Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

www.bwtf.com as a reliable source of professional opinions on Transformers

BWTF.com is the personal web site of Benson Yee, a writer, DVD commentator, and a man cited by several newspaper articles as an "authority" on the subject of Transformers. For instance here http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-166084754.html http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1A2-6a2b77bb-d43e-4e6f-93e1-581afffcfb0d.html http://www.thetransformers.net/category/transformers-news/madman-entertainment/page/2 http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/785549 He was also a consultant on Transformers Beast Wars for IDW when they wrote a comic on the series. http://www.idwpublishing.com/catalog/book/160 I wanted to know if he was considered reliable enough to site for information on his speciality. Mathewignash (talk)

For a personal website to be usable, the author has to have previously published pieces in the field in reliable, third-party publications. If he hasn't, his personal web site can't be used.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Do the interviews OF him in reliable third party publications count? Mathewignash (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

They would for his opinions, not necessarily for his assertions about third parties. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Would his reviews of fiction toy reviews be reliable though? Mathewignash (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me the interviews would count towards his reputation as an expert, and his writing should be usable in articles about Transformers and similar toy robots. Also, if he was a consultant on the comic then he would be citable as a primary source. Just somewhere in the citation or footnote introduce who he is so that the reader doesn't assume he's just some guy. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

His reviews of toys on his own website would not be usable (unless he's published in this field in reliable sources). Newspapers getting a quote from him as a big fan of Transformers does not establish him as an authority.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The newspapers and DVD do not call him a "fan", but an "authority", I think that's an important difference. You are doing the equivalant of calling Roger Ebert a "fan of movies". Mathewignash (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say that this is still a SPS which cannot be used as a reliable source. The newspaper articles and other third party sources cited do not establish that he has had his work in the relevant subject matter published by independent, third party reliable publications. The analogy to Roger Ebert is inapt: His writings have been extensively published by independent publishers, including the Sun Times, obviously, but many other sources. He may be the world's leading authority on Transformers, but absent third party publication of other work by him, his SPS website will not qualify under the expert exception for SPS. Fladrif (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That is my thought, too. If he doesn't have any reliable third-party publications in the field, we can't use his self-published material.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

However, as Squidfryerchef has pointed out, since he was a story consultant on Transformers, he might be considered reliable and a PRIMARY source. So we could site his reviews as primary, if nothing else. Mathewignash (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how you're trying to use him. We may be able to use interviews with him as a primary source for the comic he was involved with, but we can't use his reviews or other self-published material if he hasn't been previously published.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Searchlight

Here we go again.......

Is the website/magazine searchlight a reliable source for inclusion of information on the WP:Article English Defence League? I would say no due to these facts

• Searchlight magazine is an openly anti-fascist and therefore cannot provide an NPOV due to its declared political stance(the EDL are Far-Right)
• Searchlight magazine was originally part of the steering committee for the British Anti Fascist Pressure Group Unite Against Fascism which is at constant ends with the English Defence League and holds counter rally's to nearly all English Defence League street protests (although Searchlight has since ended their links with the UAF on differences in which direction the Pressure Group should go, they still have Anti Fascist beliefs and therefore cannot provide sourced information that is not inflammatory, biased to anti-facist POV or possibly considered contentious)
• Searchlight also gets most of its material from infiltrators, defectors and casual informers and this is not reliable.

User snowded has already made clear that he feels it is a reliable source.

Johnsy88 (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Searchlight undoubtedly has a political stance opposed to that of the EDL. That does not per se make it unreliable. What matters is whether it has a reputation for fact-checking, and I believe it does. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case could you provide me with the information that corroborates your claim that searchlight has a reputation for fact checking so i can see this for myself? Johnsy88 (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Here you see someone who has written for Searchlight co-authoring with the present Speaker of the House of Commons. Searchlight articles are sometimes quoted in peer-reviewed academic papers. That kind of thing. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

And here on the magazine website you see endorsements from Glenys Kinnock and Brendan Barber. Those are things that lend credence. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. this keeps on coming up and needed clarification Johnsy88 (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen the article on how this source would be used, but I would remind editors of the difference of a source being reliable in general by WP:RS rules and whether use of a source follows WP:NPOV policy. Sources with an agenda should be cited in the context of supporting the fact that their side has an opinion, not in a situation that is trying to establish objective fact when there are other reliable sources with a contrary opinion. DreamGuy (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Searchlight is considered a reliable source. See previous discussions.[1] TFD (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think DreamGuy makes a very good point and that is why any discussion on sources is best entertained with specific reference to the proposed or current text. So yes, it's a reliable source but how it is used is another discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Searchlight is clearly a politically opinionated biased source and should only be used with a lot of care - and if there is a more neutral independent source that should always be used in preference, and there will always be one - attributing a strongly opinionated source just makes the issue even more clear imo - look for sources that are as NPOV as possible - searchlight is an activist website publication. Off2riorob (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Searchlight is far-left source that is reliable as a source for its own views but not for facts. In combinations with texts like WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV,WP:BLP... --Dezidor (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• RS, but with attribution. Same as with any other advocacy group. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, but some advocacy groups should never be used. Searchlight can be used but attribution is required. Dougweller (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• They attack people that they hate. RS for their statements. Be careful with BLP. --89.176.102.35 (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Meets the requirements of WP:RS, per Itsmejudith and TFD. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Terrorists' target selection

• C. J. M. Drake. Terrorists' target selection. Palgrave Macmillan. 5 February 2003. ISBN 978-0312211974

Page 19. On Google Books.

This book is being suggested for use in the article Communist terrorism to provide a definition of what "Communist terrorism" is. The edit being suggested is

Communist terrorism is the term used to describe terrorist actions committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology and who use terrorism in their attempts to overthrow an existing political and economic system in an attempt to force regime change. It is the hope of such groups that the use of violence will inspire the masses to raise up in revolution.

Is the source reliable for the purpose of providing a definition? Tentontunic (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

There are various definitions for Communist Terrorism and the terrorism described has been described using other terms. Why do you think that this specific definition should be used? TFD (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Because you asked for a definition TFD (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC) You said you had been unable to find a source, one has been provided. Tentontunic (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If that is all the book says on the subject of 'communist terrorism' as a subject, then no, it isn't a reliable source for a definition. It is little more than a statement that 'communist terrorism' is what 'communist terrorists' do. A reliable source will need to analyse the (supposed) relationship between 'communism' and 'terrorism', and provide evidence that there is a meaningful linkage between the two concepts - that this is something more than an arbitrary intersection. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Further, to suggest that the purpose of a Marxist revolution is to force 'regime change' is frankly bizarre, and not what the source says anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see chapter three pp18-19 for discussion on ideology. How would you describe "communist terrorist groups aim at overthrowing the existing political and economic system" other than to force regime change? Tentontunic (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This chapter has a section devoted to communist ideology, it is viewable on google books which I linked above. Tentontunic (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

'Regime change' is generally understood as a change of government, whereas a Marxist revolution is aimed at changing an economic system - a much more profound concept. Why use a late-20th century cliché to describe a 19th/early 20th century idea anyway?

