Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. The reliability of sourcing is heavily dependent upon context, so please include not only the source in question, but the article in which it is being cited, as well as links to any relevant talk page discussions or article diffs. Please post new topics in a new section.

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

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.

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

Kriegsverbrechen der alliierten Siegermächte by Pit Pietersen

• Pit Pietersen is an architect, not a historian.
• Is the book reliable? German Wikipedia quotes it only once. Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Do other reliable sources or academic reviews say that it is unreliable? If so, please list them here. Knepflerle (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you put lies here, it's you turn to prove you are right, not mine. It's a biased text written by an amateur historian.Xx236 (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How do we know that's anything but just your opinion? That's not how WP:V works. If you support your assertion with reliable sources, then we will certainly consider what to do. Anything will do to start - a review which criticises the author's methods or sources, or academic papers whose conclusions contradict those of this author. But give us something to work with other than your opinion. Knepflerle (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil. Please give details of the book in question, of its publisher, and of its author, and cite sources which claim its a biased text written by an amateur historian.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Piet Pietersen is an architect, not a historian. This information is available in his, quoted here, book. Piotrus, be so kind and read the book, if you want to discuss about it. Xx236 (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The title of the book is " Kriegsverbrechen der alliierten Siegermächte - Terroristische Bombenangriffe auf Deutschland und Europa 1939-1945." which means "War crimes of the allied winning powers - Terror bombings in Germany and Europe 1939-1945" so the title says

1. The book is about bombings (but it isn't quoted in bombings related articles of this Wikipedia). German Wikipedia quotes the book once, in Bucarest article.
2. The books isn't about expulsion, especially not about the ones after 1945.

The problem with this book is that no academic historian has written about it, at least Google doesn't show any such opinion. Xx236 (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:V says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Neither the author nor the book have any reputation, especially "for fact-checking and accuracy". Xx236 (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The book is published by Books on Demand Gmbh, a German print-on-demand publisher. As far as I can tell, they don't do any editorial review at all, in other words, this is essentially self-published. Not a RS, I would say. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And there are genuine books on the topic - why use a self-published one? Collect (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Stephen - that's the sort of qualified criticism of the source I was asking for above. Looking at WP:SPS, as the author doesn't seems to be one "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", we should look at the statements supported by it and either call for a better source with a tag, or remove them as unsourced. Knepflerle (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

History of German settlement in Eastern Europe quotes the book extensively. I prefer not to edit this article, because User:Skäpperöd has attacked me and an another Polish editor.Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable source to say the least. Read fragments of it posted on the personal webpage :Lot's of anti-Allied tone and I also got the impression that it sometimes tries subtle attempts to compare situation of Germans to Holocaust. As it is self-published, not a scholar and no support in any other publications of valuable as source, it should be removed as it is certainly not a RS.--Molobo (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Aljazeera.com

Is this a reliable source. yousaf465'

Yes. It's a well-known major media outlet - see WP:RS#News organizations. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And even Jimbo Wales agrees--Cerejota (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• I removed the "Resolved" tag from this just to clarify that we are all talking about Aljazeera.com, which is not the web site of the television channel Al Jazeera (online at http://www.aljazeera.net). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, not so quick. I wouldn't say this is quick and dirty answer! No do I accept what Cerejota says re Jimbo Wales agreement. Here is the direct quote and more context is in the link. The original question had to do adding with A-J photographs. I will embolden nothing and leave the interpretation to the readers. "I would say that these questions are not really up to me to determine, but I can offer a few thoughts which I hope are helpful. (1) Al-Jazeera is generally a reliable source as far as I know, in the sense that we normally mean it. (2) Be careful about what Al-Jazeera is being a reliable source for - i.e. did a staff photographer take the picture such that they are standing behind what it is, or did they obtain it from an activist group claiming it to be such-and-such. I would trust Al-Jazeera (as far as I know) to report honestly in either case, and we should not go further than what they have actually claimed." Now I guess this could be considered an endorsement, but hardly a "ringing" one. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I believe Metropolitan was saying the question was about the website for Aljazeera Magazine, which is not related to the TV channel. The name "Al-Jazeera" simply means "the island" i.e. the Arabian peninsula. According to our article, they sound fairly POV. If it's used for news from inside the Arabian peninsula, it may be fine. If it's for commentary about Israel or the Iraq War, you would use it with caution and attribution. Their opinions may be notable in the region, but they are still opinions. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. The quote from Jimbo above (found at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 43#Do images fall under WP:RS policy.3F) refers to Al Jazeera, not Aljazeera.com, which is not related to it. To claim reliability for Aljazeera.com based on the reliability of Al Jazeera would be like saying that The Globe (tabloid) is reliable because one confused it with The Boston Globe. My inclination is to say that Aljazeera.com should not be assumed to be reliable due to its strong POV. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

But what about article not about Israel conflict.--10:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)yousaf465'

I'd say fine to use with attribution if it is considered a reliable source in its own regional context. What is its standing in the Arab world? We can't exclude it because of its POV alone, or define NPOV as "Western viewpoints only please, everything else is not a significant viewpoint". Jayen466 16:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this also apply to NYT.It's also know to have this problem NYT book.--yousaf465' 02:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I said we cannot exclude aljazeera.com because of its point of view, and the same also applies to the New York Times. We can't decide who is right, but we should present both sides of the debate, using the most authoritative sources available. The NYT, whatever its possible POV failings, ranks very highly in the West, and we should ideally use Arab media that rank equally highly in the Arab world to present their POV. Hope that clarifies what I mean. (I've taken the liberty to correct the link you gave above so it leads to the book review I believe you meant. Please check.) Jayen466 14:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks,yes it was the book review I was referring to.--yousaf465' 16:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

1985Rajneeshee assassination plot.

an editor is disputing the RS status of a book book cite on Talk:1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot the book is already used as reliable source on two other wikipedia pages. this is the book..Brecher, Max (1993), A Passage to America, Bombay: Book Quest Publishers .ISBN ASIN B0000CP5CF. Can I use it as a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs)

Per WP:BURDEN, I have asked the individual adding this material multiple times to substantiate his claim that this source meets WP:RS. I have asked specifically multiple times for information about the book's publisher, and also if it has been reviewed in any book review publications. These questions have not been answered. Cirt (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the Worldcat entry.[2] Apparently it does not have an ISBN number. WP:V says that the reliability of books can be judged by the reputations of the author and the publishing house. Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. What do we know about Book Quest Publishers or Max Brecher? Have they published other books?   Will Beback  talk  19:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll be somewhat wary about using this book; worldcat shows that it is carried only by 30 libraries, which makes it quite obscure. Also,this website has a synopsis:

"A Passage to America is the first book to systematically explore the complex sequence of events which led to Osho’s apparent demise. Based entirely on historical records and hundreds of interviews conducted in the US, Europe and India it is a piece of hard-hitting journalism. It proves the previously unbelievable: That there was a multileveled US government conspiracy against Osho."

which suggest a fringe, conspiratorial POV. I think we need some positive evidence of reliability before using it as a source for facts. Abecedare (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Will Beback (talk · contribs) and with this cogent point Abecedare (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The book has an introduction by Khushwant Singh, a prominent Indian journalist, which perhaps speaks for it. The publisher is Indian and does not seem to be a very large one, at least judging by what you can see online, but appears to have published some reputable titles on Indian matters: [3][4] The Brecher book was reviewed in the Indian Review of Books: [5] (don't know what they said about it, might be interesting). It has a few academic citations: [6][7][8] Not top drawer by a long shot, but perhaps not complete rubbish either. Jayen466 19:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The paper, Dharm P. S. Bhawuk, Culture's influence on creativity: the case of Indian spirituality, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Volume 27, Issue 1, February 2003, Pages 1-22, cites the book for some basic biographical information about Rajneesh and Tom Robbins quote on him (originally published in Seattle Post Intelligencer). What is the source being used for in the article under discussion ? Abecedare (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

from google boooks...http://books.google.com/books?id=-Zn4k2WvKZUC&pg=PA17&dq=isbn:8120815998#PPA17,M1 (Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

I am not sure what you are pointing to, Off2riorob. Can you explain ? Abecedare (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

He is pointing to yet another fringe, conspiratorial POV book which is basically just a compilation of essays, it contains quite a bit of poorly written material and a large chunk of the book is written by followers of the topic they are discussing. Cirt (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Abecedare (talk · contribs) that the book's writing style suggests a fringe, conspiratorial POV. Cirt (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A small clarification: I am not referring to the book's writing style; just a synopsis I found online, which is the only indicator of the book content I have seen till now. That makes me wary of its reliabality as a source of facts; but I can be convinced otherwise, if other indicators of reliability are found. Abecedare (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that the website you cited for this synopsis is a POV site promoting Osho [9]. The fact that this site pushes out the book claiming some sort of "multileveled US government conspiracy" does not speak well for it. Cirt (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Most of the other websites I found the book listed on, were similar. Abecedare (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare (talk I posted the new link that I was refering too.. quoting an alternative source for the quote..here...http://books.google.com/books?id=-Zn4k2WvKZUC&pg=PA17&dq=isbn:8120815998#PPA17,M1 have a look yourself.page 17(Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

The article you linked to is clearly unacceptable as a reliable source for anything except Rajneesh's disciples view of him. This should be clear from the author, Cherles Newman's (Swami Devageet) of the article (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh: A New man for all seasons") writing style and content. For example:

It is my opinion that Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh is a master of the same status as Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tzu or Pythagoras. His vision is to raise the consciousness of mankinf beyond the barbaric, biological endgame in which civilisation finds itself today, into the next stage of human evolution; from Homo sapiens to Homo nuvos ... the New Man.

He is the living embodiment of his vision; seeing him, being in his presence, one experiences some of the vast possibilities available to those who can bring their consciousness to the same peak. ...

Surely, not a disinterested, neutral source! Abecedare (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, strongly agree here with Abecedare (talk · contribs) - and I have explained this in a bit more detail on the article's talk page: Talk:1985_Rajneeshee_assassination_plot#reliable_source.. Cirt (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

this ....Bhagwan himself was never charged with any involvment in the conspiracy........was an early edit in this thread..does anyone disagree with it? and if you do then why? [[10]] Bhagwan himself was never charged with any involvment in the conspiracy. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Can we please stay focused on the purpose of this board which is to discuss whether or not a particular source is reliable? Cirt (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) It is not for us to affirm or dispute this. Lets just look at what reliable sources say, and include that in the article. Broader question: I just looked at the article talkpage, and it appears the point of contention seems to be what Charles Turner said at a press conference after an event (1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack, I assume). Since the comments were made at a press conference, aren't there contemporaneous media accounts about what was or wasn't said ? Why are we having to look at POV sources for this information ? Has anyone searched Lexis-Nexis ?Abecedare (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

that is indeed the point in question Abecedare (talk)and I will be looking to verify comments made at that press conference...that is it..(Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

this RS[11]is the book that I found to support the original book that is disputed here .(Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Please see comment by Abecedare (talk · contribs) [12] about that source. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

comment does'nt refer to the quote that I am looking at...the quote I am looking to verify is that charles turner said at a press interview ..and I quote..Turner said at a press conferance after the event that “I did not have any proof whatsoever linking Rajneesh to Sheela´s crimes" (Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Yes, the comment by Abecedare (talk · contribs) refers to the book you cited. Cirt (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

well I'll have a look again tomorrow.. the simple truth is that Osho was not charged with involment with this crime of conspiracy to murder...so that is all I am looking to insert..it is actually simple..Osho was not charged with involvment with the crime of conspiracy to murder this guy..so I will keep at it until this reality is inserted . (Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Cirt (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't quite see the problem. The article does not (unless I've missed something) imply that Rajneesh ordered the plot; it actually mentions that he held a press conference asking authorities to investigate his former lieutenants, providing details of undetected crimes they had committed a year prior. Why should there be a need for a statement that he was not charged?
• The only problem I see in the article is in the lede. The sentence "The assassination plot was uncovered as a result of an investigation by federal law enforcement into the bioterror attack in The Dalles, and Turner was never harmed." implies that the attempt was not carried out because authorities discovered the plot and foiled it. This is not so. The conspirators had fled the country before the investigations that led to the discovery of the plot began.
• If a source were needed to state that Rajneesh was not charged in relation to this crime, here is one, which is already used in 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack. Jayen466 11:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

letters to the editor

Are letters to the editor considered WP:reliable? In the Gilad Atzmon article, this [13] is used as a source, and quoted (debating the question of rationality of anti-semitism. I claimed that since Israel presents itself as the 'state of the Jewish people', and bearing in mind the atrocities committed by the Jewish state against the Palestinians, any form of anti-Jewish activity may be seen as political retaliation. This does not make it right.") in the article. I thought the source was not reliable, and deleted it, but then reverted myself. Any thoughts on the subject would be appreciated. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Usually letters are only deenmed to be RS if the author has an established independently published reputation in the relevant field. Paul B (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It also occurred to me that, since letters to the editor are usually subject to extreme editing without the author's approval, that might also diminish reliability. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The author in this case has an established independent reputation, and can certainly be considered as a reliable source for his own opinions, which was how the text was used in the article. I have occasionally had letters published in The Guardian, so I can point out that it is their practice to phone the writer and confirm identity before publishing any letters. RolandR (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case, they are. This looks like "Newspaper N writes an article about Mr. M. Mr. M questions his portrayal in the article, and submits a rebuttal to newspaper N." It's almost a BLP problem not to include a sentence on the rebuttal. If the letter to the editor was written by a third party, that's a different story. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a reliable source for the author's opinion, which is all that it is cited for (actually, quoted) here. I don't see an RS problem in this particular instance. THF (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

AbeBooks

• AbeBooks (January 12, 2009). "2008: A Year of Books in Review". Bookseller Digest UK. booksellerdigest.abebooks.co.uk. Retrieved 2009-03-27.

