Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. Please post new topics in a new section. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

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

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board.

Antiwar.com vs. Political Research Associates

I see that in this edit, a cite from Antiwar.com was removed on the grounds of being self-published. It was removed from the bio of Chip Berlet, the main attraction at Political Research Associates, which is abundantly cited as a source all over Wikipedia. This seems ironic to me because I can see no structural difference between Antiwar and PRA. They are both highly opinionated commentary sites. Why is one better than the other? --Niels Gade (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I also can see no difference. It appears to be a case of goose and gander. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Echos of the disparate treatment of Frontpage Magazine and MMFA and FAIR. But it's hardly news that Wikipedia editors have net group biases. But Chip Berlet has a special history, as it seems it was a long-term project of SlimVirgin and a like-minded claque of admins to abuse and manipulate BLP policy to the detriment of NPOV in that article, among others. Andyvphil (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, antiwar.com doesn't count as self-published. It might count as a source of dubious reliability; however, there is certainly no difference between quoting the editor of that site and the editor of Publiceye.com. I'd like to disassociate myself from Andy's remarks above, though, as I don't know the facts (also, its clique). Certainly, if PRA is overused, people should feel free to remove it. Relata refero (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, claque does work in this context. --Niels Gade (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you're right. Relata refero (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any conclusion here that PRA is an unreliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We were discussing self-publishing, actually. And we usually wait a bit before deciding there's no consensus. People check this noticeboard on irregular schedules. Relata refero (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Some editors are pointing to this thread as a reason to deleted sourced material. I was simply pointing out that that is premature. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone have particular cases where they felt the PRA was used improperly as a source, for comparison? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. PRA is overused as a source, and often in ways which violate WP:BLP. There are two persons who are professional anti-LaRouche activists, Dennis King and Chip Berlet, who both have websites with arguably slanderous attacks on LaRouche. PRA is Berlet's website, and King's website has been discussed before on this page (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#www.lyndonlarouchewatch.org.) (PRA, for example, features defamatory leaflets with instructions to print them out and distribute them at LaRouche events, not the sort of thing you would expect from a scholarly source.[1]) These attacks do not appear in the conventional press, so these two persons have opened Wikipedia accounts (User:Dking and User:Cberlet) to use Wikipedia to get greater exposure for their views. They are joined in this effort by User:Will Beback and User:Hardindr. The idea appears to be to use Wikipedia to "expose" LaRouche, since the conventional media are not doing this to their satisfaction. Material from the the websites in question is spammed into all LaRouche-related articles [2][3] [[4] in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. I think that use of PRA should be scaled way back to a level that corresponds to its notability, and never for material that conflicts with BLP -- I do not believe that PRA meets the standards required by WP:BLP. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dennis King and Chip Berlet have been professional investigative journalists, and are the acknowledged experts on Lyndon LaRouche and his movement. They've been quoted at least dozens of times in the mainstream press. King is the author of the only full-length biography, which was published by a major publishing house, Doubleday & Co. Berlet is a longtime researcher for Political Research Associates, which also meets our standards of a reliable publishing source. Some editors have tried repeatedly to have these two authors considered unreliable sources and have never succeeded.(Isn't there a statute of limitations?) Yet they haven't proven that the authors have been factually incorrect in any straighforward reporting. The reason that they are used in all the LaRouche articles is that they are the leading researchers of the LaRouche movement. Their viewpoints on LaRouche are not different from all the other reliable sources, and are consistent with the usual reporting. What erroneous material has PRA published that shows they are unreliable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Who "acknowledges" them as "the experts"?

2. It looks to me like King's website was rejected as a self-published source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#www.lyndonlarouchewatch.org.

3. PRA is loaded with what WP:BLP calls "a conjectural interpretation of a source," i.e., rampant editorializing and conspiracy theory. PRA might be acceptable in many cases for non-controversial material, but what King, Berlet and Will Beback have consistently done is use it as a source for a fringe theory that behind every utterance of LaRouche there is a hidden agenda of neo-fascism, which has been noted by outside observers as a particular tactic of Berlet and PRA against all of their targets. As is noted at the beginning of this discussion, Activist Justin Raimondo has written that "Berlet is professional political hit man whose specialty is smearing anyone outside the traditional left-right categories as an extremist, at best, and a nascent Nazi at worst."[5] This is why PRA should be used sparingly and with particular caution in BLP articles. Will Beback is completely mistaken to say that "Their viewpoints on LaRouche are not different from all the other reliable sources." --Niels Gade (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Do you want me to plaster a talk page with all of he times that Berlet and King have been cited? I'll do so if that convinces you.

Being cited in an article isn't the same as being "acknowledged as the experts." I would be interested in seeing reliably sourced commentary that says they are "the experts." --Niels Gade (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

2. I don't see a consensus there. I see one editor piping in, but without a full understanding of our policies.

3. I don't think you are accurately describing my actions. The whole concept of "fringe theories" concerning LaRouche is a bit humorous, considering how many fringe theories he's come up with and how frequently he's describned as "fringe". Raimondo is hardly an objective commentator. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How would you describe your actions? What is inaccurate in Niels' description? --Terrawatt (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been advancing the "fringe theory that behind every utterance of LaRouche there is a hidden agenda of neo-fascism". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You have supported King and Berlet when they do it. --Niels Gade (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you substantiate that accusation? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For example, you have vehemently defended the use of King's book as a source.[6][7][8] King's book is simply a very long essay defending this fringe theory. The mere fact that something has been published by a large publishing house does not make it automatically a suitable source for BLP. --Niels Gade (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That book is the best, most reliable source we have for the life of Lyndon LaRouche. Being published by a major publishing house does, in fact, make it a suitable source for a BLP. I have certainly not sought to advance the theory that that "behind every utterance of LaRouche there is a hidden agenda of neo-fascism". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But the book you are promoting does advance that theory. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that using the book as a source is the same as "promoting" it. I haven't written an article about it, or any other promotional actitivity. I have defended it's use as a source. No one has presented any verifibale factual errors on the book, and Niels Gade himself has confirmed facts from it. No one is suggesting that there's a more reliable 3rd-party source for the life of LaRouche. If you call using the book as a source "promotion" then are those editors who use LaRouche-published books and articles "promoting" them? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes, if they are using them in articles outside of the "LaRouche-related" articles. King's book is a reliable source on King's views, and would certainly be acceptable in the article on Dennis King. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Using a reliable source isn't promoting it. The job of Wikipedia editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Dennis King and Chip Berlet's books and articles are reliable sources written by acknowledged experts on the topic of Lyndon LaRouche and his movement. Using their work is no different than using a NY Times or Washington Post article. Though, of course, I know you regard those as unreliable too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. May I ask how you happened to arrive at this conclusion about me? --Marvin Diode (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I wrong? Do you consider such mainstream media as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, or NBC to be reliable sources on the topic of Lyndon LaRouche? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes to both questions, and I have said so explicitly. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Break

<unindent-Perhaps I misunderstood this comment of yours:

• Major publications are not above conducting dirty tricks campaigns where politics is involved -- this has been true for a long time, and not likely to change soon. [9]

It appeared that you were denying that major publications were a reliable source. What did you mean and in reference to which publications? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant just what I said. We have to use major publications as a source, unless there are peer-reviewed journals or some other, stronger source available. As you may recall, in my request for arbitration[10] I proposed that "when [King's or Berlet's] views have appeared in mainstream publications, those may be used as sources and would not be disputed (this satisfies the requirements of WP:REDFLAG.)" I emphatically disagree with your statement that using the websites of King or Berlet "is no different than using a NY Times or Washington Post article." This doesn't mean, of course, that I consider the NY Times, Washington Post or Wall Street journal to be infallible. Mature editorial judgment should be excercised with any source. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not say that I have "confirmed facts" from King's book, as if that makes it a reliable source. The book may correctly say that February is the second month of the calendar year; that doesn't in any way excuse the fact that it is full of outrageous, propagandistic speculation and innuendo. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You have confirmed facts from the book. You have not offered any evidence that there are factual errors in it. The book meets WP's standards for a reliable source. However that book isn't the topic of this thread. It has already been discussed before and there's no need to keep bringing it up. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to put things in perspective, has anyone offered any evidence that there are factual errors in the LaRouche publications? I don't believe that this is the sole criterion for use of a source. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Clippings of factual errors promoted by LaRouche.

• On the talk show, LaRouche blamed the Soviet Union for engineering what he termed the the AIDS "conspiracy." "There is no question that it can be transmitted by mosquitoes," LaRouche said, citing as supporting evidence the high incidence of the disease in Africa, the Caribbean and southern Florida.
• On the KGO talk show, LaRouche pointed to the "insect-bite belt," which he said includes Florida and the Caribbean. "In the insect-bite belt, we have a very large transmission of AIDS among poor people," he said. "The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta has been suppressing this evidence."
• Indeed, Secretary of State March Fong Eu said last week she would challenge in court "blatantly false" sections of the ballot argument for Proposition 64 submitted by LaRouche backers, including claims that "AIDS is not hard to get," and that potential insect and respiratory transmission of the disease and transmission by casual contact are "well established."

Do you want to argue that he was correct? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You aren't addressing Marvin's question. The issue is not LaRouche's personal opinions. The question is about fact-checking at Executive Intelligence Review or other LaRouche publications. Do you have evidence of factual errors in those publications? --Niels Gade (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We can spend more time investigating the LaRouche movement's claims about diseases if we ever seek to use the EIR as a reliable source. Of course, if you have any citations from EIR disputing LaRouche's incorrect statements then that might help their reputation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If EIR is accurately reporting an opinion by LaRouche, that does not discredit EIR as a source, regardless of whether LaRouche's opinion is credible or not. I asked you for examples of cases where EIR reported something as fact which turned out to be incorrect. You are applying a completely different set of standards to LaRouche publications than you do to the self-citing by King and Berlet. --Marvin Diode (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to an archive of back issues of EIR or other LaRouche periodicals. Since no one is proposing using EIR as a reliable source, it seems like moot point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would propose using EIR as a source, judiciously and appropriately, just as I would use King and Berlet as sources, judiciously and appropriately. Alternatively, I would propose using none of them. --Niels Gade (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Treating EIR as a relaible source would require overturning or altering an ArbCom case. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Which arbcom case? If there are restrictions on the use of EIR as a source, the same restrictions ought to apply to PRA et al. --Niels Gade (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. I'd like to know whether Wikipedia applies policy consistently. --Marvin Diode (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you please link to the arbcom case you mentioned? --Niels Gade (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Other thread

1. I have no problem with using King and Berlet as a source when they are cited by legitimate publications, because those publications may be expected to excercise some discretion about which of their theories are suitable for responsible publication. The Kronberg interview you mention below has not appeared anywhere, to my knowledge, outside of the PRA site.

2. I see a consensus.

3. Actually, I think it is quite appropriate to compare LaRouche with Berlet as "fringe" commentators. In fact, both of them frequently describe their opponents as neo-fascists or proto-fascists. The difference is that I have not seen quotes from LaRouche plastered all over Wikipedia. The quotes from LaRouche appear to be confined mainly to the articles about LaRouche and his organization. I think it would be appropriate if quotes from PRA and Chip Berlet were largely limited to articles Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates. As far as Raimondo is concerned, would you say that he is less objective than Berlet? --Niels Gade (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Who are the participatns in this consensus you see?

3. I'm not sure what the point is of comparing the reliablility of two sources. As for Raimondo, he appears to be more of a commentator than an investigative journalist. Michael Rubin of Frontpagemag.com says, "Citing statements replicated in recent Mujahedin-e Khalq publications brings as much credibility as quoting from Lyndon LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review. Quality of sourcing always matters: Justin Raimondo is hardly a trustworthy authority.[11]" His footnote goes to an article titled "Justin Raimondo: An American Neo-Fascist", written by Stephen Schwartz. Do you think he's a reliable source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You're now quoting FPM, unquestionably a fringe, unreliable source, to point out that another source is too fringe to talk about a third fringe source notable only for studying a fourth fringe source. Listen to me very carefully: theyre all unreliable. Will, there's nobody else opposing that statement. Relata refero (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

FPM is about as "fringe, unreliable" as CounterPunch. Perhaps you'd like to remove the hundreds of citations we have for CounterPunch at the same time you take on FPM? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? I'm talking about the problem's with Will's argument. I'm not using Twinkle to suppress links to FPM. Relata refero (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about the problems with your argument. FPM is no more "fringe, unreliable" than CounterPunch, and Wikipedia seems to have decided that CounterPunch is neither "fringe" nor "unreliable". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh? When was this? rudra (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Kronberg interview

The dicussion above is rather vague and compares the position of one source versus another. On a more specific point: is there any reason why this interview on PRA with Marielle Kronberg should not be considered a reliable source for her words? Does anyone assert that the interview is faked or altered? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as this interview is not considered the absolute truth as is quoted only to show the opinions of Marielle Kronberg, and if the opinion of this lady is relevant for the Wikipedia article where it is intended to be added, I don't see any reason to avoid the usage of this interview as a source.--MariusM (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have indicated elsewhere that I don't object to it appearing in one article, but spamming it into every LaRouche-related article is undue weight. --Niels Gade (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't object to the sourcing why did you just remove it from an article, claiming a sourcing issue? "the sourcing issues are discussed at WP:RSN#Antiwar.com vs. Political Research Associates. The only actual criticism is sourced to PRA. The rest of the paragraph is context."[12] If there's no sourcing issue then please restore it. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

Parodies

Are parody news sources, like The Onion, SNL News, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report considered reliable sources for criticism of people or organizations? They cannot be easily rebutted because of their satirical nature. Arzel (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

They are sources only about themselves. If they are a canonical example of a notable or widespread form of satire regarding the subject, then they could perhaps be cited as an example thereof, but ideally only if there is an independent source identifying it as such. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

How about a third party using then as a source for criticism. For example. B criticizes A regarding some scenario, A responds to B about that scenario. C (The parody source) lampoons the scenario which makes A look stupid or relfects badly against A and subsequently makes B look good. B then uses C as evidence against in its criticism against A. Can the Paradoy source C be used as a reliable source for B to reflect the POV of B against A? Arzel (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Having drawn a small flowchart on a table napkin, I am ready to answer you now: No, not unless D, a reliable secondary source, tells us that C is a notable expression of the reaction to A and B's conflict. Could we look at the specific example to see if I got that right? Relata refero (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, you wouldn't happen to be talking about this topic would you? (link) R. Baley (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the example. B is Media Matters criticizing A Limbaugh (who, don't get me wrong, I think is an arrogant jerk). A responds, claiming his word were taken out of context. C parodies the situation, which B uses to criticize A from a type of strawman point of view. My main problem with this use of a parody in this sense is that those that do parodies could be used as a reliable source in many situations to denagrate one side or the other. Arzel (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't think that that would be an appropriate source for a genuine report on the disagreement between A and B. (Though I am sympathetic to the view that C's opinion of the disagreement might in itself be notable.) Relata refero (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• My view is that Parodies are works of fiction, and cannot be treated as evidence of real-world evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So, would the general concensus be that parodies cannot be used as a reliable source for describing a real-world situation. Or to put it more bluntly, parodies cannot be used as a reliable source of criticism against a real person, unless the parody itself reaches a level of notability itself, in which case the parody becomes its own story? Arzel (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Help URGENTLY needed at History of Sumer / Aratta - Serious Problem has been ongoing for one week, don't all ignore this at once

Help is urgently needed at History of Sumer. I have been having immense difficulties trying to explain WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR to a new user who for many days now has repeatedly removed a reference to the view of Samuel Kramer, and replaced it with uncited, dubious OR statements that he refuses to cite. He has removed the citation requests I placed on these statements numerous times, holding his personal authority sufficient to make these claims. And every time I remove the uncited OR statements, he immediately replaces them again without any citation needed tags, and round and round in circles it goes for days without end. On the talkpage discussion, he insists that he doesn't need any sources, but that I am the one who needs to look up reliable sources contradicting him, if I want to remove these uncited statements. Everywhere I have turned for help, I am met with stony disinterest and "just get along" type advice, and the new user seems to be "learning" that all of this behaviour is acceptable and tolerable on wikipedia as long as few people are paying attention who will challenge him. Please help! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the above RS problem that is still outstanding and still needs attention, I now have an additional RS problem at Lapis armenus with the same user who is blanking references, edit warring and accusing me of vandalism there as well. Please take a look at the references that I have added to that article and see if they look to be in order. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been editing History of Sumer, since reading the first paragraph here, and there are some indications of progress in defusing a fairly heated edit war. I don't have time to look at this other page though. Msalt (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, maybe I was naively optimistic. Page is now protected. Msalt (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You've done really well though, Msalt. Hats off to your patience. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Msalt (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, now we have another problem with the same user blanking RSS he doesn't like at Aratta and adding the same identical WP:SYNT as at the first article. I am sorry to say the whole situation seems to be getting worse, not better. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the kind of problem that will just go away if everybody ignores it, folks. For about a month or two now, many articles pertaining to Sumer are being systematically dismantled, scholarly references are being chucked, and replaced with idiosyncratic, never-published OR arguments by a user who has thus far been held to a much lower standard than anyone else I have ever seen on wikipedia in my 3 years of editing. Who is this guy anyway? I was blocked merely for reporting his (not my) 4RR violation on one occasion, so from that I can gather it's someone pretty high up with the "connections"...? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference experts needed for above ongoing (3 week) problem

I have added the following reliable references to Talk:Aratta establishing conclusively that the POV does indeed, really, honest-to-god, actually exist and can be found in scholarly literature that the Sumerian Aratta may be connected with the Sanskrit Aratta. However, the same user has determined that this POV is inadmissible and cannot be seen on wikipedia because his POV is different; thus he has found what he considers fatal flaws with the arguments in each of these experts and apparently will not suffer any of this to be mentioned in the article Aratta at all, even though they are serious references from well known authors including D. D. Kosambi and Malati Shendge. Could someone please take a moment to click on each of the following pages and please verify that the scholarly discussion marked by the highlighted terms does constitute speculation that the two Arattas may be the same?? -- I feel this POV should not be excluded from the article on such facetious grounds as the say-so of one particular editor who seems to fancy himself the sole arbiter of such questions. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Malati J. Shendge, 2003
2. Alexander Jacob 2005
3. D.D. Kosambi 1995
4. Sanujit Ghose, 2004

This represents only those sources I can find accessible through Google-books; there are a great many more scholarly references there that are not accessible except in "snippet view", so clicking the above research pages is only scratching the surface. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I am still trying to get even one third opinion on these references that the user claims must not be mentioned. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: I am STILL trying to get even one third opinion on these reliable references that the user claims must not be mentioned. Dr. Koenraad Elst and Professor Michael Witzel who are both considered quite mainstream can now be added to the list of experts that this user very haughtily has declared his own personal opinions and original POV to be superior to. The total silence from this board these last 3 or 4 weeks has been deafening, the two-man edit stalemate at Aratta continues and all attempts to find third opinions on the references have failed, so I can feel arbitration coming just around the corner. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Mediation, rather than arbitration, would probably be the next step. While I can acknowledge that the statements above certainly seem, to my comparatively uneducated eyes, good enough to source content related to them, I am far from knowledgable enough to say that they might constitute a scholarly consensus. But the sources do look good enough for inclusion, at least to my eyes. If there are any others who are more expert in this area, I would welcome their input as well. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have now gone to Mediation cabal as a preliminary step. So far all he has to dispute these expert sources with, is his own opinions, it's not like he has come up with any sources at all to dispute them for him, so it should be a cinch whenever it finally comes time to lay our cards down. It's just that this stalemate has been dragging on for something like a month with no end in sight. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is an excellent idea. Having spent a little time there trying to calm things down, I urge Til Eulenspiegel to consider how s/he may also be responsible for some of the fighting. There is room for improved civility on all sides, regardless of who is "right" or wrong on content issues. Msalt (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

y!m

Is Yahoo! Movies a reliable source? I know IMDb isn't, since—akin to a wiki—it's a user-generated production; but I was under the impression Y!M isn't. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Section edit to prevent archival. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Without addressing Yahoo Movies, which I'm not all that familiar with, I would disagree with the suggestion that IMDb is an unreliable source. Parts of IMDb are user-generated without editorial involvement: the message boards, user comments, plot synopses (not to be confused with the plot outline or plot summary), parental guides, resumes, and FAQs for individual entries (as opposed to the FAQ for the database as a whole). But the rest of the content (as far as I can recall) is reviewed by the IMDb staff before going live on the web site. They do have editors who are full-time employees to review the user-submitted content such as the actual credits for the films. Obviously, IMDb does contain some errors even among the edited content, but the same could be said for almost any book, newspaper, or magazine. I would trust most IMDb content (other than the user-generated sections without editorial review) unless I had reason to believe the particular information was inaccurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd always been under the impression that IMDb was an unreliable source, I was even told such at WT:RS (Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive 15#IMDb.3F). But moreso, I need to know about the reliability of Yahoo! Movies as I've used it extensively as sourcing for several articles. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As regards Yahoo! Movies, it looks like it depends on what aspect of Yahoo! Movies you were planning to cite. The content there ranges from articles from the Associated Press and Reuters, which are reliable sources, to user reviews, which are not reliable sources at all. It is true that someone at WT:RS said IMDb was an unreliable source, but I disagree with that person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made heavy use of Yahoo! Movies' actor biographies, and basic film statistical information. Wherefrom is that information; is it reliable? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To check the notability of an actor (e.g. for an AfD discussion) I wouldn't rely on IMDB alone, since how the screen credits are listed may differ among sources. I'd trust the film's own web site more. If a film is reviewed in US newspapers, then metacritic.com will usually offer an excellent set of reviews in what we consider to be reliable sources. This is good information on films though often individual actors may not be mentioned. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But I'm not really talking about IMDb, I'm asking about Yahoo! Movies here. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Further section edit to prevent archival.

Does anybody know one way or another whether Yahoo! Movies' biographical and film statistical information constitutes a reliable source? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA may not be a reliable source

I was reading some quotes cited to the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, and I found a few problems related to the ongoing "Jewish lobby" headache.

• This CAMERA blog article [13], uses the term "Jewish lobby", and links to an op-ed piece in the Guardian [14] which uses the term, which in turn links to the actual report, which does not use the term. See Report of the All-Party Inquiry into Antisemitism (UK) The closest the report gets is "An example of this would be remarks about the Israel lobby. No-one would seek to deny that there is well-organised support for Israel in Britain, but in some quarters this becomes inflated to the point where discourse about the ‘lobby’ resembles discourse about a world Jewish conspiracy."

• CAMERA quotes Desmond Tutu saying, in a speech in Boston:

"People are scared in this country to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful, very powerful. Well, so what?...Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin...were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust."[15]

This speech from Bishop Desmond Tutu was also reported by the BBC. Interestingly, CAMERA appears to have dropped a line from the middle of the quote. The BBC quotes him as saying:

"People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. "Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust."[16]

CAMERA dropped the bolded text, which distorts the meaning a bit. Tutu was speaking against Israeli apartheid at the time.

So I'd suggest that using CAMERA as a reliable source for quotations is somewhat iffy. What comes out of CAMERA may not be what went in. CAMERA may be useful as a finding tool (they're powered by Google), but actual quotes should come from a less partisan source. CAMERA's output is mostly derived from other press sources, so if CAMERA has something, there's probably another source for it. --John Nagle (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

three little dots... make all the difference. The difference between reliability and unrelibility. They put in the elipses. Ergo, they are rleiable. Unreliable sources are the ones that omit material without elipses. The way the old Soviet Union used to airbrush purged politicans out of the photoAmerican Clio (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

IMO, CAMERA is generally a reliable source for opinions and interpretations, as long as they're attributed in the text to CAMERA. On questions of fact they are dubious at best, and certainly not appropriate for quotations of living people. <eleland/talkedits> 17:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See also MEMRI above. Pretty much any quotefarm from an advocacy source should be double-checked with reference to the original documents. Relata refero (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA is reasonably reliable, but one must recognize that they are an advocacy group. They're obviously not an academic source, or a major news outlet. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA should be treated the similarly to organizations such as CAIR. Both have distinct ideological perspectives, but they usually get their quotations correct. -- Avi (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft open letter used as reference

Resolved

.

A edit war on the OOXML Standardization page has been going on over the use of a open letter on a Microsoft website. The letter describes Microsofts opinions about IBM's actions. IMHO the page is a self published source that has claims about a 3rd party. As such I do not believe the page is usable as a reference to prove "IBM's "global campaign" in opposition to the Office Open XML standardization process". Here is a link to a previous version since the section gets deleted and added quite a bit. Here is a link to the Microsoft page that is used as a reference. Kilz (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion about this particular reference started here and (after a page split) is now here. My position is

• Microsoft created Office Open XML, and as such, its statements are valid in an article about Office Open XML, so long as a neutral point of view is maintained.
• Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability says "...readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Kilz argues that the reference should be disallowed because it is a "self-published source." The material on self-published sources opens with, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field." There is no doubt the reference in question is a "self-published source," as it was published by Microsoft. However, Microsoft isn't "anyone creating a website and claiming to be an expert." They are, in fact, an expert in the field and a reliable source.
• The reference adds balance to an article that already has references written by competitor IBM, competitor Google, the "Office Open XML Is Defective By Design" blog, ODFAlliance.org (ODF is a "competing" document format,) ODFAlliance.org again, and again, an anti-OOXML wiki, OpenOffice Ninja (OpenOffice is a "competing" office suite,) Open Office Ninja again, the Groklaw blog, and the Groklaw blog again.

Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 07:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Balance is not an issue here, but if the source is a reliable source according the WP:VER and WP:SPS. Neither is where the discussion started. It has always been my opinion that self published source discussing a 3rd party is unusable. IMHO the arguments that a bad reference should be used to support a section based on it are faulty. The section should be removed if a creditable source isnt found.Kilz (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Documents published by Microsoft are reliable for showing what the opinions of Microsoft are, also probably for what Microsoft's actions have been. However, in the context of this article statements by software houses are primary sources. The article should not rely on them but be mainly written up from what has been said in independent media. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and just to clarify. Am I correct in saying that Microsofts pages can be used as secondary sources to show what their opinions and actions are as secondary sources. But that primary sources should come from what has been said in independent media. Kilz (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you have it backwards. The microsoft pages would be a primary source for what microsoft says. The independent media would be a secondary source. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

But the reply by Itsmejudith says that the article relies on statements by software houses, of which Microsoft is one. That the article should rely on independent media. To me that says the articles main statements need to be backed up by independent media. If not anyone could start a company, make statements, regardless if they are true or not and we would then take them as reliable and truth.

