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.

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.

CAMERA - WP:RS?

Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America

Apologies in advance - I've dug around in my inept manner and can't find any concrete decision or guidelines where partisan sources such as CAMERA are used.

It seems to be a never-ending fight, which I am sure others must be familiar with.

Please please please can I get some guidance? Having to rip apart every daft article of theirs is getting tedious. I've had more trouble tearing apart National Enquirer... I'm almost tempted to pull up some of their articles and complain that it should be accepted as a reliable source.

Help? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they're unreliable based on thier wikihitstory, but please provide links and specify articles. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Involved editor - the first RSN on CAMERA was swamped by involved editors (and I regret to say that I then joined in). However, the result (from the uninvolved editors) was clear and summed up in my words: "the community, as discovered from this noticeboard, finds that CAMERA is a source that should only be used with great care".

There was a second such RSN cut short when some objected to it being characterised as a hate source. But the conclusion from amongst the uninvolved editors was the same.

The wikihistory of CAMERA is that one of their staff (the director?) sought editors who would subvert the processes of the project, and found an enthusiastic ally in an active editor, who proceeded to plot to create faux administrators. On that occasion they were detected very early on and this one editor was indef-blocked. Please note, there have been persistent efforts to claim that this affair concerned a tiff between CAMERA and Electronic Intifada (eg here), this was not the case. I regret to say that this account I'm using has a history of wiki-stalking, so if a large number of other involved editors arrive, it may be considered important that they identify themselves as such. PR^talk 09:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah. Use with care. My advice would be use it minimally. It is an advocacy organization which has a history of interfering with Wikipedia. It isn't outside the realm of possibility to envision them releasing materials with the express purpose of impacting debate here. That notwithstanding, we can treat them like we treat any other advocacy source--with grave caution. Where those sources have a history of fact checking and responsibility (e.g. Brennan Center for Justice, Southern Poverty Law Center or the Center for Public Integrity), we can feel comfortable summarizing published material that they create in articles which relate to their areas of expertise. Where those sources do not, we should use them exceedingly rarely. Protonk (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Such sources can definitely be used for statements of opinion, attributed to the source... for statements of fact, reliability often depends on exactly what is being said in the article. If there is doubt, it is probably better to find another source. Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

@Protonk -- a question. Does CAMERA have a history of fact checking? Not clear what "responsibility" means in this context. Appreciate an expansion of your comment. Thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki campaign or no really has no bearing on CAMERA's reliability or lack of. Even bias does not necessarily speak to reliability. In fact, I can't find anything in RS that would count CAMERA or other advocacy groups out. If the particular item being referred to is challenged, CAMERA should not be the sole source. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA breaches the same policies as does David Irving, hate-speech and falsification of sources. It's partisanship is so extreme, and its concerns so trivial that the assistant editor of a major Israeli newspaper said of them (copying in CAMERA's Israel Director Tamar Sternthal!) "In the event that this [CAMERA complaint] gets to you: We have a quasi 'policy,' on the orders of [editor-in-chief] David [Landau], to ignore this organization and all of its complaints, including not responding to telephone messages and screening calls from Tamar Sternhal [sic], director of CAMERA. Otherwise, we will never finish with them." PR^talk 10:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

David Irving is the notorious English Holocaust denier and pseudo-historian who was exposed as a fraud and a racist in a court of law. He associates with neo-Nazis and served a prison sentence in Austria. Not a single reasonable person takes Irving seriously as an academic, historian, or even as a responsible human being. Comparing pro-Israel advocacy groups to this racist is embarrassingly falsifiable at best and offensive and disgusting at worst. Being a professional, habitual racist is worse than being a professional researcher. PalestineRemembered has been asked multiple times to stop using this false analogy and ad hominem. [1] I ask him once more that he stop this foolishness that hasn't helped his cause even once and will never help his cause. --GHcool (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a bit of a Godwin's, innit. B'er Rabbit (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It is rare that comparing one's ideological opponents to Hitler is useful - but using David Irving as a touchstone against which to compare RS is valuable. Racism and falsification march hand in hand - we've seen lots of evidence of both at previous RSNs and on TalkPages. PR^talk 22:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Christ, PR, give it a rest. <eleland/talkedits> 22:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, I believe we have all had enough of your comparisons of pro-Israel scholars to Holocaust deniers. I am warning you that sooner or later I will report you for violating WP:CIVIL if you continue using this hateful false analogy/reductio ad Hitlerum. You have been asked to stop more than 8 times now.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] I suggest you take my request seriously this time. --GHcool (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by the assertion that CAMERA's campaign to influence wikipedia (however small, misguided and unsuccessful it was) should have no bearing on our treatment of their reliability. I don't think it should disqualify them per se, nor do I think, like Cerejota does, that we should "punish them" for their meddling. I just think that if we are attempting to examine their record, it would figure somewhat prominently. As for "responsibility", I mean that they present facts without distortion, that they don't have a history of ethical problems (plagarism et al.) and so forth. We don't have the talent or the resources here to conduct some thorough review of CAMERA's research and publication history. So barring some external review (say, from an award or E&P or CJR looking at them), we have to judge "fact checking and reliability" based on some related heuristics. In cases like this, where we are attempting to judge the reliability of an advocacy organization in a pitched battle, we should have a pretty high standard. The outcome from christening them as a font for reliable information (if they are not one) will be to shift the weight of the related articles too much. Honestly, I think most advocacy organizations should be quoted with caution. In most cases, there is not a shortage of material, there is just a shortage of material available online at the click of a button. There are scores of books published on the Israel-Palestine conflict every year. The vast majority of those would work fine as sources. Using CAMERA (or whatever their Palestinian equivalent is) as a source in place of those (or newspaper articles, or magazine articles, or journal articles...etc.) strikes me as unnecessary. Protonk (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they're a very useful source, actually. I find they are quoted in The New York Times "Not only the A.D.L. and other watchdog groups, like the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America..." [10] and Boston Globe "The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, a Boston-based organization that argues media coverage of the conflict is biased against Israel..." [11]. Though I notice, weirdly, they are not linked to Holocaust deniers, I think we can safely say they have useful information to impart. IronDuke 18:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume IronDuke's comment that CAMERA "weirdly [isn't] linked to Holocaust deniers" is tongue in cheek. --GHcool (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your assumption would be correct. IronDuke 22:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

:) --GHcool (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a RS, but should be used sparingly because of the crap you're going to get if you do use it. See WP:IDONTNEEDTHISCRAP (forthcoming)--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So that makes 7 people who commented saying that CAMERA is an RS (however, it ought to be used with care) and 2 people who commented saying that CAMERA is not an RS. --GHcool (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

All nine of you, heavily involved editors who should know better. As to my opinion (as an equally involved editor) CAMERA fucked with wikipedia, we should return the favor. Full stop. Any uninvolved editor should see this, as should any involved editor. Any organization that active seeks to subvert the very existence and viability of an NPOV encyclopedia that anyone can edit should be a RS only about itself, and even then with extreme prejudice. Their forefeited their RS card when they fucked with wikipedia. The day the New York Times does the same thing, my position will be the same. --Cerejota (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, are we being a little melodramatic here? CAMERA is highly partisan, not at all objective, should be cited sparingly for relatively non-controversial entries, and their history of trying to undermine the Wikipedia cannot be discounted. But to suggest some sort of tit-for-tat rationale is an unacceptable position to take, IMO. Tarc (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, as a sort-of-involved editor (same topic area) I suggest that CAMERA should be cited only as a source on what the opinions of pro-Israel advocates are. Their reliability for actual facts is highly questionable, to say the least. But there are articles like Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where they're important sources, and articles like Muhammad al-Dura where they should probably have a sentence or two. They shouldn't be used in BLPs at all, they should be used very sparingly if at all in highly important "mainstream" articles like Operation Defensive Shield, UNRWA, or Second Intifada where there are books full of reliable-source material available. Better to cite sources with a well-established reputation. <eleland/talkedits> 18:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly with Eleland's post above. CAMERA is an RS most of the time. I have never read anything by CAMERA that made me feel as though they were guilty of deliberate falsehood. The worst one can say about them is that they are one-sided, and that affects their research and conclusions. The "fucking with Wikipedia" thing failed miserably and they likely won't try it again, but that is evidence of Wikipedia's strength, not CAMERA's weakness. --GHcool (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure. I would say they wised up, but I the face of a lack of public mea culpas etc, I am weary of them getting anything out of us. There are other equally partisan sources we can use that are not them. There is no reason for us to link to them except as a source about themselselves.--Cerejota (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

