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. This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.

This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, not articles. General questions about articles, including "which sources in Article X are reliable?" may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard and may be better handled on the article talk page or the talk page of an interested WikiProject.

Gibnews.net and User:Gibnews

I think its rather unfair to discuss this without at least having the courtesy to mention it to myself.

• In relation to gibnews.net this is recognised as a reliable source of information and the website policy is to maintain a permenant record of unedited press releases.

• In relation to gibnet.com the information in the texts section comprises original documents and is cited by reputable organisations. As a website it has been long established and will continue.

Considering some articles use references to Geocities pages and many link to transient news stories, I would disagree with claims that these are not reliable sources STRONGLY or that the matter is resolved. --Gibnews (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not a reliable source. Protonk (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate a second opinion on this issue. User:Gibnews runs a Gibraltar-based news website [1], which he has used as reference or primary source in various occasions in the past. At the moment, there is an ongoing content dispute centered on this particular issue, whether he should be allowed to use this website as a reliable source, which he uses to back up his edits (many of the published pieces seem to be official press releases from Gibraltar local government). Link to dispute here. Regards, --Asterion^talk 09:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No way, jose. Not a reliable source at all. check their about us link. they basically say they will run uneditied releases from anyone. Protonk (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No It says We invite organisations based in Gibraltar who issue press releases on a regular basis to participate in this website Thats not ANYONE and the process require approval. However the content is presented in its original form which makes it a reliable source of the organisation in question's position. The contributers include The Gibraltar and the UK Government, all opposition parties and the Ministry of Defense. Please explain where this unreliability comes from. --Gibnews (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I feel very uncomfortable about the conflict of interest this represents. An editor citing his own website as a source? What is to stop him adding <RANDOM> to his website and then citing that on Wikipedia as evidence of a claim? The website would surely count as a self-published source and wouldn't be usable as a reliable source anyway. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The documents presented are tracable. --Gibnews (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I doesn't strike me as a reliable source, especially in a context where an editor is effectively write content based upon his own site. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The content of the site represents the unedited view of the organisations cited - what more do you want ? --Gibnews (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• We specifically want you to edit content and select from sources. WP:RS demands that sources have a reputation for fact checking, editorial control and content selection. The text from your "about us" page, which I linked above is:

This is a free service, providers enter data into their own area, we simply index and present it. Unlike traditional media, content is presented exactly as provided. There are no editorial changes, comment, or delay in publishing. If you find any of the content offensive or inaccurate, please take this matter up with the CONTENT PROVIDER directly. Should you consider content to be defamatory, or illegal, please instruct your lawyers to contact our legal representatives Phillips & Co

• I don't think we can be more clear. Protonk (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats what our lawyers tell us to say, as a publisher in the EU we need to consider defamation in respect of all online content. --Gibnews (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact-checking and editorial control requirement would only apply if the website wrote its own articles, which it doesn't. What we need to verify are the sources within the webstie on a case-by-case basis, not the website itself. RedCoat10 • talk 16:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case then we aren't treating this site like a "source" at all. If we aren't treating gibnews as the creator of content then we cite the original source and determine the applicability of WP:RS to those original sources. We can treat it like "slashdot" or the huffington post or any other site that accepts content and posts it--not a RS. Protonk (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The content presented is that of the original authors, and that is made clear in the presentation. Unlike many other sites it also provides permanent links. In most cases it is the ONLY online record of what has been said. --Gibnews (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think an excelent point by Protonk. I admit, I personally thought Gibnews had nothing to do with it. If it is something that uses his software or something he maintains for someone else, then obviously him using it as a source or such is dodgy, but, we can use it as a storer of sources (like the internet way back machine or such) as it were. If the original press release is not available in electronic form or is at an unstable address, it might provide a benefit. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've noted that the Gibraltar Government website has a habit of purging its press releases, so if you cite a weblink on their website it has a habit of disappearing. A website like Gibnews which is permanent is a useful resource. Were it creating content I can see it as an issue, however, it is a repository of content created elsewhere. Hence, I don't see a problem. Justin talk 22:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you please prove your statement? It's the second time I heard of it, but without any proof. I can't see any purging and instead, a simple and sensible archiving technique (see here for current year releases and the archive in the same page below). BTW, I always thought that this section should include comments from unrelated people. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that accounts for you asking someone else in Spanish to start this by proxy here. If you look at the GoG website you will find that press releases are a mixture of HTML and PDF and that some years are not linked correctly. It has been their practice in the past to transfer a year to an archive in January changing its link. When I asked them about this I got the answer that they do not guarantee links and all links should be to the front page of the website. --Gibnews (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

IMDb

I'm getting a little tired of this one. We have a whole slew of templates for citing IMDb, and IMDb is cited, probably over a million times, in Wikipedia. Yet I keep running into people asserting (twice with regard to Rudolf Wanderone, for example, once on its talk page, once on its 2nd peer review page) that IMDb isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. This really needs to get settled. Maybe have a referendum on this issue (WP:RFC?), or whatever it takes, and either declare it a non-reliable source categorically or clarify the guideline that sites like this can be reliable for some things (titles, release dates, other basic information) and non-reliable for others (movie trivia, mostly contributed by readers). If it is deemed wholly unreliable, then we need to immediately TfD the IMDb templates and set up bots to remove (or, as with deleted images, comment out) IMDb citations that use them. This hemming and hawing on the issue, and ensuing general confusion, is making the WP:PR, WP:GA and WP:FA/WP:FL processes much more painful than is necessary. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think an RFC is a good route to take. I think that there are some serious issues with sourcing imbd. We have a general consensus here on the noticeboards that the bare facts of a movie (but not an actor) can be sourced to imdb most of the time, but that anything beyond that is usually user-driven and so not acceptable. This consensus here doesn't at all translate to general practice which has been (probably not a million times, but thousands of times) to cite imdb for the details it provides on everything except trivia, quotes, errors and obvious fan generated stuff. I don't have a strong enough opinion to force the issue (mass TfD is probably not the right route), but it should be discussed. At the very least if there is some wide community consensus on the issue I can make an FAQ for this page listing past links to it. Maybe I should do that anyways. Protonk (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

According to IMDB itself, some guy named Sundar Chakravarthy managed to insert into Julianne Moore's IMDB biography that she was married to him from 1983-1985... AnonMoos (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm a regular at WP:BLP/N and would say that I don't think there is any dispute that IMDb isn't a suitable source when it comes to LP. I would go further and say it isn't suitable for anything about people period. Beyond that I can't say Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no way IMDb should be used as a source, other than using ratings to give an impression of a film/show's popularity. Their content is notoriously unreliable and mostly trivial--MartinUK (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it be better to hash out which portions of IMDB are user-submitted and which are not? I don't want to throw out a good reference material because somebody somewhere saw a mistake in IMDB. For the record, I've seen the site and dont remember seeing any tab to change content except in the "comments" section. Also, is all of this really about people using it to cite trivia, and this is an affort to remove trivia from articles by "disqualifying" a source? You use WP:TRIVIA to remove trivia, not WP:RSN. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• For some previous discussions see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7]. IMDB is a tertiary source - WP:RS says "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." Where people cite IMDB and it isn't challenged, it is because the facts are simple and not in dispute (lead actor, director etc.) But this doesn't mean it's right; for many things IMDB is no more than a glorified Wikipedia, they take anonymous submitted content, add it to their pages with little or no fact checking, and don't state their sources. WP:RS says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Can anyone actually show that IMDB has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? I believe the evidence is against them. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Manhattan Institute article and author as source of facts

In Community Reinvestment Act it is being challenged that Howard Husock's article The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities in the Manhattan Institute's City Journal (January 1, 2000) is a reliable source for facts because the author is the Vice President of the Institute, as well as a contributing editor to City Journal. However, the Journal does have an editor and according to his bio, Husock was formerly the director of case studies in public policy and management at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. He is a prolific writer on housing and urban policy issues. Husock is most recently the author of The Trillion-Dollar Housing Mistake, a collection of his City Journal essays, and of the Reason Foundation study Repairing the Ladder: Toward a New Housing Policy Paradigm. His work has appeared in periodicals such as the Wall Street Journal, Public Interest, The New York Times, Policy Review, and Reason. In 1999, Husock co-authored the study "Keeping Kalamazoo Competitive" for the City of Portgage, Michigan, an examination of proposed tax-based sharing and urban growth boundaries for the Kalamazoo metro area. Husock has been a speaker at housing and urban policy forums sponsored by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the California Department of Housing and Community Development, the Massachusetts Department of Communities and Development, and the Urban Development Institute. If this isn't good enough ref for a paragraph full of factoids, I don't know what is :-) Carol Moore 15:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

• I would consider that an acceptable source, albeit opinionated. Other opinionated publications such as The Nation have been accepted here as reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Do note that the Manhattan Institute is widely held to be a conservative think tank that receives heavy corporate funding. City Journal is their own internal publication, not an independent newspaper, and Husock is the vice-president of the Manhattan Institute, as well as a contributing editor of City Journal. His article in City Journal is essentially a self-published source WP:SPS. Carolmoore was using it as a Reliable Source, to back statements of fact in the encyclopedic voice. Does no one have a problem with that? Carol has said that if no one raises an objection she will reinsert Husock's writings as plain statements of fact. lk (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a reliable source and not to be treated as self-published. City Journal a magazine of political comment with a pronounced viewpoint, like so many others around the world. Since the piece is an essay rather than news reporting, statements from it should be attributed. I'd prefer it if they were attributed to both the author and magazine. I also think it is appropriate to use an epithet such as "conservative" or "market-oriented" (but not both) to describe the magazine. It is an interesting point of view and a notable addition to the article. It would be good if it could be balanced by some very different points of view. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not an epithet, necessarily. But we shouldn't treat a work of opinion there as though it were the same as a work of opinion in the NYT op-ed page. SPS can (I'm not sure that it does, some evidence will have to be discussed) apply to things that look nothing like someone's livejournal. Protonk (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Being an employee of a conservative or liberal or progressive think tank doesn't per se mean you are either biased or self-published. City Journal has an editor and it is WP:OR to state that Husock can override his judgment. The guy is an expert in his field. Do we have to go through all the wiki articles now and delete all factual statements by all employees of think tanks - or label them as opinions? I can see I'll have to at least make it clear that the "facts" a couple liberals put forth were obtained from their self-published blogs on their liberal think tank web pages, evidently with no evidence of editing at all?? Carol Moore 15:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

WP:OR applies to statements made in articles. Editors here and anywhere outside of article spaces are encouraged to use their heads when examining sources. lk's examination of the source argues that the manhattan institute has an incentive to only publish a certain kind of material. Don't make this about "conservative" or liberal. Protonk (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• We can, however, argue that the material in the city journal is probably about the same as the material in his book. It's probably fine, just as long as we accept that he is pretty conservative. Protonk (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the first thing to decide is the status in principle of City Journal, which is likely to crop up as a source in various parts of the encyclopedia. I haven't heard an argument yet why it is different from other political magazines such as The Economist. NYT is not a reasonable comparison, as daily papers are mainly there to carry news and naturally have greater fact-checking facilities than weeklies or monthlies. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starters there is no way to compare it to the economist, period. MI is a conservative think tank and City Journal is their pet publication. This is less an RS issue than a NPOV issue. They have PhD's and what not on there but I would cite it about as much as I would cite Mother Jones in a wikipedia article where there was a right/left split in opinion--never. Protonk (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If I can paraphrase the above, City Journal should be viewed as a biased source. At best it as reliable as an opinion piece in the New York Times, and if used as a source, the source of the information should be noted in line. Is that essentially correct? lk (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and to be fair to Carol, she does that in the CRA article. Protonk (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I did that. It was previously used to source statements of fact in the encyclopedic voice. Carol has stated that she intended to revert back to the previous version since the people here didn't have a problem with City Journal.lk (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OIC. Well in that case your revision should definitely stay. I took that article off my watchlist a few days ago because I hate "partisan" wiki articles and it was filling up the page (otherwise anything from WP:ECON that I assessed is on there), and at the time of the watchlisting it was just carol and some IP's editing the article. Protonk (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[User:Lawrencekhoo|lk] mistates my intention! I have no problem with stating where either facts or opinions come from. My issue is can I use facts from his article in the factual section. Of course now that I've realized he has a book - and it's searchable online - the issue is any problem with using the book for facts. And I have no problem mentioning where the book comes from. Carol Moore 17:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Well, your intent is probably noble, but is unimportant (to me). I think that in this case, the source and his leanings should be stated and that facts from him might be treated with suspicion, just as facts from Gordon should be treated with suspicion. If you want to use straight facts from either, might I suggest adding the proposed text to the talk page to see if anyone objects first? Protonk (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to answer above: exact text has been in article for a while and is very relevant to history of the Act.

Of course now that I've found the exact book pages and am ready to put back material in the factual section, I'm wondering how much I have to write to describe the author, since this is the only book ref'd. I know [User:Lawrencekhoo|lk] wants me to write

Howard Husock, vice-president of the market-oriented conservative Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, author of America's Trillion-Dollar Housing Mistake: The Failure of American Housing Policy (ETC existing 3 sentences.) [REF: Howard Husock, America's Trillion-Dollar Housing Mistake: The Failure of American Housing Policy, Ivran R. Dee publisher], 2003, 66-67, ISBN-10: 1566635314]

How much of that is necessary in the text?? Carol Moore 18:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

So I take it that you were not being entirely truthful when you said, I have no problem with stating where either facts or opinions come from? lk (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest, "Howard Husock, vice-president of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, writes ..." lk (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Did I not ask an honest question? I don't know how much is asked or what others might think is too much or most appropriate. Assume Good Fait.

Also, since such a tadoo made about not using his articles in factual section, seems like I should mention he's the author of a book in the factual section, even I don't mention name of book. Carol Moore 19:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I have no general problem with the use of this article (elsewhere it's cited as a book) or author.

I have a specific problem: Husock asserts that the US Senate Banking Committee found in 2000 that various left-wing advocacy groups had made, as of 2000, $9.5 billion in fees out of a law called the Community Reinvestment Act (won't go into CRA specifics here). Suffice it to say, that is an absolutely stunning amount of money. That of course does not mean that it's not true. But I can find no other mention of this, can't find the senate banking committee finding, etc...

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, so I don't think Husock's assertion about this finding is sufficient. As far as i can tell, he does not provide a citation in his book for this information (if he does, i invite the guy who cites the book and presumably has a copy to furnish it) and i can find no information to this effect anywhere on the interwebs that is not sourced to Mr. Husock. On this specific matter, i think a citation to the "Senate Banking Committee finding" is required to make the claim.

The Preceding unsigned comment evidently was added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) at some point who brought this up at the talk page.

This probably was put together in 1998 or 1999 by Sen Gramm staffers and haven't yet found out if it's in a hearing. The fact that Husock doesn't include better references and probably got the year wrong doesn't help. I must not let myself get too turned against the Institute, however, because another author wrote some anti-Palestinian screed for it. ;-) Carol Moore 00:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

FYI I did find a New York Times article which I believe alluded to a listing of monies to community groups like the above, circulated by Senator Gramm during one of the several 1997-1998 hearings on the Community Reinvestment Act, among other topics. If Gramm made a statement, it doesn't seem to be in the member statements any more, but at least the NYT article info on the topic can be used in wiki article.

Husock obviously got idea for title of his book from Gramm alleging "shakedown" and the trillion dollars to low/moderate income housing that community groups were claiming around that time. But that hardly excuses Husock's poor sourcing on these factoids in his articles and book. Of course, former and current govt employees can just quote factoids off the top of their heads and some people consider them WP:RS. Sigh... Carol Moore 22:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Talk:List of new religious movements

Could use some more eyes on this whole page, but of course the most recent stuff is at the bottom. Questions regarding usage of primary vs. secondary sources for sourcing in the article, as well as other issues. Cirt (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's always helpful to provide a WP:RS link to groups that have them - which probably many of them do - and to articles about them, and not just a reference from a 15 year old book, which is used to reference many "new" religions. Carol Moore 13:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Publisher in Pakistan: Dar-ut-tazkeer

In one of the articles, it has been questioned by another editor whether a book published by Dar-ut-Tazkeer is verifiable or not. Since the book is in Urdu, how can be claim be considered 'verifiable'? The book is by Khalid Masud, titled Hayat-e-Rasool-e-Ummi published in 2003 by Dar-ut-Tazkeer, and he has disputed on page 560 that the age of Aisha (wife of Prophet Muhammad was 6 or 9 at the time of marriage on the basis of unreliability of a primary source. This is not the only such work, but one published in print that I know of that comes closest to being verifiable. Thanks. Omer (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to make sure that I understand what the dispute is about. Is the dispute about what the book says about Aisha's age at marriage, or whether the book is accurate about that? We have a number of editors here on the English Wikipedia who know Urdu; see Category:User ur for those who have identified themselves as knowing Urdu. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  In case this is about the language, see WP:NONENG. English language sources are preferred if available. Being in a foreign language does not disqualify a source. It is considered reliable under the same criteria as an English language book - i.e. if it is published by a reputable academic publisher, or written by an recognized expert in the domain, or if it has received favourable reviews from other competent scholars. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  The dispute is about if the source is reliable or not. Its statement about Aisha's age (evidently) directly contradicts what is said in all the reliable sources already used and thus it is suspect. And as for sources in Urdu, they don't need to be used here, as we have a large number of English-language sources of quality.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  It does not contradict what is said in all the reliable sources already used. Asma Barlas's book published by University of Texas Press says the same thing. Other sources are not talking about what modern Muslims think about Aisha, but assert their own opinion from the primary sources. Thus no contradiction as the context is different. --AAA765 (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  Sorry, I lost track of this somehow. This is dispute about Aisha's age of course, but it would be the same general philosophy that would apply. So for instance, English reliable sources claim that Aisha's age was 6 at the time of marriage. This one claims on the other hand that basis for such a claim is not valid and alternate historical studies show it to be much greater than that. Contradictory opinions do come from sources that are reliable, if we use contradiction of one reliable sources, then all the sources that contradict would be unreliable. Reliability of one source should be independent of popularity. My concern was more from the point of view of how do we decide, because the author of the book is a scholar who researched history of Islam for nearly four decades. Secondly, if one source says Aisha=6, another says Aisha=16, we cannot dismiss the second one just because English sources are available and Aisha=16 is in a non-English source. These are two different points of views, and an English source is not available on the second point of view therefore a non-English source should be admissible. Omer (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

  This is why using sources that other editors can vet is so important. There would be no way for an English speaker to tell if your sources actually contradict what the reliable English sources say, or if they are talking about "modern Muslim views" on the subject as AAA765 seems to think. Because this topic is so controversial, we must use only the very best sources, and use ones other editors can verify.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Finnish source

Does anyone know if seiska.fi is a reliable source? I don't read Finnish and don't know much about that site, but an editor recently used this as a reference. The "Hot or not" at the top of the page makes me question it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The picture at the top of the main page [8] (permanent link) isn't particularly inspiring either. Nor their overuse of exclamation marks and question marks in titles and choice of stories. It looks a lot like some sort of tabloid/gossip mag Nil Einne (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ask Wikipedia: seiska. Vesal (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture of a memorial raised by the Slovak government about a controversial issue as a source

Should this picture be accepted without a confirming third party source? I never heard of "tens of thousands of Slovak children deported to Hungary for denationalization". Very controversial claim and this memorial raised by a government often linked to anti-Hungarian views is the only reference for this right now. Squash Racket (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The photo is an adequate source, IMO, for the existence of the memorial and for the existence of the claim if makes. However plaques and memorials are poor sources for facts. They are typically erected by partisans and cannot be corrected easily if there is an error. Further, the text is not attributed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Should it remain without a neutral reference confirming it or should it be removed? We are talking about tens of thousands of allegedly deported children. Squash Racket (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My instinct is that the view of a national government is notable and worth mentioning. But there should be no implication that the events actually happened. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What article does this concern? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. Squash Racket (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, images should not be included in an article unless they illustrate something discussed in the article. So, the question is... Is this memorial discussed in the article? If so, then it is appropriate to have a picture of it. If not, it is inappropriate. Simple. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like what most people would call a "Reliable Source". It comes from a national government and unless we have really credible evidence that the story was invented, we should accept it at face value. Why invent one incident in what was likely quite a determined, brutal and well remembered campaign? Do we have any reason to suppose that Slovakians wilfully defame Hungary, or might have done so in 1998? Certainly let's avoid implying that this incident is a well known atrocity (we're still short on detail) but avoid implying there is any deceit. "Town X recalls an act of Hungarianisation" or similar. The most suspicious part of what we can see here is the fact that it's bi-lingual with English. If I'm wrong, and there really is a problem, then I'm quite sure we'll discover about it soon enough. PR^talk 16:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Is an official site "reliable"?