Also by what you are both saying, Microsoft cant be used as a reference to describe the actions or thoughts of anyone else. Only its own actions and thoughts. Those thoughts should probably be clearly labeled as opinions and not be made to look like facts. What about unfounded accusations about a third party? Should we allow libel as a reliable reference? Kilz (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The confusion probably comes from the definitions of the terms "primary source" and "secondary source". See WP:V for some pointers. The original distinction was made by historians. If a historian goes to an archive and finds very old documents, then those are "primary sources". If the historian instead uses books written by other historians, those are "secondary sources". Wikipedia is mainly written from secondary sources. So when we say that Microsoft's statements are a primary source, that does not mean that they are the best source for writing a Wikipedia article, in fact it means the opposite. A report in a completely independent news medium would be much better for writing the article. However, you can use Microsoft's statements directly if you are careful and sparing. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. It helped clear up some misconceptions of terms I had, but reinforced what I believed was the correct use of the references. Kilz (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

USA Today

I'm curious whether people think this USA Today article is a reliable source regarding a controversial article in a medical journal. (This issue arose at the Wikipedia article titled "fetus.")Ferrylodge (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem with this article? Can you provide more details? From the looks of it, the journalist is just reporting on the controversy in a mainstream newspaper. Do other newspapers contradict any of the facts or quotes presented in the USA Today article? J Readings (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to mention the USA Today article in a footnote. The accuracy of the news article is undisputed, as far as I know. Here's the diff.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that if you attributed the "bias" to specific anti-abortion activists mentioned in the article (i.e., name them), while maintaining NPOV in the wording, then the USA Today article would serve as a reliable source. After all, it's a nationwide mainstream US newspaper. Everything is about context. J Readings (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for visiting the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The stuff I put in the footnote simply said, "The authors of the study published in JAMA have been accused of bias." I guess you're saying that it would be better to specifically say who is accusing. How about if I say the following? "The journal's editor said she wishes two of the authors had disclosed their affiliations, but the editor says it would not have influenced her decision to publish the report." Would that be better?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I went ahead and reinserted the USA Today link into the footnote, with a new sentence.[17]Ferrylodge (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Reverted again, of course.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The A/V Club

I'd like to clean up one of those "In popular culture" sections and am looking for sources. I found an excellent article on the Onion's A/V Club, which--unlike The Onion itself--is not a satirical publication. Does this seem like an acceptable website to use as source when describing critical opinion about a pop culture subject?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• The AV Club seems to me to be a reasonably reliable source. I wouldn't have any problem with seeing it cited in an article about a pop culture subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles with no sources

Recently I have been giving more attention to patrolling new pages. I nearly always add an {{unreferenced}} tag to any article that has no references or external links of any kind. I am starting to get a certain amount of resistance and would like some guidance. These are the kinds of things I am hearing:

• sports data that is "eminently verifiable"[18] does not need a source
• a place (small village) that is "inherently-notable" does not need a source. (I have noticed that a majority of new articles of this type do give an atlas or gazetteer as a source.)
• articles without sources should go straight to AfD. This was from Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk · contribs) who used Twinkle to revert around a hundred of the tags I recently added, with no explanation until I asked what was up. The explanation seems inadequate and the action taken inappropriate.

I believe providing sources for almost all articles is important. Articles I don't tag include disamiguation pages and some lists.

I'm asking for suggestions. Is there a general rule of thumb for the type of article that never needs a source so I can save myself and others needless trouble? ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I will not offer an opinion as to whether mass-tagging of new articles is a good thing, but I find that the 3 responses listed above are, to varying degrees, misguided:

• Removing a request for sources while saying that boxscore data is "eminently verifiable" is pugnacious editing at its best. If it's so verifiable, then your friend should have no problem verifying it. For example, if I wanted to find a reliable source for a Super Bowl boxscore, I might go to a site like this.
• The more obscure the village, the greater the imperative for independent verification of its existence. Without such verification, it becomes easy to create hoaxes
• Hogwash. A request for sources is far more constructive than an AfD nom. Take it to AfD only if you believe sources are unlikely to be found.

Hope this helps.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered doing some basic google searches to see if you could add sources to these articles? That would be a much more constructive way to deal with the problem. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This has spilled over to WP:ANI#Unreferenced tagging of Frech commune stubs with apparently me as the villain. My response, which speaks to some of the comments raised above, is here. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 17:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

www.Biography.com

Is this a reliable source? Thank you.

Wanderer57 (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm.... It is the website of The Biography Channel, which belongs to the A&E Television Networks, [19]. Depending on the context, it may be a useful source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Jossi. Since it is a "maybe", will you please look at the specific case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_Hilton&diff=prev&oldid=197148665

(As background information, I should mention I think there are also other issues involved here aside from the reliability of the source. I reverted the edit shown in the above diff. There is discussion at Talk:Paris Hilton#Re reverted edit in lead.) Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless the $300m fortune is disputed, I do not see why it would not be usable. I am sure that there must be other sources about the Hilton's fortune. Best would be to discuss in that article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Screen caps of end credits

Are these reliable? They change regularly and can vary by channel. For example NBC, ABC, and CBS all broadcast soaps which are rebroadcast on SOAPnet. The credits are different on the broadcast stations from what they are on SoapNet. So, are screen caps considered reliable? KellyAna (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since they are created by the show's producers, I can't see why the credits from the latest first-run episodes wouldn't be the most reliable sources possible for the names of characters and the actors and actresses that portray them. Unless there's a large body of evidence that can be posted on Wikipedia from the show's dialogue itself that contradicts the latest credits, those credits should be the most reliable source for information regarding television programs. -- Dougie WII (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The credits should reflect the attached show (similar to the "cite the book you're holding" standard -- base your edits on the paperback you're holding and tell us it's the paperback and not the hardcover edition). Being different on different presentations may be due to contractual, style, or editing differences. It's possible for the appearance to be different while having the same content; there are now advantages to using reformatted credits so they can be displayed in different formats (so the next show or commercials can fit on the screen during credits). I don't know how much detail is needed in articles; I don't know if movie articles describe all of the alterations made to fit a movie to broadcast TV or airline requirements. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please expandon or link to that "cite the book you're holding" standard please? It seems that KellyAna is making the assertion that anything you see on a television program yourself (or in secondary sources) is less important than the website associated with it. Thanks. -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The "cite the book you're holding" standard basically means that, using KellyAna's soap example above, you would specifically reference the credits you are citing as being from ABC, SoapNet, etc., so that even if they differ for a given day for some reason, it is clear which source the info is from. In the case of books, obviously a page number referenced for a quote will differ from edition to edition, so noting the edition/ISBN would be crucial when citing page numbers. — TAnthony^Talk 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a violation of WP:NOR to me. Dlabtot (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't a television screen capture a published source, just as a book is? -- Dougie WII (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not according to my understanding of the word published. Published by whom? A television station, cable or satellite company broadcasts a program, and a Wikipedia editor screen captures the closing credits of that program. Who is the secondary source? It seems like the epitome of original research to me. Dlabtot (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We can certainly cite the credits listed at the end of a television program... The airing of a program is considered equivalent to "publication", and the TV program itself is a reliable source for what is stated in that TV program. As to the NOR issue, citing something you see on a TV program is no more a NOR violation than citing a book or webpage you read. It isn't a conclusion or synthesis originating from a Wikipedia editor. Blueboar (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm misunderstanding WP:NOR. I didn't think I was able to use my own reading and interpretation of a book as a source for an article about that book. Of course you can cite a book in reference to the books subject, but that's not what we are talking about here. I guess I'll pose the question at WT:NOR. Dlabtot (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If a screenshot couldn't be used as a reliable source, how could any exist on Wikipedia then? How could anyone prove a screen shot picture of, say, Darth Vader was really accurate? Under your scheme it would all be original research. -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the discussion may be getting off track with this "other stuff exists" argument. I can't imagine a situation where someone would dispute the accuracy of this screen shot. However, I definitely take issue with the proposition that a production's credits should automatically be considered reliable as a source for an encyclopedia article about that production. Many credits are fictitious, jokes, pseudonyms, etc. Who played the "Victim in the Field" in Fargo? If you went by the credits you would never have heard of J. Todd Anderson. Dlabtot (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The key word is "interpretation". Simple statements of fact (such as who played what role, who the director was, or where the show was filmed, etc.) about what appears in the credits do not involve any "interpretation". In fact, the similarity to a book or website is more exact here... unlike the rest of a TV program, the credits are in print format. We can read them in exactly the same way we read a book. No, looking at the closing credits is "Sourced based research" not "Original research". Now, if you were to go "beyond the source", and state (for example) that all members of the production team were of Irish descent, because everyone listed in the credits seems to have Irish names... that would be OR. Do you see the difference? Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, if we assume that referencing the credits is not OR, I am wondering about verifiability. If I were to state in an article that Meryl Streep played Erica Kane on All My Children for a day on February 4 2008 based on my viewing of the episode and noting the credits, is that verifiable if the episode will probably never be broadcast and never be available on DVD? Or is the threshhold that a copy of the program exists somewhere, and although an everyday person may not have the resources/access to confirm it, the possibility exists? Although we know that a source does not have to be available online to be reliable/verifiable, KellyAna has more or less made the convincing argument elsewhere that if a website does exist, it should perhaps trump an "as seen on TV" reference (which is not so easily verified), regardless of which source is technically more accurate.

I am just thinking that as much as a screencap is obvious "proof" that could be used between editors to clarify a dispute, I doubt that in most cases a fair use screencap of credits would have an appropriate place within an article just for the purpose of such clarification. This actually is one element of the discussion that prompted KellyAna and Dougie WII to dicuss the issue here. — TAnthony^Talk 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your question is good in a general sense, but in this specific case of Passions, the episodes are available for up to eight weeks online, a source already determined to be valid. -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but months from now when the series is no longer airing ... I'm also looking at the bigger picture, there are several articles which reference things like "so-and-so noted his birthday as May 15 in the May 1 2007 episode" which are not noted in the official site recaps, and so are not readily verified. — TAnthony^Talk 21:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

When a TV series no longer airs, it is extremely rare that it completely disappears. It may be available on Video, it may be accessible at a public repository such as a Museum of Film and Television. As long as someone could access it without undue difficulty (and that someone does not have to be "you"), the information is still verifiable. And as long as the information is still verifiable, the show itself remains a reliable source for such statements.

Sure, it might turn out that the episode completely disappears for some reason, and if that happens (ie if the show becomes unverifiable) we would need to revisit the question of reliability of the source. But I think we should deal with that question when and if it actually happens.

In this specific case, because it is available on line... we can probably recall it through Wayback Machine, which can retrieve the information that was on a web site on any given date... (Truth in Advertizing: I am not sure how Wayback works, never having used it, but I gather that it does work.) if so, then the show will never be completely lost. Blueboar (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wayback will indeed recover historical pages that have been archived by its bots, but you can't recover the kind of video material we're talking about, which is copyrighted and thus protected from this kind of archiving (I'm talking about the legitimate network sites and iTunes). Not to beat the hell out of this argument (too late, LOL) but obviously with a book, movie or a great deal of TV shows, a regular person could hit a library or a video store. The only place to find an outdated daytime soap episode (outside of a viewer's personal recording) would probably be the network and/or studio's own archive (assuming the Museum of Film and Television doesn't have every episode of the shows that have run daily for 30+ years). Obviously someone can access such tapes, but are they accessible enough? I do think with non-controversial info not likely to be challenged, we can take information on good faith. However I'm not sure whether this level of verifiability could withstand a challenge, as is happening at Talk:Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald#Requested move. I personally am compelled to agree with Dougie WII and Blueboar that if it exists somewhere accessible to someone, it is verifiable. But again, is there some precedent or consensus somewhere with which we can back this up? — TAnthony^Talk 15:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Rare out-of-print books available in only a limited number of private hands and locked up in special areas of few libraries would still be verifiable no? -- Dougie WII (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Source?

I came across a Greenpeace report that gave a list of USN ships involved in Gulf War I that had been equipped with nuclear missiles. This does explain why some ABL-equiped ships did not fire their entire complement of tomahawk missiles during Gulf War I, but I am not sure if Greenpeace is a reliable source on the matter, in particular since the official USN position is that they do not confirm or deny the presence of nuclear ordinance on thier ships. Thoughts? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You're assuming that ships would have fired all available missiles. I can think of several reasons why some missiles should or could not be used in a single event, but we're just guessing at military decisions and actual events. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. there could be any number of reasons why the other missiles were not fired, hence the reason why I did not add this report to the articles right away. Additionally, there is is conflict of interest since Greenpeace is anti-nuclear, hence the question 'can their report be trusted'? Thats why I brought it up here. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a biased source but still usable if you attribute it to Greenpeace. Taprobanus (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Taprobanus if I understand what he's saying. Attribution to greenpeace should be explicitly in the body not in the footnote. "According to Greenpeace..." JoshuaZ (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

David Fasold

I wonder what people think of the sources used for this article about a now deceased Noah's Ark searcher. In particular,

a usenet posting by the subject

a scanned letter about the subject

Wyatt, Ron (1989). Discovered: Noah's Ark!. Nashville: World Bible Society Publisher's website; [20]

Dawes, June (2000). Noah's Ark: Adrift in Dark Waters. Belrose, NSW: Noahide no information about publisher available

Deal, David Allen (2005). Noah's Ark: The Evidence. Muscogee, OK: Artisan Publisher's website [21]

These books appear to be books written from a Christian fundamentalist perspective, with a creationist (and pro Ark finding) point to push. What could or should these be used for in referencing the article.--Slp1 (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the scanned letter. You can decide about the usenet posting. As to the other three, you are correct, they are "written from a Christian fundamentalist perspective, with a creationist (and pro Ark finding) point to push." But, aren't all "history" books "pushing" some agenda? Just because these are odious "creationist" books, and might offend empiricist, scientific sensibilities doesn't mean they aren't on point and help the article. I point you to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_sources: "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution." I think this applies here, and as they are buttressed by other sources I believe they are perfectly acceptable.

TuckerResearch (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Tuckerresearch. My problem is that this is not an article "about themselves". ie it is not about World Bible Society or creationism or whatever. And in fact, in this particular case, Fasold actually testified in a court case on an anti-creationist "side", , making the use of the book material very problematic in my view using this argument. But mine is just one view, and I am hoping that others can give guidance here.--Slp1 (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Discovered: Noah's Ark! is about the Durupinar site, and Fasold is a "main character" in the book. Noah's Ark: The Evidence is a biography of Fasold (actually, it is not well-written at all, it is comprised of cobbled-together bits of newsletters and news stories with chapter-sized segues of "biography" in between). Noah's Ark: The Evidence is about the Durupinar site and contains info about Fasold (I haven't read this one yet, just looked at bits and pieces). That is, at least, tangentially "about themselves" I admit, but you can't expect an article about a biblical "scholar"/"creationist" to be made up of stellar scientific sources. But, then again, their are notes about Fasold from Science, and he "co-authored" a piece in about the Durupinar site in a peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Geoscience Education). I think these considerations should allow these three to stand as published sources for this subject. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

For my two cents, I'm surprised that the alleged Fasold e-mail cited from a Usenet chat forum is being cited in any article on Wikipedia. With Fasold dead, there is no way to confirm that he actually wrote it, and even if he did write it, so what? It shouldn't be used as a reliable source for much of anything on Wikipedia. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the usenet posting, it was added by someone who wanted to torpedo the article. Whatever you think is best on that. Perhaps put it in a footnote in a highly questioning tone? TuckerResearch (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if you are talking about the Usenet quote I added (with a link to it), I liked the guy (we were in email correspondence before he died) and I certainly didn't want to torpedo the article. There's no question that it was him, it's a direct quote from him and there is nothing comparable available. I normally wouldn't use Usenet, but anyone who knew him would be able to confirm it was him and it is one of his last statements about it. There is no email cited in the Usenet quote. I thought I was getting on with Tuckerresearch until he just accused me of trying to scupper the article, I said keep Fasold as a separate article and beef it up.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I confused you with the other guy editing the article with a a name that started with "D" named "Dab". I apologize. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

More outside opinions on the reliability of a Usenet quote and how to use the Creationist books would be gratefully received. Slp1 (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Usenet posts are definitely NOT reliable. We have no way to verify that the writer is who he claims to be. We can not take the word of a Wikipedia editor that it was him (meaning no disrespect to Doug), as that would amount to Original Research. The books are a harder issue to give a definitive answer on... they do not seem to be the best sources, but they seem to pass the basic verifiability test. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you asked for more opinions, I would like to second everything Blueboar just wrote, he stated my opinion very well! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments. Re the Creationist books, I was wondering whether the best solution in the circumstances might be to attribute the information clearly. I am particularly worried about the following sentence, [Quick background... Fasold had loudly disavowed his earlier identification of Durupinar as Noah's Ark in an Australian court case. There are many newspaper articles [22] about this (as well as the peer-reviewed journal)]

"Still, those closest to him note that before his death he believed the Durupınar site to be the location of the ark, including fellow ark researchers like Don Patten and David Allen Deal. His close Australian friend and biographer June Dawes wrote: He [Fasold] kept repeating that no matter what the experts said, there was too much going for the [Durupınar] site for it to be dismissed. He remained convinced it was the fossilized remains of Noah's Ark."

.

The references given are from two of the books above. It seems to me that the sources of these retraction of the retraction claims needs to be at the very least signalled as coming from the Creationist camp. What do others think? Slp1 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

PMW

Is Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin a reliable source on news reports (that may or may not be reported elsewhere)?

The bulletin features headlines like "Abbas rejects Jewishness of Israel...proud to have taught terror to world"[23] which is a very contentious allegation.Bless sins (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a WP:SELFPUB, and should be used in that context. If the report on Abbas is correct, you should be able to find other sources that describes that assertion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For example

"I was honored to be the one to shoot the first bullet in 1965 [Fatah terror against Israel began in 1965] ,and having taught resistance to many in this area and around the world, defining it and when it is beneficial and when it is not... we had the honor of leading the resistance.We taught everyone what resistance is, including the Hezbollah, who were trained in our camps [i.e. PLO camps in the 60s and 70s]."

— Al-Dustur, February 28, 2008

.. could be used as a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So basically we can use it in conjunction with other sources, but not by itself? Also WP:SELFPUB says that the publication should not make claims about third parties, which the PMW does all the time, nor should the information be contentious, which it also is in the PMW.Bless sins (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Blogs: Jason Matusow

I am writing another question about OOXML. One Im sure I already know the answer to, but I need to point someone to the answer. WP:VER, more specifically WP:SPS says that blogs are not reliable sources except in some limited ways, like if the blog is an interactive news article on a news site. I do not believe that The blog of Jason Matuso can be used as a reference for the Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML page. But some anonymous editors and one registered user believe that it can be. The problem is that Jason Matusow is an employee of Microsoft, as such it is expected that he will have a pro Microsoft bias. The site has no editorial oversight. No fact checking by anyone. He is not a third party, he is involved. Not only that he gives opinions about things he didnt personally see. An admin has recently stepped in and removed this blog and others. Now someone is trying to add it again. The simple question is this, Can or should this blog be used as a reference and source for Wikipedia? Thank you in advance. Kilz (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To bring everyone up to speed, Kilz asked a few days ago whether an open letter written by Microsoft was an acceptable reference. Some responses to his query include

"Documents published by Microsoft are reliable for showing what the opinions of Microsoft are, also probably for what Microsoft's actions have been. However, in the context of this article statements by software houses are primary sources. The article should not rely on them but be mainly written up from what has been said in independent media."

"A report in a completely independent news medium would be much better [than Microsoft's statements] for writing the article. However, you can use Microsoft's statements directly if you are careful and sparing."

Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 03:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the question I asked. That question you mention was about an open letter on a Microsoft site. This is about a blog. Please do not post off topic comments in a section I started asking a question. Questions on reliable sources is exactly why this board exists. Since those that want to use unreliable sources wont ask, I have to if noting else but to make sure that I am looking at it correctly. This is the second time you have followed me to another area to post off topic statements. Please do not do so again.Kilz (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Kilz, please Assume Good Faith. My comments were not off-topic. I quoted a response to your previous question. That response was about

"Documents published by Microsoft..."

Clearly documents have to be published by people. "Microsoft" is not an entity that can publish documents by itself. Therefore, "documents published by Microsoft" means "documents published by employees of Microsoft." The blog in question is published by a Microsoft employee.

It is true that an open letter on Microsoft's website is different than an employee's blog. But, to add some more context: the blog you're asking about is Jason Matusow's. Jason Matusow is Microsoft's Shared Source Manager. One can find interviews with him and statements by him in plenty of 3rd party news sources, including USA Today. Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 08:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also noteworthy is that Jason Matusow is not just an employee but a senior director on standards and interoperability within Microsoft. hAl (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WalterGR, I did not come here to drag an edit war with me. I did not announce my posting here. I wanted the opinions of someone not involved with the Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML page to answer my question, thats why its on this notice board. WalterGR and Hal and everyone else posting on the Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML page please stop posting here so that I may get the answer to my question from a party not involved with the Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML page. I feel that you are trying to delay the answer and are disrupting the work here. That he is quoted in newspapers is the same as Andy Upgrove who has a blog and is quoted all over. But as soon as he is suggested , he is shot down on Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML A new question for the people who work on this board, isnt the reason blogs are not used is the lack of editorial control? I see it as a slippery slope, as soon as one blog is allowed 5 more will be used. Thats why an admin had to come in and removed all the blogs from the page. Kilz (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Mailing Lists Question

Recently a user has added a great dal of negative information to the Hoofer Sailing Club article, and sourcing it to what appears to be a University of Wisconsin mailing list. Here's a few of the quotes and references:

"In 2005, in response to ongoing complaints about mismanagement and abuse at Hoofers, a Sailing club BOC member proposed a new Code of Ethics. However, the proposal was ultimately defeated when the Sailing Club president voted against. [24]"

"The Head of Instruction is hired (and re-hired) by the club's governing body, the Board of Captains (BOC), some of whom are paid staff. They in turn are hired (and re-hired) by the head instructor. It is a system that invites abuse of power and borders on illegality. [25]"

"It is a system that invites abuse of power and borders on illegality. [26]"

I've brought this up on the article's talk page, but there appears to be an edit war percolating on this page. I'd like clarification on the validity of the sources. It seems to be similar to a blog, but I'd like the opinions of more experienced editors. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

From WP:RS: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.[5]

IMO, the user would need to have a very good reason to include self-published forum postings to the article, especially when they are of a negative nature. My inclination is to remove everything immediately and aggressively until reliable third-party sources can be provided. J Readings (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Second comment: I just looked at the page. That whole "criticism" section should be removed per WP:OR, unless third-party reliable sources can be provided. In fact, I hate to say this, but most of the article strikes me as being original research. Granted, that's just my first impression after quickly skimming the page, but the fact that it's very detailed with very few (if any?) sources, strikes me as being more than a little suspicious. Sorry, strike that last sentence. They're not using the standard inline citations that I'm used to reading, so my eyes glanced over them. J Readings (talk) 07:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is very clear mailing lists are not RS period. Taprobanus (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: question-->Answer

I believe the forum list redrocket refers to is a legitimate source of citations. Many different people's posts on that list are cited in the Hoofer Sailing Club article, and those posters are clearly experts on Hoofers. Further, as Redrocket correctly notes above, much of the Hoofer Sailing article is not referenced/cited at all. (Of course this is true for many WP articles because it is often difficult to find authoritative third party references for non-scientific subjects.) In fact, some of the best-referenced parts of the Hoofer article are the criticisms. Most of the rest of the article is "supported" by links to the Hoofer Sailing Club's own website, which of course is not much of a supporting reference for itself. Certainly a Forum open to anyone is more objective than the club's own website..!

Further, Redrocket seems to have a vested interest in seeing that the Hoofer Sailing Club article is as favorable as possible. That may indicate that Redrocket is a Hoofer himself, perhaps a Hoofer leader with a free club membership and lots of extra privileges. If so, then Redrocket may be biased, or worse, may be trying to exercise censorship in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For the article to be objective (NPOV), it requires criticisms along with all the happitudes. I am in the process of adding more supporting references. (Tortugadillo (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

At this point, I have to ask who "Hoofer X" (sic) is? Realistically and following the basic official policies of Wikipedia, all sources should be attributed to a publicly verifiable reliable source. Chat fora have no editorial oversight. They have no transparent institutions that are designed for fact-checking before self-publication. Therefore, they are not reliable. Worse, the source(s) in question hail from "Hoofer X" (sic) and his or her unaccountable (negative) thoughts on the Hoofer Sailing Club. Are we honestly going to argue that the anonymous negative musings of a poster to a chat forum are considered a reliable source for the article simply because...? One last comment: invoking the "First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution" in order to keep the e-mails as references suggests that you should re-visit the official policies and guidelines which have been established by the community of Wikipedia editors. J Readings (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cant agree more. Just read WP:VERIFY, it goes into to great length to disqualify any chat rooms as RS sources. Taprobanus (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed... mailing lists and chat rooms are NOT reliable. The article in question actually has a lot of problems. It does not come close to meeting the notability requirements set out in WP:ORG... almost the entire article is cited to webpages associated with the org. I have prodded it for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You have apparently mistaken Wikipedia for the United States government. "censorship in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution" does not apply to a private endeavor. Not that what is being done with the article is censorship, by any stretch of the imagination. Tortugadillo's repeated insertions of personal opinion and attacks is bordering on disruptive. Corvus cornix_talk 21:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I particularly like this edit [27] suggesting that I must be a "Hoofer leader" to disagree with his/her edits so much! It would be an awful long way to go for a sail and we have our own lovely Canadian lakes to enjoy!!! --Slp1 (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Magic Box?

A slight issue has been raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Smash Bros. Melee about whether the Magic Box is a reliable source for giving information on video game sales. The video game wikiproject deemed it reliable here, but we thought it would be safer if there was external confirmation of its reliability, or unreliability if it turns out that way. So, any thoughts? Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

<copied from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Bump. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Who runs the site? At a first glance, I would say the "gaming news" section might be reliable... and anything published in the chat forums would not. However, to determine if the "news" section is reliable we would need to know how this information is compiled and if there is editorial oversight. Blueboar (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Handbook of Texas?