You have already given the page numbers for the part of the book you are citing, and it is clearly inadequate as a source on the subject of 'communist terrorism' - unless there is a great deal of further discussion - please give any further page numbers. If you wish to define it, I suggest you find a source that actually goes into significant detail regarding what (if anything) links the two concepts, beyond the fact that people described as 'communists' have also been described as 'terrorists'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I see, have you in fact looked at all at chapter 3 of this book? Given the times between my post and your response I would guess you have not. See p33 also please Tentontunic (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If you cite page numbers, it is reasonable to expect the evidence for what you are citing them fore to be on those pages. Google books won't let me read beyond page 28 - can you tell us what the book adds to it's definition of 'communist terrorism' on page 33? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Andrew, I have cited page numbers to support the suggested content per WP:V. I would recommend you read up on the literature. I have no intention whatsoever of typing out an entire chapter. The question put to this board is, does the source meet WP:RS for the suggested edit. I would say it does, please explain why you feel this source does not support the suggested content. Tentontunic (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's obviously a reliable source. Definitions need to be fairly short, so "If that is all the book says ... " is not a valid objection. What intrigues me is that this definition make "Communist terrorism" quite distinct from Red Terror which is terrorism of its own people by a Communist government in power. Smallbones (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

So you do not think that any actions carried out by communist governments can possibly be considered "communist terrorism"? TFD (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What he "thinks" is unimportant. What counts on Wikipedia is what the actual reliable sources say. Period. Collect (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This makes little sense in all honesty, please be clear in what you are asking Tentontunic (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thus far the only people to have commented are those involved, I should like to point out, this book has been cited 429 times by other authors 150 times in scholar. I know of course these are rough numbers, but they show the source is most certainly reliable, yes? Tentontunic (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Its WP:RS for the actual statement made on p. 19, and doesn't support the emendation referring to "regime change". The proper way to handle issues about whether this source provides the best definition or goes into enough detail, would be to supplement it with other sources. Otherwise, a problematic stub "nexus" article which is largely unsourced and needs to be much more extensively supplemented with material discussing the relationship of communism and terrorism.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

A brief analysis of the sources demonstrated that we can speak about at least five different phenomenae described by the term "Communist terrorism".

1. Communist terror during Russian, Chinese and some others civil wars. Some authors tend to combine terror by a government against their own citizens and terror committed by NGOs under the term "terrorism", whereas others separate governmental terror from NGOs terrorism.
2. Malayan emergency. This is a concrete historical event, and many sources apply the term "Communist terrorism" to this event only.
3. Sometimes, non frequently, this term is used to characterise guerilla warfare committed by Communist partisans in general.
4. Some sources use this term to describe terrorist activity of various leftist terrorist groups.
5. And finally, this term is used to describe a conspiracy theory developed by Nazi to come to power (Reichstag fire).

Therefore, the issue is not in reliability of the Drake's book, but in if his viewpoint is mainstream. It seems to be it isn't, so this definition cannot be used in the lede without explicit attribution, and cannot be presented as mainstream.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the source is both reliable and mainstream. It's just that definitions can be awkward things. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary so this definition can be cited alongside others. Equally, it wouldn't be a problem leaving this one out. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

How on earth can you say a book which has been cited so often is not mainstream? Your assertion is pointless without some form of source to back the claim. So far three uninvolved people have stated the source is reliable. And that is good enough. Itsmejudith, Various editors on the article talk page were asking "what communist terrorism is" a definition such as this is exactly what they were demanding. Tentontunic (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh? Did you read what I said? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. I am a little tired. It is not a definition as such, It is a description of what such groups wish to achieve through their actions. Have I gotten it correct this time? It is quite frustrating that editors ask for sources, then ignore what has been provided. The article talk page is a joke, with some editors stating that actions committed by Maoists is not communist terrorism, as they are described as Maoist and not Communist. I am on the verge of giving up on ever achieving any progress on the article. Tentontunic (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I doubt you read others' posts carefully. You have been explained several times that, whereas Maoists are Communists, they are also (i) Maoists; (ii) Leftists; (iii) political activists; (iv) humans, etc, therefore, in each particular situation the most relevant terms should be used. Since Maoist terrorism has some very specific features, which make it so different from other forms of terrorism (and so abundant), to call them "Maoists" (by contrast to other Communists) is not so unreasonable. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that terrorism committed by Maoists ought not be called communist terrorism. These are no specific features between terrorism committed by Maoists or Marxist/Leninism. Both groups target the civilian population, both groups carry out the same form of attacks, both groups have operated in both an urban and rural areas. You are splitting hairs with this. I should also like to see your source which states that terrorism carried out by Maoist groups differs to that from other forms of communist terrorist group. Tentontunic (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Responding to the original question, the answer is "yes", this book qualifies as a reliable secondary source. This is not a self-published source or anything like that. Second, this particular definition of the term can be used along with other definitions from other reliable sources. Finally, this shows that there is indeed a definition of the term. Hence we can have an article about this subject.Biophys (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• The source is a reliable source. The source, however, does not support the text that is being proposed. It does not contain a definition, nor even the term "communist terrorism". The cited passage uses the term "communist terrorist groups", not "communist terrorism", and makes statements about the aims of such groups, and provides some examples. It does the same thing with respect to terrorist groups that ascribe to Separatism, Religion, Liberalism, Anarchism, Conservatism, Fascism, Single-Issues, and Organized Crime. The real issue here is not whether the source is reliable; the real issue is an improper misuse of the source. By this logic, the source would also support definitions of "separatist terrorism", "religious terrorism", "liberal terrorism", "anarchist terrorism", "conservative terrorism", "fascist terrorism", "single-issue terrorism" and "organized crime terrorism". It doesn't. Fladrif (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

So, yes, this is a reliable secondary source. All other questions should be discussed elsewhere, rather than on this noticeboard. I thought Tentontunic provided a direct quotation from the source, but he did not. According to the book, different terrorist groups can be classified based on their ideology: "communist terrorism", "anarchist terrorism", "religious terrorism", and so on (just like in "Terrorism" template currently in WP). Yes, this is precisely the claim made by the source.Biophys (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, this source meets the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources for 1848–1849 massacres in Transylvania

I think this source may be unreliable, but someone else contests that.

My reasons are:

• The name of the author Hilda von Klausenburg looks like a pseudonym (it means "Hilda from Cluj" in German)
• It seems to be a self-published source - WP:SPS
• The text could be POV. There are accusations that the work contains insults (Romanian: vexaţiuni): [2] (Iaaasi (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC))

This simply appears to be a pdf that has been posted online. Usually we try to use published sources. Unless someone can show that it has been published, it would fall under the restrictions regarding WP:SPS. TimidGuy (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

So is it correct to eliminate the text from this source per WP:SPS? I just want to be sure (Iaaasi (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC))

Since Iaaasi "forgot" to mention the discussion was about multiple sources for example this: 2 I have to copy my comment from that talk page as well that I replied to Iaaasi: "I don't agree with your assessment. That source looks a LOT more reliable to me than the source that you inserted. Especially since the source is actually about the topic of this article (atrocities against Hungarians) while your source not only seems dubious, it is not even about the article topic at all so anything it mentions is in passing. In fact just by reading the text "Hungarians killed many(??) Romanians, including beggars and old people. 2" it could be the sentence that comes up when discussing unreliable sources. " Based on this Iaaasi tried to insert a sentence ""Hungarians killed many(HOW many?) Romanians" into the article. Also what's this wordpress.com files? that Iaaasi cites? This long link? http://remusmirceabirtz.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/bereczky1.pdf Is this some blog? How is this relevant here? Hobartimus (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Other seemingly unreliable source is the internet site [3], I'd like to ask also about this one (Iaaasi (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC))

