of logic to say that anti-stratfordian professors may have thought the questions unduly marginalized some important view and wouldn't deign to respond (Or alternately that professors would respond because they didn't want the profession sullied by bias from the other side). Neither is more compelling to me. And honestly the claim we are supporting just says that the views are held only by a small minority. Unless you have some reason to believe (Another poll, a literature review, a collection of cv's) that 6% grossly overrepresents the number of professors who would answer "yes" to the question "Do you think that there is good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon?" (which is not as strong as it first appears) then I suggest we just accept this and move on. Do you have reason to believe that 6% would be a gross over-representation? I'll reiterate my point from way above that the existence and results of the survey can't actually lend credence to a particular theory or hypothesis. Just make a claim as to who in the academe may agree with a given theory. Protonk (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have already told you why I think 6% is a gross over-representation, but just like your statement that I was making an assertion without justification, you didn't catch it on the first read-through.

Two things, and then it's to bed for me.

Yes, you could construct a line of logic as you say, but it would not be consistent with what I've learned about about antiStratfordians. An informed theory is much closer to reality than an imagined intellectual exercise.

Also we're not arguing over 6%, we're arguing over 17%, which is a number that gives a false impression, since "possibly" could be interpreted in both directions, as in "possibly, but probably not," given that 93 percent of those surveyed called it either "A theory without convincing evidence" or "A waste of time and classroom distraction." Tom Reedy (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. The NYTimes is a reliable source for 1) the existence of the survey, 2) the methodology used to conduct the survey, 3) the results it produced, and in a very narrow context 4) the interpretation of the results. The reason we generally consider the NYTimes a reliable source is because they report the methodology used and the numbers produced so that the reader can make up their own mind about the conclusions drawn. That the NYTimes in general is a reliable source does not mean that every entertainment or cultural fluff piece they produce has scientific validity, it just means the NYTimes has editorial practices that gives us the ability to evaluate its claims. The survey itself, however, is not a reliable source for the article in question, or even the sentence in question. Tom has already pointed out the selection bias, whose impact you seem to be severely underestimating, and it only surveyed a narrow geographically limited part of the population (America is not the world). It is also not a reliable source for the scientific consensus because scientific consensus is not arrived at by simple majority vote; the survey does not measure what it is here purported to measure. What it in actual fact measures is the number of lecturers at American institutions that are willing to fill in and return an informal email poll about a decidedly fringe theory (that word is here to be construed a technical term, not a slight against those editors that find it convincing) from a publication that is part of the general category “the popular press”.
The original sentence in the article, sourced to no less than 4 books published on university presses, of which at least one author is considered authoritative in the field, said that the theory is almost universally disregarded. The survey is being used to significantly dilute this statement to the point the phrasing has changed from “almost universally rejected” to “believed by 22%” (17% actually, but I'm using Protonk's number including the error margin to emphasize my point). This survey does not support changing how we represent scientific consensus from ~0% to 22%. Period. --Xover (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced by arguments which seem to be based on the notion that because this survey produced a result that you find distasteful it should be disregarded. I don't think folks on this board are stating that the survey be used to source any claim beyond "only a small minority of academics responding to a survey by the nyt found the authorship controversy theories offered reasons to doubt the prevailing consensus" or words to that effect noting the survey and carefully delimiting the results. So I'm intrigued by the pushback from the 'mainstream' side of things. Maybe there is a disconnect between what your sources feel the academic consensus is and what academics report to pollsters. Again, that doesn't mean that the fringe folks become right because 6% of respondents in a poll felt there was reason to question the consensus. The notions of representation and validity are almost totally orthogonal. Protonk (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think people are being POV here; the issue of sampling bias is clear on this survey. It actually looks like a very badly designed survey to be honest (done by someone who knows stats, but not sociological survey design). Imagine a Stratfordian seeing that long list of anti-Stratfordian books - will they feel like playing along, or will they think it's a wind up? Imagine someone who hadn't thought about it, and then is reminded of all the anti-Strafordian arguments by that list? It's a bit like being given a list of all the bad things done by George Bush and then being asked "How did you vote in the last election?" (and it's documented that people lie about previous voting choices, even unconsciously). By the way, your formulation "only a small minority of academics responding to a survey by the nyt found the authorship controversy theories offered reasons to doubt the prevailing consensus" is incorrect because no reasons are offered by respondents (the survey consists of closed questions except "what other anti-stratford works have you read"). Any interpretation of this data beyond reporting the numbers in relation to the precise question is OR. I know the survey's in the NYT, but it does look like a rotten piece of methodology.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

How about "The habit and practice in literary criticism is not to rely on surveys or samples of literary critics," and dismiss the survey as not evidentiary in the field at hand. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I still contend that selection bias has only been asserted, not established. Let's pretend for a minute that you guys are right, that the framing of the questions engendered a severe selection bias among respondents. Among the 265 respondents, 16 (just rounding up) answered "yes" to question 15. If every professor who rejected the survey would have answered no (the most extreme possible case for selection bias), then the reported percentage would be 2.5% If we extend this to the "possibly" answers we get 7% (instead of 17%) holding some doubts. Clearly these are less than what are reported by the nyt but they are also more than 0 (and the margins of error would decrease as we basically double the sample size). That's if the selection bias is total--that all rejected surveys would otherwise have answered "no". If they had sent out 1500 and gotten back 260 then I wouldn't take too much convincing, but a response rate of 41% makes me suspicious of claims of selection bias. I should also point out here that I don't really have a dog in this fight. I don't believe I've edited the articles under discussion and apart from holding the opinion that most of the authorship controversies are dubious I don't have a strong POV on the issues. Protonk (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, it isn't merely the framing of the question that we are talking about. I've tried to make my objections to it as clear as I can, but obviously I'm not getting through.

If every professor who rejected the survey was a "no" vote (and it's highly likely, given the reasons I have furnished), the results as they have been reported are double the correct percentage of "yes" respondents. And counting "possibly" as a positive vote is flat-out misleading, for the reasons I have given. What has not been taken into consideration is that the antiStratfordian editor of the NYT article and the antiStratfordian community at large see the 17% figure as an indication of progress for their public relations campaign (which is readily evident by reading their reactions to the poll on their various Web sites), so the perception you think the survey is conveying is in fact opposite from what they see. It's a camel-nose-in-the-tent issue for them on the way to academic respectability.

Also, if a poll is flawed to the extent this one is, it's hardly good practice to say, "Well, it shows something, so it's OK to use as a ballpark figure in a featured article," as you seem to be saying directly above ("Clearly these are less than what are reported by the nyt but they are also more than 0.")Tom Reedy (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that you can explain the 41% response rate and still insist that every rejection indicated selection bias. And evidently my point was lost. Even if we assumed an unreasonable selection bias, the percentage of 'yes' responses would drop from 6% to 2.5% (with the confidence in that estimate increasing). If we make a more reasonable assumption and suggest that maybe all professors rejecting the survey were half as likely to say "yes" the result is 4.2% in total. The point here isn't that ballpark is ok, the point is that once you start approaching 50% response rate, the numbers converge toward some stable values, especially if we don't assume anything radical about the missed responses. I'm sorry that you see this poll as evidence of some change in attitudes, but that's not a sufficient reason to keep it out of the article. Protonk (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So in other words the fact that the poll is flawed (for more reasons than you are addressing) is no reason to keep it from being used as feature article reference, even though the universe polled does not reflect the universe that the sentence references, because the response rate from the universe polled is high enough that "the numbers converge toward some stable values, especially if we don't assume anything radical about the missed responses." Stability trumps accuracy, even if it raises the percentage of positive response by 140%-240%.

While I agree it would be good enough for the authorship article, and might even raise the average quality of references used there, I submit that it is not suitable for this particular article.

So how does the general consensus shake out about this? As far as I can tell, you are the only non-aligned editor on your side of the fence. Does the number of words written trump the proportion of editors, too? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk about misleading! Tom - you might look at the comments above from Itsmejudith (talk) and Tim Vickers (talk), both non-aligned editors who are in agreement with Protonk(talk). You might also take note of Paul B (talk), a regular article editor of the Stratfordian persuasion who commented, "I think the survey is fundamentally flawed, but I am not opposed to mention of it. Or is there some reason that their comments don't count? Smatprt (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you continue to misunderstand my point. I'll try to be clear, because it is probably my fault. First, I think the response rate on the poll moots your theory of selection bias. Meaning that enough of the contacted parties responded (nearly half) to make it easier to believe a hypothesis that response was random over a hypothesis that response was non-random (especially when compared with average telephone and mail survey response rates, which are abysmal). Furthermore, if we accept your theory that means that of the staunch anti-stratfordians that responded to the poll, >80% of them felt that no good reason existed to question the Stratfordian convention. Even further, if we grant that point entirely, we still have to explain how selection bias matters if it won't shift the estimated results much. Obviously if we were worried about pro Stratfordian selection bias the numbers become more disconcerting. If 100% of the excluded contactees were anti-stratfordian then the resulting survey could, if 100% of the contactees responded, show as low as 60% for "no" on question 15. Even then the answer: a majority of scholars said no to q. 15 is still technically correct. Remember that we are assuming you are correct and that the survey is so badly flawed that selection bias makes determinate all possible responses which were left out. Even so, the survey doesn't change (on the assumption of excluded pro-stratfordian respondents) much between 41% response rate and 100% response rate. 2.5% saying yes is the lowest possible bound for the survey results given the worst possible assumption. Any less than 100% pro-stratfordian exclusion and we get closer to 6%. This is just a function of the extant response rate.

I'll also repeat my primary claim: the poll isn't badly flawed. The methodology is clearly laid out. The organization running and publishing the poll is reliable. The sample size is reasonable. I'm open to arguments as to how the poll might be flawed but I grow skeptical if those arguments appear to stem from disagreements with the conclusion. And honestly what is so bad about the conclusion? The poll states that a small minority of academics express doubts about the prevailing consensus. It doesn't lend their claims any weight. It doesn't speak to the truth value of the claims. It doesn't speak to the distribution of responses among prominent and marginal academics. It just offers some evidence that a margin exists. Why is this an unsettling claim? How is it contradicted by claims from central and prominent scholars that central and prominent scholarship doesn't lend credence to the authorship controversy? It is still possible to claim that the bulk of support for the authorship controversy comes from non-academics and the popular press (which certainly would generate a proportion greater than 6% who have doubts about the consensus view). It just doesn't seem threatening to me. And it seems misleading to leave it out. Protonk (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Stephen, in the heat of the moment I misspoke. We haven't heard anything from them since I posted my points, though. I honestly don't understand why Paul would go along with using a flawed survey. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Just report all the specific numbers, and let the reader decide. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

To put this interminable discussion to bed, I propose we stipulate that that the survey is a reliable source; and then go back to the original discussion on the William Shakespeare talk page to hash out just exactly what it is a reliable source for. Once we've established that yes, we do indeed generally allow things published in the NYTimes as reliable (a test to determine whether or not a source can be used on Wikipedia at all; not a blanket stamp of approval to give it undue credence and weight), this noticeboard no longer is the right venue for discussion: everyone on here will start from the specific source and view the world from that perspective, whereas the editors of the article start from the complete opposite end (the article as a whole, the sum of Shakespeare research). For instance, it's becoming clear that, e.g., Protonk will never see what the problem with the NYTimes survey is, because that source is his frame of reference in this discussion (that's an explanation, not an accusation, by the way). For instance, that the sentence relevant to this discussion had a long-standing and hard-won consensus among the editors on the page, had stood through a long and contentious FAC process, and was sourced to no less than 4 books published on university presses (of which one's author is considered authorative in the field) hasn't even entered as points in the discussion: because the context, the framing, of the debate has been this NYTimes survey and whether or not it fills Wikipedia's general guidelines for acceptance (not what it can be used for, its relative merits to other sources, etc.). We're arguing this from the wrong perspective, using the wrong test, and not getting anywhere. Seriously, where else but the RS noticeboard would you find otherwise intelligent editors arguing earnestly, emphatically, and in good faith that an email poll by a popular newspaper trumps four books published on university presses? --Xover (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I said this before, but it must have gone unnoticed, but the "four books" in question were not used to source the phrase in question. They were used to reference the second half of the sentence that states that Oxford is the most prevalent candidate. That is the part of the sentence that generated so much debate. And most of the contentiousness that preceded it was due to the fact that the mainstream editors wanted the topic completely censored from the article. Getting back to the four sources, at least one of these sources also refers to doubters as heretics or lunatics and other scholarly name-calling. The problem is, most of the strictly Stratfordian editors of the article page treat doubters the same way and push back to the point of unreasonableness when discussing anything having to do with the authorship issue. They completely poo-poo the notion and as a result, have done very little (if any) research into the matter and as a result are pretty uninformed. The same goes with the standard "university press" authors that are cited in the article. They no so little about the authorship issue that they make really obvious mistakes, that then get published due to the writers stature in the general Shakespeare field. I tend to agree with [User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] (talk) above - why not adjust the note to list the specific percentages and be done with it? Smatprt (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Also - as an example of the regular article editors unreasonableness, they have criticized the survey for "only" having a 48% response rate. As I understand it, in the world of surveys, a 48% response rate is to die for! When a survey is torn down with such obvious mistakes, how can a reasonable discussion be had? Smatprt (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You're pounding on the other editors because you think we're unreasonable, but what we see is controversial material added to a featured status article without any discussion at all, which you have done several times. If you want to know why you've been accused of acting in bad faith, the perception of trying to sneak something in might be one place to start. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

First, I'm not sure how anyone could "sneak" something in to a high profile article with lots of watchdogs. That seems to be rather unfounded. Second, you are the one who has accused me of bad faith, which Xover, quite recently, completely disagreed with and has taken issue with you about. You also still seem to think that I added the note in question (which I did not). THAT is bad faith. I support keeping the note, but have not objected to your rewrite of it. THAT is good faith. The only other recent issue (over the collaboration article wording and the notes associated with it) WAS discussed, so I really don't understand why you are beating that old worn out drum.Smatprt (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think you added this particular note. And yes, the other issues WERE discussed, but after you arbitrarily added material questioning the timeline of the writing of the plays and the chronology of the plays (the Cairncross affair).