Is the Handbook of Texas (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/) a reliable source? It's an online archive from the Texas State Historical Association, and their articles do provide bibliogaphies, presumably of sources. I want to beef up the Ima Hogg article. Corvus cornix_talk 18:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that article Handbook of Texas exists. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We do cite the Handbook of Texas a lot, and it has been discussed at WT:EL. There is even a template {{Handbook of Texas}} for citing it properly. (Creation discussed here). See for instance this edit which converts an old-style Handbook reference to the new form using {{Handbook of Texas}}. I personally believe the template is better, since it avoids an unwanted extra link to the home page of the Handbook's site, and instead provides a link to our WP article on the Handbook. For what the resulting citation looks like see Ref 1 of the article on White Rock Lake. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, it is reliable, and it has passed FAC before (can't recall where). But ... please don't use that citation template, as it doesn't return a complete citation (no last accessdate). Do you have quick plans for Ima Hogg? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quick. I do plan on doing some work on it this evening. Corvus cornix_talk 21:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that why I thought I would tackle Ms. Hogg. Corvus cornix_talk 22:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would definitely consider the Handbook of Texas Online a reliable source. It's published by a scholarly historical association, with co-sponsorship from various universities and a board of academic advisors. The only problem is that it's a tertiary source like an encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the epitome of historically reliable. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal Websites and Blogs

I see these are 'largely not acceptable'. However, when the person who owns the website is an acknowledged authority within his field, eg a well known archaeologist, historian, or anthropologist, with loads of peer-reviewed publications, etc, do I assume that their blogs or websites are acceptable? As an example, John Hawks Anthropology Weblog. I hasten to add that I agree with the policy, but when the owner of the site has the qualifications, peer review, etc....--Doug Weller (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SPS. If you can demonstrate that you are using the blog from an expert published by secondary reliable sources in the field to cite something in that same field, they can be used within reason. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I would recommend avoiding here is citing such a source when it disagrees with a clearly reliable source. And the reason is that certain less-than-scrupulous "experts" use their personal publications to make claims they couldn't sneak past peer review. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! (That's why I said "used within reason".) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd go further than when it disagrees: if it makes a claim that seems a little out of the ordinary and is not substantiated by a reliable source, I would be wary of using it. Relata refero (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Banglapedia a RS for history?

Well this encyclopedia, the "National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh", has some articles, particularly those written about the Bangladesh Liberation War have an editorial tone which seems to be Bengali nationalistic in nature

• Article on Bangladesh Liberation War - [28]
  • "the Pakistani military junta was bringing more troops to Bangladesh and at the same time wantonly killing innocent civilians all over the country. This clearly showed that they were totally insincere about handing over power to the elected representatives of Bangladesh. No sooner the talks failed, the genocide began"
  • "Several hundred people chanted the slogan Joi Bangla which lasted for about 15 minutes. But soon guns silenced them. The [Pakistani] army moved into the city before scheduled time and started the genocide. The military forces killed everybody in sight on the footpath and destroyed everything on their way. "
    • Did they literally kill and destroy everything??
• Mass upsurge - [29]
  • "...started with the student unrest of 1968 against the tyrannical rule of ayub khan, President of Pakistan."
• Mohammad Shamsuzzoha - [30]
  • Hagiographic language in the article, such as use of "martyr". Words like "martyr" and "freedom fighter" are used repeatedly on Banglapedia.
• Mukti Bahini - [31], "freedom fighters"
• Kotalipara Upazila - [32] - "Hemayet Bahini (a group of freedom fighters led by its commander Hemayet Uddin) and the Pak army was held at Ramshil Union. Hemayet Uddin was given the Bir Bikram title for his heroic role in this battle."

And so forth. Does this cheerleading style make this encyclopedia a non-RS for Bengali history? Opinions? Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked Blnguyen to post here. I think these issues alone demonstrate that Banglapedia should not be considered a reliable source. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 04:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, horribly POV language here indicates that it probably shouldn't be considered RS. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

From WP:VERIFY, the test is, is it a

• Academic source
• Third party scrutiny
• Respected mainstream publication
• Is it a wiki
• Is it a Questionable source

It is not very obvious that it fails WP:RS because of the above. It is obviously a POV source so we can use it as long as it is attributed. But when it is in conflict with a clearly RS source you cannot use it to counter the RS source. We should keep in mind, western encyclopedia’s such as Britannica as used without any question. How are we sure that they don’t have a bias ? just food for thought Taprobanus (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is indeed a wiki, then it is obvious that it fails. Wikis (even Wikipedia) are not considered reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the negative to mean that it is not a wiki, as you can see from Banglapedia, its contributers are all eminent scholars of Bangladesh, some internationally well known. It's effort and working plan is no different than any encylopedia project except their language requires further refinement. Taprobanus (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Using Banglapedia in Bangladesh related issues is similar to using New Catholic Encyclopedia in Catholic related articles. Use it with a grain of salt and attribute when saying controversal facts.Taprobanus (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone a martyr is a matter of point of view, not fact. However, the article should say "xxx from Banglapedia says..." in regards to a controversial statement (ex. martyr). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 20:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly see here about Attributing and substantiating biased statements Taprobanus (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

However, there are legitimate issues when we start writing stuff like "According to xx of Banglapedia, Ayub Khan had a tyrannical rule." The statement is attributed, but that would not make it neutral in that case. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 21:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The initial question was, is it RS? The answer is it is borderline RS. Then how you use it in any article depends on the context. Obviously what you just pointed out will not be acceptable even if it came from say Britanica which is clearly RS. Taprobanus (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Brittanica would not make a statement like that. There are some inaccuracies with that encyclopedia, but there are no neutrality issues. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd only use it where there's absolutely nothing else, and then with a disclaimer (per Nishkid at 21:06). Daniel (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We are digressing away from the original question. Is it RS or not. The short answer is it is. Whether it uses NPOV langugae or not, can be be used in any sentence or not is not the purpose of this discussion or this board. Alwaysr remember for a source to be RS, it has to be verifiable. To be verifiable, it has to pass a few tests (I have listed them above). Neutral language is not one of the requirements of verifiable source test because all sources have some sort of POV. Some show it like Bangapedia and others hide it very well under neutral langugae. ThanksTaprobanus (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the source can be used but should be attributed, and claims from the source should not be presented as facts.Bless sins (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Nation article re: Daniel Pipes

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.

Per Blueboar, this has gone about as far as we can go. Consensus demonstrated that The Nation is reliable enough for BLPs. Relata refero (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

---

On the follow paragraph below, is the source from The Nation reliable for what it is being used for? Another user said because the author of the article does not have other articles online published and is not a scholar, that it is an unreliable source. And obviously the article, like many on Fox News, is written with a bias--but that doesn't make it unreliable for the context it is used in. I just need more opinion as to if the source is unable or not.

According to journalist Kristine McNeil in The Nation, Pipes has anti-Arab views. He said that the customs of Muslims immigrants are "more troublesome than most," and has referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers."

Thanks.—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to violating WP:RS, it violates WP:BLP. Something this poorly sourced might be all right for a Pokemon article, but not for a living person, when it contains potentially defamatory material. IronDuke 01:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would allow the McNeil column to be used as a representation of what some of Pipes' critics think about him rather than as a representation of what Wikipedia thinks of him. The Nation column does include the quotes from Pipes that are claimed to be there, and the reader can verify that those quotes actually came from Pipes' columns by referring to the columns themselves, which are linked (one to Pipes' own web site, and the other to NationalReview.com, where the column was published). However, I would rephrase the passage as follows:

In a column in The Nation, writer Kristine McNeil described Pipes as having "anti-Arab" views. McNeil cited columns in which Pipes described the customs of Muslim immigrants as being "more troublesome than most" and referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers".

Note that McNeil's bionote on The Nation web site describes her occupation as "writer" (as opposed to "journalist"), and my proposed rephrasing is intended to indicate that this is all based on McNeil's characterization of Pipes' comments rather than our own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work, M90. The Nation is a reliable source, and material from McNeil's piece may be used without violating WP:BLP as long as the attribution is clear and accurate (as you have done). NSH001 (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that looks acceptable by wiki standards.Bless sins (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly acceptable :) Taprobanus (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, is it ever not acceptable, drive-by ditto-heading aside. Metro, would you consider saying "Writer Kristine McNeil does not believe in evolution, preferring to explain biology in terms of intelligent design" in the evolution article? Why not? She is, after all, a writer, who actually managed to get one article published in a partisan magazine six years ago. You see how silly it looks? Is she any more of an authority on Pipes than she is on evolution? As far as I know, she isn't. IronDuke 23:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If it was an article - one of not very many - actually published in a reliable source discussing evolution itself as opposed to mentioning it in passing, then yes.

Please be civil about community input. "Drive-by ditto-heading" is people taking time out to review a problem and give their opinion. It is reasonable in such a situation to accept that the community seems to disagree, and attempt to either change its mind or to move on, instead of being rude. Relata refero (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to what RR said, there is a mature and robust scientific consensus behind the theory of evolution, which has stood for at least 85 years (to put it conservatively.) Thus, it would be a violation of NPOV to dote on this or that contrarian writer, even if they were an expert on the subject matter (cf Michael Behe.) There is no such robust consensus behind the claim that Daniel Pipes doesn't habitually bash Arabs and Muslims. In fact, a number of reliable sources have reported on his being called anti-Arab or Islamophobic; USA Today, Jerusalem Post, Public Radio, etc. To say nothing of al-Ahram and Dar al Hayat, which are notable enough sources even without the more reliable Western papers. Clearly, Pipes is an extremely controversial figure who has been accused by many Arab and pro-Arab sources of being an outright bigot. WP's biography of him should reflect that, while not taking sides in the controversy. <eleland/talkedits> 23:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Note I don't like the rather vacuous phrase "Anti-Arab", nor do I really believe it is applicable in this case, but as I have subsequently mentioned (and provided) on the article talkpage, there are several academic sources that use the phrase in Pipes' context as well. Relata refero (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I’ve been neither rude nor uncivil. I don’t believe people posting “yeah me too” in such a situation is useful. I would say, further, that false allegations of incivility ratchet up the temperature and also, given that you just responded to me on the Daniel Pipes talk page with an edit summary of “rot” – actual and obvious incivility there -- you might consider practicing before preaching in future.

As to the substance of your points, we have more than enough sources which are critical of Pipes. We don’t need any fringe ones. And that you would be willing to publish a non-scientist’s view as a legitimate criticism of evolution is troubling; it suggests to me that you fail to understand some core policies.

Eleland: I’m all for reliable sources, whatever they may say. Kristine McNeil is not a reliable source: does anyone here want to dispute that? IronDuke 00:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Pipe's listing of dangerous academics was a political act and within the realm of politics, I find the source in question reliable. But also make sure to include the possible praises Pipes has received from his friends for doing this and give it a balance. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You just heard five independent editors disputing that; forgive the bluntness, but what is your <personal attack deleted>? <eleland/talkedits> 00:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll actually not forgive the "bluntness" if it's all the same to you. Five users? You mean 4 POV-pushing editors and a drive-by amen can overturn core policy? News to me. And you haven't answered my question. IronDuke 00:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Core policy hasn't been violated; you haven't made a case that it is even affected here. The Nation is considered a reliable source; please re-read the footnote to WP:RS that deals with the various meanings of "source". This McNeil person, whoever she was, nevertheless was considered a notable opinion by a reliable periodical, and her piece was subject to editorial control and fact-checking that we expect. Also note that this is far from a marginal viewpoint, however incorrect it may be. (Ample evidence has been provided here and on the article talkpage.) Please also explain who precisely are "the four POV-pushers" here. It would be nice for those of us with no opinion to know. Relata refero (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Nation is indeed a reliable source (allbeit one with a distinct political slant). How one phrases the information (so that it comes across in a NPOV manner) can be worked out in the article talk page... but the information itself comes from a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

One more time, show of hands please: who here thinks that Kristine McNeil is a reliable source? On any topic? IronDuke 21:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be misinterpreting WP:V. It's not the writer who's the reliable source, it's the publication: a "reliable, third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." You might not like what the writer has written, but the piece in question is clearly one that has successfully made it through the publication's editorial process. As such, it counts as a reliable source. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only was McNeil's article considered noteworthy by a reliable periodical (The Nation), the article is also included as reference in Mearsheimer and Walt's "The Israel Lobby", a controversial yet nevertheless serious and reliable source. [[33]]. BernardL (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Bernard, thanks for that. Can you say in what context they referenced her work? Also, do you believe she is a reliable source? And if so, why? IronDuke 22:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Kristine McNeil is certainly a reliable source for her own opinion, and the fact that the opinion was published in the Nation makes it notable. In my opinion, User:Metropolitan90's phrasing complies with all the sourcing, attribution and WP:BLP requirements. Abecedare (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

But by that standard, all published writers everywhere can be quoted in any article, BLP or no, as long as we make it clear it's only their opinion; we must have a higher standard, I think, especially in a BLP. IronDuke 23:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that is a slippery slope straw man argument, becuase WP:RS is just one criterion for inclusion of content and not everything that can be reliably sourced deserves to be in an article. Some other guidelines that we need to consider are:

• WP:UNDUE: for example if McNeil had written an article in the Nation on George W. Bush, it would most probably be undue to cite her opinion in the wikipedia article since we have so many other, more notable opinions and sources available. AFAIK, this is not the case in this instance.
• WP:REDFLAG: if McNeil had made wild, out-of-the left-field or potentially libelous claims (such as "X is a drug addict" or "Y is a Arab spy") we would require multiple, unimpeachable, factual (i.e. non-opinion pieces) sources before even considering inclusion, and we would not simply phrase the content as "McNeil thinks Y is an Arab spy" etc. Again this does not seem to be the case.

The above list is simply illustrative, and not exhaustive. Hope that makes the picture clearer for you. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, McNeil does make "wild, out-of-the left-field [and] potentially libelous claims". She writes, e.g., "Pipes is also a regular contributor to the website of Gamla, an organization founded by former Israeli military officers and settlers that endorses the ethnic cleansing of every Palestinian as 'the only possible solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict." GAMLA does nothing of the sort and Pipes is in any case not a regular contributor to GAMLA's website. Since the Nation 's fact checking process was clearly not applied sucessfully to this article this article should not be considered reliable for the truth of any factual claim made in it. That said, the Nation 's website is a RS for the content of the article, and to the extent that the article is mentioned in secondary sources (e.g., claims are made and attributed to it) we can mention its content. But only in the context of supplying the evidence that it is a tendentious piece of crap. Andyvphil (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke- The reference to McNeil in The Israel Lobby is one of four references attached to the following paragraph:

"The Lobby also monitors what professors write and teach. In September 2002, for example, Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes, two passionately pro-Israel neoconservatives, established a website (Campus Watch) that posted dossiers on suspect academics and encouraged students to report comments or behavior that might be considered hostile to Israel.94 This transparent attempt to blacklist and intimidate scholars prompted a harsh reaction and Pipes and Kramer later removed the dossiers, but the website still invites students to report alleged anti-Israel behavior at U.S. colleges."BernardL (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, Bernard. I would say 1) Walt & Mearsheimer are incredibly hostile to people like Pipes and 2) Even they do not appear to be using flagrantly loaded owrds like "Anti-Arab". IronDuke 23:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to go on record supporting a "Writer" with no discernible qualifications other than one article in a partisan opinion magazine six years ago please feel free to sign below. IronDuke 00:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke, I can see clear consensus here. 6+ editors have told you that the nation article is a reliable source. It is time that you respect consensus.--Be happy!! (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The source here is The Nation. To say that this article is merely Kristine McNeil's "own opinion" is saying that The Nation lacks editors and standards. Metropolitan90's wording seems like a good compromise toward Wikipedians who do not like what McNeil is saying. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, by publishing McNeil without severe editing The Nation indicated it has very low standards, and needs to be treated as a highly questionable source. Andyvphil (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OK folks, it is time to stop this. The question has been asked and clearly answered. The Nation (and by extension the McNeil article) is reliable. You don't have to like the answer, but that answer isn't going to change. I suggest that we close discussion on this topic. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi all:

As I have recently been threatened with a block for posting here from an administrator with whom I have had frequent disagreements in the past, I can no longer comfortably contribute to this thread without the risk of what I think would be a huge, drama-creating incident that would drain far more resources than it would be worth. I’d like to both thank everyone who came here and contributed thoughtful and thought-provoking responses to what I wrote, and apologize for my inability to freely reply. IronDuke 23:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Odd quote

I'm actually kind of embarrassed to bring this somewhat trivial here, but I'm involved in a stale dispute here and would require some "official" clarification on the quality and use of a quote.

The text in question is a passage in the Hamas article which reads:

Other articles of the Hamas Covenant refer to fighting the Jews. According to Robert Wistrich,

"Like other Islamists, the Hamas uses antisemitic language, full of hatred towards Jews, ever since its foundation in 1987. In its Sacred Covenant [18 August 1988], there are frequent references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which would have gladdened the hearts of Hitler and Goebbels. It is difficult to see what any of this has to do with spirituality, works of charity, dialogue or the search for peace."[34]

As I state in the article talk page, this quote has several problems:

• The quote presented does not substantiate the claim that "[o]ther articles of the Hamas Covenant refer to fighting the Jews."
• The quote itself is factually false, since the Hamas Covenant refers to the Protocols exactly once (check it out here).
• The source itself is heavily parsed and the quoted statements appears in an ellipsis, and is hence probably not part of the statement to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
• The original, unedited statement is itself not catalogued by the United Nations. The only two documents in which the author, Robert Wistrich, is mentioned are here.

The most pertinent problems are the first and the third. The first is trivial and regarding the third, the quoted text is part of an ellipsis stretching, in the source, from "Not only that..." to the end of the quote and is therefore presumably not in the original, which was read at a meeting of the UNCHR.

Now, judging by the language in other ellipses in the text, it is probable that Robert Wistrich himself penned those lines. If this is effectively the case, however, the source should be rejected as self-published, since, as the initial page of the hosting site itself states, Robert Wistrich is the director of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, which published the document in question.

Any thoughts? Am I completely wrong in this assessment?

Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 14.03.2008 08:30

All I can say is that something as egregious as Hamas mentioning the Protocols in its charter is likely to have been covered by many, many considerably more reliable sources. Replace this reference with one of those, and nobody has a leg to stand on if they want to object. Relata refero (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's already in the article (Hamas' mentioning of the Protocols), which is why I didn't think this quote was necessary... Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 14.03.2008 14:44

Oh, I know why its necessary. Someone ran a google search for Hamas antisemitic to justify keeping "antisemitic" in the lead. That's how Wikipedia works in these areas.

I think you have made a sufficient case that this quote is from a self-published source by an acknowledged authority. Whether that qualifies it for inclusion in the article then becomes an undue weight issue. Relata refero (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your input :) Anybody else want to weigh-in? Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 17.03.2008 11:20

Emporis

Hi. Is http://www.emporis.com/ a reliable source for building data? Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

They make their living by providing accurate data, so we have to assume that they have an inbuilt sytem to check their facts. But it is not an academic source so how they collect data and how it is scrutinized for accuracy is not transparent for others to judge about unless someone else says so. Hence I will use it but attribute it to the website. Taprobanus (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The Skeptic's Dictionary

• http://www.skepdic.com/
• Is this a reliable source? Specificly for the Afrocentrism article, is [35]? Yahel Guhan 19:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe this question (about the Skeptic's Dictionary as a source) has come up before here, though I haven't looked through the archives. It would be worth seeing what people said last time - I seem to recall that the Skeptics' Dictionary was borderline acceptable so long as it was attributed in the text ("According to the Skeptic's Dictionary...") But that was on a different article - this situation may be different. MastCell ^Talk 20:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The article cited seems to me to be hopelessly inadequate as a summary of what is both a political movement and an academic current. Try academic writers instead. Mary Lefkowitz is suitable to use but is at one pole of the argument and needs to be balanced, e.g. by Martin Bernal. Vijay Prashad might be a useful source also Henry Louis Gates Jnr or if you can find anything by Stuart Hall (cultural theorist). Wikiproject Critical Theory might have some leads. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to the above discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Skeptic's dictionary. ITAQALLAH 19:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin Bernal has some valid and well-researched observations on classical historiography. On classical history itself, he is WP:FRINGE, although extremely entertaining. I would not use the Skeptic's Dictionary to say so; his books have been extensively and negatively reviewed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the discussion, but basically what was said was that Robert Caroll is a published academic and indeed the Skeptics Dictionary is also a published book by a respected publishing house. This makes it by Wikipedia definition a reliable source. You can't take a source apart and say you can't use it for this but you can use it for that. And policy (not guidelines) says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." What was suggested in the discussion is that when used it would be best to write 'Robert Todd Carroll, in his (or maybe the) Skeptics' Dictinary, says...' So he may be right or he may be wrong, but either way, it doesn't matter, it can't be excluded. Where it is put is another matter. Please note that I am not saying he is wrong or right on this, just that using it is definitely allowed by Wikipedia policy, see WP:V.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Carrol is an academic and the book is published. It's contents may be right or wrong, but I can se no reason why it should not be citable. Paul B (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would think that few sources should have a blanket approval as a reliable source -- and that in most cases they should be evaluated regarding quality and accuracy and expertise. In my experience, regarding a topic that I'm familiar with, Carroll's coverage of that topic was problematic, mostly relying on the sort of sources that Wikipedia disallows. Even as we were debating whether specific information from Carroll could be used in this specific article, Carroll removed the problematic material from his web site. I'd use Carroll with caution, and I'd look closely at the sources he uses. TimidGuy (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't take a source apart and say you can't use it for this but you can use it for that. -- actually, the policy says exactly the opposite: Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment. Dlabtot (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As so often, there seems to be confusion about whether a source is citable as a legitimate academic opinion or whether it's citable as an accurate source of facts. The only issue is whether Carroll's is a citable opinion, not whether he is right. By the way, his main source on this topic is quoted at the top of the article, the very well respected critic of Afrocentrism, Clarence E. Walker. As for his having "removed the problematic material from his website", what do you mean? It still says what the quoted words say it says. Paul B (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Carroll is not a creditable source. His specialty is philosophy, where he advocates atheism, scientific skepticism, and critical thinking. He is not a reliable source for african historiography, so he isn't reliable for this particular article. Yahel Guhan 05:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So you answer your own questions now do you? What he 'advocates' is irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I offer my opinion into the discussion. Is that allowed (even if I did start the thread)? Yahel Guhan 06:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook and US Department of State

I am inquiring whether the following tertiary or secondary sources are valid or "reliable" for use on Wikipedia, specifically in the article French people. Two users, User:Ramdrake and User:Enric Naval, have been pushing their POV by keeping these sources in one part of the article but removing it from another part. Here are the following links to the sources in question: CIA Factbook - France and Background Note: France.Epf (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow... It has been some time since someone asked about these sources... you ask a question that used to pop up a lot. In any case... These are certainly considered reliable sources. The best way to handle the dispute is to directly attribute any statements. Blueboar (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The source was taken out because it was being used on the lead to state things not supported by the article, by WP:LEAD. The source is being used once on the body of the article to illustrate how the ethnic groups on France are described on the CIA factbook, and that's all. Thus, using it as the sole source for the lead was giving it undue weight, specially since it was being used as an excuse for deleting the references to norman ascentors that appear on another part of the article and that epf's doesn't seem to agree with and calls POV and unsourced, because he says that normans are not part of the french ethnic group (which brings us again to the controversial and disputed problem of defining the ethnic group).

Also, the reliability of factbook is put on doubt for the especific topic of ethnic groups for France, not for all the rest of stadistics which are probably trustable, but are not actually used on this article

Also, I made the argument on the talk page that the "french ethnic group" topic is a controversial and disputed issue, and that we should find secondary verifiable sources, and not a tertiary source that doesn't indicate sources, like the CIA factbook. If the factbook is really right, it should be easy to find secondary sources supporting the statement, like, for example, the ones used by the factbook, but this has not happened yet. This was brought out by me when I discovered that all 3 sources provided as support appeared to be copied verbatim from the factbook itself. Given that's is a controversial and disputed topic, Per the Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Use_of_statistical_data use of statistical data on WP:RS, we should be discussing the survey methods with sound secondary sources, none of which are provided neither by the factbook, nor by epf.

In other words, this is more of a content issue and lack of secondary sources than a reliable sources issue, and the reliability of CIA factbook on ethnic groups should be evaluated on the context provided. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Enric... no need to shout (ie no need to put things in bold). Now, as to your comments... remember that reliability is not the same as factual accuracy, and it is especially not the same as "truth". You can not call a source "reliable" for some facts, but not others. It is perfectly acceptable to question whether a reliable source is factually accurate or not, but please don't invoke WP:RS to do it. The question was: are the sources considered reliable?... and the answer is a definitive "Yes, they are". What you are arguing about are follow-up questions: Should the sources be used in the article and, if so, are they used appropriately?... the answer to those questions are not really in the scope of this notice board, and should be discussed at the article talk page. Blueboar (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, but just to note that while the CIA factbook is RS it is also a tertiary source. Its comments on French ethnicity seem to be very cursory and introductory in nature. There should be much more comprehensive secondary sources available. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Again like Blueboar suggested, that would me something you have to hash out in the talk age of the article or take it to mediation if it fails. Taprobanus (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the advice, and sorry for bolding --Enric Naval (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Are Lawsuits Original Research When Text From Them are Inserted Into BLP's?

