Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

Self-published royalty websites

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

After over a week's debate, consensus is that these self-published ancestry sources should not be used as sources in biographies of living people. Closing per request at WP:AN/I. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

---

There are at least a couple of self-published websites devoted to detailing the lists of succession to mostly defunct thrones which are cited extensively on Wikipedia. Two that have come up recently are:

• http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ "Genealogical Gleanings" [1]
• http://www.royalark.net "Royal Ark" [2]

We use these two sites for material on living people. Should these websites be treated as exceptions to the rule prohibiting the use of self-published websites as sources for BLPs, WP:BLPSPS? If so, why?   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I think not, unless the case can be made that the owners/authors of the sites are experts in royal genealogy. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It's my understanding that self-published experts can be used as sources for non-BLPs, but that even they are prohibited sources for living people. WP:SPS.   Will Beback  talk  00:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The publishers of these sites are indeed both well-known and respected experts in research on the genealogy, titulature, monarchical history and successions of non-Western dynasties, both reigning and formerly reigning. I don't know if it's appropriate to give their right names on Wikipedia, but neither is "anonymous": those who frequent royalty websites, newsgroups and online forums in which non-Western hereditary rulers are tracked and discussed have been familiar with and/or in direct contact with both of them for more than a decade. More importantly, although there are more monarchies extant in non-Western than in Western continents, very little is known of them and their dynasties. The vast majority of what is written about them is inaccessible to the Western reading public: little is online and what is available is often cursory, what is in print is simply out of reach. Worse, problems of culture, translation, sourcing and NPOV abound (if you've ever read or edited the information frequently uploaded on these topics, you know to what I'm referring. Although every effort must, of course, be encouraged and appreciated, with the best intentions people can only offer what they have to hand, using the tools and English literacy they bring here -- and barriers to sustained, neutral participation on English Wikipedia are often overwhelming outside the West -- except to the most zealous). Yet Wikipedia's content, audiences and reputation are best served if more information about these institutions is made available in English sooner. Genealogical Gleanings and the Royal Ark have the advantage of being published on stable, dedicated, English-language websites, in familiar formats, the authors (whatever their backgrounds -- I've never met or spoken with either of them, although I know the countries of their location) write in concise prose, understand and apply scholarly research standards, strive for objectivity, update their sites frequently, and -- most critical of all -- have built up stores of documented information about non-Western dynasties that simply isn't to be found elsewhere. They also cross-check each other: The author of Gleaningss is especially expert in Far Eastern dynastic lore, while Ark is paricularly known for the dynasties of Islamic nations and the Christian dynasties (e.g. Transcaucasia) which border them. Both strive to bring indigenous African institutions and history to the attention of Westerners. Both are known to solicit information, feedback and crosschecking regarding their entries online. Because of my areas of interest and forum experiences, I personally rely more on Genealogical Gleanings for objective interpretation and on Royal Ark for factual data, but I value and trust both. They -- we -- should not be penalized because long ago they chose to pass on paper in favor of online publication -- where their work is both more dynamic with rewpect to corrections and updates and more accessible to those beyond the West. They deserve to be treated -- with caveats -- as exceptions to our "published sources" rule (and there are lots of other sites which don't, and whcih would draw my silence rather than my advocacy). And by the way, Will Beback, thanks for asking. FactStraight (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Those websites compile information from print sources and official websites. For each national royal house listed, the detailed references for all information are given on each main section page. It's not the same as ancestry.org or a personal website. brilliancetime (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. The two webmasters, Henry Soszynski and Christopher Buyers, are named on their websites. I don't see any books or magazine articles that they've published. What evidence do we have that they are regarded as experts?   Will Beback  talk  04:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I guess I should probably respond here since you've left messages on three lists that I wrote! I agree with FactStraight that Buyers and Soszynski are both well-respected sources for the more obscure dynasties. I should also point out that both authors cite their own sources quite readily, Soszynski here and Buyers on the opening page of each work. I obviously prefer citing additional sources where possible (there are several online almanachs that are good for this), but there is a distinct scarcity of sources in this area of knowledge. While the royal genealogies of Europe have a steady following, that can't be said for the tribal kings of Africa or the rajas of India. Because of our policies, I wouldn't recommend the use of them as sources for biographical articles where better sources exist. The biographical detail on these websites is the barest minimum; if they were the only sources on a particular individual, we shouldn't have an article on that individual to begin with. If there's a point of contention that is sourced to these websites, and no other source can be found, the point should probably be removed. Having said that, I don't see a problem with using them in lists of incumbents that only include a name and a date. Nightw 05:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we have any evidence that these are well-respected sources? If the best sources for a topic are two self-published websites, then an alternative would be to cover the topic less thoroughly, or to omit the material on living people altogether.   Will Beback  talk  07:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable approach. If some persons are of such limited interest that only these SPS wrote about them, they could easily be omitted from Wikipedia. See WP:EVERYTHING. On the other hand, if these sites cite harder to access sources, like old newspapers only available in microfilm at a library, I'd give that information the benefit of the doubt for inclusion unless there's some actual evidence of unreliability of these sites, like some of their citations failing independent verification. Having had a look at one of those pages [3], they don't seem to cite any of their sources, so I don't think the information there is of any use for Wikipedia. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Soszynski's bibliography is at the link I provided above. Nightw 20:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue with establishing someone as an expert isn't how many sources they cite, but rather how many times they've been published and cited.

Will, I'm going off the fact that both of them are commonly cited in university theses and other scholarly papers — for example, [4][5][6][7] You can find more by searching them on Google Scholar or the indexes of databases like JSTOR.

One of those was a self-published paper by an amateur historian (and Wikipedia editor). Scholars can cite all kinds of sources that we cannot use, including personal interviews, so that is not a help in and of itself.

The criteria we must use is at WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. It goes on to say, Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. [emphasis in original]. In other words, we cannot use either of these websites for any information about living people, and we can only use them for other topics if we can show that they have been published in the field.   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder sometimes whether strict application of that rule prevents us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. We don't want to cite gossipy blogs, but I can't actually imagine a reason why we would not want to include apparently correct information about the succession of a throne merely because it was published by an apparent expert on a website.

The elephant in the room is that (with the important exception of formal media organizations) almost all websites are self-published: Coca-cola.com is written and published by Coca-cola, Inc. Harvard.edu is written and published by Harvard University. *.gov is written and published by American government agencies. Strict application of that rule would prohibit us from using any FDA documents, court decisions, or any other government sources to support a claim that the various government agencies have repeatedly sued Stanislaw Burzynski, even though the fact that he's been hauled into court is undisputed by anyone at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The sites fail rs and should not be used at all. Also, the fact that the information is only found in these sources means that it lacks notability, another reason to exclude it. People who seek the information on those sites can go directly to them. And yes, WhatamIdoing, the Coca Cola website is self-published which is why we do not use it in articles about kings and queens. TFD (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We also need to consider what the site says. The page I looked at (see my previous post here) makes counter-factual statements that some guy owns 300 Indian villages. India may not have abandoned its caste system, but it's no longer living in feudalism either. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

To summarize, no one has shown that either of these webmasters qualify as experts in their fields according to usual Wikipedia standards, meaning their self-published sites may not be used for any purposes on Wikipedia. The foremost violation is regarding living people, and I propose that citations to these sources regarding living people be deleted first, and that all other citations be deleted later. I realize this could have an effect, especially on the minor royalty of India. I can only urge editors to find better sources.   Will Beback  talk  11:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to dissent from the above recommendation on a couple of grounds. First, it's presented as a summary of the foregoing and, IMO, is not. Responses to the question initially posed, "Should these websites be treated as exceptions to the rule prohibiting the use of self-published websites as sources" are not reflected in the summary, making its conclusions and the recommendation based on it a non sequitor. Rather, it's been a given in this discussion that the websites are self-published, its authors aren't elsewhere published in print media, ipso facto information found on or attributed only to those sites cannot currenttly qualify as RS -- for any use on WP, let alone BLP. Unfortunately, the points I raised, although backed up by the only other editor in this discussion who appears to be significantly familiar with the authors' work, have been dismissed without focused discussion: 1. Those here who are familiar enough with the subject matter to consult sources on it have, for years, found these sources generally reliable. That feedback's limited, but easily verifiable & always correctable. 2. The authors have built up a treasure trove of documented information about non-Western rulers, dynasties and history that simply isn't to be found elsewhere (and not because that information isn't "notable" -- irrelevant to article citations anyway -- but because the barriers I described had discouraged publishing this material in hard copy and, given the 21st century Internet, it is now more likely to be published online than on dead trees) So finding better sources "somewhere" is an unrealistic alternative. 3. RS for Western dynasties is so abundant that WP's coverage of them is disproportionate in a "global" encyclopedia, so carefully selecting a few sources available in RS-friendly formats helps redress that imbalance, bringing more reasonably verifiable non-Western history and culture to our readership's attention and use. Moreover, it's been acknowledged that these 2 sites are already "cited extensively on Wikipedia". I ask that these sources (or a process for evaluating such sources) be positively considered as narrow exceptions to RS criteria for notable topics that otherwise are apt to continue to remain lost in the "Dark Continent" for longer than need be. FactStraight (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the restriction in this case isn't WP:RS, a guideline on evaluating sources, but WP:BLPSPS, which is part of WP:BLP, which is our policy on what we can or cannot say about living people. Our restrictions on living people are and should be far far more strict than our general restrictions. While there may be a case that the sites might qualify as a narrow exception for general information (I'm not saying that for sure, but I'm saying "Even if..."), trying to make an exception to WP:BLP is darn well near impossible. We're strict on BLP because it has real, demonstrable consequences for real, living people, and while it's important for us to get knowledge out into the world, it's not worth potential harm that we might do to living people by using anything other than the best quality sources to discuss them. The truth is that many many things about Africa and India are effectively unreportable on Wikipedia, simply because the sources are inaccessible, or perhaps don't even exist. It's a fundamental "problem" with Wikipedia, but it's one that there really is no way to avoid safely. One thing I should note about these websites--if all they did was collect information in other sources, and they provided complete citeable information about those sources, and we decided that we could trust the site authors at least far enough to know that they wouldn't fake info in sources (I'd say that's a lower bar than "expertise"), then we could always site the original info directly. However, if they aren't providing full citation info, then we have to question their expertise. Furthermore, I am, in fact, concerned about where their material comes from. Having worked a bit in the India area, people routinely want to provide primary sources, including thousand year old poetry, stone carvings, or religious documents, as proof of one point or another. That wouldn't meet Wikipedia's standards; do we know what the author's of this site consider trustworthy? So, for instance, when you say they're collecting hard to find data, are they also critically evaluating that data, cross-checking it, etc.? I see too many questions here to actually consider carving an exception to WP:BLP. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything Qwyrxian said. And a few more points: 1) This wouldn't be a narrow exception; literally hundreds of articles are using these two sites.[8][9] We're relying on them a large amount of material. 2) Much of this material is really highly speculative, in which the webmasters themselves decide on possible lines of succession for long-defunct principalities, give noble titles to people who have never had a reigning sovereign, and adjudicate or suppress disputes. This isn't objective material like the altitudes of peaks in the Alps. 3) If being a count or the grandson of a former king is important then this is important information which requires a higher standard, not a lower one. If any wealth, prestige, or power is gained or lost by these matters then we should be using the best possible sources. 4) This isn't just about royalty. There's a great website with data on elections around the world. It's frequently used by scholars doing research but we can't cite it either because it's also a one-man operation.   Will Beback  talk  07:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think too be fair these websites present primarily pretty basic stuff, such as dates of birth/death, marriages this type of thing. I have been aware of these websites for years if I was to write an article on a non European royal I would turn to one of these to see when they were born, who they are married to etc in my opinion these websites are reliable. I doubt the websites are that often used on Wikipedia to support a controversial or disputed assertion, I would guess the majority of cites are for very basic facts like genealogical data or who the head of a certain royal house is. If a biographical entry relies solely on these sites and there is no other information out there then there is perhaps the case they are not notable enough for an article of their own. If these websites are forbidden the only ‘reliable source’ in English that I am aware of that covers only part of what is found on these websites is ‘Burke’s Royal Families of the World, Africa and the Middle East’, but this is over 30 years old now. FactStraight has mentioned about publishing this material as a book, these books are not cheap to make or buy, I don’t really see why publishers would put this type of information in print when people would have to pay upwards of £100 for it. If I was a publisher I would be worried if people would buy it as they could get the same information constantly updated for free online at very good websites like Royal Ark and Genealogical Gleanings. I think the fourth point you make Will shows there should clearly be a exceptions to the policy as WhatamIdoing is one to something when she mentions that strict application of the rules prevents people improving or maintaining Wikipedia. I believe especially if the website is a useful, easy access database of basic data such as when someone was born, or how votes a party got in an election. - dwc lr (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What about this book? FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I guess one could use that for the Indian Princely States, but of course its six years old now so I am sure there have been many changes since. We get a preview from Google Books which is useful but to replace cites to the websites someone would have to shell out of their own pocket or try and find a copy of that book in a library. According to Worldcat I see one copy in Germany. For me this is a case of convenience and accessibility . I can either look up when someone was born or succeeded to the headship of a family on a easy to access, free to access, reliable, up to date 'self published' website from my computer, or I can try and find a copy in a library local to me, then have to find the time to travel there and probably pay for the privilege. - dwc lr (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone up-thread mentioned that "The elephant in the room is that (with the important exception of formal media organizations) almost all websites are self-published". To that I would add; as is much printed media deemed entirely acceptable RS for Wikipedia but which is no more than one remove from self-asserted fact and gets zero fact-checking. Why should non-Western content find it so much harder to get its foot in our door. IF WP really wants to absolutely deserve the adjective "authoritative" it would permit nothing to appear that isn't footnoted to a scholarly source (and it's already been pointed out here that dissertation review committees routinely accept sources WP refuses!) The reason we don't do that isn't because that's not an ideal standard, but because it's impractical: it would compel exclusion of too much of the information people reasonably expect an encyclopedia to cover. But no one expects that info to be perfect, or always up to date. Rather, we expect it to reflect the best available sources, neutrally deployed So we set our sights on the ideal standard and meanwhile we largely accept the most accurate, most neutral, most current data we can lay hands on. The criterion of "paper publication" has been a reasonable gateway to screen for that standard -- given that this is a volunteer project -- until it's treated unyieldingly as what it is not: a legitimate presumption that non-publication equals non-reliability. Yes, I assume that the Gleanings and Ark sites have errors, gaps and biases which the future will correct: Name a source which doesn't? But it's also true that "published in print" is an increasingly inadequate and obsolete hurdle to erect for the purpose of screening reliability in sources: it's time to re-consider that standard overall and, here and now, to consider exceptions to it. It's not fair to go microscopic on these sites because I've suggested we explore ways they might be considered as examplses of such. Please, please address the grounds on which I have requested consideration: it appears to be the best information available on a large swathe of historical and political information worth Wikipedia attempting to present to its audience. Under that rubric, all kinds of limitations are possible short of complete exclusion: If BLP standards are sacrosanct, then let's agree that these sites can't be cited for details about BLPs. If Gleanings and Ark don't consistently source every datum (remember, they were uploading findings in widely used formats long before Wikipedia's ever-evolving standards for RS required dissertation-level documentation to state "Shaka Zulu was a man."), maybe they could be encouraged to do so if they knew their work might then be deemed Wiki citable? Bottom line, these sources might be classed "tentatively reliable"; acceptable for inclusion unless challenged for substantive reasons (e.g. contradicted by other sources/data, info unlikely to have been accessible, datum dependent upon another factoid now disproven, etc.) Unrebutted challenges on the talk page, where content disputes about Western dynastic issues are normally resolved, would then be deemed prima facie grounds for deletion of the cite. It's been acknowledged that throwing out this bathwater will dump a lot of Wiki babies. All I'm asking is that we put some thought into salvaging some, rather than summarily dismissing this area of interest and the bulk of the work done in it -- not because we have grounds to believe its sources are more erroneous than most sources cited in Wikipedia, but because they don't meet an across-the-board standard which continues to exclude non-Western far more than Western sources of information. Qwyrxian candidly noted, "The truth is that many many things about Africa and India are effectively unreportable on Wikipedia, simply because the sources are inaccessible", true but some aren't inaccessible -- just rejected. Why not try to do better, rather than resign ourselves to the notion that "better" isn't worth the trouble? In case it goes by unnoticed, I'm asking for help here. FactStraight (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with much that was said above. Sources of this type are typically used in breach of WP:BLP, and to cover topics in much more detail than is done in reliable sources. Wikipedia's coverage of nobility is seriously skewed and often does not follow the norms of the community. This is not an unusual problem. We used to have a similar problem with Pokémon, for example, and numerous other fields with such problems still exist. It appears that the time has come to fix the problem for this particular field. Hans Adler 22:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

FactStraight--the whole point is that it's not better to use information that we have no reason to believe is accurate. If you can provide some solid reason to believe that these people are experts in the field and that they have done good, due dilligenve to verify that the information is accurate, then they would be fine sources. But it's always better to have no information than it is to have information whose provenance we have no reason to believe is accurate. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Well said. I agree entirely.   Will Beback  talk  11:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Where it comes to BLPs, if we can't find the information in clearly reliable sources we shouldn't be adding it to their articles, and these aren't clearly reliable. I guess we need to find a way to remove it from the relevant articles, I'll help if someone sets up a list like we do for copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I just came across two similar self-published websites used in royalty articles.

• http://www.genealogics.org/index.php
• http://thepeerage.com/index.htm

I can't find any indication that the webmasters are published experts.   Will Beback  talk  04:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I won't be able to participate in the actual scrubbing of those non-reliable resources; one question though--is this going to result in cases where articles are now no longer sourced, or undersourced to the point of needing to be AfD'd? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any in the few articles I've looked at. While GNG applies everywhere, I think that there's a certain inherent notability in being a duke or a pretender. However some of the specific claims, like being a duke, may be hard to establish from other sources.   Will Beback  talk  04:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

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

References to soure material added for James Palumbo

Reliable references to souce material have now been added to the James Palumbo Wikipedia page...