I'd recommend against using unpublished pdf files posted online, unless it can be clearly shown to meet the exception in WP:SPS: that it's written by an expert who has already published on the topic. And then use with caution. One of the pdf files linked above appears to have been published in a book about the history of Transylvania, and that's the sort of source that should be preferred. Websites also fall under the restriction in WP:SPS. Some websites are acceptable. I'd need to know more about the one linked above to have a sense for whether it's acceptable. TimidGuy (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The Corvinuslibrary.com website, and its English language mirror, www.hungarianhistory.com, is a collection of essays and articles on Hungarian history maintained by an individual in Canada. The essays appear from a very cursory examination to be authentic and scholarly, though I am in no position to assess the underlying scholarship. Many of the articles were solicited by the person who is building and maintaining the website. Ambitious as this project seems to be, it still would not, in my opinion, qualify as an independent publisher with an established reputation for editorial oversight, and thus should be treated as a SPS. A quick check of Google doesn't turn up this author's name, so I'd be inclined to think that the exception for previously published recognized experts will not apply in this instance. Fladrif (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this sources does not qualify as reliable under WP:SPS. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The Link Egglepple Starbureiy Museum.

See my removal[4] of a section at Trust law sourced to archive.org. This is just the latest of several attempts to add a section about 'Goodwill trusts' without clearly reliable sources. I can find [5], [6] (which says something about UrbanDictionary perhaps), videos, etc. Dougweller (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Possibly an Internet hoax, see Link Starbureiy if you are an Admin, it's salted now. I'm wondering if this particular link was created for the article

I don't think I'd use this as a source for Trust law. It's hard to figure out what the original source is. In general, I have reservations about using the Internet Archive as a source. Suppose a website is accused of posting false information, so then removes it. That false information would still show up in the Archive. TimidGuy (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Internet Archive is certainly reliable to show what a website once said. But, Internet Archive is not the source; the original website is the source. In this case, there is no way to identify the original website, and the various links go to pages filled with gibberish nonsense. The text, which you properly removed from the article, is likewise nonsense. Clearly, in this case, whatever it is that is being archived is not, and never was, a reliable source. Fladrif (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Palestine - generalizing source

From here. At the Foreign relations of Palestine currently we use one source where Curtis Doebbler makes a generalizing statement that 'all OIC members recognise Palestine as a state'. For 2 of the states in the "conflicting and inconclusive sources" section this is the only reason we keep them there (instead of in "no recognition" section).

Relevant quote from the source [7]: "The 21 other states of the Arab League, for example, already recognise Palestine as a state. So too do the 56 other member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC)."

As you can see in the archived discussion this source was brought in because other sources showing that OIC-as-organization recognize SoP were not sufficient to show that "all OIC members recognize SoP" - because of the following: "What is the procedure for taking decisions in OIC? Unanimity, majority? Even if it is unanimity the sources don't show that "OIC members recognize SoP" - the sources only show that the OIC itself recognizes SoP. (African Union recognizes Sahrawi Republic, but not all of its members recognize it)." Then this Curtis Doebbler source was used for his generalizing statement. He most probably applies the logic above ("since OIC recognizes SoP, then all its members recognize it" - without checking whether this is actually true). It was objected even back then that such logic seems dubious and that the whole generalizing statement seems wrong.

Now, the doubts are confirmed and this generalizing statement is proven wrong by the Guyana MFA in 2011 [8] - "The Government of Guyana has today decided to formally recognize the State of Palestine as a free, independent, and sovereign state, based on its 1967 borders." (e.g. Guyana recognized yesterday instead of years ago as the 'generalizing source' claims). In addition we have also this recent news contradicting the generalizing statement: "Suriname, another South American country and Caribbean Community (CARICOM) member, is expected to recognize Palestine within the coming days. Suriname is also a member of the OIC." (it was later reported that Suriname latest S. American state to recognize 'Palestine', but we don't have direct quote of the official announcement)

I added 'unreliable source?' tags to the usage of the generalizing statement proven wrong with the following explanation:

• generalizing statement that all OIC members recognize SoP proved wrong - Guyana recognized in 2011, not at time of this earlier generalizing statement

In the past we have already removed sources that contain incorrect statements (such as Boyle source about 195 UN members) and I don't see any reason to keep this source that wrongly claims Guyana recognition years prior to the date when the Government of Guyana took such decision. Maybe we can use this Curtis Doebbler source for the other issues described in it about the political situation, etc. in the appropriate sections of the article - but not his 'generalizing statement' as quoted above.

Another user - Night w - objected and tried to find various far-fetched explanations for the Doebbler mistake. One was that the 2011 decision was about official recognition and Doebbler speaks about unofficial recognition (whatever this is). Of course this doesn't help since we show in the article official recognitions, not unofficial (even if there is such a thing in the first place). The other excuse was that he tried to interpret the Guyana 2011 decision as recognition of the borders of the State of Palestine ONLY and to claimed that recognition of the state itself (without specifying any borders) should be done in the past, before the Doebbler generalizing statement. About the 1967 border straw I pointed out that if you look at the news reports about Guyana you will see that their writers/journalists interpret the event not as 'Guyana recognized SoP long ago, but today decided to acknowledge the 1967 borders' - they interpret it as 'Guyana supported Palestinian cause since long time and today decided to recognize SoP - inside the 1967 borders' [9] or simply 'Guyana hasn't recognized SoP until today, when it decided to recognize it' [10]. Night w didn't commented on the discrepancy between his (far-fetched and hanging on tiny straw IMHO) interpretation and the interpretations done by the news reports (that I agree with).

I also think that the Paraguay statement from 28.1.2011[11] is relevant here. Contrast Paraguay "reiteration" (of 2005 recognition) vs. Guyana "decision to recognize" - if Guyana had recognized SoP before 2011 its likely that its statement would have contained some similar wording to that of Paraguay (about reiterating already done recognition). But it doesn't have anything like that - it's about "Today decided to recognize". And even as I don't like to rely on external interpretations - the journalistic reports also support the same - and not the far-fetched interpretation that Guyana had recognized SoP before 2011.

In addition, if Doebbler's claim was correct it is very suspicious that there is no other source showing SoP recognition by these two states (Syria, Turkmenistan). There are statements of support, etc., but not for official formal diplomatic recognition. We have some kind of source (in some cases firm, in other - conflicting/inconclusive, but at least some) for all other states but these two.

I think all this shows clearly that we should not use the generalizing Doebbler's claim. Night w stopped responding after I asked him about the discrepancy between his interpretation and the journalistic reports, then the thread was archived, so I kindly ask for a third opinion here. Alinor (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've only given your comments a cursory reading, and I'm unfamiliar with the dispute. But on the face of it, I don't see a problem with having these two states in the "inconclusive" section. If there are sourced statements of support, but there is no source that explicitly says formal diplomatic recognition, that could be interpreted as being inconclusive. Putting these two states in the category of no recognition seems definitive. But isn't it a violation of WP:NOR to make a definitive categorization in the absence of a source that says that these two countries haven't given formal recognition? TimidGuy (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There are no "sourced statements of support", and even if there were we can't use them since we don't compile a "list of countries that support the Palestinian cause" - almost every state around the world is giving different levels of vague support. About the definitive categorization in absence of negative source - we had a section in the article with a description like "countries with no information about whether they recognize SoP or not" (this is currently renamed to "no recognition", but we can rename it back).