And you';re mistaken about the purpose of the four scholarly references. If you would bother to check the references, Kathman, Love and Schoenbaum all say antiStratfordism is dismissed in academic circles; Kathman "universally," Love "Widely, but not universally," and Schoenbaum--well, you wouldn't like what he says about it so I'll just refer you to the book. As far as Holderness goes, I can't figure out why he's there; nothing in his book discusses authorship in the antiStratford vein. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, but I looked at some (not all, I admit) of the pages referenced and they had to do with Oxford being the lead candidate. My mistake, but my statement about these authors still stands - they are not authorship researchers (since they dismiss the whole subject), with the exception of Kathman, whose "universally" can no longer be maintained by virtue of the both the survey (which you admit was answered by Professors with anti-strat leanings), and the ongoing petition [[14]] that does, you must admit, include academics in many related and fields including, History, Theatre Arts, and yes indeedy - English Lit! You can poke fun of some of them, but certainly not all. And that basically makes the use of "universal" inappropriate. The current article line says "(small) minority". I hope we can all (at least) agree with that and stop this nonsense about "no serious scholar" and "universal" and "dismissed by academia" and other statements being made on these talk pages, which can no longer be supported (except by the most POV Stratfordians, of course: Wells resorts to name calling, labeling any doubter as "insane"). Smatprt (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The response rate would be fine in a better written survey. I'm sure the numbers were properly processed. It's the questions that are bloody awful - or, if you like, the spin being put on the answers by editors here that is unjustified. (I really don't give a monkeys about the authorship question). "Just report all the specific numbers, and let the reader decide" doesn't resolve the issue. The point is that the question schedule is inherently biased, leading both to stratfordians not bothering to answer, and by mentioning only one side of a debate in the reading list it provides, positively encouraging a vote for anti-Stratfordism, and discouraging votes against. These are issues of basic survey design that undergraduates doing social research have to get under their belts. The "sampling error" has no connection to how good the survey is, only predict how likely it is that in a similar survey one would get the same answers to the question schedule. Reliability is not the same as validity, and there is no evidence to show that the question schedule accurately measures what it's trying to measure, and a few reasons for thinking that it doesn't.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I need to correct VsevolodKrolikov's statement concerning "only one side of a debate in the reading list it provides". This is incorrect. Both Irvin Matus (The Case for Shakespeare, [[15]] and Scott McCrea (The Case for Shakespeare: The End of the Authorship Question) are staunch Stratfordian defenders. This somewhat negates the above comment, as well as this particular criticism of the survey, does it not? Smatprt (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, but it doesn't completely negate his observation. A better survey would have had a clear statement to the effect that some people think William Shakespeare did not write the works attributed to him and that other people, such as Oxford or Bacon, did. Then a simple question of whether they agree with the statement. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, you seriously don't think that college Shakespeare professors know that? I can see where you are coming from on much of this, but this I can't even imagine as being the case.Smatprt (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I would think they would know about it, but I've talked to several who have not, or who only have the faintest idea of what it's about. Didn't you read the responses on the section asking if the respondents had read certain authorship authors? Not one topped 30%. That tells you something about how much they know about it. I know this might come as a shock, but I'd wager that not many biologists could tell you much about intelligent design nor would many astronomers know all the ins and outs of the UFO world. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, an assertion about response rates without mention of the relevant facts. If this survey was so terrible at getting Stratfordians to respond, why did 41% (not sure where 48% is coming from) respond? And why, of the 41% responding, did 82% of the professors not repulsed by the wording choose to support the prevailing consensus? Obviously sampling error isn't related to the quality of the survey and neither does survey quality improve monotonically with response rate (I don't think anyone has argued above that the margin of error should be offered as an explanation for the quality of the survey). But that doesn't mean that I'm prepared to accept what seem to be tactical arguments made by proponents of the status quo that the survey is poorly designed...or (more strongly) that it is so poorly designed that we are forced to reject the results. Protonk (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

People here are arguing a contradiction. If you believe that 82% of English professors in the US believe the Stratford view, then why does the reading list not reflect that? Protonk's argument is based on the idea that "the numbers don't look biased". In that case, why bother doing a survey at all, if you know what it should say already? I am arguing that the numbers simply cannot be trusted, because of the ordering and content of the questions. Prompting a respondent to think of arguments more for one side than the other, and not appearing balanced and neutral are two reasons for rejecting the data. Perhaps the real figure of anti-Stratfordians is higher. Perhaps Stratfordians got so angry that they emailed around their friends in other universities to get them to answer. I have no idea. It's that this survey as a tool of data collection is not very good, because it contains the classic mistake of trying to give people information about a product so that they can answer better, but in doing so, consciously or unconsciously influence the respondent one way or the other. Without wishing to compare this debate to the rather clearer cut one on evolution and ID: Imagine how an evolutionist would feel being sent a survey on evolution versus intelligent design, opens a survey to find a list of writers, over half of whom are IDers. Can you not see that it would strain their sense of co-operation with the survey company? From what I gather reading this thread, the division between the pro and anti Stratford people may be rather less settled, but the opinions are held just as passionately.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm less sure that the misunderstanding is due to my lack of clarity. Please, ask me for a one sentence summation of my view rather than just offering it. My point is this: the survey design seems reasonable, the methodology clear and the source reliable (otherwise). The results of the survey are what they are, but the response rate indicates that they would be relatively stable even if we made the unreasonable assumption that the survey elicited a complete section bias. Relatively stable means that a "yes" answer to q 15 would go from 6% to 2.5% if all excluded respondents were inclined to answer "no" to q. 15 (which is the extreme selection bias posited by Tom). What response rate does the survey hae to elicit in order to get this point across? If the response rate was 75%, and the selection bias was as extreme as you suggested, the "yes" percentage would drop from 6% to 4% going from 75% response to 100% response. And we have to come back and accept your "selection bias due to anger" theory to even get there. All of this seems like unreasonable hurdles for a survey published in the preeminent news source for the english speaking world. Protonk (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What is a "complete selection bias?" If there were such a thing, wouldn't 100% of the respondents have answered "yes?" Tom Reedy (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Complete selection bias would be saying that all rejected responses were due to the hypothesized selection bias, rather than only some being due to selection bias and others being due to another reason. Protonk (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think the survey design is reasonable? It contains a list of authors dominated by writers espousing one view, presented before the question about authorship is asked. It resembles a PR campaign survey dressed up as research - it's actually a trick used by marketers to produce positive results.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I noted (way way above) that the real problem w/ the survey is the first question, not the series between the first and the 15th. English PhDs are big boys and girls. Parading a list of authors might influence decisions (or hint that there could be room for questions) but if you are teaching shakespeare in college, I should hope that you have your mind pretty set about these sorts of things. And also we can't treat these questions as though this were a telephone poll, where the respondent might be browbeaten (as it were) into answered a certain way. Also, the questions they asked are presented to you. There is no language that indicates they are presenting some undue impression of legitimacy to the authorship critics. It's simply "have you read works by the following" (with most of the answers no). I have to jump through a lot of hoops to agree that the survey itself led people to refuse to answer it or answer in some way at variance with their true beliefs. I'm made more hesitant to do so when it is plain that not very many refused to respond. In making the statement that the survey design "seemed reasonable" I was making the implicit comparison to a totally self-selected survey (where the NYT offered a reader poll, for an example). The sample was drawn randomly and the population the sample hopes to describe is relatively small. Protonk (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

On re-reading and digesting all the arguments, including my own, I seriously doubt that further discussion will yield any new ideas, since the participants are only responding to what they think their strengths are rather than cover each point. The discussion is about much more than the survey itself--whether that's right or not is beside the point at this stage. AntiStratfordism IS a PR campaign dressed up as research--or at least that's what the great majority of academics think about it--and I think the originator of the survey (Neiderkorn is an antiStratfordian who regularly proselytizes in his thinly-veiled manner), not the medium in which it appeared, is at the root of the distrust of the survey. While 6% (misleadingly plumped up to 17% by including "possibly") might seem small enough to justify the "small minority" statement, that number is in fact one that is represented as progress by the antiStratfordian movement. One such Web site uses the survey to say that "the decline in support for the traditional view of authorship within English departments is nothing short of precipitous" [[16]].

I personally have talked to several university English professors--"big boys and girls"--who were dumbfounded that anyone seriously questions the authorship of Shakespeare. Above Smatprt tries to have it both ways when he states that most English professors are ignorant of the authorship topic yet simultaneously he "can't even imagine" that they wouldn't know the explicit topic of the survey, even though according to the survey it appears on the surface that most of them have read not one word about the subject.

FACT 1: The authorship "controversy" theorizes that Shakespeare did not write the works attributed to him and that some other person did.

FACT 2: This survey chooses to not make that explicit, but instead couches it in weaselly terms: "the controversy over the authorship of the Shakespeare works," "question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author," and "authorship question."

FACT 3: For most English professors, the "Shakespeare authorship question" is the topic of determining exactly what Shakespeare wrote, such as Sir Brian Vickers' investigations into play collaborations and Don Foster's short-lived claim about Funeral Elegy.

QUESTION: Why didn't the survey come right out and state the premise and ask whether the respondents agreed with it? The only responses we've seen here are assumptions that those surveyed knew implicitly what wasn't stated explicitly. I agree that the percentage of those might not have been very high, but low would the percentage have to be not to impact a total of 16 yeses?

This is just one example of the problems that have been countered with "well, even though the survey is ill-designed, and even if selection bias is present, the numbers are still small enough to use it as a reliable source for the statement." In other words, as long as the survey conclusion supports the statement, it doesn't matter much how it was arrived at. Or so it seems to me.

Whether my objections are driven by my unhappiness with the results is irrelevant; my arguments are rooted in what exactly constitutes a reliable source for a featured article on Wikipedia. If slipshod sources are accepted, why would anybody object to the late-night comedian jokes about Wikipedia?

I think it is important to examine the references used in an encyclopedia article; they are not all equal. Why is it so necessary to include this reference, given all the objections to it, especially by the people to whose side it ostensibly supports, such as myself?

My prediction is that we will eventually be worn down and accept it and then have another contentious debate over how it's to be used. That's what happened when the article was being prepared for FA status. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that moving from complaining about discourse breaking down due to parties reciting the strengths of their argument works well if you follow it up with a series of all caps "FACTS". And I want to point something out that has been pissing me off. "This is just one example of the problems that have been countered with "well, even though the survey is ill-designed, and even if selection bias is present, the numbers are still small enough to use it as a reliable source for the statement." In other words, as long as the survey conclusion supports the statement, it doesn't matter much how it was arrived at. Or so it seems to me." When I say "even if" I mean that if I accept your dubious argument, then I still can justify the source because of XYZ. It doesn't mean that I accept the argument. For example, I don't buy your argument about selection bias at all, but even if I did, the impact of that selection bias on the outcome would be minimal. That doesn't mean "I accept that there is selection bias, and that there is the worst possible selection bias and yet I still think we can use this source in an FA". I actually don't think that selection bias plagued this survey.