There is a disagreement with a user over the use of eurovision.tv as a source of information for Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest. It is the official website of the contest and includes a history section. The other user is claiming that this is a POV violation since we are only using this website to source a fact. He says that it is not the official stance of the contest and that some IT person wrote it so it cannot be trusted. He also claims that the sites disclaimer voids any information from being reliable. There was an error on the site, so I sent an email, they acknowledged the error and corrected it. This did not please the user (even though it was something he complained about) as he now thinks that it cannot be trusted because they change things because of emails. We then tracked down "the official history" book of the contest [9], but the user does not "trust" the author. So are we right to be arguing for these sources? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Such a site would normally be considered reliable, as would the book. If there is another source that contradicts it on a specific issue then you could mention both. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that contradicts both is the user's knowledge of Yugoslav politics. He feels that the contest has no right to say and do what they have, so the article should ignore it, but I don't see how you can write an article about the contest not in terms of the contest, get my problem? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The organizers of the Song Contest should know what happened in the Song Contest, which is the subject of this article. It could well be the case that they slipped up when they were describing the status of Yugoslavia and its related state entities at any particular time. Can you resolve the problem by adding a text in a footnote, with the UN or similar as a source? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well its known what happened, but this user and now another one don't feel that the EBU and the contest had the right to do what they did claiming that they are "not God". They provide example like the Olympics, etc where other things happened, but that can't change what happened at the contest. In particular, they want to split the page into "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the ESC" and "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the ESC" since the 1992 (last entry) was performed by the latter. The contest considers them to both be Yugoslavia, even though they weren't politically the same country, so having two articles would not correctly document the Yugoslavia that participated, especially since it was the same broadcaster as the previous entries, and under the same membership. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

And people who are interested in knowing more about participation in Eurovision will be able to find the information in a single article. All we can really say about sources is that yes, the song contest's official publications are reliable for what happened in the contest. Not of course for what constituted a particular nation state at a point in time. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This is somewhat like my thread above (Common sense and interviews) where I ask if the source of information is direct from the subject of the article is it reliable or should it be disregarded as "just an opinion". While I am speaking about a one on one interview it would apply to "official websites" as well. In my opinion I think that if the information is only about a certain "fact", such as "When was the first Eurovision contest?" or "Yugoslavia first was represented at Eurovision during the 19xx competition" there is no reason why that information could not come from an "official" source. I think the way several of the WP guidelines are currently worded it forces editors to question certain statements, thusly causing a backlash of automatically saying that any information coming from either an "official" source or from someone directly involved with the articles subject is NPOV, thusly not reliable. I strongly feel that common sense should be used and information looked at on a case by case basis rather than making a blanket generalization. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the point of this noticeboard is to discuss sourcing on a case-by-case basis. I'm somewhat alarmed by the idea that any information from an official source is to be disregarded. Would anyone have a problem sourcing information about London Underground lines from the Transport for London website? I don't think so, and so I agree with you that it is fine to use the Eurovision organisation as a source for how the competition was organised. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I explained in details on the YU ECS Talk page that eurovision.tv contains some heavy factual errors. Before going to the Talk page please note: I used many abbreviations and terms which not everyone may be familiar with: "Jugovizija" was the Yugoslav national pre-selection, SFRY is Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, while FRY is Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Both called themselfes "Yugoslavia", but the international community didnt recognize the latter as a legal succesor, but treated it as a brand new country. Hence, I see no reason why these two different political entities should be merged in a single article. Also, User:Grk1011 mentions that eurovision.tv corrected some of its mistakes. I visited the site today and first I noticed that Extra Nena is not listed under SFRY (maybe thats what Grk was refering to), but I refreshed the page in the browser, and that entry re-appeared. I dont understand what is this, maybe its due to web cache. I cleand the cache from my browser, and Extra Nena appears. Also, the eurovision.tv's "history by country" section contains only "Yugoslavia" without having separate SFRY and FRY entries. What they corrected, I dont understand? Extra Nena is still listed as participant under the SFRY's flag , although on May 9 1992 when that year's ESC took place, that country was definetly dead. --Dzole (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dzole that the correction Grk1011/Stephen speaks about was not the correction but a method of deliberate misinformation of the eurovision.tv webmaster. The only thing that changed is what Grk1011 insist: the title (heading) of the table changed from "represented the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" to "represented Yugoslavia" and also the flag icons were deleted, except on ESC 1992 where you can still see that those eurovision.tv webmasters do not know nothing about who represented what country. That link portrays a flag icon of the SFRY instead of the flag icon of the FRY. And even Grk1011 cannot hide the fact that Ekstra Nena represented FRY (participated under the flag of the FRY).

That flag issue is very important to demonstrate that eurovision.tv webmaster(s) and journalists do not know and do not present definite and precise information, probably in an attempt to hide the fact of irregularities of FRY participating in the contest.

The book he mentioned is not an issue of the EBU but a single (USA) author.

I do not know why Grk1011/Stephen who lives in USA thinks he knows better what happened in ESC 1992 than Dzole, Zvonko and me (editors who live or were born in Yugoslavia). Soundvisions1 clearly supports the position of common sense that we should all agree upon. We simply cannot use information that contradict itself (eurovision.tv) and contradict the FL articles on this Wikipedia.

Imbris (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nationalist Polish newspapers

WP:RS is quite clear: Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience or extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities[10]. But sadly this is not the case. Currently Wikipedia is plagued by nationalist Polish newspapers, that are used as a references. So far all discussions to find common ground failed, so broader input is necessary no find out where the community consensus is. So my question is - should or should not whose newspapers used as reliable source:

Głos, currently used as a reference in FA article Józef Piłsudski. It is described as radical right weeklyanti-Semitic weekly This newspaper has been criticized for publishing anti-Semitic hate-speach articles advocating expulsion of the Jews from Israel to Florida, and promoting the Jewish world domination conspiracy theories[11]. I'd say it is obvious WP:FRINGE source, that has no place in Featured Article, but some think otherwise [12]

Gazeta Polska. Another extreme nationalist newspaper. According to The Crosses of Auschwitz: Nationalism and Religion in Post-Communist Poland By Geneviève Zubrzycki published by University of Chicago Press, 2006 page 223 "Gazeta Polska and Nasza Polska are Far-Right weeklies" and "should not be considered mainstream". So WP:RS violation should be obvious. Not to some. It took months of discussion to stop reinsertion of an article [13] from Gazeta Polska written by Marek A. Wojciechowski (under a penname Kordian Krawietz), a representative of the neo-fascist National Revival of Poland and a contributor to the openly anti-Semitic magazine ‘Szczerbiec’. Problem solved? Nope. Gazeta Polska is still used as an reference in Wiki [14][15].

Nasz Dziennik, part of anti-Semitic Radio Maryja broadcasting group is [16] described as far right [17], radical nationalist [18], and ethno-nationalist [19]. I'd say - an obvious case of unreliable source. But again some think that Radio Maryja's antisemitic channel is "just a newspaper" [20]. And when mass blind reverts are used to reinsert this newspaper as a reference to a dozen of Wiki articles, one might feel kind of helpless [21][22]and dozen of other reverts.

So I would really like to know where the community consensus on this question is. M0RD00R (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This needs going into carefully but I have one thing to say straight away. Most of the articles you refer to are history articles. They should be sourced more or less exclusively from works by academic historians. Not from newspapers and magazines, whatever their politics. The case of the article on Lysiak is a bit different as the source is only there to show that he wrote an article in a magazine. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In many ways, this is no different from, to use a super-nationalistic example, Soviet sources. Whether or not something happened is one level of reliability. Even Soviet sources are generally reliable to that degree. What the interpretation of an event is, however, is a different level of reliability--non-mainstream interpretations likely should be attributed. Whether or not someone has what others consider an extremist nationalist POV (even the most rabid extremist believes in their own objectivity) is not an implicit judgement on a particular contention.

   Also, in indicating a source is extremist, we need better references than news articles merely saying they are extremist. That is the opinion of one reporter without any specific example provided. I regularly read the most despicable and vile contentions about Latvians reported in mainstream newspapers which are utterly false.

   If a contention--any contention--is viewed as incorrect, then it should be tagged as to why, and the discussion taken from there. —PētersV (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A newspaper that regularly prints despicable and vile contentions about Latvians is ipso facto not mainstream. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Peters I really don't know what news articles and reporters you are referring to, because in my post I cite books published by respectable publishing companies. And only news article references connection between Nasz Dziennik and Radio Maryja, but if you will insist I will easily replace it with multiple WP:RS, if you are finding New York Times unreliable for some reason unknown to me. Specific examples are also provided.

I definitely agree with Judith that history related articles should be sourced from works by academic historians, but sadly that is not the case in some Wiki areas, as has been noted by many editors before. But if encyclopedia is build on newspapers, all I hope at least extremist media will not be disseminated here. M0RD00R (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Academic sources would almost always be preferable. But everything should be seen in perspective. The question is: are those newspapers used to cite controversial information that could be affected by their perceived bias (i.e. are they being used to support anti-semitic POV, for example)? In Pilsudski's article, Glos is used only once to support uncontroversial statement about origin of a quote ([23]). A cursory look at the literature verfies its not a hoax. In the case of Piłsudski's Mound, it's just listed as one of the elinks - and considering the fringness of a subject, any "more information about the subject link" is rather welcome (of course, if one can show that the article in question contains anti-semitic claims or other hate mongering, than I'd fully support its removal). I am not familiar with the two other articles, and I certainly agree that care should be taken not to cite some hate mongering "far right" stuff.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Policy is very clear - fringe, extremist sources are meant to be used as references only about themselves. Period. For example, Stormfront.org covers many seemingly uncontroversial topics - gardening, cooking, etc, but we still don't use it as a reference in wiki, even if statements themselves are not controversial. M0RD00R (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to user Mordoors description of Gazeta Polska as extreme. Worldpress calls it conservative [24], also Columbia University [25], BBC simply calls it weekly [26], same as information portal poland.pl [27], University of Manchester [28], CNN [29] and Centre for European Studies [30]. Polish Institute of Media Monitoring placed it as the 14th most quoted media in Poland as for February 2007, in March of that year Organ Hunters article from Gazeta Polska was the third most-quoted article in Poland [31]. Its reporters were detained in 2007, which was noticed by Reporters Sans Frontieres [32] and in December 2006 it was the fifth most quoted media in Poland [33].

Its activities and articles were mentioned by several news sources across the world, among others, by The Stephen Roth Institute The center-right weekly Gazeta Polska reported that a Samoobrona senator, Henryk Dzido, was a close associate and legal adviser to the convicted antisemite Kazimierz Switon, who occupied a historic site at Oswiecim (Auschwitz) for over a month in 1998. In January 2002 Gazeta Polska reported that Lepper was behind the rumor spread in Poland that 4,000 Jews remained home on 11 September because they had prior knowledge of the attacks. In 2002 Lepper resumed cooperation with the antisemitic activist and publisher Leszek Bubel [34], The Guardian [35], Taipei Times [36], USA Today [37], NY Times [38] and there was even a mention of Gazeta Polska in Haaretz [39]. Its reporters were even attacked by a ultra-Catholic mob and among persons interviewed with Gazeta Polska, there is former Israeli ambassador, Shevah Weiss (March 2001, I did not find it online). With a little bad faith, one can make whatever one imagines a radical source. Just google BBC antisemitic and you will see. Tymek (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

One source for GP being extreme is a POV, certainly not a mainstream consensus, and as Tymek notes, there are plenty of mainstream sources to the contrary.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

One thing about GP is that it had a fairly dramatic change of ownership/editorial board/writers back several years ago I believe (2005?). It used to be run by Piotr Wierzbicki; the source cited by MORDOOR, Sabrina Ramet is just obviously clueless on this matter (M00RD00R, you do not provide a link to Crosses of Auschwitz so I can't check that exactly). Calling Wierzbicki "extreme nationalist" is just plain nonsense and in fact calls the overall reliability of the source into question. GP under Wierzbicki, while it was essentially a right-center mag, often vigorously attacked the extreme right, including some of the other sources cited by M00RD00R, like Radio Maryja and Nasz Dziennik. Additionally Wierzbicki is currently a writer (on music, think he got sick of politics) for the left-center Gazeta Wyborcza, despite the fact that he frequently attacked GW's politics in the past. It's basically ridiculous that GW would hire someone they even suspected of "extreme nationalism". Additionally I think Wierzbicki's support for Walesa was fairly brief - way back in the beginning when many supported him - so calling him a "former Walesa booster" is wrong as well. This isn't exactly relevant to the subject of Nationalist Polish Newspaper but is another piece of evidence Ramet has no idea of what she's talking about and hence, the source is not reliable. It's even possible here that the writers are confusing "Gazeta Polska" with "Nasza Polska" or some other newspaper with "Polska" in its name that they've been told is right wing.

But like I said there was a big hoopla a few years back where Wierzbicki got booted out by new owners, with some shady dealings (by his account) going on. And with him went most of the then current writers. I haven't really been following it that close but it is possible that at that point GP went more to the right - though my understanding of it is that GP just got behind PiS unconditionally whereas before they were more of a PO-sometimes-critical-of-PiS paper. Even here though, the only source that backs up that Wojciechowski (and that it's the same Wojciechowski who's a spokesman for Szczerbiec) is Kordian Krawietz is Nigdy Wiecej. I tried to find an independent confirmation but was unable to do so. Now, Nigdy Wiecej is a very well meaning organization but I wouldn't consider them reliable without back up sources. It was started from a kind of Youth Antifascist Club, including some punk rock kids and the like (I briefly knew someone who was associated with them) which aren't exactly known for meticulous scholarship and fact checking. And being really dedicated to "fighting fascists" they sometimes cut corners. So I'm not saying the Wojciehowski=Krawietz thing is not true, it could be. Since I haven't read GP in the past three years I don't know if they've turned into a paper that would knowingly publish someone like that. But I wouldn't take it at face value either.

And yes, before anyone gets their panties in a twist I saw Piotrus' notice on Polish Notice board. Why that would matter I have no idea.radek (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

But we have an academic text saying it is "far right" and "not mainstream". Where is the counter-evidence? Without knowing more, all I think we can do here is comment on the two uses of it in WP mentioned by Mordoor. In the article about Lysiak, as I said before, it can probably stay as it is not used to reference anything other than the subject publishing an article in that magazine. The case of the article about the attack on the NKVD camp is quite different. I was surprised to see that article in such poor condition. It does lack in-line referencing so I don't know why Piotrus removed the tag. It is woefully short of context, does nothing to help the reader understand where this event fitted into the final throes of WW2, does not even have any real indication of notability. If this event is indeed significant enough for an article it must be written up from the standard histories of WW2, and definitely not from political magazines of whatever stance. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I read the essay where that remark comes from. It's actually fairly decent and just to correct myself it was written by David Ost and not Sabrina Ramet who was the editor. Still, calling Wierzbicki "extreme nationalist" is just plain wrong. It may be significant that this is done in a footnote not in the body of the text. Or perhaps it's in the way that some leftist intellectual will occasionally refer to say, Margaret Thatcher as a "fascist". In fact Wierzbicki is a self described liberal (in the European sense) and an internationalist/cosmopolitan. So if there are other sources which do not call GP (at least in its Wierzbicki days) "extreme nationalist" this one shouldn't be given much weight, at least as far as this issue goes. On the other hand I do think that Nasz Dziennik can be described as "extreme nationalist" and the fact that the Columbia page given by Tymek calls it "conservative" is inaccurate.radek (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Radeksz, please stay on topic, no one is calling Wierzbicki "exrtreme nationalist", we are discussing Gazeta Polska, not a person. Addressing Piotrus and Tymek comments I must stress, that BBC statement that its a weekly, speaks nothing of it's reliability - "weekly", does not equal "not a radical right weekly", and "conservative" does not translate as "reliable" either. Regarding one source of GP being extreme, well...