How do we go about having the notice requesting reliable sources removed from the top of the page?

Mona Lisa

The editor Simple Blue (talk · contribs) has been insistent upon inserting a reference into various articles regarding the Mona Lisa for some months now despite being informed by multiple editors that the theory expressed (apparently originally by Relpmek (talk · contribs) is original research. I would appreciate some evaluation regarding the reliability of the reference in question.

• The reference being inserted is this page. There is no indication of whether this statement has been peer-reviewed, published elsewhere, or otherwise given credence.
• It has been inserted multiple times into the articles Mona Lisa, Lisa del Giocondo and Speculation about Mona Lisa.
• The origin of the theory that the Mona Lisa is Da Vinci's mother appears to have been inserted first by User:Relpmek here; User:Relpmek self-identifies as Roni Kempler.
• A look through the contributions of both editors will give a good indication of their efforts to have this theory included. Talk page discussion has generally been less than constructive.

Opinions would be appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: The page of Roni Kempler that user:Simple Blue has entered in several pages is, of course, of no reliability whatsoever. Ron Kempler (be it or not user:Relpmek) is not a reliable source. Neither is a reliable source Serge Bramly, who is a fictional writer, not a historian, and in particular, not an art historian.Divide et Impera (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• Yup. Not reliable. A personal website like this wouldn't be acceptable even if there weren't a vast corpus on the Mona Lisa. Has someone filed a SPI, by the way? Relpmek isn't editing anymore, but Simple Blue, y'know, just happened to start editing right around when Relpmek stopped... Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I figured I'd do this first, see how it goes. I doubt we'll need an SPI to deal with things. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The idea that the painting at some level represents Leonardo's mother dates back to Freud. It's notable for being one of Siggy's attempts to apply Psychoanalytic theory to Leonardo's work, but even Freud did not claim that the painting literally depicts his mother, rather that unconscious memories of his mother affected the way the image was painted, particularly the famous smile. Of course it is a purely speculative and entirely unfalsifiable argument. There are no images of Leo's mother, or home movies of her smiling, so we can't possibly make any actual comparison. What Freud says is notable, but it has nothing to do with normal art historical methods or standard scholarship on the painting. R Kempler's views are neither notable or reliable. Paul B (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, ..." (about their thoughts).

"Speculation by scholars and hobbyists assigned Lisa's name to at least four different paintings and her identity to at least ten different people". See the article Lisa del Giocondo.

The issue is Mona Lisa's identification as Leonardo's mother Caterina in a distant memory.

The issue is not Kempler. The consistency of a theory is not measured by the person standing behind it but by the ability of that theory to stand on its own merit and provide a plausible explanation and answers. The name of the person proposing the theory should be mentioned simply to provide an address for future questions or debate. (If the theory neither addresses relevant questions nor provides a credible explanation then such theory should be dropped.)

This material is not unduly self-serving;

It does not involve claims about third parties;

It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

The article is not based primarily on such sources. Ago Ves (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never learned how to bump stuff up properly, sorry, so I've just copied this from the archives. The issue is of course partially Kempler, as I can't see any good reason to use him. It's also an interpretation of our policy which would allow any blog or web page or self-published book to be used. There's another issue to which I'll deal with, I think it's time for SPI. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This source is not "any blog or web page or self-published book". This source is the main source for the Mona Lisa's identification as Leonardo's mother Caterina in a distant memory. Ago Ves (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF says self-published or questionable sources can be used as sources on themselves ... usually in articles about themselves or their activities" If the article were about Kempler this webpage would be fine. It's not. Brmull (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"...sources on themselves ... usually in articles about themselves or their activities", so this source is about Kempler's thoughts and suggestion. Ago Ves (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

As has been pointed out repeatedly, Kempler's thoughts about Mona Lisa are not notable. The proof of this is that there is no reliable source that discusses K's theory or mentions it even in passing. The theory appears to have no existence whatsoever outside of its countless reverted insertions in Mona Lisa-related wikipedia articles, and on K's recently created webpage. I have a theory of my own about K's theory, but my theory is exactly as non-notable as K's theory, and therefore has no place in any wikipedia article, despite the outstanding ability of my theory to "stand on its own merit and provide a plausible explanation" for K's thought patterns. Creating a webpage and then citing it as a source would not make my non-notable theory notable. Ewulp (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It is very clear that there are some frustrated wiki members. Kempler's thoughts about Mona Lisa are notable. The proof of this is that this theory was published here for almost three years. Your theory wasn't published here, not even for a minute.

"The sitter's identity was ascertained at the University of Heidelberg in 2005 by a library expert who discovered a 1503 margin note written by Agostino Vespucci. Scholars have been of many minds, identifying at least four different paintings as the Mona Lisa and several people as its subject. Leonardo's mother Caterina Buti del Vacca in a distant memory,Isabella of Naples or Aragon, Cecilia Gallerani, Costanza d'Avalos, Duchess of Francavilla‎ who was also called the "merry one" or La Gioconda, Isabella d'Este, Pacifica Brandano or Brandino, Isabela Gualanda, Caterina Sforza, and Leonardo himself have all been named the sitter. Today the subject's identity is held to be Lisa, which has always been the traditional view." See the article Mona Lisa.

Kempler's theory was published here by Kempler on October 17, 2008 and was deleted by Paul Barlow on August 6, 2011.

Now it is too late to say that this theory appears to have no existence. You don't mean that our readers are stupid ?! This theory couldn't disappear by deleting here its written words. Ago Ves (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't make a lot of sense. His hypothesis is real, just not significant, ie not discussed in reliable sources for instance, and its existence in an article hasn't changed that or someone made it notable. Sure, we can use reliable sources to discuss it, just not Kempler who isn't a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ago Ves disputes my argument that the Kempler theory has "no existence whatsoever outside of its countless reverted insertions in Mona Lisa-related wikipedia articles, and on K's recently created webpage". Existence here means existence in the public sphere (of course it may exist in Kempler's mind, or in a spiral notebook where Kempler has scribbled it, but what is at issue is its notability). Ago Ves cites publication in wikipedia as proof of notability, and seems to think that with each day that original research passes undetected in a wp article its notability is enhanced. Even if this were true—which it is not—a glance at Kempler/Relpmek's edit history reveals that Ago Ves has represented the chronology rather misleadingly.

Relpmek's October 17, 2008 edit of the Mona Lisa article (diffs here) was a minor addition to, and repositioning of, a sentence that already named Leonardo's mother as one of many possible subjects that have been proposed by notable persons who have published notable speculations about the famous painting. This preexisting paraphrase of Freud's idea was properly sourced to an article by Charles Nicholl in the Guardian. Relpmek's objectionable OR began much later, on July 30, 2010, in Speculation about Mona Lisa (diffs here), and were enlarged upon more boldly on August 28, 2010 in the same article here. By this time Relpmek was naming Kempler as the author of a more elaborate theory, while citing no sources. This OR began to be challenged by several editors in February 2011, meaning that the charade lasted about six months. When Relpmek tried to insert similar material into the Mona Lisa article in February 2011, it was swatted down in four hours (see diffs). The difference is that Mona Lisa is a high-profile article, while the Speculation about article gets fewer hits and less attention, and in any case is a repository of (sourced) nutty theories where Kempler's additions were not especially conspicuous. Ewulp (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Again and again and again...

"Speculation by scholars and hobbyists assigned Lisa's name to at least four different paintings and her identity to at least ten different people". See the article Lisa del Giocondo.

• Relpmek's October 17, 2008 edit of the Mona Lisa article (diffs here) was not a minor addition. There is a difference between Leonardo's mother Caterina (seemed to be not serious) and Leonardo's mother Caterina in a distant memory; Lisa del Giocondo's job was to be the model only. The second makes a lot of sense. See also Relpmek's October 8, 2008 edit of the Lisa del Giocondo article.
• The issue that Lisa del Giocondo was identified here as the painting's model and not as the painting's subject was because of the Kempler's theory. So this theory has Existence in the public sphere and not only in Kempler's mind. See also the article Agostino Vespucci's edit history.
• There are many sources for Mona Lisa's identification as Leonardo's mother Caterina. See Serge Bramly, Rina de Firenze, and[10]..... Kempler's theory is the main source for Mona Lisa's identification as Leonardo's mother Caterina in a distant memory, and so I think that this source is much more better.
• "just not Kempler who isn't a reliable source". This doesn't make a sense. This theory is Kempler's suggestion and not Dougweller's suggestion. The consistency of a theory is not measured by the person standing behind it but by the ability of that theory to stand on its own merit and provide a plausible explanation and answers. The name of the person proposing the theory should be mentioned simply to provide an address for future questions or debate.
• "His hypothesis is real, just not significant". This doesn't make a lot of sense. Sorry, just not Dougweller !!! Ago Ves (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You're on your own with all this, you simply don't understand/want to understand/agree with our policy. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you folks let things drag on so long? Simple Blue and Ago Ves are now indefinitely blocked. Editors that make this argument are always Roni Kempler, and Roni Kempler is indefinitely blocked, so all of his new identities can be indefed without discussion.—Kww(talk) 11:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As I was the one who started the SPI, I didn't want to block. I thought it was pretty obvious but I shall not hesitate next time! Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Baseball cards

Bill Buckner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Are baseball cards reliable sources? I reverted this change to the above article, but I'm getting push-back from two editors that it's perfectly fine to cite to (and describe) the card. First, we have to rely on the interpetation of the card viewer, and, second, how do we verify the card? There's also the issue of whether the sentence, even if reliably sourced, belongs in the article as it seems POV to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It would see to me that a baseball card would be a primary source for a description of what's on it. I see from the edit summary that one of the other editors views the ball between the players legs as an interesting coincidence, which triggers the trivia bell in the back of my brain. I can't imagine that the card is the only source of data about the player other than the picture on the card, and making a link between the picture and the events in a game seem to me to be OR. Since I don't follow the great American pastime I can't say about POV. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

In the 1986 world series, Buckner committed an error allowing a ball to go "through his legs" into right field, allowing the other team to win the game. Ostensibly, the added sentence is to indicate that in a card from a year ago, it showed Buckner in a "fielding position - with a ball in the air between his legs." To me, there's almost nothing right about that sentence. It's not only trivial, as you say, but it's kind of an oblique attack on Buckner. Plus, the phrase "with a ball in the air between his legs" sounds somewhat unseemly, particularly given the context.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. Yes, that does seem inappropriately snarky. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I found a picture (not very big) of the card on the web here, and it's not clear to me whether the baseball is actually between Buckner's legs or somewhere in front of him while Buckner waits to catch it. The latter seems more plausible. However, this is part of the problem with primary sources - they have to be interpreted by a Wikipedia editor. As for the coincidence, I suppose I can see that, but really a first baseman fielding a ball is a rather common event, so, ulimately, it's just an editor's opinion, which, of course, doesn't belong in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Entities are always reliable refs for their own contents, I guess. In addition, baseball cards from major makers such as Fleer are reliable sources for facts I would suppose, and so we may be pretty confident that the picture really is Buckner (although there's at least one famous exception to that rule). However, baseball cards have a problem in that they're not available in a venue that is reasonably accessible by the public; generally, references need to be at least theoretically available through (usually) a library or similar venue, or else online, and baseball cards aren't -- except that this one is, per Bbb23 (and thank you). Whether the ref'd photo supports the statement ("a ball in the air between his legs") is arguable, depending on if you accept "between" to mean "between, in the perspective of this photo" or not. But as pointed out above it's not so much a question of reliability as notability and cogency. It's trivia, and also it doesn't tell us anything useful about Buckner. (I would advocate to allow the card referenced in the above link to be used in Aurelio Rodriguez's article, since it tells us something about Rodriguez, namely that he's a prankster or was on at least one occasion anyway. But that's different.) Herostratus (talk) 03:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree that the baseball card is anything but a primary source. The fact that it's produced by an entity (Fleer) doesn't change the analysis. A court transcript is a primary source, even though it's produced by a court. That is a question of authenticity, not of the level of the source. In the footnote defining primary sources, it says that a photograph is a primary source. And your statement that what Buckner is doing is "arguable" only confirms my contention that the card is a primary source: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." AND "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

For the moment, the issue is moot because the material was removed by another editor as trivia, something you and I are in agreement on. We'll see if the removal sticks.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there really anything useful on any baseball card that is not covered by baseball history books and reference sites? NW (Talk) 20:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh, editor opinions about "coincidences" aren't. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Animetric

This source has caused more contriversy than any other at the Anime and Manga WikiProject. There has been no less than 3 discussions all of which while they would seem to fail the SPS at a glance. However, there seem to have some discrpencies that make it really hard to say (for some) that the website cannot be listed as a SPS. Specifically, every time its brought up, new evidence emerges that shows that more and more reliable sources use the site, but none of them have extensively quoted them. While none of the links taken individually would have it pass SPS, but the site clearly seems to be quoted quite often beyond product-placement quotes (on packaging or the product's website) and why with such evidence could IAR not be invoked here for SPS.

There is also a proposal to revamp the way SPS handles opinions, but that's an aside here.

For reference:

• Discussion 1
• Discussion 2
• Current discussion 陣内_Jinnai 17:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Status update. Seems there is a real divide about this site at WP:Anime. We could use some outside opinions.陣内_Jinnai 02:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It completely fails the qualifications for a reliable self-published source. Random one line quotations in a press release advertising a produce is not the same as having their work published by reliable third-party publications in the relevant field, thus establishing the editor as an expert. Marking departments at that time used just about anything that would promote their product and their standards are very as a result. The reason this website keeps getting brought up time and time again is because of one editor who keeps bring it up every time there is a hentai related AfD with a a likely deletion outcome. The most recent one being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swallowtail Inn. Beyond that one editor, there hasn't been any controversy at all over its status as an unreliable source. —Farix (t | c) 02:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion on the other page, so we don't have to just repeat everything already said. And I brought it up ONE time previously, over a year and a half ago. It is not brought up "time and again" and I certainly do not bring it up every time there is a hentai article at AFD. Dream Focus 03:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You claimed that wider input was a good,[11] now you don't want it. Make up you damn mind. Of course that is besides the point that the second discussion had far more participants the the current one. And yes, you are the only one who keeps bringing it up, and based on your previous behavior, you will continue to bring the subject up. —Farix (t | c) 10:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Wider input means people see the notice here and go over there to join the ongoing discussion, not we all have to start over again. And only four people participated in that two year old discussion you just linked to, one of which now says something else. And we have far more people discussing it now. And once more you claim I keep bringing this up. Mentioning something once a year and a half ago, doesn't warrant such a ridiculous accusation. Dream Focus 12:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note, I would prefer a an outside opinion, ie one who has not commented on the debate and peferably not affiliated with A&M. I did not post this discussion here for the debate merely to be shifted.陣内_Jinnai 17:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(Unindent): Unaffiliated third opinion. As best I can tell from the links to the three discussions above, the claim that Animetric.com is a reliable source rests mostly on the fact that single lines from it are cited in advertisements by game companies. Unfortunately, that doesn't meet WP:SPS requirement for reliable sources, which is "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". First, it's debatable whether single lines are sufficient "work"; I guess they could be if those lines are the heart of the review, but still it's iffy. But more importantly, I don't think the advertisements by game companies can be considered reliable third-party publications; they're not third parties, they're producing the games that Animetric is reviewing. It's quite possible that they're only being published because they're favorable. If at least some Animetric reviews were published by reputable gaming magazines, or books, or other third parties then we could make the argument that Animetric is a reputed professional reviewer, and the rest of their reviews could go as "established expert on the topic". But game publishers aren't third parties. A slightly better claim for reliability rests on the link to an Animetric review from UC Irvine. The UC Irvine Film and Video Center is a fine third party. But it's not a lot, it's only one link out of a fair sized list, it doesn't outright say that the UC Irvine Film and Video Center relies on the site very much. If there were more like that, maybe. But just this, no. I wouldn't have gone as far as Farix seems to have, removing all reviews from this site from every article, because I can imagine a review from this site being listed as one of two or three being useful to give a range of opinions on a product, if no others can be found. But I wouldn't consider a review from this one site to be sufficient to make a topic notable. --GRuban (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on the use of UEFA as a source for UEFA games

There is a discussion going on at Talk:2011–12 UEFA Champions League qualifying phase and play-off round#Match reports about whether to use UEFA match reports for all matches, non-UEFA reliable third-party sources for all matches, or use either UEFA or a third-party source. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Martina Hingis

Hello!

There's an ongoing dispute in the Martina Hingis article, where seems the two sides are juding the sources completely different. The questionable thing is Martina's ethnic background. Most notable sources that verify her Hungarian origin are:

• Der Spiegel, which is "one of Europe's largest publications of its kind, with a weekly circulation of more than one million", as Wikipedia says. ("Grenzengängersˇ/Commuters/, in German).

  "... und die schweizer Tennisspielerin Martina Hingis (slowakischer Vater aus der ungarischen Minderheit)." /...and the Swiss tennis player Martina Hingis (Slovak father of the Hungarian minority)/ – Google Translator

• SportVox, which is in partnership with nationwide daily sport news L'Equipe. (Hingis l’enfant sauvage et monstrueux /Hingis wild and monstrous child/, in French).

  "Alors que le père Karol Hingis, issu de la minorité hongroise, doublement exclu donc, trouve sa voie dans l’enseignement du jeu, Mélanie s’échappera vers l’Occident, dans un curieux pays, la Suisse voisine, par l’intermédiaire ou grâce peut-être à un second mariage." /While the father Karol Hingis, coming from the Hungarian minority, doubly excluded, therefore, finds its way in teaching the game, Melanie escape to the West, in a strange country, neighboring Switzerland, through or with perhaps a second marriage./ – Google Translator

In addition, here is a diff, where other sources that were listed once are to find. Some of them were removed (including ones that may have been good enough), but still may be useful when analyse the situation.