And I'll come back to the problem. Is the fact that this survey hints at a less homogeneous academic body so threatening? Is it so unbelievable that 6% of faculty teaching shakespeare would profess some doubts regarding q.15? Protonk (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not unbelievable to think that 6% of faculty teaching Shakespeare would profess some doubts; it is unbelievable that 6% of faculty teaching Shakespeare would think there is good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon. I may, of course, have misjudged the degradation in the quality of English majors these days, especially in a country where more people believe in angels than believe that evolution is true. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Also keep in mind (and I said this above) that the survey doesn't describe the distribution of respondents. Maybe the 16 people responding also happen to be not very influential in the field or are known to be idiosyncratic. They didn't offer breakdowns by tenure (and the standard errors would be large), but maybe the responses were clustered around younger faculty. Who knows. I think a nice place for this survey (or the article explaining it) in the wp article is a bookend following the scholarly sources noting the consensus. All it says (note that the conflation of "yes" with "possibly" was not mine, I think it is dishonest to report 17% rather than 6%) is that a small minority of teaching academics disagreed w/ the consensus view in a survey. It's not an earth shaking result. Protonk (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I could probably recite the names of the 16. In any case, I'm sick to death of this and have a lot more things to do than mess with it anymore. I've been worn down and I'm ready to go along with Xover's suggestion and stipulate that the survey is a reliable source and start arguing about how to use it. My preference is a simple cite, not a note. That way we avoid the whole "6% vs. 17%" debate. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh no. Now we're going to have a nice long chat about this over on William Shakespeare. Just because the source passes the RS test doesn't mean it passes notability, recentism, etc.; the existence of a poll does not ipso facto mean it should be discussed on Wikipedia. --Xover (talk) 05:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine

In this article an LA Times article is cited

• Benedict Cary Troubling Record for Anti-Aging Doctors Los Angeles Times May 08, 2000

I found a supposed rebuttal of this article (link) on "antiaginginfo.net". However, this isn't the official Academy website, and the owner David Bloom seems to have little to do with the organization, so I an unsure whether to use this as a source. Opinions? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the old version of the article is currently the subject of legal action, so if you want to provide editorial feedback to me privately by e-mail, that would be fine. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The WHOIS report says that David Bloom owns 165 other websites (though it's possible that they are conflating different people of the same name). Looking at the front page, http://www.antiaginginfo.net/, it looks like the main purpose of the site is to sell products. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that the webmaster has probably compiled enough text sources to give the website legitimacy, but may have copied the letter in question without permission and might not be involved directly with A4M at all. It's possible that the letter is legitimate, but we shouldn't use it unless it's posted on the A4M website or the writer's personal website. In cases like this we should be extra careful to make sure that all sides are given the opportunity for rebuttal, but this is still outside the boundaries of a reliable source. I checked the LA Times archive and there's no indication they ever ran the letter, though they did issue a correction to another aspect of the article.   Will Beback  talk  20:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, thank you. That seems sensible. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Race and crime in the United States

Could someone have a look at Race and crime in the United States? There are some sources-related issues that seem to be a bit complicated. (See also Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Race and crime in the United States.)  Cs32en  23:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ibid is entirely unacceptable as it breaks constantly. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Shaun L. Gabbidon and Helen T. Green, Enyclopedia of Race and Crime, 2009, p. xxvii. unsigned tertiary source Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

State University of New York - Binghamton Entirely inappropriate, an invitation to a conference is not an RS.Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"2006 hate crime statistics, Incidents and Offenses". FBI. 2006. is not a full citation Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Johnson and Kiser (1940) quoted in Myrdal (1987) is not a fullcite: page numbers required for this kind of citation Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Race and Crime - Conflict Theory entirely unacceptable unsigned free tertiary (encyclopedia) Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sampson, Robert J; Wilson, William J. (1995). Toward a Theory of Race, Crime and Urban Inequality in: Gabbidon, Shaun L.; Greene, Helen T. (2005). Race, Crime and Justice: A Reader. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-94707-3. please cite originals Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Whitney, Glayde; Taylor, Jared (1999). Crime and Racial Profiling by U.S. Police: Is There an Empirical Basis? in: Gabbidon, Shaun L.; Greene, Helen T. (2005). Race, Crime and Justice: A Reader. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-94707-3. please cite originals Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Russell, Katheryn K. (1996). The Racial Hoax as Crime: The Law as Affirmation in: Gabbidon, Shaun L.; Greene, Helen Taylor; Young, Vernetta D. (2002). African American Classics in Criminology & Criminal Justice. pp. 351-376. ISBN 0-7619-2432-9. please cite originals Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Lea, John; Young, Jock (1993). The Race and Crime Debate in: Jewkes, Yvonne; Letherby, Gayle (2002). Criminology: A Reader. SAGE Publications. ISBN: 0-7619-4711-6. please cite originals Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Absence of publication location in most sources in bibliography Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetise or year-order sort Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Citations fixed Fifelfoo (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Many of these look not like anything relevant to this noticeboard, but rather like a case of WP:SOFIXIT (incomplete, but clear citations, alphabetization), some even look like WP:WTF to me (its entirely ok to cite modern collections of older papers). Please don't use a shotgun approach. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice for W:RSN editors if we had sufficient context to actually deal with an issue. If someone points me at an article with insufficient context, then this is what they get, a general critique of the quality of their sources. Citing works in collection is inferior to citing works directly, and can cause the elision of publication date material. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You are not, mostly, talking about the quality of the referenced sources. You are talking primarily about the quality of the references themselves. No doubt these comments are useful on the article talk page (even better would be to fix them - this is a collaborative effort, not a teacher/student situation), but they are off-topic here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That's nice that you think that. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Would Cs32en like to direct us to specific sourcing reliability issues? Fifelfoo (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Some of the references tagged above with "please cite originals" might be chapters in edited books. If so, all that's missing is (eds.) after the names of the book editors. I also commented on FTN and now I'll come over to the page to have a look, and hope others will too Itsmejudith (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I checked that they were "Readers" or "Classics" before requesting originals cited. Edited collections with original chapters tend to steer clear of those titles. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo correctly points out that the references to the sources can be improved. My main concern is whether the different sources are appropriately used in the article, i.e. are they appropriate and sufficient to support the respective pieces of information? The structure of the article is another issue. See the article's talk page for further information.  Cs32en  12:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Campaign Materials

OK, here's a question for the Reliable Source Gurus. I'm working on keeping Gerald Ford as a FA, and need a call on a source. The source is thus:

• "A Lifetime of Achievement". 4President.org. Retrieved 2009-09-29.

And purports to be a copy of Ford's 1976 campaign flyer. It includes, among other items, a brief biography that fleshes out some details about Ford's youth and family. Since this is essentially the candidate making statements about himself, how authoritative is it? Is it reliable enough about the claims it makes? Or should it be taken entirely with a grain of salt, since its purpose is to influence? Any insight is appreciated. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

4president.org doesn't have an about section. It isn't an archival repository. Given the passage of time (20+ years) the incidents have lapsed into history. SELF's reasonable citations have lapsed into PRIMARY sources. In this context, cite from a secondary source, preferably an academic work (though in this case, a book from a commentator outside the academic system but within the professional system of US politics would be fine). Then illustrate (ie: not verify, but expand or illuminate) the citation using the primary source. Sadly, 4president.org is not a reliable provider of primary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The site gets 35 gbooks hits from books written by well known scholars and authors. So its reliability does not seem so bad. It seems good enough as a source for Ford's old campaign materials, which of course fall under self-publication or primary sources and should be used as we usually use them. If it says something extraordinary, attribute, if something humdrum that clarifies secondarily sourced material, maybe not.John Z (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with John Z more than Fifelfoo. I disagree with the whole presumption on Wikipedia that secondary sources are so great and primary sources are terrible and shouldnt be used. We need to change our idea on that and put each in their place. Primary sources are MORE reliable generally than secondary as they are closer in time and knowledge regarding the event/people in question; secondary sources are sometimes written by idiots who pretend to know what they are talking about in order to sell books and push their agenda. Use primary sources to VERIFY that a secondary source is truly using the information it presents without pushing an agenda. Use secondary sources to put primary source information into context. Since Wikipedia has regulations regarding synth and OR we cant use primary sources and draw conclusions, even though YES THAT IS WHAT REAL ENCYCLOPEDIAS DO, they are written by professionals and therefore can do that, we cant because we have some editors who cant be trusted. We rely on secondary sources to draw conclusions and have commentary we can use, that is all they sould be used for, primary sources should be used for the actual facts. Primary source-facts; secondary source- commentary, conclusions drawn from, and synth of, primary sources.Camelbinky (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Its not good enough to cite Ford's materials off there because there's no provenance of the materials, and because they're unconfirmed typescripts, rather than scans. There's no way to verify that the materials are actually the campaign materials. If well known scholars and authors have bad practice in citing primary materials, then they oughtn't to really be as well known as they are. Regarding Camelbinky's thoughts on verification strategies, the place to take that forward is at the policy and procedure pages, to change those. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont need to, all I have to do is convince enough people at this and other noticeboards that the way I put forth is the way we should have our consensus' come out in favor of. I dont have to change policy in order to change policy because consensus rules the day. Oh, and just about every single author out there has a "bad practice in citing primary materials" because they all have an agenda or theory they are promoting and cherry picking how they present their information, which they often dont present the primary sources correctly. I've written plenty of published articles with the various professors I've had the honor of working under as a grad student, so yea, I know what goes on in the "peer-reviewed" journals that Wikipedia holds in such high esteem. The publishing world doesnt give a crap about truth, please stop making it seem like if it is published by a reputable publisher/journal/whatever then it is "all-good". That is naive.Camelbinky (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a primary source and secondary sources are better. Note that there are a lot of secondary sources about Ford, so there is no reason to rely on this. It may be of value to someone writing about his 1976 campaign, but has no place here. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it can be considered safely reliable for facts about Gerald Ford, if that is your question. Even if it's a genuine archive of material, it is only useful as a primary source for materials on that election campaign. I may be stepping out on a wiki limb here, but I think campaign literature tends to have bias issues, even in apparent "facts". VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The main purpose of this board is to ascertain reliability. Primary, secondary or self-publication is tangential, and whether and how campaign materials should be used is a question for individual talk pages. The opinions above are not so far apart; primary, self-published sources are often perfectly OK for facts. It is true that it is hard to see who is behind this particular site, but I argue that it does count as a genuine archive for campaign materials, as a reliable source, according to the reliable source guideline, in particular Wikipedia:RS#Usage_by_other_sources. That well-known scholars and authors use it provides very good evidence for the authenticity of the materials therein. It does not mean that they are engaging in a "bad practice in citing primary materials" but that they are doing exactly what experts do, confirming and verifying that the site accurately presents these campaign materials. They are the subject matter experts, and on wikipedia we have no alternative to relying on their expertise.John Z (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well known scholars are known to engage in all sorts of bad behaviour, like citing documents with no provenance, from a "repository" that an Archivist hasn't put their name to. Thankfully, Well known scholars aren't wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, this is not bad behavior, but ordinary academic practice. If a political scientist or author is familiar with campaign literature, and sees a website which is a good freely available source of it, why should the author not cite it? Why should we not use their knowledge and source vetting to improve wikipedia, as allowed for in the RS guideline? It is a lot easier to make up a phony "about us" page than it is to construct a site that passes the inspection of many independent experts well enough for them to cite it.John Z (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ordinary academic practice, according to your statement, has fallen into a pit of horror in political science. Thankfully, Wikipedia isn't a Political scientist. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As one who has a degree in political science and is almost done with his masters in poli sci as well...I'm a bit disappointed in Fifelfoo, but I understand he was probably just joking. As I've mentioned about journals, newspapers, and book publishers- they dont fact check!!!!!!! Wikipedia needs to stop thinking that these reliable sources out there are double checking like Santa Claus on Christmas Eve ("yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" as one NY newspaper once said to a little girl who wrote in). Historians, political scientists, authors, and journalists arent perfect, get sloppy sometimes, and take things at peoples and websites words without always doing the legwork they should do; and of course being human they have their own biases and POVs they are pushing in their work even subconsciously. We need to lighten up here in Wikipedia about this type of thing or it will get to where nothing is allowed. Perhaps Wikipedians need to learn how "the sausage is made", it aint pretty but in the end the product tastes yummy.Camelbinky (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad our disappointment is mutual. I like to know the name of my butcher, the address of his store, and to be able to post his name in libel bills if I get food poisoning. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a number of sites online that archive primary sources, such as political documents, FOIA-obtained documents, and the like. We should check to make sure that the repository has a good reputation for hosting documents. One way to achieve reputation is to see that it is cited by other reliable sources. The book citations that John Z found satisfy this. So, 4president may be cited. If people continue to debate this, it could be attributed as "4president, a repository cite quoted by X and Y", or we create an article about the website to wikilink to. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Robotics Design page

Hi i posted some more sources of highly reliable external sources mentinning my products, whatever i need to give whoever to have the lack of notable sources removed ill do. Or just see the soruces and they are notable. Thanks all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs)

What's the issue: Requesting editor is the business owner of the article. Wishes templates regarding source quality removed.

Decline: Article is predominantly self-sourced. Non-self-sourced references are inadequately dense. Additionally you've self-sourced a claim about a major external award, that does not look good, "The ANATERGOARM, winner of the gold medal at the 31st international Geneva Exibition" is cited in relation to one of your own publications. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The article has many sources, but most of them are what we would call primary sources. Those can stay, but more secondary sources should be added, such as newspaper articles, mentions in books, etc. Basically in our world, a secondary source is media that is independent of what is written about and has an editorial board. We like to see that all of our articles have been in at least a few secondary sources, because that's a rough indication the subject is important enough to include in the encyclopedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert F. Mullen

Robert's article "Holy Stigmata, Anorexia, and Self-Mutilation: Parallels in Pain and Imagining," will be published shortly in the European Journal of Religions and Ideologies. Comments on this article by contemporaries are provided on his personal website.

Robert F. Mullen is a published writer currently completing his doctorate in Philosophy and Religion at the California Institute of Integral Studies. He has had three plays produced and an article will soon be appearing in the peer-reviewed Journal of Religions and Ideologies. He is an editor for ESL professionals and has conducted workshops in guerrilla marketing. His CV includes working as an entertainment marketing executive as well as consultant for the creation of proposals, treatments, and other creative and professional endeavors.

No context provided: what do you want us to do? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this source reliable for a fact about Uri Geller's life?