GHcool: wha? How can you say you agree with my post, and that "CAMERA is an RS most of the time?" The whole point of my post is that CAMERA should not be used most of the time. One can say far worse about CAMERA than "they are one-sided;" if you want my opinion, they are vicious, vaguely McCarthyite, negationist, nasty, and relentlessly dishonest. Looking at this RSN posting, it seems that you're only hearing what you want to hear. All uninvolved editors who've commented here have expressed grave doubts about CAMERA's reliability, including me. <eleland/talkedits> 21:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA is not a reliable source for information about the world, only for information about the perspective of exteme pro-Israel advocacy. This is readily apparent from their publications, but it should also be blindingly obvious that any organisation that would attempt to secretly interfere with an encyclopedia in order to promote their perspective cannot be trusted to be honest in their reporting. That has nothing to do with "tit-for-tat" reprisals, it is simply that their action has proven them to be devoid of the principle of honesty. Disclaimer: I've edited Israel and the apartheid analogy, but I've attempted to be non-partison there and have raised the heckles of both "sides" in reasonably equal measures. I would trust CAMERA as a source of facts about as much as I would trust Hamas: not at all. They should only be cited as an example of the position of an extreme lobby group, they should never be cited on points of fact. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, now CAMERA has been equated with Hamas. Does CAMERA fire missiles randomly into Gaza? Probably better to compare them with the EI, both somewhat partisan activist groups.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I compared them in terms of being unreliable sources on points of fact. They both engage in propaganda and have scant regard for honesty, and can only be used as sources for their extreme partisan positions. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm, just looking over your talk page and your edits to the article in question, I tend to question that you are raising hackles of both sides in approximately equal quantities. This isn't the place for that debate, but I really don't think the anti-Israel (so I term them, my opinion) editors use your name as a target for darts or whatever other aerial missiles they currently favor. Not the place for that debate. I just don't see anything, though, that indicates that CAMERA is not a RS. A partisan one, that should be used with great care, but a RS under our rules.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If by "a partisan source that should be used with great care" you mean that CAMERA should never be cited on points of fact, only as partison opinion, then we are in agreement. Is that what you mean? Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think they could be used as a RS. In practice, I would advise against it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Then we essentially agree in practice. In terms of Wikipedia, isn't practice all that matters? What is a "reliable source that I'd advise against using", really? And for that matter, which of the criteria on WP:RS does CAMERA meet, in your opinion? Are they "trustworthy"? I think it's pretty clear from their behaviour on Wikipedia that they are not, and looking at CAMERA it seems that they have copped a lot of flak from reliable journalists for bending the truth. Do they have a lot of people "checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing", like a peer-reviewed academic source or major newspaper? Are they actually a "third party" to matters involving Israel, or are they in practice a propaganda group? When you say that you don't see any thing "that indicates that CAMERA is not a RS", shouldn't you be looking for signs that they are, according to the criteria actually listed on WP:RS? Are all sources assumed to be reliable sources until proven otherwise, or do we require that they actually meet the criteria? Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this I can't hear you? I said it above, don't use CAMERA because you are going to get a lot of flak about it here, so it is not worth the grief. All the same it is a RS. Next?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Burkhard Heim/Mutual UFO Network

Is this article (in German) from the German affiliate of the Mutual UFO Network a RS for historical/biographical information on Burkhard Heim, a German physicist working mostly in the area of gravity control? An editor on the article claims that MUFON's work has been incorporated by Peter A. Sturrock in a report, but I'm still sceptical as to their reliability. The German MUFON article is the main source for the Heim article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I would avoid it as self-published and way fringe (disclaimer: I only read the babelfish version). Doubly so given that Heim has been discussed by solidly reliable sources. I would advise just sticking with what those say. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So, an obituary by a MUFON-CES officer is not reliable because it was not published in a peer reviewed journal and was authored by a MUFON-CES official. Fascinating reliability assurance measures.Tcisco (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, he said that it is unreliable because it was self-published in a fringe source. That is several steps below "published in a peer reviewed journal". Eldereft: what reliable sources would you suggest? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Stick candy

There is a debate going on at Stick candy as to if a sales website can be used to describe the various dimensions that they are sold in. The sentence is:

Stick candy (also called candy stick, barber pole candy, or barber pole) is a long, cylindrical variety of hard candy, usually four to seven inches in length and 1/4 to 1/2 inch in diameter, but in some extraordinary cases up to 14 inches in length and two inches in diameter.

Some editors wish to use pages like this to get references for the dimensions and typical flavours that they are sold in. Another editor refuses to allow these types of pages to be used as references saying they violate WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOTLINK and WP:OR collectively, however with no other sources available states that the content should not be included as it violates WP:V. I personally have looked and have been unable to find what we would traditionally call reliable sources, not surprising that not a lot of newspaper articles have been written about the sizes you can get of stick candy.

As the page sits now it has been edit protected. The sentences in question are included with opposing editor attaching tags. These tags also appear later in the article regarding typical costs (25¢-75¢ each) and how stick candy is often referred to as "old fashioned" (Note that since then I have found references for the old fashioned portions, but since the page is protected I added it to the talk page for now.)

In short, in lieu of traditional reliable sources not being available to reference the dimensions, are pages like the one listed above acceptable to reference non controversial material such as the length and diameter of which candy is sold?--kelapstick (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is discussed at length and more accurately on the article talk page, starting with Talk:Stick_candy#RfC:_Disagreement_over_sources. I had requested multiple times that editors post here if there were going to continue to assert that these primary sources are reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is no WP:RS available for something, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. That's what WP:V means. http://www.candywarehouse.com/greensticks.html is not WP:RS and can't be used. Dlabtot (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's OR to use those sources. You could say "candy retailer XXX sells them in YYY sizes", but it woulnd't be very encyclopedic. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Whilst the above points are correct according to WP:V policy, there is a case here for using common sense. If every store sells these things at certain sizes with no disagreement and the encyclopedia would be improved by having the info there then i think you can ignore the rules. --neon white talk 03:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently there is disagreement, otherwise we would not be engaging in this discussion. No, this certainly does not appear to be a case where one could justifiably ignore WP:RS and WP:V. Dlabtot (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

sigh, OK. To be honest, I'm amazed that this article has generated so much fuss. To be perfectly frank, I'd be all for a merge to the candy article. But, since I've already responded on the talk page via an RfC, I figure "In for a penny, in for a pound". First let's make clear that WP:RS is a guideline as opposed to a policy, there's a big difference. Second: verbiage such as "ignore" indicates a willful attempt to circumvent the policies and guidelines; and I don't see that as the case at all. This all seems to stem from the desire of the editors to include, and I paraphrase Stick candy is 14" long. Apparently the UP, and API wire services haven't done a whole lot of reporting on stick candy, so finding a good secondary source is the crux of the problem. This leads us to the use of a candystore.com site [sic?] for the reference to the candy size. Now, looking at WP:V, we find the following. "Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published 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. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources:" My interpretation of this is such that due to the lack of a good secondary source, the candystore.com site which makes this aforementioned candy stick, would be acceptable per the "acceptable to use in some circumstances" part of the WP:V statement, If the candystore isn't blacklisted, and if the editors don't have a COI with the site. I'm not sure about the former, and have no reason to question the later. Even myspace and youtube are cited on a very rare occasion.

I definitely agree that the wording as it is/was (depending on the version at time of PP), needs some major work. That part is easily addressed, and I believe it is being addressed on the talk page. I understand and admire those editors who adhere to the strict letter of the law, but we must not lose sight of the intent either, both in policy and in community goals. Items like WP:BOLD, and WP:IAR (and forgive me for daring to utter those far too often quoted links), are there for a reason. If there indeed is a "Thou shalt never use a store site to verify the size and shape of an item, least ye be struck from all mention within thine wikipedia", I simply have not found it. (was that over the top?...sometimes I just can't tell ;)). Anyway, since I jumped into the pool with the RfC, I figure I may as well swim over here to the deep end to blabber on about my interpertations and perceptions of yon policy. — Ched (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the Reliable Sources noticeboard, and really the only thing relevant here is whether sources meet the criteria for WP:RS. http://www.candywarehouse.com/greensticks.html or similar sites do not in any way meet those criteria, not even as self-published sources. It doesn't even claim to be a source of information - it's a candy store. It's simply totally inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia in any way whatsover, in my opinion. Dlabtot (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We either aim to be as encyclopedic as possible or not (we do). As such, we use the best possible sources. Blanking information such as typical dimensions and flavors from this article, as well as the best possible sources, simply is not helpful in ensuring we have the best, most encyclopedic article possible on this subject. Threatening to merge the Stick candy article (one of the most traditional and historical candies in the United States) to Candy is similarly unhelpful, and perplexingly so. Badagnani (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Permit use. WP:PRIMARY is the key part of the WP:NOR policy here. In relevant part, it states:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

In other words, there are two concerns, and in this case they are easily addressed:

• "Reliably published". Is an online retailer a reliable publisher of the specifications of its wares? Vendors have a tendency to exaggerate product benefits and underestimate the all-in cost to the consumer. Other than these two related issues, vendors are privy to the most not least accurate information about their product. The potential conflicts can addressed (and should be addressed) in either or both of two ways. First, corroborating the information with multiple different vendors would be sufficient unless there were thought to be a widespread coordinated fraud amongst vendors selling $0.15 products. Second, checking for positive reviews of the vendor and lack of negative reviews could establish the reputation of the vendor for fair dealing.
• "Description only". The intended use is only for description, so this poses no issues.

It is mind-boggling to me that this issue has been taken this far. If there are any legitimate issues with the text and the citations that are used to back it, they are whether the information itself is sufficiently notable or encyclopedic to include. While to me this issue appears to me to have been established in the affirmative, but if people disagree, there are other venues for addressing it. Bongomatic 13:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to see so much interest in the candy stick article. I would just like to piont out that while the citations used don't qualify as reliable sources, they are useful for verifying some basics about the candy up until superior sources can be found. They are not being used to make assertions, just to establish basic desciriptions of size, flavoring and pricing. I suppose this information could be taken out, but that would make the article worse not better. My other idea was to hide the citations so they show up on the edit page, but not in article space, if this appeases the enforcer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I have to wonder if the statement that is being made is really accurate, dispite the source... sure, these may be standard sizes and flavors for stick candy being made by big commercial candy companies, but surely there are other, smaller candy manufacturers that make non-standard flavors and non-standard sizes. What about the hand-crafted candy shops? I think it would be safe to use a commercial website for a statement as to what that particular company sells... but not for a broad statement about an entire genre of candy. Blueboar (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I never eat candy... I'd rather prefer not to know the size of a candy stick or just guess it from the picture or - why not - believe it with no source offered (it's hard to imagine somebody would invest much energy only to fool me into a wrong belief about candy stick size) than to link to commercial companies as a good source (even if I've no doubt they'll be accurate about their products) By the way, if the candy page was in need to be edit-protected for a week as to avoid further armed incidents about candy size, don't you think it qualifies for WP:Lamest Edit Wars? Sorry, I just couldn't avoid this comment, you'll excuse me. Cheers and have a sweet day.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• while the citations used don't qualify as reliable sources, they are useful for verifying some basics about the candy up until superior sources can be found - wrong. If they aren't RS (and they're not), they can't be used. Did you notice the period at the end of that sentence? Policy is clear on this point. Dlabtot (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations are made to pages that are not reliable sources all the time. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Manga/Comics addionals RS

Hi,

I wish to have your opinion about those two manga/comics related websites :

Comics Village

Comic Book Bin

Thanks --KrebMarkt 06:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say comicbookbin.com is an RS based their about page. They have editors, and they pay their reviewers. Harder to say with comicsvillage.com. They do have some sort of editorial policy, but they say "This site has a pretty hands off editorial approach." I wouldn't use either for anything controversial, and I would attribute anything used from comicsvillage.com to them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you very much as some fellows editors will argue forever without the RS notice board. --KrebMarkt 07:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

TVSquad.com page

Resolved

Is this particular page at TVSquad.com a blog-type page, or is Ryan j Budke some type of professional TV critic? The bio to which one is directed when clicking on his name does not indicate the latter.