The layout of this webpage appears to be in a blog-style format - but it is the official website of the publisher AbeBooks. Reliable source for information on what books were bestsellers from the AbeBooks publisher itself? Cirt (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The best source for publications of US books is Publishers' Weekly: they have an annual review in January of each year. I have not used Abe Books as a source, but I know they are a bookseller and they price rare and first editions. There should be a UK equivalent to Publisher's Weekly, but I don't know what it is. --Moni3 (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I will attempt to find the source you are referring to, but is this AbeBooks cite a reliable source for the information The book goes on to become AbeBooks’ No.1 bestseller in Australia in 2008. ? Cirt (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The official site for AbeBooks should be reliable for claims made about bestselling on its own site... but then I'm not sure that would be notable for mention in an article. Perhaps. DreamGuy (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not being used as a notable claim in and of itself, but rather as a source showing the current article (which states "the book was never published in Australia") is inaccurate. Starhunterfan (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Siena College sources

Could someone take a look at Talk:Siena_College and perhaps offer opinions? It's a lengthy, very lame discussion about the location of the college. I have a dog in the fight, so I'm probably not the best person to summarise. As far as I can tell, published sources, and the college, overwhelmingly say "Siena is in Loudonville" but there are a few editors who feel that maps show that it is probably in nearby Newtonville. IMO, an editor's interpretation of a map which does not show clear boundaries is not a reliable source. I'd be grateful for any input. Thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like Loudonville and Newtonville are villages within the town of Colonie. Is there a ward/precinct or ZIP code boundary that's generally accepted as the boundary between the two? What about school, tax, water, fire districts? Did the towns exist as separate entities before joining the town of Colonie? Be prepared for the possibility that the campus was built on a wide-open area between the historic villages; if that's the case the more accurate wording would be Colonie, between village X and village Y. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you're proposing some original research; if Hippo is right that sources say Loudonville, that's what we should go with; if other sources say something else, add that, too, but studying maps is not the way to resolve this. Go with sources. Dicklyon (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dicklyon, and I've left a note on the talk page to this effect. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm proposing we bring in more sources to get to the bottom of the matter. The best source for a definition of what constitutes the village of Loudonville or Newtonville would be an old ( as in Civil War-era ) map. The second best would be a USGS topo map, those tend to retain old place names, and they would show how villages contrast with farmland.

Now from looking at this topo map [14], Siena College is very close to Newtonville. Both are separated from Loudonville by a gravel pit, cemeteries, and golf courses. But on the other hand, you can see a stream separating Siena College from Newtonville, remnants of which are visible on Google Earth, and it's quite possible the stream was the original boundary of Newtonville. Another argument in favor of Loudonville is that the entrance, the major buildings, seem to face the Loudonville side while the parking lots in back face the Newtonville side.

Using a map without boundaries to say whether the college is in Newtonville or Loudonville is original research because it creates facts from the map which aren't actually contained in the map. I just gave two sensible interpretations which each give a different answer. You can use the map to say it's near A and B or between A or B, but you can't use the map to say it's in district A.

However, I do think the proximity to Newtonville should be acknowledged. I recommend the intro wording should be changed to near the hamlets of Loudonville and Newtonville, with a cite to the USGS map above, while the infobox should retain the Loudonville address with its cite to the college's homepage. Any further qualification of which hamlet is which would be undue weight, and should be moved to the articles about the hamlets. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we would need to 'bring in more sources.' The sources are already clear - it's in Loudonville. There are multiple sources which have been cited in the article, and many more which could be. They are consistent that Siena is in Loudonville. So far none have been found which say "in Newtonville", "betweeen L'ville and N'ville" or "near Newtonville". If one or two were found, they would still only represent a tiny minority of the sources, so would probably not merit being included, per WP:NPOV.

A civil war era map would only indicate (via OR) that the area near where Siena is now was known as X'ville in the 1860s, so would not really be relevant to this article. The sources are clear that Siena is now in Loudonville (not specifically "the hamlet of loudonville" or "the village of Loudonville"), and has been since it was founded in the 1930s.

Why do you think the proximity to Newtonville should be acknowledged in the article? Not a single raliable source has yet been presented which says as much.

Surely if using a map to say "Siena is in Shelbyville" is OR (and I agree that it would be), then using a map to say "Siena is near Shelbyville" or "Siena is between Shelbyville and Springfield" is also OR? If your argument is "I looked at a map and it looks to me like it's near Newtonville" then surely that is classic original research??? --hippo43 (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The original research policy means that Wikipedia should not contain facts that can only be sourced to Wikipedia. Reading a map is not necessarily original research as long as we stick to facts that are actually shown on the map and not guesswork. The issue is that the map shows the hamlets roughly as points, with no political boundaries. It's pretty obvious that the word Newtonville is right next to Siena College. It's within a mile away, and is well-summarized by the word "near". On the other hand, using the map to say that Siena College is in either hamlet requires the editor to guess where a boundary lies. Like I said, one interpretation might draw the boundary through the uninhabited areas, while another might use the stream above the college. Because there is more than one interpretation of where the border lies, adding one would create a new fact that is not sourceable to the map. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"near" excludes "in"; if you say that Siena is "near" Newtonville, that implies that it is not "in" Newtonville. Obviously, too, the motivation for saying it is "near" Newtonville is obvious to anyone who takes a cursory look at Talk:Siena College--for some reason, there are a number of editors who do not want the article to say that Siena College is in Loudonville. Never mind that there are several reliable sources that say exactly that. When we have sources that tell us exactly where Siena College is, if an editor looks at a map and comes up with a different location, that's obviously original research. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't have multiple independent secondary sources that weigh the Loudonville/Newtonville issue. What we do have is the U.S. Postal Service placing Siena within a Loudonville delivery area, plus a number of sources that simply repeat the college's mailing address. We also have the U.S. Geological Survey placing the college near points which are described as Newtonville and Loudonville. There are both fine sources, and they don't necessarily contradict. While I agree that Loudonville should be given primacy, as most of our readers will be more interested in the mailing address than in the local geography, it is difficult to look at that map and not mention Newtonville. It's a little like saying we shouldn't acknowledge the islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon are near Newfoundland, because they are part of France.

Part of the confusion is that we are working with two definitions of each hamlet. There is one definition that the hamlet is the historic village that grew up along the railroad junction, or whatever, and some unspecified part of the adjourning area, not unlike the way neighborhoods are named after "squares" in urban areas. However over time, postal delivery areas, census tracts, etc, grew up, and probably every parcel of land in the town had to belong to one hamlet or the other. If you work only from the second definition, then yes it is silly to argue about whether something is in hamlet x or y. But the real world is not so simple. It's very possible for Siena to be only on the outskirts of ( i.e. "near" ) the historic hamlets of N and L, but within the modern postal delivery zone of L. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"We don't have multiple independent secondary sources that weigh the Loudonville/Newtonville issue." Indeed. Why do you think that is, exactly? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There are about 50 books that mention Sienne College and Loudonville; and about 0 books that mention Sienna College and Newtonville. Case closed? Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Those look like citations, which I'd expect to use the mailing address. And perhaps the campus and the adjoining country clubs are included in the more restrictive zoning district with the rest of Londonville. Still, I don't understand what the phobia is of adding that the college is "near the historic neighborhoods of Londonville and Newtonville", when a USGS map clearly says so. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the objection is that we don't understand why one would want to say what a place is near on a map, instead of just saying where it is according to sources. An interpretation of a map is fairly characterized as "original research", especially when it's used to justify saying something different from what is explicit in a bunch of reliable sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The map is a published reliable source. What I'm proposing is not an interpretation or synthesis from the map; it's something that is explicit in the map. Your "bunch of reliable sources" are mostly reprints of the college's mailing address. Saying that the college is near the historic village centers of L and N does not conflict with saying that the college's address is in the postal delivery zone named after the historic village of L. Or course I wouldn't go into that undue detail, I'd sum it up with the word "near" in a discussion of the campus, while using only L in the rest of the article. Also there was a real-estate related source brought up in the talk page, which put the bounds of N at the college. People were trying to use it as a source for the college actually being in N, which it didn't exactly say, but it would be a fine source for "near". The wording I propose takes multiple reliable sources into account. The USPS, and the college's description of its address, as well as the USGS and the real estate site mentioned on the talk page. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Saying that something is near X based on a map is an interpretation of the map, therefore original research. Repeating the diction of the college's website, which is that Siena is "located in Loudonville, New York, a suburban community just outside the state's capital" is not original research. (Nor is it a "reprint of the college's mailing address.") --Akhilleus (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

When the map show the word "Newtonville" so close to the campus that the final 'e' ends up in the football field, "near" is explicit. Anyway, you should take this to a different noticeboard. Either NORN for the map, or a wikiproject dealing with place names. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a fine noticeboard for these questions, but to make you happy: Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Siena_College.27s_location.2C_and_maps. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that reading a map is not original research. Maps are used as references in multiple FA articles on roads and highways. Should we then start deleting those references and their info from Featured Articles some of which are primarily edited by admins? A map was one of the main arguments for keeping North River (Hudson River) instead of merging it with Hudson River. A map was used as definitive proof for keeping out Mapinfo as a "company in Troy, New York" due to the map showing that it wasnt in Troy even though its ZIP code is, it politically was in a neighboring town. In multiple discussions hippo refuses to accept any commonsense such as that above, claiming OR and all that. There were three or four sources for Newtonville when I first put it in. They werent "reliable", they are however more reliable than anything hippo has come up with. Siena College has a conflict of interest in saying Loudonville (read my rants on the talk page of the article). As for ZIP code that someone here mentioned- the official USPS city name for that ZIP code is Albany, NOT Loudonville, Loudonville is only one of two other alternative names (the other being Siena, which isnt even a hamlet). The town hall of the town of Colonie is directly across from the campus and the town says its address is Newtonville. The Newtonville PO does not do home delivery only PO boxes that is why the college must use the ZIP code it does. Hippo doesnt wish to discuss hamlets or anything but "the college says its in Loudonville". I'm sorry this is so long, I'm trying to catch everyone up on our point of view on why Loudonville alone is not acceptable. As for those asking for an older map, see Colonie, New York, the name Newtonville goes right over where Siena College is today on the 1866 map on that article, Loudonville is considerably farther south.Camelbinky (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"they are however more reliable than anything hippo has come up with" Really? So the blog and the classified advert that you linked to (neither of which even stated that Siena was in Newtonville, or not in Loudonville) are more reliable than the college itself? And more reliable than the numerous easily available news sources online? And more reliable than all the reference books on colleges? And more reliable than these sources?

Lenhart, G., The Stamp of Class: Reflections on Poetry & Social Class, University of Michigan Press, 2006, p.100

The New York red book, Williams Press, 1977, p. 496

Heathcote, J., & Ebling, J., Jud: A Magical Journey, Sports Publishing LLC, 1995, p.210

“Kent State And Siena Hire New Black Men's Basketball Coaches”, Jet, Johnson Publishing Company, May 7, 2001, p.50

The College Blue Book, 16th Edition, Macmillan, 1977, p.473

Shontz, P., The librarian's career guidebook, Scarecrow Press, 2004, p.405

LaGumina, S.J., The Italian American Experience: An Encyclopedia, Taylor & Francis, 2000, p.574

If you gave me an hour, I could come back with another dozen, and so could you if you bothered to look. --hippo43 (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Binky, I'm the one who asked for old maps. But I enlarged that 1866 map of Colonie and compared it to the USGS map, and the words "Newtonville P.O." don't exactly cover the campus. They are written over the area immediately north of the campus; the fork in the road is prominent on both. It's clear that the campus is near the Newtonville neighborhood and the Newtonville Post Office, but you cannot guess at a border. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you squidfryerchef, I suppose your right about that. Hippo- are you really saying a poetry book, and a book on the Italian American Experience are authoritative on where Siena College is? Reliable verifiable sources are not just about them being good/bad overall, its about their relevance. Those sources you put have no relevance or research into where the college is. Siena College has a conflict of interest, their website is not useable you can not say they arent using Loudonville simply because it is an acceptable alternative for their ZIP code, they can say they are in the city of Albany and legitimately use that as their mailing address, it doesnt make them in Albany. But of course if they did we'd still have this argument and you'd insist we'd have to list the campus as being in Albany. Am I wrong? If I am right then your argument loses water, so tell me how it and your opinion would be different if they had substituted Albany for Loudonville on everything. Because there is nothing stopping the college from doing that any time. It is not an unlikely or hypothetical question, there is no reason it couldnt happen. A blog while not reliable shows that there are local people who believe that the campus could be in Newtonville, you (I believe) are in Texas how would you know what the locals consider the campus to be in? But that doesnt matter to you of course. It does to those of us who are locals, those that care about this article and articles of the area and want them to be factually correct. You have now started an edit war on Loudonville, New York saying that the hamlet is actually a town and have been warned by multiple editors to stop editing in face of concensus.Camelbinky (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW- I have found multiple sources, including the Siena College website itself that DOES mention the college is "in the town of Colonie". So I do not see how your objection to the town being mentioned is valid nor your assertion that the college ONLY says it is "in Loudonville".Camelbinky (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky, can you supply a single diff showing that I have edited the Loudonville article to state that it is a town? If not, you owe me an apology. --hippo43 (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable?

Can somebody let me know if [15] could be considered reliable for Wikipedia. Thanks--gordonrox24 (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Nationmaster is Wikipedia's mirror. brandспойт 12:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Roblox doesn't have a Wikipedia article, so how is that possible?--gordonrox24 (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Roblox had an article on Wikipedia, which was deleted. (You are aware of this, since you initiated the deletion review of the article earlier this week.) Horologium (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The roblox Wikipedia article I brought to Deletion review is a new page I have been working on. The original roblox page was spam. No substance. Nothing.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is that nothing on Nationmaster is a reliable source for any Wikipedia article, except if there's a Nationmaster article and we source that for claims the company makes about itself. DreamGuy (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrey Zubov

In the page Shusha pogrom some Andrei Zubov is used as a reference to support the claims of the massacre, etc. The whole article has serious neutrality issues, and most sources used are completely unreliable, such as law schools, obscure politologists, etc. However Zubov is claimed to be a historian, but the analysis of the source shows that he is absolutely clueless about what happened in the Caucasus at the time. This is the original Russian text:

Британская администрация почему-то передала населенные армянами уезды Елизаветпольской губернии под юрисдикцию Азербайджана. Британский администратор Карабаха полковник Шательворт не препятствовал притеснениям армян, чинимым татарской администрацией губернатора Салтанова. Межнациональные трения завершились страшной резней, в которой погибла большая часть армян города Шуши. Бакинский парламент отказался даже осудить свершителей Шушинской резни, и в Карабахе вспыхнула война. Англичане пытались разъединить армянские и азербайджанские войска. Когда же они ушли из региона, азербайджанская армия была в начале ноября 1919 года полностью разгромлена армянами. Только вмешательство англичан смогло предотвратить поход армянских войск на Елизаветполь и Шемаху. [16]

Translation:

For some reason the British administration placed the Armenian populated uyezds of Elizavetpol gubernia under the Azerbaijani jurisdiction. The British administrator of Karabakh colonel Shuttleworth did not prevent the discrimination of Armenians by the Tatar administration of governor Sultanov. Interethnic tensions resulted in a horrible massacre, in which most Armenians in the town of Shusha perished. Baku parliament refused even to condemn the perpetrators of the Shusha massacre, and the war started in Karabakh. English tried to interfere between the Armenian and Azerbaijani troops, but when they left the region, the Azerbaijani army was completely defeated by the Armenians in early November 1919. Only the interference of the English prevented the march of the Armenian troops to Elizavetpol and Shemakha.