Editors on Uri Geller are deadlocked about whether a Uri Geller biography is appropriate to use to source as fact Geller's claim that he is related to Sigmund Freud through his mother. The biography being used to source this as fact is Uri Geller: Magician or Mystic? by Jonathan Margolis. Looks like it was first put out by Orion Publishing Group in 1998 [17], which is, I think, a pretty large outfit. US edition published by "Welcome Rain" in 1999 [18]. Biographies tend not to be the most rigorously-sourced, but there are exceptions. Margolis bio: [19]. Welcome opinions. — e. ripley\^talk 22:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This was brought up earlier at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Uri Geller. I have to concur with the folks over there, not really a reliable source. L0b0t (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Aha, I was unaware of that. Thank you for the link. Unfortunately the two most vocal people at that page are the two who are now disagreeing (Moondial and Arthur Rubin). The rest of the commenters didn't really speak to this particular book, but rather to the overall question of whether the article is biased against Geller or not. For now, I'm only asking for opinions about the book. — e. ripley\^talk 23:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. My reading of the discussion there was rather cursory and I was unaware that those were the same participants from the article. L0b0t (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. Although one of the participants, the article is using the book to source that Geller's mother is related to Sigmund Freud. If it said Geller stated that, it might very well be acceptable, even if not otherwise a reliable source. I'm more worried about the third reference to the book, where the book was being used for a source that (Uri) Goldstein went to a Geller performance with the intention of suing. That is a controversial statement about a living person, and requires a better source than most, even if his (Goldstein's) intent were the laudable one of defending his good name (Uri). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Hotline

Is the daily political briefing The Hotline, published by the National Journal, a WP:RS source for info on politics? Cirt (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say, yes, generally speaking. National Journal is highly respected and Hotline is basically a news aggregation service; they mostly read other news outlets and summarize it in a digest format. — e. ripley\^talk 20:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I see now the context in which this is occurring. Sometimes their headlines are flip, but the news is accurate. Hotline certainly meets our standards for editorial integrity. — e. ripley\^talk 20:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Lewinsky scandal

There is a slightly stale RfC (with no contributions) on the talk page about the inclusion of material about allegedly widespread rumours in the middle east that the Lewinsky affair was part of a Zionist conspiracy, and a reported quote from a Saudi diplomat saying the same thing. The issues are to do with due weight and sourcing. Comments welcome.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Are student-run college newspapers considered reliable sources?

Many US colleges and universities have student-run newspapers. Examples include the Harvard Crimson and The Cornell Daily Sun. Are such newspapers considered reliable sources? I think that the answer is Yes, but can't find confirmation elsewhere. This issue has arisen in the context of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EphBlog. David.Kane (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this isn't something that we can make a blanket statement on... It really depends on the reputation of the specific student-run newspaper in question. Some have high editorial standards and are quite reliable, others are not reliable at all. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with this take. Some are highly respected and should be considered reliable, others less so. — e. ripley\^talk 15:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The specific newspaper I am interested in is the | Williams Record, but, obviously, I would not expect anyone to have an opinion on it specifically. Would it be fair to say that there is no presumption for or against a specific college newspaper and that it would depend on the topic of the article? David.Kane (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a bit of a presumption for student newspapers. They do have editors. I would say that particular one is reliable (it's 120 years old), although the particular statement and source can of course effect that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say no, very loudly, except for student sports results (something difficult to get wrong). They have editors, but these are people barely out of their teens whose next newspaper job is typically making tea for proper journalists. Some may be brilliantly honest journos in the making, but we have no way of distinguishing them from the rest.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So, you would recommend that all the citations in Wikipedia to the Harvard Crimson, say, be deleted since the Crimson is not a reliable source? David.Kane (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, there are some things like sports results where they can be RS. But RS requires a reputation for fact checking, and universities tend not to sue the student newspapers (and students don't have the funds or energy to sue), so the pressure's a bit off the fact checking. My own experience of Cherwell is that student newspapers are rather like tabloids - most things are true, but...if it's anything controversial, the newspapers are simply not under the same pressure as real papers like NYT, The Times etc to get things right. They're rather like news blogs that just don't quite make it to RS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as reliability goes, the key question is: What is the reputation of the Williams Record?... has it won awards or been recognized for its journalism. My inclination is to call it reliable (Williams College is highly respected and I would expect them to have a high quality newspaper) but I don't really know enough to make a judgement.

That said... looking at the AfD, the reliability of the paper is not the real issue... the issue is the localness of the paper (and the other sources that are cited). The key question is whether there is any coverage of the subject (EphBlog) from beyond the local area of Williams College. That is a question for WT:NOTE and not one for this noticeboard. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I agree that whether or not the Williams Record is a reliable source is largely orthogonal to the issue of whether or not EphBlog should be deleted. I just want to figure out, in that dispute, whether or not it is fair for me to claim that EphBlog has been mentioned in 3 reliable sources or just 2. I also find the issue of college newspapers interesting. David.Kane (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I see two separate issues here. First, are college newspapers good sources for establishing notability? Second, are they reliable as to their accuracy? As regards notability, I don't think they are good sources for establishing the notability of people and things related to their own college. College newspapers cover some topics that are only of interest on their own campuses. If the Harvard Crimson printed an article about an a cappella group at Harvard, that wouldn't impress me much as to the group's notability. On the other hand, if the Harvard Crimson printed an article about an a cappella group from UCLA, that would tend to help establish notability for the group because that would mean that the group was receiving attention outside their own college community. The fact that a Williams College newspaper mentions a blog about Williams College does not necessarily indicate that the blog is notable outside the college (the blog could be notable, but it would need some attention from outside the college community as well). Then, as regards accuracy, college newspapers are not only subject to all the possible sources for error that professional newspapers are, but additional sources of error as well -- they are mostly written by amateur reporters and supervised by amateur editors, all of whom have to fit their reporting in their spare time around their classwork. The more contentious a statement, the less willing I would be to source it to a college newspaper. However, it looks like this is not a particular concern in the EphBlog article; the main reason that article cites the Williams Record is to establish that the Record has mentioned the blog, and obviously the Record is reliable as to whether they are mentioning the blog, whether or not their statements about the blog are accurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As an example, no. On Dit, is from an old university, and once had gratuitous photos of students engaging in nude mud wrestling and other junk. The editors also once bragged in their column that they used the funds to buy porn and marijuana. Not RS at all. More like a troll-blog. Includes doctored images of politicians they don't like (typically right winger ones) in scandalous poses and so forth. I've seen other ones that are similar to this, YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

College newspapers can be RS. They have an editorial board, and some of the writing in college newspapers is better than what I've seen in conventional newspapers. I definitely wouldnt characterize them as training grounds so they can "make tea for proper journalists". Their next stop might be writing penetrating analyses at a business consulting firm or at the U.S. State Dept. As far as establishing notability, I would treat them like a local hometown newspaper. A mention in a student newspaper wouldn't count towards notability for things that happen at the same college, just as a mention of the local Little League team in a small town newspaper doesn't establish notability. But, like Metropolitan90 says, if the newspaper at another college runs an article about something, then yes that does count towards notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Using US News and World Report as an academic authority.

The article Marietta College is currently edit-protected because of one IP asserting that the US News and World Report is the final authority in deciding whether the college can be classified as a liberal arts college. The IP in question has been traced to the University of Pennsylvania, and Marietta is in Ohio.

Although I do not doubt that the USNWR is highly regarded as a source, I believe that the categorization of universities and colleges (as stated in the infoboxes) should be done using exclusively academic sources, and so, the USNWR being a news source that sets its own criteria, it should not be regarded as the final authority. I still believe the USNWR "dissention" could be mentioned in the article itself, but the infobox is a different story. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple of other source (the first shows that the University classifies itself as a "liberal arts college") Founded in 1835, Marietta College is a private, liberal arts college located in southeast Ohio, Marietta is the only liberal arts college in the nation offering a petroleum engineering degree. The actual rankings by USNWR should be attributed, but for classifications it should be fine, though it is not the "final authority". nableezy - 16:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not rely on any one source for classifying institutions of higher learning, particularly not one as maligned as USN&WR. As an accredited American institution, though, the premiere classifications are the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. For what it's worth, CFAT classifies this institution as "Bac/Diverse: Baccalaureate Colleges--Diverse Fields." That may not be terribly useful, though, as the 2005 classifications abandoned the use of the term "liberal arts." --ElKevbo (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a pre-2005 classification? Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

U.S. News and World Report is still an RS, and is influential in its college rankings, though of course it should not be the only authority. I thought that the definition of a liberal arts college was that it didn't offer professional degrees, but if both U.S. News and the college itself say "liberal arts" then we have to go with the sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

USNWR does not qualify the school in question as liberal arts, the school still claims this despite offering many pre-professional degrees (so many that less than half the students receive a liberal arts degree). It should not be allowed to call itself liberal arts any longer. The USNWR standard of half of degrees granted being liberal arts to be called a liberal arts school follows the old Carnegie classification and is as good as any other. See Marietta College and the discussion there for further information on this. 165.123.30.95 (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that USNWR is in fact, for certain information and generally is a RS (though there will be matters in which it wont be reliable). As for saying if a college is liberal arts or not, the best that can be said is that it is that magazine's opinion. If a college wants to call itself something like a "liberal arts" college, which to my best knowledge isnt something defined legally in any state, then that's what it should be classified as, and if that classification is contradicted by someone's RS definition then that contradiction should be noted in the next sentence. Regarding the title of this thread "Using US News and World Report as an academic authority"- that magazine is, in my experience has never been acceptable as a source in any academic paper whether written by a freshman in one of the classes I TA or by a grad student in a published article. It is a reliable source however for Wikipedia, generally, and I'm a bit confused as to why someone in this thread has said its not and that it is generally "maligned". Some political groups have maligned it in the past for percieved "conservative" beliefs, and then for percieved "liberal" bias; the fact that it has been attacked in the past for biases from both sides shows its pretty mainstream/fair, though it still has a reputation for being on the conservative side (which I dont see too often anymore, though sometimes some writers do, though that's mostly in the opinion articles and not the news parts). I'm extremely liberal and I have a subscription.Camelbinky (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Various football biographies are using this as a primary source,

IdahoGangs.com

Is IdahoGangs.com reliable in the context of telling us how many members are in an international gang, or what crimes the gang is known to commit? It is cited in many articles such as Hells Angels [21] [22], Latin Kings (gang), Gypsy Joker Motorcycle Club, Mongols (motorcycle club), and Bandidos. IdahoGangs.com appears to be completely anonymous; there is no named person or organization responsible for its content, and it cites no sources. --Dbratland (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable No authorship, no indication of demographic or criminological credibility. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable, at least for information relevant to Idaho. News reports indicate it is operated by the Idaho Department of Corrections. KBCI Boise: IDOC launches website to help identify Idaho gangs Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yahoo! news as a reliable source for military affaires

I just wanted to consulte after I had disagreement with one user on the list of operators in the article of Type 212 submarine. According to Yahoo's news [23]Israel is now one of the operators of the U-212, Yahoo based its report on Jane's defense weekly, which considerd as highly credible source. Moreover, a report of one French news agency [24] quote Israeli military spokesman and again indicate specifically that Israel now operate the U 212. Please review the sources and eveluate their reliability.--Gilisa (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Refimprove: Source Janes from Janes. Supplement with Yahoo! News and Defense News, both of which are fit for purpose, but not the most appropriate method of sourcing. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That Yahoo News article is syndicated from Agence France-Presse, which is definitely RS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Is an anonymous op-ed in a smallish newspaper a reliable source for a BLP?

There is a dispute over the reliability of the Ottawa Citizen, specifically this anonymous op-ed [25]. The article in question is Marc Garlasco. My contention is that since this op-ed breathlessly repeats blogger's accusations, such as Garlasco (a published expert on WWII German anti-aircraft forces) chose as his online nom de plume "FlaK88" not based upon the most feared weapon of the European theater, the 88mm FlaK anti-aircraft gun but, rather, because "88" is some sort of alphabetic substitution cypher invented by skinheads to signify "heil Hitler" ("h" being the 8th letter in the alphabet) the source has displayed no attempt at fact checking and lacks the proper editorial oversight expected of a RS. That whole well is poisoned and the anonymous op-ed is no longer a reliable source for any other claim therein and should not be used in a WP:BLP. Reverts abound despite discussion on the talk page, so any extra eyes would be appreciated. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable as used. due to Editorials not being reliable sources of fact, but sources of Opinion (as Ottawa Citizen classifies its Editorial section). Ottawa Citizen would stand behind any editorial it publishes, the problem is that the editorial is making factual claims, and the article is currently quoting these, "The Ottawa Citizen, in its editorial Not-so-secret motives,[23] stated "Garlasco has made a career of painting Israel as a criminal state. Scholars and other researchers have exposed Garlasco's reports as inaccurate and malicious, but no matter -- among anti-Israel activists, Garlasco is a hero."." The following statement of fact, "Scholars and other researchers...malicious" is a statement of fact which the Editorial cannot be trusted as an RS for. Similarly "among anti-Israel activists, Garlasco is a hero" is a statement of fact for which the Editorial cannot be trusted. that "Garlasco has made a career of painting Israel as a criminal state." is an opinion which the Editorial is reliable for, if correctly attributed and characterised, such as, "The Ottawa Citizen believes, "Garlasco...state."" Fifelfoo (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

But as for that opinion, anonymous op-eds typically do not make for significant opinions, and so wouldn't be appropriate in any case. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, any newspaper editorial not published with a Named Meat is necessarily the opinion of the Newspaper / Chief Editor. Doesn't make it notable though, as you point out. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. What Dlabtot said below; I didn't catch the correction you made from "anonymous op-ed". Someguy1221 (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