For further reference, see Talk:Martina Hingis. – Thehoboclown (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The majority of sources seems to be the feedback of wikipedia. this media sometimes use the wikipedia as the source so its questionable. here is one example of source which used Thehoboclown http://www.happytimes.ch/news/news-welt/2638-martina-hinggis-hat-geheiratet-flitterwochen-auf-den-malediven.html Under the article its written Wikipedia as the source. I have removed next 2 sources with the feedback from Wikipedia. It exist no older article about her Hungarian father than 2008, when the questionable information was written in Wikipedia. It exists a lot of sources supporting her Slovak roots: http://books.google.com/books?id=kpEc8ltyqnUC&pg=PA426&dq=hingis+%22slovak%22&hl=sk&ei=bZFUTpbrO8abOur-7a0G&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=hingis%20%22slovak%22&f=false; The Economist: http://www.google.com/search?q=hingis+%22slovak%22&btnG=Vyh%C4%BEad%C3%A1vanie+kn%C3%ADh&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=sk#q=hingis+%22slovak%22&hl=sk&tbo=1&tbm=bks&ei=HZJUTtuqDY6cOrCv7agG&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=16de7d58f7d05c7d&biw=1680&bih=811

Somebody should check the relevance of these sources. We have to be sure that its not feedback to wikipedia, because it exist no older article about his hungarian origin than 2008 when this information was added. its exist only very vague hungarian article with his magyarized name Hingis Károly. This wrong information was at Wikipedia for a 3 years, so we must be careful. Slovak origin is well proved. --Samofi (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have next sources from google books that her father is Slovak with name Karol Hingis: http://books.google.com/books?id=pMqeR8yHCoUC&pg=PA56&dq=%22karol+hingis%22&hl=sk&ei=tM9UTseTOIqCOvisoZoG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22karol%20hingis%22&f=false

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22karol+hingis%22&btnG=Vyh%C4%BEad%C3%A1vanie+kn%C3%ADh&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=sk Hingis Karoly does not exist: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22karol+hingis%22&btnG=Vyh%C4%BEad%C3%A1vanie+kn%C3%ADh&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=sk#ds=bo&pq=%22hingis%20karoly%22&hl=sk&cp=10&gs_id=1m&xhr=t&q=%22hingis+k%C3%A1roly%22&pf=p&sclient=psy&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=%22hingis+k%C3%A1roly%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=16de7d58f7d05c7d&biw=1680&bih=811 --Samofi (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have next 2 sources which says that her father was Slovak tennis player (first 2 on the top - in german): http://scholar.google.sk/scholar?hl=sk&q=karol+hingis&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 "die Tochter des slowakischen Tennispielers Karol Hingis und der Tennisspielerin Melánie

Molitorová" from the google translate: "Slovak tennis player Karol's daughter and the tennis star Hingis Melanie Molitorová" - she is daughter of slovak tennis player and czech tennis player. --Samofi (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

May I kindly remind everyone that the query is neither about the name of Martina's dad nor about whether he is Slovakian (nobody dispute that he is, even the questioned sources confirm it). It's about whether the references listed at the top of the topic are reliable to verify the statement about the Hungarian descent.

Looking for third party opinion. – Thehoboclown (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Those sources listed at the top of the article although both express a whiff of uncertainty about the subject. If in doubt, de-emphasise nationality. Talking in general terms about national "descent", rather than specific nationalities or places of birth of specific ancestors, is unlikely to be a good idea in a region which have seen several major shifts of borders, governments, and populations over the last couple of centuries. It also attracts disputes. bobrayner (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Better to be safe than sorry for anything to do with any potentially sensitive subject affecting living people. If there is disagreement amongst sources, then maybe we just can't state anything about whatever there is disagreement about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant to say "Those sources... appear to be reliable" but the words didn't escape from my head onto the keyboard. bobrayner (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the wise words! So, if I understand well, you suggest that the complete sentence about her descent should be dropped from the lead and should rather refer to the city of birth? (Just like currently in the "Childhood and early career" paragraph in the article.) And the parents should be mentioned only by their names, without further remarks about their ethnicity? I think that would make sense! – Thehoboclown (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

So do you think that we should not write about ethnicity of the living people at Wikipedia? They are and they were a multiethnic countries. It was a Czechoslovakia durring her life. But she was born at Slovak part and she was Czech and Slovak with probably Magyar origin. Or can we remove the ethnicity of all Slovak sportsmen and sportswomen, or politicians whose has a Hungarian roots? --Samofi (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Bobreyner and Mr. Lancaster are right on the money. She is first and foremost a Swiss citizen. I removed the ethnicity info on the lede, since this is a praxis followed for many personalities of American citizenship but of other descent, however I left it in the first section "Early Childhood". I also entered a source from the American Hungarian Federation, which claims Hungarian descent for her father. That source IMO is more reliable than the Economist one (since the last one, doesn't have an author and as we all know "The Economist" doesn't focus on sports). It makes sense since it seems that the city has been Hungarian for 1000 years and there has been an exchange of population that has eventually reduced the size of the Hungarians in the 20th century. Divide et Impera (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The Economist doesn't name authors, preferring that every article should appear to come from the same pen. (Columns written by a regular contributor have pseudonyms, however). This does not mean that there is no author or that the content is less untrustworthy; the economist is generally rather reliable. Of course, a Hungarian sports paper may well be even better on this topic... bobrayner (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to present a very recent article by Nemzeti Sport, the leading sports paper in Hungary. (I don't know why, but Hungarian sources were declared unilaterally unreliable and biased on the talkpage of the article, however, I personally think it's like one can't use La Gazetta or BBC Sport to verify an information about an Italian or British person. In my opinion reliability depends on reputation, not on language. Tell me if I'm wrong.)

Here is the article, a portrait about Martina, and the related sentences:

"Martina Hingis pici volt, picit magyar is (bár inkább csehszlovák, de főleg svájci), és roppant tehetséges" /Martina Hingis was a tiny, little Hungarian as well (though more of Czechoslovakia, but especially in Switzerland), and very talented/ – Google Translator

"Volt egyszer egy cseh lány, aki nőül ment Szlovákiába egy magyar származású férfihez." /There once was a Czech girl who married a Hungarian origin man went to Slovakia./ – Google Translator

. – Thehoboclown (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Nemzeti_Sport, founded in 1903, is of course, one of the most authoritative sports publications in Hungary, and thus reliable, however, please provide a good translation from Hungarian, because your google translation is poor and may be misinterpreted. Divide et Impera (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes. First sentence is:

"Martina Hingis was little [referring to her height], a little Hungarian as well (although first Czechoslovakian, but foremost Swiss), and highly talented."

Second one says:

"There was once a Czech girl, who married to a man in Slovakia who was of Hungarian descent."

My bad, but I did only attach the google translations earlier to avoid complaints that I misconstruct the quotes. If in doubt, feel free to ask a human translator on Wiki to verify it. Regards, Thehoboclown (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot agree with Nemzeti Sport because of 3 reasons. 1. They used his magyarized name Karoly Hingis - this name doesnt exist. 2. In this newspaper is a lot of nationalistic sentiments and its not scholar 3. Its not neutral 3th party source according to WP:INDY. I think that in the controversial issues we should to prefer publications in English language, not sources with a national sentiment. In the articles about history of Hungarian Kingdom or Slovakia they are often deleted the Slovak sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B%C3%A1lint_Balassi&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:%C3%81nyos_Jedlik), or sources in non-english languages. her hungarian origin it absolutely minor theory, hungarian name of karoly hingis was used only in hungarian publication and it was used in Wikipedia for a 3 years. Durring this time it was created a lot of wikipedia´s feedbacks. we have a good english sources in publicated books written by sport expert whose say that her father is Slovak. "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English language sources of equal caliber and content, though the latter are allowed where appropriate." We have a "english language sources of equal caliber and content" whose say that her father is Slovak. --Samofi (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh, again the name issue. He is listed definitely as Karol Hingis in the parish register, as was born in Czechoslovakia. No question. And the global media took this name as it is official. Sure, as well. However, there are many who have ties with the country (are ethnic Hungarians) and are mentioned by their, well, as you say it, "magyarized" names. (Others might say native form of their name.) Quick examples are Jozef Gašpar, Pavol Adami, Peter Hunčík. None of them will appear in any media outside Hungary under these names, but this does not mean they are not exist or are not in use. This is the Hungarian naming convention and since it's a Hungarian paper it is just normal that they use this form.

About national sentiment. It's easy to impeach, but I think it speaks for itself, that the paper is cited by important foreign media. They would not if the paper would be biased or unreliable, would they? And would they risk their reputation they built up in long decades with such stuffs? It's neither a political daily nor a national propaganda. It's a sports paper.

The independence thing. Is Mr Hingis behind NS? Or behind Ringier? Did he write the article? – Thehoboclown (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone given any thought to the notion that the ethnicity of her parents aren't really relevant in an article about her? --Nuujinn (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Have asked somewhere in the early stage of the conversation to what about dropping the remarks about their ethnicity. Still support the idea. – Thehoboclown (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Would not appear to be particularly notable to the subject. MilborneOne (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Partly agreement: Firstly was Thehoboclown keen to add the state about her Hungarian ethnicity. Now when the majority of english sources say that she was czecho-slovak, he wants to drop her ethnicity out from the article. I will agree but than it sould be removed the ethnicity or descent of Jozef Gašpar, Peter Hunčík, Balász Borbély, Béla Bugár and other living persons from Slovakia. If not than this case will be the precedent for the further edits and it will legitimate to "drop their ethnicity out from the articles". And BTW Hungarian editors tried to add the ethnicity of her father to the article - they added it to the article and they have added the sources to this noticeboard. So according to reliable published sources - he is a Slovak citizen, from Slovak part of Czechoslovakia, living in Slovakia. He was the Slovak tennis player - its sourced by reliable sources. So okay, the ethnicity can be removed and she will be daughter of Slovak tennis player Karol Hingis and Czech tennis player Melanie from Czechoslovakia. It sounds neutral. Like Asamoah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Asamoah He is German footbaler and there is just a place of his birth, no ethnic group or tribe. --Samofi (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't go personal and don't twist my words around. I'm still keen to add it and still think that the sources are reliable. However, I'd also support the removal of the sentences to prevent further damage on the article and further fight over it. The factual correction of the statement is at least questionable, so in this special case it may be a solution to pull out those lines to avoid future embarrasment and painful situations.

On the other hand, we are still here to discuss the sources, and two third party opinion asserted Nemzeti Sport as reliable, so it might be time to expand the article with this info?! – Thehoboclown (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion here seems to get somewhat sidetracked. From what I understand, there's no doubt that Hingis' father belonged to the Hungarian speaking minority in Czecheslovakia. Obviously that doesn't need to mentioned in the lead, but it can be mentioned be elsewhere in the article. The discussion whether one trusts an individual source is a bit beside the point as the information is mentioned in several sources, that can be regarded as somewhat reliable. The Spiegel piece alone should be good enough, that's comparable to a publication in Newsweek or Time. That's it as far as reliable sources are concerned. The editorial question whether a reliable pice of information that can be included actually should be included, needs to be discussed on the article's talk page. This is an editorial decision that hasn't really anything to with sourcing.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There is another article from Nemzeti Sport,[12] cited:

• Hingis Károly....magyarul is folyékonyan beszél. Mi több, a nagymama, aki 86 évesen nemrégiben hunyt el, csak törte a szlovák nyelvet...
• Translation: Károly Hingis.... speaks Hungarian fluently too, and what is more, his grandmother, who has passed away lately at age of 86, broke the Slovak language....Fakirbakir (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

To sum this up:

1. Ethnicity shouldn't be mentioned in the lede, but only Swiss citizenship.
2. Mother: Mother is Czech, so we are mentioning ethnicity of her parents.
3. Father: Since we are mentioning ethnicity of parents, we should clearly say, for consistency, that her father is from the Hungarian minority of Czecheslovakia (now in modern Slovakia): IMO sources of Nemzeti Sport and the American Hungarian Association are more than sufficient and reliable (why would a respectable sports magazine and the main Hungarian association in the USA make Hungarians up if they are not Hungarians? They are both reliable sources.).
4. It is not important what's the citizenship of her parents now, then or in between, because that would be extremely confusing (saying for instance that the mother is of Czhechoslovak citizenship, and now she is a Swiss, or that father used to have Czhechoslovak citizenship, and now Slovak one), but we can safely say that she was born in Czhechoslovakia.
5. A travel guide is not a reliable source for this issue.
6. The article on "The Economist" is reliable but it is not touching on ethnicity, only on citizenship.Divide et Impera (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"Nationality" and "Ethnicity" are not the same thing. I could live with with specific mentions of nationality or ethnicity of parents if that's something that sources have already paid attention to, but further attempts to pigeonhole her as being "Of X origin", or insisting that the subject must belong in a category based on one parent's nationality, would not be acceptable. Be very clear about exactly what sources say; "Born in Spain" simply means born in Spain, it does not make a person ethnically Spanish (let alone their children), nor does it guarantee that they only hold a Spanish passport... bobrayner (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well we have several reputable sources stating nationality (citizenship) of the parents and their ethnic background and the same for Martina Hingis plus her place of birth. So all the info is there.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

which one is reputable who says that her father is of hungarian minority? nemzeti says that he can speak hungarian and his grandmother could not speek slovak (nemzeti is not neutral 3th party source). grandmother could be magyarized slovak. irish people speek english but they are irish. so the knowledge of the language is not the ethnicity. lot of slovaks in hungary or slovakia speaks hungarian as a mother tongue. second source is the source from the nationalistic association of hungarians. look this from the article: "Martina Hingis was born on September 30, 1980 in Kassa, part of Northern Hungary from 896 - 1920, (now called Kosice by Slovakia)" Kosice become city in the 1241 - Cassovia and was founded at 1230 at Villa Cassa. Article is just propaganda of one opinion. Next: "Martina Hingis - (b. 9/30/1980, Kassa, [now called Kosice after Czech and Slovak annexation])" Kosice were joined to Czechoslovakia because of Treaty of Trianon, its peace treaty, but this nationalistic organization probably dont recognize the Treaty of Trianon. Its totaly propagandistic article. And its kind a blog, everyone can write there: The American Hungarian Federation® does not necessarily endorse the content or opinions expressed by its individual members and member organizations. Its not realiable. We can just a write that Karol Hingis can speak Hungarian. --Samofi (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"which one is reputable who says that her father is of hungarian minority?"

This one:

"... und die schweizer Tennisspielerin Martina Hingis (slowakischer Vater aus der ungarischen Minderheit)." /...and the Swiss tennis player Martina Hingis (Slovak father of the Hungarian minority)/

and this one:

"Volt egyszer egy cseh lány, aki nőül ment Szlovákiába egy magyar származású férfihez." / "There was once a Czech girl, who married to a man in Slovakia who was of Hungarian descent."

And before you question the reliability of sources, may I remind you that they were told reliable by a number third party sides. It is crystal clear you don't think that they are, you don't have to repeat yourself. This disagreement over the sources led us here. We got the answer. Don't hesitate to add the source from above, which you feel the best fit the statement. – Thehoboclown (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

TIME Techland

Is Techland considered an independent reliable source for Wikipedia articles whose subjects contain WP:REDFLAG claims? At first glance I assumed staffing and editorial oversight by Time (magazine), but it looks like it might possibly be a series of blog entries written by "contributors". Lloyd Pye presently cites this Techland page, however I note that the page cites our own wikipedia article. Opinions appreciated. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a RS. It is one of several specialized blogs published by TIME, with their staff as editors and contributors. It's okay for a RS to quote Wikipedia. I don't think the source makes any redflag claims, or really any claims at all. It just quotes Pye about the alien theory. Brmull (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well no, if an RS quotes Wikipedia for something we can not use that RS for that particular thing. That would be circular sourcing. Is the information being sourced amongst information which seems to come from Wikipedia?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No the information being sourced is in another part of the article. That's why I think it's okay. Brmull (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Xrentdvd

Is http://www.xrentdvd.com/ a reliable source for biographical information? It's used as a source in at least a dozen WP:BLP articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I know people will disagree but I tend to accept a lot of these sources for BLPs on topics for which RS are lacking. The caveat is that I would only use them for interviews, e.g. She has said she likes men who are bald.(ref) I know WP:PORN uses them for other things like infobox stats. That's pretty dicey. Much of this info is probably wrong since fake personas are pretty much the norm in the adult industry. Brmull (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable with this. I can't find anything regarding the authors of these interviews, and, as you point out, in any event the people in the industry are notorious for projecting fake personas. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I put a note on the project talk page so hopefully some of those editors can give their perspective on this. Brmull (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the website could be considered a RS only to establish the existence (or cast) of a particular video—and even for that, there are better sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

According to Google there are about 35 BLP pages in the porn project that cite XrentDVD interviews. So it would be good to know what are those better sources. If we just go through and take stuff out it's going get very acrimonious. Brmull (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Interviews are a tough call. Personally, I think most celebrity interviews are unreliable, and porn stars' moreso. But is an XRentDVD interview any less reliable than, say, one in Playboy? or People, for that matter? Honestly, how much fact-checking do you think is done for any celebrity interview? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I would think that a Playboy or People interviewer would be much more familiar with professional journalistic standards than whoever it is that does the interviews on this "Adult DVD" rental/purchase website. And I believe (albeit perhaps naively) that these publications do at least do some fact-checking, if only to avoid the possibility of lawsuits. A real magazine has assets and owners who can be sued, and they like to avoid that. Playboy in particular is not a very good comparison, in my opinion, because for decades it was well-known for the quality of its interviews and the wide variety of its interview subjects. I don't know it that's still true for Playboy. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Playboy and People have editorial staff and while they may not be the most reliable sources in regard to celebrity data, they do meet the basic criteria for reliable sources. What kind of editorial staff does xrentdvd have? And do they have a reputation for any kind of fact checking? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so assume the worst-case scenario that XrentDVD and the porn stars are fabricating these interviews and XrentDVD.com is only constrained by the desire to avoid a libel suit. What do we do then? Removing this source from all those articles is a major problem without buy-in from editors of the WP:PORN proect. Brmull (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Each case would have to be taken on it's own merit. 35 articles is not much, and I think it very much depends on what is being sourced. My guess, and I have not looked, is that a good bit of it would be trivial material probably not worth including. How bad could it be, it's not like we're talking about pokemon characters? (I say, running away quickly) --Nuujinn (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay I picked at random Naomi_(pornographic_actress). References #3 and #4 are XrentDVD. They could be taken out without too much difficulty and some of the material resourced to IAFD. But IAFD probably got the info from XrentDVD, since it is a user-edited database similar to IMDB. If we take out IAFD and related sites, we're left with one cite, AVN, which at least has editorial oversight--although it's unclear if its track record is any better than the other sources. Bottom line: is this undertaking making Wikipedia any better? I'm not sure it is. Brmull (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think one could equally argue that WP is worse off having articles on every porn "star", pro-athelete, movie, anime, or village regardless of the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, but that's not really a question for this venue, and I suppose that Naomi is notable based on the awards she's received. Does IAFD review material submitted as IMDB does? XrentDVD strikes me as suspect partly because it's rental site and apparently does no fact checking, and if IAFD does any fact checking, resourcing would be a step in the right direction. Also, just a nit, I note that the interview on XrentDVD does not say she was born in LA, but rather that she was raised there. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:BLP is pretty clear that it's better to have no information in a biography than to have dubious information, and WP:BLP is a pretty powerful tool when it comes to removing unreliably sourced material. I say just remove the material, referring editors to this discussion, and if they still object/revert, rapidly escalate the sanctions available under WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If we can't trust that details in article are factually accurate... why do we have fictography in an encyclopædia?