As one could see, this guy has no idea about what actually happened in the region, and when exactly. According to all sources, even those quoted in the article the fighting in Shusha took place in March 1920, when Azerbaijanis celebrated Novruz (precisely, on 22 - 26 March 1920). Zubov says that the fighting between Armenians and Azerbaijanis started after the "massacre" in Shusha, and as result of that the Azerbaijanis were defeated in November 1919, i.e. according to him the "massacre" in Shusha was in 1919, not in 1920. Moreover, he says that the British interfered to prevent the Armenian offensive towards Ganja, while in fact the British left Azerbaijan in August 1919. See for instance these sources:

While the Italians (wisely) never got involved in the Caucasus, the continuing pressure of demobilisation and calls for British troops in other places, forced withdrawals from the region. At the end of August, Baku and the Caspian naval personnel were evacuated. By about mid-October 1919 the only troops remaining in the Caucasus were three infantry battalions at Batum.

Keith Jeffery. Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson: a political soldier. Oxford University Press, 2006

ISBN 0198203586, 9780198203582, p 247

However, the British withdrew from Baku and Azerbaijan in August 1919, and the Soviets took over the Azerbaijan Republic in April 1920.

Andy Stern. Who won the oil wars? Collins & Brown, 2005 ISBN 1843402912, 9781843402916

Zubov has no idea what he is talking about. He does not know the basic facts, such as the date of the events in Shusha, the date when the British army left the region, etc. In my opinion, Zubov cannot be considered a reliable source on the topic of events in Shusha in 1920. Grandmaster 11:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Apart from his notability, I felt that Zubov could be unreliable some time ago. Although he is credited as Doctor of Historical Sciences, Google returns virtually no evidences of his reliability. 'Zubov shusha' query for example (as there are thousands Andrei Zubovs and probably several tens of scholars named Andrei Zubov) points only to WP. In the above request he shows a widespread, though not ubiquitous bias in the AA matter, which distorts the objectivity. brandспойт 12:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Zubov is a reliable Russian historian, Professor and his article is fully academical. Grandmaster just misinterpretes what Zubov write about 1920. Grandmaster tries to understand Zubov specifically while Zubov says something correct and obvious. Grandmaster sees what he want to see, and he seems to be the first criticist of Professor. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The text is there for everyone to see. Zubov places the events at the wrong time, claims that British were involved in the events, while they left the region by November 1919, etc. Zubov does not know the history of this particular region, he does not know even the basic facts, such as when the fighting in Shusha took place, when the British left the region, etc. The source is absolutely unreliable for the purposes of the article about the events in Shusha. It clearly contradicts all other sources. Grandmaster 16:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Its you who dont understand the text by Zubov and all other scholars like Guaita that write the same. You're not a reliable source. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I will deal with Guaita later. He is no better than Zubov. As for Zubov, let's see how other people understand his text. It is clear that he says that the events in Shusha took place in 1919, and that the British army interfered after November 1919.--Grandmaster 16:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

He never says that. These are your own words. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone can check Zubov's words to see what he says. I quoted him in full.--Grandmaster 19:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Video game refs

We hope to nominate Planescape: Torment at WP:FAC pretty soon, and there are concerns over the reliability of two sources: ActionTrip and RPGWatch. Some discussion over their reliability can be found at the peer review page, but some additional input would be much appreciated. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably for rpgwatch, they do have editors, and the writer of the article referenced interviewd personel who worked on the game. Can't tell with actiontrip, since there's no about page or similar that I can find, so no. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable Source Used As Historical Facts

Re: Principality of Paganija & De Administrator Imperio

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to bring (the English Version) of Wikipedia’s Editors attention to some of the historical information on its web site. It concerns the former coastal Principality of Paganija in today's modern Croatia. As I am not a qualified history scholar I shall present my facts as clearly as possible.

Historical facts are being presented here which appear to be formulated using unscientific methods. One can only interpret this as to be politically motivated. The article states that the peoples of the former Medieval State of Paganija are of Serbian descent by using the "De Administrator Imperio" written by Roman Emperor Constantine VII Progenitors (Byzantine Empire), as it's only reference point. This statement contradicts the ethnic demographics of that region that as it exists today. The writers have not bothered to explain why this is the case! From a scholarly perspective the "De Administrator Imperio" cannot be used as source of factual information as it also has contradictions within its own paragraphs.This makes De Administrator Imperio a questionable source of historic information about this region.

There are two chapters telling two different versions of the arrival of Croatians to the region. The sections about the arrival of Serbs are nearly identical to one of stories telling the arrival of Croatians. The chapters read as an ancient form of rewrite of the migration pattern of same peoples (as if the author lacked historical information). Chapters also use mythic Croatian narratives as fact! Also De Administrator Imperio is describing events that took place three centuries before it was written. With this in mind, information in De Administrator Imperio concerning the Principality of Paganija can be put in serious doubt.Why haven't secondary references been represented, such as the historical perspectives from the other Chronicles written in that period? The Chronicle De Regno Sclavorum from 753 is a good example. This document makes more sense as it was written within that period of history and it confirms the ethnic demography of that area. The De Regno Sclavorum is believed to have been written at the congress of Southern Slavs in the Bosnian town of Dalmae (today’s Duvno). Noted famous historian J.B Bury has expressed problems with certain paragraphs of "De Administrator Imperio" this can all be referenced easily.

Secondly when talking about certain facts concerning the demography of that region of Damatia(Croatia), Wikipedia’s historical article on Paganija makes a mockery of everyday life as we know it. They misrepresent the ethnic origins of the people who live in this region. The facts of who really makes up the population of the area can be gained from an examination of several sources. For example:

(a) The recent Croatian census that was conducted in the region. (b) The Austro-Hungarian census compiled in the 19th century. (c) The recorded and documented Croatian History of the peoples of the “Republic of Ragusa”, which is now called Dubrovnik. Dubrovnik is just south of the old Medieval State of Paganija. The unreliable sources used by Wikipedia would make them of Serbian descent. Croatian literature from Dubrovnik (Republic of Ragusa) goes back centuries (reference is drawn to their long established history archives located in their libraries). Writers from Dubrovnik have a long established history of interaction with their peers from the Venetian Republic and Europe. This is a well established fact both in Dalmatia and in the rest of Croatia.

(d) There are Croatian costumes and folkloric dances that have been passed down for centuries from one generation to another. These dances are still actively performed today. (e) People who migrated from that region that I know refer to themselves as Croatian or of Croatian descent. (f) All the towns and councils of this region state on their web sites that they are Croatians.

These are just some of the facts that are known and it’s just the tip of the iceberg. With all that is stated above "De Administrator Imperio" just does not make any sense! There is always the possibility that this misleading information can be used in the future as a propaganda weapon. One can only recall the recent former Yugoslavian Wars and how much pain, misery and death it brought.

I have researched the “www.britannica.com Dalmatia Region Croatia web site (this is a more updated version) and they do not mention “De Administrator Imperio Chronicles” as an historical reference for the Dalmatian Region. This omission is obviously due to the fact that this reference is considered contradictory and therefore unreliable for that region. Maybe Wikpedia could consider adopting the same approach as www.britanica.com.

Due to the very nature of the Internet and its growing power in presenting information to society, I sincerely ask that Wikipedia look into my concerns.

Sincerely

123.2.59.195 (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to join up and join in the effort Unomi (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to figure out what your question is, and failed. The fault, no doubt, lies with me. Briefly, what Wikipedia article(s) are you asking about, and what sources are you asking about? Dlabtot (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Are they Serbs or Croats? Is the gist. And not a topic WP should touch with a ten foot pole. IMHO, of course. Collect (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

DAI is considered to be one of the main historical sources for the early history of the South Slavs. However it also appeared to be very controversial one. It's not some homogenous writing, it's a compilation of the other Byzantine sources, put together by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Porhirogenitus (end of the 10th century) meant to be a sort of political guide to his direct descendent. According to some analysis its pieces were written by up to 17 different writers or rewriters (by style) in different ages.

Controversy of the chapters mentioned by User:123.2.59.195 is very well known, it's a part about alleged Serbian settlements in Dalmatia. Per some analysis this chapter was added during 12th century and reflected political situation of that age (Serbian political expansion - not ethnic!) and not age described in the writing (7th or 8th century)- Serbs were Byzantine vasals and people who were supposed to spread Orthodox religion to the west in the name of the Byzantine Empire. According to DAI the Serbs settled a large part of Dalmatia during the Early Medieval, this piece has become the main evidence used by the Serbs, unfortunatelly blindly taken without any criticism and upgraded with a lot of Serb published literacy where everything is interpreted by a few sentences in DAI. However it's been proved that "Dalmatia" as mentioned there (DAI) should be understood as a territory of ex-Roman province Dalmatia which was much larger than modern Dalmatia - but Serbian historians use it as it's modern! It went so far that any mention od Red Croatia (although recorded by several other historical sources) is completely discreditted here in en.Wiki as well as in Serbian historian circles (it seems that Serb wikipedians are much more active here than Croatian).

In reality there is no any material or linguistic evidence of any Serbian presence there in history, quite contrary, it's all about Croatian ethnical and cultural heritage.

All earlier attempts of the Croatian users to balance these articles failed up to now, there's always some edit war there. One of the Cro users who was very active 3 yrs ago was so disappointed that he left en.wiki and erased all his discussions and sources presented on this matter. Because of how Cro history is treated here, people in Croatia use name "Serbopedia" for en.wiki and the Western Balkan related historical articles in en.wiki are used for a joke by proffessional Croatian historians.

For example how it goes when Serbian quazi-science (motivated by their continual expansionistic politics in the Balkan) comes into the scene, just take a look at the Montenegro related articles. At the moment the Montenegrins are not allowed to call their language Montenegrin, or their ethnicity Montenegrin. Serbs appropriate Montenegrin culture and ethnogenesis as well as Croatian in Dalmatia - Montenegro was annexed by Serbia 100 yrs ago (many Serbs settled it) and got indenpendent just recently. All in all - sad. Zenanarh (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Main idea of my comment is: DAI is not all unreliable, pieces are, or better to say interpretation of it. Zenanarh (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Make that a 20 foot pole... All we here at this noticeboard can and should do is affirm that DAI is considered reliable. The fact that other reliable sources may disagree with it does not make it unreliable. Such disagreements are quite normal in scholarship. We handle such disagreements by discussing what all the sources say, giving each proper weight, per WP:NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is about the article Pagania, which currently features the following prominent quotation:

"From the river Orontius begins Pagania and stretches along as far as the river Zentina; it has three 'zhupanates', Rhastotza and Mokros and that of Dalen. Two of these 'zhupanates', viz., Rhastotza and that of Mokros, lie on the sea, and possess galleys; but that of Dalenos lies distant from the sea, and they live by agriculture.

Neighbour to them are four islands, Meleta, Kourkoura, Bratza and Pharos, most fair and fertile, with deserted cities upon them and many olive-yards; on these they dwell and keep their flocks, from which they live.

[...] these same Serbs decided to depart to their own homes, and the emperor sent them off. [...] And since what is now Serbia and Pagania and the so-called country of the Zachlumoi and Terbounia and the country of the Kanalites were under the dominion of the emperor of the Romans, [...] therefore the emperor settled these same Serbs in these countries."|20px|20px|Roman Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus|De Administrando Imperio}}

Pagania bordered Croatia (Dalmatia) to the west...

In other words the article does seem to use the DAI - which is a primary source - to assert that Pagania is "Serb" and that "Croatia" is separate, even though Pagania is in the modern Republic of Croatia. Paul B (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree... the quote is clearly attributed to Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and De Administrando Imperio. So it should be read in a historical context... it is mearly saying that, in the 9th century, Pagania was regarded as being Serb and that Croatia was seperate. Was, not is. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Balkans 925 AD

Balkans 950 AD

Problem with this chapter is that it was probably added to DAI at the end of 12th century and reflected political situation of that moment - Serbian political expansion on southern Dalmatian principalities (in fact they were attacking southern Dalmatian cities, not settled it - there are no any evidence of the Serbian culture or ethnos there ever!). But DAI (supposed to be written at the end of 10th century) gives it as an information about Serbian settlement there during the migration period (~7th century), so retrogradly, while during 10th century these principalities were still attached to the Croatian Kingdom. It was the Emperor's political view - he tried to "steal" these regions from the church authority of the Roman Pope, whose subjects were the Croats. But it was never succesful. It doesn't have anything to do with modern situation. Slavic archaeological sites there (Pagania) are Old-Croatian ones. There's no doubt who settled it. Zenanarh (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Per some opinions this particular "story" presented by DAI was reflection of political (not ethnical!) change that had occured in the 2nd half of 10th century, seen on these 2 maps. In wikipedia it's presented as an evidence of Serbian settlement there 300 years earlier in the ages when the Slavic speakers had come to the western Balkans (according to out-of-date massive Slavic migration theory)!!! Zenanarh (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Private documents acceptable?

The issue at hand is http://www.gpradio.com.br/images/1/area/dados/institucional/documentos/t20_s_03-01-2009.pdf, a PDF document which apparently documents a study done by Crowley Broadcast Analysis for Group dos Professionales do Radio. For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate to everything: Crowley is a reputable survey firm, GPR is a reliable professional group with regard to Brazilian radio broadcasts, all of that.

Discussion at WT:Record charts#Brazilian charts has pretty much come to the conclusion that it is hard to treat it as an acceptable record chart. One editor, JuStar, has refused to acknowledge that consensus, and won't permit it to be removed.