First, it is an editorial, not an "anonymous" op-ed. Second, opinion pieces are fine for referencing someone's opinion, unacceptable for citing alleged facts. Dlabtot (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, thanks for the great work on RSN. But, could you not bold the beginning of your statements. It makes them seem more official than how the comments here really are. Again, keep up the good work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Good point. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Would the fact that the entity that owns the Citizen, Canwest, has questionable editorial practices be germane to the discussion? L0b0t (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Also the Citizen itself has been accused of bias [26], [27]. L0b0t (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Systemic pro or anti topic bias by an author (in this case the Editorial Policy which covers Editorials) would go to notability of the opinion. It'd also go to reliability of facts stated in opinions, but editorials shouldn't be used to cite facts anyway. So all that's left is the opinion itself. Enforced opinion from above doesn't make it any less an opinion. Why you'd want to cite a newspaper's opinion about someone is beyond me though. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that editorials cannot be used for facts. I'd like to hear more opinions on this. I have a feeling we could find an editorial, and a fact, that it's fine to cite it for. Not talking about this one specifically. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is totally misleading. The smallish newspaper is the capital of Canada's Ottawa Citizen, and the op-ed in question is the main editorial published by the editorial board of the paper. The actual fact is that a group of POV-pushers dislike, for agenda purposes, what the paper had to say about the subject of the article - hence this misleading thread. I would invite editors of all stripes to come to the Marc Garlasco page and see for yourself. It is convenient to use praising & gushing from such notable sources as Der Spiegel but a major Canadian newspaper that publishes a main editorial that counters their POV? Not allowed! Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The way it was used at Marc Garlasco was to claim the Editorial supported facts such as, "among anti-Israel activists, Garlasco is a hero". An Editorial cannot substantiate facts, no matter how big a newspaper, as the editorial is the official opinion of the newspaper's editor. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe you can make such a blanket statement. That statement sounds controversial, though, so you may be correct in this case. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Ottawa Citizen is a reliable source for news however please note WP guidelines for reliable sources: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers.[28] So it should not be used. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

But the edit in question - read it here [29] - is asserting an opinion (basically "The Ottowa Citizen editorial called Garlasco anti-Israel") not a fact ("Garlasco is anti-Israel"). I don't see a problem from a RS perspective, though there might be one from an undue weight perspective. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There may be other issues, but that source is reliable for that statement. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this belongs at WP:BLP/N. nableezy - 06:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

We have to have a reason to believe that the opinion of the editorial board of the Ottawa Citizen is important enough to include in the article. Kinda seems like a lot of fuss but a high bar has to be set for broad statements like that (especially when they are so loaded). Protonk (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm an involved editor and as such I'm more interested in the opinions of uninvolved editors. I tend to agree with Nableezy that this belongs at BLP/N but since it's here I'll comment. I think the key issue here that has been mentioned in various ways by several editors (and is misunderstood/ignored by advocates of this information) is that the source is making a number of factual claims that are unsubstantiated. In fact they don't even come close to complying with WP:V let alone WP:BLP requirements. The factual claim for example that 'Scholars and other researchers have exposed Garlasco's reports as inaccurate and malicious' in relation to official Human Rights Watch reports co-researched/co-authored by Garlasco and edited by HRW's directors is simply nonsense. It's impossible to tell since no evidence is presented but I assume this statement refers to cases like a political scientist in NGO Monitor expressing a personal unsubstantiated opinion about PD/VT/MT fuzing options in 155mm M825A1 shells that runs contrary to an opinion expressed by HRW's military experts. It relates to one sentence in a 70+ page report which is consistent with similar reports by others Human Rights groups and does not amount to 'Scholars and other researchers have exposed Garlasco's reports as inaccurate and malicious'. Let's be clear about the proposed edit. It includes 3 pieces of information.
  • Garlasco has made a career of painting Israel as a criminal state.
  • Scholars and other researchers have exposed Garlasco's reports as inaccurate and malicious
  • among anti-Israel activists, Garlasco is a hero.

Sean.hoyland - talk 06:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Editorials and op-ed collumns are not the same as new reporting. They are statements of opinion and not statements of fact. We can include them in our articles as long as we attribute... As in "According to the The Ottowa Citizen, Garlasco is a hero among anti-Israel activists" etc. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, and I think that's what's being done here. IronDuke 21:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The editorial is a reliable source. This is a major newspaper in Canada, well-respected, and the piece is not an anonymous op-ed, but the newspaper's own editorial, which will have been agreed by its editor-in-chief and/or editorial board. Use in-text attribution to make clear what the source is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It is still an opinion piece. That is what editorials are. Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't find the fact/opinion distinction useful as a rule. The point is that this is an editorial in a major newspaper, so there's really no way we can say it's not an RS. Like anything, where in doubt, use in-text attribution, as you suggest. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently there is wording somewhere saying don't use editorials for facts, although I imagine what was meant was don't use opinions in editorials as facts. For instance, using this source to back up a summary of "The United States and the other great powers that resumed negotiations with Iran this week" would be fine, I think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In this instance how would you tell what is a fact "Stork is a hero to the anti-Isralie lobby", and an opinion "Stork is a hero to the anti-Isralie lobby" without other RS backing up the contention? this seems to me the nissue with Opp-edds by their nature they are opinion pieces, even when reporting facts.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

using this source to back up a summary of "The United States and the other great powers that resumed negotiations with Iran this week"? No. We use the best available sources and there are countless better sources to back that up than an editorial. I really can't imagine a situation where we would want to cite an opinion piece or editorial to verify a fact. Dlabtot (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

But in then instance we are discusing the only source provided is an opp-edd piece. Now should we try to look for better sources, reject the opp-edd based facts, accept them them as facts or just make it clear that this is only an opinion and not a fact?. Now it would seem to be the later is the case, but would need carefull wording.Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Our real question has been whether it is appropriate to include this op-ed which is making unverifiable claims in a BLP. The source is reliable for its opinion. Is the opinion of the editorial board, which is making unverifiable claims, appropriate for a BLP?--69.208.131.53 (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The number 88 has many meanings. In CB radio slang, 88's means "love and kisses". 88 could mean a piano player or maybe a billiards player. It's a lucky number in Chinese culture, and I've been to Chinese shops with "88" in their name. I don't think the alleged skinhead usage is even particularly common, and isn't what most people think of when they hear the number 88. Sounds like just a case of people seeing what they want to see. The op-ed may technically meet WP:V, but as it contains unprovable insinuations, I don't believe it meets WP:BLP. Much of that undue weight would have to be cut down for that article to meet BLP. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So the quote is verifiable for the opinion of the editorial board but may be WP:UNDUE for a BLP. How would be fix the issue? Remove the claim, find an op-ed with a differing opinion, or seek input at WP:BLP/N, etc?--69.208.131.53 (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Is a university's faculty/bio page an acceptable source?

A musician performs in a recital at Carnegie Hall. No notice or review appears in the press, and the venue's own database that could confirm her appearance isn't a published resource. The University where she later becomes a professor mentions the performance in its official "faculty bio" page about her, however. In the absence of other sources, can the musician's Carnegie performance be admitted into an article about her, based on the University's official bio page alone? If so, can other information from that bio page be likewise admitted when there's no traditional media source available? Here's the context, for those who are interested. Thanks, - Ohiostandard (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, no. There's a problem. University webpages are usually supplied by staff, often separately to CVs. Unipage says, "and most recently a solo debut at Carnegie Hall;" , Talkpage on article says, "I resorted to checking by phone with Carnegie Hall. I was told by an archives department employee that she had performed in a "dual recital" (ie with one other musician) in Carnegie Hall's Weill Recital Hall, on 24 Feb 2000" (User:Ohiostandard). Uh oh. That kind of discrepancy means that I am disinclined to trust the University webpage. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually that talk page comment is totally irrelevant original research. It doesn't matter what some editor claims was said in a phone call. Dlabtot (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is one area of WP:V and WP:RS that I don't get. If a primary source can't be used, then what's the point in allowing primary sources in the first place? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

One could focus on what is confirmed by Carnegie Hall, that she did debut there, without the word "solo". The university webpage would be OK for this, they are generally accepted for such claims, and could be used carefully as usual, for other claims. Using the email from Carnegie Hall would be considered OR to put information in an article, but there is nothing wrong with using it to leave something out of an article - the word "solo". The lack of performance date in the Washington Post mention referred to on the talk page (which says "solo debut" btw) does not make it fail WP:V. There is no doubt that she performed there; whether "solo" should be used or not is a matter of fine judgment. That Carnegie Hall says they're "still in the labor-intensive process of building their internal database" casts a little doubt on their minor doubt-casting. She might have performed a dual recital in 2000 and a solo one later, before 2005.John Z (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A clarification about the word "solo" as it's applied in music might be called for here, especially since the source pertains to a living person. It's my impression that in the context of music, "solo" doesn't at all imply "alone onstage". A Carnegie Hall press release about another musician illustrates this: "Violinist Glenn Dicterow made his solo debut at age 11 with the Los Angeles Philharmonic ..." Also, the Oxford Dictionary takes note of the unusual usage in musicology, viz. "Of musical instruments, or the players of these: Playing or taking the solo part." This is quite different from the way the word is used in most other contexts, e.g. in aviation. I can't remember whether I noticed the apparent discrepancy when I first heard the term from the archives staffer, but subsequent investigation into the terms leads me to the conclusion that "dual recital" probably doesn't conflict with "solo debut" at all. I do remember, btw, that I assumed the other performer had played some complementary instrument, e.g. a piano to the subject's flute. I'm not certain whether it'll help or hurt at this point to say so, but I made that assumption after the archives staffer commented that although the subject's performance was listed as a "dual recital" in their database, he could find no database entry to identify the other performer in the recital.

No one has criticised the action, but it seems clear in retrospect that it was improper for me to have made any mention of that telephone call at all, let alone to have posted an initial summary of its outcome on the article's talk page. It has very naturally become a kind of "source" for comparison to published sources all on its own, and the fault for that lies only with my own disclosure of it. I think at this point I can best serve the cause by recusing myself from editing the article, not only for that reason, but also because I really don't know enough about music to contribute to the article at the level it requires. I imagine I'll probably have to leave some additional remarks or replies on the article's talk page, but I'll try to keep anything new there as concise as possible.

Thank you for your reply, Fifelfoo, and for recalling my attention to the phrase, "most recently", that occurs on the faculty bio page and that apparently refers to a year 2000 performance. I'd noticed that at one point, too, but had forgotten it. That error does tend to disqualify the source, even if it was a good-faith, unintentional result of a copy-and-paste from some outdated document or web page, as I assume it to be. Thanks, too, A_Quest for your comment, and John_Z for your well-considered and thoughtful reply. Ohiostandard (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being such a good, source focused editor! It seems like you barely needed RS/N at all; but it was nice for you to drop by! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks! You're too generous by half, though, to say so. I know it couldn't "show" from the above, but the process here has been very useful to me in itself, even apart from the valuable, explicitly-communicated information you (all) provided. That I had to review the matter in order to summarize it coherently was beneficial, and seeing what naturally happened because of my little WP:OR spree was still more so. To put it mildly, I have an immediate, much less-theoretical appreciation for the wisdom and importance of WP:SECONDARY than I had previously. Sorry to drag others through it with me, of course, but the process here is what allowed me to notice that I'd made a mistake at all, and then go on to evaluate it correctly as having considerable significance in its nature, if not (luckily) so much in its actual affects in this case. I probably wouldn't have "got" that anything like so well if someone had just told me I was wrong, and why. Ohiostandard (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, also: I didn't mean to shut the discussion down. Both more generally and also with respect to the particular article that occasioned it, the reliability of faculty bio pages is an important-enough question that anyone who has anything they'd like to contribute to this discussion should certainly do so. ( Provided the discussion hasn't been closed via the normal archiving process, of course! ) Ohiostandard (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• I should point out here that our bios on academics use their pages extensively to fill in details. Not sure if this is useful or proper in all cases but it is certainly very common. Protonk (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Self-published sources such as this are acceptable for uncontroversial factual details about their own authors; see WP:RS#Self-published sources and WP:SELFPUB. So, in the case in question, I would answer "yes": the information from the faculty bio can be included, as long as it does not form the basis of notability of the article and as long as there is no reason to doubt its veracity. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Publisher Nortom

A group of about 2-3 editors have been pushing stuff published by Nortom onto Polish-Ukrainian articles. The publisher is privately owned by a leader of a far-right fringe Polish political party. I made an RFC on history and policy pages discussing reliability but this would probably be an even more appropriate venue to discuss it. Any contributions to the discussion page here would be most welcome. To me, it seems clearly not reliable but I would like more opinions.Faustian (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already commented on the talk page after the RFC, so I won't opine here. I'd draw people's attentions to WP:MILMOS#SOURCES for Nortom works that fall into the History category. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Digging for the Truth: The Final Resting Place of Jimmy Hoffa

This is the book that has the latest info abou the case and should be referenced in the biblio--Spectre7277 (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.com/Digging-Truth-Final-Resting-Place/dp/0970919166

Not a WP:RS/N request; spam. Work is vanity publisher, not a scholarly history imprint, see WP:MILMOS#SOURCES for criteria for history source reliability. Consider as self-published. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if that book is self published, but the stuff at WP:MILMOS#SOURCES goes way beyond our requirements for RSs. We don't have any rules requiring scholarly history imprints, or similar. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, why would Hoffa page be regulated by Mil Hist ? What's next, militarize Mickey Mouse? NVO (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not. That guideline is to help them make FAs, I think, and isn't really necessary even for military articles (unless they're going for FA or A). That said, Spectre Publishing looked like it might be a vanity press or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Military History's manual of style is transcluded at History's B-article status for History articles due to the policy on not duplicating policies. Hoffa has lapsed into history. History has no "C-class". Do you wish the Hoffa article to remain start class? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You're making up rules that don't exist. People who come here are impressionable, and we don't want to give them the wrong idea. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaker Bureau Bio

An editor has started an article in a user subpage here. Some of the material also appears in a Speakers Bureau Bio here. I've already provided the caution that the article must be written in the editor's own words, but I don't want to urge citing the source if it isn't reliable (Obviously, if not reliable, the included material must be sourced elsewhere. My tentative advice is here.)