And btw, why was this section archived into Archive 28 if it wasn't resolved? Is that common? Nightscream (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think TVSquad is a reliable source. I did a bit of research on this a while back at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2#TV Squad as a reliable source (also look at the section above that one). Basically, they're paid, they have editors, and they're (ultimately) part of Time Warner. They call themselves a blog to try and seem hipper than webzine and writers. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Talk:Frank Dux#BIAS AND CENSORSHIP OF VERIFIED FACTUAL EVIDENCE

Can someone more patient and knowledgeable than I about what constitutes a reliable source please address the issues brought up in this diatribe? -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 04:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you give a short summary with links? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, pretty much just www.frankdux.net... I could just curtly point him to WP:Primary sources but I don't want to seem dismissive. I just don't know how I can adequately answer all those questions in a way that would be acceptable and satisfactory for him while also persuasive at the same time so I figured I'd defer to someone who can better articulate precisely what the policy says thereby enlightening him without reflecting badly on Wikipedia. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 07:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I don't really talk like that but all this unnecessary vocab sure makes me look smart don't it? :P -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 07:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Twitchfilm.net

Is this site reliable? Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Until they fill in their [about page, I would have to say no. If you think they are reliable, look for reliable sources that use their information, and indications that they have editors who screen their writers articles and bring it back here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding twitchfilm.net, some info can be found in their FAQ page regarding who runs and edits it, as well as their screening policies [[12]]. As for reliable source which site their articles, it is actually the other way round as due to the nature of the site (as explained in the FAQ page), it posts and cites news articles in most cases i.e. [[13]] where the link to the original news source is found in the bottom.

However, it does get enough exposure in the film circles that it gets quoted as sources i.e. Anime_News_Network [[14]], the biggest Anime news source on the Internet; scifi.com [[15]], the official website for the Sci Fi channel, ComputerAndVideoGames.com; the site for Computer and Video Games magazine, the world's oldest specialist gaming publication; PCGames.de [[16]], a online version of PC Games magazine under Computec Media. The owner/chief editor of the site is also one of the directors of Fantastic Fest, an annual film festivel in Texas as per the press release [[17]]. Being that the site itself is film focused, the face that it is one of the representative judges gives it some credibility as well.

Can it now be considered reliable in this case? -- Zhanzhao (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Billboard

Could Billboard magazine be considered secondary source? --Efe (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes... whether it is a reliable secondary source depends on what you are citing it for. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is where the concern has been raised: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2002 (U.S.). --Efe (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone check it please? --Efe (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason to think that it's not a reliable source? THF (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought "number one single", meant number one on the Billboard charts.... Dlabtot (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the articles is sourced only from Billboard and not any other sources, I told the nominator at the FLC that the article needs a variety of publishing sources not just one primary or secondary source. So I requested for at least one other source (from another publisher to be added).--TRUCO 03:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not actually in any way a problem in this particular instance. Dlabtot (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is not the variety of the sources used as it is not a requirement in FLCs. Its if Billboard is "reliable" enough and could be considered a "third party" source. --Efe (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Billboard is reliable, not a third party because its an official publishing site for the Billboard company.--TRUCO 01:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sakhalin-II

One of the sources for the Sakhalin-II article is http://royaldutchshellplc.com. I would like to ask if this website could be considered as reliable source or not? Beagel (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

All of the citations I see for that site, if I'm looking at the right ones (references 38, 39, and 40) are themselves just versions of content from The Financial Times, which is clearly a reliable source. I think it would be much preferable to find the original FT articles and cite them, rather than going through this website, and I would question the legality of it apparently posting entire FT articles there. I'll do my best to track down the original articles and cite them, and given the general nature of the website, most of it is just posting material from other sources, so it would be best to use those. Cool3 (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the same applies to http://www.shellnews.net/.Beagel (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the American Free Press considered a reliable source?

I'm doing research to improve our 9/11 Conspiracy Theory article. Is the American Free Press considered a reliable source? I am asking in reference to this article [18]. I tried searching the archives and surprisingly, I did not get any hits. (Maybe the search engine was having an issue when I did the search?). Anyway, is this a reliable source? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's not a reliable source for anything other than what the American Free Press says, and, even then, WP:WEIGHT suggests it should have minimal or no presence in an article about anything serious. Even for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it would be a primary source, rather than a preferred secondary source that discusses the role of the AFP in such conspiracy theories. THF (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a news outlet and we may use it. But it does have a right-wing viewpoint, and that particular article makes a pretty extraordinary claim. You wouldn't say "X Y Z is so" and then cite it, but you can include it in the article as a published example of a 9/11 alternative theory. Basically you'd be using it mostly as a primary source, except that I feel the AFP is "secondary" enough to justify inclusion in the article without finding an additional source to explain why the theory is important. But it appears they're commenting on an interview that was allegedly published in an Italian newspaper. Why not see if the Italian article is online and/or whether any other media commented on it? Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's be precise here: the American Free Press does not have a "right-wing" viewpoint; if it had a "right-wing" viewpoint, it would be a reliable source. It has a neo-Nazi/Holocaust-denial/international-Jewish-banker-conspiracy viewpoint. THF (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• It seems OK with attribution. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but isn't the idea of WP:RS that extremist sources are only usable in articles about themselves? Once you decide that it is such a source (and it seems to me that it is), then it is not "okay with attribution" in any article other than American Free Press. No exceptions. Also, this reflects on the nature of the article itself: there are plenty of crackpot sources who have "takes" on 9-11 - the article isn't and should not be constructed from those takes, but from RS third-party commentary about such theories (I suppose it's invariably negative to them, but that's life). Therefore, such venues lack relevancy as primary sources - one could use primary sources where those sources are reliable and mainstream in themselves, and even there with many reservations (WP:PSTS); where they are not reliable and mainstream, attribution does not mend anything. Attribution is what one does to reliable sources, not what one does to salvage the possibility of quoting an extremist source. Dahn (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dahn is exactly right. THF (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"Extremist source" is in the eye of the beholder. To me an extremist source would be something like Stormfront or Al-Manar. AFP definitely has a far-right viewpoint, but I wouldn't discount it entirely. They seem to be notable in the "9/11 Truth" movement; even our heavily biased article on them says so. But still, I would rather editors try and track down the Italian newspaper that's being quoted here. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You contradict yourself: is smthg is far right (or far left for that matter), then it is extremist. And, when in doubt, you research what RSes say about the source in question (yes, there's always a "beholder", but what matters here is that there are beholders we trust to indicate how a source is being treated, who function outside our opinions, in accordance to the very concept of RS that we're writing about here). From those few RSes that pay any attention to it: [19], [20], [21], [22], etc. In parallel, you could review its overall reception, and see if any RS quotes it for its info. In this case, they don't, and in fact the ones most eager to quote it are the like of the Adelaide Institute, davidduke.com etc. Dahn (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Well, I'm going through each and every link in the article to try to determine whether each one is considered reliable or not. This is a hugely daunting task because there are hundreds of links. So far, the majority of links seem to be to unreliable sites. Anyway, what if the original article is in Italian? My understanding is that we're supposed to avoid using non-English sources in the English Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Definitely extremist -- Carto, Barnes Review, Foundation for the First Amendment, Liberty Lobby, all one big extremist 'organisation'. And we can use non-English sources. dougweller (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

We can use non-English sources, but we should have a good reason to do so, such as lack of availability of English sources. A lot of the non-English sources aren't going to be any more reliable than the English sources citing to them, which is why they're only being cited by the unreliable English sources. Extraordinary claims, extraordinary proof, etc.; the Italian interview sounds WP:PRIMARY to me, at a minimum. THF (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see much obstacle to using non-English sources (I've used some in FAs, for instance). It seems that the Corriere interview is now cited by the article. I understand Italian, but I haven't read it, so I can't be sure of what Cossiga says and if he was properly cited by the AFP. If he really makes the point, it should be quoted from him - what readers will find is exactly what it is: the singular POV of a probably senile figurehead. In any circumstance, the AFP quote, and anything on that level in the article, should go, and if the info they support isn't backed by reviews in the mainstream media, then the info they support should follow them out the door. Dahn (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised this debate has got this far - even a cursory examination (and I'd never heard of it before) of it's "stories" shows it to be trash, the usual mixture of zomg the jews are taking over the world via banking crap. I wouldn't consider it a Reliable source in form. It should be used for claims about itself and that's about it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Far-right doesn't necessarily mean an extremist organization. And the sources quoted above could be considered its political foes. I'd rather we quote the BBC or Washington Post for a viewpoint on whether the AFP is extremist or not. As far as the other issue, I feel it is appropriate for an article about conspiracies to reference, with attribution, some conspiracy-oriented media. And there is, I repeat, there is no policy to avoid non-English sources. If you have two sources that are of equivalent stature then you'd pick the English one. But here I'd rather have the Italian source, especially if the Italian source is in a mainstream newspaper. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "far right" is the very definition of extremism - "extremist within the right-wing context". And, as I have made it clear above, other RSes simply don't give a damn about the organization in question either way. Using the Washington post as a source would require the Washington Post submerging to that level of internet memes in order to recover this exact piece of anti-"ZOG" propaganda and label it. Not a reasonable expectation, and a rather sophistical argument. Within the source's context, the only ones that mind it are neo-nazi bodies which spam with it and a handful of RSes, all of which evidence its bias with some rather explicit terms. Dahn (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think we have found another conflict between WP:RS and WP:V... the POLICY on this is WP:V... and specifically WP:QS which states:

• Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscientific. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of information about themselves as described below. Any contentious claims the source has made about third parties should not be repeated in Wikipedia, unless those claims have also been discussed by a reliable source. (bolding mine)

This policy statement makes it clear that one can use extremist sources in articles that are not specifically about the source (or group that publishes the source), we can also use them in other articles that discuss the source (or group).