Is it appropriate to use text from a lawsuit that was made against someone who is the subject of a BLP in their BLP? I believe that the contents of lawsuits would constitute orginal research. If the contents of lawsuit complaints could always be taken at face value then there would be no such thing as frivolous lawsuits. Also, a lawsuit complaint is designed to clearly represent the plaintiffs POV only and are often written to embarrass and threaten a defendant into settling. In a civil case they can contain hearsay and can take as an extreme POV as allowed by law against the defendant. I don't think they should be allowed. David Starr 1 (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not original research, but it can inherently violate neutral point of view for exactly the reasons you state. A lawsuit should never be included in a BLP unless it is covered by secondary reliable sources. In such a case, content should be lifted from the secondary source itself, and not the lawsuit. One can still make an external link to the lawsuit in this situation (so long as it's not hosted by an attack site, which is often the case). Someguy1221 (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree that the issue is whether the source is sufficiently reliable to verify. A lawsuit has issues similar to quoting a blog or personal website because court papers are only the view of the parties, not the view of a reliable expert or authority on the subject. Agree it's best not to mention at all unless a reliable source (e.g. a newspaper or law review) considers the lawsuit notable. If the lawsuit has been covered by reliable secondary sources, I believe it can sometimes be OK to use the judge's final decision (or the decision of an appelate court) as a source for some additional details. Even here one has to be careful not to go beyond what the judge actually determines, many kinds of decisions (like summary judgement decisons) accept one party's view of the facts and do not actually evaluate them. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And a judge's finding can be overturned on appeal. For this reason alone we should not quote directly from lawsuits. 22:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

We have had this question before... Official court documents are considered reliable for statements about what is contained in the document. There are numerous ways that one can verify them (at worst, someone can go to the court house and obtain copies). The key is to clearly attribute any statement, and make it clear who is saying what. A lawsuit is a notable event. If a lawsuit has been filed against the subject of one of our articles, I would think it appropriate to mention this in the article. And it would be appropriate to cite the Complaint (or the Reply) in doing so. However, we must remember that what is stated in a Complaint or a Reply are NOT fact... they are allegation and response. Thus we need to attribute any statements taken from such documents. I see nothing wrong with saying something like:

• "According to the Complaint filed by Joe Schmoe on August 21, 2004 in the Northern District of Ohio, 'Mr. BLP molested small kittens' <cite to Complaint>. In his Reply papers filed on November 3rd, 2004, Mr. BLP stated 'I never did' <cite to Reply>. The case is still before the court."

This said, we must be carefull to cite the actual court documents, and not some third party who may take snippets from the court documents out of context. This is one of those rare situations where citing the primary source is actually better than citing a secondary source. Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

But if no secondary source has believed Joe Schmoe, is this Undue Weight? In particular, if Schmoe v BLP has been thrown out as frivolous, the judge doesn't believe it, and we have an obligation to say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source or no?

I'm looking for sourcing re: the Postcards from Buster controversy. Is this [36] a reliable source? Thanks!Gladys J Cortez 16:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The organisation clearly has a viewpoint and agenda but would seem to be reliable for the chronology of how the controversy played out unless it is contradicted by another account. Best to make sure you attribute to FAIR everything you use from the webpage. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

We really don't have a better source than a Mormon apologetics site? (I assume it's that FAIR - the link won't work for me right now). DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not the one you're thinking of. This FAIR is a liberal organization with no Mormon connection. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Since [37] is heavily referenced, you could go to library and track down the sources they use and use them yourself. Dlabtot (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't even need to do that. Sources like articles from the New York Times are online. Just take the quotes they use and run them through Google and you can find the original sources. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Self published / Google video?

I'm working on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article and there's currently a citation of a Google Video (it's the last paragraph in this section). What's the consensus as to the reliability of this source? Should it be allowed as a statement of the author's belief, or removed as unencylopaedic? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how it proves anything. Someone made that video - that's all we know. We would need a separate reliable source to say that it was "Pilots for 9/11 truth" and that it was the named person. If we have a separate source backing up the provenance of the video then I think it should stay. If not then it might be some guy in his basement who doesn't believe that stuff but is trying to wind us up. On the other hand it might be worth leaving in the article as an example of the sort of thing that exists - without attribution. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be very careful about linking to any Google/YouTube video. We usually don't know the copyright status of such videos; see WP:YOUTUBE. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Talking Points Memo Election Central

Problems at the Ronald Kessler article. Kessler's in the news currently for a story he wrote about Barack Obama; that rebounded pretty badly and then User:KesslerRonald turned up and removed the criticism section from his own bio. (The section was pretty badly sourced and overly negative at the time.) The website Talking Points Memo Election Central picked up on this, and someone wrote a post/article, which was then cited in the Kessler article. (Following all this?)

I came along to the article in response to a complaint and did some cleanup. Most of my changes have stuck, but objections have been raised on the talkpage to my removal of the TPM-EC article about Kessler and WP.

These objections are:

• TPM - specifically its main contributor and editor Josh Marshall - won a Polk award last month.
• "We wouldn't treat the blogs or opinion columns on WashingtonPost as reliable sources either, but that doesn't mean we automatically dismiss all their news reporting. Can you direct us to a Wikipedia guideline that everything published by TPM Media, which does employ a small staff of paid journalists and editors and has won a journalism award (as noted above), is to be dismissed as a blog here on Wikipedia. Or is that simply your personal view? "
• "I'd like to point out that this wasn't published at TalkingPointsMemo exactly, but at TPM Election Central. Election Central is considerably less blog-y and more news-y than TPM proper. Is there really any bright line difference between an online-only magazine like Slate or Salon and TPM Election Central? The piece in question was written by a paid professional journalist and Election Central is described as a "website" in his bio rather than as a blog."

As this is too much information for my brain when St. Patrick's Day is barely over, I'm bringing it here for advice. Relata refero (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The WP editing seems like a very low-level event of marginal significance to Kessler's notability as a whole; I also think that Kessler can hardly be faulted for removing a section sourced to various left-wing blog postings and open publishing sites. The "controversy" section as it stands now, with reference to the "hate sermon" gaffe and subsequent retraction, is better-sourced, and appropriate. It's our job as Wikipedians to write neutral biographies, it's not the job of our biographical subjects to salvage neutral biographies from cruft and dross. You handled the situation correctly. <eleland/talkedits> 03:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Um, TPM is hardly an "open publishing site." Nor is it really a blog, under the "online diary" meaning of the term. Whether or not it is left-wing really has nothing to do with it. eaolson (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of this edit, which removed a "controversy" section sourced to "TPM Muckracker," Daily Kos, and a semi-reliable blog affiliated with The Atlantic. Kos is the "open publishing website" I had in mind. Oh, and TPM calls itself a blog. Of course left-wing has nothing to do with it, centrist or right-wing blogs are no more or less reliable. <eleland/talkedits> 00:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• The question here on the Reliable Sources noticeboard is whether TPM Election Central is a reliable source. Whether the material itself is sufficiently noteworthy is a question for the article talk page, and has nothing to do with source reliability. 59.167.36.94 (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to believe TPM as a whole is reliable for most purposes. This bright line between blogs and non-blogs is fuzzier all the time, with news sources like Red Herring (magazine) using a blog-like publishing format (leading some to question its reliability despite a history that predates blogs and, in point of fact, the web), while The Register regularly publishes rumor and tripe (such as the laughable claim that the space station is run on Windows NT) and continues to be treated as reliable, with only minor formatting differences from blogs. My point being that it is not the blog format per se that is, or should be, the issue. In the case of TPM it was a one-person blog in 2001, but in 2003-2004 moved to NYC offices and hired a staff. In a strict sense the main TPM page is still a "blog" roughly half written by Josh Marshall, and half written by David Kurtz or another employee, posts that mainly point to TPM-owned sites like TPMMuckraker. If you squint you could call any of them blogs (exception: Parts of TPMCafe, a forum, with some blog material to spark discussions) simply because they post stories "when ready", but my local newspaper does that now too. It's a bit of a strain to call TPM self-published, since Marshall appears to have investors and acts as a professional editor and publisher. Simply put I don't see how TPM fails any reliable source metric you care to use, unless you don't want your reliable sources touching the word "blog" with a ten-foot pole, which seems like a backwards way to go about making those choices. (Heck, I see people wanting to throw out the New York Post -- one of the oldest newspapers in the U.S. -- as a reliable source because it's a tabloid. Others merely want to exclude all alternative newspapers.) --Dhartung | Talk 04:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest reading this recent New York Times article about Talking Points Memo. Among the highlights:

• TPM won the Polk Award, one of journalism's highest honors, for "tenacious investigative reporting."
• the NYT refers to the website as a "news operation"
• the NYT describes "a style of online reporting that greatly expands the definition of blogging"
• the NYT describes "a newsroom in Manhattan and seven reporters ... including two in Washington" (paid journalists)
• the NYT describes Marshall's activites as "full-time online journalism"
• the NYT makes a distinction between Marshall's liberal "personal blogging" and the nonpartisan "reporting" that happens on the site (much of it at TPM Election Central)

Sounds like a pretty clear case for reliability to me. (More reliable in this case than the Bill Kristol column that started the whole thing.) Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As the line between journalism and blogging increasingly blurs, we are going to get questions like this more often. For a long time we held firm to "NO BLOGS". Even the websites of major news organizations were not considered reliable, because they were in blog format. About a year ago, this began to change. More and more Wikipedia Editors made the valid point that news sites are reflections of what is printed in the print edition of the paper, or of what is aired on the TV broadcast (in the case of sites like BBC.com). We began to differentiate between "blogs" and "news sites that used blog format". For the news sites, we also differentiated between reporting and opinion pieces. The reporting is now considered reliable in almost all cases... the Op-ed pieces are considered reliable only for statements about the writer's opinion (and should be clearly attributed as such).

Pure blogs (ie those that do not have a print or broadcast equivalent) are still in the "No blogs" category. The problem with blogs like TPM is that the line of seperation between reporting and opinion is still blurred. It is still too difficult to distinguish between the parts that are "Journalism" and the parts that are "Opinion". I suspect that the consensus to not allow any blogs will eventually change... but it is going to take time for that consensus to change, and we are not there yet. Blogging is still a new form of journalism, and we do not have a consensus on what makes one blog acceptable and another blog unacceptable. Until we reach such a consensus we can not allow blogs... even a highly reguarded blog such as TPM. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• We certainly do allow some web sites that don't have print or broadcast equivalents. Slate and Salon for example. Ironically enough, also NewsMax. Plus sites like Media Matters. And so on. Format is irrelevant to reliability. The issue is journalistic standards and editorial oversight. The news parts of TPM demonstrably have both. The basic problem is with your statement that there is a problem with "blogs like TPM". Define blog. I'd say it's essentially a self-published op-ed piece. The reason we don't treat blogs as reliable sources is the same reason we don't treat Bill Kristol's NYTimes editorial as a reliable source. It has nothing to do with publication format, and everything to do with journalistic standards and editorial oversight. The news parts of TPM clearly have both -- it has paid journalists (real ones with real journalism backgrounds); it has won a major journalism award; it is describes as a "news" site by the NYTimes; and Marshall is a real editor with experience as the associate editor of a major news magazine. Where does it fall short of any reasonable standard? Yes, it has opinion pieces and we should not allow those any more than we allow any opinion piece (newspaper op-ed, or self-published blog). However the news part has as much or more credibility as a great many other sites we routinely allow. The dividing line on reliability should not be, and demonstrably has not traditionally been, solely publication format. 59.167.36.94 (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But TPM's sources, which they usually link to, are a different question (it would be civil to include a reference to TPM in the process of citing them). In this case, if I follow correctly, they assert that Kessler's own blog said something; which it did. See WP:SELFPUB for mroe. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No, there's no reference to Kessler's own blog. TPM is asserting (a) that the article history shows a change by a user that appears to be Ronald Kessler (he has confirmed himself as such on the talk page), and (b) that a TPM reporter called Kessler on the phone and interviewed him about making those changes. Item (a) can be verified by checking the article history. The reliability question goes to item (b): Do we believe that TPM's reporter picked up the phone and called Kessler? I think the answer is clearly yes given the general reliability of the reporting aspects of TPM, as confimed by the Polk Award and NYT story. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For clarification, we are evalutating the reliability of this particular report at TPM election central. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems a reasonable limitation of WP:BLP. In effect, we are using TPM only to confirm that User:KesslerRonald is indeed Ronald Kessler, and since he uploaded his own image, asserting that he was indeed RK in the process, this seems small. see Image:Kessler author 2005 med res.jpg and its history. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

←I agree with Blueboar, regretfully. Without some scientific process to gauge how TPM's writing is influenced by the real or perceived needs of their readership, it's hard to know where to draw the line, and we've dealt with that so far by not drawing the line at all. I invite people to join the discussions at the wikiquality mailing list about ways to measure how accurate a source is. Generally the discussion there is about ways to implement WP:FLAGGED, as early as next month, but the same methods could apply to any source, such as TPM. WP:SPADE requires me to say: I hope we will find a way to better judge our sources at Wikipedia, because TV news sucks, and TPM doesn't. The announcer on CBS News on Logo last night said that the number of casualties in Iraq just reached 4000. TPM would never make any one of the many mistakes in that statement: they wouldn't confuse deaths with casualties, or imagine that deaths of contractors, or allies, or enemies, or civilians don't count. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Visual Novel News sites.

Per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Issue_with_H-Games, I'm trying to figure out if http://www.visual-news.net can be considered a reliable source with regards to news about the existence of unauthorized translations of various visual novel-style games (like Utawarerumono and Tsukihime). I believe this site to be a reliable (if small and specialized) gaming news site, as opinion seems to be relegated to a separate review section. (Alternatively, would it be appropriate to cite the translator's web site?) — PyTom (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Article subject-provided translation of subject-provided clippings

Resolved

Isha (spiritual teacher) is sourced almost exclusively to clippings hosted on the article-subject's site (www.isha.com) of Spanish-language clippings (most of which appear to be from obscure Latin-American glossy magazines -- thus themselves of often murky reliability), with translations into English provided by the subject's website. Can these be considered to be a reliable source within wikipedia policy? Does the potential for severe selection bias, due to the fact that the article-subject would generally provide the most favourable clippings, affect this assessment? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In (yet another) wholesale rewrite of this highly-unstable article, all the above-discussed sources have been replaced, rendering this issue moot. The replacements aren't wonderful (Spanish-language magazines) & only infrequently support the material, but that's an issue I can handle on my own. I would therefore like to close by thanking this noticeboard for the deep and detailed insights it offered. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Google Books

Is it acceptable to cite an otherwise WP:RS-worthy book that you only have access to via Google Books preview? The library the book came from and the date it was scanned are noted in the preview page - should that be included in the cite template somehow? I'm talking about full page previews, of course, not the 'snippet view' that only gives you a few lines. -- Vary | Talk 18:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Indeed, if it was not even on Google Books, it would still be usable (unless I am misunderstanding your question). It is not a necessity that other people can view the work on the web, or we would never be able to use scholarly books that aren't fully searchable in HTML. --David Shankbone 18:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I understand that a book doesn't have to be available online - I'm wondering if I'm allowed to cite a book that I've never physically held in my hand, but have accessed through Google Books. -- Vary | Talk 18:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, as long as you are not taking information out of context--that you have enough pages of the book available to understand the context of the bit you want to use, in order to use it accurately. Cite away! --David Shankbone 19:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. -- Vary | Talk 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Prof. Patricia Jasen

Dr. Patricia Jasen, Professor of History at Lakehead University, in Thunder Bay, Ontario, wrote a paper entitled, "Breast Cancer and the Politics of Abortion in the United States."[38]

On one hand, the paper contains a considerable amount of useful historical information about research into an hypothesized link between abortion and breast cancer ("ABC"), and numerous citations to other sources, many of which are certainly reliable sources.

But, on the other hand, the paper contains numerous severe inaccuracies, and editorializes strongly for a particular POV: namely that the pro-life movement is characterized by a strategy of violence, and that the supposed ABC link is mainly just a political strategy of right-wing fundamentalist Christian political activists.

My question is: can such a paper be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles?

Here are some examples of the inaccuracies in the article:

1) "...the coalition was founded with the support of Concerned Women for America, a national right-wing Christian organization which defines itself as anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-feminism and anti-sex education (as well as anti-Harry Potter)..."

But that is not at all how CWfA defines or describes itself. It is a misleading caricature, not an honest description. CWfA's actual self-description is on their web site, and their measured position on Harry Potter is, "CWA takes the position that parents know what is best for their children. ... Scripture speaks strongly about the occult, so parents should explore the Harry Potter books themselves to decide whether they’re appropriate for their children."[39]

2) "The evangelical leaders Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell gave their support to the violent strategies of such groups as Operation Rescue."

In fact, Operation Rescue has never employed violence, and neither Robertson nor Falwell have ever supported violence.[40]

3) "Conclusion... As the [political] conflict [over abortion] intensified and anti-abortionists replaced violent strategies with a more acceptable “woman-centred” approach, they adopted the “ABC link” as a means of fighting abortion in Congress, state legislatures and courts of law."

Actually, there is no evidence at all that any abortion opponent has ever switched approaches from violence to promoting the ABC link. Although a few pro-lifers have been guilty of violence (and others have been victims of violence by pro-choicers), Jasen's characterization of abortion opponents as having a strategy of violence itself does violence to the truth. Incidents of violence by pro-lifers have always been rare and isolated, and universally condemned & renounced by all the leading pro-life organizations, including even the most radical/hardline organizations, such as Operation Rescue.

4) "in the early 1990s... the anti-abortion campaign had reached a stage in its increasingly violent history when new strategies were needed"

Actually, violence by abortion opponents has always been rare, and had nothing at all to with the ABC issue.

5) "...supporters of direct action rose to prominence [in the anti-abortion movement], first employing tactics, such as sit-ins, inherited from the tradition of civil disobedience, but moving on by the mid-1980s to clinic break-ins and bombings."

Actually, no one who committed or supported clinic break-ins or bombings has ever been prominent in the pro-life movement. Not even one person. Jasen just made that up.

6) "Before abortion was legalized, the Roman Catholic hierarchy had been the force behind most of the lobbying [against abortion] but, following Roe v Wade, they were joined by increasingly militant, and increasingly numerous, Protestant fundamentalists dedicated to the anti-abortion cause."

But the "fundamentalist" label is inaccurate. Protestant pro-lifers are mostly evangelicals, but they come from many Christian denominations, not only (or even predominantly) fundamentalists.

7) "...by [1988] a majority of Americans had come to accept the right of adults to seek early abortion."

Actually, polls have consistently shown that most Americans think that abortion should be permitted only in special cases, such as rape, health complications to the mother, or fetal abnormality.[41] The poll numbers today are not much different from what they were in 1988. Gallup polled Americans Sep. 25-Oct 1, 1988, and found that 24% supported unrestricted abortion, 57% said abortion should be permitted only in special circumstances, 17% said abortion should always be prohibited, and 2% expressed no opinion. By Jasen's math, 24% is "a majority."

8) "Within a year of the publication of Daling's report, legislation had been passed in two states and proposed in several others, either directing authorities to investigate the cancer link or taking the form of “Women's Right to Know” acts requiring that women be advised of a possible cancer risk."

That makes it sound like the ABC link is the motivation for "Women's Right to Know" laws, but that is not so. Actually, the ABC link is of very minor importance in "Women's Right to Know" / "Informed Consent" laws and bills. These laws and bills always require that a wide variety of information be given to women by abortion clinics prior to an abortion, including information about fetal development, legal rights, alternatives to abortion, available social services, and the medical risks of both abortion and childbirth. Information about the evidence for an ABC link is a very small part of all that, and these laws and bills always require that all information supplied be unbiased and accurate.

9) This example is less obviously inaccurate, but it is the most insidiously misleading. After describing a study which found an apparent link between abortion and subsequent breast cancer, Jasen wrote,

"interpretation of such figures would also be complicated by the fact that cancer patients who had never had a completed pregnancy were being compared with a control group of parous women."

The reason that is misleading is quite technical, so please bear with me. "Parous" means "having given birth." Jasen's implication is that the appropriate control group to compare with women who have had abortions, when trying to determine whether or not abortion leads to an increased risk of breast cancer, is nonporous women -- i.e., women who have never given birth.

That is wrong. The ABC debate is over the relative risks of the two choices available to pregnant women: to give birth or to obtain abortions. That means only parous women should be included in the control group of women who did not obtain abortions. Otherwise you would be comparing apples to oranges: women who had been pregnant to women who had never been pregnant.

The reason that is important is that women who never have a full term pregnancy are well known to be at substantially increased risk of breast cancer. In fact, the later in life a woman has her first full-term pregnancy, the greater her risk of subsequent breast cancer. So including nonparous women in the control group, as Jasen implies should be done, is a way of distorting the results to justify understating the increased risk of breast cancer which results from an abortion obtained before a woman's first full-term pregnancy.

So how does WP:RS apply to a paper like this? NCdave (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Has the paper received any published reviews? --Be happy!! (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The paper is certainly reliable for an attributed statement reguarding Prof. Jasen's opinion on the matter. And where her opinion is contested, counter statements expressing the opinions of others can and should be included. But we should note that the good professor is a PHD in History, not a doctor of medicine. For statements of medical fact she is less reliable. Where her opinion is countered by medical experts, I would lean in favor of the medical experts. Blueboar (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and can certainly be used. If there is specific contradictory information in equally reliable sources, they can be contrasted as differences of opinion. However, the personal blog-style "fisking" you performed above has no relevance to the reliability of the source. In at least one case, you're arguing against your own [rephrased insertion] rather than against the actual paper. <eleland/talkedits> 01:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for improving my vocabulary. (BTW, it's a journal of history, not a scientific journal.) NCdave (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The paper was published in a respectable, peer-reviewed journal by an academic. NCdave's personal objections to the paper's word choice are not relevant to its usefulness as a source on Wikipedia. It's a reliable source, as Wikipedia defines the term. The attempt to impeach the source as a whole based on editorial arguments and semantic hairsplitting isn't appropriate. I'm sure you can imagine the result if we allow editors to discard reliable sources because they personally disagree with the source's conclusions or wording. MastCell ^Talk 21:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Documentary

I have a documentary, composed of interviews from published academics and experts, and a little bit of filler material in between. Is this a reliable source? I can list out and name all the experts interviewed, and what they published.

I've been told this isn't good enough because the producer of the documentary isn't an academic. pschemp | talk 03:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to quote what the academics have directly said during the interviews, it would be acceptable as a reliable source; however other details may not be used. If there is an online link to the documentary, it would be useful to provide that as well. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I did quote what the academics said...but have been told I can't use this as a source because the citation format cites the documentary and not every academic individually. And there is a link to it, but I was still told it isn't good enough. Not only that, the article lost featured status because one person (the FAR closer) decided that the documentary wasn't a reliable source, but never gave me a chance to fix the cites (no one else has an issue with the source, the FAR was for other things, and that wasn't even brought up). This seems a bit extreme to me, but I suspect because of the content, the decision was biased. pschemp | talk 08:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

When citing the documentary, I think you should mention the relevant minutes (e.g. min 15-18). This makes it completely verifiable. Otherwise, it seems clear to me that there is no legitimate ground for removing the quotes. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You know his exact words were that it was an unreliable source and that that wasn't even "debateable." Its verifiable as it is...anyone can get the documentary and watch it. I have to say that after the way this has been handled, I don't much feel like spending more time trying to improve the project only to have one person's ignorance turn it all to waste. All the crappy drama here doesn't bother me, but this just makes me want to quit. pschemp | talk 09:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the name of the article? Can you please provide a link to the FAR? You might also want to notify the FAR closer regarding the discussion here.--Be happy!! (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

He insists it isn't a reliable source. You can see for yourself on my talk page. A link to the source is here: http://imdb.com/title/tt0498445/ listing all the cast, (note the Dr. titles). I think because this deals with pornography he can't conceive that people involved in it are sources. The FAR was hugely messy...it was a content debate, none of which even applies to how it was closed. Link to that is here [42] ...see the closing though...that's the important thing. pschemp | talk 04:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Link on amazon with review by seattle times movie critic: [43] and describing the film makers here "They are also the makers of the world-class documentary series Pornography: The Secret History of Civilization (C4 and HBO)" [44] you can note that it was made for Britian's Channel 4 and also broadcast on HBO. Here [45] you can see that they are documentary filmmakers of some repute...having won multiple awards for their documentaries, giving them a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. pschemp | talk 05:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And here [46] we have an abstract from a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL that uses it as a source. "Museum and society was launched in March 2003 as an independent peer reviewed journal which brings together new writing by academics and museum professionals on the subject of museums. It is both international in scope and at the cutting edge of empirical and theoretical research on museums. museum and society is edited by Gordon Fyfe (Keele University), Kevin Hetherington (Open University) and Susan Pearce (University of Leicester)."pschemp | talk 05:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And here another academic who quotes it [47]. pschemp | talk 05:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously...some help here people? I am not on crack. pschemp | talk 05:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Here - it is used as a source again and discussed in a peer reviewed journal "One local expression of this new-found prominence of previously illicit sexual material on mass market television in Britian has been the Channel Four television series "Pornography: the secret history of civilization" This series is remarkable for its portrayal of professional pornographers as a visionary vanguard involved in the championing and expansion of popular taste (against the obstacles put in their way simply by puritanical and prejudiced social forces.)" [48] pschemp | talk 06:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at the links you provided, including the fact that the series aired on Channel 4 and is referenced (approvingly) in academic literature, I agree that the documentary qualifies as a reliable source for wikipedia, but may need to be used with care. Here are my comments and suggestions:

• The documentary may be presenting a POV ("series is remarkable for its portrayal of professional pornographers as a visionary vanguard"), so its content should be attributed and not stated as fact (depending of course on what exactly is being referenced).
• Similarly, if the documentary contains interviews with scholars, the scholar should be cited by name in the article, either in the maintext or the footnote (using Harvard referencing may help here). Something like, "Prof. xyz in Rodley et al (2006a)" with 2006a-> Segment 1 etc
• It may be a good idea to create a wikipedia article on the documentary and then wikilink to that page, rather than the page of the publishers. That way the reader knows why he should trust the information attributed to the documentary.
• Are there other examples on wikipedia where a TV documentary series is used as a reference ? I can imagine Carl Sagan's Cosmos, Joseph Campbell's Power of Myth or the many Ken Burns's series being used as sources. All those series have associated print publications, but it may still be a good idea to look if and how the documentaries themselves are referenced.

Please note that I haven't seen the doc. myself, so some of the above comments are based on a guesstimation of its content (I am imagining a series of interviews; snippets from historical works; and a voiceover). Anyway, I hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much what it is. Thanks for the input. It was never used to back up opinions on professional pornographers and such as that isn't what the article it is used in is about, just used to cite the facts extracted from the academic interviews. pschemp | talk 05:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Masculinity for Boys

An editor is particularly keen to use this document .[49] in a number of articles related to sexuality. The booklet is entitled "Masculinity for Boys, Resource Guide for Peer Educators, Published by UNESCO, New Delhi, 2006". As this indicates it is published through UNESCO, but the second page clearly states, "The opinion expressed in this documents [sic] are the reponsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of UNESCO New Delhi".