• The newspapers that leaked the stories about Wielgus's collaboration, such as the weekly Gazeta Polska, are all on the far right of the political spectrum - TIME [40].
• Gazeta Polska (Polish Gazette) which is stridently nationalist with anti-Semitic overtones[41] From The Polish Underground: Selections from Krytyka, 1978-1993

By Michael Bernhard, Henryk Szlajfer Published by Penn State Press, 2004

• the extreme nationalist Gazeta Polska, led by former Walesa-booster Piotr Wierzbicki [42] The Radical Right in Central and Eastern Europe Since 1989: In Central and Eastern Europe Since 1989.

By Sabrina P. Ramet Published by Penn State Press, 1999

• Gazeta Polska indeed is mentioned by Stephen Roth Institute: Nominally Catholic publications with anti-Semitic overtones are widely available, [...]. One of the most prominent is the Warsaw weekly Gazeta Polska[43]. M0RD00R (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

At the very least we should be sparing with our references to these publications. I removed an external link from the article on Wieglus, which is otherwise well sourced to the newswires. I found another history article: Huta Pieniacka massacre which by my first view is very poorly sourced and which references an article in Gazeta Polska of April this year for which it does not even give an author. Otherwise, most of what comes up in a search is journalists who have written for the magazine, which I would think is unproblematic. I suggest that Mordoor continues to bring up any references that he finds to be inappropriate and people here can comment on a case-by-case basis. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am on topic since 1) the nature of pre-2005 GP is tied up very close with Piotr Wierzbicki. It was "his" paper, and 2) in fact the sources you quote below do refer to him as "extreme nationalist". And, what can I say here, the sources are wrong, which a bit of common sense shows (remember that in addition to policies we should also rely on common sense). But first, let me just say that I agree Nasz Dziennik and Nasza Polska can be characterized as "extreme nationalist" publications and should not be used as sources in questions of factual accuracy.

With GP we're really dealing with two seperate sources, not one. The pre-2005 GP under Wierzbicki was a completely different paper than the current one, which is why I'm talking about Wierzbicki here. Different owners, different editor, different writers. The charges that the pre-2005/Wierzbicki paper was "extreme nationalist with anti-semitic overtones" simply stem from the fact that 1) most Western writers, including often academics have a very low level of orientation in Polish politics and as a result rely on not unbiased sources for minor info and 2) the hyperbolic nature of Polish political discussion where many people on the right call even those slightly left of center as "Stalinists" etc. and many people on the left call even those slightly right of center as "extreme nationalists". This is to some extent also true in the west where you'll see people calling Reagan or Thacher "extreme right" but it's widely known that this is hyperbolic and usually not considered mainstream. In matters of Polish politics the Western writers don't have that kind of recognition. It is telling here that not one of the sources provided above explains exactly or points to a particular piece why GP/Wierzbicki can be considered "extreme nationalist", the most damning explicit charge seems to be that he supported Walesa between 1989-1991, but then so did most Poles, and so what? This is basically as if a journalist/academic from country X wanted write about Obama, wasn't sure who to talk to about it, saw that a guy named Jerome Corsi wrote a book about Obama, called him up, was told that Obama was a "Muslim and a terrorist" and then faithfully reported that in his home country newspaper and all of sudden that became a "reliable source". Except that Obama has the benefit of being a world reknown figure whereas here we're talking about a more obscure person (hence much less fact checking going on).

So the sources are wrong. Which happens sometimes. What about other evidence and common sense? Well, first we can get if from the horse's mouth [44]. Unfortunetly it's in Polish but it's an article in which Wierzbicki describes his views and the editorial position of the gazeta under his leadership. Some quotes, in Polish with my rough translations:

• "gdy zobaczyłem narodowych katolików w akcji, włosy stanęły mi na głowie i wytoczyłem przeciw nim najcięższe działa." - "when I saw nationalist catholics in action my hairs stood up on end and I took out the heavy guns against them"
• "w roku 1993 zażądałem, aby im zwrócono własność zagarniętą przez Niemców i komunistów." - in 1993 I demanded that their (Jewish) property, seized by Nazis and Communists, be returned to them (this was a big contentious issue back in 1993)
• "Odrzucamy hasło "zgniły Zachód". Lubimy Zachód... Popieraliśmy całym sercem wejście do NATO. Głosowaliśmy za przystąpieniem do Unii Europejskiej. … Gdy słuchamy nauk ks. Rydzyka, gdy czytamy "Nasz Dziennik", ... bierze nas pusty śmiech." - "We reject the slogan of "Degenerate West". We like the West. ... We supported with al our hearts Polands entry to Nato. We voted for joining the EU... When we hear the teachings of Fr. Rydzyk (of Radio Maryja), when we read "Nasz Dzienik" ... (a list of ridiculous positions of RM follows) ... we shake with laughter".
• "w ciężkich latach sowieckiej dominacji wszak to państwo Izrael, znienawidzone obok Ameryki najbardziej przez komunistycznych podpalaczy świata, dawało nam wszystkim przykład, jak trzeba się bić, jak można bronić niepodległości." - "During the difficult times of soviet domination it was the country of Israel, hated next to America by Communists world-burners, which was a shining example of how to defend one's independence".
• From here [45] we have the quote (I know it's just a blog, but it's also a quote): "Piotr Wierzbicki writes, in quite a moving piece: “The transformation of Antoni Macierewicz from a Warsaw member of the intelligentsia into a nationalist Catholic telling fairy tales about Masons was a shock to me.” ". Would an extreme nationalist write something like that?

Another common sense test would be to look at what happened to Wierzbicki and other writers after they were ousted from GP in 2005. Wierzbicki and Iwaszkiewicz went on to work for Gazeta Wyborcza. Would a left wing newspaper ran by Adam Michnik really hire someone who was an "extreme nationalist"??? Maybe a someone who's slightly right of center for balance but definitely not someone who's written anything "with anti-semitic overtones". Other writers, such as Ziemkiewicz and Rybinski, who were somewhat more to the right, ended up writing for the Rzeczpospolita which is about as center-of-center newspaper in Poland as you can get. Again, a paper like that would not hire people who were "extreme nationalists".

In the end we get a picture of Wierzbicki and GP which is that of, yes, a conservative, but pro-EU, pro-US, pro-Israel, essentially "Thatcherite" newspaper. It was probably close to (and maybe even modeled on) the Daily Telegraph and probably to the left of National Review. And while there are people, "sources" even, which would consider these papers to be "extreme right", the more mainstream view is that they're perfectly reliable sources. And the pre-2005 GP should be considered as such.

Ok, finally, on the post-2005 GP. I don't know as much about it, but neither of the two sources - Nigdy Wiecej accusation and the Times article - are quite convincing here. I discussed Nigdy Wiecej above. In the Times article quoted, again, the writer does not offer any specific reasons why GP is "extreme right" just asserts it, which again suggests that once again, he just got it from some politically biased source and mindlessly repeated it. This happens all the time. The article in fact seems to identify "extreme right" with being pro-lustration, when all that hoopla was going on. This was a specific political meme spread around this time by anti-lustration folks (much like "Obama associates with known terrorists" is being spread around now) which got reflected, unquestionably, in Western press for awhile, prompting letters of protests from various individuals, after which it was dropped. Now, like I said, it is true that after 2005 probably took a turn to the right. But given that it was right-center mag before it had some room to maneuver. So far there's been no specific damning evidence presented that it got all the way to "extreme right" or "extreme nationalists". It could be true, but it hasn't been shown yet.

So to sum up, my view is that:

• "Nasz Dziennik" and "Nasza Polska" are "extreme nationalist" or at least very biased newspapers and should not be used as sources for factual accuracy.
• Pre-2005 "Gazeta Polska" is just fine being a conservative but very mainstream paper that has just been mischaracterized.
• Post-2005 "Gazeta Polska" is in the iffy category and care should be taken when using it as a source and if there's a better source that should be used instead. However so far there's been no specific evidence that it is unreliable or "extreme nationalist".

radek (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So...do we have a consensus about using Nasz Dziennik or Glos at any time as a history reference? ND still heavily referenced at Jewish Military Union.

I appreciate the background about Gazeta Polska's history. It would be helpful to have that info in its article. But I disagree about its characterization as mainstream at any point in its 20th or 21st century usage based on:

"extreme right-wing weekly Gazeta Polska". The Federation of American Scientists, 1997, at [46]

"NIE! and Gazeta Polska (publications of the extreme left and the extreme right)". Adam Michnik as published by the New School, 1999, at [47]

"ultra-right-wing Gazeta Polska". The Warsaw Voice, 2007, at [48]

"sensationalist political dailies, such as Super Express or Gazeta Polska". [49] Patrick H. O'Neil, Routledge, 1997. Novickas (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You have my part of the consensus for ND. As far as Glos goes, please note that that's another newspaper name that has had several historical incarnations. I believe there was a right wing Glos back in the interwar period, there was a the underground paper Glos in the 60's and 70's which was, I think, associated with the leftist part of the democratic opposition and there's the current Glos ran by Macierewicz. If you're talking about the last incarnation of Glos then I'd generally concur that it's not a reliable source though I don't know that much about it. The sources you give for GP above, again are mostly just engaging in hyperbolic political rhetoric(like Michnik or Warsaw Voice) which is analogous to some people calling Obama a "socialist" these days. It's just the dirty way of fighting in Polish politics. Note that Michnik went on to hire the chief editor and some of the writers of GP which puts his, and similar, comments into context. In particular the text provided by the FAS has nothing 'extreme' or 'right wing' in it, and the federation is just repeating a common political smear used by political oppponents in Poland at that time. Probably unknowingly too.radek (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Case 1. Article Betar. Reference deleted by me [50], restored by Piotrus [51]. Reference is comming from Nasz Dziennik by highly controversial Jerzy Robert Nowak. During process against anti-Semitic publishing company, "100 Falsehoods of J.T. Gross" by Nowak, was classified as anti-Semitic by prof. dr hab. Jerzy Tomaszewski [52], who was called in as en expert by the court. Nowak also is an expert for "the Jewish question" on anti-Semitic Radio Maryja, and has a bit of "reputation": "In September 2001, in Wroclaw, during a session of the Festival of Science entitled 'Poland: Poles and Jews in their common home', which took place in the town hall, one of the panellists, Jerzy Robert Nowak, provoked his co-panellists—Jerzy Kichler, president of the Union of Jewish Religious Communities, Konstanty Gebert, former editor in-chief of the Jewish monthly Midrasz, and Fr Michal Czajkowski, a well-known author of works on Jewish topics—by making antisemitic remarks. Nowak, a right-wing historian linked to Radio Maryja and known for a number of aggressively antisemitic and chauvinistic books, as well as articles published in Nasz Dziennik and Nasza Polska, said he did not want to participate in a debate with Gebert and Fr Czajkowski. After only a few moments, Kirchler and Gebert, together with some members of the audience, left the room. Despite his willingness to debate with Nowak, Fr Czajkowski also left the room, accompanied by shouts of 'Go to Israel!' Nowak said that one should not only talk about antisemitism, but also about the 'anti-Polonism' of the Jews. A large section of the audience, especially elderly and middle-aged people, applauded his remarks and, after the session, Nowak signed autographs in front of the town hall. The festival organizer responsible for inviting Nowak, Aleksandra Kubicz, said she had had no idea that Nowak was a well-known antisemite" [53].M0RD00R (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Jerzy Tomaszewski is controversial himself ([54]), and Nowak book was defended for example by prof dr. hab. Tomasz Strzembosz. Nothing is white and black.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a consensus about Nasz Dziennik and Glos?

Comments? Novickas (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that both of those are probably not reliable sources (assuming you're referring to the current Glos, not historical newspapers of that name)radek (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea about Glos, as I have never seen it. As for Nasz Dziennik, I can only state that I would not like Jewish/Russian/Ukrainian/German/Lithuanian sources of this kind to be used here. Nasz Dziennik employs several historians, but it is too biased IMO. The third newspaper mentioned by Mordoor, Gazeta Polska, is a regular weekly. I guess it used to be different some 10 or 15 years ago. Now, it is similar to other Polish weeklies, and interestingly enough, it is strongly disliked by Father Rydzyk and his followers from Radio Maryja as well as several Catholic Church leaders, as Gazeta Polska was the one that informed about Archbishop's Wielgus cooperation with communist secret services. See here [55] and here [56]. Its journalist Elzbieta Isakiewicz is the author of a book Red Pencil. About a Pole Who Saved Thousands of Jews, which tells the story of Henryk Slawik[57]. Even though Gazeta Polska is often described as right-wing, it does not hesitate to write about different topics, such as here [58]Tymek (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Christ Church South Cambs on Talk:Sawston

A minor but seemingly intractable dispute has arisen at Talk:Sawston. Although there is some history here, it’s simplest not to bring it up (it’s on the talk page if you feel the need). The question for this board is this: Is Christ Church South Cambs (CCSC) part of the Church of England (COE) (i.e. Anglican Church), or not? The sources provided by each side appear to be contradictory. I thought it best to bring it up here for help in weighing the sources.

I’m filing this on behalf of the two main disputants (if that’s a word). There are other issues involved, but I think it hinges on the relative reliability of the sources, which is why I brought it here. I originally came into the dispute to try to stop an edit war, but have slowly come to agree more with one than with the other, so I no longer consider myself an impartial outside opinion.

The sources below were summarized (IMHO accurately, but I could be wrong) by Petemyers (talk · contribs), who believes CCSC is a part of COE. For what it’s worth, I agree. Cuckoosnest (talk · contribs) believes it is not. I believe both sides’ objections to the others’ references are presented here, but I’m notifying both editors I’ve brought this here, so they can correct me if I am wrong.

• CCSC website which claims to be COE
• St Mary's website, the "parish" church, which claims to be the only COE church in Sawston
• Crosslinks Mission Partner website, an Anglican Mission agency of which Tim Chapman is an Associate. More info
• A church near you website, apparently run by the COE, which says CCSC is COE. Cuckoosnest seems to be saying anyone can edit this site so it isn’t reliable; it’s not clear to me if this is true or not.
• The Ely Diocese Fresh Expressions page, which shows that the diocese recognises "Fresh Expressions of Church" outside of the traditional parish structure - which would explain why CCSC doesn't have a page with the other "parish" churches... as it is one of these new fangled Anglican movement thingies.

So, based on these dueling sources, is either side basing their argument on dubious sources? The article is about Sawston, so I really hesitate to bring up the fact that there is some disagreement about this in the article itself, per WP:UNDUE. And it seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to just remove denomination from all the other churches in the list as a compromise.

Finally, this is my first time posting to WP:RSN I didn’t know it existed until a surprisingly short time ago , so if I’ve misunderstood the nature of the board, let me know early and I’ll move it. --barneca (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's CoE, and you only need to cite its own website for that. But why not take the opportunity to write a just a sentence or two, either in the main article body or in a footnote about this initiative. It's a notable fact about this village that it has a "new-style" church of this new type when other villages do not. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Fresh expressions website doesn't mention CCSC. I know that at one point Tim Chapman was talking about leaving the CofE - I'm not sure whether the fact that he was ordained as CofE means that his church is part of the CofE. The crosslinks page is one which was written by TC. All churches differ, I'm not sure what characterises a 'new style' church. I don't believe that CCSC are financed by the Ely Diocese. I don't understand why the Ely diocese can't simply update their website to include CCSC. Cuckoosnest (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Cuckoosnest

AccessMyLibrary.com and Web.archive.org

Is AccessMyLibrary.com an RS? And can Web.archive.org be used as a source when a source turns dead? Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The first question is really a category mistake. These aren't really sources, so they can't be reliable or unreliable. It's like asking if an ISP is a reliable source. It is always assumed that ISPs don't fiddle with the bits that they send you, and the same is assumed of accessmylibrary and the webarchive. For your second question, yes, it is good practice and encouraged to restore dead links using the wayback machine.John Z (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the reply. It's great that I can use web.archive, but I found a good article on AccessMyLibrary.com. Can I use it then or not? Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the article? Would you mind linking it? Protonk (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

But it requires registration. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If you post the link, I'll see if it is hosted on another database. Protonk (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Here ou have. The matter is not this particular link itself. I mean generally, it's an article by a famous newspaper which is now a dead page. I found the same article word for word on AML. Can it be used? Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. If you don't actually have access to the full article, I would suggest that you not cite the excerpt that Accessmylibrary posts. If you have access to a service like Lexis or Proquest that will index the Hindu back issues (this article doesn't come up on Lexis for me), then you should look there. I wouldn't cite the article as is, because we can't tell if it is promotional (meaning the paper running a press release) or otherwise without seeing the content and context. Otherwise I agree with JohnZ that these two "sources" are not sources per se, but means to access the original source. Neither should be "cited" (meaning, when I get an article from Lexis-Nexis, I cite the original publication) in any traditional sense. I hope that helps. Protonk (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but I'm still confused. Lexis and Proquest show zero results to me, the Hindu article is dead and the only source which has the article now is AML. Can I use it or not? Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can use it, as AML is a similar service to Lexis/Proquest. You know, you can always register for AML by using your email address and use a US post code (say, such as 10018), and it will give you 7 days full access. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks friend. And do I have to mention AML or leave the original Hindu newspaper as the publisher? Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't mention AML. they are just a gateway. If you've got the article in hand, just cite the page # and date from the hindu. Protonk (talk) 07:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Television Documentary "Islam: Empire of Faith"

This documentary is being used as a source in the Saladin article. It is being used to insert some POV claims and wild phrases into the article such as "the Islamic world had done nothing to start the offensive" (the "offensive" being the First Crusade), and "The Muslim culture lay in ruins for at least one hundred and four years". I tried to remove those phrases but another editor reverted my edit, saying that the source "is reliable". I have not seen the documentary, but the imdb.com reviews of it are not encouraging. Quotes from various reviews: "funded mostly by Iranian state oil and mining companies, this documentary is dazzling in its presentation, but careless about the historical facts"; "tendentious"; "propagandizing"; an "infomercial"; "mostly propaganda"; "pseudo documentary"; "Great cinematography but biased"; "there is a decidedly pro-Islam bias pervading this film"; "don't take the "historical facts" too seriously"; "the director prostituted himself to covert politics", and so on. Using a TV documentary as a source is risky at the best of times, but this production seems decidedly unsuitable to be used as one. Meowy 19:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Saladin is an important history article so sources should all be works by academic historians. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing actually its a documentary by PBS and made in the US. So how can it be biased. Don't pay any attention to the comments - they're just opinions. Have you actually seen the documentary? There are links on the actual page to Google video and you can see it from there. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 21:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Where are the reviews? I have only seen one user review. The documentary was made back in the year 2000. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 21:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You click on the word "more". Meowy 23:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Also there are historians in the documentary talking about the history. If I remember correctly there are about 5 Historians from universities, some of them professors. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 21:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A TV documentary is rarely a reliable source. There simply is not enough space in it for anything but a cursory treatment. I don't know if this one is better or worse than the average, but for a topic as Saladin, which has literally thousands of scholarly books and articles written about it, there is no reason to use sub-par sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

They talk about Saladin in episdoe 2 extensively. I think this illustrates his character which I'd think is important to what he was actually like. The documentary is neutral and informative. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 22:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The solution is to look out the books and articles authored by the academics who appeared in the documentary. That will give you a much richer source of information. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll get to work on it right away. But I want to leave it up there till I'm done gathering sources to prevent deletion. I'll do it in roughly the next 5 days. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 14:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

All forms of video presentation are notoriously misleading. The format simply cannot handle the complexities that the written word can do, either in nuance or in depth of coverage. The project is in text format, other editors need to be able to examine the sources, in context (perhaps with scans of what the original says), and text is simply the only way to do it. If the material is worth anything, it's bound to have been published in text first. PR^talk 19:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of Articles, Commentaries, etc. that appear in a Scientific Journal.