If made-up porn personas are relatively consistent (ie. consistent details are reused for multiple interviews / listings; the pornstar doesn't just make up new stuff each time) and if it's hard to get the other, "true" biographical details, then I would say this is also a WP:INUNIVERSE problem: If we are to have articles on porn personas then we need to make it very clear that these are mostly-fictional biographies rather than real ones. Treat them more like Renee Montoya or Miss Marple. No? bobrayner (talk) 10:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting thought. But it begs the questions as to how we know that all such personas are made up (do we have some source reliable enough to make such a blanket statement?), and if not, how would we determine, in an individual case, that a persona is not accurate in the absence of reliably source data to the contrary? I'm not sure I see a way to make either of those cases. But here, the issue is simply is the xrentdvd site reliable. I tend to think it is not, but I readily admit that the argument that the fact that the material in the sample case is from an interview carries some weight, since presumably if the subject felt the material was inaccurate, she could correct/refute the material in another venue. And we are allowed to use SPS (and an interview is basically an SPS) for non-controversial material, and this case seems to be one of self-identification. I did take the liberty of removing the bit about her father, since that's not a claim about her. My suggestion would be to take the issue of whether to have this particular material in the article to the BLPN, since we're leaving the territory dealt with in this venue. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I got push back trying to remove the bit about her dad, so I took my own advice and brought it up at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Naomi_.28pornographic_actress.29 --Nuujinn (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(came here via the article talk page) I also agree that this is unreliable for a BLP. In general, I would not rely on anything claimed by someone using a pseudonym. Why should we believe anything she says? we have no way of substantiating it independently because we dont even know her name. She could very well be claiming a religion (1) she wants to confuse anyone trying to uncover her RL name and (2) cover up for her own real religion that she is now embarrassed to confess to. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Zaza people

In the Zaza people article, User:Wikisupporting added an ethnocentric point of view, which contains POV materials, using reference which does not correspond to the content #[13]. And more seriously, apart from adding POV material, the user is erasing other academically referenced sources about different theories. Another serious matter is that User:Wikisupporting, not only ignores but most importantly prevents other users editions, by erasing other objective, impartial and politically neutral academic theories about this article and engaging in edit wars, with other registered users on this. Unfortunately this user is abusing and violating Wikipedia policies, and his/her edition was restored before the Zaza people article became fully protected. Could this user’s edition be reverted and the previous impartial edition be restored? Importantly that this article be monitored by users who are knowledgeable on this topic and non-political and neutral. --Menikure (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is fully protected and a request by this editor for semi-protection was declined. THe issue is now at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard which is where it belongs, so will any interested parties please go there and not reply here. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, wrong about that. Menikure has never attempted to discuss anything with anyone anywhere (including his/her own talk page), so this belongs at Talk:Zaza people. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Name of Minister of Agriculture and Forestry in Central Equatoria State in the Republic of South Sudan

Dear editor,

This is my first contact with you.I question the source of information concerning the names of Ministers in Central Equatoria State of South Sudan.As I write this comment I am the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry in Central Equatoria state. I suggest that you update the web based on reliable source of infromation from our Central Equatoria State Government Secretariat. I hope I have helped in contributing to the credibility of the web.

Regards

Michael Roberto Kenyi,M.Sc.Agric(Food Security) Minister of Agriculture and Forestry Central equatoria State The Repub;ic of South Sudan Juba E-M:michael_kenyi@yahoo.com

• Done. Brmull (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Mardy Fish

This fairly weak source is being used to claim that tennis player Mardy Fish is Jewish. This despite the fact that Fish was asked in an interview if he was going to convert to Judaism, his wife's faith (draw your own conclusion). Can someone go over to that page and straighten it out? It's been incorrectly claiming Fish is Jewish for a few months and making Wikipedia look silly. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue is settled. But in general when RS conflict and one is a direct quote, I give that one more weight. Brmull (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of Barkun in Conspiracy theory

Barkun, Michael (2003). A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. University of California Press. ISBN 0520238052.

A question has been raised at the talk page for Conspiracy theory as to whether Barkun's work above should be considered a primary or secondary source for the article, so I'm soliciting opinions from uninvolved editors. There are some reviews of the book at the WP page for it, if anyone is interested. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would anyone consider it a primary source?--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at the talk page. There seems to be some confusion there. There's reference to an email from Barkun as a "primary source" and there seems to be later use of the phrase "primary source" to mean mean "principal source" or "main source" - which is one of the legitimate meanings of "primary" of course, but which confuses the issue somewhat. I don't think an email from a scholar is a primary source as such, but it is the equivalent of self-published and there are problems of verifiability. Obviously the book is not a primary source. Paul B (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not concerned with the letter, since using that would violate NOR. I think Barkun is clearly a secondary source for this article, but Mystichumwipe disagrees, please see [14] and [15]. There are lots of other problems, but I figure we have do deal with them one at a time. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

My problem with Barkun's work is not its RS (it clearly is) but its WP:WEIGHT in the article. The following sources showed that “theory of conspiracy” and “conspiracy theory” were and are often synonymous to each other (contradicting Barkun's position):

Bratich, Jack Z. (2010) Conspiracy panics: political rationality and popular culture SUNY

Clarke, Roger (1985) Industrial economics Wiley-Blackwell Page 64

Coady David (2006) "Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate" Ashgate Publishing

Coady, David, (2007) "Conspiracy Theories" Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology - Volume 4, Issue 2, 2007, Edinburgh University Press E-ISSN: 1750-0117 Print ISSN: 1742-3600 DOI: 10.1353/epi.2007.0019 pp. 131-134

Fenster Mark (2008) "Conspiracy theories: secrecy and power in American culture" University of Minnesota Press

Cubitt, G. T (1989) "Conspiracy myths and Conspiracy theories" Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford Vol 20 No 1 pg 12-26

Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008) Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies Wiley

Jones, Gareth; Rick Arrandale (2007) The Blackwell Companion to Modern Theology Wiley-Blackwell Page 360

Keeley, Brian L. ["Of Conspiracy Theories"] The Journal of Philosophy (published by Columbia University], Vol. 96, No. 3. (Mar., 1999), pp. 109-126. ("Conspiracy theories as a general category are not necessarily wrong. In fact as the cases of Watergate and the Iran-Contra affair illustrate...")

Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9

Parker, Martin; Jane Parish (2001) "The age of anxiety: conspiracy theory and the human sciences" Wiley-Blackwell

The Wiley-Blackwell Dictionary of Modern European History Since 1789 Wiley-Blackwell Page 119, 305

Vallabhaneni, S. Rao (2005) Wiley CIA Exam Review, Conducting the Internal Audit Engagement: Volume 2 Wiley-Blackwell Page 430

Young, Katherine K.; Paul Nathanson (2010) Sanctifying misandry: goddess ideology and the Fall of Man McGill-Queen University Press ISBN 9780773538733 pg 275

Zernike, Kate (April 30, 2011) "The Persistence of Conspiracy Theories" New York Times

This should have been posted to Wikipedia:NPOVN and not here but we play the cards we are dealt.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

BruceGrubb, we'll deal with that issue as well and we can take up the POV issues in the talk page or the NPOVN as you like. Right now, here, I'd like to keep the focus on the question of whether Barkun is a primary or secondary source. I think it helps to deal with one issue at a time when things get complicated. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

BruceGrubb, those sources are not relevant to this board or the question being raised here. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, Barkun is not inventing, promoting, or the subject of conspiracy theories. Rather, he is an academic expert writing about them; he is obviously a secondary source. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As WP:SECONDARY explains Barkun could be both primary and secondary source and which a particular part of that work is depends on context. So the issue here is Barkun's definition of conspiracy theory based on other research (secondary) or his own (primary). This was the major problem the Jesus myth theory article had--the definitions of what Christ-Jesus Myth theory was were all primary ie the view of each individual author or editor (or in the case of Grant parroting a definition from previous sources which in that case turned out to be high questionable). In that case we just put every major definition in the lead in; sure it isn't pretty but for the sake of NPOV we are aren't interesting in pretty.

"The issue of conspiracism versus rational criticism is a tough one, and some people (Jodi Dean, for example) argue that the former is simply a variety of the latter. I don't accept this, although I certainly acknowledge that there have been conspiracies. They simply don't have the attributes of almost superhuman power and cunning that conspiracists attribute to them. A sure sign that we have gone past the boundaries of rational criticism is the conspiracy theory that's nonfalsifiable. Such a theory is a closed system of ideas which "explains" contradictory evidence by claiming that the conspirators themselves planted it." (Interview: Michael Barkun)

Given the above examples have examples of conspiracy theories that do NOT have "superhuman power and cunning" attributed to them it seems safe to say as far as definition is concerned Barkun by his own words is a primary source.

Again I point to the Zernike New York Time article which states:

"Other historians argue that past government lies, particularly in the past half-century, have helped fuel conspiracy theories, by giving Americans reasons to suspect their leaders. (“See, I’m not paranoid, I’m right.”)

So on InfoWars, the Web site of the hypervigilant radio host Alex Jones, a list of “33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out to Be True” leads from the deceptions of the Gulf of Tonkin and Iran-contra and then moves to accusations of plots by the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve."

As I point out in the article Alex Jones Infowar list is a wild mix of the confirmed (Dreyfus Affair, Sicilian Mafia, Project MKULTRA, Operation Mockingbird, Watergate, Tuskegee syphilis experiment, Operation Northwoods, Nayirah (testimony), Iran-Contra Affair, CIA drug trafficking, Business Plot, Project Valkyrie, 1953 Iranian coup d'état, Operation Snow White, Operation Gladio, and Black Sox Scandal ), the boardline (John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories) and the tin foil hat (New World Order (conspiracy theory)). But they ALL are called "conspiracy theories".--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I should point out that Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies by Wiley states "A conspiracy theory is the idea that someone, or a group of someones, acts secretly, with the goal of achieving power, wealth, influence, or other benefit. It can be as small as two petty thugs conspiring to stickup a liquor store, or as big as a group of revolutionaries conspiring to take over their country's government." Not only does this define what a conspiracy theory is but it also defines its scope. Mind telling use jow how Barkun equates "two petty thugs conspiring to stickup a liquor store" to "attributes of almost superhuman power and cunning"?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I see what you did there. "Two petty thugs conspiring to stickup a liquor store" isn't a "conspiracy theory"; it is simply an act of conspiracy. There is nothing theoretical about it. Barkun never equates simple "conspiracy" to "conspiracy theory", so your straw man question is moot. Christopher Hodapp and Alice Von Kannon's assertion about who can be conspirators (i.e., even two thugs) does not conflict with Barkun's definition of conspiracy theories, if you read the rest of the text from which you extracted that quote. In fact, in agreement with Barkun, they acknowledge that "A conspiracy theory is a way of looking at a single event and postulating that maybe there's a lot more to it than can be seen on the surface, with darker forces behind the whole thing." Xenophrenic (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Your OR interpretation of Hodapp doesn't mean squat; here are some more that lambasts Barkun's definition:

"What is a conspiracy theory? The discussion so far suggests that a conspiracy theory is simply a conspiratorial explanation, and that an explanation is conspiratorial if it postulates a group of agents working together in secret, often, though perhaps not always, for a sinister purpose. This definition is consistent with our intuitive responses to many cases. It fits paradigmatic conspiracy theories, such as those according to which Lee Harvey Oswald not acting alone kill John F. Kennedy and those according to which James Earl Ray did not acting alone kill Martin Luther King." (Coady David (2006) "Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate" Ashgate Publishing pg 2)

"a conspiracy theory that has been proven (for example, that President Nixon and his aides plotted to disrupt the course of justice in the Watergate case) is usually called something else—investigative journalism, or just well-researched historical analysis." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 17)

"As a publicly known and “proven” conspiracy, Watergate has a unique status, in that it serves to validate other conspiracy theories. From the time these interconnected conspiracies became known, Watergate was the measure against which other conspiracy theories could be judged." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9, pg 730)

"Under this legal definition of conspiracy, it becomes clear that federal prosecutors have often promoted conspiracy theories: examples include the actions of the Chicago Seven at the 1968 Democratic Convention, the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the Murrah Federal Building bombing in 1995, and some cases associated with the post–9/11 terror/war." (Bratich, Jack Z. (2008) Conspiracy panics: political rationality and popular culture SUNY pg 4)

"Conspiracy theory is thus a bridge term--it links subjugating conceptual strategies (paranoid style, political paranoia, conspiracism) to narratives that investigate conspiracies (conspiratology, conspiracy research, conspiracy account). Conspiracy theory is a condensation of all of the above, a metaconcept signifying the struggles of the meaning of the category. We need to recognized that we are on the bridge when we use the term." (sic) (Bratich, Jack Z. (2008) Conspiracy panics: political rationality and popular culture SUNY pg 6)

Coady's definition raises problem of with the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations ruling back in 1979 where does that leave the conspiracy theory that Lee Harvey Oswald did not acting alone to kill John F. Kennedy?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Most publications, especially academic publications (be they books, monologues, peer-reviewed articles), are inherently a mix of primary and secondary research. To the extent that the source reviews or characterizes existing research, the source is secondary; to the extent it synthesizes ideas to formulate new ideas or describes new data or experimentation, the source is primary. Michael Barkun's A Culture of Conspiracy book appears to me to be very much a secondary source, and contains a sizable bibliography of the research he reviews. It also seems to me that the Conclusions chapter of his book could potentially be used to map the specific parts of his book in which he is proposing new ideas, so that we can ignore those. John Shandy` • talk 20:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"To the extent that the source reviews or characterizes existing research, the source is secondary; to the extent it synthesizes ideas to formulate new ideas or describes new data or experimentation, the source is primary." No, no, no. That's absolutely not the distinction betweeen a primary and a secondary source. A scholar's job is to synthesise ideas and formulate new ones. That's what makes a secondary source. If the book contains quotations from original documents etc, those will be primary sources quoted by the scholar. You have the definition of primary and secondary sources back to front. Paul B (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I made a semantic mistake in not distinguishing "research" vs. "sources," then. For example, consider a peer-reviewed article in an academic journal, which in just about all cases is a piece of original research unless it is a review article of some type (perhaps a quarterly or annual review, which journals do sometimes publish). Within those works of original research, there are usually sections that are used to introduce the reader to the lay of the land in terms of the prevailing literature (and may engage in some level of synthesis), and such sections are usually the introduction or may (depending on the style and format preferred by the journal) a section outright named "Literature review" - these sections are not original research, but secondary research. The remainder of the paper is original or primary research. Original vs. secondary research is more what I was talking about, and I would stand by my points in that context. I admittedly assumed that there probably wasn't much of a difference between that and "primary vs. secondary sources." Nevertheless, I think it's valid to note that a source can be mixed. However, scholarly publications that show new data, the results of new experiments, or that introduce a new theory or model, are certainly works of original research - a dissertation, which is functionally very similar to a journal article, would also be considered original research. It has long been my (and other editors I've interacted with) understanding that works of original research are predominantly primary sources, but that their secondary research contents which summarize and characterize information are great elements for supporting content in wiki articles, due to their "secondary account" nature. So either you and I are talking about different things because I got my terminology all haywire, or you have a very different idea about what constitutes secondary research than I do. Nevertheless, my position is that Barkun is a notable scholar and the particular book in question is a reliable secondary source, even if I ended up there in a roundabout or mistaken manner. I'd appreciate you clearing this up for me; WP:RS is only slightly helpful in its distinctions and this is my first time participating here at WP:RSN. Cheers, John Shandy` • talk 23:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that primary,secondary, tertiary sources are ill defined terms, changing their meaning somewhat based on context and particular perspective. Depending on the particular viewpoint many publications are simply a mix anyhow. Hence it is more important to focus on the scholarly reputation, quality and reliability of the publication and author rather than having a somewhat fuzzy argument between primary, secondary and tertiary (which is an invitation to wikilawyering).--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I agree that those qualities are more important. John Shandy` • talk 04:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The book's publisher is University of California Press, considered an "A* category press".[16] The author is a emeritus professor of political science from a major research university in the United States.[17] That should be good enough for nearly all of our purposes. NW (Talk) 14:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Except when it conflicts with sources published by Ashgate Publishing, ABC-CLIO, Columbia University, McGill-Queen University, SUNY, University of Minnesota Press, and Wiley-Blackwell which is another part of WP:RS--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If other notable scholars disagree, then that fact can be included. It's irrelevant to the question of whether the book is reliable or not. Paul B (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This shows you are forgetting the "The reliability of a source depends on context" part of WP:RS. It is not a question of the book or author being reliable but if the statement being made is reliable. For example, Ingle's Endodontics 5th edition said (i)n the 1930s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection" a statement that could be shown to be totally unreliable as peer reviewed article clear into the 1950s:

"Today the concept of focal infection has been integrated into the practice of medicine. One speaks no longer of the theory of focal infection ; one recognizes focal infection as a definite pathologic condition requiring scientific diagnosis and treatment." (1947 Journal of the American Medical Association Volume 133:2 page 111)

"Although in recent years the concept of focal infection has narrowed considerably in scope, its fundamental principle is still valid", (Galloway, Thomas C. M.D. (1957) "Relation of Tonsillectomy and Adenoidectomy to Poliomtyelitis" JAMA. 1957;163(7):519-521. doi: 10.1001/jama.1957.02970420001001)

As the above shows the reliability of the author and publisher had nothing to do with the reliability of the statement as in that case it could be shown beyond any reasonable doubt the statement was wrong ie unreliable.