Some arguments against accepting a Speakers Bureau bio as a reliable source:

• WP:COI - the bureau has a vested interest in making the speaker sound as attractive as possible, and may not emphasize or even list negative aspects
• WP:PEACOCK - speakers bureau's are notorious for use of superlative without supporting evidence

Some arguments for accepting a Speakers Bureau bio as a reliable source:

• Speaker's bureaus want repeat business, so cannot cavalierly make false claims about speakers
• Peacock terms are only a problem is directly quoted, if paraphrased in neutral language, not an issue.
• Balance is the responsibility of the editor, and that does not mean every source used has to be balanced, only that the overall article is balanced

Intermediate possibility - perhaps a Speakers bureau bio is in the same category as a autobio - acceptable for certain facts, such as birthdate, address, family etc. but not as support for claims of being an expert in some subject area.

(I searched the archives for "speakers bureau" but didn't see that this subject has been discussed.)--SPhilbrickT 15:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Not by any stretch of the imagination a reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Kambojas and related

Kambojas Through the Ages by Kirpal Singh Dardi is used as a source in 81 articles, mainly on Indian history, but including one on a 20th century hockey player. I could find no reference in any bookseller or library catalogue, but from discussion on Talk:Kambojas I now know it is a Punjabi-language book, title Kamboj Yugan de Aar-paar. I've asked the user who was responsible for all/most of the citations to supply the place of publication and publisher, but so far he hasn't. I also found out that the author is a civil engineer, or a retired one, rather than an academic historian. What do people think? Can it be used at all? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Not English-language and not from an academic source, either. It might be full of nonsense or it might not: it doesn't really matter, as it's clearly inappropriate to use anyway. Should be removed ASAP. Moreschi (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That'll be a lot of work! Itsmejudith (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-seriously: couldn't we program some bot to do it for us? Moreschi (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Who is it published by? It doesn't have to be in English, and the writer doesn't have to have a degree for their books to be an RS. If it's self published, that's another matter. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The author of the book (THe Kambojas Through the Ages), Kirpal Singh Daradi, is very well conversant with the ancient Sansakritic and Inscriptional sources containing most of information on the Kambojas. Further, his book "Kamboj Yugan de Aar-Paar" (The Kambojas Through the Ages) is his second and very well-researched book on "Kamboj History", having been published after over 35 years of research and about 25 after his first research book on Kambojas "Eh Kamboj Lok" (These Kamboj People) had appeared in 1980. It is notable that most of the information on the Kambojas is found scattered in ancient Sanskrit sources and Kirpal Singh Daradi is fully aware of this. He has published his book in Punjabi since his intended audience are mostly north-west Panjabi People from Indian and Pakistan Punjab. It is absurd to say that all references from Kirpal Singh Dardi's Books on Wikipedia be deleted simply because he (Kirpal Singh Dardi) has been a Civil Engineer by Training/Profession or else that his book is in Punjabi not in English. Heck, has every research book to be in English? Then, what about the front ranking Indologists, like Dr J. C. Vidyalankara, most of whose extensive and highly-valuable researches have been written in Hindi? And what about Damodar Dharmananda Kosambi who was a reputed Mathematician and Statistician by profession/training but who otherwise has also written some of the best books and research articles on Ancient Indian History?

Some basic information on "The Kambojas Through The Ages" [30].

Satbir Singh (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If the work is reviewed in a major journal of Indian classicism or history, use it, if it isn't, downgrade it viciously. There's no ISBN on a book search. Satbir Singh's posted link indicates very strongly that the book is self published as there are only two hits on the Punjabi title, the other is an online forum review in English heavily in the invective style. WP:SELF applies. I eagerly await the day we walk and drive over spans designed and built by historians. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Satbir, if you have the book, or have access to it in a library, can you just look in the inside page to see who the publisher is? Then we can look it up to see if it is a reliable/academic publisher. I've been searching high and low on the internet and am coming up with nothing. He has a 2009 book "Rivers and Canals of Punjab in Historical Perspective" which has an ISBN. A library catalogue in the USA has a book of Punjabi-language short stories from him (assuming this is the same person?). Amazon says that "Iha Kamboja Loka" was published by Shahira Udhama Singha Prakashana, but I find nothing on them at all in google, which is deeply worrying. If this was a mainstream publishing house, then why are no other books of theirs listed in Google. If this can't be resolved, then all text referenced to the (2005) book will have to come out. Please see our core policy WP:V for why we have to be able to trace sources of material in the encyclopedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Cliojournal

CLIO is a journal devoted to publishing research papers by students and teachers of History. -anyone can add articles. It's being used both as an external link and as a source/reference - eg here [31]. I'd say use as a source only if the author has published in clearly reliable sources. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"Anyone can add articles." If you mean that literally, then it is self-publication and non-RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's essentially a wiki and therefore shouldn't be used as a source for Wikipedia. I don't think we should use it even if the author has published elsewhere in reliable sources since they may involve peer review whereas this clearly does not.Cordless Larry (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller, thanks for the message in regard to Cliojournal and for referring me to the policy on external links. Clio is a wiki but it doesn't take contributions from anyone. I feel the articles I've linked to exhibit scholarly rigor and the link is a valuable addition to the entry concerned. That having been said, I accept the consensus expressed above. Regards Tommibg (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Tommibg, I wouldn't consider 24 hours worth of opinions, especially on a Sunday, any kind of consensus. I hope we're not getting into a situation similar to like we've had for years with newspaper "blogs", where some editors are still uncertain of them just because of the format of the medium. A wiki with editorial control could be an RS. That said, the Byzantine Empire is a very large topic that's been covered in many thousands of sources. It's unlikely that a wiki would be in the top hundred or so sources we'd have citations for in the article. It could be different it this were a specialized, technical, or pop-culture topic. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd recommend both the FA criteria, and WP:MILMOS#SOURCE as the key style examples of history (MIlmos's sourcing is transcluded via History project's B-class). While something published on a wiki by an editorial group could match a peer-reviewed journal / edited collection published by an academic press, a quick look at the referenced examples indicate that they're well below the 4000 word or so minimum for original scholarly output in academic history. Even if the publication in question has responsible editorial control, the papers being sourced from non-research students, and the length, indicate that "find better sources" is great advice here. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Latin Americans in the UK population estimates

Some time ago, I posted here asking about the suitability of a source which estimates the number of people from various Latin American countries living in the UK. The source itself uses the term "guesstimates" to describe these figures. It was agreed that it was OK to use the figures, providing that they were flagged as guesstimates. However, there are two current problems with the use of these statistics at present.

Firstly, a number of articles (such as Colombians in the United Kingdom) are using the figures to describe the Latin American population "regardless of birthplace", which I take to mean including UK-born descendents of immigrants from Latin America, despite the fact that the source does not make clear whether the estimates include these people or not.

Secondly, the Office for National Statistics has recently published population estimates for the largest 60 foreign-born groups in the UK (summarised at Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom) which are significantly lower than the "guesstimates". This source is surely more reliable (it includes 95 per cent confidence intervals, for instance) and only Brazilians feature in the top 60, with 56,000 Brazilian-born people as the central estimate, compared to a guesstimate of 200,000.

Any thoughts on this? I'm inclined to think that the guesstimates are now redundant. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed using the Office for National Statistics is a far more reliable and accurate. Official stats should always be given priority. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So what about an article such as Colombians in the United Kingdom? There are no statistics from the ONS to quote, but the very fact that there aren't means that there are fewer Colombians in the UK than the guesstimates suggest. Do we remove the guesstimate from the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say leave them out. The article already has plenty of detail of the official figures. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the actual source that's being debated? Also, I wouldn't get too worked up over the term "guesstimate". Perhaps it's more common in the US than the UK, but describing it as an "estimate" is just fine. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The source is Sofia Buchuck. "Crossing borders: Latin American exiles in London". untoldLondon. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Green: RS?

I would argue that the Daily Green and similar publications are not reliable sources but special interest publications known to distort the truth on various issues. Are such publications generally considered reliable sources in Wikipedia? This is a general question as I see this publication being used in a number of places (presently I'm looking at Garth Paltridge). Alex Harvey (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Its a magazine style publication with a named-meat editor who's qualified as a journalist. ie: It meets the minimal RS criteria. How much do you normally trust specialty "lifestyle" magazines? What better sources do you have. Why are you editing articles out of lifestyle magazines instead of superior sources? Have a think about those issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think the sources are reliable, and I'm certainly not the editor who is using them. Specifically, an editor wishes to use this page here. I believe it's quite inappropriate to use this page but if Wikipedia deems the source "reliable" then there's not a lot I can do about it. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The piece is Opinion from a magazine/newspaper with a named editor being used in relation to a Living person. The source is quoteable, but the quotes have to be highly constrained, "In the opinion of Daily Green Magazine, a small online Hearst publication, "..." Fifelfoo (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A special-interest magazine can be RS. But there may be better sources available. On the article talk page somebody found an archived copy of the organization in question's list of prominent members which provides the same information. Once in a while, a good primary source is preferable to a sufficiently POV secondary source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sports-reference.com RS?

Is [32] a legitimate reliable source for sports information? It seems to be popping up on a whole bunch of stubs lately and the site looks kind of junky to me, but I'm not a sports expert by far. Here is a sample diff (there are literally dozens of these recently added): [33] For a non-sports enthusiast like me this site looks like a spam site, and I just want a second opinion before I start removing the links in a large scale way. Thank you for your help! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I know Baseball-reference.com has been deemed reliable, and it seems to be the same people.[34] So it probably is reliable as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where was baseball-reference.com deemed reliable? I can't seem to find the mention of it being reliable. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked the person who told me that, but I don't think they've responded. It's mentioned in the archives a bunch, although I haven't read them.[35] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

SR has passed a few FAC sepcific checks. Also see the info on the contributors. Some of them have been heads of some sports history orgs YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The parent company is behind several sports-specific sites that have been deemed reliable at FAC, including Pro Football Reference. A conversation on this site can be seen at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrone Wheatley. Giants2008 (17–14) 03:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap

At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/archive2 there is debate about the infobox map for Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago). The source is a wiki, but in a WP:POST story several months back, there was an article about how WP supports OpenStreetMaps as I recall. I believe this may be an exception because although it is an open wiki, the primary wiki contributors are extremely reliable companies that were discussed in the signpost article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Does the page actually need to show the building on a street map? I'm sure that anyone who wanted to get there could get directions. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-06/Interactive maps. Even though this is a wiki, it sounds like most of the content is being contributed by sources such as NASA and people who take the time to gather info from GPS systems. It seems that these maps are something that we are suppose to be trying to incorporate in WP articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're in uncharted territories. I support it's inclusion. It's like our exceptions to the OR policy with regard to images. To comply with the NFCC, we have to take what we can get. And, that map looks like it was made using professional data, not someone on a bike. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikileaks

Sorry if this question has been asked before. It probably has, but is Wikileaks considered a reliable source? Thank you. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 14:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Context please. Article and source. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I can probably hazard a guess without knowing the context: no. There is no real way to verify that documents leaked to wikileaks haven't been doctored or made from whole cloth. Often, the usual way people find out that the documents are real is the subject of the documents (some company or person) sues wikileaks, asserting that the material is covered under trade secrets--meaning that they are willing to tell a court the material is true. Also, when we have articles which mention wikileaks, they should only do so because some third party (e.g. a newspaper) mentions the leak. In that case we would point to the newspaper for evidence of the leak. We should almost never source material to a document on wikileaks unless the leak itself is the subject of the article. Protonk (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll mention the context, if it is still needed but the explanation provided really clears things up. I was always unsure of Wikileaks as a source because of its controversial nature. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth adding that material on Wikileaks is probably WP:Primary and may well also be WP:SPS. You need to find a secondary RS that comments on or uses the leak item.Martinlc (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say only if the leak itself was covered by another source; then the Wikileaks article would become citable as a primary source for that information. It may also be usable as an external link. But I wouldn't quote Wikileaks the way I would quote a newspaper article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at our own article on Wikileaks#Technology, it appears that they now actually have an editorial board. I believe it's still more of an anthology of primary or SPS documents than a true secondary source. But an editor-reviewed anthology would give some measure of notability to the reports, which means maybe they could be cited without being discussed by another source. But we should consider that usage on a case-by-case basis. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the context for this debate was for fraternity mottos, secret handshakes, and the like. ( I thought this was about something serious like the Pentagon Papers. ) I could go either way on this. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that is where the debate came from. However, those supposed "secrets" are not actually contained in the uploaded documents themselves. I already checked. Rather the information is on the description page and can be seen as conjecture and falls in the realm of OR because they are user submitted. Even if it is just a fraternity motto etc. I was unaware that wikileaks can be used as a reliable source and wanted to know for future reference for other articles. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 00:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not normally an RS, though there are exceptions as described above. It would be up to the editor who wants to use something from Wikileaks to show which document ( not a description page or edit history ) they want to cite and why it belongs in the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

knowledgerush

Please see the beginning of the discussion of this website in Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#knowledgerush. A wikipedia mirror cannot be used as a reference in wikipedia. yes/no? - Altenmann >t 17:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia mirrors are not reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources which is rather clear on this, "Wikipedia itself, although a tertiary source, should not be used as a source within articles, nor should any mirrors or forks of Wikipedia be accepted as reliable sources for any purpose.". Fifelfoo (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. The actual issue raised is whether the job of hunting these quite numerous uses of mirrors may be automated. Of course, I can waste some of my time and delete about 100 refs to knowledgetruth, but how to bar them and the likes? This will give me some time to write something useful instead. - Altenmann >t 19:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

ACLU?

We have an editor over at 2009 G-20 Pittsburgh summit who's saying that the ACLU does not meet the reliable sources guideline. More specifically, whether the ACLU of Pennsylvania can be cited to say it successfully sued to allow [some?] demonstrations near the convention.