A small group of editors has come to an impasse regarding whether a group of published commentaries meet WP:RS and should therefore be summarized in the article we are working on, or fail to meet WP:RS and therefore should not be included on the page. We are hoping to have the input from otherwise uninvolved editors to help us resolve the issue. (In the interests of disclosure, the editors most involved in the disagreement are user:Dicklyon, user:DarlieB, user:Hfarmer, user:James Cantor, user:Jokestress, user:ProudAGP, and user:WhatamIdoing.)

Agreed upon facts

• The Archives of Sexual Behavior (ASB) is a prominent academic journal on sexology.
• The June 2008 ASB issue is devoted to the controversy surrounding the 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen (TMWWBQ).
• The article is by Alice Dreger and the peer commentaries discuss Dreger's article.
• Peer commentaries are written by notable people, including John Bancroft, Ben Barres, Ray Blanchard, John Gagnon, Richard Green, Deirdre McCloskey, Charles Moser, Seth Roberts, Julia Serano, and ASB Editor-in-Chief Ken Zucker. Who are all notable academics and experts on transsexuality.

Arguments for including peer commentaries

• Peer commentaries are verifiable (published and available for purchase in print and online)
• Peer commentaries are in a reliable source (Archives of Sexual Behavior) alongside the article.
• The article and peer commentaries are all listed individually the same way in PubMed, as well as other databases of academic output.

Arguments for excluding peer commentaries

• In Zucker's editorial introducing that issue of the Archives, Zucker wrote the Dreger article underwent peer-review.
• Zucker wrote, "I reviewed all commentaries and, by and large, made very minor editorial changes and, if there was a substantive issue, did so in consultation with the author."
• Zucker wrote that all commentaries submitted were published (except for one which did not pertain to the topic).
• These commentaries should be treated as letters-to-the-editor.

There are basically three options:

• In this case include only the peer reviewed article itself.
• Treat everything in the journal on an equal footing and use anything published in a journal as a reliable source.
• In this case exclude the whole issues of Archives of Sexual Behavior because the editors, who in this case are all arguably experts on this matter, cannot come to a consensus.

I will add that the above was a negotiated question. See the related talk page to see how complicated this has been. We thank you for your help. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to pre-empt input from uninvolved editors, but I would like to clear up two ambiguities:

• The above list of people who are "notable academics and experts on transsexuality" should not be interpreted (in my opinion) to mean that everybody on that list is both a notable academic and an expert on transsexuality. That is, some people are arguably one, but arguably not the other. Moreover, because still more commentaries were also submitted by people who are neither, it would be useful to have some guidance regarding just whose opinion merits mention. (My own opinion is that the commentaries did not undergo peer-review and do not, therefore, meet WP:RS, but I can appreciate exceptions for individual commentaries from people who are experts on the topic, such as individuals who have previously published on it in well-established RS's.)
• "Experts on this matter" should be interpreted (in my opinion) to mean very well-versed on the controversies surrounding the topic, rather than "expert" in the WP sense of having formal credentials or having authored documents in RS's on the topic.
  

— James Cantor (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

For related previous discussions, please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_18#Guidance_on_pseudonymous_authors. While most of these "letters to the editor" are by well-known sexologists or by prominent transsexual activists, one is by an author whose identity is unknown. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

See also Dr. Wyndzen's response to the above two editors when they previously attempted to exclude her published peer commentary and other contributions in this debate. She describes why User:James Cantor is "censoring Wikipedia so it only showcases their side as reliable" and why she uses a pen name when dealing with these people, likening it to the famous John E. Fryer case, where the attitudes among mental health "experts" in the generation before User:James Cantor made it necessary for Fryer to use a pen name as well. All of these peer reviews appear in a reliable source, and the reason some editors wish to see them deemed "unreliable" seems less about WP:RS and more about the peer commentaries' criticisms of User:James Cantor's colleagues.Jokestress (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• I will probably echo the past posting about pseudonymous authors, but I feel that discussion was pointed in the right direction. While members of the field using their real names can certainly be quoted in "letters to the editor" (or the equivalent), we would have to be more cautious about using those as sources if we are going to make some direct comparison between claims made in the letters and claims made in the paper. In some cases good science has come out of disputes in letters to editors. Errors have been found that passed peer review. Theories have been advanced. discussions have been had. So there is some fundamental merit to those letters and we should include them. Anonymous and pseudonymous letters should raise red flags, however. In some cases (eg this one), pseudonyms are required. But in most cases, they aren't. Either way, they are to be quoted just like we quote Op-eds today. The source is identified (as well as the place of publication, if desired), and some of the 'weight' of the statement comes from the person speaking. If we can't name that person, where do we stand? Protonk (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that is helpful. I certainly agree that there have been letters-to-editors with good information. Of course, there also exist letters-to-editors with misinformation. The problem (to me) is the lack of fact-checking for such sources. Do you have any suggestions about how to distinguish which sources merit mention in WP? In my experience, the solid letters come from people who are themselves recognized authorities in a given field, suggesting (to me, anyway) that WP editors should treat letters (and other non-fact-checked documents such as the commentaries in question here) as self-published sources.

The relevant policies from WP:V are that "Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions...Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated" and that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Do other viable options come to mind, or are you saying that all comments from anyone who sends them in are RS's for WP's purposes?

— James Cantor (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As a principal in the controversy being discussed in these sources, User:James Cantor is way too biased, and his remarks need to be discounted appropriately (and I should note that I am a friend of a principal, but otherwise not connected to the controversy, so discount my remarks, too, if you like). The problem in the above paragraph is his implication that Dreger's target paper was "fact checked". There's no indication of that. The editor said "peer reviewed", but made no representation that that review was for anything like fact checking, which would seem quite impossible for such an opinion piece. If anyone would like a copy of the whole thing (target paper and 23 commentaries in one PDF), for review only, just drop me an email. Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I will add that I too think that we cannot include and give weight to Madeline Wyndzen's commentaries. While she may value her privacy or fear repercussions the trade off is that you can't be anonymous AND use your professional standing and authority in a debate. Unless you know who she is it is not at all clear that she has any such standing or autority. Therefore her comments might as well have been written by the next person you see walking down the street. For the same reasons that her website is not a source her commentary is not a source.

On the other hand. Everyone who commented on the article in ASB was either A psychological professional who works with transsexuals, A historian researching the controversy, A transsexual who had some direct knowledge of the fact and circumstances around the book and controversy, or some combination of all of those. It's not like totally uninitiated fools wrote those commentaries. They, unlike Dr. Wyndzen, are known to us. People can look them up and judge for themselves what weight to give each of their comments. Just like they can for self published sources authored by autorities on the subject of the publication. Therefore I argue that those commentaries should be included. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the journal or the topic, so I can probably give a sufficiently uninvolved opinion:

• Peer-reviewed paper in the journal issue should be given equal weight in presentation, regardless whether the (Wikipedia) editors consider them experts or not. Otherwise you're second-guessing the journal reviewers, which presumably are more qualified than the Wikipedia editors in this matter.
• Letters to the editor should be given less weight than peer-reviewed papers, but the journal still assumes some responsibility for them (they surely won't publish my opinion on a paper that appeared in their journal).
• The focus of this dispute seems to be whether pseudonymous letters to the editor should be given any coverage. Does the journal indicate that the sender is a professional in the field? If so, I'm inclined to include it (mention of course that's pseudonymous). Otherwise, I'm not sure why they've published it in the first place (former patient?). VG ☎ 15:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

VG, in this case, they would have published your comments. They published all comments they received except for one that was off-topic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I just want to clarify that these are peer commentaries, not letters to the editor, as some editors wish to present them here. The same issue contains letters to the editor, which are marked as such. These peer commentaries are considered stand-alone articles and are listed and sold as such. The one author that used a pen name is an added complication-- she is not anonymous (her photo is on her well-known website) but protects her identity because of intimidation tactics used by psychologists who disagree with her. Jokestress (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't find this clarification very clear. Either someone is anonymous or they are not. David Tennant uses a "stage name", but he is not anonymous. Using a pen-name for publications is perfectly normal (if somewhat unusual in academia), but it is wholly different from hiding ones identity. Anyone who is in fact a professional and also puts their picture on a website will be easily identifiable within a profession, so it seems rather an eccentric way of trying to hide ones identity "because of intimidation tactics used by psychologists who disagree with her". Since the name used for publishing in this field is presumably consistent this also makes no sense if the "intimidation" relates to the fear that her academic work will be rejected - or are her academic works and activist works published under different names? I think we need more background here. It is also unclear whether the "peer commentaries" were simply accepted by the editors if presented as such or whether the authors' scholarly status was taken into consideration. If there is reliable evidence that "Dr. Wyndzen" is a significant professional in this field then the article may be acceptable - with caveats - otherwise not. Paul B (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Only one of the commentaries is under a pen name. This is being used as a distraction to discredit all the peer commentaries. I'll answer your concerns regarding that one instance. One can be pseudonymous by degree (she is not anonymous). Take Deep Throat, who was known by his real name to those he trusted. I know Dr. Wyndzen's real name, but she knows she will face attacks from people associated with the Archives of Sexual Behavior and their supporters if she criticizes their work. We see examples of these attacks right here in this discussion. They very much want to know who she is so they can attack her in other ways. Another expert, a sexologist who leaked criticism made by the head of the Kinsey Institute about this controversy, remains completely pseudonymous (using the name "IASR Friend"), because that person is even more fearful of retribution from people associated with the Archives of Sexual Behavior. This larger debate is about academic exploitation of transgender people by sex scientists, and the main source of this exploitation is the Archives of Sexual Behavior itself. Many people on one side of the controversy serve on the editorial board of the Archives of Sexual Behavior. Dr. Wyndzen is a transgender psychologist with whom they disagree, and she probably represents the greatest threat to them (and they to her). She can speak as a Ph.D.-level mental health professional as well as someone whose lived experiences can speak to these issues. They wish to spin this as "experts" vs. mentally disordered people, just as the APA used to do to gay and lesbian psychiatrists, etc. But let's set the Wyndzen commentary aside, as it is a distraction.

The peer commentaries were solicited as part of what is called a target paper in academia: an article published for the express purpose of including it with solicited peer commentaries. Usually the author of the target paper responds to the commentaries, as was the case in this journal. In other words, they are claiming that the target paper by Dreger is reliable, but Dreger's reply to the commentaries in the same issue is not. Letters to the editor are not solicited and are usually published in the next edition of the journal. None of the letters to the editor in the issue in question are about the target article. The peer commentaries are each several pages long (1000-2000 words each); the letters to the editor are usually 100-200 words each. Jokestress (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As the editor of an academic journal (though in a wholly unrelated field) I am familiar with such procedures, but you have not answered the central question. As far as I can tell the commentaries were not specifically solicited from chosen professionals (which would be normal procedure), but from anyone who chose to respond. You assert that you know the identity of this person, but have provided no independent evidence that her status in the field is acknowledged. If the journal had solicited material from a respected scholar who wished to remain anonymous, and had published it with that information, then I think we could accept that the journal's editorial board fits our criteria for "good faith" that the anonymous author was indeed an expert in the field, but that does not seem to be the case here and we have the rather odd situation that anonymity is claimed while identity is de facto revealed by a photograph. If these enemies were so keen to attack they could readily identify a fellow professional and circulate the information in no time at all. The "attacks right here in this discussion" are disagreements about the status of the source which are a product of her anonymity. Paul B (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, let's set the Wyndzen commentary aside, as it is a distraction that has already been discussed at length previously. Let's focus on the other 23 commentaries. Jokestress (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think it would help if someone could explain the difference between published peer commentary in these journals and letters to these journals about an article in the same issue. Are these the comments from the journal's peer review process (somehow I don't think so)? Are they solicited by the journal? How are they different from letters to an academic journal? Protonk (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I am on the editorial board for the journal in question, but I was not involved in the publication of the Dreger paper or any of the commentaries on it. In the journal issue that contained the Dreger paper and the commentaries on it, Editor-in-Chief (Ken Zucker) wrote:

Dreger’s article was peer-reviewed by three referees and then a call for commentaries was issued via various listservs and organizations. A total of 60 people expressed an interest in writing a commentary and, in the end, 24 commentaries were received. One commentary was not accepted by me for publication because its content did not have anything to do with the target article. The 23 published commentaries are followed by a reply from Dreger. I reviewed all commentaries and, by and large, made very minor editorial changes and, if there was a substantive issue, did so in consultation with the author.

Thus, the Dreger paper is very clearly (to me) peer-reviewed, but the commentaries were the result of an open call. All commentaries submitted were published (with the one exception that Zucker indicates in the above). The commentaries were not the result of an invitation by the journal's editor (as some other journals do). Nor were the commentaries submitted sponteneously like a regular letter-to-the-editor. Because the commentaries did not undergo fact-checking (the basis for WP:RS) such as by peer review, the commentaries seem (to me) to be self-published sources like letters-to-the-editor, for WP purposes.

Just to tie up a loose end, user:Dicklyon and I have an agreement not to edit on the controvery sections of WP page in question. Thus, any potential COI posed by my being on the editorial board is moot.

— James Cantor (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

On the matter of Dr. Wyndzen.  :-? That picture proves absolutely nothing. That could be anyone, anyone at all. (Heck Jokestress what happen to your supreme skepticism? You accused me of being an internet faker why not her? By the same arguements you used...) Though I agree we had best not give undue weight to that one phantoms comments.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

James, if this report of editorial practice is accurate, these are essentially self-selected letters to he editors or web commentary to a blog. (there are quite a few instances where the same terminology is used but where the material is selected & to at least some degree the responsibility of the editor) Now there are some cases where exceptionally such material is usable, depending upon the authority of the person writing the material. The format of letters to the editor has been used by notable authorities in various fields, and so has that of blog postings. But these are the exceptions. If the person writing is an authority, I would say the material can be used for purposes of description of of scientific controversy within their field, as representing their own views. It cannot by our policies be used for BLP (a separate question from whether our policies are over-sensitive). This then brings up the question which has bedeviled these articles, of to what extent the criticism is of someone's science, as contrast to the person. Scientists who publishes expects to get comments, some of which they may not like; scientists in fields like these can expect to get comments they certainly will not like. Looking at this from outside, this subject in particular is affected by the very lack of distinction between people's science and their view of themselves--I cannot help thinking it inevitable that one will propound or adopt the theories that one thinks describe oneself--whether one's real life or one's fantasy. Thus, all criticism of a one's view of sexuality is seen as a direct threat to one's own sexuality--a matter about which people are rarely fully objective. I consequently think a rather broad interpretation of RS can be used, but that it should be used very cautiously. Proportional weight, careful description, and relatively concise treatment are necessary. This calls for special care in selection of quotes; in description of people's position's; in discussing the state of the field and the context. What one says in response to an attack is not necessarily one's considered view. The problem comes when either someone wishes to omit all mention of a POV, by removing whatever sources there may be on it, or alternatively wants to propagandize for it by treating it as expansively as possible, including every conceivable source. NPOV is at heart a matter of fairness and balance. Not Justice. Not Truth. DGG (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not quite sure why you directed that comment at me, but I agree with you insofar as you are saying that the commentaries should be treated as letters-to-the-editor (that is, as SPS's). They merit mention (careful mention) only with regard to describing the opinion of the writer and only if the writer is a bone fide expert on the topic. At least, that is what I am hearing in the first portion of what you wrote above. I am less clear on the rest of your comment, however; please let me know if I am not getting what you are saying.