The text of this document is full of grand ex cathedra assertions. For example:

"The masculinity with which boys are born is natural masculinity. This is given by nature. However society has created a mechanism by which it does not acknowledge this masculinity."

"modern heterosexual societies take sexual exploitation of men to new heights - often with official sanction. Grown up boys and young men in the west are required to strip naked before female doctors, nurses and officials"

"Now ragging in the West almost always involve [sic] boys being forcibly stripped by girls (with the backing of male seniors) or being forced to masturbate in front of them".

I could add more passages, which seem to me to be very...eccentric. The general argument seems to be that it is natural for men to bond with other men, and to sexually desire them, but that the western distinction between "gay" and "straight" identity causes confusion for boys, who are also being sexually humiliated by over-assertive women, who are given power by this "heterosexualised" culture. In India traditional models of gender and sexual behaviour do not involve these problems, but India is being tainted by Western ideas.

However, my personal opinion of course is not a good reason to reject a source which has at least some claim to authoritative status via UNESCO. Any thoughts on how to evaluate this source? Paul B (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If its not a position paper by UNESCO Delhi, it doesn't have the UNESCO stamp. I don't see an author's name, so its totally unreliable. It doesn't appear particularly well-researched to me either. Relata refero (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the prominent UNESCO disclaimer and unknown authorship, I don't see how this document can be regarded as a reliable source for the subject. A little web sleuthing suggests that it was written by Alok Srivastava of "Youth Alliance for AIDS removal" (YAAR, an Indian NGO), but even if that proves to be true, it does not help in establishing the documents reliability. I think its use on wikipedia in not warranted especially since innumerable scholarly books and articles are available on the subject. Abecedare (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would strongly avoid use of this document because (1) the author is anonymous, (2) the publisher disclaims endorsement of the views expressed therein, and (3) its claims are contentious. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

An organisation like UNESCO doesn't just publish anything. If it has given its name to a document, and has published it using its own money, and is using the book in several of its programmes, and has gone out of its way to advertise the book on its websites as well put the entire text out on the net on its own website -- it is not an honour that it gives to many of its documents -- then it would be foolish or outright questionable to question its reliability.

Several UNESCO websites claim quite clearly that "The publication has been brought out jointly by UNESCO New Delhi and YAAR (a New Delhi based NGO working with youth), which deals with the issues of gender and sexual health of youth of India." Do you think UNESCO would give its name just to any document and risk its credibility. I would say, if UNESCO has given its name to something, then even if its seems an outright lie, one has to take it seriously.

Then again, its a general policy to put a note on books published by UNESCO that the views expressed in the document are of the author(s), even then the above fact holds true that if UNESCO Delhi didn't trust fully that the contents are 100% true, they won't publish it without at least editing out the doubtful points. (Masculinity (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

The document clearly states that the book is the result of a series of Consultations held with young people. It cannot be relegated to the opinion of one or two authors. UNESCO doesn't usually pay for publishing personal views or ideologies of people, especially if they are disconnected with reality.(Masculinity (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

The above mentioned book is being used extensively not only by UNESCO and UNIFEM in their various projects, at least in India, but also by several other social intervention agencies, including Jagori, SAATHI, YAARI-DOSTI etc. The Hindi version of this book called, "Mardanagi, purushon ke liye ek Margdarshak" is being used widely as well. (Masculinity (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

The group YAAR has been working with men on the issues of gender and sexuality for several years with important agencies such as UNESCO, Government of India, Government of Netherlands, Various state governments in India, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and several national and local level agencies of repute in India. The organisation has a grasp on the core issues and has a respectable position amongst NGOs in India. It has presented several papers in national and international conferences (including on this issue of sexual identities vis-a-vis men) and several of these abstracts are available on the net (e.g. http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102241127.html

Addressing the issues of male-to-male sexuality in India)

Its work has been acknowledged by several documentations, even on the net, e.g. by this one entitled:

“Oh! This one is infected!”: Women, HIV & Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific Region. Paper commissioned by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, from ICW 2004 By Susan Paxton, with Alice Welbourn, P Kousalya, Anandi Yuvaraj, Sapana Pradhan Malla and Motoko Seko. Excerpt: "Examples such as the YAAR project, working with young men in schools in Delhi to explore gender and sexuality issues, should be more widely disseminated."

Its members have been invited to present papers at international conferences and even to facilitate workshops on gender and sexuality issues. E.g., K.Vidya from YAAR was invited to South Africa conference of IPAS to facilitate a workshop on Gender. http://www.iwtc.org/ideas/9a_gender.pdf.

In fact, one report on a set of workshops conducted on male gender and sexuality with adolescent boys in Delhi received world-wide publicity and is today stored in several universities and libraries all across the world. It can be read at this site of UNIFEM: www.unifem.org/campaigns/csw/documents/MenAndMasculinities.pdf

(Masculinity (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

It's true that the book isn't about anthropological study or a scholarly research. However, it doesn't become invalid because of that. In fact, there are limits/ gaps of scholarly researches, which can only be filled by action researches such as those conducted by intervention agencies working at the grassroots level. The scholarly researches are severely limited because of several factors, and may be too much quantity oriented -- meaning concerned largely with statistics (like the Shivananda Khan's study that says 72% truck drivers in north pakistan have had sex with other men). However, the researches/ evidences presented by intervention agencies working at the grassroots level can be extremely important, since they have a reach where scholars cannot go. And this is where the UNESCO document is extremely important -- for its empirical evidence, which is invaluable. So stop questioning the validity of the document.(Masculinity (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

And then, its not as if this document is the only one I've used ... or even the primary one. Whatever is being quoted from this document in the article, has been validated by several other references (provided here) -- including anthropological studies, newspaper and other articles, published papers in reputed international conferences/ universities, etc. The UNESCO document is unique only because its gives the 'qualitative' picture or the 'EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE' of the stuff that all the other scholarly references have clearly enumerated, but more as quantitative data. (Masculinity (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

to say it's not a reliable source is an understatement - it should be removed on sight. --87.114.149.247 (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope this is not a personal discomfort with the book? By the way, unsigned remarks don't count.(Masculinity (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

No it's professional discomfort - I'm a academic and it offends me to see such crap used as a source here, it fit for toilet paper and that's about it. Don't attack me as a person again or I'll move to have you blocked. --87.112.64.140 (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please keep your professional issues with yourself. I'm afraid, we're here as just editors helping out Wikipedia. You've no right to question a source like UNESCO. You can discredit this UNESCO document academically, and then discredit it here. I doubt you will be able to do that, since this document does not claim to be an academic work and thus is not bound by academic rules. What this book does claim, is to be based on years of social work, actual ground level work with youths of India on gender and sexual health issues, and bring to us enormous wealth of empirical data, which has also been valued in the academic circles. (124.30.94.10 (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

Oh and it's massively overcited in this article - that needs some major clean-up.

I don't see the issue here. It is commonplace to have that disclaimer. It clearly is a UNESCO paper. And while there are many scattered Anthropological studies easily accessed by a google search, the field of anthropology itself admits to having lagged behind in their studies of this topic and that it has become an issue within that community to remedy that. No one anthropological study has put it all together in one document as has UNESCO. I can't help but wonder what is so threatening about this information to have it undergo so much undo scrutiny. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It does not "put it [research] all together in one document as has UNESCO". What 'anthropological research' states that in 'the West' men are 'almost always' forced to masturbate in front of girls during 'ragging'? It is unreferenced drivel, and profoundly misogynistic drivel at that. Nothing is more vivid in this document than its author's pathological fear of women. Serious sources - of which there are indeed many - say nothing like this. Paul B (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

leaving aside the fact that it's dire - no author is identified, no sources are presented within the document - it's unreliable by our standards. What about it says "anthropology study" rather than "ravings of a crackpot" to you DezNChris? --87.112.64.140 (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Again. No bibliography; prominent disclaimer; un-named author = not reliable. Relata refero (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

UNESCO is all the name you need. Besides, Alok Srivastava of YAAR NGO has been listed as the main author.(124.30.94.10 (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

This guy has massive WP:OWN issues that need to be dealt with - he's seems intent on just reverting anyone who tries to clean-up articles that contain that document (and other unreliable sources). --87.112.38.211 (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The final word hasn't been said yet, so don't be in a hurry. You can't just dismiss a UN document. I think, first we should wait for more people to comment and then the issue may have to be referred to administrators. (Masculinity (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

The book doesn't claim to be based on anthropological research. The book is based on action research. Apart from the ground situation in India, it also talks about the perceptions amongst the male youth regarding different issues of masculinity. Ragging is known as hazing in the West, and it is not uncommon for guys to be made to masturbate in front of girls. There have been several such cases in India recently, as our society is heterosexualised and hostels made common for girls and boys. There are several evidences (not researches but personal accounts and pics) available on the net for that. The idea is totally against the Indian ethos, and so the anger of Indians to a forced Western practice is understandable.

However, the merit of the book is about the various case studies that it has presented, and the empirical evidences. I am only quoting the document for facts for which other resources (e.g. anthropological studies) are available. It gives a much more detailed and empirical information about those issues.

Besides, like I said, the editors here are not supposed to review a book for its validity as a reference. That is dangerous. We have to go by the rules. And as per the rules, UNESCO is a valid source. Whether or not we agree with the information.

It works both ways, I have to withhold or delete a lot of information that some aggressive elements in LGBT don't personally like, eventhough it is common knowledge across the non-West, just because no references from reputed sources was available. But, when they're available, you can't dismiss it because you don't agree with the content.(Masculinity (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

We're still on this? Masculinity for boys appears to be very idiosyncratic. It cannot be considered a reliable source. If other sources can be cited for points currently sourced by Masculinity for boys, those sources should be swapped in. Otherwise those points are effectively unsourced and should probably be removed.

It would be interesting if there were some scholarly evaluation of this document as representing the views of a particular culture, but as presented it appears to be the ambitious opinion of a single author. UNESCO Delhi funded this, but gives no evidence of peer review or oversight, even an editor's name. What would be (to use Masculinity's term) "dangerous" would be to accept Masculinity for boys as a reliable source. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Masculinity is convinced that there is an International Gay Conspiracy, which is really, to confuse matters more, an unwitting part of a wider "heterosexual" conspiracy to construct rigid separation of gay and straight identities in both Western and non-Western cultures. It is therefore 'dangerous' for those who promote this ideology on Wikipedia to have this fact revealed. Supporters of this gay/hetero ideology therefore have to 'suppress' the evidence. In fact there are many genuinely good sources that do discuss the legitimate aspects of the issues to which he is referring, but in a balanced and measured way, without resorting to wild hypoerbole and conspiracy theory. We have already included these here and it would be good to be able to progress on this without having efforts at NPOV destroyed by the promotion of fringe theories. I wonder if this issue would be worth raising on the Fringe Theories noticeboard? Paul B (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Edg, again, we as editors are not supposed to give our own opinions about the references if they come from a valid source. If the cultural values of others seem idiosyncratic to you -- and if these 'idiosyncracies' are being given a place in a UNESCO publication, and is widely being used in a specific culture, then you have to give repect to it, and live with that 'idiosyncracy', till you discredit it using a valid platform. Wikipedia is not a valid platform to discredit a UN document.

Also, this is not an academic work, so there is very little academicians can do to discredit this. You don't need peer-review of books in this field. Your credibility is judged by the platform that supports you, and agencies that use your work, and this book is doing excellent on those counts. This is based on action research and social work, and only through this platform can this book be discredit, which is almost impossible, because this book is based on solid ground level facts.

Then again, there are numerous other sources provided for things quoted from this book, which are scholarly works, the references from this book are only used as empirical evidence to back up those more academic sources, which I guess is perfectly valid. There might have been an issue, if this was the only source used, and things claimed in this book were countered by other scholarly references or even unsubstantiated by them, which is not the case. Whatever is said in the quotes taken from this book has been reverberated by several other important academic works.

(124.30.94.10 (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

If it's not already obvious, I should point out that 124.30.94.10 is user:Masculinity, not a separate editor. Paul B (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Tend to agree with the above. --Haemo (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul, your personal vendatta against the book is clear from the your baseless accusations against the book/ author. Had the author been misogynic, UNIFEM would not have included his book or his name on their website, nor would they use it in multitudes of programmes they conduct with men.(Masculinity (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

Is this still being argued ?! Lets compare how this report compares to an unarguably reliable publication from UNESCO.

	Masculinity for Boys	Literacy for life, 2006
Disclaimer	"The opinion expressed in this documents are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of UNESCO New Delhi"	"The analysis and policy recommendations of this Report do not necessarily reflect the views of UNESCO. The Report is an independent publication commissioned by UNESCO on behalf of the international community. It is the product of a collaborative effort involving members of the Report Team and many other people, agencies, institutions and governments. Overall responsibility for the views and opinions expressed in the Report is taken by its Director." (emphasis added)
Authorship	???	20+ named authors with acknowledged qualifications and expertise in the field.
Peer review, or editorial oversight	???	Representatives from UN multilateral agencies, bilateral agencies, non-governmental organizations, civil society groups and networks, individuals from developing countries with an expertise in basic education issues, and directors of UNESCO institutes. (emphasis added)
Bibliography	None	600+ citations

Hope this establishes what a reliable publication from UNESCO looks like, and curtails further arguments along the lines, "UNESCO is a reliable source" [sic]. Clearly these two reports represent two extremes on the reliability scale, and as is the consensus of all uninvolved editors above, the "Masculinity" report fails wikipedia's WP:RS guidelines and is not an acceptable source for wikipedia (and that judgement is independent of the WP:REDFLAG issues raised by its content). Abecedare (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Citing on-line EB as a source

I was under the impression that WP was generally trying to avoid citing to on-line EB as a source - otherwise WP simply becomes "EB lite," and editors will not do the real work of finding and citing primary and secondary sources. Is there a guideline/policy that addresses this question?

Second, on-line EB is paid, and I was under the impression that WP was steering away from paid sites. Again, any guidelines/policies on this topic? Thx! NorCalHistory (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Having to pay is not an issue. As for our generally avoiding citing other tertiary sources such as the EB? yes... as a broad general concept we prefer to cite secondary sources. But it is understood that there are times when the best source is a tertiary one. So... while citing to the EB is discouraged, it isn't prohibited. Blueboar (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - is there a WP policy/guideline somewhere that sets out that tertiary sources are to be avoided if primary or secondary sources are available? NorCalHistory (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:PSTS (although the current version does not seem to have any recommendations against tertiary sources). Abecedare (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Does EB still publish a paper version? There are certainly plenty of (older) paper editions of it in public libraries. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Mazin Qumsiyeh on qumsiyeh.org

Is Mazin Qumsiyeh and his personal website http://qumsiyeh.org a reliable source? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

He is an activist a board member in the "Association for One Democratic State in Israel/Palestine" which is a political advocy group who work to undermine Israel's right to exist Zeq (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Or, of course, he is a tenured scientist at Yale who happened to write a book praising a particular solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue apparently favoured by a fifth of Israeli citizens. Whatever. Either way, not a particularly notable figure for this problem, though his website claims he has written "over 30 op-eds" on the issue, and his book was published by a well-known publisher, though one with a distinct "socialist" POV. Quotable whenever that particular POV needs to be expressed, I suppose. For facts, not so much. Relata refero (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No way.

1) he was never tenured at Yale, he was merely on the clinical research faculty 2) he was fired, for sending racist political messages over his Yale email 3) he was a professor of genetics, which gives him no authority on foreigh affairs 4) several of his op-eds were followed by published corrections on the editorial pages that ran the op-eds, because his facts on palestine are bad American Clio (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

Unless you cite all that except 3, I'll have to redact it from this page per WP:BLP. Relata refero (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

How about this for (1) and (3) (Associate Professors are not tenured at Yale)? (2) and (4) may have some basis here. rudra (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: "racist" seems to be charges of Anti-Semitism in a campus brouhaha [50]. rudra (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Associate Professors can be tenured at Yale. See this internal report. Whether or not he is, I don't know, though he might very well not be. (Update: according to the Herald, he wasn't at the time of the brouhaha.)

About the Yale Herald report, he sent "an e-mail to a Yale anti-war group listing the membership roster of the Yale Friends for Israel and labeling it a pro-war cabal." If that's a racist political message.... *Sigh*. People seem to think that if they use words like "racist" to describe things like that its OK with our policies. Whatever. Since this page now has the actual facts on it, I don't need to redact American Clio's edit, though this sort of thing is par for the course with him/her. (Note 4 is still open.) Relata refero (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

documenting the corrections newspapers have had to print after publishing a Mazin Qumsiyeh op-ed. http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=22&x_article=1019American Clio (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

There was another flap about Qumsiyeh's bad facts. Here Professor Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum , calls Qunsiyeh's writing anti-Semitic :

Anti-Israel Screed in Official Magazine of Davos Forum

Update: The head of Davos apologized and indicated that the viewpoints in the article were contrary to Forum's mission and values. More

_________________________________________

New York, NY, January 25, 2006 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today condemned the publication of an outrageous anti-Israel screed that appeared in the official magazine of the World Economic Forum in Davos, and urged the organization not to give legitimacy to such extremist approaches in the future.

The article, "Boycott Israel" by Mazin Qumsiyeh, an extremist anti-Israel activist, appeared in the current issue of Global Agenda, the official magazine of the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Qumsiyeh is the head of Al Awda, an organization that supports terrorism and advocates for the abolition of Israel.

"The article is full of outright false statements about Israel, Zionism and Israeli policy towards the Palestinians and crucial omissions regarding the situation on the ground, Palestinian attitudes and actions, and Israeli public support of Palestinian statehood," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "Moreover, it is permeated with anti-Semitic insinuations of Jewish craftiness, control of the media and American and international policymaking."

In a letter to Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, ADL called positions presented by Qumsiyeh, "…well beyond the scope of acceptable discourse."

"We find it hard to believe that Global Agenda would include an article calling for the dismantlement of the United States, or that the Davos meeting would convene a panel questioning the legitimacy of Egypt, Venezuela, or France," Mr. Foxman said. "Yet, Mr. Qumsiyeh's denial of the State of Israel's right to exist and his appeal for international actions to counter the state and Zionism – bald calls for the elimination of Israel – are given legitimacy through the imprimatur of the World Economic Forum." http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4852_62.htmAmerican Clio (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

• The Yale e-mail incident, acccording to the Yale Herald:

Sat., May 24, 2003, Mazin Qumsiyeh, an associate pro fessor of genetics at Yale, sparked a controversy that is still raging.

GETTY IMAGES Qumsiyeh's email puported to show an overlap in student membership in a group which the war in Iraq and one which supports Israel.

After many students had already left for the summer, Qumsiyeh sent an email to all Yale Coalition Peace (YCP) members, an anti-war group, in which he linked Jewish support of Israel with support for the then current war in Iraq.

In the email, Qumsiyeh wrote that "the U.S. occupation of Iraq illegal and immoral (sic)" and that the YCP should "continue to challenge the hegemony of the U.S. on the Arab world." Although such opinions are certainly acceptable and even welcomed at a university that encourages the exchange of ideas, Qumsiyeh closed his email with a chilling statement: "I include here the list of members of Yale Students 'for Democracy,' the pro war cabal . . . I think you will find the list informative. Note that there is significant overlap of this list with the 'Yale Friends of Israel' listserve."

Qumsiyeh then listed the Yale email addresses of 64 students, which contained students' full names, whom he claimed belonged to Yale College Students for Democracy (YCSD), a group that supported the war in Iraq.

However, the people he listed belonged not to YCSD, but to the Yale Friends of Israel (YFI) itself.

http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=2377

the articl econtinues. The reason why this was widely viewed as an expression of anti-Semitisam is that Qunsiyeh accused Jewish students who belongec to a pro-Israel group of being automatically pro-Iraq War. But, Anti-Semitic or not , it certainly demonstrates the Qumsiyeh plays fast and loose tithe fatcs and evidence.American Clio (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

Relax, it was decided long ago that he wouldn't be used for facts.

Meanwhile, CAMERA again. I suppose them being all over the conflict of interest noticeboard is unsurprising. I'm beginning to think that 90% of our problems would go away if we just banned all these damn quotefarms and advocacy sources, all these op-eds and opinions and articles based on "controversial" terms. I'm sure its beginning to bore everyone to have to make the same comments about the same type of sources all the time. So: listen up people dealing with Israel/Palestine/Islamophobia/Anti-semitism: CAMERA, MEMRI, CAIR, PalestineMediaWatch, Electronic Intifada, are all unwelcome as sources, OK? Any articles structured around their quotefarms are likely to have major, unfixable POV problems so nobody do that either, OK? Not to mention that they are unreliable sources even for quotations, OK? And just because I've left Abraham Foxman and Juan Cole and Robert Spencer and suchlike others out that doesn't mean that you can add their random opinions either. Nobody here should care what various partisan hacks think, because they're completely unencyclopaedic, they're advocates, not analysts, and nobody will care what they thought a hundred years from now. Is everyone now clear on this? Relata refero (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The CAMERA article collects instances where newspapers that have run Qumseyah's op-eds have aubsequently run corrections of bad facts cited by Qumsiyeh. American Clio (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

And nobody is suggesting we use him for facts! But meanwhile, can everyone just lay off quoting CAMERA, who are as unreliable as everyone else, plus they're using us to host their theories and quotefarms! (Note - minus the CoI this applies to all the other advocacy sources mentioned above and elsewhere on this page and the archives. The reason they are here all the time is that they are all crap. Relata refero (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Dixon or www.blackcommentator.com

Are Bruce Dixon or www.blackcommentator.com reliable sources regarding Israel? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't know about reliability... but my Norton anti-virus flags it as a potential scam site (in fact, including a link to it made Norton flag this page as a potential scam... removing the "http:" prefix seems to fix that problem). For this reason, we should probably disallow it. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dunno about reliability, either, but it's a site for advocacy of afro-american rights, so it will be very biased and POV when treating those topics --Enric Naval (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly advocay site of more than just one subject. Zeq (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oooops, you are right, I misread their "about us" page. Well, anyways, it makes no claims for fact checking, only for advocacy, so it still wouldn't be reliable --Enric Naval (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting question you've raised, Jay, but it has no bearing on the dispute which you are presumably referring to. The original wording, over at Allegations of Israeli apartheid was, "Some critics who use the [apartheid] analogy extend it to include Arab citizens of Israel," citing Dixon as one such critic. The current wording is, "Several critics, including [...] Bruce Dixon." Thus, it is not a question of whether Dixon is a reliable source for facts on Israel, but of whether he's a critic who uses the apartheid analogy wrt Arab-Israelis, which of course he is. And the source in question was a reprint of the Dixon article on the much better known and respected Electronic Intifada, the largest Palestinian news site which the Jerusalem Post calls the "Palestinian CNN," rather than the obscure www.blackcommentator.com - you kept editing EI out and blackcommentator in. This posting is typical WP:GAME-ing behavior, I'm afraid, of the sort which has plagued AoIA for some time now. <eleland/talkedits> 00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Eleland, it's quite relevant. If a "critic" is non-notable or non-reliable then we don't quote him or use him as a reference, it doesn't mean we throw WP:V out the window. Why on earth would we care what Bruce Dixon's opinions are regarding Israel? I'm sure you could find a thousand blogs that say all sorts of negative stuff about Israel, but they don't go in the lead of Wikipedia articles - or are you now proposing that we can also use David Duke as a source for the lead of the article? After all, he too says "It is racial Apartheid, in fact, far more draconian than the Apartheid of South Africa, for at least the Blacks were given in theory the right to self-rule in their own homelands." (see www.davidduke.com/general/the-hypocrisy-of-jewish-supremacism_12.html) As for Electronic Intifada, that's the site the Jewish Telegraphic Agency calls a "cyberpropaganda" site which "may contribute to a better understanding of the Palestinian cause," but "is too biased to be of much use to mainstream publications" - it is not a "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." There are a couple of "good enough" sources for the purposes of the claim in the lead already, adding inappropriate sources really doesn't help. And your posting is the typical WP:GAME-ing and policy abusing behavior, I'm afraid, of the sort which has plagued AoIA for some time now. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you're comparing one of the longest-term critics of the DLC and former colleague of Barack Obama's to David Duke? Relata refero (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea who Bruce Dixon is, that's why I brought him to this board. Is he notable? Is he a reliable source? What's your view? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he's a reliable source, though he may be a valuable opinion for a particular sort of of thinking. But the point is that if you compare people about whom you know nothing to neo-Nazis reflexively, nobody is likely to take you very seriously. Relata refero (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good thing I don't "reflexively compare people about whom you know nothing to neo-Nazis" then, isn't it? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, David Duke isn't a neo-Nazi now? Relata refero (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Mu. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want to exclude all "cyperpropaganda sites" from Isr-Pal articles, it's an interesting proposal. But clearly this is not what you're proposing.