However, WP:RS is more limiting... stating:

• "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" (again, bolding mine).

So which do we follow? To me that is clear... Policy rules. RS is a guideline that is meant to further explain the WP:V policy. When the two conflict, it is RS that must be amended to reflect WP:V. I will raise this conflict at the relevant policy/guideline talk pages and amend the guideline. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? what you've highlighted states that it shouldn't be used in this case. I'm a bit confused what your point was. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Cameron Scott. The former does look a bit different, but I can't really imagine how it would contradict the second - it doesn't validate quoting the source discussing itself in an article that is not strictly about the source (if this is what Blueboar meant), and, if anything, looks a bit more ambiguous while making the same basic point. Dahn (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

My point was in reply to Dahn's comment above (where he/she says "I'm sorry, but isn't the idea of WP:RS that extremist sources are only usable in articles about themselves? Once you decide that it is such a source ... then it is not "okay with attribution" in any article other than American Free Press. No exceptions.") The language in WP:V makes it clear that you can cite a questionable source (including extremist sources) in other articles, provided that it meets with the limitations listed at WP:QS. Whether AFP passes or fails the test is a different issue. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've looked over the issue, and our article quotes both the Italian newspaper and the American Free Press. So, we only need the Italian article. If we quote the AFP at all, we could use it to say something like "and [story] was picked up in the U.S. by the right-wing American Free Press". One could argue that it's a story in itself why an opinion from a former head of state in a major Italian newspaper would be picked up only (as far as we've gotten in this discussion) by partisan sources, but quoting it in this way puts it in perspective. Quoting it in this way also takes us into the realm of writing about the AFP and thus within the boundaries of WP:V regardless of the outcome of the "extremist" debate. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The original quote was in kind of a strange context, and he may have been mocking the conspiracist viewpoint. Irony doesn't translate well, and if he was speaking in jest, well, that means something very different to our article. I'd feel a lot better about this if someone from one of the Italy wikiprojects would check out the original article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Single sourcing of contentious material

I'm not convinced this is the right place, but there is nowhere else to discuss single sourcing. Late last year I had a fairly critical review of British_Military_Intelligence_Systems_in_Northern_Ireland and removed some material that was speculative or inappropriate, but also some that was either unsourced or not supported by the source used. This was block reverted this morning on the basis that a newspaper article was adequate sourcing. That didn't cover the point that several removals weren't based on that.

I have fairly serious concerns about the sourcing, in part because the article relies on two, one book by a self proclaimed former intelligence operative and a newspaper article about a related criminal trial that restates a number of the points in the book.

• Tony Geraghty: The Irish War Johns Hopkins University Press 1988
• Article by Duncan Campbell on the attempt to prosecute Geraghty & his source here and here.

I would assess that as a single source, since there is a clear audit trail from one to the other. I don't believe that the source is strong enough to go into the level of detail that the article goes into but would be grateful for views as to whether the claims of an individual are reliable enough to build the level of detail that the other editor wishes to include.

Thanks

ALR (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you doubt information that's already been published in a secondary source, the answer would be to quote it with attribution. By the way, you basically removed everything except for the intro paragraph (opposing editors have since reverted). Was all of it unsourceable speculation? If you think the entire page is nonsense you might want to take it to AFD. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I think what I left in place was a bit of a statement of the bleeding obvious I didn't think it was worth AfDing, there are Int systems in the province, although finding anything reliable about them will be a challenge. I'm also realistic, trying to AfD anything related to an intelligence subject ends up mobbed by keep votes because it must be troo. In any case... None of it was adequately sourced, and some of it was speculation. Most sections took what little there was available and started building on that, so predominantly OR.

I've read both the sources used by Campbell, and I don't trust either of them very much. I would go so far as to say, when I don't trust a source and the information is not corroborated, then I don't use it. Unfortunately the desire seems to be using the secondary source as corroboration of the primary sources, which is why I'm asking the question. Is single sourcing an entire article acceptable? I suppose a related point, although perhaps not for here, is basing an entire article on a single source that is not inherently reliable enough to establish notability?

ALR (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Taking this beyond the article in question (and even beyond intel related articles)... I agree that basing an article on only one source is poor scholarship. But I can see how this could happen... Someone reads a book on a topic that interests them, they come to Wikipedia to find out more... and discover that there is not article on that topic. So they write one based on the book they just read. This is fine if all you are attempting is to get a stub (or, at best, a start level) article in place. The hope is that others who are interested in the topic will add more information and more sources.

But that raises a second question ... are there other sources? Can the article grow beyond a stub cited to one single source. If not, then we do have to ask whether the topic is notable. Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

With a bit more digging around, the original source is an excerpt from a strategy document and the books speculate based on some unidentified verbal accounts. I don't believe that there is anything particularly credible available, but I'm also realistic about posntial success at AfD...

ALR (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments by an expert in a "letter to the editor" pure opinion Vs plausible expert opinion and fact.

The concerned editors of The Man Who Would Be Queen have a question,Hfarmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). We have the unusual case of a academic/scientific journal publishing peer commentaries, which were called for from the concerned segment of the general public. The paper being commented on addressed a controversy, in which allegations of professional and sexual misconduct were leveled at J. Michael Bailey. The editor of the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior,Kenneth Zucker wrote of these commentaries "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." and stated that he published all the commentaries recieved. We haver refered the issue of weather or not these should be treated as being reliable sources on par with peer reviewed articles twice already. [23],[24]

User:Soulscanner Summed up the conversation and majority opinion thusly "If the editor published all submissions, then all submissions should be treated as a letter to an open public forum. Academic scholars are human, and it is just as likely that what they say is personal (as opposed to professional) opinion. Indeed, many scholars often confuse the two. However, if any commentary cites a fact, then the fact should be verifiable somewhere else. For example, if they cite a fact from another study, the reference should be to that study, not the letter."[25]

Specifically We have the comment by Charles Moser Department of Sexual Medicine, Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, San Francisco. Some of us want to use the following quotes from Moser in a section of our article entitled "academic freedom". Found in this commentary [26]

1. "Did she uncover a pattern of lies and false allegations? No, the allegations were basically true; they just did not constitute any formal misconduct,"
2. "The death of free speech and academic freedom has been highly exaggerated. Science is not free of politics, never has been, and never will be. The origins of transsexuality are still not known and the concept of Autogynephilia is still controversial. Can we all get back to science now?"

Which of those can we use?--Hfarmer (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

The above is the question and it is meant to be neutral. This is what I personally think based on the facts, and WP policy. As I said a long time ago. "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)"[27]."

Those commentaries from people who are recognized academic experts should be included. But we have to be careful and discriminating in what we use. The above is a good test case for this principle. Mosers first statement that the allegations of professional and sexual misconduct against Bailey were basically true is in my opinion not includeable. He is not and no one person alone can be an expert on those. That is Mosers opinion and nothing more. However what Moser writes in his second statement is 100% includeable he is as much an expert on academic freedom as any academic. Moser is as much an expert on academic freedom as practically any expert can be. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is whether the experts are writing about something directly within their field of study, or are stating their opinions on a tangential issue. In this case, I think Hfamer has it right... the first quote is not about something within the field of study (but about the conduct of a collegue), while the second is. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – I had asked Hfarmer not to bias the question by asserting that these invited peer commentaries are "letters to the editor" or that as one guy opined "If the editor published all submissions, then all submissions should be treated as a letter to an open public forum." In fact, the editor did not publish all submissions, but most of them, the ones that addressed the topic to some extent at least. They are "commentaries" on a "controversial paper" co-published in a special issue. The controversy can not be fairly reported by relying on one side of the arguments as if it's "peer reviewed" and other other as "letters to an open public forum." And the controversy is really about opinions, not about facts or expertise; that's what makes Dreger's "controversial paper" so controversial; the facts in it may be peer-reviewed, but basically it's an opinion piece in which she takes the side of her colleague at Northwestern. Anyone who needs to see these to help form an opinion about the structure of this special issue can email me for a copy. Dicklyon (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dick we have already had two RfC's about that. The notion of using those as if they were equal to the peer reviewed article was rejected twice.

What we both got was the commentaries included in some parts. The appropriate parts. Take the victory you have.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking to have them treated as peer-reviewed; they're published opinions, like Dreger's. Victory would be when you stop misinterpreting those previous discussions, stop telling me you're on my side, and stop telling me I lost or won. Dicklyon (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Two points for now, because we've gone {{Round In Circles}} on this issue several times:

1. About the commentaries: The editor's own introduction to the issue, at PMID 18431642, describes the process in sufficient detail for RSNers to make up their own minds about whether it was an open call, along the lines of a letter to the editor process. Here's the relevant quote:

   "Dreger's paper 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."

   Additionally, it may interest RSNers to know that the mediator for a recent failed formal mediation contacted Arch Sex Behav directly and confirmed that they did not verify credentials or even insist that authors use their real names.
2. About Moser: Charles Moser (physician) is NOT "an academic". He is a physician in private practice (more or less specializing in sexual health) in San Francisco. He does not, and as far as I can tell, never has held an academic position (beyond student) at any accredited college or university. His PhD is from the same non-accredited "Institute" that he works (part-time) for. Moser has never published anything about academia. He has published several papers on sexuality. Therefore, Wikipedia would accept him as an expert on sexuality, but not on academic freedom.

This doesn't seem very complicated to me, but we have literally covered the same ground four or five times now, with apparent amnesia between the conversations. In the previous RSN conversations, the conclusion was generally to treat these commentaries as self-published for Wikipedia's purposes. If we could get a dozen or so RSNers to reply with simple, concrete, unambiguous statements like "These commentaries should be treated as self-published" or "No, Moser is not an expert on academic freedom", then perhaps it will eventually get resolved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC) (who, BTW, agrees with Moser's comments on this subject, especially when you read the entire letter instead of just the ending, which is being quoted out of context specifically to provide a constrasting opinion.)