— James Cantor (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous publications cause further difficulty. In some cases they are usable, if one can show they are accepted in some sense adequate to the matter at issue. I think the editorial inclusion of one here might indicate this--I doubt that Zucker would have published one otherwise, even if he did no other screening. I agree that this is a field where such publication is sometimes accepted as necessary. DGG (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Other than Jokestress, no one seems to be saying that the Wyndzen comments should be included. I am (personally) more interested in having input on how to handle the 22 other commentaries.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It is my impression that Wyndzen is a well known expert in this field, under her pseudonym. The only reason Cantor and his gang wants to exclude her is that she is so eloquent in her criticism of Dreger in her five-page commentary "A Social Psychology of a History of a Snippet in the Psychology of Transgenderism." And Dreger refers back to Wyndzen in her response to the commentaries, saying And in her unique commentary, Madeline Wyndzen hints at how the medical "treatment" of gay men has moved on to where the "treatment" of transgender people might some day go. She writes eloquently, "Whereas gay men are [now] diagnosed for how they suffer, transsexuals are [still] diagnosed for who they are." It would seem odd to exclude that unique one of the 23 commentaries just because she won't disclose her identity.

But as Jokestress points, out, Wyndzen is really just a distraction here from the main point, which is why I had not jumped in about her before. Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"It is my impression that Wyndzen is a well known expert in this field, under her pseudonym." This may be the case, in which case demonstrate the fact that Wyndzen has published work in reliable sources under that name, and that that is a consistent pen-name. That's not a problem if it's the case, since it establishes expertise. Paul B (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What I want, and what Dicklyon thinks I want are irrelevant. What matters is what best matches WP policies on what to do on controversial topics like this, when the WP editors working on it cannot agree...like this.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Well, as far as the 22 other commentaries...I think something on the order of 1 comment used would be better than something on the order of 10 comments used. I can't imagine that there is enough material there that we would have to cover ~10-20 comments but no otherwise reliable source covered the same topic. Protonk (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree; one wants to be able to cite a comment or two, especially when needed to balance something attributed to Dreger. Mostly, just want to acknowledge the existence of 14 articles (by some count) that blast Dreger for her so-called "history". Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether one commentary or all commentaries are cited or quoted doesn't matter. The amount of attention that needs to be paid to any opinion is according to how widely that opinion is expressed among RS's, not according to what "one wants." That's why we need an idea of whether all, some, or none of the commentaries are RS's, from WP's point of view.
— James Cantor (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Based on my understanding of WP:RS, they all are. Perhaps a list of the 80 pages of commentaries in the dispute would be useful, with Wikilinks to those with Wikipedia articles

• Jonathan M. Adler: Two Modes of Thought: The Narrative/Paradigmatic Disconnect in the Bailey Book Controversy. (pages 422-425)
• John Bancroft: Lust or Identity? (pages 426-428)
• Ben Barres: A Response to Dreger’s Defense of the Bailey Book. (page 429)
• Talia Mae Bettcher: Pretenders to the Throne. (pages 430-433)
• Ray Blanchard: Deconstructing the Feminine Essence Narrative. (pages 434-438)
• Antonia Caretto: Dreger’s Adventures. (pages 439-440)
• Nicholas L. Clarkson: Trans Victims, Trans Zealots: A Critique of Dreger’s History of the Bailey Controversy. (pages 441-443)
• Alice Dreger: Response to the Commentaries on Dreger (2008). (pages 503-510)
• John Gagnon: Is This a Work of Science?. (pages 444-447)
• Brian A. Gladue: Gender Identity Politics, Human Subjects Issues, and the "Law of Unintended Consequences". (pages 448-450)
• Richard Green: Lighten Up, Ladies. (pages 451-452)
• Riki Lane: Truth, Lies, and Trans Science. (pages 453-456)
• Anne A. Lawrence: Shame and Narcissistic Rage in Autogynephilic Transsexualism. (pages 457-461)
• Robin M. Mathy: "Cowboys, Sheepherders, and The Man Who Would Be Queen : "I Know" vs. First-Order Lived Experience. (pages 462-465)
• Deirdre McCloskey: Politics in Scholarly Drag: Dreger’s Assault on the Critics of Bailey. (pages 466-468)
• Marta Meana: The Drama of Sex, Identity, and the "Queen". (pages 469-471)
• Charles Moser: A Different Perspective. (pages 472-475)
• Margaret Nichols: Dreger on the Bailey Controversy: Lost in the Drama, Missing the Big Picture. (pages 476-480)
• Bruce Rind: The Bailey Affair: Political Correctness and Attacks on Sex Research. (pages 481-484)
• Seth Roberts: McCloskey and Me: A Back-and-Forth. (pages 485-488)
• Amir Rosenmann and Marilyn P. Safir: Sex, Sexuality, and Gender Dichotomized: Transgender Homosexuality in Israel. (pages 489-490)
• Julia Serano: A Matter of Perspective: A Transsexual Woman-Centric Critique of Dreger’s "Scholarly History" of the Bailey Controversy. (pages 491-494)
• Elroi J. Windsor: Accounting for Power and Academic Responsibility. (pages 495-497)
• Madeline H. Wyndzen: A Social Psychology of a History of a Snippet in the Psychology of Transgenderism. (pages 498-502)

The commentaries in total are approximately the length of the target article. As is customary, Dreger has a published response to the commentaries in the same issue. Everyone who contributed has a specific perspective on the matter based on related experience and/or expertise. As is clear from the titles, many are critical of Dreger's paper, which is why I believe they are being challenged as "unreliable." Jokestress (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Jokestress can say that all of these are RS's as many times as she likes, but the part that is missing (and why we need this at RS/N) is the WP policy that supports such a claim. The editor of the journal did not send these out for peer review, and many of these people have no relevant expertise in the topic. Having a PhD in Economics (for example) does not make one expert on transsexuality, regardeless of being transsexual. (Analogously, being pregnant does not make one an obstetrician.) When dealing with controversial issues, the bar goes up, not down.

Each and every one of the people above have had the opportunity (for five years, now) to express their views and submit them to any of many journals for peer review and publication in an RS. No such publication has emerged, however. If there were such publications, we would simply be using those as sources.

All of this has been expressed amongst the involved editors before. We need the input from uninvolved editors; not the re-enactments of prior disputes.

— James Cantor (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I propose the following compromise. Taking away all the other noise this is just a matter of comments that agree with dreger vs those that disagree. So we do this with the whole issue. We mention it's existence. Then we quote a few (3) good sentences from the comments against dreger. Then we quote a couple (2) good sentences from the comments for dreger one of which should/could be from dreger's response to the commentaries. This 3:2 ratio would convey that most of the comments on the article were negative, however discussing the article and giving a sentence or two of dreger's response to the commentaries would give weight to the whole "Dreger's article was peer reviewed thing". This recipe would IMHO lead to a short, sweet balanced paragraph about this issue of ASB that does not give undue weight to anyone.

As for supposed professor Wyndzen's professional standing I submit the results of googleing "Madeline H. Wyndzen". As Paul B. wrote if she has published peer reviewed articles on this topic under that pen name then she would meet WP's minimum definition of an authority. Failing that the phantom's comments should be excluded.

To Dr.Cantor's remarks that being a transsexual does not make one an expert on transsexuality I must begg to differ. We are that of which you speak sir. We know our minds and every thought therein. NO ONE can know better than us what goes on up here (point to head). Each and every known, non anonymous, transsexual on that list should be treated like the distinguished experts that they in deed are. His critics can say what they want about Bailey but at least he realize that getting to know at least some transsexuals was the best way to get a real feel for the rest of us.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC) (pun sort of intended.  :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

On the "automatic expert" thing, my position is that expertise cannot be granted by birth. If I were a woman, I would not automatically be an expert at Women's studies and be able to be cited as an authority on the subject. If I live in a city, I do not become an expert on that city. And so forth. The people on that list who are there because they are transexuals alone can't be used as sources. The rest can be used (IMO) as sources in line with WP:SPS and the previous discussion about pseudonymous authors. That means that the experts in the field who comment using their real names can be quoted and the opinion attributed to them. This isn't about Dreger vs. not dreger. This is about maintaining a neutral view of Dreger and criticism from reliable sources. If we have to include unreliable sources to "balance" the article, then we don't do that, because that should hint at the possibility that opinion outside wikipedia is not "balanced" on dreger. Protonk (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ProtonK. I would also add that every peer commentary was written by someone with a Ph.D. or working toward one in a related field of inquiry. These are all well-educated people making comments based on their formal training. That's why the publication of their views seems pretty reliable. This isn't a scientific paper they are discussing, either, so claiming only people in one discipline are "reliable" is yet another attempt to shut out these published points of view. Jokestress (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPS says that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." According to this, having a PhD is neither necessary, nor sufficient; WP puts the bar at the production of RS's on the topic, and few of the commentators have published relevant papers in RS's.

Protonk: To be sure I understand you properly, are you saying you believe that all the commentaries meet the above criterion and are therefore usable as sources, or that all the commentaries should be considered as SPS's and are therefore usable as sources only if they meet the above criterion? I don't mean to put words in her mouth, but I suspect Jokestress sees you as saying that all the commentaries are usable as sources. Is that the case?

— James Cantor (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Your second read is correct. The ones who fit the SPS exemption should be quoted and attributed to the source. The others should not. Protonk (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

But these are not "self-published." The peer commentaries were published by Springer Science+Business Media, one of the most notable publishers of academic journals. You can buy each commentary for $32 each on their site, same price as the target article. Jokestress (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, look at the pseudonymous authors discussion (linked above) for that. I think that commentary that doesn't go through the same review process as articles should be treated more like material in an op-ed than like reviewed articles published in the journal. I'm not saying these are the same things as "letters to the editor" or blog posts, but they can't be treated as reliable published sources. Protonk (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Setting aside the pseudonymous one, do you consider the other two dozen commentaries to be verifiable, as in anyone can confirm the published contents in an academic journal? If so, since we allow op-eds to be used as sources, do you consider the other two dozen commentaries to be reliable, in that we could quote from them? As an example, could we say "Sexologist John Gagnon wrote, "The publication of Dreger's article and these commentaries will provoke another spike in the notice given to the controversy," then cite Gagnon's peer commentary? This doesn't seem to be any sort of violation of WP:RS to me, whether it's from him or any of the other two dozen authors. Jokestress (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That is what I meant originally. Those peer commentaries can be used, so long as we identify the source and the person we are quoting is an expert in the field. What I meant when I mentioned pseudonyms was this post, but since you commented there (just noticed that), you probably remember the basic idea. As far as what one eitor said about about having to "balance" the article against dreger's view with these commentaries...that's fine, but User:James Cantor has a point that if the issues brought up in those commentaries were serious and important to the field, they would have been covered in some other place by now. That doesn't mean we remove criticism. It just means that the article shouldn't cite 12 commentary pieces to make sure that something out there outwieghs the dreger summary. Protonk (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I feel it will help readers contextualize Dreger to summarize the recurring themes that appear in the commentaries (pro and con). Jokestress (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There is more that one sense of the term "being an expert." There is "being an expert for WP purposes" and there is "being an expert in the more general sense of being in possession of uncommon information." For purposes of deciding what is and is not an RS, we are interested in the WP version of expert, and WP has no policy saying that members of a group (whatever group) gives any person any greater standing than otherwise. When writing an encyclopedia, being male does not give any special information on which gene on the Y-chromosome produces males development or what the probability is of developing testicular cancer. Being gay will never tell you what areas of the brain are involved.
Being an expert in the general sense is an interesting philosophical conversation, and I suspect that you and I would actually agree on most points if we discussed them in any length. But that would be appropriate only in another venue, such as my talk page.
— James Cantor (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion appears to have wound down now, so it might be worth summing up the general recommendations of the uninvolved editors. The strongest recommendation, of course, appears to be that Wyndzen is out. Regarding the remaining commentaries, no one expressed the views that all commentaries are in or that all commentaries are out. Rather, it seems that the opinion is a commenatary is in, subject to the restrictions of WP:SPS: A commentary written by an expert on the topic can be used as a source to show what that particular expert's opinions are, but not as a source for facts.

Does this appear to be the general conclusion? Is it better to allow for more conversation or to mark this conversation as complete?

— James Cantor (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

James, I think it is highly inappropriate for you to be writing the summary. We agreed to come here to see what others think. I'll wait and see if an uninvolved editor is willing to summarize the discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You'r right that it was inappropriate for James Cantor to sum up, but his summation seems to be a fair account of consensus. Wyndzen should not be used. Other contributors to the commentaries may be used if they are independently established as experts. Paul B (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see an uninvolved editor take a fresh look at it, instead of endorsing Cantor's summary. In particular, he ignore the question of the Dreger article itself, which is an opinion piece by a principle in the arguments, dressed up a peer-reviewed history. Already Cantor's buddy has interpreted this summary to imply that "The Dreger article can be used as a reliable source on par with any other peer reviewed journal article. All the commentaries have to be treated as self published and vetted on a case by case basis." I don't see any such consensus here. Also it's not clear what "independently established as experts" means here, since all of these were by people invited by the editor to comment, and all are very familiar with the issues; is there some other level of expertise that's needed to get their written opinions to be allowable? I don't think so. Dicklyon (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I was supposed to be giving input on the reliability of dreger. As for the "established as experts" bit, it is neatly defined at WP:SPS. If they wrote books on the subjects, are cited as sources on the subjects, or made some significant advance in the field, we can use them. It would be pretty shady, in this case, to use their comments there as a sign that we should accept their commentary as reliable. I think (although I would like more people to look at this, since it has not come up twice) that James is basically right: Wyndzen is out, some are reliable per SPS, some are not. Protonk (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that formerly uninvolved editors will not be keen to involve themselves too closely. This seems to be a subject replete with personal animosities and conspiracy theories. However, my understanding of the above discussion is that the Dreger article was not published as one of the "commentaries". It was a separate stand-alone article in a peer reviewed publication. It is therefore not subject to the strictures concerning the commentaries. On your other comments: you say "all of these were by people invited by the editor to comment". The discussion indicated that this is not the case. The editor invited any comments from anyone. My mother could have commented under these conditions. They were not personally invited. You say "all are very familiar with the issues; is there some other level of expertise that's needed to get their written opinions to be allowable? I don't think so." Well you think wrongly. We don't accept that people are experts on their own say-so. Expertise is established by their academic positions and publications. Paul B (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Dicklyon's comment above contains several errors:

• The question, as written above, pertained to the commentaries about the Dreger article, not the Dreger article itself. I would have no opposition to another RS/N question regarding the Dreger article itself.
• "Independently established as experts" refers to the criteria in WP:SPS. That has been said by several editors in this discussion.
• It is also untrue that "these were by people invited by the editor to comment." No one was invited; the open call was an open call. This also has been mentioned multiple times here.

Because the animosity here is clear, I must leave it to the uninvolved editors to opin whether Dicklyon's overlooking of multiple comments made by multiple editors stretches the boundaries of good faith.

Finally, I apologize if I was out of turn in writing a summary of the discussion up to that point. I am nonetheless gratified that my summary itself appears to others a fair recap.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Cantor and Protonk seem to have not re-read the original questions that Cantor helped formulate; among the options enumerated were "1. In this case include only the peer reviewed article itself. & 2. Treat everything in the journal on an equal footing and use anything published in a journal as a reliable source." What were these about if not the Dreger article? I don't mean to suggest that the right answer is among the simple ones enumerated, but the Dreger opinion piece was certainly at the center of it. To treat this opinion piece as Hfarmer inteprets, as "a reliable source on par with any other peer reviewed journal article" is a bit absurd. And to insert this whole diversion of "expert" as Cantor proposed also seems absurd; how can any of these published commentators not be considered an expert on the topics in their published commentaries? Who gets to decide? If, as Paul B suggests, some of them are NOT experts, can someone please propose who those might be? They all have some kind of relevant credentials, right? Dicklyon (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And back to the Wyndzen topic, the editor of the American Psychological Association's Division 44 newsletter invited Wyndzen to submit an expanded letter on the topic for publication ([59]). It's not a journal, but is clearly a relevant reliable source that supports her being a recognized expert. Furthermore, since Dreger's response specifically addresses the Wyndzen comments as "unique", that adds support to the reliability of that commentary as an expression of a person's genuine opinions. And to call it self-published remains absurd, in my opinion. These are all part of the same discussion, in a context controlled by Dreger's friends. It's lopsided enough that way without censoring parts of it for not being part of the academic sexology cabal. Dicklyon (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a member of that division and have previously published several items in their newsletter. Submissions to the newsletter are handled by email and without any verification of the identity of the author. All a person would have to do to remain anonymous is to have an email address, send in the comment, and for the editor to respond to the same email address asking for longer version of the same document. Nothing in that procedure requires the identification of the author nor establishes the newsletter as an RS. Dicklyon can push for the Wyndzen comment all he likes, of course, but (except for Jokestress) the opinion against it has been unanimous.
— James Cantor (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, the WP editors originally involved in this dispute do not shore the same understanding of what the uninvolved editors have recommended. So, I am pasting below the discussion/disagreement about the uninvolved editors recommendation from the talk page of the disputed article (The Man Who Would Be Queen). Any indication about whether the uninvolved editors' recommendations are being misinterpreted would be greatly appreciated.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Basically I understand this to mean Dr. Wyndzen as of now cannot be used as a source here. The Dreger article can be used as a reliable source on par with any other peer reviewed journal article. All the commentaries have to be treated as self published and vetted on a case by case basis.

I look forward to arguing over just what constitutes expertise in this matter. Why wait?--Hfarmer (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes one an expert on any of this.