Claiming it's non-RS doesn't ring true to me. There's ample precedent in the RSN archives for citing political advocacy groups such as the SPLC, NRA, MEMRI, etc, provided the citations use proper attribution. Besides, this goes further because this is citing the ACLU for a statement about the ACLU. I think the ACLU is reliable enough to report on its own activities. Any opinions? Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

More context would have been nice. Two removed ACLU PA sources are:

1. url=http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/g20case.htm |title=Code Pink vs US Secret Service |date=2009-09-11|author=ACLU-PA
2. name=ACLU-PA-G20> |url=http://blog.aclu.org/2009/09/24/fighting-for-free-speech-at-the-g20-in-pittsburgh/ |title=Fighting for Free Speech at the G20 in Pittsburgh |date=2009-09-24 |author=ACLU-PA

The first looks like a trivial data mirror of court records.

The second is an official blog. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Both sides are wrong here. There were two refs in question: one from ACLU legal, another is from ACLU-hosted blog by a Sara Mullen. While the first one is OK, the second is not, since we don't know Sara Mullen and she does not speak of herself. - Altenmann >t 00:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

To Fireflo: trivial or not, it is a verifiable statement of fact. - Altenmann >t 00:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Moreover, the original contribution also included the statement not evident from the sources cited: "After numerous denials of permits". - Altenmann >t 00:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Still more, the statement "successfully sued" is also kinda colored too pink: ACLU didn't get all what it wanted. And I am pretty sure that the mentioned "numerous permits" were stated too broadly, and sure thing, the officials were only happy and possibly right to refuse them. We don't hear both sides here. - Altenmann >t 00:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My conlcuding opinion: since the piece of text in question is a POV of the ACLU side in a 2-sided controversy, it must (1) strictly follow the sources, (2) always properly attribute the opinionated phrasing (such as "successfully"; BTW, this judgment is absent in the sources), and (3) of the two sources only the first one is IMO admissible, but I may be convinced otherwise regarding #3. - Altenmann >t 00:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the blog's window title. "Blog of Rights: Official blog of the American Civil Liberties Union." Mullen is speaking as an authorised agents of the ACLU when writing that blog, she wrote it over the ACLU's signature. So you could quote that blog post for the ACLU's opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Official or not, it is still a blog. I don't understand the phrase "she wrote it over the ACLU's signature". And I still don't know who is she. There are plenty of angry radicals around, not all of them have an ability to stick strictly to facts. For example, Mullen writes "to intimidate members ... minor traffic violations". OK, may be. But... You have rights to protest by sitting in the middle of the street, but don't whine when you are jailed: you were probably looking towards this, to make more noise. While ACLU will call this episode "intimidation", other will call it "drama queen", regardless the cause is noble. In other words, ACLU members are not a neutral party to report its activities and any way they want. While they may present basic facts correctly, the opinions are heavily biased and better be seconded by independent sources. If the event was notable, I am sure the sources will be abound.- Altenmann >t 00:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

She is "Sara Mullen" who you just made reference to. Official statements of organisations are owned by the organisation. The fact that Sara Mullen has a by-line is nice, but the ACLU purports the blog to be an official blog: an utterance of the organisation's opinions. "Writing over a signature" is an office metaphor, often senior staff (those who voice for the organisation) will sign blank letterhead, allowing other staff to write letters or opinions on the page, effective "over" in hierarchical space ordering, the signature; the metaphor is used to describe delegations of speaking authority. The content of the blog doesn't go to its reliability. The opinions are generally best sourced from the primary source, "The ACLU believes,"..."". As you rightly point out, statements regarding fact are in wikipedia best sourced from non-self-published sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see it was an official statement of the organization. It was an opinion of a Sara Mullen. I.e., "Sara Mullen believes, "..."", rather than "The ACLU believes,"..."". Sounds less impressive, eh? Please don't tell me that ACLU allows its members to blog only views endorsed by the ACLU. - Altenmann >t 23:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The title is unambiguous, ""Blog of Rights: Official blog of the American Civil Liberties Union."" Fifelfoo (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And...? - Altenmann >t 00:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Its a clear an unambiguous statement of corporate authorship. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the unsourced conference report a reliable source?

I am interested to know if the following document [36] can be considered a reliable source. This is a text of a report on the Discussion Panel at the Annual Meeting of The Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America (PIASA), June 8, 2002 Georgetown University, Washington DC. It contains no references, so it is impossible to verify author's claims. According to google.scholar.com, the author, Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski has been cited 2 times, according to Tompson institute (ISI) he has been cited 0 times. Therefore, he is not a prominent historian.

My primary concern is that the above mentioned text contains statements like that:

"About four-fifths of all victims (In Soviet occupied Poland. -PS) were betrayed to the NKVD by local leftists mostly of Jewish background."

thereby attempting to connect Jedwabne pogrom and Soviet repressions. This seems strange, because this directly contradicts to what reliable sources say (e.g., Joshua D. Zimmerman, Contested memories: Poles and Jews during the Holocaust and its aftermath, Part 804. Rutgers University Press, 2003, ISBN 0813531586, 9780813531588, on p. 67-68 directly states that such attempts are "historically false and morally untenable").
In connection to that, my question is whether the equal weight can be given to the unsourced report presented by non-notable historian and the book published by well-known university.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a wikipedia article about Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

For researchers in science disciplines, 'quality' journals have been equated with those indexed by Thomson Scientific ISI (ISI), and particularly journals with high impact factors. Journal impact factors (JIF) are published by ISI each year and have gained the attention of research funding bodies, higher education institutions, and academics as a means to rank journals in a field. However, ISI indexes less than 50% of peer-reviewed journals published world-wide (2) and, of these, less than one third are humanities and social science journals. Quality Australian journals in the humanities and social sciences. Australian Academic & Research Libraries | June 01, 2008 | Haddow, Gaby

I'd take that as a strong indication your ISI search is not an indicator here.

The PIASA source doesn't indicate peer review status, assume non-peer reviewed. Academic standard in History is peer reviewed conference publications (academic practice is, in most history fields, to spurn conference publications and seek journal publications, edited collections, but most especially monographs). By claiming historian status in his bio-line Pogonowski's statements are not-very reliable: he hasn't (in this source) uttered them in the standard form for his profession. WP:MILMOS#SOURCES which sets the standard for the History project through the b-class criteria is very clear about there being a hierarchy of sources when dealing with history archives. I feel it isn't reliable as its SELF (to my mind). Even if it is reliable it shouldn't be used, because sources which do meet milmos are available. If Pogonowski has published this in a milmos standard source find it, mention the dispute on the article page. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Fifelfoo. I fully agree with you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

pay up or shut up

Are subscription websites RS, the point has been rasied (sort of) here [[37]]? Why should a user be expected to fork out to check a source?Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's no different from having to buy a book. Paul B (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Insufficient context to determine which journal article you're talking about as there are three or four mentioned in those discussions. Please specify. RS is about publication and provenance, not accessibility or cost. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Except that a book can be borrowed from a libuary, a web site cannot, however as it seesms that RS is about publication and provenance, not accessibility or cost then there nis not issue.~~

Websites can sometimes be accessed from libraries which have subscriptions, but essentially the point is as stated: that the source is judged on its merits not its accessibility. Paul B (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'd have to see the article/source, but the basic idea is that sources behind a paywall are just as valid all else equal as sources which are free on the net. Protonk (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As my question about the payment (and I am not party to this particular argument) I am happy to close this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Another thing for people to remember... information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable by anyone... but this does not mean that the information is verifiable by everyone. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In really dubious cases, I would recommend to request a quote from the cited paid source to be delivered by the contributor. - Altenmann >t 21:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Most if not all universities and college libraries (and I would imagine a fair number of public libraries as well) have subscriptions to JSTOR which should cover just about any journal publication Wikipedia would need for scientic and humanities based articles. There are probably similar things to JSTOR that many libraries have. Perhaps contacting your local college library is a start. Since this issue about paysites comes up so much (fourth time in a couple months I can think of) and Blueboar, Protonk, and I have to keep repeating ourselves that "verifiable does not mean verifiable by YOU, RIGHT NOW, THIS INSTANT, FOR FREE, FROM YOUR COMPUTER CHAIR" is there perhaps a place in policy that we can point to in the future when this matter comes up again (and it will). I hate quoting policy and those that do, but in this case it may be preferable to just throw a policy out and get it over with next time. If there isnt a section in policy that explicitly states it then we should perhaps think of adding a sentence that comes out and says it.Camelbinky (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's an essay to work off, summarising at least this incident and a couple I've had with non-English sourcing issues: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Cost. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Very nice Fifelfoo! I think it definitely has the ability to be more than just an essay and be incorporated into an existing policy such as WP:V since it is more about the verifying of a source than the reliability of it. You may want to mention museums in your list of potential reliable sources that need payment for them and how a publicly accessed document or information may only exist at a reliable museum and yes that it may be 1,000 or more miles away and also have admission fees doesnt make it unusable in Wikipedia. I remember one thread regarding a naval museum in Texas is why I bring that up. Wikipedia, being a global effort, is of course going to every once in awhile use as a reference something that can only be seen in a limited geographical area. Our editors in the PRC have the problem of not being able to access information regarding the Tiananmen Square Massacre on Google or other search engines (or anywhere in that country for that matter), that doesnt make such information unreliable as far as they are concerned, just because they cant themselves check out the websites. I am sure there are similar websites based out of France that here in the US we cant access.Camelbinky (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Updated to clearly indicate: Time; Location; Cost as three separate reasons why not everyone can verify a reliable source. I'm not willing to take it forward in being incorporated into policy. I've recently stuffed up some wiki-bureaucracy / procedural behaviour and don't feel confident with it at the moment. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OK... I have added a statement on "Access to sources" at WP:V that should cover this. Don't know if it will stick the way I wrote it, but the idea is there. Blueboar (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wesley Charitable Foundation

Would a link to 2 different PDF's from the State of Mississippi Secretary of State Office be a valid secondary source for an article?

the PDF's prove the existence of the foundation and its function as a foundation, and a non-profit at that.

http://www.sos.state.ms.us/regenf/charities/charannrpt/2007%20report/j%20-%20registered%20charities%20in%20mississippi%20contact%20information%202007.pdf

Please help me with this I would like to keep the Wesley Charitable Foundation article from being deleted if possible

Those would be valid sources, but those would be primary sources not secondary sources. You'd want for example newspaper articles about the charity's activities. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You should look at the criteria for notability listed at WP:ORG. I am sure this Foundation does very good work, but that is not a reason to keep an article. It is not Wikipedia's job to promote worthy causes. Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

They're reliable sources in that they're published by the State, an external body, not the foundation in question. They just don't go to notability. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Open source intelligence websites as reliable sources - WorldNetDaily

Hi,

On the talk page of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and seem like that in the article itself very soon, few editors suggested that this site [38] which relies on this payment website [39] is a reliable source to use in support of the assertion that the MI6 checkedand approved Jewish roots for the Iranian president (in fact it's claimed that the MI6 tracked his roots down to 3000 years ago).Your evaluation is needed.--Gilisa (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

wnd.com is edited in chief by a professional journalist, Joe Kovacs (the line editor)'s biographical snippet on his book site claims he's a professional editor and journalist. (His book reveals amazing Bible secrets like Underwear didn't disintegrate despite 40 years of heavy use. Whatever your taste regarding their politics, they meet a professional criteria to publish, a presumption in favour of them. I'd want to see circulation figures and / or media reviews of their newspaper (discussing the quality of the journalism, not the quality of their ideology) to trust them as a credible source. They seem dangerously close to being the right wing equivalent of a Trotskyite party newspaper: Trotskyite papers can be RS, but the presumption would have to be against them until you can point to evaluations of the quality of the journalism. Obviously the claim they're being used for is an exceptionally controversial one (and of little journalistic importance if you ask me), so I'd want to see circulation figures and appreciations of their journalism. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fifelfoo! The alleged involvment of MI6 in this matter seems like a fairy tale to me (and like one which need special verification before being added as a fact to any article). I can't see reliability for this assertions, also, few major newspapers (like the Guardian) already cited well known experts (and not concealed sources) which refute the sugesstions of Jewish background for Ahmadinejad.--Gilisa (talk) 07:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest you use UNDUE then if dealing with it (until an appreciation of the journalistic quality of wnd is available). Even after that, UNDUE implies strongly Grauniad and other papers with a firmer journalistic (if not typographic) reputation should be used to dismiss the claims as not widely respected. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gilisa that this source - wnd.com worldnetdaily - should be banned as a reliable source in Wikipedia since it is right wing and publishes dubious facts. However, a simple Google search reveals that it is already considered a reliable source for many articles. How can it be a reliable source when commenting on some things e.g. Iraq Study Group Report, Los Angeles County, California, Glenn Beck, West Bank, 2006 Lebanon War, Live Prayer, Blood libel, Hezbollah foreign relations, The Obama Nation, Foreign relations of Syria, Religulous, and 2005 University of Oklahoma bombing?. It is ridiculous to assert that WorldNetDaily can be considered a reliable expert source on the West Bank, the 2006 Lebananon War, Hezbollah, and Syria, and yet somehow, magically, should not be considered a reliable source for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Josh Keen (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read them, but there's lots of discussion on the site in the archives.[40] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It is my opinion that WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source for disputed and possibly defamatory (though I wouldn't consider it defamatory, I believe that the subject would) information about a living person. Hipocrite (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, not for biographical details. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

WND has come up several times. As far as I can remember, it has never been found a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The WorldDailyNet article in question was written by one Joseph Farah, a known birther and conspiracy theorist. Just as he wouldn't be a very good source for Obama's birthplace, he's hardly a reliable source for the exceptional claim that MI6 was involved in this somehow. All Hallow's (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Can the NYTimes be used in the Global warming article?