In this case the other sources show that Barkun's definition is nonstandard and therefore is unreliable for the lead. Barkun would be reliable in the article's body for comparison and contract but that is not where Barkun is being used.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"This shows you are forgetting the 'The reliability of a source depends on context' part of WP:RS" What utter garbage. The "context" concerns the relevance to the topic and the expertise of the person. Your characteristic sophistry and graphomanic listing of wholly irrelevant material totally unreleted to the topic can't change the plain meaning of the policy. Paul B (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly right, Paul. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Then you both are claiming that books by Ashgate Publishing, ABC-CLIO, Columbia University, McGill-Queen University, SUNY, University of Minnesota Press, and Wiley-Blackwell are unreliable simply because they conflict with a source you prefer--THAT is garbage. Barkun himself admits "The issue of conspiracism versus rational criticism is a tough one, and some people (Jodi Dean, for example) argue that the former is simply a variety of the latter." Jodi Dean is a Professor of Political Science at Hobart and William smith with a PHD. Are you two now saying Jodi Dean doesn't know what she is talking about?--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No, they are stating that it is fine for other scholars to have differing opinions. You are acting as if we can only ever present one view in an article and all sources from another point of view are unreliable because they aren't about this particular point of view. And that is most definitely not how things work around here. Silverseren^C 16:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering that part of issue with Barkun's definition was that it was being pushed as part of the lead while others that said otherwise were kept out I find this a curious position. I should mention the editor that started this has moved everything but the definition from the lead which now has no reference what so ever.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Pitt Principle - Poor and sadly common hiring practice in the upper-structure of large organizations.

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

---

Needs to be defined and discussed... Thank You,

PLEASE SEE : http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/01/opinion/the-pitt-principle.html

By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: November 01, 2002 NY Times

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

YouTube as a reliable source

I would like to add additional information to several articles. The information I want to add can be seen in a YouTube video of the conference that is videotaped. I was told that YouTube videos were not a good reference, but if it is a documentation of the conference, why would it not be a good reference?KarenL8426 (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The WP Policy states: In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher, but even then should be used with caution. So they can be used, but it's on a case by case basis. What is exact issue in question? Brmull (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It all depends on who put up the video; in reality Youtube isn't the source, it's just the host, and the uploader is really the publisher. If the conference organisers uploaded the footage then I'd say it's a reliable source. Its comparable to you copying a news story from the BBC site and then putting it up on yours: on the BBC site it would be reliable, on your own it is not. Betty Logan (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We really need more information. But a few notes:

• Videos assumed to be from a primary source need to be demonstrably from the primary source. The community has rejected videos that look legit but without verification that the uploader was actually affiliated with the subject. Reasoning is that there is a slim possibility that the video was modified. It is mainly a knee-jerk reaction to incorrect use of YouTube over the years.
• If the video is intended to be a secondary source (much like a newspaper or academic journal would be used) then you need to show that the conference organizers or speakers are considered reputable (vetted, knowledgeable, and so on) enough to be a reliable source.
• Copyright issues are another common concern. For example, if it is YouTube video of a local news station's coverage than it is probably a copyright violation.
• For detailed information see an essay (not guideline or policy) Wikipedia:Video links.

If you want, you can simply say where the video is and what it is for and the community will look into it more. Don't actually link to it if you see any chance that there is a copyright issue.

Cptnono (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

www.ieeeghn.org

• - www.ieeeghn.org/wiki

Hi - www.ieeeghn.org - usage on en wikipedia - is this ..wiki.. a reliable source WP:RS to support claims about living people in the body of an article? Off2riorob (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be a closed wiki with some editorial review. I looked at a random article, [18], and it seemed to be high quality. My concern would be that the material may be essentially self-supplied by the subjects, but I'd assume they are vetted enough to screen out any extraordinary claims. Is there a particular article you're asking about?   Will Beback  talk  01:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It may be a wiki, but the IEEE are sticklers for accuracy. Of course reliability isn't boolean - it depends on the claim and the article - but unless the content is controversial / disputed / irreconcilable with another source, I'd see no cause for concern at this point. I hit the random button a few times and each article looked reasonable enough, seemingly soberly written by SMEs (editors are generally IEEE members) but with some element of editorial review. Some pages are "oral histories" (example) which I suppose you might consider a primary source, but they seem to be carefully transcribed interviews with industry experts, making the context of the interview (and the interviewer) clear. bobrayner (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the detail - right now I even forget which specific article it was - I would have to look back in my history to find it. It was an article where the only support was that http://www.ieeeghn.org/ and I was thinking of AFDing the bio and then I went there and thought it was an open wiki and then I searched to see how and where it was used on en wiki and it seemed quite well used so, I was wondering but you seem happy with it so its likely ok. I will look later when I have time to find the specific article that aroused my interest, thanks.Off2riorob (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Academic research (book - Religious commodifications in Asia: marketing gods) as reliable source?

There is a problem about the credibility of the cited quotation from the chapter of the book as [[19]] - Tong, Joy (2008). Religious commodifications in Asia: marketing gods. Psychology Press. pp. 186. ISBN 9780415437387.

The book name is Religious commodifications in Asia: marketing gods. For chapters, that book is made up of different academic research papers. The brief information about the book is at [[20]]. Each academic research paper has its own author. All the chapters mean all different authors wrote different academic papers known as original research. These authors could not be determined whether they are academic research students or professors. All these papers are compiled into one book. Its editor and author of that book is Pattana Kitiarsa, a visiting fellow to National University of Singapore.

I wonder if the cited quotation [[21]] added by Elle is accepted or not. Elle argued that the quotation about the link between City Harvest Church and McDonald/Disney church is based on the case study [[22]]. But I told her that Wikipedia is not for case studies and academic research (WP:NOTCASE). But she "referred" me to see Wikipedia:Systemic bias. But the problem is that the credibility of the cited quotation from original research is questionable. Based on her comments on CHC talk page [[23]] I can feel that she hopes to see the acceptance of the "bias" despite the quotation comes from the academic research book.

I need some advices. Can case studies and academic research papers still be used for reliable sources despite Wikipedia does not allow itself to be part of the case study and academic research? The cited book mentioned as above (1st paragraph) is academic research and seems to be original research. Can it be used if it is found out to be reliable source?

My apology and thanks. Kimberry352 (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Academic books are often composed of monographs. This publisher is well-known, and the editor is on the faculty at NUS. The author is a post-doc at Purdue. There is no prohibition against using case studies or ethnographies as sources for Wikipedia. So yes this is a reliable source. Nonetheless it is important to use precise, neutral language when discussing controversial claims: The phrase "selling God" for example is unnecessarily inflammatory. Also the statement in question should not be in the lede because is it is not explained further in the article. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article. Brmull (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the reply. Since City Harvest Church, one of the megachurches in Singapore, is chosen for the case study with NUS academic team, it suggests that other megachurches such as New Creation Church (NCC) and Faith Community Baptist Church (FCBC) do not follow McDonald/Disney style as CHC". In other words, there is polarization between CHC and other megachurches in Singapore. According to the experiences in these churches, they sell "God" to the consumers. However, the cited book shows only CHC is involved in selling "God". The problem lies on the point of view on the way how different churches "sell God" to gain what they want. In fact, FCBC has Lawerence Khong who performs magic to reach out the people and still continues to apply magic performance to gain salavation of people. [[24]]. NCC has its futuristic building in One-North (formally known as The Star) shopping mall/retail entertainment [[25]] and Joseph Prince of NCC works with oversea megachurches such as Hillsong Church from Australia and Lakewood Church from USA (more than once) [[26]] which are discriminated by those people in their countries for being "Disney/McDonald church selling God as commodity". The problem is the point of view towards "selling God" as commodity in the case study such that NUS (National University of Singapore) selected CHC for academic research without looking to other megachurches. Kimberry352 (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I have rectified the lead concerns (I first inserted it into the lead because I was lazy -- I intended to come back). These concerns are OR concerns that are not reasons to reject a reliable source -- they picked CHC as a case study -- without prejudice against the other megachurches. You can't oppose a reliable source with claims that you invented. Btw, I am sympathetic to your systemic bias concerns. The only reason why I haven't started on NCC or FCBC is because I have yet to look up sources for those institutions. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Elle, I see.. So is your objective is to find the reliable source to paint megachurches as negative?Kimberry352 (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No, my intention is to write a neutral article, free of promotionalism. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

what do you define by "promotionalism"? In fact, the quotation has some degree of bias but it would be better if you can re-phrase the cited quote from the case study-based academic research? The most important question that you never answer is whether you have actually read the entire cited chapter of the acamedic research done by NUS (National University of Singapore) and its other university partner before you took an action to add the controversial quotation. You should know well that McDonald/Disney church is a controversial topic which should have beenwell verified by other sources with endorsement of reliable people/organization with profession. Kimberry352 (talk) 04:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing article content to online catalogs.

In the article Modern liberalism in the United States, there is a curious passage in the section "Liberal" as a derogatory epithet [27]:

"The Conservative Book Service sells a talking doll of Coulter that says, among other things, "Liberals hate America".[96]"

This passage is sourced to an online catalog: [28]. This seems like a highly dubious source, especially given that no secondary sources mention the doll or the catalog entry, and the doll does not use the word liberal as an epithet. Does this source qualify as a reliable source? aprock (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The text says that The Conservative Book Service sells a particular doll; the link is to the company's webpage selling the doll in question. The text I suggest follows the rule for using a primary source in WP:OR "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Rjensen (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that this statement is being used to support the notion of "liberal" as a derogatory epithet. The statement can only verify the existence of a talking Ann Coulter doll for sale which plays a soundclip of Ann Coulter saying "Liberals hate America." It cannot be extended to support the theme of this section of the article, and it cannot be synthesized with the theme of this section of the article; such uses constitute original research, and an encyclopedia must be secondary research in that it must charactize and summarize reliable sources without using such sources to advance a position that they themselves do not explicitly posit. As an academic yourself, I cannot understand why you think the use of the Ann Coulter doll isn't original research. Reliable sources are great, but misusing them is unencyclopedic and unacceptable by Wikipedia's standards. Wikipedia demands better of us. Statistics are also great, but can be misused or be misleading; and I would liken that phenomenon to the way that some of the sources in this section are being used. Linking to a product page for a talking Kent Hovind doll that says "Evolutionists hate America" would be an erroneous way of supporting other sources that argue "evolutionist" is used as a derogatory epithet, because to do so requires synthesis of the existence of the doll with the sources that contain actual discourse on the label's use as a derogatory epithet; such synthesis is original research. I don't think I can make it any clearer than that! John Shandy` • talk 02:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that "Liberals hate America" is a statement that any "educated person, with access to the source" would understand as a use of "liberal" as a derogatory epithet. Of course, in addition to the primary source, we need a secondary source identifying Ann Coulter and characterizing her views. It seems to me to parallel the common form of using references in research. For example, I recently co-authored a paper on Polish mathematics, and referenced a quote from Hermann Grassmann's "A New Branch of Mathematics" (a primary source) and also referenced a secondary source, "A Half Century of Polish Mathematics" identifying Grassmann as an important mathematician born in Poland. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but while I agree it's an example personally, Wikipedia demands that such a connection be explicit. Also, I presume you're an academic and so your paper is probably a work of original research, meant to make an original contribution to the body of knowledge concerning Polish mathematics. Wikipedia isn't meant to make original contributions to knowledge, only characterize the landscape of knowledge that has been published by third parties. Let me refer to an example from another article I edit which I feel is illustrative of the problem I see here. In the archives (here specifically) for Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory), an editor proposed that we use a quote by Prince Philip ("In the event I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus to solve the problem that is human over population.") to demonstrate an example of a motivating factor for conspiracists' belief in a population control agenda on behalf of a NWO, in the section New World Order (conspiracy theory)#Population control. There, another editor pointed out that we would need a reliable source that explicitly suggests that conspiracy theorists acknowledge/believe Philip's comment as evidence of such a population control agenda. Even though we as editors can see how Philip's comment demonstrates a likely motivator for the beliefs of conspiracists paranoid about population control, we still need a source to say so, for the sake of making the article in question encyclopedic. Rjensen isn't "wrong" about the Ann Coulter doll being a particularly good example of liberal as an epithet in popular culture, in my opinion. However, we need a source to make the connection so that we can be characterizing and summarizing, rather than synthesizing. That's all I am trying to get at. John Shandy` • talk 16:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

the primary source is the doll itself. the secondary source is the web page describing the doll, which is what was cited. Rjensen (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The source is being used to exemplify a position that itself does not posit, and that is not established by any other source cited in that section. It is original research to use the source this way, and it's really no different than the numerous examples I've illustrated. Simply find a source that states that people view the Ann Coulter doll as an example of people using liberal as a derogatory epithet, rather than genuine opposition to liberalism, and it can stay as it is presently. Even though ourselves may consider the doll an example, and even if that is common knowledge among others, the doll needs to be explicitly characterized as an example by a reliable secondary source. So far, such a source has not been presented. I know this might seem like I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but I am adamant about this bit of original research, because as I pointed out on the talk page, a good chunk of the section misuses other sources in this same way (A. conflating genuine opposition to liberalism with the usage of liberal as a derogatory label; B. editors identifying their own examples of liberal as an epithet rather than characterizing examples explicitly given in sources that actually contain discourse on the use of the label as a derogatory epithet). Using the epithet != Discourse about the epithet. The example is not used by sources discussing the use of liberal as an epithet. John Shandy` • talk 20:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not original research because OR is not cited to a published source. This statement is cited to a reliable published secondary source that validates (for any "educated person") the point that "liberal" is a negative epithet. That is in accord with Wiki rules. Rjensen (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Verbatim from the policy on primary sources of WP:OR, Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

I am an educated person. I have access to the source. I am directly challenging this source's ability to support the content of the epithet section that cites it, which appears to be nothing other than your synthesis and interpretation, as you extend these primary sources to do something that they cannot do. Your (or anyone's) synthesis and interpretation is original research.

I will no longer be entertaining any of your assertions, because you are semantically side-stepping the issue. Yes, the source verifies the existence of a doll that uses liberal as an epithet (I never disputed that). It does not verify that scholars who've written about liberal's use as an epithet, take the doll to be an example. They probably would take it to be an example, but until they say so in a source, we cannot say so. John Shandy` • talk 22:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

the sentence under challenge is about the Conservative Book Supply company and says nothing about scholars. Rjensen (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

At this stage of my thorough explanation, one must be genuinely naive to still think that I have a problem with the sentence and the source in and of themselves. As I have already said, and which you seem to fail to comprehend, the problem is that the sentence is used in this article to advance a position that itself does not posit, and that secondary sources do not connect it to. I'm sorry, but you are misguided in your understanding of OR and the sources cited, and I will soon be proposing revisions necessary to bring this section up to Wikipedia standards. John Shandy` • talk 17:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Besides the question of reliable sources, there is also the question of marketing. I would consider the inclusion of a link to a catalog selling a product to be merely advertising/spam and not a real encyclopedia source, especially when there are undoubtedly much better sources out there for something so obvious (that many people use the term derogatorily). It needs to be removed as contrary to more than one Wikipedia policy. DreamGuy (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think there's a distinction between referencing it and linking to it. At any rate, the product's existence is irrelevant to the section, because the product page itself does not hold the position of "liberal" as an epithet just because it uses the label in such a way, and because no secondary sources tie it to the arguments made by the authors. John Shandy` • talk 17:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with John Shandy. Even if we accept the catalog and the doll as excellent sources, they don't use "liberal" as a derogatory epithet. Hating something, or stating that something hates you, is not the same thing as using it as an epithet. I can write: "computers hate me - whenever I type something on one it comes out wrong", without it necessarily meaning that I would consider calling something "a dirty computer" or the equivalent. --GRuban (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Faithfreedom.org; islam watch; International civil liberties alliance

Hi. I want to get feedback on the reliability of these websites:

• faithfreedom.org (specific article: [29]
• islam-watch.org (specific article: [30])
• libertiesalliance.org (specific video: [31])

I've seen the first two questioned at RSN before. All have recently been used to add information to the article Love Jihad. (I entered this one for a copyright cleanup and wound up keeping an eye on it when I discovered that it is a political hotbed. I've tried to guard it against bias either way.)