What I ask is - should we use the particular quoted claim from the source in question here[12] that contradicts official government statement[13]? Alinor (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, you may want to rename that category. Agree with you regarding Doebbler. I'd be cautious about using his post on a partisan website as a source for anything, but especially for facts regarding recognition. TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Lebedev Institute of Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences (FIAN) / Russian НЕТДА ("NETDA") news agency

This one may be a bit complicated. The material in question is a transcript[14] from a seminar conducted by the Lebedev Institute of Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences (FIAN.) This is hosted on the website of the Russian НЕТДА ("NETDA") news agency[15]. One of the topics of the seminar was an analysis of the economic theories of Lyndon LaRouche, and it is being proposed as a source for the LaRouche bio and for an article on his views. This transcript currently appears in the bibliography of the Russian Wikipedia article on LaRouche [16].

The transcript is in Russian, which is a problem unto itself, but I would like to get feedback here specifically on the reliability of the source. Two editors are objecting to it on the grounds that LaRouche researchers participated in the seminar, which they say adds an element of bias to the proceedings. I can't see this as material to the discussion -- many of the sources used in the LaRouche articles are political activists who have campaigned aggressively against LaRouche, but that doesn't seem to disqualify them as sources, so it ought to cut both ways. The Russian Academy of Sciences is a reputable organization, and the author of the disputed paper is GG Pirogov, who is a Doctor of Political Science and an established author (see [17]) Angel's flight (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it was added to the Russian Wikipedia's equivalent of a "further reading" section does not mean that the editors there have endorsed it as a reliable source, so that's a red herring. Why is this material significant enough to include in an English-language article on a U.S. politician? What other articles cite this same source on En.Wikipedia? How many articles on U.S. politicians (or even economists) cite Russian academics whose academic specialty is apparently mining? What is the relationship of this seminar to the Lebedev Institute of Physics and to the Schiller Institute? What is the reputation of the author of the seminar presentation? Did the Lebedev Inst. have any editorial oversight over the publication? These are all questions that go into evaluating a source for reliability and relevance, but which are difficult to answer due to the opacity of the source and its context.   Will Beback  talk  02:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Will, you've had your say on the article talk page. Please let the regulars here give an independent opinion on the source, which is the purpose of bringing the dispute here. Cla68 (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Will raises some good points. BLPs need rock-solid sourcing, don't you agree? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"A transcript of a seminar" is not usually a reliable source. It's unclear how much, if any, review was done on the talk proposal, and there is no quality control on the actual talk. The Russian Academy of Science is a giant organisation, and no doubt is associated with all kinds of events, at least in an administrative function. Unless they explicitly endorse the views in question, I don't see this association as adding significant reliability or notability. And GG Pirogov's main output seems to be one cold-war era piece on the "Socialist World System" - I cannot find any other "serious" publication in the last 30 years. So calling him "an established author" is a stretch - there certainly is no evidence that he is an expert in the sense of WP:SPS's "an established expert on the topic". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Stephan, before you dismiss an academic by writing "GG Pirogov's main output seems to be one cold war era piece on the "socialist world system" please use the kyrillic transcript of his name ""Г. Г. Пирогов" and, for simplicity's sake, enter it in google. I haven't had time to search through the 10.000+ results, but please, DO YOUR RESEARCH! 81.210.206.223 (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Google Scholar gives me 6 hits with a total of one (1) citation: [18]. Not impressed. It may well be that Google's coverage of the Russian literature is incomplete, of course. But anyways, if you want to present him as an expert, you need to make the case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Stephan. A scholarly analysis of LaRouche's economic views might be a valid source, but this one doesn't give any appearance of being a notable scholarly analysis. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Conference presentations aren't usually acceptable as a source, and it seems like a presentation at a seminar would also not be acceptable. TimidGuy (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, slow down. In some disciplines, conference papers are the primary means of publishing research. Please be careful not to over-generalize. ElKevbo (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I came here after seeing a request at WT:RUSSIA asking for help of a native Russian speaker. Acceptability of the source as reliable aside, what exactly do you need a native speaker to look at? I'll be happy to help if I can.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 15, 2011; 16:56 (UTC)

Thanks, Ezhiki. There is a question about the academic G.G. Pirogov and furthermore on his ability to judge the economic ideas of Lyndon Larouche. It would be most helpful if we had a document that would give us some insights into his credentials. I am not sure, but a web search

turned out this http://www.math.panam.edu/lf/Teaching/LectureNotes/MathModeling/papers/PHU_45_9_R03.pdf document, where Pirogov is mentioned as helpful source in econometric modelling and there is a book by Pirogov on the "Socialist Economy". http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL4562252A/G.G.*_Pirogov and another about global econometric modelling: http://www.springerlink.com/content/58228016u2356432/ I have although noticed that there is another G.G. Pirogov, who seems to be a Geologist. http://www.famous-scientists.ru/list/7955 Ezhiki, can you confirm that: 1. these are 2 individuals named G.G. Pirogov, one Econometrist and one Geologist? 2. That G.G. Pirogov the Econometrist is an experienced senior russian scientist in Economy and Econometrics? 3. Could you direkt us to a good web source which lists Pirogov's (Economist) credentials? Thank you vry much! 81.210.206.223 (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, this is turning out to be more complicated than I thought :) The first question is easy, though—while both people have initials "G. G.", the economist's name is Grigory Grigoryevich, while the geologist's name is Gennady Georgiyevich. As for the economist, this interview (which has some biographic details, and which makes me think that this is the same person) is the most useful page I found, which is from a kinda sorta reliable source. Sorry for being so vague, but there really isn't much about this person online. This kind of research is best done when one has access to a good Russian library (which I don't) or knows the subject matter more thoroughly and knows where else to look. I hope what I found helps at least a little.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 15, 2011; 18:12 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ezhiki, this has been most helpful. Now I took one source to google translate, the result was surprisingly good. I take this then to be his most important undisputable and factual credentials:

"Political scientist, specialist in research on socio-economic and political processes, the challenges of globalization. Author of several monographs, including two-volume monograph entitled "Globalization and civilizational diversity of the world" (2002). Member of the Scientific Editorial Board of the multi-volume edition of "World economic thought. Through the prism of the ages. " In 5 volumes (2004-2005). The author of the translation into Russian of two books (as well as the notes thereto) of the Nobel Prize for Economics Dzh.Stiglitsa."

Now, the dispute about Pirogov is about a machine translation of a transcript of a seminar conducted with members of the LaRouche-Organisation. Here is the original: http://www.netda.ru/fian/fian2b.htm There was one complete translation, though i have not checked by whom, nor can i assess its quality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/russian#Lyndon_LaRouche_and_his_physical_economy

In October 2009, SlimVirgin edited the Talk Page about Larouche and doubted an assertion by Pirogov: Could we have a translation of the relevant part of the source material, please, from whoever added it?