So, my question at WP:RS: this document is a private document. It was found through one of those Google accidents ... an apparently private document, with no publicly viewable links that somehow wound up exposed to Google's search engine, and is now returned though Google searches. It's labeled Exclusivo para Group dos Professionales do Radio, which means "Exclusively for ... ". Can such documents be used for sources?—Kww(talk) 16:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say No. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like it is reliable, but it's use will have to be determined by consensus. Just because a source is an RS doesn't mean we have to use it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The document is published by Group dos Professionales do Radio; it is not a 'private' document, it is a public document by virtue of the fact that they are making it publicly available on their website, which is why we are able to view it. It seems to be a reliable source for citing the results of the survey conducted by Crowley Broadcast Analysis and commissioned by Group dos Professionales do Radio. Dlabtot (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Where do you find the link for it on their website? I was unable to find one. That's why I believe it to be a Google accident. I agree, if it's published, it's at least reliable, and the only question is whether it can be treated as a "chart" or not, which isn't a question for here.—Kww(talk) 19:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Where do you find the link for it on their website? I didn't look for a link on their website because the question of whether there is, was, or will be a link to it on their website is irrelevant. Dlabtot (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting perspective: if someone has a private area on their server, intended for customers, and, through misconfiguration, the Google spider found it (which is what I sincerely think happened in this case), you don't think the intended privacy has any impact? No copyright or verifiability implications?—Kww(talk) 20:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Isnt the basic premise of RS to help define WP:V - identify sources that material in articles came from so that readers and other editors can verify the existence and content? In this instance this appears to be something that we would need to consider more like a primary source to be used only with extreme caution, not a published source as it was not intended for any type of mass distribution. ("Exclusivo para") We have no sense that once they find out it is publically accessable that they are not going to pull it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of 'misconfiguration', nor do I find any of your other assumptions to be inescapable conclusions rather than conjecture. It is an undeniable fact that Group dos Professionales do Radio has made this document available to the public on their website; the assertion that this document is in some way 'private' appears to me to be without any rational basis. Dlabtot (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The complete lack of links to a PDF as demonstrated by a link search is clearly a "rational" basis. You may not draw the same conclusions as I do from it, but my conclusion isn't irrational. How is the public to find a document with no links?—Kww(talk) 20:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, that is irrelevant. If you wish to change our verifiability policy to include the idea that sources must be considered 'private' based on this type of google search, the correct place to comment would be at WT:V. Dlabtot (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:V: "readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" (emph added)- an internal report designed and intended only for internal distribution is not "published". -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is undeniable that this document has been published. That is why we are able to discuss it. On the other hand, the assertion that it is intended only for internal distribution seems to be based on conjecture. Dlabtot (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because something is available on the web does not mean that it has been "published" in the way the term is meant in WP:V. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What is your basis for saying that? Dlabtot (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

dictionary.com "to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public. 2. to issue publicly the work of: Random House publishes Faulkner. 3. to announce formally or officially; proclaim; promulgate. 4. to make publicly or generally known. 5. Law. to communicate (a defamatory statement) to some person or persons other than the person defamed. –verb (used without object) 6. to issue newspapers, books, computer software, etc.; engage in publishing: The new house will start to publish next month. 7. to have one's work published: She has decided to publish with another house. " Publishing has the intent of being public. There is no indication that this report was intended for public consumption, in fact, it it clearly NOT for public audiences. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

When they placed this document in the publicly accessible part of their website, where we accessed it, as members of the public, in what way was that action not making it available for public consumption? Dlabtot (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, if their intent was not to make it public, why would they put it on their website? Dlabtot (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a mistake or a piece of corporate sabotage. Clearly if you intend to make something public, you dont use a version stamped "for internal use only". and if you wish people to get to a page you put links directing them there. Someone could contact them and see if they know the page is available to the public and if it stays, well then we know, and if it goes, then we know that too.-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say "for internal use only". And your certainty that it must be " a mistake or a piece of corporate sabotage", while no doubt well-intentioned, doesn't seem to have any basis. Dlabtot (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How on earth is it only conjecture when there's wording written right on it saying it's not (apologies - had written this differently and changed it but missed this word) only for the company? That's what that phrase means. If it were intended for the public it would either say so or that would have been removed. DreamGuy (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What the document says is that it was produced by Crowley Broadcast Analysis exclusively for Group dos Professionales do Radio. In other words, GPR was the only client for this survey. The document does not say that it is private and not intended for publication, or any words to that effect. Group dos Professionales do Radio published this document on their website. Some have conjectured that they didn't mean to do so, based on the result of a Google search. I don't find anything in our policies that dictates that sources should be considered 'private' if certain google searches related to those sources return no results. Dlabtot (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

On part of this, I will concur with Dlabtot. This appears to have been done as a work-for-hire by Crowley for GPR. In the absence of some special contract between Crowley and GPR, GPR would have the right to release it. I still question whether they did or not, but if they did, that inscription wouldn't even make me blink.—Kww(talk) 00:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This non-RS seems to indicate "link:" is a sampling. Google's spider cannot find something that does not have a link to it. All it does is follow links. Whether it improperly processed a nofollow or nocache or bots.txt, I don't think we can tell. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

But the real issue here is the premise that because a Wikipedia editor can't find a link to a document on the website that hosts that document, that document is somehow 'private'. A simple hypothetical example will illustrate the fallacy in this premise.

One could publish a document on one's website, and then take out radio, tv and print advertisements broadcasting the url of the document. Although google won't find that link, it clearly is a document meant for the public.

Or, the link to the document could have been included on an earlier version of the website, or could be planned for a future version, or simply been omitted through an error. Dlabtot (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it is an isolated week tends to support the accident theory. The motivation for publicly releasing the ratings for one week without releasing any other week is hard to fathom. Crowley does publish charts, one for Rio De Janeiro and one for Sao Paulo, and publishes those weekly on the web. This one week, one difficult to find PDF contains a broader chart, with no documentation or pointers.—Kww(talk) 00:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting... most of the discussion so far has been focused on the publisher of the document ... my initial "No" reaction, on the other hand, was focused on the author of the document. How do we verify that this document actually was authored by "Crowley Broadcast Analysis" for GPR and not created by someone at GPR? We do not need to assume nefarious motives in asking this. It could be an internal report based upon CBA analysis... or even a "mock up", created by GPR for distribution to Crowley, to indicate the categories they would like Crowley to analyze and the format they would like Crowley's final report to take.

Or, let's assume that it is authored by someone at Crowley, how do we verify that it is their final report and not a draft?

All we know is that it is a document that is found on GPR's website... we do not know its history or provinance. We have no way to know who authored it, or if it was approved by either company. I simply can not agree that it is a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Strictly true, but as skeptical as I am of the usability of this doc, I'm willing to concede that. Crowley Broadcasting Analysis does do radio broadcast analysis, GPR is a professional group of Brazilian broadcasters. Hard to prove it's not a forgery, but I'm willing to bet it's not.—Kww (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that it probably isn't a forgery (ie a deliberate fake)... but it could well be a draft, or a GPR employee's analisys a Crowley report ... or who knows what? About the only way one could use it would be for a statement to the effect that "According to an anonomously authored document found linked at GPR's website that looks like it might have come from Crowley...". That just isn't good enough for me. Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The only thing weird about the source is the google link search. It's fine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit strong. I'm taking away from this discussion that the sourcing problem isn't strange enough to get a consensus that the source is unreliable, but to say that there is only one weird thing about it isn't true. Having only one week of a weekly chart published with the remaining hundreds of weeks being nowhere to be found is also pretty weird.—Kww(talk) 03:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Store norske leksikon

Someone has questioned Store norske leksikon as a reliable source, saying that almost anyone can edit it.[17] I have read some of what it says about itself and have been accepting it as reliable.[18] Since it is used as a source for a great many interesting articles on Norwegian subjects on Wikipedia, I would like to be sure of its reliability. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently there is some editorial oversight; to paraphrase, anyone can apply to be responsible for certain areas of knowledge. But it comes with a probationary and 'presumably' mentored period, there are no formal criteria to formal education or professional experience to be on the 'oversight' group. Here is a list of the people that currently considered responsible for content, perhaps you could look into the individuals that affect the topics you are interested in. Unomi (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Men's News Daily reliable for fact or opinion?

Is Men's News Daily sufficiently reliable, for either facts or opinions, to be used in articles like Separatist feminism, Lev Navrozov, David Holcberg, Antifeminism, Andrea Dworkin, etc. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any indication that Men's News Daily has established a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It doesn't appear to be cited by other RS. In fact, I wonder if they are really notable enough to have their own article, since it itself is unreferenced. So, imho, no. Dlabtot (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything about their editorial policies either (which is weird, much smaller sites have significantly more information about who owns them and who the editors are and stuff) So I'd avoid this site also. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Not for BLPs, and probably not for wide social movements. It seems to be mostly opinion pieces. It is verifiable but no information on editorial policies. A few cites in Google Books and Google Scholar; be sure to include the apostophe in your search. May be usable in reaction pieces to news stories (i.e. if they flag a perceived misuse of statistics in a gender study), but with very light weight i.e. boiling down the whole cite to one or two words. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Book Review Sources

Hi. I was wondering if any of these websites were reliable: Teen Reads.com [19], Active Anime [20] and Graphic Novel Reporter.com [21]. Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In support of what text in which Wikipedia article(s)? Dlabtot (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As reviews in the reception section of manga articles. Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you please be specific? Dlabtot (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I was looking for reviews (of the manga series Earl Cain) on Google for the article Earl Cain. I was wondering if websites I found the reviews on were reliable and so the reviews could be used as a result of the websites being reliable and not just some random person's blog? Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, [22][23] two of the sources are the same company. They do seem to have an editorial staff, so I would say they're reliable for non-controversial information, aka their opinion. ActiveAnime doesn't provide enough info to judge them, so no. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Historical Facts Regarding Principality of Pagania

Hello! Point taken, a more concise version presented here:

Wikipedia (English Site) Article: Pagania (other articles that link or related, for example Towns in that region, Islands & other historical articles)

Source Referenced Information: De Administrator Imperio

Unreliable source is being used as historical facts on Wikipedia. It concerns the article on the Dalmatian Principality of Pagania in today's modern Croatia.

The article is using only one reference point that states that the peoples of the former Medieval State of Pagania are of Serbian descent by using the "De Administrator Imperio" written by Roman Emperor Constantine VII Progenitors (Byzantine Empire). From a scholarly perspective the "De Administrator Imperio" cannot be used as a source for factual information for Dalmatia (Croatia) as it is an unreliable source. It has contradictions within its own paragraphs and uses myths as fact. It also contradicts the ethnic demographics of that region (The writers have not bothered to explain why this is the case!). There have been studies conducted on the "De Administrator Imperio" from an unbiased perspective. Noted historian J.B Bury has expressed problems with certain paragraphs of "De Administrator Imperio" (reference: The early history of the Slavonic settlements in Dalmatia, Croatia, & Serbia-Preface Section, fourth paragraph).

There are other studies, which are available on the Internet (reference: www.economicexpert.com/a/De:Administrando:Imperio.html).

The “www.britannica.com Dalmatia Region Croatia” web site do not mention “De Administrator Imperio Chronicles” as an historical reference for the Dalmatian/Croatian Region (reference: www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/150229/Dalmatia). This omission is obviously due to the fact that this reference is considered problematic.

Could Wikipedia’s Editors please investigate this?

Sincerely

123.2.59.195 (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussed more fully in previous thread... summary: De Administrator Imperio is considered to be a reliable primary source, although like most historical sources it has its limitations and problems. Other sources may disagree with it, but that does not make it unreliable (such disagreements are common in scholarship). The solution is to mention what all the sources say per WP:NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Reliable Sources/Noticeboard! I would like to focus my concerns even further. The unreliable sources I find a problem are in Chapters 30, 31 and 32 from De Administrator Imperio. For the issues that I have brought up previously these chapters should be examined closely. In my opinion chapters 30, 31 and 32 are unreliable sources for facts. They should not be used in a direct or indirect fashion when referring to the ethnic demography of the region of Southern Dalmatia. Sir Floyd (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC) (formally know as 123.2.59.195)

Reliable sources for publications

We would consider an academic peer reviewed journal as a Reliable Source for an article about a topic. How far can we take the same journal as reliable in describing iteslf? If it says on the title page that it was published in 1957, can we take that as true, or are we obliged to find another publication that verifies it? Martinlc (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals may have an opinion on this. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please be specific? In the editing of what Wikipedia article or articles has this question arisen? What is the source in question? Are there prior talk page discussions concerning this question? Dlabtot (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

From Martinlc's talk page, seems to be about Morgannwg (magazine). Journals, like any other topic that can talk about itself, are allowed to, subject to the restrictions of WP:SPS, if applicable. Here it is probably not applicable unless there is reason to suspect the journal's general reliability. Problems arise only if there is conflicting information from other sources or if a claim was extraordinary.John Z (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not go over to an indexing site like Worldcat and do a journal search? It shows a collection beginning in 1957[24]. The journal's own history about itself should be enough, but if there's a debate we could go ahead and cite Worldcat as a tertiary source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: there is no debate about the start date- the general question I wanted to raise was how far self-description is taken as reliable within sources that would be taken as reliable for their content. My feeling is that for matters of fact there is no need for external validation, so that we might say a magazine started in 1919 because that's the date on the cover. If a reliable soruce was later identified which showed, or said, that the cover date was incorrect, then that could be added (and referenced) accordingly. Martinlc (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Group Representative

There's some major problems rearing up on X-American articles. The population boxes are adding dubious representatives, some WP:BLP, of that ethnic group. Dutch Americans places Franklin Roosevelt and Martin van Buren, as, apparently, pristine representatives of Dutch Americans, though neither have been proven to have any more than a great-grandparent of that ancestry (in fact, for Van Buren, it's "great-great-great-great-grandfather Cornelis") - and neither have sources providing them as "Dutch Americans" merely of "some Dutch background." I think intervention will eventually be needed as many editors are incredibly hot-headed about their ethnicities' "known names." Bulldog123 16:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

X-Yian articles in general seem to attract a lot of trouble. I'm assuming editors already have good sources for these, and we're dealing with an issue of appropriate weight. It doesn't seem so off-base to include former presidents with Dutch surnames in a list of Dutch-Americans. There is of course the question of whether to weight the paternal line of descent more heavily on these lists, and the question of whether less common ancestries should be more heavily weighted. For instance, the list of Scottish-Americans could get ridiculously long unless it was limited to those with the strongest ties there, while editors might dig a little deeper to populate the list of Greenlandic-Americans. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory discovery channel

I'm not quite sure where to put this question, but I'll give it a try here. I'm trying to add a relevant video for the external links portion of the Chemtrail conspiracy theory. Would the following video be considered reliable(would it fit into the external links section).

• Discovery Channel Best Evidence:Chemical Contrails How stuff works

Smallman12q (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Fails WP:ELNO #9 8. But besides that, the Discovery Channel is not a reliable source—it's a source of entertainment—and they tend to air topics which are (how shall I put this nicely) crap. Like this. -Atmoz (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've had time to properly view the video now instead of just briefly previewing it, but my opinion hasn't changed. In fact I'm even more convinced it doesn't belong in the article. In addition to violating ELNO 8 (sorry about the wrong number above), it violates ELNO 2 and NPOV as well. And with the lack of an external links noticeboard, this seems to be an adequate place to discuss them. There are 3 talking heads in the video, two of them don't have names mentioned (the other is Dave Dickie [sp?], but who is he?) and none of the claims made by these persons can be verified, and indeed can easily be refuted by established science.