Academic credentials? Direct knowledge? For example if we say that one must have an academic credential to be an expert on this...then someone who wrote a book on this but had no direct knowledge would be more of an expert than say...Anjelica Kieltyka, or perhaps Juanita/Maria.  :-? Which would be totally absurd. On the other hand much credit has to be given to someone with an academic degree for the expertise related to that degree. However in the words of Richard Feynman "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Therefore would say being a illustrious professor of English, Economics, and Microwave Cookery should not automatically make one an expert on this matter? :-/ How about if that professor is them self a transsexual? Should that have any bearing on the question of weather or not they are an expert. I think it does if the illustrious professor was here in Chicago and has some good first and second hand knowledge to draw on. Personally I don't think being a professor/PhD/MD/ grad student has any bearing on the matter at all unless you are a psychologist AND have shown familiarity with the situation. But that's just my opinion.

lol as you can see the "answer" we got from RS/N raises at least as many questions as their are peer commentaries lol :-) What say you all? --Hfarmer (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking atthis list Here are the commentaries I think we should stick with. They are people who for any number of reasons have undeinable expertise, Most need no explanation. Disagreed with Dreger, Bancroft, Barres, McCloskey, and Serano; Agreed with dreger, Richard Green and Anne Lawrence; Neutral Jonathan M. Alder A advanced graduate studet of psych at NU from 2003 until recently (perhaps a newly minted PhD by now?) he seems to have some good insights. I will also look at using some of these as matterials for other articles. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPS sets the standard for "expert" at having published on the topic in an RS. Neither being a psychologist nor being transsexual are, in themselves, sufficient. The commentators whom I know off-hand to have previously published on sexology in an RS are: John Bancroft, Ray Blanchard, Alice Dreger, John Gagnon, Brian A. Gladue, Richard Green, Anne A. Lawrence, Marta Meana, Charles Moser, Bruce Rind, and Marilyn P. Safir. All that would be necessary to add someone else would be to provide the RS that that person published. If "topic" were interpreted to mean "transsexuality" instead of "sexology," then the list of experts becomes shorter, of course.
Although a second uninvolved editor has now endorsed my summary at RS/N, I repeat my apology for speaking out of turn. In my readings of the rules, I have not seen such a policy. I would be grateful if someone would direct me to where that policy is, so I can avoid making similar faux pas in the future.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that, because a self-published source can be reliable for eyewitness statements, such as "I had sex with him" -- which must be represented as "Gennifer Flowers said that she had sex with Bill Clinton," and not as "Flowers really did have sex with Clinton." For the purposes of RS, a self-published statement from McCloskey has sufficient "expertise" to support an assertion of what McCloskey did or didn't do/think/say. McCloskey is not, however, an expert on the classification of transsexuality, the motivations of other actors, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Another problem is that critics see these "experts" as akin to the kinds of "experts" who came up with the moron/imbecile/idiot taxonomy for cognitive ability: as pseudoscientific quacks whose ideas will eventually be seen as akin to phrenology and drapetomania (see for instance, Gagnon's statements about these schemes for organizing transsexuals). If only trained phrenologists can comment on phrenology (as is the case being made here), the article produced would have a strong pro-phrenology bias and would exclude important criticism. To claim that only scientists can comment on science ignores the important contributions to our understanding of science, pseudoscience, and pathological science via other disciplines. Jokestress (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

---

WhatamIdoing: I agree with you entirely that McClosky is not an RS for matters of fact. I believe furthermore that the commentaries from the topic-experts are also out with regard to matters of fact. Regarding opinions, I believe (and I interpreted the uninvolved editors to believe) that: (1) the topic-experts' opinions could be included on the basis of their commentaries, so long as it was clear that the statements were indeed merely the opinions of those topic-experts, and (2) the non-experts' opinions could not be included in any case. That is, (in my opinion) it is not the place of an encyclopedia to record the opinion of every non-expert who expresses one in an SPS. (I appreciated that the commentaries are not literally self-published; rather, they are being treated as SPS's.) For example, an opinion about the current economic crisis in a letter-to-the-editor from a former Federal Bank executive would merit mention in WP, but the same opinion expressed in a letter to the same newspaper by average citizen X would not.

Jokestress: That you personally do not believe that (all) the commentators are experts is irrelevant to whether those people meet the WP definition of expert. Neither phrenology nor intellegence research became modernized because of pressure from non-experts. Both fields evolved because of the input of other experts who produced superior findings in well-regarded RS's. Should the experts who do see things your way produce analogously superior findings in the future, then they most certainly should win out in the long run. Thus far, however, they have produced no such thing.

Uninvolved editors: It is not my intent to put words in your mouths. If I have misinterpreted your intended meaning, I apologize, but please do let me know whether I am in error. — James Cantor (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Dido's Birth Certificate

Resolved

 – Much good advice received Labalius (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The subject of Dido's real name has been the source of a protracted edit war. Although there are reliable sources which state that she was born Florian Cloud de Bounevialle Armstrong, they are undermined by Dido herself stating that Dido is her real name. I have obtained a certified copy of her birth certificate from the General Register Office in London, which must be the final word on her birth name. However, it is not clear to me if I can cite it (am I conducting original research?) or how to cite it (i.e. which citation template should I use? What information should I include?). Is there a precedent that I can follow? Thank you, Labalius (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe something like that is considered "published", even as a primary source. There's definitely been discussions about documents obtained by, say, the Freedom of Information Act in the USA. If an organization that's considered reliable for obtaining government documents does the requesting and republishes it on its website, it's a published primary source. But an individal requesting a single record and getting a file back, no, that's not published. By the way, wouldnt something like this be covered many times over in People magazine? Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as i'm concerned, it no more OR than looking up a periodical or newspaper at the library. Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't this be classed as a legal document which are permissable as sources? if it's official document there's no question as to it's reliability. I think the wording of Wikipedia:No original research, where is refers to unpublished material is misleading what the policy is really there for is to stop people adding made up stuff or hearsay. Obviously this is very different to that. --neon white talk 14:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

However, I think the birth certificate bit is unnecessary: there are plenty of reliable sources - News and Books that support "Florian Cloud de Bounevialle Armstrong". These aren't "undermined" by Dido's own statements. From a biographer's point of view, a person's own statements (which may reflect a preferred spin on their biography) don't automatically trump reliable external views. WP:NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints be reported - i.e. her own reliably reported statements as well as reliable external sources - so it's not a case of opting for one or the other. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Whilst a certificate is an unpublished document, anybody can obtain a copy (at a cost) to check it, and it is indeed a legal document. The certificate has no bearing on her "real" name, because in the UK (despite what some government departments may tell you), you can legally adopt any name you choose as your real name without any formality whatsoever. If she says her real name is Dido, then that is her real name now. Her name at birth can be shown from the certificate, or indeed from the GRO index (Image:Dido birth index.jpg) The name Dido does not appear in her birth record Mayalld (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between conducting research (which is what I think has been done here), and introducing original research into an article. That said, I agree with Gordon and Mayalld... the better way to handle this is to mention what all the sources say (her birth certificate, other sources, and Dido herself) without passing judgement. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think people are misreading what she said anyway - she's not saying that Dido is her only name but that's it's not a made-up stage name. I think it's perfectly fine to use a birth certificate as a reference. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is evidence that she was usually known by that name by friends and family before her stage career then it is not wrong for her to say it is her "real" name. Surely clarification is the best solution if sources can be found to make the facts clear. Paul B (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

But what is "real"? The whole dispute is semantic. The argument is not about what sources say, but about differing subjective definitions of "real name". Better to just drop the issue of "what is real" and report the whole thing in terms of objective descriptions: what sources say about certified birth name and current chosen name. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of subjective definitions of 'real name' but of clarifying the facts - if they are known and can be sourced. If Dido means something specific when she says it's her real name then what matters is clarifying what she means, rather than philosophising the nature of reality. What you appear to be suggesting is exactly what I was suggesting: "report the whole thing in terms of objective descriptions". That is to say, clarify the facts with sources. Paul B (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Report what the sources say, including what she calls herself now. It isn't up to us to decide what is 'real' in this case. Doug Weller (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your valuable advice. I intend to write a section for the Dido article, including a fully-referenced discussion of her name. She certainly was known as Dido by her family during childhood, so "Dido" should not be presented as a stage name. I had no idea that I was allowed to upload a scan of the GRO index, which will be very helpful. I will consider whether the birth certificate itself needs to be referenced, but I am happy that I am not guilty of original research. Labalius (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify that scans of the index are covered by a copyright waiver. Scans of actual certificates would not be. Mayalld (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Bates method primary sources

I would like feedback on whether the two self-published sources deleted here are legitimate primary sources for a few fairly minor details of the views of Bates method proponents, in the Bates method article. It is being argued that the notability of these specific sources has not been established; however, there is at least evidence of the general notability of current Natural Vision Educators (see the two sources immediately preceding the second reference which was deleted.) PSWG1920 (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at the edit and the websites that were in them, and I agree with the deletion. That is, those sites do not appear to me to meet the criteria in WP:V and WP:RS. The authors of each of the two websites make explicit that they are expressing only their personal opinions and any formal expertise that those authors might have is not immediately apparent. As a side note, the now-deleted sources appear to me to be secondary not primary sources of Bates' method. A description of the Bates method should source Bates' original presentation of the method (the primary source) or an RS that summarizes or describes it (a secondary source).
— James Cantor (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources regarding works of fiction

A group of CfD deletions has started to revolve around the use of reliable sources about works of fiction. As part of one CfD, for example, this source, which describes the series as starring "Tony Shalhoub as an obsessive-compulsive cop named Adrian Monk" was used as part of an effort to justify including the character Adrian Monk in a now-deleted Category:Fictional obsessive-compulsives. The CfD in question boiled down to the question of the sources provided addressing the WP:OR issues raised by the nominator and other participants who advocated for deletion. After further discussion at this DRV, the issue seems to boil down to two reasons offered by Kbdank71, the closing administrator, for why the sources provided do not trump the claim of original research:

1) A review of a film or television program is by definition an "opinion piece" and can thus be excluded (this diff, and even more clearly at the following diff);

2) The ony reliable source about a fictional character is from its author or writer. ("The only persons who can accurately describe Monk as obsessive-compulsive are the writers of the show, and I haven't seen any sources pointing to them." this diff).

Can anyone here offer any guidance as to how these sources should have been treated in this case, and the general question of treating newspaper and magazine articles about works of fiction as reliable sources? (Note: I had originally posted this at WT:RS and received the suggestion to pass the request here). Alansohn (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Neither of those two claims is correct. "reviews" of films and books are not the same thing as opinion pieces, regardless of the fact that subjective claims are made in them. And the claim that "only the creators of a show" can be "reliable sources" is both a misunderstanding of what RS means and a common confusion about fiction. Take Deny All Knowledge, a collection of peer reviewed essays about the X Files. It would be beyond absurd to claim that book is not a reliable source, yet if I assume that only the creators of fiction can speak reliably about the work of fiction, I would have to. editors aren't allowed to infer that Monk is OCD. Secondary sources can obviously do so. This doesn't mean that the categorization is not subjective, however. Protonk (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, with Monk, OCD is the entire premise of the show, and it would be pretty ridiculous to say we'll never find a source that Monk is OCD when its probably in several issues of TV Guide. I looked at the CFD and some of the other characters were more of a judgement call, such as Niles Crane from Fraser. And probably the CFD had more to do with doubts of the importance of such a category. BTW, I agree that neither of the two assertions is true; opinion pieces can meet RS, and secondary sources can opine that Monk is OCD. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Game show citations

I've noticed that just about every game show article has a cite to at least one self-written fansite. See, for example, the links at the bottom of Three on a Match (game show). We have this and this as sources. Clearly, these are just personal websites, although the first one at least looks more reputable. Similarly, a while back I noticed that Legends of the Hidden Temple was using a Geocities page as a source, because a user claimed that such sites were pretty much the only sources available for the historical aspects of the show. Even longer-lasting shows like To Tell the Truth and High Rollers were using personal game show fansites as sources. In short, my question is: What do you do when the only sources that can give you such information are someone's personal website such as this? I don't think that there are that many "traditional" reliable sources, in print or otherwise, that pertain to the lesser-known game shows, so what should we do? Also, am I right in simply removing these (supposedly) unreliable sources from the articles entirely? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's something uncontroversial and it adds something to the article, i'd say keep the marginal cite -and- add a fact tag to encourage editors to find something better. The people running the enthusiast sites must have gotten the info from somewhere. Also if something is only being used as an external link at the bottom of a page, it doesn't have to meet the same standards as if it is being used as a reference for facts. I know WP:EL does discourage "fansites", but EL is only a guideline, and on the other hand it does encourage links to community-type sites such as other wikis, provided they have a history of stability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Anson Shupe and sources with known inaccuracies

Discussions relevant to this post can be found in various locations, but most recently on the BLP/N. User:Cirt is contending that Anson Shupe is not a reliable source for information on the Jason Scott case. The basis of this claim seems to be that one specific piece of information in a book of Shupe's, regarding the case, is inaccurate. It is unclear if Cirt thinks the particular book is an entirely unreliable source for anything or if s/he thinks Anson is an entirely unreliable source for any information on Rick Ross (consultant) or the Jason Scott case specifically. The relevant book is listed below:

Shupe, Anson D. (2006). Agents of Discord. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 0765803232. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

It has been suggested both on the BLP/N and on the various talk pages that Cirt has cross-posted his (un)reliability claim on [60], [61], [62] that he take the issue here. It has been my assertion that one inaccuracy does not make an otherwise reliable source unreliable, but clearly Cirt disagrees. A copy of Cirt's argument can be found here: Talk:Rick_Ross_(consultant)#Shupe_source_should_not_be_used. Any suggestions? I'm interested not only in this particular case but the precedent that following Cirt's logic would set more generally. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing Dispute by involved editors

If we went by this, then in this case we'd have practically no sources left to use. There were two trials, one of criminal charges, the other, a civil suit.

Now, for the criminal trial and the basic matters of fact of the case:

• This source says Scott was held in a rented "expensive beach house".
• This source says Scott was held "in an Ocean Shores motel room for several days against his will" and that "Mark Workman and Charles Simpson, pleaded guilty yesterday to lesser charges of coercion".
• This source says he was held in a Grays Harbor house and that two of the hired abductors, Mark Workman and Charles Simpson, were sentenced to 30 days in jail.
• This source quotes the prosecutor saying that "Mark Workman and Charles Rotroff pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of coercion". (The prosecutor did not know who the defendants were?)
• This source says "criminal charges were brought against Ross and the three men and that all four were acquitted in 1994."
• This source says "The prosecutor said Scott was driven to an Ocean Shores motel where the deprogramming attempt took place over several days", that three men including Ross were charged, and that the fourth was not charged. As the defendants in the criminal case, it names Ross, Mark Workman and Charles Simpson.
• This source says the fourth man, Rotroff, was not charged, as he turned state's evidence, it also quotes Scott's mother as saying, "I knew I had to take him to a real secure place ... I paid $1,200 a week for the beach house. It was beautiful. It was an elite beach house."

Moving now from the criminal to the civil case:

• This source says Scott was taken to a "beach house" and that in the civil case "a civil-court jury in Seattle found that Ross, his three accomplices and the Cult Awareness Network had violated Scott's civil rights."
• This source makes it clear that the fourth man, Rotroff, agreed to testify against the others in the civil suit and settled with Scott out of court.
• This source, the actual verdict form from the civil suit, makes it clear that Ross and two, not three, accomplices (Workman and Simpson) ended up being defendants in that case.
• This source, again an actual court record, says Rotroff settled before the trial, and that only the remaining defendants were found guilty by the jury.

That does not mean the "Phoenix New Times" and the "Seattle Times" are out as sources, because they got some facts wrong along the way. The proper method for dealing with such things is triangulation, and where a source is flatly contradicted by another,

• making a judgment call, if it is a clear error, or if the source is contradicted by a more authoritative source, such as the actual court record, or
• giving several sources' versions. Jayen466 00:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

As the editor mentioned repeatedly in this post by PelleSmith (talk · contribs), I wish that I would have been informed at my talk page about this. Anson Shupe has repeatedly consulted with Church of Scientology lead attorney Kendrick Moxon, and he was a paid consultant during the Jason Scott case. This financial conflict of interest source should be avoided.

Jayen466 (talk · contribs) used the Anson Shupe source to write that the criminal trial of Rick Ross (consultant) in the Jason Scott case resulted in a "hung jury" [63], [64]. This is a false statement. See this source (cited by Jayen466 himself for other info in the article and yet neglected in this instance) where it states: "On January 18, 1994, after just two hours of deliberations, a Greys Harbor jury acquitted Rick Ross of unlawful detainment."