"In 2004, Russian academic GG Pirogov asserted that LaRouche had, in 1959-60, forecast that a series of monetary shocks would lead to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system (GG Pirogov, conference presentation to the Lebedev Physical Institute [1]). SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)" here is the archived page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/Archive_22

Now, assuming that this is STILL the paragraph under question, can you safely say, that:

"L. LaRouche is known as the author of two fundamental long-term predictions - predictions. In the years 1959-60. He predicted a series of monetary shocks, which lead to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system (fulfilled in 1971). In the second case, he predicted that after the abolition of the Bretton Woods system the policies of the USA and other developed capitalist countries will lead to a new crisis, but did not cyclical, but to the collapse of the entire system of international economic relations - a systemic crisis."

(from the translation in question)

is an accurate translation of: "Л. Ларуш известен, как автор двух фундаментальных долгосрочных прогнозов - предсказаний. В 1959-60 гг. он предсказал серию кредитно-денежных потрясений, которые приведут к крушению Бреттонвудской системы (сбылось в 1971 году). Во втором случае он предсказал, что после отмены Бреттонвудской системы политика США и других развитых капиталистических стран приведет к новому кризису, но даже не циклическому, а к обвалу всей системы международных экономических отношений - системному кризису."

Comments from other editors pending, this would be all, I assume. Thank you very much indeed!81.210.206.223 (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as grammar, the translation could use a few corrections, but otherwise I can assert that it is accurate.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 15, 2011; 19:20 (UTC)

It appears that 81.210.206.223, et al, are seeking to use this Russian academic's presentation at a Schiller-sponsored seminar as a source for a rather extraordinary assertion that LaRouche predicted a currency collapse eleven years in advance. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Pirogov does not say where or how this prediction was made, nor other details to allow corroboration.

Editors above have said that, as a general principle, seminar presentations are not reliable sources. They do not have any editorial oversight. I would take as the conclusion of this thread that the seminar should not be used as a source material on a BLP. We should use the best available sources.   Will Beback  talk  19:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I am under the impression that WB wants to dismiss a reliable source not because of it is correct and factual, but because it does not include what he (WB) wants it to include, quote:

"Pirogov does not say where or how this prediction was made, nor other details to allow corroboration." That a source should be EXcluded because it does not include what a certain editor wants it to say, is in itself scandalous! 19:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your efforts.Your help is most appreciated! 81.210.206.223 (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If he is the main translator into Russian of the works of Joseph Stiglitz, he is a notable economist. Nevertheless, a seminar paper is probably not a reliable source. Has he not made the same point elsewhere? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there is some confusion as to what is meant by "Seminar paper". In this case, calling a transcript of a speech by a senior politologist at the Lebedev Institute of Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences a "seminar paper" may be an understatement.81.210.206.223 (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Pirogov is not only the author of the speech or presentation, but also the chair of the seminar. One of the differences between a self-published primary source and a secondary source is the presence of some kind of second party editorial oversight. Absence evidence to the contrary, it appears that this material is Pirogov's opinion unfiltered by anyone else. It is hardly the best available source for the biography of an American politician, especially since it is making an exceptional claim.   Will Beback  talk  20:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Quote:

"Absence evidence to the contrary, it appears that this material is Pirogov's opinion unfiltered by anyone else. It is hardly the best available source for the biography of an American politician, especially since it is making an exceptional claim" Question: If no "filtered" material is allowed, would you mind excluding the material which has no editors' board either. I am thinking of most of the material by Berlet and King. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Another Larouche prediction, from the 1970's: "The probable included consequence of the Rockefellers' projected 'new world order' is thermonuclear holocaust no later than the early 1980s." Or a better sourced quote from Chip Berlet's site: "Nelson A. Rockefeller is a raving fascist presently pushing as rapidly as he is able to impose a fascist police-state in the U.S.A. before the 1976 elections." We need to give some thought to weight as well as reliability.Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

True. The subject has made a large number of predictions.   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Stay on topic please. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

On topic. If he makes hundreds of predictions, stating that two of them came true is a violation of WP:WEIGHT unless we also discuss the others that didn't.Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this (http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2008/2008_10-19/2008-13/pdf/24-25_3513.pdf) Larouche - site from 2008 (which you are of course free to dismiss as biased) lists just 9 forecasts. Stay on topic please, there are two sentences in dispute right now. If you feel like discussing the history and truthfulness or falseness of other forecasts made by LaRouche, bring them on, add a reliable source, then we can discuss. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That's one reason why we don't rely on self-published sources to write articles. There are many sources that report the prediction that there'd be thermonuclear war shortly after Carter's inauguration. By weight, it should receive much more attention than this. Is this the only source to report this exceptional claim? Are there no independent sources?   Will Beback  talk 

Although I have lost count of how many reasons WB has brought up/invented to exclude the Pirogov - Material, I see his latest posts as attempt of diverting a disscussion. ("Are there OTHER stories, more sources, more "independent" sources"?) It's really enough by now, WB. The discussion is about 2 well-sourced sentences (!), and NOT about anything else. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Pirogov is one of many sources. There is no reason to exaggerate his importance but also no reason to exlude him and source only with sources like Chip Berlet (Communist friend of Albania) and his group. --Dezidor (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

RED FLAG

Rather than trying to reinvent the wheel, we should let the applicable policy resolve this. Here is the English translation of the source; scroll down to the "GG Pies" paper. The LaRouche accounts want to use this source to support the following text: "GG Pirogov of the Russian Academy of Sciences calls him 'one of the greatest original thinkers of the twentieth century'" (emphasis added). See the proposed edit on talk. This is an exceptional claim, within the meaning of WP:REDFLAG, so we need a high-quality source. REDFLAG—part of Verifiability, which is policy—addresses this situation exactly:

So: is GG Pirogov's paper a high-quality source? First, it seems to have been self-published by the seminar organizers, which is one strike against it.

Second, it was one of a series of seminars arranged in conjunction with the Schiller Institute, one of the names used by the LaRouche movement in Wiesbaden, Germany. See here in English where the seminar organizers explain what their connection is with the Schiller Institute (emphasis added):

Third, the above is something that none of the reliable sources—the mainstream academics and journalists who have written about LaRouche—would agree with. They would say that LaRouche is not a prominent American economist. They would say that the Schiller Institute does not have a growing influence, or any influence, on European intellectuals. They would say not only that these claims are false, but that they are bizarre claims to make.

To summarize: (1) LaRouche accounts want to add an exceptional claim to an article about LaRouche; (2) the academic they want to use as an independent reliable source is unknown or barely known; (3) the seminar paper is self-published by the people who organized it; (4) the LaRouche movement was involved in organizing the seminar; and (5) the seminar blurb makes what reliable sources would regard as false claims about LaRouche and the Schiller Institute.