Nobody is claiming that EI is a reliable source for contentious claims of fact. We want to include its attributed commentary. The JPost reviewer praised EI. The JTA reviewer criticized it while acknowledging that it is useful for understanding the Palestinian cause. Lots of sources are criticized by other sources, often in much harsher terms than the JTA used. For example, the editor-in-chief of Ha'aretz dismisses CAMERA as a "McCarthyite" group issuing "tendentious statements and comments" not worth responding to. [51] Yet you're currently arguing to have an entire article built solely around one article from CAMERA, and you've never argued to delete citations to MEMRI, JewishVirtualLibrary, etc. This is WP:GAME par excellence, and your lamebrained mimicry and non sequitors about David Duke don't change that. <eleland/talkedits> 11:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You are making a distinction that is nowhere reflected in actual policy; if a source is not reliable, then we can't use it, even for opinion. For example, here an editor argues that we can use Stormfront as a source, not for fact, but merely for their own opinion regarding the race of ancient Egyptians. However, as a number of other editors later pointed out to him, if a source is unreliable, then we don't quote its opinions (outside, perhaps, its own article). Wikipedia doesn't reproduce the opinions of non-notable, non-reliable sources - or at least it shouldn't. Also, the source for this claim really is Bruce Dixon, not Electronic Intifada, but in any event, are either noted for third party fact checking? Regarding the Ouze Merham article, the last time I added a source to the article it was the Chicago Sun Times. And, in my personal experience, Electronic Intifada is significantly less reliable than CAMERA, but that's just my personal experience. Regarding MEMRI, you keep claiming they're particularly unreliable, but you have singularly failed to prove it As for the Jewish Virtual Library as a source, I don't know why you're bringing it up - I don't recall having any discussions about it recently. In any event, people can certainly disagree about the relative reliability of sources (obviously no source is 100% reliable 100% of the time, while even a stopped clock is correct twice a day), but there's hardly a need for this vitriol and rancor about it. Finally, if you don't want to have your own words fed back to you, I'll make you a deal; stick to discussing whether or not sources are reliable (which is the purpose of this board), instead of insulting other editors, and I won't mirror your words back to you. Fair enough? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

IS there somewhere where I can !vote in favour of Jay's proposed exclusion of all cyberpropaganda sites? Relata refero (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the term used to describe falsely attributing a proposal to someone who hasn't actually made that proposal? I believe it's trolling, isn't it? In any event, if you are indeed keen on removing all cyberpropaganda sites, here are several hundred articles you can start on: [52] [53] [54] [55] Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Jay, its called a "joke" in this context. Look up the word if unfamiliar with it. That was also a joke. And believe me, I remove CounterPunch wherever I find it unless it is hosting an article by an avowed expert. (Though I don't see how it is cyberpropaganda, merely biased. Also the difference between MEMRI/CAMERA and WorldNetDaily.) May I point out that accusations of trolling and diverting attention from the subject in this manner are not generally considered good practice, to put it mildly. Relata refero (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't "diverting attention from the subject; if anything, your proposal to "!vote in favour of Jay's proposed exclusion of all cyberpropaganda sites" was. And of course, my reference to "trolling" was a "joke" in this context, exactly as your statement was - and just as funny! Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

FromOccupiedPalestine.org

Is http://FromOccupiedPalestine.org a reliable source? It appears to be someone's personal website. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

this is a blog by http://jonelmer.ca/bio. Zeq (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to serve as a repository for newspaper articles, most of which are reliable sources.

That being said, we can't link to it under WP:C. Relata refero (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That said, editors might be able to mine it as a source of citations (but referencing them to the original publication, not to this website). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Only if they read them from the original source; there's no guarantee the material on this blog is unedited. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point; it might be useful in pointing to reports on newspapers' websites, but any quotes should come from the original newspapers, not from the copies on this blog. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Singh

In article Singh one user name User:Gurkhaboy is making up names and Not providing Refs for Claims. User does not seem to be educated in that field and is making up names. see [56] Rajputs used Kumar and Kumari and that Gurkhaboy is Making up Names like Kunwarani which does not make any sense and not related at all. --99.237.254.25 (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• It would probably be better to discuss this on the article's talk page at Talk:Singh. This noticeboard is for judging whether certain sources are reliable enough to use as references. But if no reference is provided, there is nothing to judge. All editors involved with the article should be expected to provide references for the claims they insert into the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Rotten.com

I'm looking for some feedback about rotten.com, specifically its library section, regarding whether it's a reliable source.

It seems to me that this falls under the category of self-published websites. While the site is reasonably popular and has been mentioned in various newspaper articles, the library articles are written by an unknown person and there is no evidence of or reputation of fact checking and such. A question: how exactly do we go about distinguising between a popular website which is not considered reliable, and one which is? (Such as slate.com) --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's for a "pundit" reference or external link for some pop-culture topic, that's one thing. But not for BLP articles. Which article was this in reference to? Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Any article, actually. I've removed the rotten.com references from about 50 articles. If it's basically nothing more than a self-published website, then it isn't acceptable as a reference for any article, other than Rotten.com itself. Or so I believe. If a rotten.com webpage says "Ronald Reagan liked to wear green socks", why is this any more reliable than if I put up a geocities webpage claiming the same thing? --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Rotten.com is self-published. While citing Rotten is not the same as citing the Wall Street Journal, I feel that it is appropriate to use in some areas. For example, the "teabagging" article cited both a book and Rotten to back up some punditry about teabagging happening in some movie. The book was citation enough, but the Rotten article seemed to function as a "footnoted external link" providing additional perspective on the topic. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Murdoch fired all the people at WSJ who knew what they were doing, so WSJ has more in common with Rotten.com than it used to. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If Rotten.com is not self-published, then who publishes it? From what I can see it is particularly unreliable. Regarding Slate.com, this is an indication as to its reliability and editorial stance. Now, what do we know about the editors of Rotten.com? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

According to our article on it, it's published by "Soylent Communications". At any rate, it appears to be a "them", not a single author. That said, it might not be reliable on every topic, but if all you want to use it for is snarky comments about a movie, i.e. "The humorist website Rotten.com characterized Rochelle, Rochelle as 'X, Y, Z'", I don't see a problem with that. It's like citing MAD Magazine as a source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, in this case, there doesn't appear to be any semblance of reliability or editorial oversight - to the extent that we don't even know the name of the author or authors. Soylent Communications is not a publisher, it's a web-hosting service - and it too is completely anonymous, leading back to a Post Office box. Your comparison to Mad (magazine) is not apt; we know exactly who publishes Mad, who the editors are, who the writers and illustrators are - in fact, most of them are fairly famous, with their own often lengthy Wikipedia articles. Rotten.com is essentially an anonymous personal website, practically the worst kind of source imaginable; it should not be quoted anywhere except in the article about Rotten.com, and even then with extreme caution. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

From the article on Soylent, "It is also the hub of several websites maintained by the company." It sounds like they are more involved with the content than simply hosting the web site. I also don't believe there's anything wrong with having anonymous or pseudonymous authors. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It "sounds like" they are more involved with the content than simply hosting the web site? Enough speculation. We know nothing about Rotten.Com, not its authors, not its editors, not who publishes it - nothing at all. It is an anonymous personal website, period, and completely unsuitable as a source for anything. It's the same as using http://www.bushisantichrist.com/ as a source - except that http://www.bushisantichrist.com/ is probably a better source than Rotten.com, since we at least know the author is "R. Stephen Hanchett". Please review Wikipedia:V#Self-published sources (online and paper). Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Aerobatic Teams web site - Why the site is bloked

Hello, My name is Alexander, and I'm the owner of the Aerobatic Teams web site http://aerobaticteamsDOTnet. My site is dedicated to Modern Aerobatic Teams, like yours same section. Why my site is blocked to adding links. This is not spam, because my site is relevant to wikipedia Aerobatic Teams section. Exaple: in you Blue Angels page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Angels have External link http://www.funonthenet.in/articles/airshow-san-francisco.html which is relevant with this thematics, but my Blue Angels http://www.aerobaticteamsDOTnet/BlueAngels.html is relevant too, but my site is blocked. Also my page is more informatible then this page, but this page not blocked, only my site. How can I receive rull from you to adding links to all aerobatic teams pages in Wikipedia? As you can see my site is not commercial. I know that you media is not web site promotion tool, but you are education organization and peoples must have access to more inmormation that needed. My site is education site and have education role about Aerobatic Teams past and present. For that reason I think that must have link to my site in you Aerobatic Teams pages. You passed a lot of unuseful site links, but not mine. Can you help, and help to aerobatic teams fans to learn more about this teams joining to my site.

Thanks Alexander— 84.1.47.21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC).

You can see the reason here. Soxred93 | talk bot 00:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

justice4lebanon.wordpress.com

Is justice4lebanon.wordpress.com a reliable source? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It self-describes as a blog, has a self-admitted ulterior motive, and provides no information even suggesting the existence of any form of review. Short of some exceptional reviews from mainstream sources or proof that its writers are some kind of experts, I wouldn't even consider it. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It also sets off my anti-scam alert (using Norton). Blueboar (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. http://justice4lebanon.wordpress.com/about/ lacks any info on who's actually running it. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fan translated games

In an attempt to resolve a dispute for classifying fan translations we were trying find 3rd-party sites. Would a site like this one meet the criteria?Jinnai (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it have any fact checking methods used to prove its reliability? MythSearcher^talk 05:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there is at least some attempt through forum posting and some referencing to other pages. It also possible, and quite probable, some of it came from 1st-hand experience by going to the website, downloading and installing the patch. Not sure if it's up to the level you would consider good enough though.Jinnai (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am no expert of this, as you can see, it is the first time I came here. However, the site seems to be a self-published source, in which, it lacks enough fact-checking in terms of usual wikipedia standard. However, the terms are in the grey area if you ask me. It is not the most reliable source, yet it is obvious that if the steps were followed, one could verify the facts in a very easy manner. So it might not be most reliable, but at least it is verifiable. (If what you say here is true.) The problem might then move foward to is it notable or not. MythSearcher^talk 08:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it might meet the qualifications of presumed under WP:N, though it's hard to say.Jinnai (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think notability really factors into it. The games we're talking about it all have spawned anime, which is enough to make them notable... we just need to be able to show that an English translation exists, per WP:V. — PyTom (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the legality issue and whether such a site, that provides links to game hacks and unauthorized translations for distribution, meets WP:COPYVIO. Collectonian (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The legality of the patches without games has still to be decided. Those that supply the game along with the patch, or a patched game, are an entirely different matter. We had this discussion on the WPT:WP:A&M page. Also, as this is the only site really with a published source that isn't primary or a forum, it's why I posted this one.Jinnai (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO isn't the policy here, WP:EL is. And I'm not sure it applies to a site that merely links to sites that violate copyrights. Where does that end? (Is there a way to cite a website without linking it?) — PyTom (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL shouldn't really apply here as I intended to use if as a source material, not a link, if possible. But yes, the site does not directly link to the the patches, just the sites. So if this site shouldn't be used simply on that basis, it would be nice to know how many links removed a site needs to be since it's theoretically possible from some of the sources to simply link-jump to much more blatantly illegal material here.Jinnai (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, the one-step away is the reason all AniDB links were removed. They didn't link directly to the files, but to the fansubber groups and pretty much said "want illegal fansubs, go get here." The difference here is Jinnai argues that no court case has actually deemed patched or hacking a game to translate it is illegal, so the same rule doesn't apply. Irregardless, though, as Pytom pointed out earlier, the site also completely fails WP:RS. Collectonian (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe is does fall under self-published soruces as per WP:V. The only exceptions might be #2, but I believe #2 was refering to the claims themselves being contriversial in their PoV, and no one here is claiming that their is an issue with neutrality of the site. As long it is used strictly for citing that these works exist and their progress, nothing else.Jinnai (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Self-published applies to the official sites and documentation, not a directory site, like that link appears to be. Collectonian (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me where? I read all the section of questionable sources and saw nothing that says the site cannot be a directory. Just that it had to meet specific criteria, which it does.Jinnai (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Could also be covered by expectional claims, ie "...apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;" which mainstream media would never cover. Whether it is important or not, is, I will admit, highly debatable, but important is to some extent dependant on where you are and who you ask. Certainly to everyone at large this might seem trivial, but for the English gaming community this might seem important.Jinnai (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it can't as it isn't a necessary claim to make at all. The site still fails WP:RS on all levels. Collectonian (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS is not policy. WP:V is. And everything on that page meets the standards of Wikipedia's verifiability for self-published sources as posted. Mainstream media won't cover this and this site atleast attempts to have a level of independent review on it, plus it's quite easy to verify this oneself as pointed out below. There is a reason reliable sources isn't policy, but only a guideline.Jinnai (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

One article where this has been coming up is at Tsukihime. I'll note that nobody here is disputing the existence of the translation. One can easily verify it by going to the translator's web site [57], the list of visual novel translations [58], and news sites devoted to the topic[59]. So I think the question is, what should we include in the article to source the statement "An unofficial translation patch for Tsukihime was release on November 5, 2006."? I'll note that this has nothing to do with the notability of Tsukihime, which has been established by it spawning both Manga and Anime. — PyTom (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Help please

On the section Documentary above. Please? pschemp | talk 06:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please? I'm going to ask every day until I get some help. The person who originally answered is on wikibreak. pschemp | talk 20:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

the film itself

For the purposes of propagating an actor's filmography, can the film itself (a primary source) be used as a reliable source the that actor's work? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, how pertinent is the accessibility of the source? If a film itself is referenced as a source for a fact, are others expected to rent the video (if available) to corroborate that sourcing? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

For a blunt statement of fact as to whether an actor appeared in a given film... Yes, the film itself can certainly be cited as a source. This looks like yet another misrepresentation of WP:PSTS. I can not stress this enough: WP:PSTS states quite clearly that Primary sources are allowed in Wikipedia... They have to be used with caution, and there are limitations in how they can be used, but there are acceptable uses of primary sources. This is one of them.

As to accessibility... The fact that someone might have to rent the video to verify the citation does not matter. The ease of verifiability is not reason to disallow a source (an apt analogy is having to go to a bookstore and purchasing a book to verify a citation). Nor is cost (Wikipedia articles often cite to pay-to-view websites, and even public libraries may require paying for a library card to access material). What matters is that it can be verified. Indeed, assuming that the film is not rare, and is available at the average film rental outlet, it is actually likely to be more accessible than many print sourses that are cited. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't stating that as a primary source, I didn't think it acceptable; contrarily, I came here asking such. However, if a reliable secondary source is available as opposed to using the primary, that is much preferred then? Also, is there any mechanism to prevent the false citing of unavailable primary sources aside from two editors arguing that "it is there" and "no, it's not" ? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Secondary sources are definitely preferred, if there is one. As as to your second question, it depends on what you mean by "unavailable". Is it "unavailable" because you can't find it right now (by, say, a quick google search)? Is it unavailable because in it isn't in the average library/film repository or book/video store? Is it unavailable because there are only two copies in the entire world and they are both in private collections? What do you mean by "unavailable"? Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Say somebody has cited a primary source for a hard fact; to use my above question: citing a film to say that somebody performed in it. If I can't find that film available locally (my Blockbuster or Hollywood Video doesn't have it) and I can't corroborate that fact otherwise, should it just be left alone? Or is there a tag or something that can affects saying "this was cited by one user, but could not be corroborated by another"? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

{{verification needed}}? — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what I was looking for, thanks! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that tag might work, although I think it is meant more to indicate that a statement needs to be verified rather than a request for the citation to be checked. If you do add a tag, I would follow it up with a comment on the talk page explaining what you are looking for (a third party to obtain the film and look at it), and when you add the tag include an edit summary pointing to that talk page discussion.

Remember that WP:V does not say that something has to be verifiable by any one particular editor (ie you) ... simply that it has to be verifiable. There are a lot of ways to do this... if it is rentable somewhere, if it can be purchase somewhere, or if it is publically available somewhere it is verifiable. Have you thought about asking the editor that wishes to include the information where he obtained his/her copy of the film? Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I rented it first from Netflix, then I bought it from Amazon.com. This is not such a rare film. See here. For An Angel (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A reliable newsgroup posting

Newsgroup postings are considered lower than dirt as a reliable source here on Wikipedia. I think this case is an exception to the rule. In late 1994, the Intel Pentium FDIV bug played out mailing list and in the newsgroup comp.sys.intel. The posters were acoumplished scientist and engineers from major companies. While Intel was claiming the bug was minor, the readers of these newsgroups found out how serious the defect was. (I followed the posting at the time and was amazed at their quality.)

Tim Coe, a FPU (floating point unit) designer at Vitesse Semiconductor, read the reports of the Pentium division errors and was able to reverse engineer the cause of error. He wrote a C program to predict the errors. He did not own an Intel CPU, so he went to a local computer store to check his results. His error predictions were correct. He posted his results on the newsgroup, comp.sys.intel, on November 16, 1994.

• Tim Coe (1994-11-16). "Re: Glaring FDIV bug in Pentium!". Newsgroup: comp.sys.intel. Retrieved 2008-03-24.

The original newsgroup posing can be found on Google groups. Here is a web site that has a good copy of Tim Coe's posting and some other valid links. [60]

His work was reported in the technical press at the time and here is a report from the MathWorks newsletter.

• Moler, Cleve (Winter 1995). "A Tale of Two Numbers" (PDF). The MathWorks News & Notes. The MathWorks. Retrieved 2008-03-24.

Tim Coe later wrote a paper in the peer reviewed journal, IEEE Computational Science & Engineering

• Coe, Tim (Spring 1995). "Computational aspects of the Pentium affair". Computational Science & Engineering, IEEE. 2 (1): 18–30. doi:10.1109/99.372929. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) "The Pentium affair has been widely publicized. It started with an obscure defect in the floating-point unit of Intel Corporation's flagship Pentium microprocessor. This is the story of how the Pentium floating-point division problem was discovered, and what you need to know about the maths and computer engineering involved before deciding whether to replace the chip, install the workaround provided here, or do nothing. The paper also discusses broader issues of computational correctness."

Can the Tim Coe's original posting to the newsgroup, comp.sys.intel, be used as a reference?

-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Andy Grove, the Intel CEO, responded to this newsgroup.[61] -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already commented over at Talk:Pentium FDIV bug, but I don't see any need to suspend our usual disapproval of forum postings as sources. If any reliable sources actually reprinted the forum postings, it would be OK to use the reprinted versions. The notability of the people who posted doesn't make Usenet into a reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of saying that Tim Coe wrote a journal article based on his findings that he originally posted in the internet newsgroup, comp.sys.intel. Andy Grove, President of Intel, wrote a big check to refund the customers and also posted a response to the newsgroup, comp.sys.intel. The article could explain how this was an early case where the internet allowed customers to force a large corporation to admit to a defective product. The newsgroup was an important factor and was reported in the press at the time. The current article has the vague statement that the problem was "verified by other people around the Internet". It doesn't name them or give details of how the problem was verified. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If these events lead to papers being published and press reports, citing the newsgroup seems entirely unnecessary. Vassyana (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I got a copy of the IEEE Computational Science & Engineering paper today. In a sidebar, the journal editor states how important the internet was in uncovering the Pentium bug. The article mentions several specific posts to the newsgroup by various individuals. For example, "… reporters for major newspapers and news services had Xeroxed copies of faxed copies of Moler's posting." The newsgroup "comp.sys.intel" was part of the story. "At the height of the frenzy a month later, over 2000 messages a week were being posted to comp.sys.intel." All of the facts about the newsgroup posting can be referenced by traditional reliable sources. The 2 or 3 most significant posting themselves can be noted with a proper citation, {{cite newsgroup}}. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is precedent for using professional mailing lists as references. If the details are otherwise confirmed by reliable sources I see nothing wrong with referencing the USENET post. It's a primary source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Travel sites

Hi. Are references to tourism sites whether they be the likes of Fodors or Frommers, government tourism sites such as www.goisrael.com - an Israeli government site, or www.visit-tlv.com - a municipal site, or sites such as www.TravelGuides.com or www.telaviv-insider.co.il good enough to cite about sites or cultural events etc/general facts about the city. To what extent can they be used? Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are reliable by or rules. However, they do have limitations. We have to remember their purpose, which is to give a very quick overview of the site and events discribed, and to encourage tourists to visit them. They will gloss over many facts (especially negative ones), and editorial review may not be the best. If information listed on a tourism sight is contrary to what is stated in more scholarly works, we should defer to the scholars. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Etymologocial sources

Sometimes it's hard to find the etymology of words, especially in a (suitable?) online format. OED is a paid subscription. I'd like to submit the following two sources for scrutiny on reliability:

• The Word Detective: often posts his sources for etymology research.
• Online Etymology Dictionary: several sources are given with full disclosure. Yngvarr (c) 12:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the OED is pay-to-view is irrelevant. The Word Detective site seems reliable due to the fact that it is an online version of collumns that are published in various newspapers. Since we would be able to cite the printed collumns, I see no reason to challenge the on-line version. Online Etymology Dictionary is questionable... it is a personal web-project run by an accademic. The reliability would thus depend on the reputation of the author. I would say that to use it, you would have to establish that the site has been reviewed or cited by reliable third parties, and that they found it to be accurate and reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I mentioned that OED is PPV is that it makes it harder to get a cite. Off the topic, how does one get a cite for something to which they don't have access? I hope I'm not coming across snide, that is not my intention, but that's a hurdle which I've bumped into many times already, and I haven't found a solution.

As for the second site I listed, the Online Etymology Dictionary does have a Wikipedia entry which lists some of the places it has been cited. I know Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of itself, but the sources in that article are. I also checked Google books and a number of cites appear for the site (no pun intended). I won't list them, unless some examples are requested. On second thought, maybe I can just cite them in the article given. Yngvarr (c) 14:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK... having taken a look at the article, and the reviews mentioned, it probably can be considered reliable. As to your question on "How does one get a cite for something to which they don't have access"... Options are to get access (ie subscribe), find someone who has access and ask them to cite the material, or look for another source. If you are planning to do a lot of editing on Etymological topics, it probably makes sense to subscribe to the OED (it is considered the best)... but that is up to you. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

V2rocket.com

Is V2rocket.com RS? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I get a "site does not exist" error message when I search for it (on both Google and Yahoo), which leads me to think that it is not. Did you put the correct link info? Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. My confusion here is that the site has no scholarly text. Which is why I think it may not be RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The link works for me. Anyway, it's your classic good-looking site that unfortunately provides zero information on who wrote what, what their sources were, and whether any kind of review is exercised. If you'd very much like to use the content from that page, I'd suggest you email the guy who maintains the website, and ask him what his sources were. Someguy1221 (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of rickross.com and religionnewsblog.com as external links/convenience links

(The following has been transferred from WP:AN as per the request of User:Durova.)

A number of Wikipedia articles currently link to rickross.com and religionnewsblog.com. With respect to rickross.com, talk page consensus on Talk:Prem Rawat a few weeks ago was that the site appeared to be in breach of WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking:

Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright.

Our concern was based on rickross.com's copyright disclaimer:

rickross.com: "All META tags, page titles, keywords and other content descriptions used throughout this website are only intended to assist search engines for research and locating purposes. This in no way, shape or form is intended to mislead anyone by implying any official representation and/or relationship exists between this website and the owners of any trademarks, service marks and/or copyrights, which may contain the same keywords and/or titles." ... "Any publisher, Webmaster or news service (i.e., official and legal holder of copyright) that objects to their material being included in this archive may request that it be removed and/or that future material be excluded. An official written and signed request sent via fax or regular mail made by the copyright holder and/or their legal representative on company or legal letterhead will be honored."

Some of the material hosted on rickross.com is for sale online by the legitimate owners. Example: [62] [63]

Religion News Blog has been mentioned as a similar case; in particular, this subpage was proposed on the Prem Rawat talk page as a suitable external link. Here too it seems that copyright owners' permission is not routinely sought:

"Religion News Blog includes copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner."

The Religion News Blog also carries a rather large amount of advertising.

Please advise to what extent these two sites should be linked, or existing links to them removed.

Note that the Prem Rawat article is also subject to an ongoing Arbitration Case (Prem Rawat arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)).

Jayen466 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Rick Ross is a commentator frequently referenced by others, so I don't see we should have a problem discussing what he says in context and attributing it to him, with links to his site to back that up. The blog looks to be a link to avoid, on the face of it. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your feedback. I understand the point about quoting Rick Ross himself. However, this is not at issue; the copyright question arises because of the large number of press articles and other copyrighted material hosted on the site, evidently without a proper process of seeking permission from the owners. Instead, the Disclaimer page states that rickross.com will take down any copyrighted material if the copyright owners complain in writing. Rather than licensing the material, as required by WP:EL, this seemed to me to shift the onus from the site operators to the copyright owners. In other words, the onus is now on the owners (1) to become aware of the infringement and then (2) to write in to ask for their material to be taken down. As it is, the status of any document hosted on the site seems unclear; it may be the case that the owners are aware of their material's presence on the site and do not object, or it may be that they are not aware (yet) and will complain at a future date. At any rate it seems to me that where the same material is available on the legitimate copyright owner's own website (e.g. nytimes.com), it would be preferable from a copyright point of view to link to the copy at nytimes.com, rather than the one held at rickross.com. Jayen466 18:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm. My usual take on sites that play fast and loose with copyright is to exclude on principle, but here we have a notable individual who may be quoted as an authority. It should not be a problem to link to that content which is unequivocally Ross' own, attributed to Ross, if a compelling case can be made for the relevance of his opinion. Better, of course, to link to a reliable secondary source that describes Ross' views and places them in context. I am not a fan of primary sources in biographies, other than the subject's own site as a source for uncontroversial facts. Any copyright violating material may not be linked, period. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Starting at the top of the list of WP articles linking to rickross.com, what would be your view on this link, present as ref. 1 in Kenja Communication (permalink: [64])? I wasn't able to find the article on the Daily Telegraph website (note that this is the Australian Daily Telegraph, not the UK one), although there were articles on the subject present there (and hosted for free). This specific article, however, did not seem to be there. Now, what to do? The thing is that I believe many editors consider rickross.com a very valuable resource, which often has detailed material not available elsewhere. Jayen466 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the citation on Kenja Communication, I see the problem.

The citation is worded: "Secrets of sect in sex case. The Daily Telegraph, The Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey (May 25, 2006). Retrieved on 2007-02-08."

It should be worded more along the lines of: "Secrets of sect in sex case by Brad Clifton, The Daily Telegraph, Syndey, Australia May 25, 2006 - as hosted on: www.rickross.com, Retrieved on 2007-02-08."