The first talking head starts by talking about cloud seeding, not chemtrails. Not a good start, but as she continues the evidence presented is secondhand hearsay, "I was told initially by a friend, he said his brother was in the military service..." (0:29).

The second talking head (1:02) is probably just confused, but he doesn't explain himself well enough to know how to refute it. It sounds like he's describing someone looking from the ground up at contrails from airlines and military aircraft "in the same airspace" and comparing the residence time of the contrails. What does "in the same airspace" mean? If it means they were in the same field of view while looking up from the ground (that was my interpretation), it tells us nothing about the altitude of the aircraft. And from the ground, and only seeing the contrails, it's difficult to tell the difference between an aircraft at 30,000 ft and 45,000 ft. As I said, it's entirely too vague in the video to tell what he's specifically talking about. Even if he did see military contrails persisting for longer than civilian contrails, there are plenty of accepted scientific reasons for them. The military aircraft could be flying at an altitude where the air is closer to saturation, which would mean the contrails would persist for longer.

The third segment is a guy saying he saw two suspicious contrails from KC-135s while touring a civilian air traffic control tower. They were "identified" as military aircraft, but says he didn't see them, only their contrails, and their radio callsigns were identified as Petrol 1 and Petrol 2. If the aircraft were not visible from the air traffic control tower were not visible, they were not on the tower frequency or in the tower's airspace. The information presented that he saw this while visiting a control tower is a red herring to make the viewer think they were flying at a low altitude. However, he didn't see them, this means they could be flying at any altitude, including high enough to make normal contrails.

In addition to the information presented in the video being unverifiable, it is also not presented in a neutral point of view. All three of the talking heads were convinced that chemtrails exist and that it's a military conspiracy. But there was no alternative evidence presented attempting to rebut the claims, which is actually quite easy to do. There may have been in the original Discovery Channel episode, but the clip provided is only 2 minutes long, and ends abruptly after the third talking head gets done. While ELs are not required to be NPOV, the addition of this link would be placing undue weight on the side that advocates "the truth" of the conspiracy theory.

TLDR summary: the information presented in the video is factually inaccurate, unverifiable, and not NPOV and as such should not be included as external links. -Atmoz (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Number 9 is search engine results, perhaps one of the others was intended. Text web sites are generally preferred over streaming video (#8), but there's no ban by any means on using video. The RS criteria for external links is not as stringent as for cited sources, however in some ways ELs are more restrictive on how broadly the link fits the article topic. You don't want a long collection of ELs; to me, three is a good number for most articles. The chemtrail article happens to have three. One is a general EPA page about pollution from aircraft, and the Discovery progam seems a much better fit for the topic. Discovery, though part of the popular media, is both RS and V. Now, if there was a Frontline program on the idea of chemtrails we might use that instead, but for now the Discovery program should be fine. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Discovery Channel is a reliable source which can be cited, although only in specific ways. But saying that it is a reliable source that can in some instances be cited doesn't mean that everything that the Discovery Channel broadcasts is The Truth™, of course. Anyway, external links don't even need to conform to the RS standard, this shouldn't even be posted here. Dlabtot (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see the issue. The video isn't the entire documentary, it's a teaser introducing the strange story of chemtrails. While what we write must be verifiable to sources, our sources don't have to cite their sources and so on down the line so I'm not too concerned about hearsay. The next interviewee simply said he saw an impressive contrail from a military refueling jet. Air-to-air refueling is something that aviation buffs like to catch a glimpse of, and that's probably why that jet was pointed out from the tower. It's not at all unusual to see the contrail but barely be able to see the plane flying at a stratospheric altitude, and I'd expect the larger, heavier refueling jet to leave an impressive one. Besides the difference in altitude ( it's cold in the stratosphere and that's why you see the exhaust ), there's other reasons why a military jet would leave more of a trail than a civilian jet. Afterburners are one reason. Another possible one is a difference in fuel. And it's interesting how the conspiracy theorists got interested in contrails right around the time the military switched to the heavier and less flammable JP-8. Anway, because the video is only a teaser and doesn't actually explain anything about the issues involved, I'd say not EL for editorial reasons. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Or is the entire documentary split into the "related videos" section? There's a bunch of others like "Best Evidence: Chemtrail Belivers" and so forth. But it's still hard to tell which are the teasers. Even if these make up the entire documentary, it's laborious to go through them all. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea is to give an idea from where chemtrail conspiracy theorists come. It is a teaser video, but I thought it would serve the function of visually introducing chemtrails.Smallman12q (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi a reliable source about police?

Somebody keeps inserting into Kaitsepolitseiamet, article on the Estonian Defence Police, claims taken from the personal blog of one Risto Teinonen, a noted neo-Nazi. Can such a blog be considered a WP:RS for claims such as "KAPO appears to be a criminal civil service"? Can insertion of such material be considered vandalism? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, personal blogs are definitely not considered reliable. Remove it as non RS. If it keeps being added back to the article it can be considered vandalism. Blueboar (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your assessment. I'll revert it as vandalism if the issue arises again. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

List of liqueurs

Hi. I'm wondering about this edit, and what people think about using commercial sites to verify the existence and other details about some liqueurs on the list for which we have no other independently verifiable information. The discussion at the talk page has seemed to come down to a question of whether it's appropriate to use a commercial site to verify something when no non-commercial site can be found.

Thanks in advance for any input, either here, or at Talk:List of liqueurs. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just so people know... this question has also been raised at WT:Reliable sources#List of liqueurs (and they suggested that GTB double check here... so no forum shopping accusations please). I agree with the general consensus stated at WT:RS: while commercial sites may not be the most reliable sources, they do pass the bar and are better than nothing. I also agree with the idea that there is nothing wrong with looking for better sources. I think User:WhatamIdoing hits it right on the nail when he noted: "Why not cite a book, if the manufaturer's website seems too commercial for you?" He seems to have found several you could use. Blueboar (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope it's not forum-shopping if I try to talk to a broad spectrum of Wikipedians. I'm asking for information, and so I know what the community thinks, and I'm listening to people whether or not I agree with them. I have my own personal take, but that's not important compared with the consensus reading of our policies and guidelines. Everyone's input is appreciated; I'm learning. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the individual situation... and the apparent motivation. Asking the same or a similar question at multiple policy talk pages, is sometimes considered forum shopping. It looks like the poster simply did not like the answer he or she got the first time and is trying again. But this does not seem to be the case with your double posting (especially since you were advised to re-post here). My advice: if you do post the same question to multiple venues, post links to the other places you posted it. That way everyone can check what was said at the other venues before replying.

Having said that... let's focus on replying to the question (I gave my view above). Blueboar (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

List is getting crufty. Perhaps it should be limited to liqueurs that already have a WP article establishing notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

But then it wouldn't be a "list of liqueurs", it would be a "list of liqueurs that already have articles within the website Wikipedia".

Items within a list do not need to satisfy WP:N individually. See WP:NNC, and Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Lists, and Wikipedia:Lists#Listed_items, and Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lead_and_selection_criteria, and Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Appropriate_topics_for_lists for the guidance. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

True, and I've argued those points in debates to keep lists of private airports by state. A list of liqueurs might not be the best choice for our purposed. Maybe a category or v/d/e. The problem is that almost any distillery can whip up a new novelty liqueur, so if we cover them all we'd fill up with ones that aren't really important. We should really concentrate on the top-shelf ones that have been made for many years, such as Benedictine, Cointreau, Chambord, etc. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery

• NOTE: Source material is added below this comments section. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I was told at a different noticeboard that we should only use Quackwatch as a "source of opinion" until it was validated in WP:RSN (which I find to be preposterous, but here we are).

Barrett (the guy that created quackwatch.org) is a knowledgeable/notable source on health and nutrition issues, on medical quackery and on medicine. From his own bio:

a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, a CSICOP's Fellow, FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery in 1984. Honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association in 1986. Two years teaching health education at The Pennsylvania State University. 2001 Distinguished Service to Health Education Award from the American Association for Health Education. (...) medical editor of Prometheus Books; and has been a peer-review panelist for several top medical journals. He has written more than 2,000 articles and delivered more than 300 talks at colleges, universities, medical schools, and professional meetings. His 50 books include (...) 'Dubious Cancer Treatment', published by the Florida Division of the American Cancer Society; 'Health Schemes, Scams, and Frauds', published by Consumer Reports Books; (...) and 'Reader's Guide to "Alternative" Health Methods', published by the American Medical Association [One book he edited] won the American Medical Writers Association award for best book of 1983 for the general public and became a special publication of Consumer Reports Books (...) His media appearances include Dateline, the Today Show, Good Morning America, ABC Prime Time, Donahue, CNN, National Public Radio, and more than 200 radio and television talk show interviews." Barret's bio(not a literal quote)

WP:SPS allows for this sort of sources "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.": This guy meets this with flying colors for the field of medicine and of quackery in medicine.

I suggest that, if someone still claims that quackwatch.org is not a RS in medical quackery even after reading the above, then that person is plainly wikilawyering around WP:RS and having a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This question has been brought to this noticeboard before at least once, and IIRC the consensus was in general yes, it is a RS about things such as medical fraud, quackery and such (it's not named HealWatch, after all), but that the attribution needs to be explicit. That seems like a reasonable position to me, as the main issues I would have with the site is that its tone is sometimes overly polemic, and that it's definition of quackery is IMO overly broad to include anything without explicit and sound medical evidence of its efficacy. So when it says something is quackery, it may not mean what I would take that to mean, which is that the practice was fraudulently promoted as effective in a particular case, i.e., charlatanism.

While I do not have a particular beef with Barrett, I would not bet the farm on the exact details of his self-published bio. Lots of truth grains to be sure, but it as it reads is not without puffery. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a relevant discussion at WT:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal#Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. The result was that Arbcom amended an earlier decision that had been (mis?)construed by many as a content ruling saying that Quackwatch is not a reliable source. Obviously, the arbitrators did not rule about whether it is a reliable source, but it seems to me that they agreed:

(1) Quackwatch is a reliable source.

(2) Quackwatch is a partisan source.

(3) The earlier ruling against an editor for using Quackwatch in a specific way did not need changing (other than removing an inappropriate word from the header).

This is in no way binding; it is not even a decision. But I think regarding (1) and (2) it is exactly the right conclusion. (I have not looked closely at (3) and it doesn't seem to be very relevant here). The arguments presented that make Quackwatch more reliable than a random website are somewhat weak. (The websites of some scientific organisations presenting it as such. Websites of scientific organisations are not necessarily maintained to scientific standards. Also acceptance of Quackwatch as an expert source by the popular press.) They make Quackwatch a reliable source, but not of the same quality as a scholarly publication or a scientific organisation.

The partisan nature of Quackwatch becomes apparent in its occasional insistence that CAM practices such as acupuncture that are being seriously examined by the scientific community can be rejected without such examination. This makes Quackwatch unsuitable as a reliable source for certain purposes, and this must be discussed on a case-by-case basis. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that this needs to be discussed on a case by case basis. In general, I am reluctant to call any website of the "__X__watch" variety reliable... the appendage of "watch" to the name tends to indicate a strong POV approach to the subject. The vast majority of such websites are nothing more than personal websites authored by an individual with an axe to grind. Quackwatch seems to be no exception.

However, the author might qualify as an expert. If so, then Quackwatch might qualify under the "expert exception" to the "personal webpages and blogs are generally not reliable" rule. It might be usable as a source for a statement as to the author's opinion. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the respondents thus far in that Quackwatch should be judged on a case-by-case basis and that Barrett's self-styled bio should be taken with a large grain of salt The case we are looking at now deals with the article: List of topics characterized as pseudoscience‎. I believe that here Quackwatch is a reliable source. This is an article which merely looks for notable sources which have made a characterization of some topic as a pseudoscience. Quackwatch is notable and has made such a characerization. However, if the article was "List of pseudosciences" (which it is not), then Quackwatch would not be a reliable source because - per WP:PSCI - in order for Wikipedia to declare something a pseudoscience, we must show that the scientific community generally considers it so. As a non-peer-reviewed, partisan website which ignores contradictory evidence, Quackwatch certain does not qualify as being representational of the scientific community. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Quackwatch is generally a RS about alternative medicine, and like all sources each use should be judged on merit. I disagree with Levine's hypothetical and interpretation of PSCI, but that is well documented and the hypothetical is not relevant here. Verbal chat 15:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

When JAMA, Lancet, and NEJM all consider it to be a RS (see Quackwatch#References for cites), we must accept that it meets a very high standard. The decision that it is explicitly not NPOV is unsurprising. It makes no attempt to present fallacies, frauds, and quackeries as equal to evidence based medicine. Levine2112's allegation that Quackwatch (and implicitly Barrett) ignores contradictory evidence is a serious one that should either be backed up or retracted.LeadSongDog come howl 18:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

From the Village Voice: Barrett depends heavily on negative research and case studies in which alternative therapies do not work, but he says that most case studies that show positive results of alternative therapies are unreliable. Former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine Peter Barry Chowka states that: He seems to be putting down trying to be objective... Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative... But I personally think he's running against the tide of history. But that's his problem, not ours. In a critical website review of Quackwatch, Joel M. Kauffman evaluated eight Quackwatch articles and concluded that the articles were "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo..." and "...it is very probable that many of the 2,300,000 visitors to the website have been misled by the trappings of scientific objectivity. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As (I think) has been agreed above, this should probably be judged on a case-by-case basis rather than by universal binary fiat. Parity of sources is a useful guideline here. For a topic like acupuncture or chiropractic, there is actually a substantial body of scholarship and peer-reviewed medical literature upon which to draw, so Quackwatch pales in comparison and is less useful as a source. On the other hand, for low-profile, obscure alternative approaches or out-and-out health fraud which are below the horizon of the medical literature, Quackwatch can be a useful source - sometimes, the only useful source. MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have problems with a self-published bio, then you can look at independient third party sources narrating his exploits. Time magazine made a profile on Barret, saying:

"His site (...) is widely cited by doctors and medical writers (...) His findings [in mail-order health stuff] spurred legislation that authorizes the Federal Government to levy penalties of $25,000 a day on repeat mail-order offenders. (...) his debunking report was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and picked up by the national press. 'It left the hair-analysis industry with egg on its face,' says Barrett. 'Half the labs shut down.' (...) Hearing of Emily's project, Barrett helped edit a report, got it published and was rewarded with worldwide press coverage. (...) 'Twenty years ago, I had trouble getting my ideas through to the media,' he says. 'Today I am the media'."[25]