It seems to me that the above increases the RED FLAG aspect of this, rather than assuaging it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:01, 16 February 2011 (UTCSlimVirgin'sy:

:Excuse me, but referring to other editors as "LaRouche accounts" is a breach of civility and an inappropriate attempt to prejudice other participants in the discussion. SlimVirgin does not specify the "mainstream academics and journalists who have written about LaRouche," but the ones presently in use at the LaRouche BLP are mainly American New Left activists from the 1970s who were opponents of LaRouche back in the day. I think it would be useful and appropriate under NPOV to have a contrasting view. SlimVirgin does not make a case for his claim that Mr. Pirogov is "unknown or barely known." The fact that LaRouche researchers participated in the seminar does not mean that they dictated what other participants were to say, and it is clear from Russian, Chinese and other sources that LaRouche is perceived very differently in these cultures than in the US. The Chinese Peoples Daily reports that LaRouche is better known overseas than in the US. I think we should be wary of WP:Systemic bias. Angel's flight (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's summary: Apart from the fact, that SV now talks about an entirely different sentence than the one in question, there are several points to raise as to the quality of her "summary"

(1) "exceptional claim" is an opinion (2) "barely known academic" : There is no causal connection that an "unknown academic" is unreliable.In fact, the logical fallacy that an unknown or lesser known source is not valid/not right/untrue is called "argumentum ad populum" (3)"the material is self-published" As far as i can see, the material is published by a news agency (4)"Larouche was involved" : this logical fallacy is called "poisoning the well" (5)"would regard" : this fallacy is called counterfactual argument 81.210.206.223 (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard so recourse to forum debate like "logical fallacy" is not appropriate. Of course "one of the greatest original thinkers" is a WP:REDFLAG claim, and of course multiple, highly reliable sources would be needed before even contemplating adding such text. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Self-published by Pirogov?

• First, I agree that the source is essentially "self-published" on Russian. Second, one must be very suspicious about presentations of humanitarian subjects in the leading Russian physics institution. If it was something about physics and supported by their theoreticians, that would be a different matter.Biophys (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this as a valid objection, first of all because the seminar was interdisciplinary, and also because LaRouche does not approach economics as a "social science." The interview[19] that Ëzhiki found actually touches upon this, where Pirogov tells the interviewer that "Lyndon LaRouche introduced the principle of "physical economy", where the real product is calculated per capita, household, and per square kilometer of territory..." It's a far cry from the monetarist approach which is hegemonic in the West.

::I'd like to also emphasize that when I started this thread, I wasn't asking for validation of specific quotes. Others have tried to focus the discussion that way. Pirogov's presentation is a far-reaching and competent analysis of LaRouche's theories, which we do not have from any of the American sources presently featured in the article, which tend to be restricted to polemics. I think inclusion would be generally useful. Angel's flight (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly self published per the above, and not RS for fact claims.Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, although this might be a valid source about Pirogov. There is no such thing as "physical economy", or at least this has nothing to do with Physics. This belongs either to social sciences or to pseudoscience. Biophys (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

:::Well, here again, the Russians disagree.[20] Beware of systemic bias. Angel's flight (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Many academic associations publish their own things, I see no problem if it was publsihed by them if they are mainstream Academic orginzation. If its reputable org then I see no reason to exclude it. Also its worth noting that I (The Resident Anthropologist (talk)) am of the American Anthropological Association as every one in American Anthropology is. So saying he is from the Russian Academy of Sciences can mean extremely little unless he is a top officer. I see very little problem with X saying Y about Z being included as long as he is notable and reputable to give an opinion on it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

::The interview[21] that Ëzhiki found identifies him as "a leading researcher at the Institute of Comparative Politics, Russian Academy of Sciences," as well as a "Japanologist, an expert on macroeconomics and economic policies of developed countries... involved in economic-mathematical methods CEMI in and in VNIISI, global modeling, and econometrics." ItsmeJudith found him to be the Russian translator of books by Joseph Stiglitz. Angel's flight (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I said if he is the main translator into Russian of Stiglitz' books, he is notable. Important difference. I also said that even if he is notable there should be a better source than this one. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Good comment by ResidentAnthropologist. No, this not an official printed publication by the Lebedev Institute. If it was, that would be a different story. This is a self-published personal opinion of Pirogov who would hardly fit our notability criteria.Biophys (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

::::The publisher is the Russian НЕТДА ("NETDA") news agency, and there are by my count 44 different presentations, of which 3 are by Pirogov. Angel's flight (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So he was quoted in newspaper, So that implies some notability but who identifies him as a "leading researcher at the Institute of Comparative Politics, Russian Academy of Sciences." Who descibes him that way? and where? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Here http://www.isras.ru/pers_about.html?id=222 Pirogov is listed as the leading researcher at the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences.81.210.206.223 (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

:::::::He was not quoted in a newspaper, at least not in the example cited. All 44 conference presentations were published by a wire service. The description of Pirogov's expert qualifications comes from the journalist Yuri Chirkov, who interviewed Pirogov in the interview[22] that Ëzhiki found, which appeared in the magazine National Security, October 27, 2008. Angel's flight (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This sounds extremely dubious claim made by the journalist. In my expeience Journalist who introduce "X" as world leading "Y" typically are doing so for rehtoical purposes to set up an arguement about "Z." Also if this is new wire services why are they publishing reports on academic confereces? what is "NETDA" news agency?" It honestly sounds like when Chinses Government have their "International Symposium on Cultic Studies" and use the state media utilize stuff for rhetorical purposes. What is the credibility of this new service. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not know anything about this "NoYes" site, but just looking at the text right on the top at their frontpage...[23] It tells: "За территориальным, финансовым и ресурсным переделом мира, о котором говорят все, скрывается гораздо более серьёзный передел мира - миграционно-демографический передел жизненного пространства между расами и цивилизациями, последствия которого не только для славян, но и для всей индоевропейской расовой общности катастрофичен.". This is something extremely nationalistic ("races", "living space" which was allegedly taken by the Western civilization from Slavic peoples, and so on).Biophys (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

As I suspected, then there is no reason to include it as that makes it clear this is probably not a reliable source for anything. I would even think it would be a little dubious to use it to sources the Org's opinions on any matter The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jonathanwallace, Biophys, The Resident Anthropologist. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• My inclination with seminar papers and presentations is that they should be treated as self-published sources and not as having been published by independent third parties. In some scientific fields, seminar papers and presentations are subjected to editorial and peer review prior to acceptance. There is no indication that that is the case here. Unless the author is a recognized expert whose work in the relevant area has been previously published by independent, third party, reliable sources, I would think that this is not a RS. Fladrif (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Edits by a sock of a banned user have been struck through.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Plague of Justinian

I reverted an IP with an edit summary stating that the sources were not reliable, as they were a blog, a grad student's paper on the web, and a general book on catastrophes. Here the IP restored their edit saying it was just my pov. The statement "And probably could have hit the romanised Britons who did trade with the Mediterranean sea around 544 AD, facilitaing their conquest by the Anglosaxon kingdom of eastern Britain." is cited to this book with no page number. The author is not a specialist (see his other books [24]) and looking at some of the comments there I have no confidence in it. The publisher is a publisher of books for children and young adults. [25]. Another paragraph is based on [26], an anonymous blogger's comment on John Morris's book The Age of Arthur which is itself not a very reliable source (see our article). The third source, [27] is not actually a paper, it's just a short webpage by a grad student. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The blog and the student's web page are clearly not reliable. The "Catastrophe" book is insufficient for the claim attributed to it: saying that this plague could have facilitated the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain is a very big claim indeed, and would need a much stronger source than this overview of disasters written for a popular audience.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be an implication that John Morris might be a possible source? If so I think he is not a bad enough source to exclude completely. His Age of Arthur book is (as our article says) mainly criticized because of its speculative aspects, which are however quite obviously intended to be speculative. There is nothing essentially wrong with well informed people speculating, although we would tend to then need to attribute. I think a lot of what is written about this period is speculative.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It might have been ok if sourced to Morris directly, attributed, and described as speculation, but it was sourced to a blog without mention of Morris and the blog did not back 'some scholars'. But in any case Paul Barlow's done a good rewrite on the article with some better sources. Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I was mainly also just thinking ahead of your RSN question to possible better solutions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Potentially a big problem with circular references, mirroring &c

Bear with me; this is a tedious story of a little investigation.