The factual inaccuracy in the Anson Shupe source is much more significant - it is the main judgment in the criminal case involving Rick Ross (consultant), arguably one of the most important pieces of information in that entire section of the book - not simply a fact about whether someone was taken to a hotel or a beach-house. When this factual inaccuracy about such a crucial piece of information is taken into account - the most important piece of information in the case - coupled with the financial conflict of interest - we should really take care not to use this source, especially when we should have stricter standards about using sources in biographies of living persons. Cirt (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Regardless of the tone of the Shupe book, there seem to be plenty of definitely reliable sources that establish the following facts:

1. Ross was acquitted on the criminal charge of kidnapping.
2. This was on technical grounds, rather than because any doubt existed that he was involved in the incident
3. He lost the civil suit filed against him, and Jason Scott was awarded $2.5m damages against him
4. The Civil trail judge commented that Ross showed no remorse, or acknowledgement of the gravity of his actions

Is there any doubt about the factual accuracy of these statements? If not, is there any doubt about the relevance of these facts to the article in question? DaveApter (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

COI/N thread

See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Rick_Ross_.28consultant.29. Jayen466 16:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous letter posted on political blog

The issue has been discussed at:

• Talk:Anonymous_(group)/Archive_2#Sarah_Palin.27s_E_mail_account_in_Yahoo
• User_talk:Giggy/Archive/September_2008#using_malking_to_source_facts
• Talk:Sarah Palin email hack#Malkin blog

A major source for Sarah Palin email hack is an anonymous letter posted on the blog of Michele Malkin. "The story behind the Palin e-mail hacking". The letter, purportedly from a reader, explains some of the events that occurred on 4chan.org, apparently a locus of the hacking efforts. The letter cites an email posted under a pseudonym on that board, and makes various assertions about the intentions of people involved in the hacking. So far as I'm aware, everyone involved in the matter is still alive and at least one is named, so there is a WP:BLP component. Malkin is a political partisan with no known expertise in hacking, emails, or 4chan.org. I contend that this blog posting is not a suitable source for factual assertions about living people and related to an ongoing political campaign. Other editors say that the blog is reliable in this matter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's unreliable for any article, bio or not. WP:SPS is clear on the matter, blogs are only acceptable in very exceptional circumstances. The material should be removed without dsicussion per WP:BLP policy. --neon white talk 23:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, is Wired.com's ThreatLevel blog a reliable source for coverage of this event? I know it's called a "blog", but their writers are knowledgeable with respect to computer security events, perhaps moreso than other mainstream sources. Switzpaw (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• That, IMO is a blog run by a magazine, so is good to go per WP:SPS. Protonk (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There are numerous reliable source summarizing the subject. Also, AFAIK, 4chan wasn't really the 'locus' of the hacking. That kid just hacked her email because she picked a silly secret question and yahoo has terrible password security measures. 4chan got involved because he posted the login to /b/, an imageboard on the site. Malkin's blog is not a reliable source, and even if no BLP component existed I wouldn't see her as within the SPS exemptions. I think your contention is correct, in short. Protonk (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I used Malkin's blog to post a lengthy account of the facts at Anonymous (group) and defended it on the discussions linked above) The indictment[65] shows him confessing to all the events the jury has charged them with all the events, just like they are described on Malkin's post before anyone but the hacker himself could have knowledge of them (specially point 8 on page 2). The anonymous post that is described on Malkin's blog is most probably true, but there is no hard proof of that, so I understand if it has to be removed for BLP concerns. P.D.: duuuuuude, I think that his indictment is based on the post that is quoted at Malkin's blog. I think that the judge has actually based his indictment on Malkin's blog o_O --Enric Naval (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. The same thing was covered in thousands of newspapers all over the world. The original post (and not email) by Rubico is pretty much all over the internet, newspapers citing parts of it etc. One could easily replace the well known information from any number of sources, this is not a reliable sources issue, it's a needs work issue. I don't think anyone would object if people would improve the sourcing in any article you just have to put in the time to replace the cites for the uncontroversial information with different cites. Hobartimus (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and remove the Malkin source and mark the citations with {fact} tags. If this material is widely covered then we should be able to find replacement sources, such as the indictment Enric mentions. Whatever we can't verify should be removed promptly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Will's actions; I was never 100% happy with using this blog (see discussion on my talk page up that's linked above) and most of the content is available in other sources (many of which are used on Sarah Palin email hack and/or 4chan as is). Giggy (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Will's actions. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Various questionable sources in Thomas Muthee

Resolved

 – Editors have reached consensus on two, one was eliminated as redundant, and one was replaced by a reliable source. Jclemens (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like others' opinion about whether the following sources should be considered reliable for contentious BLP material in Thomas Muthee:

• Women's ENews. Per this, it seems to be a POV organization, rather than a reliable news source.
• The Huffington Post (need this be revisited?)
• Talk2Action.org. Per this it also appears to be a POV organization, rather than a reliable news source.
• Timesonline.typepad.com. I'm well aware that timesonline.co.uk is a reliable source, but is the so-named typepad site really associated with the established news organization?

Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• For context, the reason the article Thomas Muthee appears to have been created is due to a prayer he gave for Sarah Palin. And any controversy regarding Palin that has any validity is likely to have numerous reliable sources. For that matter, even some of the controversies regarding Palin that have no validity have numerous reliable sources. If something has to do with Palin and is controversial, but doesn't have reliable sources, we should leave it out. It's not like we have to search and scrounge to locate mentions of Palin. That said, the Huffington Post and Talk2Action are both collections of blogs which have definite points of view. If there is anything mentioned in them for which we can't find a more reliable source, we should leave it out. The Timesonline.typepad.com site, to my surprise, actually does appear to be affiliated with the Times of London. Following the links on this page on Timesonline.co.uk, one can see that the Times' blogs are hosted on Typepad. Therefore, we can consider those blogs comparable in reliability to those of other blogs hosted by major news organizations, although I don't know exactly what our guidelines for those are. I have no opinion on Women's ENews at this time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Womens ENews was founded by NOW, and is likely not to be non-partisan in its content. Collect (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the link to the Typepad site. I wish they'd all stick with a "blogs.newsorganization.com" or similar naming convention. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Assiduous research indicates that blogs and editorial opinions generally are not regarded as reliable sources in a BLP on WP, even from a news organization, as the news organization generally does not fact-check the posts or guarantee their accuracy. Collect (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In the article talk page, much was made of Women'sENews as a Pulitzer-prize winning organization. Turns out to be that they employ a prize winning cartoonist whose work on the site wasn't apparently part of that award. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Women's Enews is reliable for our purposes. The source isn't being used to source info about Muthee that is damaging but rather being used to source info about Mama Jane so there's no problem there. Since all the source is being used to get Jane's side of the story if anything there's a BLP problem in leaving this out. Timeonline is also fine. Huffington Post and Talk2Action are probably not. They are being used to source a minor paragraph that can be removed with no harm done. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually the quotes from WEN are definitely made with the aim of giving a specific image of Palin. Specifically "Sarah Palin's Kenyan pastor (emph. added) has made a name crusading against witches and particularly cherishes his victory over Mama Jane Njenga, whom he claims to have run out of his town. But Mama Jane is still there, in her own church just down the road" links Muthee to Palin as "(her) Kenyan pastor" which is not supported by any RS, and mitigates against using WEN as a RS.

(ec) Um, sorry, but it's asserting that a particular, named woman is "Mama Jane" as Muthee described. As I already pointed out here, we need a reliable source for that name, even though it's not critical of Muthee himself. Jclemens (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So that means some of the content should possibly be taken out. I'm not at all convinced that W Enews is not a reliable source in any event ([ http://www.womensenews.org/About_2.cfm#Us this] makes a pretty good argument for it being a reliable source). Moreover, the above isn't an argument to take out the quotes and responses by Mama Jane or the removal of Jane's last name. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss possible content mods on the article talk page, please. Jclemens (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

OK everyone else -- this is where the issue stands for now -- and so far no one else has actually weighed in after Metropolitan90. Will someone who has no biases in this please add your two cents? Collect (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Timesonline.typepad.com is simply a collection of stuff from other sources. I don't see how we can use it as a reliable source, although some of the links are from reliable sources and can be used directly. Doug Weller (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Anniston Star?

Is the Anniston Star (homepage), in its present form, a “reliable source”? (It was once a commercial newspaper, but has been transformed into a non-profit teaching paper.) —SlamDiego_←T 22:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• As far as I can find, the Anniston Star is still a mainstream newspaper run by professional editors and journalists. They haven't turned over the entire paper to students as the designation "teaching paper" might imply. See this article for more information about this. (If they had turned over the entire paper to students, that would place the reliability of the newspaper in doubt.) The nonprofit status of the newspaper should not make a difference. So as far as I can tell, the Anniston Star is still a reliable source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
• While there is no evidence of unreliability, it is circulated only in a small town Anniston, Alabama with a population of about 23,000. If it is used for information on Alabama, or the Southern United States, or, say, Obama's policies towards the American South, then I'd use it as a reliable source. But if you want to quote it for events going on in China, then I'd recommend you check out bigger sources (such as New York Times).Bless sins (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The story in this case may fall into the first category. And it certainly seems plausible, yet no other source has been produced, despite potential national repercussions. Some editors are trying to discern whether the story merits mention in “James Bonard Fowler”. —SlamDiego_←T 00:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

AbsolutePunk.net, melodic.net, Alternative Press, starpulse.com?

For "pop" music I thought a mention in at least Rolling Stone or NME would be needed to show notability, or ofcourse the music sections of newspapers of record. Are there new RSes these days, and do they include: absolutepunk.net, melodic.net, altpress.com, and starpulse.com? -- Jeandré, 2008-10-19t23:56z

As with *any* source that is cited it should ideally be from an article that is written by an independent third party who is not involved with the subject of the article in question. Most magazines and newspapers that have a "user submitted news", "current events", "introduce yourself", "readers choice" and "upcoming shows" section contains information taken from press releases that were submitted by someone close to that subject. The links you gave, at least the direct links about the band Houston Calls, are from press releases. In the examples you gave, if all you were using the sources for was to "verify" if an album was coming out, or recently released, they would be fine. As would an "official" website such as a label, band or publicists site. However that alone does not make the artist notable nor would it make the actual album notable. Wikipedia:Notability states: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.. For musicians the subject specific notability guidelines found at Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles are similar except it lists 12 criteria, any one of which would allow the musicians to have an article of their own. Number one says: It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries except for the following: Included on that sub list are two statements that relate directly to your question and the links you provided as examples:

1. Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble.
2. Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.

So while the publications themselves may be considered "reliable sources that are independent of the subject", the actual sections you provided examples of are not because they consist of "Media reprints of press releases", "advertising for the musician/ensemble" and "articles that simply report performance dates" Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

georgianbiography.com

Is "Directory of Georgian National Biography" a reliable source. The biographies don't look professionally written to me and often have typos however the website does have a well known scholar Dr. Ronald Grigor Suny on its "advisory board". I ask because one of the biographies on that site is being used in the WP:BLP of Aslan Abashidze. This biography. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's the list of the website staff. The Founder and editor-in-chief is Dr. Alexander Mikaberidze, Louisiana State University-Shreveport. He has published several scholarly works [66]. The advisory board includes Ronald Grigor Suny of University of Michigan and Stephen H. Rapp of Georgia State University, two leading Western scholars of the Caucasus. Even Britannica is not immune to typos. As for the user's doubts regarding "professionally written" articles, (s)he will have to be more specific. --Kober^Talk 16:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The ed. in chief is apparently a relatively junior figure, author of only two academic books [67] and a recent PhD-- but the publisher is a reputable specialized reference publisher, and this may well be as good as we are going to get in English. I caution very strongly though in general against even the most famous scholars on an advisory board as proving notability of the project, unless it can be shown they actually take a hand in the work. DGG (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

CAIR Watch

Some eyes would be appreciated on this entry in regards to the sources being used in it. This particular blog seems entirely non-notable to me, and an editor is adding several references to it from various unreliable and politically charged blogs in order to establish notability. These blogs inlcude Jihad Watch, Little Green Footballs, Muslims Against Sharia, and Militant Islam Monitor. One reference to the NYT is entirely deceptive as the NYT only mentions CAIR Watch in passing, while bringing up a fact about its founder. Are these sources reliable here? Any feedback would be appreciated.PelleSmith (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There's an AfD on it now. I agree, the NYT reference is very deceptive. So is the claim that they were responsible for Senator Boxer rescinding the award. Looks like a lot of little rightwing blogs just reinforcing each other. Doug Weller (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

For transparency's sake - I put it to AfD. I'm suggesting there that a couple of sentences could be merged into Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. CAIR Watch is really just another venue for content from a other conservative blogs that support each other and often use the same handful of bloggers to create their content. This is why I wonder how appropriate the sources are in the first place.PelleSmith (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Also seems like they have some 'extremist' views. --neon white talk 19:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Messybeast.com

Is this article on messybeast.com a reliable source for the second paragraph in this section of the Singapura cat article? It's self published but author is pretty knowledgeable on a broad range of cat topics(e.g. genetics). Minor mention in a couple of news article.[68] The author edits wikipedia ss User:Messybeast but has not edited the article in question. --Dodo bird (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this would fall under "self-published by recognized experts". Messybeast.com is a good resource on feline topics. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-published work on Salvific Law

An editor is continually placing this link http://www.scribd.com/doc/1780013/Salvific-Law-Salvific-Character-of-Law-An-Historical-Overview Catholic View of Salvation] into articles, eg our Salvation article. As it is, it's a word document self-published. It is the same document as the one in this article Salvific Law which is apparently his PhD thesis and published by his seminary if I understand the article correctly (the editor is pushing the PhD thesis, the author, the family, etc in fact). I don't think it is a RS, and I'm not even sure if the article Salvific Law is notable enough for Wikipedia but that is another issue. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 09:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

PhD theses are original research until/unless they are published in a journal. When the thesis is published in a journal, it is then the journal article that is cited, not the thesis. A disseration (aka thesis) is "published" in the sense that it is printed in a bound volume. However, this is no different than a vanity press as anyone can so publish. Wikiant (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, in related news, I've just AFD'd Salvific Law which is a horrible horrible article full of puff and nonsense. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Further - there seems to be a walled garden of stuff being generated here - Thomas Kuzhinapurath needs a hard look at it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And according to his article, he writes in "ordinary unstrandable language", which sounds like my kind of language. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources for pornography articles

I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#Reliable sources in an attempt to sort out sourcing issues with porn star articles. Any opinions on the reliability of the sources commonly used in these articles would be welcome. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

They are no different to any other articles. Verifiability is the same standard everywhere. --neon white talk 20:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

TokyoGraph.com

I was wondering if http://www.tokyograph.com/ could be considered a reliable source, primarily for its news reports about ratings, awards, etc. -Malkinann (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

A Japanese-language sources on List of best-selling music artists

Could any of these sources [69], [70], [71], [72] be considered reliable enough to be used as sources on the page of List of best-selling music artists for the artist Michiya Mihashi. And does the content of this article mention a sales figure stating over 100 million units? Because I wasn't quite able to translate it thoroughly. --Harout72 (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

www.jrt.co.jp is certainly reliable enough, but it refers to sales of 1000万. That would be 10 million, not 100 million. oricon.co.jp looks pretty good. http://www.minyo-shakuhachi.com is by a fellow artist, discussing a joint CD, so it can't be treated as independent.—Kww(talk) 02:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Hyperwar Reliable?

I'd like to know if Hyperwar, [73] is a Reliable Source, as it has been offered as a source for a military history article I intend to take to FAC. Many thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

New proposal on old sources

There have been a number of discussions on this noticeboard on the reliability of old sources (most recently concerning the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia). I've proposed an addition to Wikipedia:Verifiability that would address the problem of how and when to use old sources. Please see Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Dealing with potentially outdated sources - any comments would be welcome. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

A Japanese-language sources on List of best-selling music artists

I am trying to find out if the following sources provided for the page List of best-selling music artists are reliable and if they are, do the content of the sources mention a selas-figure of 50 million or above. Here they are: artist-1 Dreams Come True and the sources for this Japanese artist are: [74], [75]. Artist-2 Kazuhiro Moriuchi and the source for this Japanese artist is: [76]. Artist-3 Mr.Children and the source is:[77].--Harout72 (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

article on kali, and possible copyright infringement / copy paste evident

Kali#Origin -- please see the "origin" section for the kali article, I am uncertain how to sort this whole mess out. --Kuzetsa (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the New York Times Reliable?

DCEETA [78] "The US government position on the nature and classification of the site may have some merit, however the use of the source to articulate speculation was fairly explicit original research. The NYTs opinion on what the russians may or may not know is merely their opinion, using it to bolster the OR in the rest of the section is specious, to say the least. " so says user:ALR-------Dogue (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this an editorial being used to state fact? In any newspaper that's not an ideal source. Actually, it's not clear from your diff what the NYT is being used for. Can you be more specific? --Moni3 (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The question seems to be about this edit. The NYT was cited for part of it; the same article is cited for other stuff. It looks fine to me, but was taken out by User:ALR in this edit; not clear why it's taken out; seems more like an ordinary content dispute than an RS issue. Dicklyon (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The section was previously removed here, essentially the section was an aimless collection of stuff with no clear purpose other than yet another iteration that the site exists. The issue is not the reliability of the source, but the use to which it was being put. My concern is more to do with the use that a redacted FOI release is being misused quite significantly and that the NYT article is being associated with that misuse in an attempt to justify volume of content rather than contribution.

This is not an RS issue, although it's worth noting that Dogue is wandering about the governance boards trying to find someone prepared to sanction me in some way. yawn

ALR (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesnt sound like there is any valid reason to remove it on the grounds of it not being reliable. --neon white talk 21:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove it on the basis of it not being reliable. Is that not clear from my comment above?ALR (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

sorry to entangle y'all in an edit war, however, i was confused when ALR said the NYTimes was 'speculating' and deleted a quotation, even after i quoted WP:V in the talk. i'm looking for validation of that. oh and this is a feature article, dealing with classified information, not an editorialDogue (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Plaques at historical sights

I am using a plaque that I have taken a photo of and uploaded to the commons as a source for an article. I have submitted this article for GA review and the reviewer says such a source is unreliable. I disagree, why is a plaque less reliable than any other published source, especially since it is at the site itself. The plaque is not making an outstanding claims, rather it is simply describing the construction date of the hall and its contents. What is everyone else's opinion? Zeus1234 (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• The Shanxi Colourful group donated the money to get the plaques put up. They are not a charitable organization, therefore we don't know who is responsible for the information. Zeus1234 (talk) 06:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see why the GA review questioned it. The issue comes down to whether there is fact checking and editorial oversite for the source... The plaque states that it is presented by the "Sha'anxi Colorful Group". So, do we know anything about this group? Is it a historical society who are likely to get the facts right, or is it a tourist board who is likely to be less reliable. Do we know what sort of research they conducted before creating the plaque? Blueboar (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly a notable or primary source, so saying "according to a plaque at the temple, ...." would certainly be OK. If something on the plaque is disputed by RS's, one should either not mention the contentious fact or include and cite the opposing view.John Z (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see this challenged. The information is "published", it's "checked" (world experts and numbers of English-speaking visitors see it and we can presume they don't object) and most of it is in no way "surprising". The only part that could be debatable is "best artistic work of Ming Dynasty", but we needn't suppose our readers were born yesterday. Is there a danger of the standards of the project slipping? No, not that I can see. Is there a danger of people offering faked holiday photographs? Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. PR^talk 16:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As a GA reviewer I questioned it because i am not sure about "Sha'anxi Colorful Group". The reliability of the plaque depends on the reliability of Sha'anxi Colorful Group. I searched for the group on the net, but did not find any reference to it's nature. Answer to the simple question: What is "Sha'anxi Colorful Group" ?, determines the reliability of the plaque. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

They appear to run some sort of business, but I am not quite sure what. They are not a historical group. I suspect that they donate money to charitable causes. Their webpage says that they have donated money to the Sichuan Earthquake. Here is the link (only in Chinese) to the Colorful Group. It may say 'Wonderful Enterprises Group' on the webpage, but has been translated differently on the plaque.Zeus1234 (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The link is translated by Google translate reads:

Can not find the page You are the search page may have been deleted, renamed or is temporarily unavailable.

Please try the following:

* Ensure that the browser's address bar of the Web site address and format of the spelling is correct. * If you arrive by clicking on the link and the page, please contact the site administrator, informing them of the link format is incorrect. * Click the Back button to try another link.