Also, if you go to Stephen Barrett and search for the sentence "Some sources that mention Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch as a useful source for consumer information", you will find a quite fat list of RS mentioning his website and articles in medical journals using material from it or recommending it. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any point to this discussion? It's already been established that QW should be used on a case-by-case basis, ideally when better sources are not available. And it should never go further than that, because that's the policy on all sources. When no academic sources are available, sure, it's fine. But first of all, it looks and sounds biased, which reduces its credibility and leads to contentious disputes. Further, it is biased, and may exclude or misinterpret sources which don't support its position. Over at NPOV, I brought up the Feingold diet article and mentioned ref 6, which Barret cites as "some researchers have reported little or no adverse effect during challenge experiments [6-7]". When one looks at 6, one finds that 8 children were subjected to a double-blind study]. Of those 8, 2 (25%) were identified as reactors. Further, studies demonstrating relationships between hyperactivity and food additives have now been replicated several times, as our ADHD article shows. Another example: QW's article on laetrile makes much ado about its toxicity. Yet laetrile is not considered toxic when administered intravenously. That fact is not mentioned. Further, the most recent Cochrane review of laetrile called for another clinical trial based on more recent research and suggestions that the previous trials by Moertel were flawed. It will be interesting to see how, or if, QW is updated as research which doesn't support its central thesis is published (eg the recent Cochrane review on St. John's Wort). Anyway, at this point there's not much that hasn't been covered in more reliable publications, but if there is something which QW uniquely covers, or if those publications are difficult to access, using QW is a decent start. II | (t - c) 01:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Why wiki continues to use quackwatch, with its "incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo" (Kaufmann) is beyond me. How could any such website could be a reliable source for anything but their own opinion? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed Kaufmann's opinion, but it's not a very notable or properly documented opinion from a pusher of fringe POV who has found his odd beliefs criticized by QW. Lots of other similar criticisms are made by other believers in various quackeries and pseudosciences, and they too are the fringe opinions of disgruntled believers whose beliefs have been skewered by Quackwatch and other scientific and skeptical sources. So what? The mainstream doesn't hold those opinions of Quackwatch. If one is to search for imperfections, one will indeed find them in any source, and if they are shown to be significant without the generous use of editorial OR and synth violations, then in those precise instances QW should not be used. The same applies to any other source, including the NEJM, JAMA, Lancet, etc., which can also include errors. Just use common sense.

As to the existence of bias (bias isn't identical with prejudice), deprecating sources that show bias would eliminate most of our sources, and we would thus fail to fulfill the mission of Wikipedia, which is to document the real world, facts, opinions, and all, using V & RS. WP:NPOV: "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." Wikipedia is interesting precisely because it presents biased opinions in an NPOV manner, and NPOV requires that all significant opinions, bias and all, be presented. That editors who are believers in fringe POV are attempting to deprecate QW is understandable. They would like their fringe POV presented without the notable opinions and criticisms which QW, and often other sources, provide in the real world. They want a censored version of their pet belief presented unchallenged, IOW a sales brochure. This runs contrary to many of our policies and such editors need to be watched carefully. A cardinal sign of an editor who has motives that are destructive to the way Wikipedia presents fringe theories and beliefs is when they attack QW. That's a big red flag. They are attacking the canary in the mine, when it comes to alternative medicine and other fringe theories. That's whitewashing. QW happens to be that significant of a source in the real world. ALL believers in quackery and pseudoscience hate it, and that speaks very well for using QW as a source. What better recommendation can it come with? That's an even better recommendation than all the notable and very reliable mainstream sources that quote it and recommend it. It serves the mainstream position well. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I say that Barrett is shown above to be a recognized expert by the mainstream, with Time magazine saying that he is "widely cited by doctors and medical writers". As Fyslee says, there can be specific cases when he is mistaken, but these mistakes should be demonstrated without heavy OR. It's tiring to see how people keep trying to show a given source X as unreliable using their own OR, without giving any non-fringe RS that explicitely calls source X unreliable, and while not taking into account all the notable mainstream RS saying that source X is recommended/used/respected/influencial/notable/taken-as-a-reliable-source-of-facts in maintream. (yeah, II, I'm talking about your comment above, and there is also 70.71.x, who is actually using a source, but a fringe one: Kauffman 2007 at the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which is for topics "outside the established disciplines of mainstream science")

(By the way, you will find plenty of fringe "RS" criticizing him as unreliable, quoth from Time magazine: "[Quackwatch] has also made Barret a lightning rod for herbalists, homeopaths and assorted true believers, who regularly vilify him as dishonest, incompetent, a bully and a Nazi."[26], this being said right after the "widely cited" quote, so I advice to take any claim of "RS criticism of Quackwatch" with a huge grain of salt. Let's please take into account the lack of criticism towards Barret from mainstream RS before ledding credence to fringe criticism :P ) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

We've had this conversation multiple times and in multiple places, and Quackwatch is always met and well exceeded all necessary criteria for being a reliable source. Claims to the contrary usually come from clear POV-pushing editors. We do not need to discuss this over and over, it's clear. DreamGuy (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw a mention of Chowka in a comment above, and I was slightly amused to find that Chowka's statement of "[Quackwatch is] running against the tide of history" was made 10 years ago, in 1999 [27]. That tide of history is sure taking its time to put Quackwatch in its proper place. Ok, ok, no POINTy comments, sorry, just make your own conclusions or something. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of parity, this is the fringe POV pusher Kaufmann, here is his (fascinating) review of Quackwatch.

And this is the source of the Chowka quote. Unomi (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the Kauffman paper. Fascinating indeed. I have verified that several of the web pages criticised by Kauffman still exist on the Quackwatch site. The first three, although changed, were apparently not changed in response to the review. The criticism generally sounds plausible, and it appears that Barrett (and Green, one of his authors) occasionally give misleading or even dangerous advice.

Some things that need checking before I can trust Kauffman: Other publications by Kauffman. Why was this published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration? Some claims by Kauffman sound like allusions to (plausible, but still) conspiracies. Check in some cases whether he is right about the scientific details. E.g. the advice to reduce fat intake to lower cholesterol levels is also given in a brochure I got from the NHS (after a nurse spectacularly failed to measure my blood pressure correctly). Kauffman contradicts this and after reading cholesterol I would say that's very plausible; but this may be merely a case of Barrett presenting a majority opinion and suppressing the reasonable doubts of a minority of experts. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

About Kauffman being a proponent of fringe viewpoints and thus not representing mainstream opinion at all. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

lol, the editor of Kauffman's latest book "Malignant medical myths" is Infinity publishing, a self-publishing house. Described in Amazon as "A fearless exposé of mainstream medicine’s most revered dogma (...)"[28], he debunks mainstream myths, and defends that water fluoridation is not safe, which, mind you totally contradicts our article Water_fluoridation#Evidence_basis, quote from Kauffman: "Proponents of fluoridation have censored most mass media, ignored intelligent discussion of fluoridation, slandered most opponents of fluoridation, and overturned legal judgments against fluoridation in a manner that demonstrates their political power. Many published studies that had conclusions favoring fluoridation were later found unsupported by their raw data. ... Such studies are still quoted regardless." IMHO, this screams "fringe proponent complaining that his fringe ides are being ignored by mainstream", no wonder he is bitter against Barret, and also... oh well, just read this review by some guy and make up your own mind, he actually has some reasonable opinions in some of the "myths". And, mind you, at least this book is reviewed in the Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons --Enric Naval (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Correct link to the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, which is even more fringe than the Journal of Scientific Exploration. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I just found Barrett's diatribe against certification of organic products. Well worth reading if anyone other than the usual suspects really believes Barrett is not an extremist and tries to be impartial: "Many 'organic' proponents suggest that their foods are safer because they have lower levels of pesticide residues. However, the pesticide levels in our food supply are not high. In some situations, pesticides even reduce health risks by preventing the growth of harmful organisms, including molds that produce toxic substances [12]." Well, in German supermarkets the authorities regularly find peppers, tomatoes, salad and grapes with extreme pesticide levels, far beyond the legal thresholds. And he even finds an argument against free-range eggs ("one manager said that free-ranging probably detracts from taste because it decreases the quality of the bird's food intake"). --Hans Adler (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream agrees with Quackwatch in that organic food is not safer/better and that it doesn't taste better --Enric Naval (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Quackwatch is representing the mainstream view in organic food, see "The costly fraud that is organic food. Its main contribution will be to sustain poverty and malnutrition", The Guardian, 2004, also in the NYT "“People believe it must be better for you if it’s organic,” (...) But eating “organic” offers no guarantee of any of that."Eating Food That’s Better for You, Organic or Not, New York Times, 2009. The BBC has two features on the topic: "The Food Standards Agency (FSA) takes the position that there is not enough scientific evidence to claim that organic food is safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced food. Government ministers have followed suit by describing buying organic food as a 'lifestyle' choice. " Organic food at BBC "What's meant to be good about it? Some say organic foods are better than processed foods because (...) Eaters of organic food think that it tastes better. (...)" Organic food at BBC From FOX "‘’It’s a total con,” said Avery, a plant scientist by training. "There is not a shred of science" to back up claims that organic is safer or more nutritious, he said. (...) Organic food is more likely to carry pathogenic bacteria, such as salmonella and E. coli, because of the type of fertilizer that organic farmers use, Avery said. He also said that some of the natural pesticides used in organic farming are quite toxic. For example, organic farmers are allowed to treat fungal diseases with copper solutions and remain within guidelines. Copper, which is toxic, is the 18th most used pesticide in the U.S. and stays in the soil forever, unlike modern biodegradable pesticides."Organic Food Offers Little More Than Peace of Mind, Critics Say, Fox News, 2008. Consumer Reports actually recommends to buy organic food because of the pesticide levels. Only problem I found was that his advice was prefaced with this: "Critics argue that we’re wasting our money because there’s no proof that conventially produced foods pose significant health risks"[29] well, doh.... Food Standards Agency has a page on it "Is organic food safer than other food? Both organic and conventional food have to meet the same legal food safety requirements (...) Isn't there evidence that organic food is safer and more nutritious? It is true that some scientific papers reach this conclusion. However, others find no difference. As in any field of science, to reach a robust conclusion it is necessary to evaluate the weight of evidence across a range of published papers. Care should be taken over reliance on single papers." Organic food] at Food Standards Agency (Not to mention that embarrasing moment back in 2007 when suposedly safe organic spinach poisoned 200 people in the UK and killed three :P Turns out that they had been replacing pesticides with "organic" methods that were less safe for the final consumer [30], which probably helped to have its market share go down in 2008 for the first time, if I'm not mistaken) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that people already have enough material to make up their own minds. This section is becoming of a silly length, and I'm not going to be here all day analyzing arguments brought forward by editors just to discover again and again that, yes, Quackwatchy is reliable, just like indicated by the danged mainstream secondary third-party independient RS that I provided a dozen comments ago, so why is people still making OR and trying to proof all those secondary sources wrong?. I'm shutting up now. :P --Enric Naval (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not want to suggest that Quackwatch is not often reliable, but it can make errors. I know of a specific example, which is that he used to list the BMJ on his list of 'non-recommended periodicals', because it published some articles like the ABC of Homeopathy which he didn't like, and because of an article in the Student BMJ, a separate publication. The BMJ is a very respected medical journal, and he's changed his rating of the BMJ since last year after I asked him to change it.

As for Enric's view that a skeptical opinion on organic food and health is mainstream - well, the jury is out on that one. I wasn't surprised to see Dick Taverne as the writer of a critical Guardian article as he's pro-biotech, and the Fox News report quotes a neoconservative think-tank with biotech funding... I can cherry-pick too, e.g. this article showing reduced organophosphate exposure in children eating organic food: [31]. Or this article in SciAM by Marion Nestle: [32]. Or work from Carlo Leifert's group in Newcastle, like this:[33]. Fences and windows (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

W/o necessarily agreeing with the details (since I haven't examined them), you make a good point, which illustrates why we should follow WP:MEDRS and favor the scientific literature for scientific nitty gritty. Quackwatch will sometimes criticize a practice, not because it doesn't have any good evidence or legitimacy, but because it is so widely misused by quacks. Sometimes readers of a QW article might not be aware of that, or not notice that it is the false promotion (which consitutes quackery) that is being criticized, and not the practice itself. (Readers of QW should notify Barrett about confusing messages in its articles.) That's why we should do with QW what we do with all sources, deal with them on a case-by-case basis. It is especially the quackery, healthfraud, and pseudoscientific angles of a subject, that are Quackwatch's strong side, and where it represents a very notable and widely cited example of scientific skeptical thinking and opinion. It just needs to be used properly, and thus there is no reason for any special ruling about how to use it. Our policies and guidelines do a good job. Editors just need to teach the newbies and true believers (who come here to attack QW and push there favorite fringe idea) how to apply our sourcing policies and NPOV policy. While it should be used carefully and properly, its proper use should be guarded (protected), since they are attacking the canary in the mine, when it comes to alternative medicine and other fringe theories. We don't allow whitewashing here. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though there is a consensus forming here: Quackwatch is neither always a reliable source nor always an unreliable source. It is a partisan source with disputed information that needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis by editors. Per WP:MEDRS, higher quality, peer-reviewed research is always preferred over the provacative and self-published articles of Quackwatch - so when they are available, citations to notable scientific journals make a better source for Wikipedia articles. We must stay mindful when using Quackwatch and similar partisan sites as sources, paying special attention when they are overused by true believers of Quackwatch. ;-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That's an interestingly twisted and not-so-subtle way of deprecating the source, ^{but true to form coming from a true believer in certain pseudoscientific ideas and practices}. That's not the consensus that's forming here. QW is nearly always a RS for mainstream opinion, and is basically always more reliable than its fringe critics and the sources it criticizes, who are believers in fringe, undocumented, disproven, and often illegal practices. Otherwise WP:MEDRS still applies, just as with all other sources, which needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. There is no need for an uncalled for deprecation of QW, which has a relatively uncontroversial mainstream POV, and isn't afraid to say it. (Now THAT might be controversial in this age of political correctness, IOW just sweep the truth under the carpet!) It is only controversial with its critics, who will naturally object to being criticized, since they are incapable of recognizing their own pseudoscientific mindset, and who will defend their practices and various quack products and scams. The extremely few (it's hard to find them) criticisms from mainstream sources are relatively mild and superficial. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to use personal attacks just because there is no consensus to call your friend's website anything other than what it is: A partisan source that generally makes no effort to be impartial. This entire discussion has been suffering from people saying either "it is a reliable source" or "it is a partisan source" as if these two facts were somehow contradictory. I think it should be aborted now and restarted if and when we have a concrete use of this source to discuss. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

RS/N is best used for getting feedback on a particular source used in a particular instance and not for broadly ruling on whether something is "always reliable" or worthy of use. II | (t - c) 16:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Source material: make comments above this section

To aid editors here who would like to see the references for themselves, I'll copy the relevant portions from the Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch articles. One thing to keep in mind is that Quackwatch is far more than Barrett:

Source material from Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch articles.