Ok. This is like the fourth time I've seen this on RS/N. I'm not going to push people to forum shop (I still don't understand what was wrong with the outcome the last two times), but I don't want to see it back on this board. We are going in circles. The right answer is to move up the dispute resolution chain. If you can't solve this problem, request the assistance of a mediator (I'm already assuming that you are past the "third opinion" stage). If that fails to be resolved that way (and I notice, though have not investigated, that an RfC has failed), then the next step is arbitration (though they will probably reject it as a content dispute). It is not okay to keep bringing this back here. Protonk (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbComm rejected the case. Formal mediation has failed twice in the last month. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Parity of sources

I think that WP:PARITY is the closest thing we have to apply here; it was written to apply to fringe science topics, which Dreger analysis is not, since it doesn't present as science, nevertheless it's an idiosyncratic analysis that is widely criticized by others familiar with the topic it presents opinions on, including people from outside the narrow field of academic sexologists who mostly take Dreger's side in supporting their own. The so called "peer reviewed" status of the Dreger "controversial paper" in the special issue of their journal on this topic should not be taken as a reason to not present any of the responses to it that are published, as part of that conversation, in the same issue. Dicklyon (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner

Two editors, hgilbert and EPadmirateur, reverted my edits to Rudolf Steiner. In particular, they claim that an ARBCOM decision disallows my placing an external link to an article titled "Rudolf Steiner and the Jews", and that this was not a Reliable Source. I have read the Arbcom decision but found nothing in there to support their claim of exclusion.

They then undid my edit trying to make the "Judaism" section more balanced.

Finally they removed the NPOV tags I placed before discussion on the Talk page had run its course, which I believe violated the usage instructions for the NPOV template.

Upon looking up the Arbcom decision, I discovered that hgilbert is a Waldorf School teacher, and so I have placed a COI tag at the top of the article.

More eyes on this would be welcome.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't give us much to go on here, not even a link to the source in question. This does sound like a WP:AN/AE issue, though it sure seems to me like the arbitration ruling requires use of peer-reviewed sources in the Steiner article, and your proposed polemical source doesn't come close to meeting that requirement. THF (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Please help me out here, the word "polemical" appears nowhere in the Arbcom ruling? You are entitled to describe the source as "polemical" but that is only your opinion unless you make a case for it.

Here is the "Remedies" paragraph from the ruling:

Waldorf education and related articles placed on probation

1) Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation. Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them.

passed 6-0 at 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't see anything about "polemical sources" in there. That Steiner said the things he is quoted as saying is verifiable, and I don't see original research either.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, don't believe me, and take it to WP:AN/AE, and they'll likely tell you the same thing. But perhaps I'm wrong when I read "third-party peer reviewed sources" as requiring third-party peer reviewed sources. THF (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I take your reply as an admission that your characterization of the article Rudolf Steiner and the Jews as "polemical" is entirely your personal opinion and itself polemical. (You would have had no argument from me had you characterized it as "critical".) I've added an analysis of the present state of the "External Links" section of Rudolf Steiner and its woeful unbalanced state at Talk:Rudolf Steiner.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you're not interested in neutral editors' opinions, you just want to forum-shop for people who agree with you. THF (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If the question is whether the waldorfcritics.org source is RS for Steiner's views on race, my view is that no, I don't think it is. The precise relationship between theosophical notions about "ancient races" and early C20 racism and antiracism is a complex topic in the history of ideas, and an academic source is needed. However, the waldorfcritics source might be reliable for the fact that criticism has been made of Steiner's work on that account. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, a solid "Criticisms" section is a viable project for the future of the Article. At this point, however, we are not talking about incorporating something into the body of the Article - it's about one (1) external link to a critical article, which the pro-Steiner editors are fighting tooth and nail to keep out. An external article, moreover, that is mostly summary and quotations from Steiner, and should not be kept out under WP:ELNO, which for the moment is the only applicable policy here. We are here at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard because there is no separate noticeboard for external links and in my opinion WP:RSN is the closest thing to it. We really need more editors at the article, at present I am outnumbered by the polite POV pushers. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts. 1) I detest 'criticisms' sections, explian the criticisims in the context of the whole topic. Especially for something as broad as an educational philosophy. 2) the specific waldorfcritics site is simply self published opinion, not any manner of reliable source on any aspect of the topic. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There are already a number of much better (academic, peer-reviewed) sources used in the article to support the fact that Steiner's work has been criticized in this realm. See the article's thorough and neutral discussion of the topic. hgilbert (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Design 1047 battlecruiser

I would like to use this source in Design 1047 battlecruiser, but I really have no idea if it is a reliable source or not. Thanks for any help! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It's sketchy. The first thing to do with web sites is check their about page. Apparently they're a gaming company, so they're probably only reliable when talking about their games. Other things to check are if the author is an expert, and whether other reliable sources use them as a source (which I haven't checked). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, he has 18 hits on Google Books, most related to gaming books, but a few crediting him for help, including one from 2003 saying that he was "a doctoral candidate in history", and the page I am asking about says that he has a PhD... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

One should also bear in mind that he is the President of Avalanche Press, but he does seem to have some knowledge in the area:[28] "The German Colonial Soldier"; "Great White Fleet";

“ Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II‎ - Page xxiii

by Belton Y. Cooper, Stephen E. (FRW) Ambrose - History - 2003 - 384 pages

Mike Bennighof. a doctoral candidate in history, did an excellent job of editing my original manuscript.

”

However I do believe that in this case this one area/page is a reliable source. TARTARUS ^talk 18:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. :) Thanks! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Auditory Integration Training

An editor Eubulides has entered some information on this topic that is inaccurate and medically biased , and insists that this medical bias is the only accurate and verifiable POV of relevance, and insists on negatively-biased medical sources as being the only accurate ones to include in the article. This editor has persisted in reverting entries I have brought to this topic to add the non-medical POV for greater accuracy and reliability on this topic. My sources are shouted down as being unreliable. It seems to me that this editor is attempting to exclude the balanced POV that including these references would bring. comments, please.Jvanr (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the previous comment is talking about the article Auditory integration training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Eubulides (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Jvanr happens to be forum shopping, so caution should be used here. -- Fyslee (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

But this would be the correct forum, wouldn't it? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

German Comics/manga website

Hi,

Can anyone confirm that the German website splashcomics is a reliable source for reviews ?
Some clues [29] [30]

Sorry for bothering again and this time with some exotic request. --KrebMarkt 10:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It would help knowing what articles you wish to use it in.--Otterathome (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry,

Use of reviews to assert notability of manga outside the English speaking area & use of reviews to develop reception section of related reviewed manga.

Thanks again. --KrebMarkt 19:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well to read about this source you need to know German, you may want to post a link to this at WP:GER.--Otterathome (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

infidels.org

Is this a reliable source? It really doesn't appear to be one, as it hosts mostly blogs, unreferenced information, and tries to sell a lot of products. It is also very biased to a specific point of view. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'd regard it only as reliable as WP:CITE#Convenience links (if reproducing material previously published elsewhere), or if the author of the material in question were themselves considered reliable as an expert on the topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Careful. They have two distinct publication venues, the "Kiosk", with only minimal editorial control, and the "Library", which has historical papers and also publishes modern essays with strict editorial control and peer-review. I would accept library documents as reliable for most unexceptional claims, i.e. put them on a level with e.g. normal newspaper articles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Robert M. Price biography links to this short bio. This seems to be information that could be found elsewhere (haven't yet), but is linking to a page that has quite a few ads. As an EL, it would probably fall under reason #5 not to have it. However, it is used as a reference which is why I am trying to figure out the status of this site. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL#5 refers to "web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising". I don't see that applying here at all - there is very little and very targeted advertising on that page. The amount is comparable to e.g. [31] and [32], and much less than on [33]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Clicking on the page gives me 50% of it devoted to banner ads. The New York Times has two minor ads at the very top and a tiny ad at the bottom. The FoxNews website only has two ads and on the side, not in a prominent position. PCWorld is the only one with comparable size and probably shouldn't be linked unless its of utmost importance. I also think its a tad misleading to try and compare this website with some famous and well known websites that whose merit would override any banner ad concerns. Remember, number 5 is to keep down promotional material to small sites that seek to use our servers to raise revenue. Seeing as how they have a campaign trying to get 40,000 dollars, that shows they are a small site and also trying to get revenue. Remember, this is also a subpage. The main page is 50% advertisement, which is more than even the PCWorld page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean like the Wikipedia fundraisers? Nevertheless, I agree with Rima here; there's no need to use this borderline source when there are better sources out there. That whole Robert M. Price page is a mess and needs to be stubbed. THF (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing about Wiki's obnoxious fundraising. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Where do you get 50% from? The home page [34] has 2 tiny banner 'ads' at the bottom, the 'needs your support' ad, and an ad for its bookstore. 10% perhaps. dougweller (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

no flying no tights

Hi. Is no flying no tights.com [35] considered a reliable source? Kaguya-chan (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Does it have an identified author? Someone known as some kind of expert? If not, then there's probably not a lot it should be cited for. Dicklyon (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is basically a web site that reviews graphic novels/comics. I was wondering if it could be cited for that. Kaguya-chan (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it is reliable. Blogs are not considered reliable (The exception to this are those rare bloggs where the author is a noted expert in his field of study... and in those situations, the blog is not reliable for anything except the a statement as to the opinion of the expert). The typical Blogger's opinion is not reliable or notable. To relate this to noflyingnotights.com, for it to be at all reliable you would need to estblish that the author is a notable expert of graphic novels... For example, if he/she has published books on the subject, or was hired as a reviewer by a major comics industry magazine... or something like that. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a lot more than a fansite. It appears to be a library guide to graphic novels. Click over the the staff bios page, most are librarians and many have impressive academic credentials. Click over to the "press and praise" page, many articles have been written about it, and many libraries link to this cite as an informational resource. Sounds like a fine source for Wikipedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

HowStuffWorks.com

Is this site reputable enough to be used as a source for the Rigor Mortis article?