1. Somebody commented about potential copyvio of this book on Talk:Affluenza. On researching, I found that the contested text appeared in the article a year before the book was published.
2. Looking around, I found that the publisher of the book was mentioned in a couple of cases at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, for instance this, where it was established that other Global Vision books appear to copy Wikipedia content. Also, at least 4 other books from this publisher are already listed at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks: Foundation of Geology - Global encyclopaedia of political geography - 21st century Cambodia: View and Vision - Global Encyclopedia of Islamic Mystics and Mysticism. Since the publisher of a book is not always mentioned consistently, there may be more instances (I found one of those books mentioned on Mirrors and Forks by accident whilst compiling this message).
3. It's also mentioned over at Talk:Central limit theorem that a different one of their books copies that article.
4. So, I went on Google Books and searched for books published by Global Vision which had a preview available. The first search result was this published in 2007; the very first article in it, Abhanga, contains text identical to our article Abhanga in 2006
5. I have not yet seen any attribution to wikipedia in in any Global Vision book.

So, I think a pattern is emerging of widespread unattributed copying of wikipedia articles by this publisher. I propose that Global Vision - the publisher as a whole - be treated as a mirror; and any reference to any of their books should be considered a circular reference until there's specific evidence to the contrary. Treat them like Books LLC. Does that sound reasonable? bobrayner (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I checked another of their books; Philosophy of scientific creationism (published 2009) appears to duplicate content that appeared on Teach the Controversy in 2006. bobrayner (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It also brings up the question, where is their other (non-Wikipedia) information coming from? If they are copying Wikipedia for some of their content, is the rest their original creation, or cribbed from somewhere else? They seem questionable at best as a publisher, and I would suggest treating their books as un-reliable sources. See Talk:Aissawa#Article issues regarding how I came across one of "their" texts. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a direct connection between them, but this is reminiscent of a problem with another Delhi-based Indian publisher. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 70#Circular references: Gyan Publishing and ISHA Books.   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Are there any other publishers which should be flushed out? When I have spare time I'll go through the listings on Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks... bobrayner (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

These are important issues that bobrayner has raised. But I wonder how much we are rushing to judgment overly quickly? I was underwhelmed when I spot-checked bobrayner's observation (above) about Global Vision's Marathi literature chapter on Abhanga having the same text as WP's article in 2006. Here are several things I found that made Global Vision appear much less culpable, and potentially much more reliable, than the impression given above:

• The editor of the 2007 Global Vision book, Sunita Deshpande (1926-2009), was an established figure in Marathi literature, according to WP's own article about her.
• The 2006 version of the Abhanga article that Bobrayner linked above was the very first version of the article, immediately after it was created. The WP article at that time was only 4 sentences and 92 words long. Only sentences 2, 3, and 4 were identical with the book chapter -- and the chapter itself was much longer - a page and a half (6 paragraphs, approximately 25 sentences).
• It's unclear to me from the preview exactly who wrote the book's Abhanga chapter. But if the chapter author is an academic - which seems very possible - then both the author and the WP article might have copied those 3 sentences from the author's own previous writings. It is a common practice among academics, at least in the west, to reuse and rework their writings for different purposes.
• Even if the 3 sentences in question were taken from the WP article, it's only clear that WP's copyright-based request for attribution was violated - but it's far from clear that the authors weren't vetting the statements for facticity. Obviously the authors got an enormous amount of material from non-WP sources.

In sum, my spot-check of the evidence against Global Vision left me far from persuaded that there is an enormous problem as represented above. To be persuasive for regarding an entire publisher as a mirror, a case must be much stronger. In fact, the apparently high quality of the editor, as an established literary figure, gave me the impression that Global Vision - if they often work with established scholars such as her - is likely to be producing a substantial amount of high-quality material, even if a bit of unreliable material sometimes slips through (as it probably does to most publishers both east and west). At least, that's what I "took home" from my spot check. -- Health Researcher (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and attention.

No doubt there is at least one decent honest person called Sunita Deshpande; I see thirty-four people on Facebook with that name, and another seven on LinkedIn. However, that does not undo the plagiarism. Plagiarism is plagiarism, and sometimes even famous or reputable people do it. Specifically: We should not give a plagiarist a free pass simply because they have the same name as a notable author.

As for the content on Abhanga itself, the first paragraph is a copy of text that seems to have appeared first on wikipedia; I have not yet found an earlier source with the same wording (If you could find an earlier source, that would be helpful). The rest of that article is copy & pasted from "The Encyclopaedia Of Indian Literature" (2006). That in turn appears to copy from "Encyclopaedia of the Hindu world" (1992). Their article on Abhanga does not credit any of those three sources. We should not be using an indiscriminate copyright violator as a source even if, by way of mitigation, they sometimes violate somebody else's copyright instead of wikipedia's.

Have you looked at the other Global Vision books which copy wikipedia content? Several have been identified so it would be misleading to consider only one - the one which I picked at random without any prior indication of plagiarism. Other editors have flagged this issue with Global Vision books.

Just for good measure, I went on Google Books and looked for other Global Vision books with preview available. The next was a copy of Adam Smith; I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on that one, maybe they're offering Project Gutenberg a hand. The next book after that was "Spiritual Value of Social Charity", in which the first visible page of text - supposedly written by the publisher himself (or herself), is a direct copy of "History and philosophy of social work in India" (1968). I would, respectfully, challenge you to find any book from this publisher which does not cut & paste other sources, whether wikipedia or otherwise. bobrayner (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's try a different example: Global Encyclopaedia of Environmental Science Technology and Management, published in 2009.

The Affluenza article has the same text as an earlier version of Affluenza.

Next, the Afforestation article has the same text as an earlier version of Afforestation.

Next, the Age Distribution article has the same text as Britannica's article on age distribution.

Next, the Agency article has the same text as an earlier version of Agency (philosophy).

Next, the Agenda 21 article includes some text that seems to have first appeared in an earlier version of Agenda 21, plus what appears to be part of volume 6 of Agenda 21 & the UNCED proceedings (1992).

We could, perhaps, repeat this experiment with other books from Global Vision. How many more instances of copying must be found before we adopt a default position of skepticism about anything from Global Vision? bobrayner (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

When I tried googling for "Global Vision Publishing" + plagiarism, in the hope of some third-party discussion, the first search result was this; another example right under our nose. Or consider a tenth book: Global Vision's History of Afghanistan was in the bibliography of Afghanistan. It was published in 2008. Randomly sampled text from that book appears very similar to 2007 versions of History of Afghanistan. I removed that one.