From Quackwatch#Notability: Quackwatch has been mentioned in the media, reviews and various journals, as well as receiving several awards and honors. In 1998, Quackwatch was recognized by the Journal of the American Medical Association as one of nine "select sites that provide reliable health information and resources." It was also listed as one of three medical sites of U.S. News & World Report's "Best of the Web" in 1999: A web site review by Forbes magazine stated: "Dr. Stephen Barrett, a psychiatrist, seeks to expose unproven medical treatments and possible unsafe practices through his homegrown but well-organized site. Mostly attacking alternative medicines, homeopathy and chiropractors, the tone here can be rather harsh. However, the lists of sources of health advice to avoid, including books, specific doctors and organizations, are great for the uninformed. Barrett received an FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for fighting nutrition quackery in 1984. BEST: Frequently updated, but also archives of relevant articles that date back at least four years. WORST: Lists some specific doctors and organizations without explaining the reason for their selection." Quackwatch has also been cited or mentioned by journalists in reports on therapeutic touch, Vitamin O, Almon Glenn Braswell's baldness treatments, dietary supplements, Robert Barefoot's coral calcium claims, William C. Rader's "stem cell" therapy, noni juice, shark cartilage, and infomercials. The site's opinion on a US government report on complementary medicine was mentioned in a news report in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sources that mention Quackwatch.org as a resource for consumer information include the United States Department of Agriculture, the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, The Lancet, the Journal of Marketing Education, the Medical Journal of Australia, the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the Skeptic’s Dictionary, and the Diet Channel. Websites of libraries across the United States of America, include links to Quackwatch as a source for consumer information. In addition, several nutrition associations link to Quackwatch. An article in PC World listed it as one of three websites for finding the truth about Internet rumours, and WebMD listed it as one of eight organizations to contact with questions about a product. In a Washington Post review of alternative medicine websites, the introduction rated Quackwatch as offering "better truth-squadding than the Food and Drug Administration or the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine." The American Cancer Society lists Quackwatch as one of ten reputable sources of information about Alternative and Complementary Therapies in their book Cancer Medicine, and lists it as one of four sources for information about Alternative & Complementary Therapies in an article about on-line cancer information and support. In a long series of articles on various alternative medicine methods, it uses Quackwatch as a reference and includes criticisms of the methods. In a 2007 feasibility study on a method for identifying web pages that make unproven claims, the authors wrote: "Our gold standard relied on selected unproven cancer treatments identified by experts at http://www.quackwatch.org. The website is maintained by a 36 year old nonprofit organization whose mission is to “combat health related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct.” The group employs a 152 person scientific and technical advisory board composed of academic and private physicians, dentists, mental health advisors, registered dietitians, podiatrists, veterinarians, and other experts whom review health related claims. By using unproven treatments identified by an oversight organization, we capitalized on an existing high quality review." The Health On the Net Foundation, which confers the HONcode "Code of Conduct" certification to reliable sources of health information in cyberspace, directly recommends Quackwatch, and has stated about Quackwatch: "On the positive side, “four web sites stand out” from the rest for the exemplary quality of their information and treatments: quackwatch.org, ebandolier.com, cis.nci.nih.gov and rosenthal.hs.columbia.edu. Three sites, quackwatch.org, rosenthal.hs.columbia.edu/ and cis.nci.nih.gov are HONcode certified by the Health On the Net Foundation." Their website also uses Quackwatch extensively as a recommended source on various health-related topics. It also advises internet users to alert Quackwatch: "If you come across a healthcare Web site that you believe is either possibly or blatantly fraudulent and does NOT display the HONcode, please alert Quackwatch. Of course, if such a site DOES display the HONcode, alert us immediately." From Quackwatch#Site_reviews: The Good Web Guide of the United Kingdom described Quackwatch as "firmly anti-holistic" and "an important and useful information resource [which] injects a healthy dose of scepticism into reviewing popular health information." Cunningham and Marcason in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association described Quackwatch as "useful", while Wallace and Kimball, in the Medical Journal of Australia, described the site as "objective". Waltraud Ernst, Professor in the History of Medicine at Oxford Brookes University, has some personal objections to the work of those who criticize alternative medicine, but she still commends "Barrett's concern for unsubstantiated promotion and hype," and states that "Barrett's concern for fraudulent and potentially dangerous medical practices is important." A review paper in the Annals of Oncology identified Quackwatch as an outstanding complementary medicine information source for cancer patients. Sociologist Joel Best wrote that critiques in Quackwatch and similar sites should be examined critically rather than being accepted at face value. In a The Consultant Pharmacist review, pharmacist Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa characterized Quackwatch as "relevant for both consumers and professionals". However, she also notes that for all the praise the site has won from reputable reviewers and rating services, the presence of so many articles from one author (Dr. Barrett) leaves one sensing a lack of fair balance in his condemnation of many dubious health therapies. A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Barrett and Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine. Donna Ladd, a journalist with the alternative weekly Village Voice, says Barrett depends heavily on negative research and case studies in which alternative therapies do not work, and says most positive case studies are unreliable. "It's easy to look at something like chiropractic, see what they're doing, and describe what they're doing wrong," Barrett says, adding that he does not criticize conventional medicine because "that's way outside my scope." She further wrote that Barrett says most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research. "A lot of things don't need to be tested [because] they simply don't make any sense," he says, pointing to homeopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture. Peter Barry Chowka, an investigative journalist and former adviser to the NIH's Office of Alternative Medicine, said that Barrett "seems to be putting down trying to be objective ... Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative. But I personally think he's running against the tide of history. But that's his problem, not ours." The former U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health named Quackwatch as a credible source for exposing fraudulent online health information in 1999. Dr. Thomas R. Eng, the director of the panel's study, later stated, "The government doesn't endorse Web sites." Still, he said, "[Quackwatch] is the only site I know of right now looking at issues of fraud and health on the Internet." From Stephen_Barrett#Consumer_information: The Quackwatch website is Barrett's main platform for describing and exposing what he and other contributors consider to be quackery and health fraud. The website is part of Quackwatch, Inc., a nonprofit corporation that aims to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct." Barrett's writing is supplemented with contributions from 150+ scientific, technical, and lay volunteers and includes numerous references to published research articles. Barrett defines quackery as "anything involving overpromotion in the field of health," and reserves the word fraud "only for situations in which deliberate deception is involved." Barrett has become a "lightning rod" for controversy as a result of his criticisms of alternative medicine theories and practitioners. Barrett says he does not criticize conventional medicine because that would be "way outside [his] scope.". He states he does not give equal time to some subjects, and has written on his web site that "Quackery and fraud don't involve legitimate controversy and are not balanced subjects. I don't believe it is helpful to publish 'balanced' articles about unbalanced subjects." Barrett is a strong supporter of the HONcode and has made efforts to improve compliance with its rules and to expose those who abuse it. In a whole "Special to the Washington Post", extensive coverage of his views on the subject were provided, including his criticisms of many named abusers. A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Barrett and Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine. Donna Ladd, a journalist with The Village Voice, says Barrett relies mostly on negative research to criticize alternative medicine, rejecting most positive case studies as unreliable. She further writes that Barrett insists that most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research. "A lot of things don't need to be tested [because] they simply don't make any sense," he says, pointing to homeopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture. Some sources that mention Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch as a useful source for consumer information include website reviews, government agencies, various journals including The Lancet peer-reviewed medical journal and some libraries. References

Use of personal attack from professor’s blog

IMHO Professor As'ad AbuKhalil’s blog http://angryarab.blogspot.com/ would be OK for personal opinion on topics he’s an expert on. However, per Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources it would seem quoting at length from this short personal attack that provides no evidence for the insult hurled really does go against WP:RS for BLP. I am even wondering if any mention of his blog post belongs in the article at all. (And yes it’s Gilad Atzmon again.) Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk)

From WP:BLP#Sources, "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." - I'd say that's a clear statement that the blog post doesn't belong at all. --Onorem♠Dil 15:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree... while we can sometimes make an exception to the general "no blogs" rule when the author is considered an expert... that exception does not apply to BLPs. Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The quote is included as evidence not of any material fact regarding Atzmon himself, but rather of the opinion of AbuKhalil, in a section of the article titled "Allegations of antisemitism and responses". As'ad AbuKhalil is a respected academic, who has published several books on Middle East politics, and who has a solid recotd of pro-Palestinian activism. His views, which are presented as such, and not as established fact, are qlearly relevant in this context. RolandR (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

They are relevant if a reliable source has mentioned them. Pulling random quotes from his blog isn't appropriate for a blp. --Onorem♠Dil 15:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "random quote". It is a posting by AbuKhalil on why, in his opinion, there should be no place for Atzmon in the Palestine solidarity movement. He is an accepted authority on Arab politics, the Angry Arab News Service is very well known and indeed quoted elsewhere on Wikipedia. This is not an anonymous comment on an irrelevant blog by a professional slanederer, but a considered statement by a professor of politics on his personal website. How can this not be a reliable source for AbuKhalil's own views? RolandR (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see why this would be an exception to the clear statement in WP:BLP#Sources. If his opinion on the matter is notable, it should have been covered by a reliable source somewhere. --Onorem♠Dil 16:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't dispute that it's a reliable source for his own views. I dispute that his views are automatically relevant and that his blog is a reliable source for adding contentious material into the biography of a living person. --Onorem♠Dil 16:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I dispute that, in this context, it is contentious. The section is "Allegations of antisemitism and responses", so quite clearly there will be such allegations there. AbuKhalil is one of the more prominent supporters of the Palestinians to make this allegation, and there is no dispute that this is indeed his view. The argument against this citation seems to me an attempt to remove an unwelcome opinion -- which cannot easily be dismissed as Israeli/Zionist propaganda -- from the article.RolandR (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there no other source that could be used for the statement? No reliable source felt the need to print the opinion of one of the more prominent supporters of the Palestinians to make this allegation? Also, for the record, I don't care either way about the politics here. I don't see the opinion as welcome or unwelcome. I'm just trying to look at this from a policy standpoint. --Onorem♠Dil 16:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Roland, don't you think you should mention here your WP:COI of belonging to Jews aganst Zionism, and writing an email or something that not only attacked Atzmon for his views but spearheaded the incident described in the article of trying to get at least one group to cancel a speaking engagement and/or concert? And of course you have written your opinions about him elsewhere. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Motivation shouldn't be a factor in deciding whether or not a source is reliable. If you have COI concerns, please take them to RolandR's talk page or the appropriate noticeboard. There's no reason to send this discussion off topic. --Onorem♠Dil 16:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion doesn't belong here. There can be no doubt that for the opinions of As'ad AbuKhalil the blog of As'ad AbuKhalil is a reliable source. You don't need to make a detailed analysis of wikipedia policy to come to that conclusion. Whether his opinions belong in the Gilad Atzmon article is a different question, but reliability has nothing to do with it. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Without a doubt, Professor AbuKhalil is an important, note-worthy commentator on Middle Eastern politics and news. He frequently writes articles in Al Akhbar and other periodicals and is regularly featured on Democracy Now and on Al-Jazeera English and Arabic. His opinion is quite salient to the discussion of Palestinian political parties and their membership. Since his blog is an acceptable source for WP to cite for his own background views (see his bio page), his blog is a rather uncontroversial place to find his analysis of Atzmon. --Behemoth101 (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Behemoth101

I don't see the problem, its a paragraph about "Allegations of antisemitism" the source is considered reliable for statements per Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion which means Mr abu khalil own blog is a reliable source for "the author's opinion, but not for statements of fact" (as the policy states). I don't think we need the whole quote (as in the previous version) but i'll add a few words to clarify mr abu khalil's opinion. --Histolo2 (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

<Backdent>Reminder on policy - WP:BLP#Sources: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Carol's comment is key... Yes, there is a good argument for calling Professor AbuKhalil an expert on the general topic of Middle Eastern politics. Yes, if someone is an expert then his opinions are notable, and a self-published source can be considered reliable for statements as to those opinions.

HOWEVER... WP:BLP carves out an important exception to using self-published sources for statements of opinion. We may not use such sources to discuss the author's opinions about living people.

This means that we can use Prof. AbuKhalil's blog for statements about his opinions concerning Middle Eastern politics in general... but not for statements about his opinion concerning Gilad Atzmon (or any other living person.) Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think this is important enough to merit adding a caveat to WP:RS to clarify things. (see my recent addition here, to be discussed at WT:RS#Incorporating WP:BLP into WP:RS#Statements of opinion) Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not bringing this to WP:BLPN in first place, cause it can get confusing. Thanks for adding that to WP:RS - would have kept me from bringing the issue here. Everything done to clarify these issues appreciated! CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar's caveat leaves open the question, what counts as "material about a living person"? The quote -- in a section headed Allegations of antisemitism and responses" -- was clearly presented as AbuKhalil's own opinion, not as a statement of fact about Atzmon. Is it really the case that we have a section on allegations, in which it is illegitimate to quote such allegations? RolandR (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct... if an allegation is made against a living person in a self-published source, we most definitely should not quote it. For us to include such an allegation, it must be discussed by a reliable third party source. This is one of the key components to WP:BLP. Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer (from WP:SPS). Jayen466 15:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

But the quote was not being used as a third-party source on Atzmon; it was being used as a fiesr-party source for the views of AbuKhalil. How else is it possible to include his relevant views in the article? RolandR (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is very simple... You may not cite a self-published source to talk about the subject of a BLP.... even for a statement as to the author's opinion of the subject. The only exception to this is when the SPS is authored by the subject of the article. Essentially... just about the only self-published source that can be used in the Gilad Atzmon article would be one authored by Atzom. Blueboar (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

www.city-data.com

Is www.city-data.com a reliable source for demographic and other city data? I thought I had seen that it was not but I cannot locate any discussion on the topic. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

deletion of reliable sources

I have added numerous reliable sources to the Georgia (country) article, see [34]. These are being deleted because it seems somebody doesn't like them. I'd appreciate your judgement about the validity of the sources. Thanks. Greater Syria (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

First, adding a long list of sources to try to "prove your point" is frowned on. Pick the the most reliable one and go with that. That said, it is clear that the real issue isn't whether the sources are reliable or not (I didn't bother to check them all... but saw no problems with the ones I did check), the issue is that different reliable sources describe Georgia's location in different ways. Whether one description is more common than the others. Hence this is a content dispute... more of a NPOV issue than an RS issue. This is a dispute that needs to be resolved through discussion on the article talk page, not here (and not through edit warring at the article either). Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore ... some of the websites that were added, such as Nationmaster, Nations Online, Embassyhomepage.com, are content aggregators with iffy reliability; Economicexpert.org mirrors a wikipedia article; while others, such as UN.org don't support the edit they accompany. Instead of mass-dumping sources (some with questionable reliability) on the page, discuss the issue on the article talkpage, decide on what authoritative sources say, and then represent the views accurately in the article. Abecedare (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Siena College and what the sources say

OK, I've looked at all kinds of sources and they seem to be zeroing in on something. The short answer is, if we allowed original research here, and it was my job to draw the border between Loudonville and Newtonville, the northern boundary of Siena campus would be the border. I'll go through them here.