"How Muscles Work"

--72.207.17.89 (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they are reliable. I think they're a part of the Discovery channel or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say it passes the bar of reliability for broad sweep statements... but it is probably not the most reliable source for specifics. Having seen the broadcasted TV show, I know that it often over simplifys things... I would expect the same from the website. So, if the source is contradicted by more reliable sources, I would go with the those instead. Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

cal.syoboi.jp 2nd try

This is a revival of the unanswered Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27#cal.syoboi.jp.
The issue is whatever the Japanese website cal.syoboi.jp is RS for the original broadcast date of anime episode and episodes titles.
Additional clues : Errors on the TV program schedule are notified here and not directly corrected by users. Every broadcast date has a backlog indicating who, why & when modification occurred.
As this source appeared in quite a number of FL, an answer would be great.--KrebMarkt 15:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As Japanese language is required, you might get some feedback posting it at WP:JAPAN discussion page.--Otterathome (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hypothetical question

A trade association puts out a report written by a university professor criticizing an organization opposed to the trade association's goals. My own independent research shows that the report has factual errors (and perhaps outright misrepresentations), and those factual errors are making it into Wikipedia articles. I recognize that my own original research or synthesis cannot be in the article. To what extent can the original research be used on a meta-basis to demonstrate that the source flunks WP:RS? I don't wish to argue specifics or for any particular Wikipedia policy position; I just want to get a sense of how other editors understand RS policy. THF (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the original research policy only applies to article content, so there is no problem with using a talk page to debate the source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Now less hypothetical: The Burke Group

• The Burke Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's unquestionably the case that the source (which is funded by a union group opposed to TBG) is wrong: it falsely attributes an award to the wrong court, and falsely implies that the award was the result of the actions of the subject of the article. On the talk page, two editors acknowledge that the author got the name of the court wrong and the size of the award wrong and left out the fact that the award was for unrelated issues, but insist that the source is still reliable and its misleading remarks about the subject of the article should remain in the article. At a minimum, WP:COATRACK would seem to apply: that the Burke Group's client was fined for an unrelated labor practice is quite irrelevant to The Burke Group article. Editors understandably have their backs up because a series of now-banned sock-puppets from TBG tried to remove the same information, but that doesn't excuse including policy-violative material. THF (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC), updated 18:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation:

"It's unquestionably the case that the source is wrong: it falsely attributes an award to the wrong court..."

It is an attempt to impeach a source, when the critic's own analysis (if not his conclusion) has already indicated that it is not falsification, but rather, a shorthand term for the court, use of which may cause confusion.

Specifically, THF has stated,

There is no such thing as the "Court of Appeals." Logan must mean either the "California Court of Appeals" or the "United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit," probably the latter as most labor law in the United States is federal. [36]

Note that "Court of Appeals" appears in the names of both courts. THF may believe this is falsification by the source, but any reasonable person (without a source-impeaching agenda) will conclude that the source simply used the shorthand term, perhaps assuming that the reader either will know which court he was referring to, or that to those who do not know, it will not matter.

This is also a misrepresentation:

two editors acknowledge that the author got the name of the court wrong and the size of the award wrong...

I am one of the two editors described. What i actually acknowledge is that the amount of the award has been increased by subsequent court action, from $2.5 million, to $5.19 million, including "10 percent interest on the original award of $2.5 million."

Specifically, i had responded on the talk page,

"I acknowledged no such thing. The cite was outdated because there has been subsequent court action, and the amount of the award needs to be increased. Your extrapolation of my acknowledgment serves your own interest in helping to sanitize the Burke Group article, and it is likewise unfriendly."[37]

Five hours after i clarified in no uncertain terms that i did not acknowledge "that Logan was being dishonest" -- in THF's characterization of my words -- THF reports here that i "acknowledge" error in the amount. It wasn't error in the amount, the amount changed (again, due to later court action after the initial amount was correctly reported) and i had merely observed that the article needed to reflect that.

Now this response of mine on this page is not entirely Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and i apologize for that. But we're referring to an article that has been under constant attack for the better part of a year, and my AGF has worn thin. I'm trying to explain the issue as accurately as i am able, and i no longer have a lot of energy to AGF.

When it comes to reliability of sources, the practice of hanging "unreliable source?" tags throughout an article, as here: The Burke Group, of alleging falsification when the only real offense is abbreviation, and of misrepresenting someone's opposition as support for one's own editing goals, ought to be the real issues in question here. The overuse of "unreliable source?" tags in particular creates an impression of uncertainty in the reader. Thus, by raising a multiplicity of challenges to an article, a critic of the article can create an image of unreliability, whether unreliability is a factor or not.

Bottom line: several of us editors consider John Logan, the London School of Economics professor, to be a reliable source, an expert on the subject matter of union avoidance, and his research is worth noting in an article about a union avoidance company. I'm confident enough in that, i'd be happy to hear what others have to say. Richard Myers (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; I've been commenting there as well. There is simply nothing linking the award to Burke- Logan doesn't say that, and the article doesn't say that. I don't know where that idea is coming from. As much complaining has occurred over the "Court of Appeals" quote, I fail to see how that would invalidate the source- besides, I reworked that section so that the ruling was covered over a different source. There shouldn't be an issue here. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I get some help from uninvolved editors? I'm getting tag-teamed here, and, as you can see, their style is to turn everything into a WP:TLDR issue. THF (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

AGF chief; the only long thing I've posted on the talk was a direct quote. I don't see it as tag teaming when you're discussing us on another board, especially when your post is as one-sided as this one was. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Swedish language source

Hi, could someone who's familiar with Swedish media comment on whether or not an article published by Svenska Dagbladet could be regarded as a highly reliable third party source. The article states that the Swedish band Roxette has sold 70 million records (albums and singles combined). The figures are not directly within the article but separated in a column to the right which includes facts about the vocalist of the act. I need to make sure of Svenska Dagbladet's reliability in order to proceed with adding Roxette to the list of List of best-selling music artists wherein I am trying my best to support artists' stay with highly reliable sources. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the wiki page, it sounds like a totally reliable source. It's a newspaper that's been around for more than a hundred years, and is third in circulation for its country. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Svenska Dagbladet is as reliable as any other mainstream newspaper in the Western Hemisphere.PelleSmith (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That said, it's possible that Svenska Dagbladet was just repeating sales figures from a press release supplied by the band's record company or publicist, which may or may not have any clear connection to reality. I note that discussion at Talk:List of best-selling music artists has questioned whether Roxette could have achieved 70 million in sales, given that their sales certifications in major territories don't approach that number. The question is whether their sales in other territories (plus sales of recordings that did not achieve certifications, plus sales beyond the last certification) could get them up to 70 million. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We're after verifiability, not truth. We can't second guess RSs without proof, because then our whole system falls apart. I looked at that list, and a lot of it seemed unreasonable. Bing Crosby at over 500,000,000 (that's a lot of 0s, like national debt sized)? Ace of Base in the 10s of millions? I guess it happened, but it sounds crazy. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.musicianguide.com/

Any previous desicion on this site? --neon white talk 23:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a search engine at the top of the page that reveals Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27#www.musicianguide.com_-_a_RS.3F, which suggested without "deciding" that it's better to find other sources if possible. I would tend to agree. THF (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's an odd site, it appears to me to be a compendium of bios that seem professonally written though there is no indication where they are sourced from. --neon white talk 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Source interpretation

In the article on RAF Menwith Hill a user is trying to suggest that a passing reference in a news article about another subject is enough to state that the location doesn't appear on many maps, a conspiracy theorist position. In practice the source, from the [. Independent] states that it doesn't appear in the AA Road Atlas. An alternative source says that it appeared as a collection of aerial symbols until recently, a clear indicator that it was identified as a wireless station, in Ordnance Survey parlance.

I'm pretty sure the user is a sock puppet, due to phrasing and the use of the Cite template with no edit history. Unfortunately the indicators have been removed from Wikipedia in a recent deletion

Grateful for some thoughts on the most appropriate way to deal with this.

Thanks

ALR (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey... you know, the sock master is right... It isn't shown on "many maps"... For example, I don't see it on my USGS map of Eastern Connecticut, or in any of the maps that are in my historical atlas of the US Civil War! It's a conspiracy!

Seriously, saying it does not appear on "many maps" is more than a bit weasly. Even if we assume this to mean modern maps of Yorkshire, we should not be surprised that some have it and others don't. A lot will depend what the map is trying to depict... a map that is trying to show where the best pubs and hotels are, or one showing how to get to the local antique dealers, may not have a need to mention that there is an RAF facility down the road. Even if the AA Road Atlas doesn't show it (and I would want to double check that against the actual AA Road Atlas itself), that really does not tell you much of anything. Unless we know why the AA does not show it (and for that we would need a solidly reliable source) it simply is not worth mentioning. I would delete the line.

Oh... and just to quiet the conspiracy nuts, I found it quite easily using Google Maps (seach "Menwith Hill" and zoom in a bit... and there it is, clearly labled). Blueboar (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is slightly more use. It isn't a conspiracy theorist position, the MOD do keep locations of sensitive bases off maps. Also The Guardian and the BBC, although the BBC article indicates the stance has softened slightly. O Fenian (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point... the fact that some maps don't show RAF bases might be worth mentioning in an article about how the MOD has handled sensitive information through the years, but I don't see this as being important to the article on RAF Menwith Hill. Furthermore, mentioning that "many" maps don't show it is misleading, since it would be just as accurate to say that "many" other maps do show it. The fact is, it simply depends on which map you look at. Now, if it didn't appear on any maps... that might be a fact be worth mentioning. Blueboar (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not getting involved in whether the text belongs in the article, I am just providing sources that do source the text under dispute, or an amended version of it. O Fenian (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What the sources demonstrate is that the fact that Menwith wasn't explicitly identified on older OS maps is largely meaningless. IT says that all MOD sites were unmarked, not just sensitive. It used to be identified as a wireless station, as all other military communications sites were, partly for navigational reasons as antennae are quite distinctive and useful as nav markers.