User:KimDabelsteinPetersen reverted this edit, stating in the edit summary that "Evidence? Not sourceable to an article in regular media. Science gets sourced from journals not NY Times..." This is the first I've heard that the New York Times can't be used as a source in an article. The NYTimes article in question is here. Does policy back Kim up here? Cla68 (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Most certainly not. The NYT isn't opining on science, it's reporting the consensus of "most climate scientists". I've reverted with a note to that effect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that scientific journals are more reliable than the NYT... especially for statements of scientific fact. However, that does not mean that the NYT is unreliable. In this case, it is not being used for a statement of scientific fact, but for a claim that "climate scientists generally agree" about something. For such a claim, the NYT is absolutely reliable.

That said... If there is any real debate about the claim (in other words if someone can reasonably argue that climate scientists don't generally agree on the issue) then the claim should be attributed... as in:

• According to a New York Times report, although evidence suggests that temperatures have been relatively stable since 1999, climate scientists generally agree that global temperatures are likely to continue to increase in the long-term. <ref>citation to NYT.</ref>

I don't think there is debate on this claim, so my personal opinion is that attribution is not needed. It is an option however. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry I have to disagree about the absolutely reliable comment. When anyone is giving a subjective opinion couched in statistical terms that does not make it a reliable source for data. You have to consider the context and semantics. --BozMo talk 14:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek and Blueboar, thank you for the input and suggestions, helpful as always. Unfortunately, another editor, User:Tony Sidaway doesn't agree with you and has just reverted Sarek. Cla68 (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd no idea that Cla68 had referred the problem here. As this is a scientific matter for which there are many reliable scientific sources that discuss this issue directly, it seems perverse to me to quote a sidelong comment from New York Times in an article which is about the problems of communicating the science to the public. The consensus on the talk page is against inclusion, or at the very least not significantly for it. The problem is that undue attention is being given to short term events in the context of a multi-decadal climate shift. That is to say, undue weight to this source would give a misleading impression. --TS 16:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree - the statement "Although evidence suggests that temperatures have been relatively stable since 1999," is a scientific one. The reason that popular media aren't useful on science articles, is lack of scientific editorial oversight. In this particular case (as i stated on the Talk page) there is also a significant problem with WP:WEIGHT. Finally it doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that this is written by a columnist (thus editorial oversight is even smaller). And even though Revkin is rather accurate on this particular subject - it still falls short of the mark. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's reliable. How to use it is editorial discretion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded and added a quote from a Met Office press release,[41] but I agree that there are problems with weight here. --TS 17:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats an interesting absolute statement. Are you saying that columnists in the NYT are reliable on all topics? Or is it Revkin in particular? I had the (apparently wrong) assumption that reliability was based upon editorial oversight, and context. (both of which are a problem here). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers are notoriously unreliable. A wiki article on a scientific topic should therefore not cite newspapers. If you write about something that is covered in a newspaper and you can't find a better source for it, then you could give a citation to the newspaper temporarily until a better source is found. In case it is clear that the newspaper article is in conflict with results published in peer reviewed journals, then you can't include that in the wiki article at all.

Example: A large number of newspapers reported that Special Relativity had been violated in an experiment. All these newspapers reports were wrong. Count Iblis (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I would rather see scientific sources for scientific articles. Readers who want to know more about the subject would be better served by information sourced to scientific journals. What does it mean that the climate has been relatively stable or that scientists generally agree? What is a scientist? A scientific article would explain what these terms meant and how they reached their conclusions. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What's useful about newspaper articles, and this particular NYTimes article is a good example, is that they can aggregate and summarize in one location the opinions expressed by scientists and scientific organizations. Anyway, WP policies currently allow this source to be used in this way, so until the policy is changed, I believe the editors who keep removing the content in question are in violation of WP policy. Cla68 (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You are confused. We don't have to include everything that is reliably sourced. Reliable sourcing is a necessary, not a sufficient condition. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Das Kind, der Tod und die Wahrheit

Das Kind, der Tod und die Wahrheit is a German television documentary made by Esther Schapira. In it, she questions whether Muhammad al-Durrah, a twelve year old Palestinian boy from the Gaza Strip, was actually shot by Israeli soldiers in 2000, or if the incident was a hoax, staged by the Palestinians. The original video that she concludes is staged was broadcast by Charles Enderlin of France 2, and can be viewed here (original broadcast in French). Her film can be viewed on YouTube (only available in German - part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5).

My stance is that it's the video equivalent of an op-ed, and should be treated as such - cited as Schapira's opinion, directly cited for relevant quotes taken from interviews, but not used as a source for facts. In reviewing previous noticeboard cases, I felt there was some consensus around that stance for similar documentaries. Others (such as ChrisO) feel that it shouldn't be used as a source at all, per WP:UNDUE, since it's the investigation of the fringe conspiracy theory that the boy's death was faked. Still others (such as Jaakobou, IronDuke, and SlimVirgin) feel that it's an invaluable source of information, and should be treated like any other reliable source because other reliable sources discuss it.

How should we treat this source? ← George ^talk 14:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that you're correct in your outlined treatment above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The documentary on its own is unreliable and should not be used as a source. However the story was written about in the New York Times which mentions the documentary.[42] If you want to mention the documentary I would use the NYT article as a reliable source. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this question is about the inclusion of material from the documentary, not just mention of it. Cheers. ← George ^talk 14:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Notes:

• Fringe - The theory that the report was staged (to various degrees) was reported on by many reliable news outlets and has gained some consensus among a number of them (e.g. no 9. James Fallows - "It now appears that the boy cannot have died in the way reported by most of the world's media and fervently believed throughout the Islamic world."[43]).
• RS - Schapira has made two well researched documentary news-pieces about the al-Durrah incident, and spoke personally with everyone from the boy's parents and the Palestinian doctors to the Israeli soldiers and the external investigators. She's done this for the German broadcaster ARD - which is considered a reliable source.
• Opinion vs. content - The source is not used to say "the video was staged". It is used, however, for some basic facts that are mentioned in her research. For example, a statement that 'about 20 photographers gathered at the Netzarim Junction to film the clashes between protesters and a military outpost' is used in the article with her 2nd documentary as citation. This info is not contested by any other sources. I do agree that when it comes to opinion or even to material where other RSs clash, then it should be attributed.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised to see this here. Of course this is a good source, much better than out of date or hastily written newspaper articles in what we usually call RS's. We would, of course, be sure to make it clear that the material we're using from the doc is from the doc, and not present it as unvarnished fact. But it's still an important part of the reportage/scholarship surrounding the case. If you don't think docs are significant sources of info, ask Randall Dale Adams his opinion. IronDuke 16:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Esther Shapira's two documentaries are now part of the story. From what I can tell, she seems to be a respected journalist and not someone who has worked only on this. Articles about her documentaries have appeared in multiple reliable sources, including The New York Times, [44] as has the hoax theory in general (which is, no doubt, why she made the documentaries). It's therefore a reliable source within the meaning of V for information about its own contents, and for the hoax theory in general, though any references to it should be attributed in text. With a story like this, it's actually a good idea to attribute all material in text, unless it's about some aspect of it that no one disputes. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to provide greater publicity for theories than they have received in the mainstream media and academic sources. A documentary that presents an unorthodox view of an event is unrealiable. While hastily written news stories may later be found to be false, professional journalists rely on the best information available and have professional standards in news reporting. Reliable newspapers provide retractions when their stories are found to be false. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, but this is a mainstream media source. IronDuke 16:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've imported material about Esther Schapira from the German Wikipedia and added it to her article. I didn't realize that she's the politics and society editor at the German public television network, the Hessischer Rundfunk. I had assumed these were independent documentaries broadcast by them, but if they were actually produced by the network, as now seems to be the case, they definitely count as reliable sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Shameless bump. Hoping to get some additional input on this (especially from third parties not involved in the dispute). ← George ^talk 23:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, this documentary is a reliable source. However, it should not be the only source on an issue where what happened is disputed. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment—it seems that this is a fine source: it is mainstream, because it was produced and broadcast on a mainstream network, and shares a view that, while controversial, is not fringe in any way and has been advanced by a number of notable individuals who are not extremists. It is also reliable, based on Schapira's other work, indicating that she has done serious research. I cannot find any strong argument against this source. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Daily Telegraph

In Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad there is a dispute over whether the Daily Telegraph is a reliable source. This article from the BBC - The UK's 'other paper of record' - asserts that the Daily Telegraph is a reputable paper, but in the Talk page it has been referred to as a "tabloid", a "low quality source", a "lone paper", a "very doubtful publication" which publishes "fringe theories", "British-flavored tabloid speculation" and "provacative", "ridiculous assertions". Any comments? Josh Keen (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's one of the UK's most reputable newspapers and a prime example of a reliable news source. Maintain a distinction between news items on the one hand and signed/unsigned opinion pieces on the other. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to confirm that the Telegraph is one of the UK's most reliable sources. I would disagree about the distinction between news and opinion, and especially between signed and unsigned. The unsigned editorials are the voice of the newspaper's editorial board. Add in-text attribution when in doubt, always a good idea anyway for contentious issues. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Along with the Times, the Financial Times, the Guardian and the Independent, it is one of the UK's most respected newspapers. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This particular case is fast-evolving so be aware that we do not necessarily have to cover every twist and turn. Even reputable papers slip up occasionally, and since this particular Telegraph report is contested, either leave it out or ensure that both sides are properly covered. How best to do that goes beyond the scope of this board. You can consult the BLP noticeboard for further advice. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Guardian Comment is Free commentary and collaborative blog

In Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad there is a dispute over whether the Guardian Comment is Free commentary and collaborative blog is a reliable source (relating to this entry by Meir Javedanfar). The Guardian itself would obviously be considered a reliable source. Comment is Free articles are commentary on news, not the news, and they do not go through the editorial process that news articles in The Guardian do. As there is no editorial control and no oversight, commentary and blogging posted there should not be considered as a reliable source for facts, right?

According to Comment is free: About us We carry the main comment articles and editorials from both newspapers and also host a collective group web-only blog.

From WP:RS:

“ Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person... Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully... News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used. ”

This suggests that the Guardian Comment is Free blog/commentary should only be considered a reliable source for personal views (rather than factual) of Meir Javedanfar on the (still alive) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Josh Keen (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"Comment is free" is one of the websites that falls into the category of "major news organisation that happens to publish in a blog style format". It is one of the articles that The Guardian uses to start off debate by readers. It should be treated as you say, like a signed opinion piece in the newspaper. It is reliable for the existence of this point of view, held by Mr Javendafar, possibly by others. You will have to decide whether this is a view that is notable enough to cover in the article. Please note that the reader comments following this signed piece are unlikely to be usable as a source at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

LA times reliable source?

A user claims that I can not use the LA times as an RS[45]. At issue is an interview with a woman who says she was full blooded Cherokee and born on the Cherokee reservation. But this woman's face is iconic, and the other editor claims she doesn't look Cherokee to him. Is this user's opinion enough to invalidate front page news at the LA times? T34CH (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The LA Times is a RS. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The LA Times is RS, one of the most highly regarded newspapers in the US. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So what are you saying, anything printed in the LA times is reliable even if there is no basis for the claim given? To say she is "full-blooded" means she is absolutely pure Cherokee. Look at the pictures yourself. How can the LA Times be a reliable source for a claim about her genetics when no genetic testing was performed? If the LA Times quotes a conspiracy theorist who thinks X crazy thing, is X crazy thing now verified by a reliable source?

At most we can say "she claimed to be full-blooded Cherokee." It's a quote of what she said, not a verified fact. Fixentries (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a mainstream reliable source. I don't know the specifics of the case however, and if there is serious doubt about the LA Times's accuracy on a particular point, the WP:REDFLAG criteria should be reviewed. From what it looks like in this case though, this is unnecessary because it's only disputed by the opinion of one editor without evidence to back up the claims. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources for special meaning of the word "outlaw"

From the article Outlaw motorcycle club:

The word outlaw carries a specific meaning within this subculture that is different from the mainstream use of the word. It does not imply criminal intent, but rather means the club is not sanctioned by the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) and does not adhere to the AMA's rules, but instead, generally, the club enforces a set of bylaws on its members that derive from the values of the outlaw biker culture.

Are two sources given sufficient citation for the special use of the word "outlaw" by those who call themselves "outlaw motorcycle clubs"? On the talk page the objection was raised that Dulaney and Drew have a "personal stake" in the issue. As far as I know, their only stake is that they write on motorcycling topics, which is to be expected of anyone who could possibly be a reliable source on this.

If not, what would be a reliable source to explain what "outlaw motorcycle club" means? --Dbratland (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll post here to try to keep this all in one place. A.J. Drew is a pagan author and rider/self-proclaimed member of a one-percenter club (that he never actually names). If we assume good faith, then his book is actually hard to claim has able to really truly say what the word "outlaw" implies to people not of the Outlaw MC subculture. Dulaney is a noted professor and great author who readilly admits his self interest in the subject, and this would still be fine, but the noted reference doesn't say what it is being purported to say. The jump of logic that is used to utilize his writing as a reference with this statement constitutes OR. It should be noted that the user wishing to keep this in has a history of contributions of a pro-"one percenter/outlaw biker" stance and anti-"99 percenter" stance, as can be seen via his contributions. I do not mean to imply anything via this statement, just that the user may not be able to look at this particular issue from the proper perspective. Hooper (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)