1. The college uses the address of Loudonville. Google Books shows it was considered in Loudonville since its founding in the 1930s. Every mention of the college's address in print or on the web ( except for WP and some pages quoting the WP ) show Loudonville or Colonie, not Newtonville.

2. Maps. We've looked at several maps, from Mapquest, Google Earth, the US Geological Survey, and a historic map from 1866. None of them place a border around Newtonville or Loudonville. Some of them shade in an area above the college and mark it Newtonville, or they label the post office, or they label the Loudon/Maxwell crossroads as Newtonville, but none of them mark the campus itself as being in either hamlet.

However, there is at least one outlier. Yahoo Maps puts the dot for Newtonville right at the entrance to campus. I don't know why it does this ( it's not interpolating the address of the post office ) but I still think the other maps, especially the ones not generated by computer, take precedence. Is an online-generated map an RS at that level of detail?

3. Post offices. The Newtonville PO shares ZIP code 12110 with Latham, the hamlet just to the north. The streets that are clearly in Newtonville also use 12110. Siena on the other hand uses 12211 for its own post office, which it shares with an Albany PO. The streets that are clearly in Loudonville use 12211; there is no physical Loudonville post office, but Loudonville is an acceptable city name.

4. Neighbors. The Schuyler Meadows Country Club just next door,[35] and which extends a little further to the north, also uses a Loudonville address.

5. Delivery addresses. While ZIP codes are defined by streets and addresses and not by zones on a map, in all but the most rural areas they generally do form boundaries. The streets just above the campus, Fiddler's Ln, Cherrywood Ter, and Middlefield Dr, use Newtonville 12110 according to the USPS address lookup. Private roads in the area belonging to the college don't appear in the database.

The campus, at 515 Loudon Rd, uses Loudonville 12211. Across the street, the NYSP facility at #504 also uses Loudonville. Campus View Drive, across from the college's Friars Rd entrance, uses Loudonville. The town hall at #534, across from the northern border of campus, uses Newtonville. At #552 is the Newtonville Post Office.

This all hints at a boundary around 530, right at the edge of campus.

6. Real estate. A local Realtor's description, which I would consider an expert SPS, has Newtonville is not an incorporated town, but rather a loosely defined area--a neighborhood really--beside the also nebulous Loudonville, both of which lie within the town of Colonie. Roughly speaking, Newtonville runs along Route 9 from Siena College to Hoffman's Playland, taking in part of Maxwell Road to the west and over to Fiddlers Lane to the east of Route 9. Loudonville lies to the south of Newtonville.

I'm reading "from Siena College" as exclusive. Again, I would draw the border right at the north edge of campus. It might zigzag a hundred yards on the even side of the road to get all of the town hall parking lot, but that's what the sources say.

8. Zoning. The zoning map for Colonie[36] doesn't show a border. Loudonville and most of Newtonville are zoned single family residential. There is a narrow historic overlay zone along Loudon Rd as far as Maxwell, but that's simply where the old mansions are, as opposed to the shopping plazas to the north, not a neighborhood border.

9. The phone company. Telephone numbers seem to change from a 78X office code to a 43X prefix somewhere further south of where the post office splits the addresses. Newtonville addresses have phone numbers that start with 783, 786, 713. So does the college. Most other Loudonville addresses have phone numbers that start with 432, 434, 435. But I wouldn't make too much of this; a NXX lookup simply shows 783 as Colonie and 432 as Albany. Not Loudonville or Newtonville.

10. So the written sources overwhelmingly say Loudonville, ranging from books, university materials, self-published materials, and collection of postal data. The maps show that Newtonville is close by but none of them has a border. While it's tempting to cluster the campus with the adjacent Newtonville, especially when it is separated from the rest of Loudonville by wide-open areas, that would be original guesswork. In addition the USGS map shows a creek bed above the campus which could very well have been a natural and ancient border. The Yahoo map may not be RS for such fine detail. The zoning map didnt have relevant information, and the telephone city codes dont mention Newtonville or Loudonville.

11. The article should however mention Newtonville. We've run into an odd duck here; the campus is on the outskirts of the larger hamlet L, but almost across the street is the village center of the tiny hamlet of N. Some people visiting campus are going to see Newtonville on their online maps or GPS and wonder if theyre in the right place, and those touring the area on mountain bike will see Newtonville on their topo maps. It would be appropriate to mention, in a description of the campus, that it's close to the Newtonville Post Office and Newton Plaza, in the same context we might mention the country club and cemetery on the other side of campus.

12. We should word it carefully to avoid a false compromise like "Siena is near Newtonville but has a Loudonville mailing address". Its neighbors to the west, east, and south also use a Loudonville mailing address, because theyre all on the edge of Loudonville. Making an issue of the address would make sense if the college were in Troy, but it isn't. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Squidfryerchef, thanks for putting that work in. --hippo43 (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There is more I can have issue with but will address what I need to go over with for now- go to Mapquest and ask for a map of the college's address as listed by hippo, with Loudonville as he insists. It wont come up with anything. Try it with Newtonville. It then shows up. So I dont know how you came up with that online maps crap shows it to be in Loudonville and that there is no dispute, this just adds one more piece of circumstantial evidence that shows there is a dispute. It's neighbors to the west DONT use Loudonville, the Colonie Memorial Town Hall uses Newtonville, those to the north on Fiddlers Lane use Latham (and USPS gives them the option of using Newtonville). Its really hard to call much of what you said "original research as some of it is "original make-up crap" really no disrespect, I dont mean you are lying or intentionally distorting facts, there just isnt any research that you did you do to even think that the "creek bed" could be the ancient boundary. It's not. I'm sorry if this is considered "more OR" or my opinion, but I am considered by some to be an expert on the geography and history of the CD, I've seriously been reading, researching, and studying the history and geography of this area that I LOVE soo much, and really to have outsiders come in and while well-meaning slow down progress, I had someone tag as "suspicious" the assertion in the Albany, NY article that Albany was the fourth oldest city in the US, the second oldest state capital city, and oldest surviving settlement of the 13 colonies, it wasnt (like almost all the article at that time, it was pretty slim on citations I admit) but it slowed down progress that had just started building on upgrading the article by having a suspicious tag.(the Siena College article hasnt been ruined I'm not saying that, but it has happened elsewhere, not just to me but to other editors pride and joy geo & hist related articles by well-meaning good-faith edits that gut content or add false info). Btw- we use the old Dutch word kill in Albany, generally creek is from non-natives and some map makers who dont realize kill already means creek, such as mapmakers putting Normanskill Creek instead of Normans Kill as DOT signs say on the bridges; just one of those oddities that show non-natives should do their due diligence and respect natives when they mention these things, I would and have done the same for others in articles others know more about. I'm sorry if I go off on tangents and make my arguments long, I know hippo throws a fit about that. To be honest I have a disorder on the autism spectrum (asperger's syndrome) and disorders normally associated with those that have autism. I hope hippo understands its not that I'm being rude or whatever he has been thinking everytime he calls me out for typing so much I consider it him being rude, but at least I understand that he didnt know, but now you do.Camelbinky (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I went to Mapquest and "515 Loudon Rd. Loudonville NY" comes up just fine. So does "515 New Loudon Rd. Newtonville NY". That's right, the name of the road changes and overlaps. This comes from the postal data. If you do a zip code search at usps.com for these streets, the 500-599 range may be addressed as either New Loudon Rd, in Newtonville or Latham, or just plain Loudon Rd, in Loudonville or Albany.

None of the maps show that the campus is in Loudonville but they don't definitively say it's in Newtonville either. It's tempting to group the campus with Newtonville because there's some open spaces between it and the rest of Loudonville, but that's only a guess. The middle of Loudonville isn't exactly far from campus either.

What I did do was check postal data for streets in the area to see whether they used the Latham/Newtonville or Loudonville/Albany ZIP codes. If they fell in the 5XX range I Googled the names of the establishments to see which address they prefer. And you might say this is original research or not, but this is the talk page and I'm doing this to doublecheck the college's self-reporting of Loudonville.

Now while you might say the Postal Service is just another source, they have been around for a very long time. I'd expect them to follow historical place names, and they have an army of men in short pants constantly walking the area, so I'm comfortable in saying they know where everything is. Also even in the 1866 map, it seems Newtonville was defined mainly by its post office. The post office was marked on the map, not the village of Newtonville.

The results were pretty consistent. You could print out a plot plan of the area and color in the property lines by zip code. There's an obvious diagonal border running from above the country club, then the campus boundary at Fiddler's Lane and then crossing the street between Campus View Dr and the Colonie Town Hall. And this original research of mine is consistent with the Realtor's description of the area, as well as the college and country club's self-description.

The college's neighbors directly to the west are the houses on Campus View Drive, all Loudonville. The town hall just next to it is really northwest, and that's Newtonville.

Look, we all have topics that we know well and seek to have them described accurately on Wikipedia. Sometimes this can cause an editorial consensus to decide which sources are more important or how to organize the article. When there's a conflict, it's productive to look for more sources or to check where the sources we question get their information from. Hippo liked text sources and didn't want to look at maps. I studied the maps and a bunch of primary sources but say they still don't contradict Hippo's sources. If you want to say Newtonville you need sources.

The ultimate authority on what constitutes Newtonville is the boundary of the land that John M. Newton purchased, from van Rensselaer himself, in 1842. Whether this land included the farm that later became Siena or not, verifiable information on this land would make a fine addition to our article on Newtonville. See colonie.org[37]

One dollar was the price paid for the land for this church which was located at what was known as the Crossroads. It was purchased from Stephen Van Rensselaer in 1842 and was to be used for church purposes for all time. Between 1842 and 1859, Mr. John M. Newton purchased the property and built the home which we know as the J. G. Hills estate. The Crossroads became Newton Comers and later Newtonville.

Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out about the 1866 map, the comment that the Newtonville Post Office was labelled on the map but not the village, the same can be said of Cohoes, which in the 1840s became an incorporated village of the town but on that map is named only by Cohoes P.O.. To the other comment on the ultimate authority of what constitutes Newtonville is the boundary of the land that John M. Newton purchased; then also the same can be said of Loudonville constituting the original Ireland's Corners in which case Siena college is in neither hamlet but instead is in farm countryside between the two and can best be described as being in Loudonville's ZIP code as you have well demonstrated. Does any of this help?24.182.142.254 (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Loudonville is defined by the post office as well.

Elias H. Ireland ...

He bought a large farm from the Van Rensselaer family at the intersection of Osborne Road and Loudon Road (Rt. 9) in Watervliet (now Colonie) in 1832. A post office was established near this intersection in 1850 with Elias H. Ireland as postmaster. The area served by the post office became known as Ireland's Corners. In 1871, the area served by this post office was expanded and the name changed to Loudonville. albanyruralcemetery.org[38]

It still remains to be checked whether Siena was part of either the Newton or Ireland estates, or whether it was served by the former Ireland/Loudonville post office.

Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

RapBasement

is www.rapbasement.com a suitable reference for an album's track listing? i dont think so but other users on the page Fantasy Ride do think so. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

Podcasts?

Hey, could podcasts be considered reliable sources depending on where they're from. As there are lots of podcasts on the Stratfor website, which is a reliable website. Could podcasts from reliable websites be used? Deavenger (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the medium usually does not matter. But I'd have my doubts about accepting Stratfor as a particularly reliable source in the first place - certainly not for controversial claims. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? Stratfor, though specialized, is rock-solid. I'd put them up there with the Washington Post and the Economist. They're probably our best source for opinion and analysis pieces on what does the conflict in XYZ signify. Also don't forget that certain categories of text articles are free to read; the Geopolitical Weekly and Security Weekly reports. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree... Stratfor is most definitely a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I'd say a podcast is as reliable as the site it's published on (unless, say, the publishing site itself attaches a caveat to it). Jayen466 15:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose one could make the argument that, if the podcast is an interview, then any material taken from that interview should be phrased as an opinion (of the interviewee)... but otherwise Jayen's approach works for me. Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about multiple sources used in the article System of a Down

I was helping out with editing on the article System of a Down, and I wanted to check the reliability of a few sources that are cited in the article:

• "The History Of: System of a Down". ultimate-guitar.com. 2005-10-25. Retrieved 2007-07-25. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "Rock City Awards 1997". rockcitynews.com. Retrieved 2007-07-25.
• Nalbandian, Bob. "Interview with System of a Down". Shockwaves Online. Retrieved 2007-07-21.
• SoaD at Musicmight

Are these any good at all? The Rock City News link looks somewhat unprofessional, the Ultimate Guitar biography seems to have been submitted by a user of the website, and I have no idea what authority/notability Hard Radio/Shockwaves Online and Musicmight hold. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Shogakukan/Kodansha Manga Award

The reliability of Joel Hahn's version of the Kodansha Manga Award list was questioned in Shura no Mon. While on the topic of manga awards, I also want to verify the reliability of Japanese listing for Shogakukan Manga Award. Extremepro (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Italians-R-Us.com

General question: Is this a reliable source? And if not (or even if it is reliable, I'd still like to know this next part), does a site's unreliability extend to all content - even an interview with the subject, for example?

More specifically: In Robin Arcuri, an editor is using this new interview as a source, but I'm very skeptical of how reliable it can be viewed as, considering the site looks so disreputable that an interviewee can get away with making any claim they want (which I'm suspecting is the point) and in at least one instance seems aimed at "verifying" a highly dubious and basically unprovable claim in Arcuri's COI-prone Wiki article (which she edits) that I'd been contesting.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 19:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

== [39] == or Metal Archives. Any chance of getting Spirit of Metal, and/or http://www.metal-archives.com/ added as a citable source? We really need a definitive decision on metal music and I find that these 2 sites best document the genre. It gets out of hand when people have to quote a source from "Allmusicguide" when often their view concerning metal music is appalling. So it would be nice to have a proper Metal website to quote sources from. ThePerfectVirus (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)