ALR (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

famoushookups.com

The site famoushookups.com [38] is used repeatedly as a source in BLPs. It does not appear to meet Wikipedia RS requirements about fact-checking (among other things, it has X-Men comic book artist John Byrne married to actress Tilda Swinton (or else has Swinton's husband married to Byrne's (ex?) wife. So I believe these citations should be removed as it is a gossip site. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The John Byrne thing is at least partially true, but their link should be to John Byrne (Scottish artist). While that site is not reliable, I would be careful removing it wholesale, because some of it is backed by reliable sources, which should be substituted in. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The four times I've substituted out famoushookups, three of the times it checked out in reliable sources. 75% is nowhere near good enough to go into a BLP, but it's good enough that before deleting it, you should do a cursory Google News search. THF (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Suck my Manhole an RS?

There is a disagreement regarding the typing/subtyping of transsexality at homosexual transsexual.

user:Jokestress has asserted that the blog Suck my Manhole consitutes an RS,[39][40] and is comparable to blogs appearing in the NYTimes.

I believe it does not. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

(To forstall the potential question: I am quoting the above verbatim; it is not my intent to slant anyone's input by using vulgar or attention-seeking language.)

— James Cantor (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It does appear to be a reliable source for some information. I wouldn't use it for categorizing types of sexuality, though. Probably shouldn't use it as an example to assert that certain types of sexuality exist, either. They don't seem to be writing it from the point of a sexuality expert, but more from a porn industry goings on standpoint. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This really strikes me as the sort of question that answers itself when we're talking about a BLP. THF (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If I am reading your comment correctly, I think I agree. However, because the other editor does not see it the way I do (and because this is part of a long series of disputed pages) it seemed logical to me to seek input from editors who could not be considered biased (as the other editor considers me to be). If you'd like to have a look at the diffs in my original post here (and in the discussion around it), neutral input there would also be very helpful. Thanks.

— James Cantor (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Peregrine, I think it could be used as a source for saying that such & such a person says they are [whatever], or that X Y & Z do.... all preferably quoted. The interviews look responsibly done. If individual people say they are of a certain type of sexuality, it exists, at least in their minds. DGG (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's just that one person saying there some type of sexuality is not the best source for asserting that it exists. It's an RS for them saying they identify as an X. I think it would go against UNDUE (or some other acronym), I guess, to then extrapolate that X is a category deserving mention. It's tricky, but I guess the upshot is that it's an RS, but where and how to include the info is an editorial decision that may have to be informed by other guidelines. I'm sympathetic though, because it seems like an important subject that is probably hard to find sources for. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation

This list has grown hugely unwieldy and now is full of broken links, unverifiable statistics (citing a list of faculty rather than anything claiming total affiliates), outdated information, dubious sources (like wikipedia itself), inconsistent procedures for inclusion/exclusion, and absolutely hideous non-MoS highlighting. It's used repeatedly on other university articles as a citation or a piped link/psuedo-citation. With such a classic case of synthesis run amok, where does one even begin? Madcoverboy (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe break it down by institution? If you added sources to that list, the page would get much too large. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There should be no problem documenting this properly and objectively, using the biographies on the Nobel prize site. But that amount of work, although I think a matter of counting , not synthesis, is a substantial project. The sources are the ones used--they are reliable within their limits, and the limitations are specified. I think it meets RS. The quality of formatting is another matter. the use of color to indicate prize name is a poor idea; and I do not think it needs to be columns--i.e.

Cambridge university

Undergraduate degrees

List of people......

Graduate degrees

Visitors

I think this may be what Peregrine Fisher has in mind? further discussion would seem to go on the talk p. there. DGG (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that using the Nobel Prize biographies site should be indisputably reliable - if the institution is not mentioned in the Nobel biography, it probably doesn't warrant inclusion on a list. However, would one then take something like the List of Nobel laureates as a single column, the proceed to list in subsequent columns their undergraduate, graduate, and appointments? This seems to be a borderline case of an indiscriminate collection of information - one could as easily use this precedent to make a claim for List of Nobel laureates by birthplace. I'm beginning to think there's serious WP:NOT and WP:N problems. Should this be AfD'd? Madcoverboy (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Svante Cornell

Is Svante Cornell a reliable source? I question whether he is reliable as he is only an associate professor and I find his works incredibly biased. He has written on Nagorno-Karabakh as well as the conflict in Georgia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You may find him "incredibly biased" but this is not the valid reason to question Cornell's reliability given the number of scholarly publications published by him and referring to him.[41] --Kober^Talk 05:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLEHITS. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You'd better read the page which you are referring to. "Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Book Search, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search.". Thanks, --Kober^Talk 04:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Further on this topic, I would like to know how the work of this associate professor at an swedish institute is ranked in terms of reliability when compared with a)online news reports b)analysis in respected newpapers by non scientist authors c)analysis by NGOs (e.g. HRW) by non scientist authors. --Xeeron (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Svante Cornell a reliable source? Yes, of course. It is not possible to become an associate professor if one is always "incredibly biased." But is the mentioned report[42] about the 2008 South Ossetia war a good source to use? Not really, for 3 reasons: 1) it was published very early (in August), less than 3 weeks after the war started, before certain informations about the conflict became public knowledge, 2) it does not cite its sources. It seems to be nothing more than an opinion piece; it is not "scientific" in any way, 3) it seems quite unbalanced. So to answer Xeeron's question on how this paper compares to other mentioned sources in terms of reliability: I cannot see why it would be any better than the other sources mentioned. Offliner (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Being an associate professor doesn't make you correct 100% of the time. If you have to use someone's resume or CV to prove that their writings are reliable, rather the defending the writing itself, that already is a sign that the writing is poor and most likely unreliable. And Offliner, one can become a professor by being extremely biased: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell Also, you can build up your credentials and then sell out, because once you get your PhD, unlike your license to practice medicine or law, you cannot lose it. And PhDs are not that hard to get. Also, the online news reports have their paper counter-parts, its just easier to cite the online version. As for the analysis, I would much rather have scientists sticking to science and historians analyzing history. NGOs are to be taken with a grain of salt, but if their facts check out, there's no reason not to include them. Thus I would rephrase the question: Is Svante Cornell a reliable sources when it comes to post-Soviet republics? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Mr. Cornell's writing on Nagorno-Karabakh should be cited here as well. Same region. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Try to challenge your opponents' arguments using credible sources such as academic reviews of the publications in question. Your personal observations are hardly of any imporance here.--Kober^Talk 18:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The same goes for you as well Kober. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, really? Can you specify when I refused to provide sources or I will have to assume that you say something just to say something.--Kober^Talk 04:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the points above against Svante Cornell's works being considered a reliable source, if you review the his writings in the Nagorno-Karabakh document, he illustrates his bias when he repeatedly writes "the alleged Armenian Genocide". A scholar of repute would not put that qualifer in front of that horrible event that happened during WW1. Another problem I have with Cornell is that apparently he is the principle of a consulting company that looks like it offers consulting to organisations and companies in the west that want to tap the energy resources in the Caspian Sea. Naturally this would make him biased against newly independent regions that gained independence from Georgia and Azerbaijan as well as Russia and would bias him in favor of Azerbaijan and Georgia's initiative to resubjugate these newly independent regions. Using Svante Cornell as a source for the conflicts related to Abkhazia, South Ossetia, or Nagorno-Karabakh would be the equivalent of using research from a company that does business with Indonesia as a source for the conflict in East Timor. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That's OR on your part. Look to other reliable sources, not your own analysis. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Look to other reliable sources for what? I'm trying to get a consensus on whether Cornell is reliable and so far I haven't heard a single argument in favour of reliability. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Look to other RSs that say he isn't reliable.

Also, looking a bit more closely at the paper, I'm not sure that he's saying the genocide didn't happen. Can you provide a quote? Sometimes he calls it a genocide, and other (fewer) times an alleged genocide. I think that he's being specific, because to some people (not him) it is an "alleged genocide". On page 72, he lists two sources about the genocide, one for each view, while specifically not really going into detail on it himself. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Question: doesn't the source need to meet the criteria rather than trying to prove the negative by finding other reliable sources that say that a source is not reliable? 74.12.151.89 (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if you look at that google book search above (incorrectly labeled with a google hits acronym) you'll find he passes with flying colors. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The question cannot be answered in the abstract. Historians and other scholars can be reliable when published in publications subject to peer review, editorial oversight, accountability, fact checking, or other indicia of reliability. When advocating for their own pet theories, in opinion / editorial mode, participating in politics, or working for propagandists, battling rival scholars, or operating outside of their field of specialty, they can be terribly unreliable. A history of partisanship, and espousing provocative positions on matters of great controversy, both cast doubt on a scholar's overall reliability in any publication. It also depends what the professor is being cited for. Incidentally, policies like original research and verifiability / reliable sourcing apply only to main space material. Personal opinion is just fine for meta-discussions and decisions, such as working through the question of whether a source is reliable. Wikidemon (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• He's Adil Baguirov's lap dog, of course he's not reliable. VartanM (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• That's not a serious argument. Why a scholar, who published books and articles in peer reviewed publications should not be considered reliable? Is there any criticism of this author, coming from reliable sources? I don't see any at all. Grandmaster 06:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Cornell is a highly political source, member of a group maintained by an Azeri ultranationalists. He is into international relations stuff, his obvious aim is securing the pipeline route from the Caspian to Turkey. He's works are financed by the foreign department of Azerbaijan. That's what his company does: Energy Development and Economic Security. CCC has considerable expertise in the political and economic aspects of energy development in the wider Caspian Basin. We produce analyses of the domestic ramifications of energy development; the role of oil and gas in regional politics; pipeline security; the social consequences and local-level politics linked to energy development and pipeline construction; the domestic energy security of the regional states; non-oil natural resource issues, including water. [43] He's present to nearly all AdilBaguirov nationalistic prepared gatherings. It was at least once exposed here on Wikipedia that Cornell replaced historic locations place because of the current Caucasian situation. Since all other sources claim otherwise, it can not be ignored that his action was deliberate. We see him interviewed with AdilBaguirov and his publications present him as a political source, as such Wikipedia rules on using political sources should apply. VartanM (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You may cherrypick as long as you wish, leaving just Bournoutian, Mnatsakanian and Ulubabyan, but this is not the first case. Previously Brenda Shaffer has been challenged on the same conspiratorial basis with Fedayee trying to pull out Tadeusz Swietochowski. That's my summary. brandспойт 08:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comparisons only discredit you, Cornell department is financed by oil companies his colleague was caught lying about it. Now you can start comparing other scholars because they are ethnically Armenian with proven corrupt scholars, but as usual your comparisons are bogus. VartanM (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