A detailed list of my problems with the specific edits can be found here, but there's a lot more involved there than these three sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Faithfreedom.org is not at all a good source and should be removed if its not quoting there critical stance of Islam specifically.Moxy (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

None of these is reliable If they are used in citations for factual information on Wikipedia then they should be removed. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times BBC vs. academics

I feel almost silly bringing this here, but I have been stating that the New York Times BBC is generally considered to be a reliable source, but that on a specific issue of, say, international law or political science, it would not be considered nearly as reliable as an academic expert writing in his/her field of expertise, published in a peer reviewed journal or by a reliable publisher. Am I correct? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Context is everything. Do you have a concrete comparison in mind?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The context would be that a NYT news story states "the international community views X as illegal". My position is that this claim by the NYT reporter is not nearly as reliable as, say, an expert in international law making this claim in a book published by a respected publisher. I believe that other editors are stating (or implying) that "reliable" is a binary attribute - either a source is "reliable" or "unreliable", end of story. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It is possible for two reliable sources to make contradictory statements. If both sources are of sufficient quality, and if the both views seems prominent, then both should be included.   Will Beback  talk  01:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The reporter whose job it is to follow the international community is in a good position to state what their consensus is. The scholar is less likely to have sounded out diplomats and is most probably giving his own expert evaluation of what is legal. Rjensen (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? An anonymous reporter is better suited to decide what the view of the international community is on a legal question than an expert in international law? That seems to me to be a highly dubious claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

An expert on international law may not be an expert on public opinion, or on the collective opinions of different nations. There is absolutely no reason to assume they would be. Now, I don't agree that they are less reliable than a newspaper, but I think you're quite mistaken to frame this issue as one that requires expertise in the law itself, as it isn't a legal question it's a question regarding international opinion.Griswaldo (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a reasonable claim in one sense - perhaps it's an expert in political science that is needed here, as I've stated in the relevant discussion itself. But by the same token, how can one claim that an anonymous reporter is "an expert on public opinion, or on the collective opinions of different nations"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, what is the actual dispute you're asking this about? Is it this one - Talk:International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#The_BBC_is_the_final_arbiter_of_international_law.3F_Or.2C_whatever_happened_to_WP:NPOV.2C_WP:V_and_WP:RS?? I looked at your edit history to find this, because I really don't like to comment on RS questions without the full context of the question, and when I saw the discussion I was a bit confused. You appear to dismissing the claims of several scholars about the opinion of the international community, in the linked discussion. IMO, Nableezy and co. are correct. Eminently reliable scholarly sources appear to confirm what the BBC (not the NYT?) was being used to source. Did I get the wrong discussion? I can't find one involving international law and the New York Times. Also, in general it is really quite helpful if you just link to the exact discussion and don't pose hypothetical questions. Context really is key. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, meant the BBC, I've modified the description. I'm really trying to stick to the more general issues here. However, I will note that I haven't "dismiss[ed] the claims of several scholars about the opinion of the international community" - rather, I've stated that they're better sources than the anonymous BBC reporter, which is what this section is all about. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is it even an issue when the other sources have already been found? I really don't understand. And newspapers are reliable when it comes to summing up the opinions of the international community, particularly if those opinions are based on measurable actions like voting on Security Council resolutions. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's still an issue because a) people are still claiming that BBC is a more reliable source that academic experts in international law, and b) while the BBC has been replaced by academics in this particular article, there are apparently dozens more which rely on the anonymous BBC reporters. Also, we're not talking about fairly narrow claims "based on measurable actions like voting on Security Council resolutions", but rather much broader claims based on, well, who knows what? Finally, why would a newspaper reporter be particularly "reliable when it comes to summing up the opinions of the international community"? In any event, we need to get away from the binary "reliable"/"not reliable" statements, and focus on the actual question of this section, which is which sources are more reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

In terms of finding what the international community thinks you hav e to talk to diplomats. The BBC and the New York Times do not hire anonymous reporters. They hire reporters who have top credentials & are closely supervised by their editors, who have to approve all reports. The reporters' job in this example is to talk every day to diplomats and academic & govt experts. That's a pretty strong base for a RS. Talking to diplomats every day is not something a university professor usually does. Rjensen (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The BBC etc. have all sorts of people involved in the process of producing the news, some named, some anonymous. They do tend to hire reasonably well respected or well credentialed reporters. The rest, I'm afraid, (particularly about these Middle East reporters being "closely supervised by their editors") is a pretty romantic view of what goes on in the sausage factory of the daily news cycle. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

<- Here is a compilation of a wide variety reliable sources that address this issue. The BBC source is typical in its approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, none of those sources "address this issue", Sean. This is the RS/N noticeboard, and in this thread we're addressing the issue of whether or not Wikipedia considers the BBC to be more, less, or equally reliable on the subject of the views of the "international community". Not one of those sources actually discusses Wikipedia policy, so they're not relevant to this discussion, which is about Wikipedia's RS guideline. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for explaining that. Allow me to spell it out for you then since you apparently missed the point. The BBC is a sample from a large set of reliable secondary sources that address the issue of legality and international law. The BBC statement can be compared to other statements within that set. If there is a high degree of consistency between the statements in a wide variety of reliable sources it tells you something about the reliability of the statement in the sample you are focusing on, the BBC. It tells you that the BBC is not an outlier. This is valuable information when you are assessing the reliability of your sample. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for explaining that. Allow me to spell it out for you then since you apparently missed the point. This is the RS/N noticeboard, and in this thread we're addressing the issue of whether or not Wikipedia considers the BBC to be more, less, or equally reliable on the subject of the views of the "international community". In other words, we're discussing Wikipedia's WP:RS guideline, not the legality of the settlements. Those sources (almost all media sources, by the way) are about the legality of the settlements, and not one actually discusses Wikipedia policy, so they're not relevant to this discussion, which is about Wikipedia's RS guideline. Feel free to argue that other topic in some relevant location. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As regards the hypothetical question, I think that you are correct and legal academics should be preferred as authorities on points of law. The sentence though refers to a reported consensus opinion within the international community on a point of law which is quite a different thing. The expertise of such a body (the international community - essentially an abstract idea) on international law is not at issue, but their reported opinion on international law is (they could be wrong, but that's not the point). Judging from the footnote detailing this source the BBC reporter largely bases his/her assessment on motions from the General Assembly of the UN declaring the Israeli settlements illegal. The General Assembly is probably the closest concrete realisation of an international community in existence. The statement, therefore, seems well supported and uncontroversial. Is there an academic study that establishes what the consensus of the "international community" is in a more reliable fashion (not whether such a consensus is right or wrong but what that consensus is)? If so, that might be preferred. Bear in mind that such an international consensus is unlikely to reside in some corporate body of international lawyers but in national political representatives. Legal academics cannot claim to represent the international community (although they may represent international legal opinion). FiachraByrne (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the problem with focusing on UNGA resolutions is that they have no real impact in international law (as opposed to, say, UNSC resolutions, which do). However, the real issue here is which sources best meet Wikipedia's WP:RS guidelines for assertions regarding the opinions of the "international community", which I think is what you are addressing in the latter half of your comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the statement which refers to the opinion of the international community on the legality of the settlements. It has nothing to do with any particular body's influence on that law and its correct reading is dependent on a definition of the international community. The common reference for that term is the collective body of states or countries constituting the international community. There is no other body that could be said to represent the opinion of the international community better than the General Assembly which is peopled by representatives of those states. Therefore, the statement would appear to be true and supported and not in need of legal expertise to substantiate it. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

FiachraByrne, it was you who brought up UNGA resolutions. However, if we were to go by that, then the relevant UNGA resolutions inevitably have countries besides Israel that oppose or abstain - thus any claim that the "international community except Israel" has a particular view would be proven incorrect. Regardless, the issue here is about the relative reliability of sources on a specific subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think when the voting record on this issue is consistent around, what, say about 165 countries voting on their illegality and say 5 or 6 against (e.g. U.S., Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, etc) it is reasonable for the BBC or other agency to report that the opinion of the international community is that the settlements are illegal. As there seems to be consistent confusion on the issue it should be stated again that the BBC report does not constitute or pretend to constitute a statement on international law but on international opinion. That opinion is clearly reflected in the General Assembly Resolutions. This may not include every country without exception but it does include the representatives of almost all recognised countries on the planet.FiachraByrne (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That's great. Now, if only that were the question I asked! Instead, I asked if the BBC was as reliable as academics on a specific issue of, say, international law or political science. One day, perhaps, someone here will attempt to answer that question. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The article refers to a "broad general consensus"

If this is a discussion about the general issue here it would be wise to discuss at WT:RS, not here. But if this is the place for discussing the reliability of specific sources for factual statements then I would like to ask for opinions on the following sources. The citations are as follows:

• Roberts, Adam, "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967", The American Journal of International Law, 84 (1), American Society of International Law: pp. 85-86, The international community has taken a critical view of both deportations and settlements as being contrary to international law. General Assembly resolutions have condemned the deportations since 1969, and have done so by overwhelming majorities in recent years. Likewise, they have consistently deplored the establishment of settlements, and have done so by overwhelming majorities throughout the period (since the end of 1976) of the rapid expansion in their numbers. The Security Council has also been critical of deportations and settlements; and other bodies have viewed them as an obstacle to peace, and illegal under international law. {{citation}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
• Pertile, Marco (2005), Conforti, Benedetto; Bravo, Luigi (eds.), The Italian Yearbook of International Law, vol. 14, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, p. 141, ISBN 9789004150270, the establishment of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been considered illegal by the international community and by the majority of legal scholars.

These two citations were used for the sentence The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law. Are these sources reliable for this statement of fact or are they instead simply providing their "POV" on the view of the international community and as such should have in-text attribution to the authors? nableezy - 04:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, the issue raised here is whether they are more, less, or equally reliable as the BBC on this subject. That's all. If you want to ask questions about whether or not in-text attribution is required (per WP:YESPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV), you should raise the issue over at the WP:NPOV/N board, where it is actually relevant, and where (of course) I've already raised the issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

@ Jayg and the "anonymous reporter comment" - I am afraid you don't understand the structure of a major news corporations such as the BBC. Since I work in Journalism, I feel a bit obliged to give you my input on the matter. There is not an "anonymous reporter" writing these stories. There are many reporters who consolidate all their sources and information together to create a story -- thus negating the need for a byline (which is what you would call an "anonymous reporter"). As for the content of them claiming that "Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, though Israeli disputes this" is not a random fact that they decide to include on the basis of the opinion of a single reporter, but rather the an editorial decision made at the highest-echelons of the editorial staff. Therefore, when ever a story gets tagged as related to Israeli Settlements, BBC editorial policy would dictate that the line about legality be added (as you can see nearly every single article related to settlements has the same line). -asad (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I actually do understand that structure reasonably well, enough to know that your assertion regarding the words of this particular article being vetted by "an editorial decision made at the highest-echelons of the editorial staff" is hyperbole at best. In any event, the question here is still whether or not this kind of source is more, less, or equally reliable as a published academic on the topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly hyperbole, because the BBC actually has a policy of including the material on the illegality of settlements in their articles. nableezy - 16:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

To begin with, the "hyperbole" was the claims that the words of this particular article were vetted by "an editorial decision made at the highest-echelons of the editorial staff" - see my previous comment. Also, the BBC "policy" in this case is to "aim" to include that statement "where relevant", which doesn't mean on all articles. However, it is interesting that the BBC has decided it is an arbitrator on international law. In any event, this isn't that relevant, as the question here is how the reliability of BBC on the topic of the views of the international community compares to that of academic sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion should not be taking place in 4 different places and people should feel bad for partaking. Cptnono (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I raised three separate questions in three separate areas, but, as you see, people just piled in and started repeating the identical (often irrelevant) arguments in each one. This discussion was supposed to be about which sources were most reliable when it came to the views of the international community; it would be lovely if people actually stuck to that topic, seeing as this is the "Reliable sources/Noticeboard", not the "Decisions regarding international law noticeboard". Jayjg ^(talk) 08:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If I can just throw my two pennies' worth in, I would be cautious of relying on the BBC too easily. It is not the paragon of reliability some people mistakenly believe it is. Yes, one would hope that they would not make comments on the Israel-Palestine matter without verifying every comment, but over an important issue like this I think that it is fair to challenge any default presumption that the BBC has got it right because it "always" gets it right. There appear to be a number of academics who have views on this, so perhaps they should be used more prominently instead. If there are views on both sides, the article(s) in question should be careful not to take a line as to what the "international community" thinks. John Smith's (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The views of academics appear to be the same as that of the BBC. I don't understand what Jayjg was trying to accomplish here. IMO further discussion is a serious waste of time.Griswaldo (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be better to refer to the opinion of the academics who know what they're talking about, than the BBC which is not exactly staffed with experts on this particular subject. John Smith's (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to establish if the BBC is, in general, considered to be more/less/equally reliable to academic sources on the topic of the views of the international community. You keep trying to restrict it to a specific case/article page discussion, rather than the more general question, which may be why you're still struggling with this. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The question is poorly phrased. You need to distinguish between an opinion expressed by an individual scholar and a secondary source (whether a newspaper or an academic article) that explains what the generally accepted opinion is. In order to report the opinion of an individual scholar we need to show that it is significant, which may be done by finding subsequent articles that report it. So really this is not a matter of rs, but of WP:WEIGHT and belongs on the NPOV noticeboard. Also, you should always present the specific case. TFD (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Presenting the specific case can often be useful, but here it has unfortunately served to obscure the question rather than elucidate it, leading people to, for example, rather irrelevantly argue about whether or not the settlements are legal, rather than about which sources are more reliable on the subject of the views of the international community. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I was involved in the original discussion. I don't think it makes sense to try to discover whether the BBC or a scholar would be "more RS" on the topic of the opinion of the international community. The question would rather be, whether the BBC is a RS on the topic, period. Since journalists working for the BBC are trained in universities to collect information and report it, including information on the opinions of various governments on a range if issues, I don't think there is any tenable argument to say the BBC wouldn't be RS for the statement we're discussing. Would a scholarly source do as well? Of course it would. If we had conflicting reliable sources in the issue, then we'd present that situation in the article. --Dailycare (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I started this thread asking a specific question; you don't get to insist I should have asked a different question, then answer that different question to your own satisfaction. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we prety much have consensus here. The BBC is RS for this information.Slatersteven (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit hasty. And what exactly are you saying that the BBC is RS for? I can accept that it may be useful for indicating a view that the international community has a position, but I don't see why the BBC is automatically correct that the "international community" has a single view on the subject. The BBC gets things wrong all the time! Surely you know that.

If you or anyone wants to disagree with me, I would like to know why the BBC is automatically right on everything it publishes. John Smith's (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

To begin with, I think it's hard to declare a "consensus" when several editors here appear to disagree with you. More importantly, the question was not whether the BBC was a reliable source, but rather how the reliability of BBC on the topics of international law or political science compares to that of academic sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

@John Smith. For the BBC to be considered a reliable source for the purpose of WP it does not have to be infallible. Nor does any reliable source.

@Jayjg. As has been repeatedly stated, the BBC is not being used here as an authority on point of international law but as to the opinion of the international community. It is properly considered a rs on that topic.

It's not the purpose of this RSN to make such on observation but, as an aside, I think the statement supported by fn 35 ("According to the BBC, every government in the world, except Israel, considers the settlements to be illegal.") should probably be removed or altered. I would guess that the BBC reported this in 2008 as Obama had been critical of the Israeli settlements but he never declared them illegal, despite coming under some pressure to do so. Also, the U.S. has recently vetoed a resolution declaring the settlements illegal. I'm sure the article could be edited to reflect this. Again, this observation has nothing to do with this RSN process and is just a general observation. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to the BBC being called a reliable source generally, provided that it isn't taken as gospel truth and always reliable. John Smith's (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is not RS for this being illegal, but it is Rs for the fact that a lot of people think its illegal.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above post of Slatersteven. Whether that post covers all aspects of the question I do not know.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

@FiachraByrne, @Slatersteven - that's great. Now, if only that were the question being asked. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Well then ask a more specific question. What particular source (article or book) do you think is more reliable than the BBC report(s) on this issue? FiachraByrne (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely the BBC is a reliable source for any statement of fact relating to current affairs, subject to the ever-present caveat that it is unreliable if consideration of other sources reveals the statement to be inaccurate (?). --FormerIP (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think there is general agreement on such things, so now the question is whether there needs to be a re-statement of the question?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Alex Jones' Infowars.com

Would Alex Jones' infowars.com website be considered a WP:RS as regards conspiracy theories? I'm thinking in particular of this article, a "New World Order Report" by Jonathan Elinoff. It has been cited in the Conspiracy theory article. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

For obvious reasons it can be quite difficult to get impeccably reliable sources on one side of a conspiracy theory. :-)

Infowars is not something I would consider reliable for statements of fact about the real world, but it should be mostly OK to use them for statements about their own position or about groups/ideas they're connected to, and the Conspiracy theory article seems to be doing that (more or less), so I can live with it. I think the "Alex Jones InfoWars list itself shows the problem..." paragraph has some serious textual problems but the best answer there could be rewording rather than removing it. bobrayner (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not rs. However, the website contains mostly links to publsihed articles which may be rs, for example if they are from mainstream media. TFD (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If it isn't, then WP:RS is broken (in the ways I specified here). It would definitely be preferably to have a third-party, non-conspiracist, academic or mainstream media source to establish the existence of a particular conspiracy theory, using sources like Infowars/Prisonplanet/Alex Jones as a primary source for their summations. When that isn't available, treat it like a self-published source: it establishes that an opinion is held by some segment of the conspiracy theory community, but it doesn't show it is true or considered important outside that community. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Could be a RS to confirm that a conspiracy theory exists, but not prove the theory itself. Q:Is the website a blog?--JOJ ^Hutton 17:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Alex Jones and his outlets are definitely not RS (not watter what format (blog, website, radio).--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg is omitting how Alex Jones is being used so here is the context to better judge it:

An article in the New York Times points out "Other historians argue that past government lies, particularly in the past half-century, have helped fuel conspiracy theories, by giving Americans reasons to suspect their leaders. (“See, I’m not paranoid, I’m right.”)" using Alex Jones InfoWars list “33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out to Be True” as an example. (Zernike, Kate (April 30, 2011) "The Persistence of Conspiracy Theories" The New York Times)

Alex Jones InfoWars list itself shows the problem with trying to group all conspiracy theories together because in addition to the fully documented conspiracy theories of the Dreyfus Affair, Sicilian Mafia, Project MKULTRA, Operation Mockingbird, Watergate, Tuskegee syphilis experiment, Operation Northwoods, Nayirah (testimony), Iran-Contra Affair, CIA drug trafficking, Business Plot, Project Valkyrie, 1953 Iranian coup d'état, Operation Snow White, Operation Gladio, and Black Sox Scandal there are several often regarded as tin foil hat nonsense such as the New World Order (conspiracy theory).