This would make it clear that the Rick Ross site is being used as a convenience link to the Daily Telegraph story, which is the actual citation. Now... the question becomes: is Rick Ross's site an allowable convenience link? Does he need permission permission to reprint the story that appeared in the Daily Telegraph, and if so does he have it? If the answer to that is that he did need permission, and did not obtain it, then his site can not be used. We must omit the link to Ross and simply cite the Daily Telegraph without the link. This obviously requires someone double checking to make sure that the story in the Telegraph actually exists and says what Ross said it did... but this should not be all that difficult... I am sure that we could find a Wikipedian who lives in Sydney and whould be willing to go to a library and check the May 25, 06 Telegraph for us. If Ross does not need permission to reprint the story... or if he does, and obtained it... then there is no problem. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The (Australian) Daily Telegraph article exists and is correctly quoted on the Rick Ross website. I confirmed that through a Lexis-Nexis search; it appeared in the "Local" section on page 13 in the State edition. Is there any suggestion/evidence that Rick Ross misquotes attributed news articles, or is it only a matter of him (possibly) not having licensed the copyrighted content ? If it is the latter, the solution is simply not to link to his site as a convenience link for hosted newsarticles. Abecedare (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking and verifying the article's existence. There is no assertion that I am aware of that any news articles on rickross.com have been misquoted. There may be a quibble as to how selective the choice of articles hosted is; this on the Prem Rawat overview page for example appears to be a record of a couple's divorce proceedings, with the only link to Rawat being the fact that one of the couple had once, years prior to the marriage, been a follower of Rawat. This article reports on the opening of an enquiry, and there is no corresponding article reporting on the enquiry's findings (which appear to have been that the organisation was in order, from checking the UK charity registration website). But this may partly reflect the fact that newspapers and courts tend to focus more on negatives than on positives. The scholarly Dupertuis article also present on the Prem Rawat page was, I believe, actually written by a follower of Rawat's. So far the consensus seems to be then – do not use either of these sites as a convenience or external link, but verify the articles' existence and credit them (and link to them, where possible) directly. Jayen466 20:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The consensus you state makes sense to me. Does the Rick Ross website have any original content ? If so there may be a case for using it as a referenced source or external link in some cases; if it only hosts links/extracts from news sources, then it is advisable to cite them directly (after verification), and use rickcross.com only as a convenient resource for editors (as opposed to readers.) Abecedare (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found much material on the site that to my mind would qualify as an encyclopedic source. I think most of the texts on the site are taken from elsewhere. Plus there are the pages where Mr. Ross is offering his services to worried families. But I agree with the principle that any original material on the site written by Mr. Ross or his associates could and should be linked to, if it's pertinent to a topic covered in WP. Jayen466 21:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:C. Do not link to material that violates copyright. Cite the original source, and if it's not online, too bad. we are allowed to cite treeware, after all. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

<deindent>
One final thought for now: It may be a good idea to email Rick Ross (info@rickross.com) and ask him (politely) if he has licensed the information on his website and if he can provide an OTRS verification. We may be able to short-circuit this whole debate if he replies in the affirmative. Any volunteers experienced in the process ? Abecedare (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the wording of the disclaimer and the absence of copyright acknowledgments I think it highly unlikely that any such licenses exist. I get the feeling the database of news articles is really designed to bring in customers, because looking for original material by Mr. Ross on the site I realised that rickross.com is also a commercial site, offering expert witness and intervention/deprogramming services complete with hourly rates: [65] [66] [67] [68] as well as selling DVDs [69] and soliciting donations [70]. All of which makes me less inclined to consider it a suitable source for linking to in WP articles. Jayen466 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My view is that whenever possible, we should link to original sources. However, if those sources are hard for an average person to reach, then also linking to existing excerpts or full copies on the web is reasonable as long as we believe the copies are uncompromised. The owners of newspaper archives presumably are aware of the web, and I'd expect that they see no value in going after people promoting their work, especially when those people have a scholarly purpose in doing so. Respecting the property of others is certainly important, but I don't believe we must respect someone's property more than they themselves do, especially given the centrality of verifiability to our work. Thus, I'd consider both sites an acceptable backup source for linking. William Pietri (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's thrash this out. Well over a hundred articles link to the site; if these links are to be removed (or redirected to legitimate sites), there should be a good reason to start this work, and it should be backed up by solid community consensus. Personally, I don't see how these sites can be compatible with the copyright policy outlined in WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. In addition I have the feeling that the purpose of both sites mentioned here is not just scholarly, but also commercial; and if the above reasoning by William Pietri (talk · contribs) were to be applied to any site that infringes copyright, then there would be no copyright-infringing sites on the net at all. Because then we would have to assume that the ongoing presence of such material on a site generally implies the legal owner's consent. Any other views? Jayen466 00:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this is to say the least not the best characterization of the Rick Ross site links. Rick Ross is a well known expert on groups that many consider cults with huge publicity budgets churning out uncritically reviewed material. The purpose of these Rick Ross links and similar sites devoted to such groups is to provide a ready reference to hard to find published information on many such groups, not to sell services. Wikipedia's restrictions on critical external links have become such that original, critical material by Rick Ross would not be suitable because it is critical, and now you want to restrict linking to Rick Ross as well because he even collects information on these groups although the claim isn't that the information isn't sourced and there is zero chance of derivative liability for Wikipedia. Meanwhile, you can't even put in an article a general statement that critical information can be found on the internet anymore because advocates will demand that you provide anm attributable source for even that or it is "original research", which is absurd. The fallacy here is that there simply isn't a large body of scholarly, NPOV secondary sourcing, only a large amount of primary soured proponency and much less secondarily sourced, published material, simply due to limited interest, and Wikipedia simply doesn't function well in such niche areas. Wikipedia's increasing inability to address the underlying problem with NPOV in such cases by keeping these articles limited in scope for balance results in almost every article on such groups presenting a skewed view. This is just another "cure" that will make the problem worse. Not much point in editing Wikipedia anymore. Bye. --Dseer (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't know much about religionnewsblog.com, I disagree strongly that a substantial purpose of rickross.com is commercial. The Rick Ross Institute is a registered 501c3 nonprofit. I am of course not saying that any infringing of copyright is ok, but I am saying that there are cases where copyright owners may find non-profit use of limited amounts of their work acceptable and even welcome, and that this is plausibly one of those cases.

We should certainly try to be good citizens and follow the law, but we are not obliged to act as copyright police or to take hard-line positions on IP, especially when it would reduce the quality and verifiability of our encyclopedia. When we have no more official option, linking to web-posted copies of referenced articles on legitimate non-profit sites is not illegal, does not hurt the commercial value of the original work, and is beneficial to us and our readership. I believe we should continue the practice as is. William Pietri (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to weigh in here, but after reading the most recent above comment by William Pietri (talk · contribs) (as well as his previous comment), I don't think I could have said it any better than that. Cirt (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As to newspapers' copyright policies, here are the relevant pages from the New York Times website: [71] [72] There is nothing there to indicate that unauthorised reproduction of their articles on websites like the ones discussed here is welcomed by them. The same applies to Associated Press: [73] and I believe most other newspapers. In my view, the fact that editors like or applaud the work that the owners of a particular website do cannot be material here: that is an argument that would be open to any editor, with any site they link to. As regards the not-for-profit status of the Rick Ross Institute, Mr. Ross does use the rickross.com site to advertise his professional services and those of his associates, as outlined above. An American Professor of Sociology has described rickross.com as an "entrepreneurial lone ranger attempt to solicit customers". I still think that linking to the newspapers' own websites, where this is possible, is preferable and more in line with WP policy, and that simply referencing the article without the link (possibly with a note in the ref that the copy cited was found on rickross.com) is the right thing to do in those cases where the article is not available any more on the publisher's own website. Interested users can still find the article online by googling for its headline. Jayen466 14:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That nonprofit institutions take in money is not proof of commercial activity; every nonprofit takes donations, and many sell DVDs and services. Your quote is from 2003 and about the late 90s, and so appears to predate the creation of the nonprofit. If you think the Rick Ross Institute is violating its nonprofit status, you should talk to the IRS, not a Wikipedia noticeboard.

If you've spent any time in a large American corporation, that newspaper has no lawyer-written policy approving web posting of excerpts or articles should be unsurprising. But that doesn't mean that they actually mind their material being re-used as a non-commercial public good. Standards in Germany may be different, but in the US, the doctrine of fair use is an extension of the core of copyright: a limited, temporary grant of property rights to promote the creation and publication of intellectual works. Rick Ross is probably within the legal and moral boundaries of that, and we certainly are. I agree that referencing the original newspaper whenever possible is the right thing to do. However, when I weigh reduced verifiability against a token gesture of extreme deference to a publisher that may be perfectly happy that people are using and discussing their work, I feel that verifiability wins out. That is especially true given that, as Dseer points out, rickross.com has articles about organizations that in many cases work very hard to present and promote a one-sided view of themselves.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying that Rick Ross is necessarily a reliable source on anything other than the views of Rick Ross. He's clearly partisan, so I don't think he personally should be cited except in a "critics say" kind of way. But if he's the only guy with a web-accessible copy of a text that we are citing, we should not place unnecessary barriers in the way of verifying Wikipedia articles based on those texts. William Pietri (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am quite certain, judging by the Disclaimer quoted above and the sort of material hosted, that rickross.com does not operate within the realms of fair use. Just try getting one of these NY Times articles that he hosts uploaded to Wikimedia Commons with a fair-use rationale and you'll see what I mean. Re your concern for WP:V: my suggestion is either to link to the publisher's website or to omit the link to rickross.com, but state that the copy of the article viewed was that found on rickross.com. That should be done anyway – see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. (I don't know what the status is if the copy viewed and cited infringes a copyright – perhaps we'd have to raise this in another forum.) In either case, then, verifiability would be ensured. Readers either get the original article, on the publisher's website (preferable in any case), or they can look for the article on rickross.com, since our reference tells them that we found it there. As for the site being non-commercial, I don't think you understand that Mr. Ross makes his living as an "intervention specialist" or deprogrammer, and as an expert witness in court cases. In other words, these pages [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] advertise the professional services by which he makes his livelihood. So in what sense is the site non-commercial if it advertises his commercial, for-profit services? Surely, the business idea is that people surf to the site to read up on the group that a member of their family has joined, and then at least a small proportion of them will click on "Getting Help", where Mr. Ross's services are available at the quoted prices. See Duck test. Jayen466 20:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but the determination of fair use is made by judges, not by Wikipedia's policies, which are and should be much more stringent than what is legal in the US, which in turn may be stricter than what a particular rightsholder allows. That someone makes a living at a non-profit endeavor does not make it suddenly for profit, and neither does providing services. Most educational institutions, for example, are non-profit, but certainly charge money for services, and just as certainly provide a living to their employees. Do they put up their websites partly because the will attract paying students? Surely. But that alone does not mean they are suddenly a for-profit institution, or that other material on that site would suddenly fail the first part of the US fair use test.

Making readers and editors go the extra step of searching the web for a reference whose location we describe doesn't benefit anybody, and it harms the encyclopedia. If we are going to use the article and say where we saw the material, then we should link to it. William Pietri (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can follow your reasoning, but there remains the fact that the links to these sites appear to be a clear breach of our above policies. And the same argument could be made for any other site hosting unlicensed public-interest material. I've left a note on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems to see if we can get some editors with a clearer understanding of WP copyright policy to comment on the matter. Jayen466 00:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Many news websites have links and advertisements to items they do not own the copyright to, or host items for sale. They are still acceptable on Wikipedia. However, if an item is a blog, it should not be allowed, except as opinion (and chances are this is reflected in legitimate news websites). I believe the policy deals with things like linking to excerpts of Harry Potter on a website that does not have permission to use it. If the text that you are linking to is rightfully used by the website, then it should be okay. If not, well, there you go. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty straightforward situation. If a website illegally hosts infringing material, we should not link to them. Policy makes this clear (Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works, among other places). Additionally, simple legal realities preclude us from linking to such sites. Contributory infringement requires both a reasonable belief that the infringing party should have known the material was in violation of copyright (which is apparent for news "scraping" sites of any sort) and a material contribution to the infringement (which linking from a top ten website would almost certainly qualify). IANL, but a law degree is not required to see why linking to such sites should be vigorously avoided. Vassyana (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is largely affiliated with the open-source community and copyleft, I think we should clarify here: F*** copyright law. People seem to pull out claims of copyright infringement in content disputes, just to push their point-of-view. I.E., a while back, some images I'd uploaded to Wikipedia were deleted by some annoying people because I used copyrighted Wikipedia logos, in the images. Thus, they argued, "That's in violation of copyright." Yes, but is Wikipedia going to sue itself? Is anybody going to somehow use my images, pulled from Wikipedia, in a way that harms Wikimedia financially? Later, I found images which had done the same thing, elsewhere (used copyrighted Wikipedia logos in images uploaded to Wikipedia) which remain untouched. Sometimes, Wikilawyering actually involves real laws, not just made-up ones.

So, the relevant question isn't, "Is this in accordance with the letter of the law?" but rather, "In reality, will Wikipedia get sued?" The second question is particularly important since the government itself often ignores the law and the answer to the second question is no. The legal culpability for linking to another website which violates copyright law is minimal, if not entirely non-existent. Much less, the legal culpability for the Foundation, which delegates editing responsibility to the community is minimal, if not non-existent. Technically, it could be argued that knowingly linking to a site which knowingly links to a site which knowingly links to a site which infringes on copyright is "copyright infringement," but such a ridiculous argument would be thrown out of court. The internet, period, is rampant with copyright infringement. The only way to completely avoid this would be to avoid secondary sources, especially sources like blogs and self-published websites. WP:Copyvio (and all policy, period) isn't like legalist dogma which we pedantically follow, literally, because we all somehow think policy was somehow written on stone tablets, by God, or we have some kind of undying love for copyright law. It's simply practical, pragmatic steps we take to keep Wikipedia functioning and to avoid getting Wikimedia sued. In this case, Wikimedia is not going to get sued from citing Rick Ross and I suggest e-mailing the Foundation for clarification, if you're still concerned.

With that said, what Rick Ross and religionnewsblog.com do could certainly be construed as fair use. If a company thinks they're infringing on copyright, they can issue a DMCA takedown provision very easily and Wikipedia will respond accordingly. Until then, this is just wikilawyering, literally. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This has to be the most sensible post I've seen on this topic - thank you Zenwhat. Orderinchaos 22:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Reproduction of entire works for public distribution is not anything close to fair use. However, it is classic infringement. You may wish to say f*** copyright, but copyright is a reality and numerous people depend on it for a living (writers, artists, etc). Is there a good chance we won't be sued? Sure. Does that make violating the law or encouraging the theft of someone else's work correct? F*** no. Also, contributory infringement for linking directly to infringing works is not an obscure technicality unlikely to result in court enforcement, but rather a legal reality upheld by courts in the United States. Vassyana (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I believe that rickross.com is not doing anything illegal or morally wrong. First, copyright is not an absolute right, and not all copies are illegal, as section of the law on fair use makes clear. As the US Constitution says, copyright exists, "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Further, not all uses of somebody else's property are crimes. When the neighborhood children sit on my porch after school, they are indeed on my land, but if a neighborhood busybody called the police for trespassing, I would be outraged. We certainly shouldn't link to people who are engaging in wholesale, for-profit violation of actively marketed intellectual property, and I think nobody would suggest otherwise. But there is a complicated spectrum here, from obvious piracy to sharing abandoned works to educational fair use to simple quoting. We must be responsible citizens, but equally we must not be extremists or prudes. William Pietri (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wholesale copying for broad distribution is not even remotely close to fair use and asserting otherwise is simply ludicrous. I agree there is a whole spectrum of use involved in using copyrighted materials, but I disagree that the use by rickross.com constitutes anything but obvious wholesale infringement. Vassyana (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Then it's a good thing I asserted the opposite. Sorry if my writing was confusing, but "wholesale copying for broad distribution" is one end of the spectrum I'm pointing at, and fair use is close to the other end. Rickross.com is far from the ugly end of the spectrum. It is a legally registered non-profit with an educational purpose collecting small portions of the original salable works, and only those portions related to its mission. Those articles bear no commercial ads. They do not charge for access. The value of the original work seems unharmed. I'm no lawyer, but that sounds like fair use to me.

Back in the days before the Internet, any serious public library would maintain files like this on topics of local interest, and would happily let you read and make copies of articles in the files. This is a functional modern equivalent. We should make use of it to increase the verifiability of our articles when (and only when) we cannot link to the original publisher's version. William Pietri (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Wholesale copying for broad distribution" is exactly what rickross.com does, so your position comes across as more than a bit incoherent. Whole articles are considered single whole works (just as a whole essay or whole short story from a book is a whole work), not "small portions". Since many of the news services charge for archive access, it most certainly is harmful to the value of the original work in those instances. Regardless, there's a big difference between making private copies from legitimately purchased materials (such as your library example) and publishing the material publicly on a website (which is equivalent to handing out thousands upon thousands of copies for free). Also, the for-profit or non-profit legal status of a venture does not affect the status of infringement. It only affects the fiscal culpability of the offending party. Vassyana (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As you'd expect, I disagree that my position is incoherent. AllOfMP3 is the kind of thing I mean by "wholesale, for-profit violation of actively marketed intellectual property". I agree that we should stay far away from that end of the spectrum. If there are articles in the rickross.com database that people are actively trying to sell, then yes, let's link to where they are on offer. But otherwise, I see what he's up to as no more sinister than archive.org, which we happily link to. Indeed, much less so, as his collection is surely less than a millionth of theirs. William Pietri (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there's no real comparison between a web-archive that is cautious to move within the law, has solid academic respect and endorsement, obeys robots.txt and readily complies with the wishes of rights holders, and an advocacy site that republishes news articles without permission. In my own view, your position is logically and ethically flawed (as I've detailed in my responses). Since we are apparently operating on different assumptions and standards of analysis, we will just have to agree to disagree. Vassyana (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Note e.g. [79], [80] and [81] – ? Jayen466 19:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive.org may be many things, but they (and Google) have not been legally cautious. I know people who worked on it, and they definitely saw themselves as breaking new legal ground. As Lauren Gelman says "The Internet Archive has been involved in the debate over the future of copyright in cyberspace since its formation in 1995." Like archive.org, rickross.com offers to remove any material on request of the rightsholder. The only obvious difference is "solid academic respect" which is not, as far as I know, an excuse under the law for wholesale distribution of other people's copyrighted works. By your own arguments, we should pull both sites; I believe we should pull neither. William Pietri (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that a lot of people, including Jimbo Wales and probably quite a lot of others don't agree that the criterion should be 'do we get sued'. That is why for example, we respect the copyright laws of countries like Bhutan, even though we are not legally required to (hint: try reading WP:Copyrights). Indeed the very essesence of the copyleft and open source movement is that while the current copyright regime may be flawed, we need to work within it an do our best not to violate it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If people wish to change our policy on linking to sites with unlicensed copyrighted materials, they should attempt to get consensus to change Wikipedia:EL#Restrictions on linking and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. If people disagree with the copyright regime, they are free to petition the copyright office and elected officials. Unless the policy is changed, links to such sites should be removed without serious debate. Vassyana (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a strong concern that some editors are using valid copyright concerns to remove ANY links to sites with critical information about religious groups they favor. Red herring arguments such as "they make money off of this website" confirm my concern -- the New York Times makes money off of their website; should we be banned from linking to it?

I think there is a high value in linking to external websites that simply keep tabs of news stories on whatever issue an article is about, in this case controversy over religious organizations. They should include links, or make their own summaries, instead of simply violating copyright of course. It's best is they are scrupulously fair, but it's not necessary (and not Wikipedia policy) to force external links to meet all of our very strict requirements, such as BLP, no OR, etc.

How about this alternative to RickRoss.com, et. al.: CAIC.org It seems reasonably fair and a site that summarizes copyrighted material instead of copying it. I know that the word "cult" is fightin' words for some, despite the disclaimer on their front page ("Read This First (disclaimer). Both Cults & Isms are listed here. Not every group mentioned on this site is considered a destructive cult. Some are 'benign isms' — different but not emotionally or socially destructive.") We can avoid that word in any case by simply referring to it as CAIC, and linking directly to the page about a certain group or figure, for example [82]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msalt (talk • contribs) 20:16, 27 March 2008

it's not necessary (and not Wikipedia policy) to force external links to meet all of our very strict requirements, such as BLP Note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#External_links Jayen466 01:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been hashed out at length before, with no clear resolution. See Wikipedia:Convenience links. If anyone seeks to remove links to articles hosted on Rick Ross's website they should be sure to not delete the articles as sources - we don't need hot links to use newspaper articles as sources. Instead they should reformat the citation so that it lists the bibliographic information about the article so that interested readers can look up the reference on their own. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the fair use rationale, there is a somewhat similar case described here: Fair_use#Practical_effect_of_fair_use_defense Jayen466 20:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have written to the New York Times and Associated Press copyright/permissions departments to seek their advice; when and if I hear from them, I shall report back. Jayen466 20:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about this further, here's my view. From Wikipedia:Copyrights, we are allowed to link to "internet archives", but we don't define what those might be. I can find two obvious ones in use: archive.org and webcitation.org. Both take previously published material and offer it to anybody on the web who cares to ask for it. Both have policies where they will take down material on request. Neither asks for permission in advance. Both are non-profits, and do not put advertisements on the archived material. They do solicit donations and/or offer services. Rickross.com appears to meet all these criteria. Religionnewsblog.com claims to be non-profit, but I haven't confirmed that. They also run ads, but I didn't see requests for donations or offers of services. Otherwise, they fit these criteria. So I would say that both of these sites appear to qualify as internet archives (albeit with RNB possibly closer to the margin) and so should be kept. William Pietri (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

For more info: the term internet archive is wikilinked in Wikipedia:Copyrights; archive.org has official recognition as a library. Not sure it solves this issue, but there it is, FWIW. Jayen466 17:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, excellent point. I was thinking mainly of the US fair use criteria when I was comparing things, as that is the legal hole through which they appear to be driving their multi-petabyte truck. The Internet Archive indeed recently (June 2007) became an officially recognized library as part of seeking some federal funding, so that's indeed an interesting difference. They appear not to have done anything more than they were doing before, however, so I don't think that helps us with a duck test for internet archives. William Pietri (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Both archive.org and webcitation.org are automatic (bot) archivers and obey robots.txt and provide information on how to block them via robot.txt. The archive pages precisely and do not reformat or modify pages. They only archive from the internet. Do these apply to rickross.com? From what I can tell, the answer is no. The pages there are 'archived' manually by the site owner (so robots.txt becomes irrelevant), they are reformated for the site, and I'm not even sure if he only archives from websites. I don't think rickross.com is what we mean when we say internet archive. I would suggest if people find stories online that are relevant to an article, they submit them to webcitation, rather then relying on some more dubious website Nil Einne (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC on including personal blog in the article on intelligence

See Request for comment on the inclusion of McGrew's blog. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sami Omar Al-Hussayen

Is discoverthenetworks.org a reliable soure? My instinct is to say no. Corvus cornix_talk 20:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Activist site; okay perhaps to represent a minority view, but not as the main source for an article. (Note that Discoverthenetworks.org redirects to David Horowitz Freedom Center. David Horowitz is widely described as a "conservative activist", "right-wing political activist", "conservative crusader" in mainstream newspapers; on right web (kind of the mirror image of discoverthenetworks.org, it seems :-)), he is described as "far right".) Jayen466 21:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Proper link between two sources

I'm working on List of Alpha Phi Omega members and have a question about linking two sources. Documentary maker focused on blacks states that St. Clair Bourne was a student at Georgetown in the 1960s before being expelled for participating in a Sit-in. The list of members of Alpha Phi Omega at Georgetown lists a St. Claire Bourne as a member of the Spring 1961 pledge class. I'm not that concerned about the difference between St. Claire with an e and without an e as the page at imdb shows him with the e, but having done work as St. Clair Bourne. Is this enough to fit the reliable sources for Wikipedia given that *theoretically* there could have been two different St. Claire Bourne's at Georgetown University at the same time. Yes, I know that this is *significantly* less likely that two Joseph Brown's there at the same time, but I'm trying to bend over backwards here... Thank You.Naraht (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The obituary uses both spellings of the name. However, making this connection feels like the synthesis form of original research to me, and thus should be excluded on those grounds. YiLFS, GRBerry 02:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

RS?

Can anyone tell if the following RS or not?

• Bangladesh.com
• Banglavasha.com

I want use these for geographical location related articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Using verifiability, it kind fails some tests such as as academic, third party review but it is borderline on is it a mainstream publication , it is definitely is not a wiki. So if I have to use it, I will attribute it. But it should not be used to contradict any facts that are supported by RS sources. Just my opinion. Taprobanus (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Further Discussion of the Nation

(clipped from closed thread.)

I suggest we don't. Not on that note. I've just pointed out that McNeil performed a guilt-by-association slur on Pipes in which she got her facts wrong.[83] How this article, or by implication The Nation, can be considered a "reliable source" when their unreliability is proven beyond doubt is beyond comprehension. Andyvphil (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, we're done discussing this. I judge from a look at your contributions that this is probably related to your efforts at Barack Obama media controversy or whatever that article is, but I think this issue has been addressed. Relata refero (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I had just pointed out that McNeil performed a guilt-by-association slur on Pipes in which she got her facts wrong just before your premature attempt to close. This hasn't been addressed. I don't know what Obama has to do with this. Andyvphil (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It was presumably considered irrelevant to the overall reliability of the Nation. What an article on Obama has to do with it is evident by looking at your contributions. Unless you have something new to add, I don't think there's anything further to say. Relata refero (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have a serious issue with a particular article that was printed in The Nation, and how it is used in a particular Wikipedia article (and it seems you do), then that is something that should be discussed on the talk page of the wikipedia article in question. Go to your fellow editors at the Daniel Pipes article, explain your problems with the McNeil article, and try to reach a consensus on it. If the consensus of your fellow editors is that the McNeil article should not be used... then don't' use it. All we can say at this noticeboard is that The Nation is considered a reliable source. That determination isn't going to change. To continue to beat this dead horse after this determination has been repeated several times by multiple editors is counter productive... and is starting to become a WP:POINT violation. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There are degrees of reliability, of course, not absolutes. The Nation is generally considered reliable, but it's not, for example, a peer reviewed journal. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would note that even the most enthusiastic readers of The Nation would not consider it a source that espouses a neutral point of view. The reason I indicated above that it could be used in the Daniel Pipes article was because the article's writer (McNeil) made certain claims about things Pipes had written, which could be confirmed as things Pipes had written from looking at Pipes' own columns. Furthermore, the Nation article was being used to illustrate what Pipes' critics say about him -- not to report neutral facts. It may be that McNeil also stated other claims about Pipes which were not true, but those other claims were not going to be incorporated into the Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if a source was intended to be used in Wikipedia only to provide neutral facts, then contentious claims in the source would taint the source and make it a poor source to use even for the non-contentious claims. To put it another way, suppose a source said, "George W. Bush was born in Connecticut, has two daughters named Jenna and Barbara, and planned the September 11, 2001 attacks." I would not cite that source even in support of the statement "George W. Bush's daughters are named Jenna and Barbara"; I'd look for another source instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The false claims have in fact been been incorporated in the article, off and on. And should be, since the fact that they are both made and false is relevant context to the other criticisms by McNeil that are quoted. The claims that Pipes is "notorious" and "anti-Arab" are undermined by the double falsehood engaged in by the same author to link him to ethnic cleansing, and that ought not be concealed. Consider if your example had instead read "George W. Bush shirked his duties in the National Guard and planned the September 11, 2001 attacks." Merely quoting the former assertion, arguably merely a POV take on true facts, misrepresents the flavor of the source. The fact that critics in venues as semi-respectable as the The Nation are allowed, unquestioned, to demonize Pipes in ways unmoored to facts is a very legitimate subject in a section dealing with the criticisms made of him. Andyvphil (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

For Pete's sake... just attribute the view in the text, as we usually do for reliable sources which have a somewhat subjective perspective. As in, "The Nation wrote X about Y." If other reliable sources have disputed what The Nation said about Pipes or whomever, then the following sentence should read: "But source X said Y." Many literate adults are familiar with The Nation and its viewpoint; those who are not can click on the wikilink and see it described, in the first sentence of the Wikipedia lede, as "the flagship of the Left." What's the problem again? MastCell ^Talk 22:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem, again: Actually, McNeil does make "wild, out-of-the left-field [and] potentially libelous claims". She writes, e.g., "Pipes is also a regular contributor to the website of Gamla, an organization founded by former Israeli military officers and settlers that endorses the ethnic cleansing of every Palestinian as 'the only possible solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict."