He's a reliable source. How, and whether, he should be used is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. Most of the editors here, me included, don't follow these decisions beyond that. We're not part of dispute resolution. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia, God's/Jimmy Wales's gift to the professional propagandist, will be the making of people like Cornell. If 100 sources say that there are little green men on Mars, and one source says there are not, then, according to Wikipedia standards, Mars must be brim-full of little green men. Meowy 15:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Djuro Schwartz

Is Djuro Schwartz reliable source? His book (?):"in the Jasenovac camps of death" is used in multiple wikipedia articles but for google Djuro Schwartz do not exist or maybe is better to say the he exist only in wikipedia mirrors [44]. Situation is very similar in google books where there is no books of Djuro Schwartz [45], but his testimony is used in book of Milan Bulajić which is known for writing controversial testimony [46] in his books.

Because it is possible that I am POV in this question, I am interested to hear your comments if Djuro Schwartz is reliable source.--Rjecina (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain Djuro Schwartz is actually Duro Schwarz, a man who's testimony appears on Yad Vashem's website. It's reliable, though not spelled correctly. --AniMate^talk 20:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Rjecina (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yad Vashem Studies by Yad ṿa-shem, rashut ha-zikaron la-Shoʾah ṿela-gevurah Published by Yad Vashem Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority, 1998 (page 65) Duro Schwartz was a prisoner in Jasenovac from August 1941 until April 1942. He was released because he was married to a non-Jewish woman.--141.156.253.196 (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

CNN, People for the American Way, Kathryn Kolbert

Kathryn Kolbert's criticism of Rick Warren was mentioned in CNN. Are that [47] and her later statement [48] reliable sources, when what she has said is attributed to her, ie: 'Kathryn Kolbert said...' ? This is being discussed here: [49] Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

They're reliable, but it looks like you've got editorial decisions to discuss. Not all reliable sources are necessarily included. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea, you think her opinion should not be included? Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting into it. It looks a bit too involved for me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Twitter.com?

I've seen a few instances recently of this site being used as a source in biogs. My feeling is that we should not regard them as reliable, even if they purport to be the account of the actual person, because as far as I can tell, there is no way of verifying this. Also, our article says that the site has been compromised already this year. Thoughts welcome, as we do not seem to have addressed this as yet. --Rodhullandemu 18:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Twitter.com is just a hosting site for microblogs. Our existing self-published sources policy pretty much covers it. I can't imagine a good reason for a Wikipedia article to cite to a "tweet" except as a primary source if someone gets in trouble for a tweet they made. THF (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't use it except as a primary source in another story. For example, there was something on CNN about how the Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 crash was reported on Twitter, so it may be appropriate to cite the blog in that situation. ( The mainstream media has gotten quite an obsession over Twitter, so it's not hard to find published articles that link "tweets" to notable incidents. ) But for a biography you almost never use a blog as a source, except if it's the blog of the person the article is about. And you've doublechecked to make sure it's really their blog. A gray area would be a biography where the blog is written by a third party but published media strongly references the blog; in that case you would ask for consensus here or on the BLP noticeboard. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

plastics.inwiki.org

I'm sure this has been asked/covered before, but http://plastics.inwiki.org is not a reliable source because it is self published, correct? Wizard191 (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Otherwise, one could add info there and cite it here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks alot! Wizard191 (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Other wikis are self-published and not generally used as sources, but if the wiki has good information it may be appropriate to include it in the external links section. However, if text from that wiki was copied into the article, you have to make sure we don't plagiarize the other wiki, and that's more important than RS in most situations. Either leave the citation link but add an "unreliable source?" note until other sources are found and the information rewritten in your own words, or remove the text altogether. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hala Sultan Tekke

I am here asking for assistance not to complain about anyone. The following article Hala Sultan Tekke contains this section Significance, following are my reservations on this section:

1. This is forking POV and you can check this out through reviewing this user page User:Chesdovi.
2. This section is in violation with wikipedia:reliable sources
3. This section is in violation with wikipedia:verifiability
4. This is section is a wikipedia:hoax
5. This section is in violation with wikipedia:OR

I know in wikipedia we can edit any section of any article if we find out that it is in violation with any of the above policies, but the thing is user:chesdovi is insisting on having all of those violations, and refused all of my edits.

Now let us move to the other part of reservations of the contents of the section:

1. This section claims that this is a holy place in Islam, while all of the resources used are authored by non-mulsim scholars and without refering to muslim books, texts, Qoran, or Hadith. How come that a non Muslim can say this place is holy for Islam while it is not verified by Muslim scholars? This means that this is not more than a claim since it is not verified by Muslims. I tried to add this word "claim" to the title of this section but was removed by the same user.
2. Concerning the sources that are used to support the claim of the holiness of this article, please note the following issues:

• Reference No. 1: Freedom of religion and belief: a world report: is authored by non Muslims and the paragraph that grants the holiness of this site is not even referenced in his book by Islamic books, text, Qoran, or Hadith.
• Reference No. 2: "Study of building stones and mortar from Hala Sultan Tekke mosque": the page can't be found. Even when using the web archive site it can't revert the calimed page, u can see that here.
• Reference No. 3: Financed Restoration of Church and Mosque on Cyprus Supports Cultural Heritage and Tolerance, once again is authored by non Muslims and without referring the holiness of this site to any reliable source.
• Reference No. 4: Purcell, Hugh Dominic (1969). Cyprus. Praeger. p. 367, once again the author is not Muslim and is not using in this section to any Islamic reliable sources. P.S. the same user didn't even bother to add the ISBN nor the related URL for this book, but after I spent long hours searching for this book I was able to locate it.
• Refence No. 5: Syneleusis, Hellēnikē Koinotikē; Hypourgeio Paideias, Grapheion Dēmosiōn Plērophoriōn, I was not able to locate this sources, and I doubt the reliablity of it, not to mention it is authored by non Mulsims.
• Refenece No. 6: once again is authored by non Muslim and is not using any Islamic reliable sources.
• Refence No. 7: Daniel, Geoff; John Oldfield, Christine Oldfield (2004). Landscapes of Cyprus. Is a tour guide, and despite the same user:chesdovi agreed that it is not reliable sources as per wikipedia:reliable sources, still he is insisting on adding it to the list of the references.
• Reference No. 8: once again a non Mulsim author is granting the holiness to an Islamic site without using Islamic reliable sources, and by the way, I think that this sources is not a relaible source.
• Reference No. 9 once again is authored by non Muslims and is not referring to any reliable Islamic sources. Moreover, I doubt the reliablity of this source. Not to mention that the sources does not say that this site is the 3rd holiest place for Muslims, nevertheless, the same user is saying that this site is the 3rd holiest place for Mulims thourgh referring to the mentioned site, this might be an indication of forking POV.
• Refernce No. 10: once again doesn't use any Islamic reliable sources, and I don't think it is a reliable source in this context. Moreover, the source is used to support the claim that this site is the 3rd holiest place in Islam, but the website, doesn't show this information, again this shows forking POV.
• Reference No. 11 once again no referral to Islamic reliable sources.
• Reference No. 12] This might be the only Islamic resource that is used, but once again, in the context of saying this is the forth holies site in Islam it doesn't quote any Islamic reliable source, qouting is very important in Islam, as well as other religions. Moreover, I was not able to identify what is website is about, ok it contains Islamic information, but what is the reliability of this site is doubtful.
• Refernce No. 13: The page didn't open, I am not sure why.

I want to add one important thing, I am not saying that Islam is the only correct thing in this world, all what I am saying is that: If there is a holy site in Islam then Islam through it’s designated channels (Qoran and/or Hadith) should indicate to the holiness of this place, or at least through reliable Islamic scholars and through reliable and verifiable Islamic resources, not through unreliable and unverifiable NON MUSLIM scholars and books. This is my main point. The usage of reliable Islamic sources in the context of the holiness of this site is not available in this section whatsoever.

Last, I want to tell you that I was trying my best to solve this issue without asking for assistance but with no use as the same user is insisting on the usage of his unreliable sources. The required assistance is: How best I should handle this issue, I thought of nominating this section to deletion but there is no such process at wiki, could you please assist me here.

Looking forward to hearing your feedback. And please forgive me for the long thread. Yamanam (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

One quick note I'd like to mention: I'm concerned about the concentration on Muslim sources. Other people can learn about Muslim ideology and practice without being Muslim. All the refutations that use "non-Muslim writer" as a base are no use to me. Not reliable, that's fine, not Muslim, I don't care. Padillah (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yamanam, this looks to be a content dispute, so there's really no Administrator intervention that can take place. The crux of the dispute appears to be the reliability of the sources you listed above. I think your best bet at this point is to post over at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, to get their opinions. Inviting the other party to that discussion would be helpful as well so that a proper discussion take place on the core issues, rather than just reverting edits. Best, Arakunem^Talk 16:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Since this was moved from ANI, I'll strike out and indent my above, as we're now in the proper venue. Arakunem^Talk 14:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Would this page, mangalorean.com, be considered reliable. It seems to be news-based but I'm not sure if it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Copana2002 (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.coat.ncf.ca

Reliable source? Seems WP:SPS to me, and generally WP:ELNO, but would like others' opinions. THF (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

CorpWatch

www.corpwatch.org.

Would it be considered a reliable source?