How that you can actually see the context of how it is being used how do you evaluate the reliability of Alex Jones given it is used as an example of how conspiracy theory is defined by the New York Times?--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, a New York Times article is used as an excuse to coatrack in the Infowars material. That doesn't make the Infowars website reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it is an editorial not an article. In any case it does not refer to Watergate, etc. as "conspiracy theories". That is Alex Jones' writer trying to present a parity between his conspiracism and rational thought. The effect is that we are promoting Jones's viewpoint, rather than presenting it as his opinion. TFD (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

So is this more of a wording and weighting issue?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with that. bobrayner (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

www.arenafan.com

I'm trying to find out if www.arenafan.com is considered a reliable source for Arena Football League (AFL) statistics. Brought up in my featured list nomination of List of Texas Tech University alumni (sports), I was under the assumption that the site in question was a reliable source after finding this Wikipedia:WikiProject Arena Football League/Reliable Sources#ArenaFan.com criteria for the site's reliability citing WP:SPS. Also, 1,000s of existing articles use this site as a source for AFL stats, particularly when using Template:Infobox NFL player. If this site is deemed to not be reliable, those 1,000s of articles will need to be corrected to not include statistics or any other information from www.arenafan.com. NThomas (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It absolutely is. It's the best place for AFL info on the internet, period.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It may be a self-published source, but, dude, it's an official publication for sports statistics. I can't see any intelligent reader or Wikipedian seeing a verifiability issue here. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I would question its reliability. The site is not frequently referenced by other news organizations, and never by large news organizations. If it is not seen as a reliable source in the industry, I do not believe Wikipedia should use it as one. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com" and "www.nps.gov/nr/"?

Hi all,
St. Mary's Church (Beaverville, Illinois) is cited as being on the National Register of Historic Places. I don't question its notability.

A search of the NRHP website brings up this one cite.

The church is mentioned here from "www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com".

What I do question:
- is "www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com" in any way affiliated with the NRHP?
- if not, could "www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com" be considered a reliable source?
--Shirt58 (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

A good site is nps.gov/nr ... the database is at http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreghome.do?searchtype=natreghome and St. Mary's Church is on it. Collect (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the OED a reliable source for dates of usage of the term "national socialism"?

At Talk:Nazism there is an interesting claim being made that the OED is wrong when giving dates for the usage of "national socialism" -- specifically:

[32] See Webster's: "First known use of NATIONAL SOCIALISM 1931".[33] You should provide a detailed article explaining how the term developed. Also while you and Darkstar1st believe to have proved the term was coined in 1834 and provide sources that connect it with Lassalle, your new source says it was created in 1871 and connects it with Marx. This is [[Whac-A-Mole]

Was in response to this post:

[34] Pronunciation: Brit. /ˌnaʃnˌ(ə)l ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/ , /ˌnaʃən(ə)l ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/ , U.S. /ˌnæʃən(ə)l ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪz(ə)m/ , /ˌnæʃn(ə)l ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪz(ə)m/ Etymology: < national adj. + socialism n., after German Nationalsozialismus (1871 with reference to the Marxist doctrines of the General German Workers' Union; 1923 or earlier in Hitler's speeches denoting the doctrines of the National Socialist German Workers' Party). Compare French national-socialisme (1933), Italian nazionalsocialismo (1933 as nazional-socialismo). Compare earlier National Socialist adj. and slightly later Nazism n.

OED etymology and definition of "National socialism." Hope this is adequate for the earlier usage - it is decidely not a POV source.

Is the Webster's "cite" suffficient to prove that even the 1923 date in the OED is wrong as was stated by one editor? Or is the OED a valid source for the usages in various countries historically? Not to mention the explicitly earlier "national socialist" Compare French national-socialiste (1923 as noun; 1928 as adjective), (OED) Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The term "National Socialist" or "National Socialist" party goes back before the Nazis. In France for example, the "Parti Socialiste National", was founded by Pierre Biétry in 1903, and Gustave Hervé in 1919 created the "Parti socialiste national" [National Socialist Party}. The "Česká národní strana Sociálna" [Czech National Socialist Party] formed in 1918. Rjensen (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And the fact that "Webster's" and one editor assert it was not used before 1931 is thus rather ruled out, I suspect. Sometimes I think John Cleese is an editor ... Collect (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

They're right (probably) in terms of English usage (1931). Both Webster's and OED agree on this (derived from TLS reference).

Bear in mind that earlier usage of this or similar terms do not necessarily signify the same object(s). OED states this specifically in entry for National Socialist: "The National Social Union [German Socialist Party] referred to at sense A. 1 was unrelated to the later National Socialist German Workers' Party [Nazis]". FiachraByrne (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The word "Republican" has the same distinctions made between the Jefferson "Republican Party" usage anf the post-Whig "Republican Party." I do not know what importance that has in the case at hand where the editor makes the blanket statement "the OED is wrong." Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The importance is that it is exactly such a connection several POV editors on the nazism talk page is trying to make. As has been confirmed here by several uninvolved editors, the OED states that the pre-1919 usage of the term National Socialism is not the same as the term described in the Nazism article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

OED would be a good RS for this if we had no other source, but we do not have to use it if there are other good sources, and if there are better sources, for example more recent ones, or publications specialized in this type of vocabulary, we can use those instead. I would also mention that it is possible there should be a distinction between the English term national socialist, and some of the foreign languages equivalents which referred to earlier movements. Also, if some of those earlier meanings were not really related to fascism and nazism, we should be careful not to imply otherwise.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Anent dates: [35] cites the Literary Digest in 1923 using the term "National Socialists". Which should be enough for a 1923 date in English (well -- American). Collect (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It does not. --TFD (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Amazing -- since it has a photo of Hitler. [36] Do I hear murmurings of WP:TRUTH again? Sometimes absolute denial of what is in a reliable source can become tendentious. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The source is certainly incorrect in describing Ferdinand Lassalle and his supporters as Marxist. We should not use sources that provide information that is different from what appears in other rs. Marx and Lassalle presented rival versions of socialism that have come down to us in revolutionary socialism as represented by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. and reform socialism represented by leaders such as Tony Blair. TFD (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi TFD. Can you clarify what the subjects of the two posts are ("it" and "The source"). Presumably not the OED?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Most Haunted

Do we have a policy on sources saying a place is haunted? As a rationalist and skeptic, I'd remove all such content, but no doubt others would disagree. I've recently seen statements that a building is haunted, sourced to episodes of Most Haunted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not RS: "Ofcom ruled that Most Haunted was an entertainment show, not a legitimate investigation into the paranormal, and should not be taken seriously". [37] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed not RS. That's not to say that it shouldn't be mentioned. Being the primary focus of an episode of an internationally syndicated TV show, even if it is an entertainment program rather than an investigation, can be worth a sentence or two in an article about a building or landmark. --GRuban (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't agree at all, despite being just as sceptical as you. That a building or landmark is considered haunted by some, and has appeared in an internationally syndicated TV programme is worthy of mention. What's unacceptable is to claim that the building or landmark is haunted, and invoking the TV programme as a reliable source. All it's a reliable source for is that the TV programme was transmitted. Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

On re-reading what you wrote perhaps we more or less agree after all, except I'd say that statements such as "place X is haunted" ought to be recast in the form of "some consider place X to be haunted", with proper citation, not removed. Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus. Flatly stating that "X is haunted" is a pretty exceptional claim which would require exceptional supporting evidence, and we don't have any of that. However, putting it in somebody else's voice - "Person X said the barn is haunted" or "... claims to be Latvia's most haunted building" - is fine, and just needs the usual sourcing. Most Haunted is a reliable source for their own claims, and that's all. If we're describing something within an obviously fictional context, that should be OK too. bobrayner (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Reality Nation

Is this website a reliable source for news about reality TV stars? http://www.realitynation.com Bald Pete^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No. It's a fancy blog. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• As much as I'd like to trust the investigative reporting of Scandalous Candice, No. Absolutely not a reliable source. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Clicker.com and Nick and More!

• Clicker.com
• Nick and More!

A discussion was made in which these sites were mentioned. There were other named, but these two were only ones where their status I can't decipher. Sarujo (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• I would say no to Clicker.com. I see no indication that they perform rigorous fact-checking on the brief blurbs they list for the television shows. For such a recent show you should be able to find a better source than that. Nickandmore has no editorial policy, no privacy policy, and no editors. No. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Dating Guy

Someone please remind the editors of The Dating Guy about WP:SPS and claims about third parties. Elizium23 (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone please tell Elizium to cut it out and get over his WP:OWN issues with this article. He doesn't bother debating on the talkpage and all he does is run around revert-warring and making claims that everyone is a "meatpuppet" while he goes against consensus. WP:IAR, WP:SPS, we've been through all this on the article talkpage, Elizium is just not willing to man up when he's wrong.

Elyzium is now stalking me.

Elyzium is now revert warring over on the LICD page as well.

Drama aside, there is dispute about the definition of "third party" as it is used in WP:V policy. Anyone? Elizium23 (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Eliziun23, your behavior has been unacceptable and a complaint has now been filed against you at WP:ANI for violations of WP:BITE, WP:BEAR, WP:CANVAS, deliberately filing false allegations of vandalism at WP:AIV, tendentious editing, and inappropriate refusal to behave in a collegial manner in talkpage discussions. HAND.

Lee High School

Hi! The founders of an alumni association made an editorial about Lee High School (Houston):

• Hauser, Melanie, Richard Spence, and Tom Behrman. "Lee's return to football marks school's turning point." (Editorial) Houston Chronicle. August 28, 2010. Retrieved on February 6, 2011.

I know this is an editorial, but some of the statements it makes about Lee do not seem to be very controversial, based on other reliable sources about Lee. Among the things I want to add, based on the source:

• Many parents in neighborhoods like Briargrove and Tanglewood (it also mentions Briargrove Park, but that one is already in a different school attendance boundary now) send their kids to Lamar or Westside high schools, charter schools, and private schools
  • Houston ISD's records indicate that anyone in the Lee area may send their kids to Lamar or Westside instead of Lee.
• Many households in the Lee attendance boundary are single parent households.

Is it alright if I add these citing the editorial, or should I rely on another source? Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Assistance needed with sourcing issue re plagiarism

Assistance would be helpful at an RfC concerning the article The Dating Guy about accusations of plagiarism (in the real world) repeated in the article. --Noleander (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

ANN's encyclopedia as reliable source for properly tag genre usage

Hi, this page [38] claim that Kodomo no jikan manga belong to the [lolicon] genre but i don't find any resource provide tha lolicon is a genre in the first place and Kodomo no Jikan belong to this hypothetic genre. In Japan this terminology mean "lolita complex" and represent a behaviour both in real life and in fictions and not a category of anime or manga. Based on this, my knowledge on japanese media and resources expecially various websites i want change the tag [lolicon] to a more appropriate word like [loli manga] because the first one is a denigratory terminology. I based my main reliable source expecially on ANN, in the Kodomo no Jikan page made there [39] where the manga is tagged as [comedy], [drama], [romance] and the [lolicon] tag is used as a sub-theme to simply specify better some sub-content. Other various websites like MAL and Animen.fo stated the same tags. The blog of the original creator and the website of the publisher never categorized this manga as [lolion]. Comic high, the publisher, is a magazine for seinen demograhpic [40] [41]. Again several references are picke up from ANN and used as reliable to made the kodomo no Jikan wikkipedia page. ANN is a website that provide encyclopedia, information, translations and covers from the original japanese companies. I want point out that the ANN encyclopedia is manages by the same staff that provide translations and news and is locked to people, the only thing you can do is contact them to provide errors with valid sources. I want ask to consider the Kodomo no Jikan page on ANN a reliable source of information so i can use these tags to modify the actual impropers ones in the wikipdia page. Reikasama (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

How many times do we have to repeat this. Anime News Network's encyclopedia is made up of user generated content had has very little oversight or fact checking. This has been discussed numerous times before (1 2 3 4, 5) Any one can register and account on their website and contribute to the encyclopedia section. Unfortunately, correcting mistakes or challenging information isn't as easy as adding information. There is also this statement from Chris Macdonald, CEO and Publisher of Anime News Network, "Dan [DeLorme] and I recently discussed this. Wikipedia is to be avoided as a source for the exact same reason that ANN's Encyclopedia should be avoided as a source at Wikipedia."[42] This situation is unlikely to change just because one editor is attempting a POV push by removing content that is cited to a reliable source on the bases that they don't agree with it. —Farix (t | c) 16:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No, ANN encyclopedia is made by the same people who write articles, covers and translations. Is NOT managed by the random community. The page is closed and you can only send a report to fix eventaul errors. I'm here to ask if ANN is considered a reliable source, no more. I think that ANN, since tons of references are picked up from there is a 100% riable source for everything. I'm just asking more opinions. If you consider ANN not reliable then all the articles here on wikipedia that use these sources should be putted on hold and blocked. You cant' consider one source from ANN ok and another not. I'm not POV, i'm stated a fact, provide links and infos, you can check my links and check the wiki page with all the ANN references that are picked from there. Reikasama (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've already disprove this statement at WP:ANI. And the statement by ANN's very own CEO should be proof enough of its unreliability. But let's also go to ANN's FAQ:[43]

How can I contribute to the encyclopedia?

Any registered user can contribute standard data to the Encyclopedia for Anime, Manga and People.

Right there disproves your own position. But I find it interesting that you continue to insist that ANN's encyclopedia is reliable to the exclusion of all evidence, even statements from ANN and its staff, that the encyclopedia is not reliable. And if ANN has gone on record to state that their encyclopedia is not reliable, who are YOU to say otherwise? —Farix (t | c) 20:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If my Ann source is unrealiable all ANN rssources used to make these articles are. ANN should be considered a valid source bcause is one of the few websites that provide translations direct from the original japanese companies, both regarding manga and anime. Reikasama (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not a black and white issue. Some parts of the website are reliable, and editors have previously agreed that those parts are reliable. Other parts of are not reliable, and they have been identified by the community. The only reason you are insisting that ANN is either 100% reliable or 100% unreliable is an attempting to "burn the bridges" when you are not able to use the identified unreliable parts of ANN in you POV pushing campaign. Thus attempting to denying other editors from using the identified reliable portions of ANN and disrupting Wikipedia in the process. —Farix (t | c) 10:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Before I start I must preface that I am an Encyclopedia editor at ANN. I am not a "professional" and I am not paid, but have been granted a trusted position after years of contributions. With the exception of certain pieces of information (e.g. "licensed by"), anyone can add information to any person, company, anime or manga title in the encyclopedia, including themes and genres. If this were not the case I would not have had to ban the use of "shit" as a genre, nor remove Alexa Vega as a voice actress in mythical Spanish dubs of hentai anime. Any erroneous information that is entered will remain there until it is noticed, flagged and removed. Due to the sheer volume of information compared with the number of active encyclopedia staff this can unfortunately take some time.

OTOH, outside the Encyclopedia "every word you read on ANN is paid for", written by people employed for their writing or journalism skills and edited by senior staff (e.g. Zac oversees all editorial and while they do accept unpaid news interns, they are supervised.) Shiroi Hane (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: There appears to be some systemic bias with regard to favoring US sources here over Japanese ones (which admittedly are more difficult for English-speaking users to find, but that is still no excuse). Normally this would not be a concern, but for contriversial labels like lolicon, it could be. I want to say while I disagree with the sources Reikasama as being "reliable" or "not reliable", his underlying argument about bias towards western sources for a contriversial label does have some merit.