HTTP Error 404 - file or directory not found. Internet Information Services (IIS)

Information technology (for the provision of technical support staff)

* Go to Microsoft Product Support Services and search, including "HTTP" and "404" title. * Open the "IIS Help" (in IIS Manager (inetmgr) access), and then search for the title of the "Web site set up," "conventional management" and "on the custom error message". Chinese

Need a better link.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It works fine for me, but is a bit slow. Perhaps that is because I am in China. Interesting. They appear to sell clothes. Zeus1234 (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a translation. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The name of the group in Chinese (which you can confirm by looking at the large picture of the hall on the commons to see the Chinese plaque) is 陕西多彩集团 which literally translates to 'Shaanxi colorful group'. The web address literally means 'Shaanxi Colorful'. Zeus1234 (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Labor theory of value

Could people here please look at Labor theory of value, and in particular at its external links section? Robert Vienneau's LTV FAQ and so forth seem like "some guys with websites" to me. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! _{hold seance} at 09:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the "guys with a website" keeps restoring the links when they are removed.[79][80] After the second time, he gave an argument on the talk page, mostly that he thinks that the websites are good work and the article lacks things that they have. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! _{hold seance} at 08:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

FactCheck.org

I'm GA-reviewing Flip-flop (politics) and am not sure whether FactCheck.org's Bush Ad Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq is a WP:RS. Can anyone help? -- Philcha (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Factcheck.org is an Annenberg project at the University of Pennsylvania. It is kinda sorta like any student publication in some ways, but is generally accepted as pretty much unbiassed. It can overreach at times as its main purpose appears to be exposing misstatements, so it may try to find them. I would not use it as a source on Bush; misquoting Kerry, but it might be a source on Kerry's words, in other words. Collect (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Wolfberry

I'm having a dispute over a source used in the articles Wolfberry and Boxthorn. The book is published by BookSurge, a self-publishing house. It is used to source a section on the nutrient content of the berry, and is also but in the general bibliography. This book fails WP:V in my opinion, but not in the opinion of two other editors (one editor of the article, and one who arrived through a requested third opinion). However, I see nothing in their answers that indicates that this book is indeed a reliable source, only philosphical replies and unsourced statements. The book is not reviewed anywhere, not used as a source in any other reliable book or paper. The author is recognised as an expert on strokes and brain capillaries, not on the nutritional content of berries. Could people here either clearly explain to me why this book is a reliable source anyway, or head over to Talk:Wolfberry and explain things better than I am obvisouly able to do?

Gross, Paul M.; Xiaoping Zhang; and Richard Zhang (2006). Wolfberry: Nature's Bounty of Nutrition & Health. Charleston, South Carolina, United States: BookSurge Publishing. ISBN 1419620487. ISBN 9781419620485. Google Scholar[81], Google Books[82], Google[83]

Thanks. Fram (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Not resolved yet. Editor now claims that using the above book in the article Wolfberry means that it fulfills the letter of WP:SELFPUB, whereas I understand SELPUB to mean that the book can be used in articles about the author or about the book itself, but not (under this rule) about the subject of the book.[84] Could someone not involved yet please either give me agood troutslap for not understanding something like WP:SELFPUB, or head over to the talk page of Wolfberry and explain with more patience than I have what the problems are and how the editor misinterprets our verifiability policy? Thanks... Fram (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-published website claiming that soccer players are gypsies

In the article Romani people national football team, this webiste is used as a reference. The website claims that several living persons (soccer players) are gypsies. Is this source sufficient for Wikipedia to make such a claim, or does the source fail Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources? --Kjetil r (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The answer is no - BLP claims and Self-pulished = NOPE. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

BrainyQuote / BrainyQuote.com as source

A number of biography pages have as a source and/or external link the (commercial) site BrainyQuote.com. The links generally take you to a page of quotes attributed to the person whose page had the link, but no citation information is given for the quotes. Is this a reliable source? Should it be present on all of the 200+ pages which currently link to it from special:search? (an example of it used as a reference: John Sexton (photographer))

Dialectric (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Hi. I'm doing a GA review of Akshardham (Delhi), and a lot of the sources used are from travel agencies (like [85], [86], and [87], among others). Are these reliable? Thanks. Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have some concerns about them. One, there is no cost to the travel agency if they are inaccurate on details. Two, the travel agency has a financial interest in marketing the site as a travel destination, and is therefore likely to exaggerate its importance. Some travel agencies will also happily advance fringe theories about the site they are selling. Three, they probably got the information from somewhere else, but have not provided references to the source of that information. It is possible they got that information from Wikipedia, making it a circular reference. Wronkiew (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of the source in question

I am trying to clean up the page of List of best-selling music artists by tossing away the artists with unreliable sources. The artists on this page directly depend on sources which prove they've sold as many records the brackets indicate which the artists are place in. My question is about this source which claims that Oasis have sold more than 50 million records. Could we treat this source as reliable.--Harout72 (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to thank you for trying to clean up that list, because many of the sources it uses appear to be of dubious reliability (a-ha sold more than Duran Duran? The Village People have outsold Bruce Springsteen?). In the case of this particular article about Oasis, I don't see anything there indicating who wrote the article or according to whom Oasis sold more than 50 million records. So I would tend to consider this source insufficiently reliable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Review sites

Are review sites reliable sources for Wikipedia? I had always wondered about that... Like Amazon and all the other ones. I figured no because they just publish others opinions and summary, but can anyone give me a definite answer? Lady★Galaxy 22:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Not all of them do that. None of the links that I posted did that. Schuym1 (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You said you weren't going to argue with me anymore. I want a definite answer, I don't want the guy from the AfD telling me if it is reliable or not. I want an answer from someone else. Lady★Galaxy 22:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• that's a pretty broad question. Amazon isn't a "review site" per se. They include snippets of published and solicited (publisher) reviews with products, but they don't produce any content. Did you mean to ask if something like the Amazon review summary can be considered a reliable source? Protonk (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's more of what I meant. Thanks for answering so quickly and helping me clear up my question. Lady★Galaxy 22:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. You can read here for an archived discussion of the same thing. Basic idea is, Amazon takes snippets of reviews from reliable, independent sources (like newspapers) as well as from non-indendent sources (like the book publisher). Someone (probably the agent for the author) selects excerpts to show on the page. It's generally a bad idea to quote excerpts without knowing what the full text says, because the sentence could be taken out of context. However in some cases (like you just want to show that X newspaper reviewed Y book), you can probably use the excerpt to find the original news item. Long and short of it is: those reviews are only as reliable as their original publisher. Also, this doesn't apply to user reviews, which are not considered reliable sources per WP:SPS. Does that answer your question? Protonk (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Lady★Galaxy 23:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Masigasig a reliable source for notability determination?

There is disagreement in an AfD discussion about whether the small business magazine Masigasig is a reliable source. In the case that we are looking at, it contains an in-depth article (pages 9–10) about a company, written by an freelance writer. It does not appear to be a reprint of a press release, although it does rely heavily on quotes from an employee. Any advice? Wronkiew (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

PressTV.Com aka PressTv.Ir

A news story from this publication is being used in biography of Gilad Atzmon. Two questions:

• Is this a reliable source in general? It looks ok to me, but I have a feeling if they were saying bad things about Israel people would be yelling that they were not reliable :-)
• The other question is, for BLP, is this sort of thing allowable from any source? A woman is going to prison in part because: Stolz has reportedly read a newspaper article to the court about the appearance of world renowned Israeli artist, Gilad Atzmon in Bochum. In a public statement, Atzmon is quoted as having said that the written history of the Second World War and the Holocaust are a "complete forgery, initiated by Americans and Zionists". I guess if it's a reliable source this questionable statement is allowable, but it seems pretty tenuous. Carol Moore 17:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Carol, could you rephrase your second question? It's not easy to see what you mean by "this sort of thing". Itsmejudith (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Weatherman (organization)

In this article, there has been a challenge as to whether testimony from a certain FBI informant is a reliable source. The informant, Larry Grathwohl, testified before the U.S. Senate in 1974, wrote a book in 1976, and appeared in a television documentary in 1982. I know of no one who has challenged his credibility. This seems like a slam dunk to me, but I would like to have additional opinions on the matter, as the facts have been clouded by politics. Informal mediation has gotten us no where in resolving the dispute. Thank you in advance for your help. Freedom Fan (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that he was a paid informant, his testimony involved his impressions rather than cold hard facts. Furthermore, his testimony did not result in any indictments or convictions for the incidents you are trying to document in the article; therefore, they are not germane to the article in any case. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Testifying before the senate, writing a book or appearing on TV may well contribute to making the person notable. They do not, however, establish reliability. Has this book been reviewed? Is it generally considered to be reliable? Is it referenced in the academic literature? Unless there is serious support for his reliability, I would at best use him as an attributed source ("according to Larry Grathwoh's testimony..."). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well SCJessey is one of the editors challenging this source, whereas I am hoping for more outside opinions on the subject, such as that provided by Stephan Schulz. I am not aware that anyone has had a reason to challenge this FBI informant's credibility, nor have they done so; the Senate thought enough of the source to call him as a witness in their investigation. And yes, the source indeed was attributed to Larry Grathwohl as you recommend. So this sounds like a keeper to me. Freedom Fan (talk) 04:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• What statement are you sourcing to him, precisely? Or is this more of a "is he a reliable source on the subject in general?" kind of question? Protonk (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This exact material has been the subject of an RfC, several AN/I reports, edit warring, and several blocks. There is no consensus for it, and it is not only an WP:RS and WP:NPOV problem but a WP:BLP violation. It has been brought up on a number of notice boards, so this is a repeat proposal ad nauseam. The specific edit is here.[88] There are many things objectionable about it, but at the core, the material repeats accusations made in various places by Larry Grathwohl, an FBI informant, that Bernadine Dohrm murdered a San Francisco police officer as part of a Weatherman operation in 1970. However, she was never arrested, charged, or tried, nor despite widespread suspicion and two investigations was her organization ever determined to have been involved. The sourcing problem is multi-tiered. Grathwohl's accusation is sourced to an autobiographical book he wrote (reliable that he made the accusation, unreliable as to the truth of the allegation), Congressional testimony (same), accounts from unnamed sources of what he told the police during a 1970 investigation (unreliable as to either), and an election year anti-Obama partisan attack book (unreliable as to either). The accusations themselves are not reliable as to the fact that Dohrn actually committed the murder because they are first-person accounts by an involved party - and FBI informants against radical organizations in that area are notoriously untruthful. Further, the accusations he makes are themselves based on unreliable sources. He does not claim to have actually witnessed or been close to the murder. He infers that she did it based on things he says other people in the organization said, and there are lots of holes in that. The editors on the page have decided that is not strong enough to include at all based on RS, and that is their prerogative. The BLP issue is much more serious and has a higher bar. Even if we can satisfy ourselves that we have reliable sources to say Grathwohl made the accusations and that they are notable to the organization, BLP would say we should not repeat them. Getting real for a minute, this is an unproven, untried murder accusation against a living person.Wikidemon (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question. When I started I was attempting inclusion of material from a 1982 national broadcast documentary in the television series No Place To Hide. Now after reviewing the history of this article, it appears that certain users have sanitized away all mention of testimony by this individual, apparently because he was 'paid' by the FBI to infiltrate the organization and testify before the Senate. That sounds like a mighty flimsy objection and is not consistent with any Wikipedia policy I know. So let's start with examining the documentary as a reliable source. Here's the transcript Here's the video. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Let's unpack this a little. First the paid testimony point. The objection being raised about testimony of paid informants is that they have--while undercover--a financial incentive to produce damning or inflammatory material and that incentive exists somewhat even after cover is broken. We would hardly expect his testimony before the senate to diverge significantly from what he told the FBI, even if it wasn't true. However, I'm prepared to say that the "paid" portion of it is a nuance that shouldn't be a complete roadblock. More important to me is that the senate testimony at least be weighed carefully. Remarks made before the senate in prepared testimony should (IMO) be attributed to the speaker specifically, not used for the presentation of "fact". Arguably, the same should be said for the PBS interview. The problem is if we treat his statements as facts in the article we make several assumptions: that he was right, that he was not lying, that the threats he describes were credible (And not on the same order as the Merry Pranksters' goal of realigning the entire world with LSD), among other things. If we treat the statements as "an FBI informant told the Senate, "blah"", we escape that whole business. More to the point we allow the article to be neutral in between the push-pull over the "weatherman" business. That's my recommendation. Protonk (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

While that is all true, it does not allow the proposed inclusion (backed by this dubious source) to escape the more stringent rules that form Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. In this case, we are talking about the informant's autobiography being used as a source for the suggestion that someone may have done something, despite the fact that the informant's testimony did not lead to any indictments or convictions. In otherwords, the source might be considered reliable for citing what the man said, but emphatically not reliable as a reference for unproven allegations towards a living person. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable for one thing but not reliable for another

I have a question. Can certain sources that are considered reliable for one topic not be considered reliable for other topics. For instance, during the 2008 South Ossetian War, places such as CNN and NYT were going to say how Russia is returning as a superpower. But these are journalists, who have no formal education in the field of International relations. But then you look at the people who have an education and degree in International Relations, like Fareed Zakaria [89], Richard Haass [90] are just some examples, and both are well known in the field of International relations. So in this case, would the people who are considered experts in the field of International relations be considered reliable sources of what's considered a superpower over journalists, unless there was a specific article written by an expert in International Relations like this one [91], which is written by Parag Khanna, another expert in the field of International Relations? If the word of experts is to be considered over journalists, would this fall under the same for scientists like those with a degree in Physics saying what something like it the world won't get destroyed if they did a experiment, over journalists who would be saying that the world will get destroyed. Would we take the word of experts over the journalists instead? Thanks.Deavenger (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• This is just my opinion, but your question is not one that this noticeboard is likely to answer. The easy answer is that good, responsible journalism seeks to present the reader with a distillation of facts on the ground and opinion of experts on a subject and as such their reporting of those facts should be reliable in all cases. However, that doesn't describe the real world, where the set of experts that can be consulted is heterogeneous--NYT may consult an expert who feels one way while the community feels another way--and what a "fact" is isn't clear cut and predetermined. Even beyond those issues, the act of distillation produces some simplification that is benign in some cases (Where the simplification doesn't substantially alter the meaning of the idea) and problematic in others. The problem swings the other way as well. There is a power struggle in many of these fields--experts are gateways to knowledge in a complex world and that represents an asymmetric power relationship. when journalists get in the mix and present issues to people without using the gatekeepers, people get upset. you can see this in the constant complaining about court reporters by lawyers and judges. Reporters screw up legal issues like it is their job, yet reporting on the law is fundamental to the proper working of the judiciary. This includes distillation of issues, watchdog work and simple reporting on events.
• For an encyclopedia, we need to exercise judgment rather than expect some bright line rule. In the Georgia issue, reporters say that Russia has become a regional power again and reached for the closest historical narrative at hand: the cold war. The statement about being a resurgent superpower was practically inevitable at that point. My guess would be that we should include the statement and then immediately counter it with the cold shower of some IR expert who would suggest that a government sitting on (at the time) high commodity prices that kicks around a local rival using what is left of one of the biggest armies in the world might not be more than a regional power. This doesn't mean that we say one is "reliable" and the other is not. This just means that we tease out our expectation of reliability (which demands only a reputation for fact checking, editorial control and responsibility for content) from a demand that the source always be "right". There is no dictum that we can write which will allow us to build a functioning encyclopedia reflecting mainstream views while effectively qualifying and disqualifying sources for specific issues.
• That probably doesn't really answer your question but I hope it illustrates my point (that we aren't likely to answer it) well enough. Protonk (talk) 07:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Going back a step, CNN and NYT are excellent sources for news. NYT is also very well known for opinions. Their op-ed pieces are signed and you can check out the credentials of the authors. They are not necessarily just journalists: some will have an academic background. For the best evaluative judgements, academic sources are best. Whether Russia is returning as a "superpower" or not is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact, and we should report it as such. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

IO9?

Hello, I'd like to hear some thoughts on http://io9.com/ as a RS for a game review. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes. i09 is owned and published by Gawker Media, employs professional staff, and has editorial oversight from luminaries such as Annalee Newitz and Charlie Jane Anders. Their stature is indicated by the fact that they have original interviews with e.g. Neal Stephenson, William Gibson and Richard K. Morgan. Their reviews also tend to be comprehensive, detailed and well-researched. the skomorokh 12:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that they have the same problem as Kotaku, which was discussed here earlier. It's a group blog and being owned by a company doesn't give it a reputation for fact checking and overwisght. Protonk (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Found that discussion. [92]. This has got the standard Gawker ToS. Do we take Gawker as a RS? Hobit (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha, looks like I was originally closer to your point than crossmr.  :) Given that it was me jawing about it last time I guess I'll wait for someone else to give some input here. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

archived 20-year-old "online tecnical forums" vs. online forums vs. blogs

In a recent AfD discussion, when I pointed out that an "online technical forum" is not the same as a blog, another editor immediately linked "online technical forum" to "online forum" and said it "absolutely is in the same - unacceptable - category as a blog. This is policy", and then he pointed me (paradoxically) directly to Verifiabilty SPS, where it specifically says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." In this particular instance the tech forum being quoted was over 20 years old and one that took place between established and published experts in the field being discussed. So I wish clarification on this issue. Are 20-year-old technical forums between field experts, ALL "blogs" as this other editor asserts, or do they sometimes fall within the "some circumstances" caveat of Verifiabilty SPS Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As the "other editor", I think it's important to point out that nowhere was the technical credibility or objectivity of the posters to the online forum being discussed established. It might as well be a chat room. As far as Technical online forums vs non-technical, it doesn't matter if they're discussing Paris Hilton or Illudium Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulators - an open forum is an open forum. As far as age of the posts, I see no rationale that age should be considered in their reliability. Toddst1 (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• What, exactly, distinguishes an "online technical forum" from a usenet post or BBS? How do we ascertain the expertise of those who contributed to those forums? Why are they not considered self published sources? If they are, why is the caveat at WP:SPS not helpful? It seems to me that if the particpants were experts in the field, their commentary could be used. Protonk (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)