The Nation's POV is not what is at issue here. It could be both highly biased and reliable as to facts. But in this case it isn't. GAMLA does nothing of the sort and Pipes is in any case not a regular contributor to GAMLA's website. Since the Nation 's fact checking process was clearly not applied sucessfully to this article this article should not be considered reliable for the truth of any factual claim made in it. That said, the Nation 's website is a RS for the content of the article, and to the extent that the article is mentioned in secondary sources (e.g., claims are made and attributed to it) we can mention its content. But only in the context of supplying the evidence that it is a tendentious piece of crap.(quoting self, 11:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

As Jayjg says (what a phrase, coming from me) "There are degrees of reliability, of course..." Blueboar's "All we can say at this noticeboard is that The Nation is considered a reliable source" is nonsense. We can, indeed must, use The Nation in describing the emanations of Pipes' critics, but then we must note that venom directed at Pipes in that venue is not well fact checked. Andyvphil (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I request a bit of clarification here from user:andyvphil on why, considering his argument here against the nation as an RS, why he has repeatedly advocated for the use of a Nation article on the Obama campaign page, and why he has reverted back to that version even when other editors' consensus found the text obsolete, if there is such a problem with the Nation? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As usual, without diffs or specifics it's pointless to attempt to reply to 72etc's vaporings. What text is "obsolete"? Andyvphil (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As usual, you don't seem to realize people can look at your edit history andy... first I want you to deny it happened and then you can have your diffs. this is the Hayes article we're talking about here, in case you're wondering... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you think you've said that I'm supposed to deny. The Hayes article is also a piece of crap, now that you mention it. I've said so before, so it is clear that you haven't been taking things in. Nothing new about that. Andyvphil (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Again... The Nation is a reliable source. It is a notable publication with extensive circulation and editorial oversight. It is no less reliable than the New York Times, Newsweek, US News and World Report, or any other major periodical. The fact that it has a distinct political slant does not negate its reliability. The fact that a given article in The Nation may contain statements that are deemed inaccurate does not negate its reliability (the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not "Truth"). Thus, it may be used as a source in Wikipedia articles.

Now, questions about whether any source should be used in a particular Wikipedia article, and questions about how it should be used (for example: should it be used in support of a statement of fact or only in support of a statement of opinion) are legitimate. But these have to be decided at the article's talk page... not here. So... stop being POINTy. Take this argument back to the talk pages of the articles involved. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already pointed out that what you are saying is nonsense, and repeating it doesn't make it any less nonsense. "The Nation is... notable publication with extensive circulation and editorial oversight. It is no less reliable than the New York Times, Newsweek, US News and World Report, or any other major periodical."? Really? I don't think so. It appears to do very little fact checking of assertions that align with its biases, as shown by the example I've provided. And the Hayes article 72etc mentions also fabulated an importance to a nonentity named Andy Martin, unsupported by any fact, to perform a convenient smear. Do you have any evidence that it does fact checking, or are you just pulling an assertion out of your rear end? Andyvphil (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil, you've made your point, and consensus appears to be against you. My recommendation is that you accept that and move on. We are all sometimes in a minority of one. Relata refero (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Robert Latimer

What do people think about the reliability of this court transcript of a witness hosted on Robert Latimer's website? [84] I don't have any reason to doubt its authenticity but would like to know if we should be using it given that I can't actually find it on a more independent/reliable source. --Slp1 (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say no... nothing indicates that it is a "true" copy of the original. It does not even indicate basic information that will be found on any official transcript... such as the case name or the date. I note that a few lines are highlighted or underlined... this would not be the case on an official transcript. All we can say in an article would be that Latimer's website prints something that appears to be a re-typing of part of a court transcript where the witness said X, and that is definitely not reliable. Sorry. Blueboar (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(the following was posted by IP user 70.66.167.249 in the discussion below... I assume that it was simply misposted and have moved it Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)): If any of you have doubts as to the veracity of the court transcript, you need only to refer to your local library, a place where they have books available for reading by the public. If they don't have it on hand, they will certainly bring it in for you. Any respectable law library, such as McGill University, will certainly have it available.

The problem isn't actually the court transcript, but the copy of it that is found on Latimer's webpage. If someone cites to a verifiable copy of the actual transcript (as might be found in a respectable law library) that would be fine. Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually have access to McGill's law library and it isn't available through them electronically or on the shelves. Not sure where that leaves us. Can I also clarify one additional thing? I believe that for an editor to use the transcript as a source we must actually have seen and verified a reliable version of the transcript, not just that on Latimer's website. In order words, we can't just cite a verifiable copy of the transcript unless we have actually seen that copy in some way (electronically or physically). Is this correct? --Slp1 (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Whoever adds a citation must have seen the document they cite too. That is part of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Blueboar (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

From what you are saying, it appears that there is no transcript of the trial and that Dr. Dzus never did testify. Supporters of Robert Latimer just made the whole thing up to fool the public. If that is the case, you should delete all reference to this transcript hoax, and while you are at it, everything else that could in any way be interpreted as favourable to Robert Latimer. If you are going to have a public lynching, which would obviously be your first choice, don't stop halfway :::::

No... this is not what I am saying at all. All I am saying is that we can not use the version of the transcript that is on Latimer's Page, as that version is flawed (it is incomplete and with non-original markings). In all of this, I am assuming that there is a clean verifiable copy of Dr. Dzus's testimony somewhere out there that we can cite to. All we need to do is locate it. Has anyone tried seeing if there is a public record at the court where the trial took place, or contacting a court reporting service? It does not need to be available on line... just accessable to the public. Blueboar (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, not just "accessible to the public", but also accessed/verified by the editor who adds the citation to the article, as Blueboar mentioned previously before. --Slp1 (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is how the information could be accessed, I believe.[85]--Slp1 (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to use the transcript for? Primary sources like court transcripts need to be used with great care, particularly on BLPs are they can easily lead to OR, UNDUE etc. You may want to read WP:BLP about the use of primary sources. I would take particular clear if you are trying to advance a position, whether negative or positive, which is not already supported by a secondary source. If the primary source is simply be used to back up the secondary source then fine. Nil Einne (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Gothamist LLC blogs

Resolved

• sfist.com DigitalC (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Right... could you explain that a little more please? Relata refero (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If your question is whether we can link to sfist.com in the Gothamist article ... the answer is Yes... In that article, it essentially falls under WP:SPS. The article is (in part) about Gothamist LLC. sfist.com is included in a list of "city centric" blogs that are run by that company. I am not sure if listing all of these blogs is appropriate (it slightly smacks of turning the article into a promotion for the company and its various blog sites), but that is a different issue. If we are going to include the list, it is appropriate to provide a link to each of them as verification that they exist and are indeed owned and run by Gothamist LLC.

If your question is whether sfist.com can be used as a source in any other article, then I would say Absolutely Not. In other articles it falls squarely under our "No blogs" rule and is unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to add other than to affirm what Blueboar just said. Sfist.com could not, however, be used as a source for other articles. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Blueboar, how did you read his mind? Relata refero (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just another of my psychic Super Powers. No biggie. :>) Blueboar (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero, thanks for the bite. Blueboar, thank you for answering my question, which I apparently could have been MUCH more clear on. DigitalC (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Philadelphia Trumpet

Would The Philadelphia Trumpet be considered a reliable source for a statement on Middle Eastern politics? It is a monthly news magazine published by the Philadelphia Church of God. I have to admit I'm no expert on the PCoG, but my understanding of it is that it is a fairly fringe-y religious organisation (according to a Watchman Expositor profile, it is an "American-born cult" with about 6,000 members -- [86]). I feel that this would have to be considered a non-mainstream source - what WP:V would call a "questionable source" - and that Middle Eastern affairs would be outside its area of competence. It strikes me as being rather similar to contemplating the use of a Church of Scientology magazine as a reliable source for a statement on Scientology's pet hate, psychiatry. I would be interested to know what others think. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably not the best source - certainly not at the level of a newsmagazine like U.S. News & World Report, or even The New Republic. It does seem to have a fairly high circulation, assuming the figures are accurate. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am extremely skeptical of those figures. It seems highly implausible that a fringe magazine for a 6,000-member cult has higher circulation than The Nation, The Weekly Standard, or The New Republic, just to name a few. Cults have a reputation for exaggerating membership and publication figures (with Scientology, for instance, they often buy books en masse off the shelves and then re-sell them, to juice their sales figures). *** Crotalus *** 15:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Those figures are extraordinary. 300,000 copies per month for an organisation with 6,000 members works out at 50 copies per member. It's most likely that those reflect free distribution copies rather than commercial sales figures (Scientology's Freedom Magazine works in much the same way - they give them out on the street). Be that as it may, it occurs to me that a good way of assessing its reliability would be to see whether anyone else quotes it as a source; bear in mind WP:V's requirement that sources should have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I've done a search of news archives and Google Books but found negligible use of the Trumpet as a source. The few sources I did find used it mainly as a source on the PCoG, which is fair enough given that it's the official organ of that outfit, though I was amused to see that one source described it as "hopelessly fundamentalist"! It seems to me that if other reliable sources are not citing the Trumpet as a source for information on general issues, we should not do so; I've found nothing that suggests it has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

CounterPunch

I've come across a few references to CounterPunch which, I note, has a number of links from article space. I see from this page's archives that CounterPunch's reliability has been discussed briefly before, but I'm unclear as to what the general view is of this source's reliability. Any thoughts? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It has a strong political agenda and bias. It's probably about as reliable as FrontPage Magazine, which would be its counterpart on the right. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My expsriance froma personal angle: CounterPunch is a valid source for opinions but not for facts. Zeq (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to remove links to CounterPunch unless the individual writing for them is notable enough in his or her own right. Jay's comparison to FPM is apt. Relata refero (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

None of these should be used as sources in contentious articles related to political/social topics, unless the author is particularly well known and their opinion is likely to be of substantial interest in and of itself. *** Crotalus *** 15:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly how I approach it. Relata refero (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. <eleland/talkedits> 20:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Relata refero. It depends on who writes there. In itself it cannot be called a reliable or unreliable source (the same goes for mainstream papers though). One might add that, contrary to what was asserted, it doesn't have a 'strong political agenda', except for those unfamiliar with it, since the views expounded in its pages can not be affiliated with those of any political party. Its regulars include an (ex?) economist who was an undersecretary for the Reagan Administration (e.g.Paul Craig Roberts), former analysts for the C.I.A., libertarians, ex-Wall Street Journal journalists of repute, historians of repute, senior officers of the American military (Col. Dan Smith), many academics, etc. It opens its pages to what are called fringe views, but also to quality analysts from all areas of controversy. It is equally critical of the Democratic Party as of the Republican Party. It has a strong record for quality reportage on certain key issues that has proven, in retrospect, more accurate of the inside-stories in matters like WMP in Iraq, the politics of the war on Terror, and the invasion of Iraq, prescient on the present economic crisis long before 'mainstream' newspapers starting to talk about possible sub-prime problems and the structural dangers of derivatives-trading. It is, yes, highly critical of Israel, but most of that material comes from varied voices within Israel or the north-American Jewish world, from Uri Avnery to Michael Neumann. It does not have a 'line', however, since its regular commentators have disagreed quite vigorously on a one or two-state solution. In short, Counterpunch is what is called a muckraking magazine, hosting a great diversity of prominent critics, academics, writers and journalists, from Diane Johnston, Gore Vidal, Uri Avnery, Ralph Nader, Paul Craig Roberts, Robert Fisk (one of the West's best writers on Lebanese affairs and history), Oren Ben-Dor, Frank Menetrez, Gary Leupp, etc., to name a few off the top of my head. The comparison to FrontPage Magazine, is completely off-key. If it has an agenda, it is in getting informed reportage from around the world that is not on the Front Page, and cannot be qualified as a 'left' wing mirror of a right-wing rag, for the simple reason that many who write for it are far too critical of the ideological or political left to be denominated under that vague and lazy rubric. What applies to it, applies to all sources: a judgement of quality, which can vary as much there as it does in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, mainstream papers which have proven to be far less reliable as sources on several major events of the last decade than Counterpunch.Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC).

Nishidani's point about the heterogeneity of views and reputations on offer is well taken. I agree, too, that some of the sources most reliable by our standards have shown themselves to be somewhat problematic recently when it comes to the bigger picture. (Read Michael R. Gordon for gory details.) But the difference is that (a) CounterPunch prides itself on heterogeneity and giving space to marginal views; by focusing on the things in which they were right about facts, we would be subject to selection bias, and would not get useful information about the probability of them being right about facts. (b) As a self-defined muckraking magazine, it cannot be expected to hold itself to the same standards of fact-checking and confirmation using multiple independent sources that newspapers we consider reliable by our metric at least nominally honour. (c) As a magazine devoted to heterogeneity of views and reputations, it cannot be immediately assumed that publication in it makes the opinion of the contributor notable by our standards. Its strength as an unaffiliated, "independent" voice is a weakness as far as meeting the criteria here are concerned. Relata refero (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Applying the WP:V criteria of having "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", is CounterPunch cited as a reliable source by other reliable sources? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed a good point. In the end, that's all that matters. We must all resist the natural tendency to see publications we agree with as inherently more reliable and neutral (really, any mag that publishes Chomsky, Fisk, and Churchill is left-leaning, and these days paleoconservatives have more in common with the left on major foreign policy issues than anyone on the right). I agree with those above we should only reference an article in this mag and others like FPM if that article's author is notable in his own right (e.g. Chomsky for Counterpunch, Pipes for FPM). - Merzbow (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Since when is Daniel Pipes notable in any way similar to Noam Chomsky? Chomsky has a very wide and international notability in several areas of scholarship and political commentary, whereas Pipes certainly does not. Do you mean that within arch-conservative cultures Chomsky is regarded as a wackjob the way that Pipes is amongst those of the far left who even know who is? While I get the similarity here on Wikipedia in terms of perceived POV lets not delude ourselves about the notability of minor ideologues (vs. quite major ideologues).PelleSmith (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To quibble a minor issue in Merzbow's point above: Fisk's main output is for The Independent which isn't left-leaning but centre. OK, UK centre = US far left, but we have to live with that. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsure about this source

This appears to be on the edge of what may or may not be acceptable for the content. It is a transcript from a radio interview of one of the principals that seems to confirm the content. However the tricky part is the transcript and website appears to be self published by the producers of the radio show that is no longer in operation.

From ME/CFS nomenclatures:

Also Infectious venulitis (IVN), this term was used to describe an outbreak at the Mercy San Juan Hospital in Sacramento, California by Erich Ryll.[87]
RS or not? Thanks Ward20 (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

FreeRepublic

FreeRepublic.com is by and large an unreliable source because it is a self-published source (blog). However, it does have a reprinting service where users add articles to the site from reliable sources that they find interesting followed by frequently lengthy comments on the article by the readers of the website. As an example, this link is used as a source in Hindu nationalism. Can the reprints on freerepublic be used as a reliable source, or does the reputation of FreeRepublic and the following comments by the readers of the site eliminate the reliableness of the source. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Since the original newspaper and article publication date are provided with the FreeRepublic article, it would be better to find a way to look up the original article (even though it's no longer available free online) rather than relying solely on the convenience link at FreeRepublic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Cite the original source, not the reprint. Wikipedia is not a method of increasing web traffic to Free Republic. Jehochman ^Talk 20:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I wasn't considering adding links to the site (I've been slowly going through the externals links to it and removing them), just ran across a user that was repeatedly adding a link to an article on the site and was claiming it was acceptable to use it, so I came here for clarification. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Linking to copyrighted articles reproduced in FreeRepublic is not allowed because they are copyvios. - Merzbow (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Should the site be blacklisted then? Particularly the http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news portion of the site. That seems to be where the reprints are kept. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Relata refero (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Dictionaries in general

To what extent are general-purpose dictionaries considered RS with respect to inherently complex topics? For example, in the current insurgency article, several respected dictionaries are used as examples of "historically accepted" definitions of insurgency. My sense is that the space limitations of a dictionary make a definition there much less reliable than a discussion, of the same word, in a peer-reviewed report, journal, or monograph. Is there any guidance here?

Note that I understand that certain "dictionaries" are actually specialized monographs, encyclopedias, or textbooks. Here, I'm referring to things such as Merriam-Webster or the OED. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dictionaries are reliable tertiary sources. We try not to use them too heavily, but comparing/contrasting a couple of dictionary definitions should be fine near the beginning of an article, to explain what a word means. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

accesshollywood - Reliable source?

I am just wondering, is it a reliable source? It has lots of users. http://www.accesshollywood.com/ Thank you. --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to specify an aspect of it. Some or many of the news items it publishes are in fact republications from reliable sources. Other parts of the site contain blogs (unreliable). Someguy1221 (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, what I meant was. Articles submited by their staff, not bloggers. For example, http://www.accesshollywood.com/article/8864/three-rising-stars-land-coveted-high-school-musical-3-roles/ Is this a reliable article? --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, given that access hollywood is itself notable, there seems to be a system of editorial oversight present, and its parent company (NBC) is a reliable source, I'd assume it to be reliable in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In the Great Scale of Celebrity Gossip, Access Hollywood is more People Magazine, less US Weekly. Relata refero (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

US Supreme Court cases and sourcing issues

There's a debate going on over on WP:ORN (see section "Clarifying Summarizing vs. Original Research" and start reading where it says "I've seen some situations recently") about the manner in which statements about decisions of the United States Supreme Court can or should be sourced. The other editor and I had hoped to attract some outside perspectives on this issue (as an alternative to going back and forth on the article talk pages or simply descending into an edit war), but so far no one other than the two of us has chimed in.

Originally, the argument seemed to be over whether certain kinds of statements, supposedly based on the content of a court opinion in a case, were valid on their own or should be considered "unsourced". That's why I first brought up the question on WP:ORN. Now, though, I'm wondering whether maybe the point at issue would be better characterized as where the line should be drawn between reliable and not-so-reliable sources.

If some people who hang out on this noticeboard might take a moment to hop over to WP:ORN, read what's already been said there on this issue, and offer some guidance, I think we would both be grateful. Or, if people here think that this topic really ought to be discussed here instead and want to move it to this forum, that would presumably be fine too. Thanks. Richwales (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Holy Books or Book Summaries

Do Holy Books count as Reference for an religous article and is it possible to insert text straight out of Holy Books and then summarise it into an article ? Or would Actual Pictures from an holy book be listed as an reliable source? i mean the text mentioned in a holy book should have the right to be inserted into an holy article and the text is the absolute truth. so do Actual Text and Actual Photos straight out of holy books become an reliable source or is an Summary Book from somebody else point of view better ? so either Holy Book or Summary of Book from an author which are reliable, Or are the two of them reliable sources? please let me know before i make movements and get into conflicts. --Mohun (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The original text of a religious scripture is a primary source for articles on that scripture, so we would try and avoid using it. Although reliable, the use of "summary" books or other work discussing the scripture in question would be preferred, especially if published by a well-known press. Please see WP:PSTS. Relata refero (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• In many cases, articles about religious subjects need to cite holy books. See, for example, Jesus#Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels, where the point of the section is to describe the narrative of Jesus's life as the New Testament describes it. (This doesn't mean that Wikipedia officially accepts the truth of the New Testament -- just that it is relevant to describe what the New Testament says.) Saying that "the text is the absolute truth" is only true for believers in the particular religion -- it is not a neutral point of view. Descriptions of the summary of a religious text may also be useful as reliable sources for describing the teachings of that religion. I am not sure which holy books you are thinking of that contain actual photos, given that most religious texts predate the invention of photography. Furthermore, Wikipedia could only use such photos if they are no longer in copyright or if they are freely licensed. If you have a particular text that you want to cite for a particular point, please provide further details and someone may be able to advise you further. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

For the background to this see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Mah.C4.81mada. Mohun is a sock of DWhiskaZ. Paul B (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Actual photos" apparently means scans of textual illustrations in books, such as can be seen in this old version of the article in question. This is more than a little dubious. First, since the purpose is to show text, the text can be quoted directly. Second, in this particular case, the "photos" in the source book are of poor quality and possibly not sourced themselves to reliable versions -- for example, this image not only has a typo, it also betrays a non-standard numbering in the "original" source from which the illustration was made for the book. rudra (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Corporate Page Problem

Having a problem on this article: Laqtel which is a corporate stub. The article was started as essentially a copy and paste of press releases. I went through and remove most of the corporate PR from the article and trimmed it down to the basics. However two users are constantly reverting the edits. Am I off track here? I can't see any justification (in my mind) as to why the content deserves to be on Wikipedia. All it talks about is business transactions and visions, throwing figures in there, with no references what-so-ever. The only reference in the entire article is something I added based on a recent development (where the company got into serious legal trouble). I am questioning as well the motives of those editing the articles repeatedly. Rasadam (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Self-published sources are acceptable, though for style - not RS - reasons, the article should not sound too press-release-y. For the other issues, have you looked at WP:COIN? Relata refero (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

reliability check

I'm fairly sure that http://www.edbrill.com/ will not constitute a reliable source, but I want third-party corroboration before I take that back to the article. Thanks! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a personal blog to me. As such, it is not RS. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

IMDb - again

Hello, I'd like to reopen discussions on the reliability of IMDb. Whilst posts etc are user generated, the majority of factual edits are first moderated by internal editors. You can't just ADD information willy-nilly, it takes a while, and sometimes your input isn't accepted. Why isn't it considered reliable? Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#y.21m Adaircairell (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Low impact journals used to POV-push

At Talk:Tired light#Fringe sources removed, pro-fringe editors have been insisting that certain sources from extremely low impact factor journals are acceptable for inclusion in the article despite not having received any notice from the scientific community. I insist that we only use papers from high impact-factor journals and comments from notable astrophysicists. I beleive that pandering to the fringe elements in the way that is being done for the last year in article space is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. What do you think about the sources? Should low-impact sources be used when high-impact sources are available?

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Consistency across the whole encyclopedia is important here. In general, greater weight should be given to high-impact publications. But it is also important to remember that there may be systemic bias in the impact factor calculations. This was recently discussed in the UK higher education community, in relation to the question of how metrics can be used in assessing research quality for funding purposes, so it is a serious consideration. So long as they are peer-reviewed, papers in relatively low-impact journals can still be excellent and non-controversial sources for WP in many different subject areas. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree that high impact journals should be given substantially more weight... but am hesitant to rule out low impact journals completely. That said, SA raises a valid point... the line between low impact and Fringe can be a bit blurry. Ultimately, I think we have to decide such issues on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not limited to natural science articles; political science and economics articles have similar problems. For example, the most often cited "journal" in all of comparative politics on WP is the Middle East Quarterly. This has an impact factor of - well, nothing, as it isn't even considered a journal, and is left out of the Web of Knowledge. In other words, its a non-person. If someone publishes an article in journal X that gets the MEQ all excited, it wouldn't matter. And yet....

What can one do about it? People who prefer the "appearance" of legitimate scholarship ("look! it calls itself a journal! And people sit on a board! Some of them have degrees!") will clearly use these things. If they wish to push non-mainstream views, in pseudoscience or pseudohistory or political advocacy, such apparently above-board "journals" are of great use. Relata refero (disp.) 15:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Middle East Quarterly is a very special case because academics have gone into print to argue that it is not an academic journal. There are, however, some very respectable journals that are not listed by WoS. Perhaps it is more common in the UK for journals to go unlisted. I would say that if it is published by one of the major houses, e.g. Taylor & Francis, University of California, then it should be considered RS. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In tightly-knit communities like astronomy and cosmology there are only a handful of journals that really get notice. MNRAS, ApJ, ARA&A, AJ. Then there are the journals that are the journals that are ignored. These are the journals the fringe-promoters want to see used, even though we have journal citations from the more credible journals. It's not like this article is hurting for sources. It looks to me like someone is shilling for discredited crackpots like Paul Marmet. I have made this argument, but it falls on deaf ears. No one wants to hear that their favorite crackpot is really a crackpot and so shouldn't be included at Wikipedia. So here we are. How do I convince people that these sources are no good? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We might have to discuss the journals that you do not consider credible on a case-by-case basis. What are their titles? Who publishes them? Who is on their editorial boards? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW even in a talk page you should not refer to someone in the terms that you have described the person you mention above. See WP:BLP. If someone's writing is outside mainstream science, then that is all you need to say. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the list:

1. Astrophysics & Space Science
2. Physics Essays
3. IEEE Trans. Plasma Science
4. Physics Letters A
5. Astronomy and Astrophysics

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Are author/publisher bios reliable sources?

I regularly come across WP articles on authors or musicians where the primary source for the info is the author's homepage or the publisher's bio. Often, my online searches fail to turn up additional info or even confirming sources. My question: Is a author bio (particularly one probably written by the author) a reliable source? I debated posting to the WP:BLP/N but this is really a reliability question. It seems to me these sorts of author bios aren't remotely independent of the subject. If the info was republished in a RS like a newspaper or mag article or a valid online source, that would probably work but trusting what is, for all practical purposes, self-reporting?. I have doubts.

I guess my main concern is that there is also a question of notability if they don't have at least some significant RS coverage. Input? Cheers, Pigman☿ 17:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedias

Hello, does this book 'Encyclopedia of Hinduism' become an Reliable Source ? and if so would there be any rejections for it ? is there an certain company that i could only provide as Ref.

because i noticed in many wiki articles they just have books (not encyclopedias) from authors point of view and doesnt seem to be fair to other books and information that could be provided in articles.

and my libray has many encyclopedias from old books and new books and many different publishers. could you provide me with proper guidelines. --99.237.254.245 (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)