  Also Kodomo no Jikan was never published outside Japan. It was scrapped due to issues about its content that would be deemed considerably inappropriate for a US market (mostly sexual related). The term "lolicon" was never used in the classifications pre-publishing and its only the secondary English sources that make the claim of lolicon.陣内_Jinnai 20:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yea, finally someone that understand my point. Reikasama (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this straight forward forum shopping? If Reikasama persists with IDIDNTHEARDTHAT from the community, maybe a topic ban is in order? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh and ANN has user generated content and therefore is not RS - but you already knew that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ann is usend in several articles here on wiki as reliable source, deny this is denying automatically that all the articles of anime and manga based on this encycolpedia are false. i'm here to listen opinions if ANN is a reliable source or not, expecially the link i provide, i'm still waiting community responses. If your only argoument is BAN me because you are lazy to provide valid sources and you want to get me away fast you are delusional. Reikasama (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Please strike this personal attack, and do not make such comments again. You can argue all you want about the reliability of the source, but do not attack other editors again or you are likely to be blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama, I am sorry, but your logic is false. You say 'Ann is usend in several articles here on wiki as reliable source, deny this is denying automatically that all the articles of anime and manga based on this encycolpedia are false.'. That is not what it means. A statement can very well be true, but a reference from ANN is not proving that. A statement without reference, or with a reference to an unreliable document, or with a source to a document which is deemed not reliable does not mean that the statement is hence false or wrong. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

To sum all of this up if I wanted too I could click here "You can contribute information to this page, but first you must login or register" login and create an account change the content on ANN and have it include lolicon, a source like that is not reliable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No you can't. If you create an account you can propose a change, then the administrators choose and verify if your suggestion is reliable or not. Since stated that lolicon is not a genre but a theme, i guess you can't edit it so simply before a moderator check the source you provide, your suggestion is marked as a red "!" and hidden till an editor approve or delete. Also before i linked the anime page but the original source is the manga [44]. You can try it out. Reikasama (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

@Reikasama: What you keep refusing to listen to, again and again is that some parts of ANN are considered a reliable source, and some are not. To be perfectly clear: the encyclopedia section of ANN is not a reliable source, because anyone can edit it. I understand the distinction that you just made above in that pending changes require approval, but the consensus of other editors here appears to be that this is not enough to make it reliable. At the bottom of each page is the disclaimer, "This encyclopedia is collaboratively edited by the users of this site." That statement makes it not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. There are a few other things from ANN that may exist as references in articles here because they are citing things from the news section of the site, some of which is written by professional writers and edited. I'm sorry for all of the bolding, but it seems like you are not paying attention to repeated attempts to make you understand why you can't use ANN. Chillllls (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you claim that i refuse to understand, i register an account just now and i've tried to modify a section, a page appear tell me to put in info and resources, a message at the bottom stated: "We need a source in order to confirm the veracity of the information. If you found the information online, provide the URL of the exact page where you found it (not just the home page of the website, please). If you found it otherwise, provide an explanation of where/how you found it (e.g. "Newtype USA Aug 2006 p.42").". So you have to provide a reliable source so the administrator can fix the error if the source is considered valid. You CAN'T direct change the page as you like and where you want when you want like here on wikipedia, is not open. Also you can apply this logic to every website and source on the iternet if you provide data and reliable resources, even animenation, you can send an email suggesting a correction and they will fix it if reliabòle. If you deny this then everything you consider a reliable source is invalid because everyone can send fixes and suggest changes. Reikasama (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) <slaps forehead> Why did I not see that after all this time. To go further from the disclaimer page:

Accuracy of Information

The Anime News Network Encyclopedia is a peer-contributed database relying on a community of contributors and editors to input and validate information. While we do our utmost to keep the Encyclopedia as accurate as possible, due to the very nature of peer-edited databases we cannot guarantee the accuracy of any specific piece of information. When using the Encyclopedia for professional or pedagogic purposes, we strongly recommend verifying the source of the information. Should you find any errors, please submit an error report, such that we can correct the information and continue to maintain the Encyclopedia's accuracy.

Limited Liability

Having given notice that we do not guarantee the accuracy of the information contained within the Encyclopedia, Anime News Network Inc., its staff and owners, can not be held legally liable for any harm caused by the use, or misuse, of information contained within the Encyclopedia.[45]

@Reikasama, continuing to insist that a source is reliable when the source itself states that it isn't reliable is simply disruptive behavior. —Farix (t | c) 14:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This is valid for everything, encyclopedia, articles, covers, the parts of ANN you consider reliable and used here on wikipedia. Is a disclaimer like there is one here. So? Reikasama (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Where you not warned about making personal attacks? But yes, parts of a website can be considered reliable while other parts are considered unreliable. There is no point in throwing the baby out with the bath water just because a portion of the site contains user generated content and that portion can be clearly identified from the rest of the site. —Farix (t | c) 15:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

None, if i'm distruptive you are blind, i stated the obvious, if you consider a piece of ANN not true but a piece of ANN true is a illogical point of view, because everything on ANN can be changed if you send a fix with a reliable source. You get my point here? Or is everything reliable or is all not and should be removed from wikipedia too. I'm not speaking about encyclopedia but everything picked up from there. Reikasama (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

But i have no problem in the end, if ANN is not reliable is ok, AN is not reliable too and i have send you a counterarticle that stated the countrary in the discussion page. I accept the actual tags without go further. Reikasama (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Where you not warned about making personal attacks? But yes, parts of a website can be considered reliable while other parts are considered unreliable. There is no point in throwing the baby out with the bath water just because a portion of the site contains user generated content and that portion can be clearly identified from the rest of the site. —Farix (t | c) 15:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, now to complete this. http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=7688 <- this is the page you refer to, which states indeed: 'Themes: lolicon, troublesome kids'. Now go to the bottom, click 'lookup sources', you will get the window again, with 'i'-icons next to everything. You click the 'i' next to 'lolicon' in that 'theme' section, get two new links 'audit' and 'source'. You click source, and what do you get: 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodomo_no_jikan#Lolicon_as_a_storytelling_device'. Q.E.D.. Can we now find a reliable source for this information, please? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: the section ('Lolicon as a storytelling device') that is referenced from animenewsnetwork.com does not exist anymore, I did find it back in 2008, e.g. in this version. Maybe that version helps in finding a proper source for the info? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Even if was online it change nothing, the lolicon tag is not a genre but marked as theme. You can remove the tag if you want as unreliable. Also the page i was referring was this [46]. Here there isn't sources at all but infos are managed direct from the administrators, there is any source pointing out here. Reikasama (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Btw, go further is this debate is become useless since i have reach an agreement in the matter using different sources. But this situation is very illogical that you consider some parts of ANN ok and some not because everyone can send an email and ask for a fix if is provided by reliable sources. And this is valid for every source you find on the internet. Everything is usefull in the end and everything can be changed so everything is valuable. Mine sources, yours and everyone else if there is a general consensus. Reikasama (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

So the consensus is that the sources brought here are unreliable? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

International Business Times

I am seeing this news company come up a lot in the Google news aggregator, and after a little research on my part, i am suspicious that it has a somewhat hidden conservative agenda, thus making it an unreliable source for any subjects related to the political spectrum. this article, this article, this commentary on the last article are what i have so far. I want to alert people so we can do proper research, then decide if they qualify as a reliable source. for a news org with so little info on them, including their publisher, Jonathan Davis (journalist), Im concerned they have found a way to inflate their web presence beyond their actual importance. I do think they are notable. anyone that can get into googles news aggregator so quickly and thoroughly is notable. 336 appearances of the company's name on Wikipedia, almost all of them in the last month. Oh, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas James Ball includes comments from an editor suggesting that IBT is written by users, without a real staff of writers.this article was cited at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 1, section on Sri Lankan Civil War, and it appears to be an editorial column and not an article. User talk:MER-C/archives/29#Your warning to Ramillav describes some research into IBTimes. Talk:Rebecca Black#My Moment reaction has another mention of IBT as a dubious source. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that our article about it is based solely on the company's own website isn't encouraging. Looking at the articles you cited, the number of typos and grammatical errors calls their editorial review into question. If it's truly user-supplied content with minimal editing or oversight then it would not qualify as a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  08:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• They have been cited by Fox 1 (the most reliable news org in the world) 2, Forbes, the new pillar Christian Science Monitor, HuffPo 1 2, The Times of India, USA Today, and many others (I only looked at new stories from the past few weeks to find those). Of note, CBSNews.com does not appear to trust them; they only use IBT for interview reporting and for directly quoting IBT. CNN won't touch them with a ten foot pole. NYTimes only allows IBT to be referred to in journalists' blog posts. The Chicago Tribune does not trust them either. They are a very iffy news source, and I would be very careful about citing them for any fact-based articles on Wikipedia. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS does not deprecate "online newspapers" as long as they have a presumption of fact-checking. They are cited by many clear RS sources in news reports, so I suspect they actually meet WP:RS sufficiently. [47] was used in [48] NYT so it is likely that the NYT considers the IBT reliable. Remeber WP:RS != WP:INFALLIBLE Collect (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that the mainstream media are being duped into using them. We may not be able to prove this (and i wont edit the article on them to show this unless a mainstream source presents this argument), but if we cannot find evidence that they are reliable, and suspect that they are bending the rules of news reporting to gain legitimacy, we dont have to go along.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the IBT can be considered as a reliable source, even on itself "The International Business Times is the leading source of analysis on international business and world affairs" [49]. Really, says who? I'd also recommend reading this: "Your newspaper / website can take advantage of our strong international editorial presence through our affiliate program. If you need to include original content on foreign stories and issues you can work with us and, as a syndication partner, receive the following benefits: - Customized, co-branded coverage from IBTimes correspondents..." [50]. And their 'Advertise' page seems to imply that you can pay them to write editorials to suit your needs: "By leveraging and focusing on the delivery of international business news in each of its markets, IBTimes.com is able to offer to marketers an unmatched audience quality". Evidently, their website etc is funded solely by their advertisers, and as such, hardly the neutral, detached source that they claim. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I just read that too, and I only hesitated to post it here cause it sounds like what everyone does nowadays. but i guess news sources are not supposed to do that if they want to be considered neutral observers.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the key issue is that they are blurring the distinction between a PR agency and a news agency. Neither can be expected to be truly 'objective' (nobody ever is), but established news agencies have a reputation to uphold, and as such need to at least try to look neutral. Likewise the rest of the mainstream media - they may be largely funded by advertising, but they have an established audience which expects at least a degree of honesty, and they won't retain this audience if they spin things to much. IBN seems to have no significant audience of its own, however, so they are under no obligation to do anything other than publish whatever stories maximise their revenue. Not a business plan to inspire confidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Rogue administrators

WikiProject Time currently has problems with administrators who are semi - protecting articles for long periods having first added back content which is either untrue (according to reliable sources cited) or has been removed because there are no reliable sources to back it. I think the way round this problem is for auto - confirmed editors to go round adjusting as necessary. To give one example, Elockid has semi - protected Mercedonius within the last few hours. The problem is that one editor keeps putting in a claim that scholars are generally agreed that [argument follows] although for that to be permissible a reliable source would have to be cited which specifically states that scholars are generally agreed that this is the case. 86.162.6.52 (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Per edit comment, page was protected for persistent sock puppentry from User:Vote (X) for Change, who the IP was just blocked as a sock of. Also see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change. Love these boomerangs. The irony is delicious.

Actually, Ravensfire (the author of the above unsigned post) couldn’t be more wrong (see WP:SOCK for the official position on this). In any event, his/her comment is off topic, since the current version of the article says “It is generally held by modern scholars that Februarius was truncated to 23 or 24 days to be followed by an intercalary month of 27 days” and the edit therefore falls foul of WP:RS. 87.113.14.61 (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The action of Elockid at Mercedonius seems reasonable to me. 86.*.*.*, what is stopping you from making an account and establishing your ability to edit semi-protected articles? Of course you are right that any claim like "It is generally held by modern scholars" requires a source which makes an equivalent statement, and that the judgement of editors regarding the consensus is not enough (that would be OR). However, there is a source given for that and I don't see an argument on the talk page as to whether the source supports the statement. Zero^talk 03:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this seems like something that should be discussed on the article talkpage first.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the discussion at the talk page on this very topic covers eleven pages. See in particular Talk:Mercedonius#Resolution of Length of Mercedonius Issue. The editor does not claim that the cited reference specifically states what he is alleging - in fact it is impossible for it to do so for the reason set out here [51] in the seventh paragraph above the sub - heading "My SPI page."

As for registering on the website, I did this last year for perfectly legal election activities and the administrators in their discretion decided the account would remain blocked for the rest of time. I'm going onto his user talk now and we'll see if he is amenable to reason. 87.113.14.61 (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Pubmed indexing question

I'm hoping someone here can clarify this for me. Medline's page for a specific journal (nutrition and metabolism) says it's not currently indexed, but articles appear on pubmed and there's a link to free full-text articles in PubMed central. Is the journal page in error, or is there something complicated happening here? I know the occassional article on non-pubmed-indexed articles occassionally appear in pubmed searches, but this many seems weird. Any thoughts? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like the page you linked says they are indexed in pubmed - just not indexed in medline. All medline entries show up in pubmed searches, but not everything in pubmed is in medline. Kevin (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this reliable?

is http://www.urbancinefile.com.au/ reliable? Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears primarily to be a two-person operation with no editorial controls over those two. As such, citable as opinion of the people writing, but not generally WP:RS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a tough one. If you ever need the opinion of Andrew L. Urban, you can certainly pull it from this site. But I believe the site should not be used in your average movie article. However, if you find one of his reviews syndicated in another source, then you could use that source in a movie article. For instance, if you are editing the Hanna page, although I would recommend not using the UrbanCinefile review of Hanna as a reference, you could use the Sydney Morning Herald review instead, both of which are the same review written by Andrew L. Urban. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The review I want to use is actually the one written by Jake Wilson, but I can't find it anywhere else. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, is Jake Wilson an established expert movie reviewer? For example, have his reviews been reprinted in reliable sources, the way Andrew Urban's have been in the Herald? If so, then his reviews would qualify for most uses under WP:SPS. --GRuban (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Citations to a master's thesis

A user has added a number of citations to 'The Fireship and its Role in the Royal Navy by James Coggeshall. Master's Thesis, Texas A&M University, 1997' on the fire ship article. I'm having a little trouble finding out if this fits our guidelines on RSs, given that so far I can't find evidence that this 'can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.' If not, should it be removed? Benea (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Normally a master thesis is not a reliable source. In the case in question I would offer that thesis as an external links since it might of interest to readers, but the article cannot be sourced/based for the most part on the master thesis alone. So imho, remove it it from the references and readd the ref improve tags, but keep thesis itself under external links.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think your question is better asked of experts in the topic rather than a group of people with questionable or no expertise. I'm not denigrating the role of this noticeboard or amateurs; I simply believe that there is so much variation in Master's programs and thesis supervision that we're ill-placed to make the best judgment.

Kmhkmh's recommendation above is a safe route to go if you can't employ experts. ElKevbo (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Endorse above comments. Also note that sources like this, even if disqualified, can still be valuable for their bibliographies.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There is certainly no ban on using masters theses, but they are also certainly not always good enough. In summary: it is not possible to have one fixed rule for all areas. Discussion on the article talk page should therefore try to judge whether this example meets the spirit of our policies. Would this publication and/or author have a reputation for being careful about facts for example?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"Would this publication and/or author have a reputation for being careful about facts for example?" That is exactly why this question needs to be answered by an anthropologist or two. For a thesis, the answers to those questions would center on the reputation and ability of the thesis committee, especially the chair, and the academic department in which it was published. ElKevbo (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Doctoral dissertations are explicitly published. Theses are accepted or approved, but I'm not sure they can be called "published" just because they've been posted online. OTOH, both dissertations and theses are lists side-by-side on the departments's website.[52]   Will Beback  talk  00:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Although Masters theses are not in general regarded as reliable sources, in the case of uncontroversial issues it would be reasonable for editors to examine the thesis and make a consensus decision whether to cite it or not. You might want to distinguish between overall judgements (which a Masters student might not have the breadth of knowledge to make) and simple facts which are cited to good sources by the thesis. The acknowledgements section of this thesis and the appendices, plus the fact that there are 430 citations many to primary sources, makes me think that this thesis is more citable than most. Zero^talk 03:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I am extremely dubious about using a Masters thesis. Some I have seen are really not very impresive (talking about a major thesis here, not the sort in my next sentence). Some are just a relatively small part of a taught degree, an extended essay, with no committee involved (I know, I've marked a lot!), no acceptance or rejection. Dougweller (talk)

Yes, but it depends on the field in question, and even the type of masters thesis. There are big differences.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems like a good thesis, however, according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence". This thesis, so far as I can ascertain, has not been cited in any other scholarly literature. Therefore, according to WP, it is not a reliable source. There are lots of reliable sources on this topic, many of which are in fact contained in the bibliography to the thesis, these should be consulted instead. FiachraByrne (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, citations would be a useful indication although maybe there are some less "scholarly" fields that don't do much cross citing. So are you saying it seems not to be cited by any other publications anywhere? I am wondering, if other better sources are easily available, why is this source considered important by someone? Is it containing useful updates or something not in other sources?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a SPS and beyond that I'd be very dubious about using such a document as a RS. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Being dubious is fine but given that the question has been raised it seems logical to try to answer it in good faith. Not all masters theses are the same. Just pigeon holing this into SPS begs the question, because a master thesis is not a standardized type of thing around the world. Taking the question seriously I think we should be asking whether the source have any obvious reputation for fact checking. For example if it is cited by other sources, or if theses from the same programme are widely cited.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Tarja Turunen

Is "Tarja: I have no regrets". Bauer Consumer Media. September 14, 2007. Retrieved February 11, 2011. a reliable source for the quote ““Now that I can use the whole range of my voice, it feels very nice. I have never sung so low as I did on one of the songs on the new record and there's a song on which I sang my highest notes ever! I really have used a huge range on this album – around three octaves – because the moods are changing in every song and this reflects that.””? --Pass3456 (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a well-known UK music magazine and a reliable source for this type of thing. It's only a reliable source for the quote, though, and does not allow the contents of the quote to be reported as fact. --FormerIP (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

iTunes and Amazon for television series verification

I know there have been discussions in the past in regards to the two, but they seem to be geared towards their distribution of music. Now that they are selling television show episodes online before they are released on DVD and at times even before they broadcast on television, one has to wonder if they can be used to cite information on episode list articles. I know they can't verify broadcast dates, but could they verify certain vital information like episode title and season numbering? Sarujo (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

torah.org

Is torah.org RS? It is run by Project Genesis (organization). Chesdovi (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It is important to say what it is being proposed to be used for.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This disruptive and tendentious editor is asking because he want to continue an edit war with new arguments, after my last edit. Debresser (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

To support my claim that Rabbi Meir was of the (five) leading Jewish sages of his generation. Debresser (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a very big claim. I would personally like to see a book citation for something like that. And if he truly was one of only five leading Jewish sages of his generation, I would imagine there would be at least a couple books stating this or a very similar claim. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)