Quite a few articles, mostly on Indian subjects, currently refer to Global Vision books. I think that's a moderately serious problem. bobrayner (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC) (Sorry about the third reply. I promise I'll stop now before you all get bored)

This is a known problem, and some of these publishers are quite open about what they are doing, and do not consider themselves to be doing anything wrong. From our point of view those publishers should not be considered a reliable source. We don't need to get into debates about whether these publishers are doing something right or wrong on this particular noticeboard.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if some of their books aren't plagiarized or Wikipedia mirrors, based on the extent of their copying it's obvious that, as a publisher, they fall far short of the WP:RS bar of "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." First Light (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, bobrayner (and others), I found your additional evidence persuasive for the existence of copying in the Abhanga article, and the existence of much additional copying in Global Vision (GV) books. Question: How many books has GV Published? That is, in calculating the proportion of GV books involving copying, you have established that there are many books in the numerator; what is the denominator? A quick google book search (here) gave more than 36000 results with "Global" and "Vision" in the publisher field, though that seems a bit large. (Despite such questions, I do suspect that your perspective will prevail regarding how to view GV books - and I hold no brief for them).

But given the diversity of perspectives on copying (as alluded to by Andrew Lancaster), I suspect it will pay long-term dividends to be clear in our thinking about the relation of copying to reliability. At least theoretically, it might be possible that a publisher checks facts carefully (and has a reputation for that in circles that know them well), but does not regard copying as wrong. To some extent this might even be a culturally fraught issue (e.g., see here). Thus, I'm inclined to see long-term value in trying to be dispassionate and clear in our thinking. Hence, I raise these questions. These questions are not devoid of practical implications, because an individual GV-type source (e.g., an individual chapter), when examined closely, may sometimes show most or all features of an RS (except being published by GV!), and alternative non-GV-type RS sources may be hard to find. I raise these issues not so much with an interest to this particular case, but as a prod to optimal WP guidelines and procedures. Thanks to everyone for your hard work. Health Researcher (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this proposal to ban an entire publisher from Wikipedia. Given the history of plagiarism (which the inside covers of the books disclaim responsibility for, leaving them on the respective "editors" of the books), it certainly makes sense to remain warned, in case of contentious material, that a particular book may be a circular reference. But unless we've actually seen some verifiably false information in a particular book, it's not sufficient reason to give up a useful source of information (and often the only one, for India-related articles), based only on the reputation of other books. The modus operandi of the publisher seems to be that they commission encyclopedia-like books from certain authors, who then may or may not copy wholesale from a variety of sources, including Wikipedia. But in cases where the information was not originally on Wikipedia, and the matter is not contentious… it's certainly better to have information from a (possibly second-hand) source than to not have it at all. Blanket bans on publishers are IMHO a good idea only when there's an abundance of sources. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Shreevatsa, I think those are important points. To me they point strongly to the need for ongoing monitoring, and incrementally improved understanding over time, of what's going on with various publishers who seem to be a mixed bag. The extra effort seems warranted by the paucity of alternative sources on certain important topics (e.g., India-related). Over time, perhaps those with extra knowledge of how publishing works in India can be helpful in developing ways to sort the wheat from the chaff, the reliable from the unreliable. In the meanwhile, I wonder if some sort of flagging can be developed to help people recognize both sides of the issue quickly? Health Researcher (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC) 20:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If they publish a book written by a known author who is considered a reliable source in their field, then that would be fine. But the Wikipedia-borrowing does seem to put their overall credibility into serious doubt. First Light (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:SOURCES, articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sorry, but with the evidence we have so far, the publisher does not qualify. It may be that some of its books are reliable for other reasons (i.e. they are written by a known and recognised expert), but the publication process itself does not confer any reliability. Shreevatsa, the problem is that the books are not "a useful source of information". The aim is not to add a footnote to every statement, the aim is to reference reliable sources we can trust. If we cannot trust a source, we cannot trust the information it provides. If there is no really reliable source for a claim, we cannot include it. Including questionable or wrong information, while giving the impression it is properly sourced, is much worse that saying nothing on a topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Shreevatsa's point was that blanket avoidance of a publisher would likely miss some of those same reliable sources ("for other reasons") that you (Stephan Schulz) are referring to. Blanket avoidance may be an efficient strategy when many alternative references are available, but a case-by-case consideration may be worthwhile when alternatives are unavailable. I think you (Stephan Schulz) are correct in stating that for publishers who've repeatedly published false information, "the publication process itself does not confer any reliability," but that Shreevatsa is also helpful when he reminds us to be asking whether "we've actually seen some verifiably false information" Health Researcher (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Stephan - he explained more clearly what I was trying to say just above. First Light (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

On Shreevatsa's point, yes, the inside cover of the books does dislaim plagiarism. Very specifically. On my desk I have three reference books from legitimate publishers and none has such a specific disclaimer saying "if you find plagiarism it's nothing to do with us, oh no". And one of the texts apparently written by the publishing house's owner also looks like an unacknowledged copy of an earlier book. However, all that is a side issue. The key fact is that several Global Vision books have been checked (ten or eleven, now, I think) and all include plagiarism - including some extensive mirroring of wikipedia articles. Given that pattern of evidence, I would suggest that we must presume that any future reference to a Global Vision book is a bad reference, and quite probably a circular one. It may be technically possible that out of the 200* books they publish, 190 are clean, and I was just unlucky enough to stumble upon the ten dirty ones - but it would be highly improbable. If you carefully investigate any other Global Vision book and discover that it's clean, then feel free to use it, but until a book has been carefully investigated we should assume that it's plagiarised like all the others. The content may look seductive, since they copy what a wikipedia article said earlier, so it will look plausible in the context of that article, but that is exactly why circular references are so dangerous. bobrayner (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC) * note: I haven't actually counted all of their publications yet, but I will, as I investigate further. 200 is a rough guess based on Global Vision's website.

I've replied to this just below (after Andrew Lancaster's comment). Shreevatsa (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Somebody above has interpreted me as saying there is a diversity of opinion on copying. Actually I think that concerning what this noticeboard is about I think there is no doubt at all that this type of publisher can not be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. What I said was that on this noticeboard we do not have to even discuss anything else concerning the rights and wrongs of such publications. Unfortunately I see no way to avoid a blanket ruling on this, because these sources do not have their own reputation for fact checking at all. They do not even claim any. The fact that there will be a lot of correct information in them is not enough for WP:V. We would need to know what is fact checked, but we can not trace this back through these sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The policy on verifiability is not that every sentence must be accompanied by a footnote, but that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" be attributed to a reliable source. That's why I drew a distinction between contentious or questionable (as in: likely to be questioned) material and the rest. For a concrete example, there's an article Kristubhagavatam, created two months ago (December 2010) by User:Health Researcher, and the only source it really uses (other than the book itself, which it uses a lot) is Encyclopedic Dictionary of Sanskrit Literature published by Global Vision Publishing House in 2004. It's an interesting article, its contents are not likely to be false, and I do not think that we would be better off without having this article. Of course, a book published in 2004 cannot have copied from Wikipedia which did not contain any of this material until 2010, so the problem of circular references does not apply here. (And it's extremely unlikely—I'd say impossible—that this book plagiarises anything from Wikipedia, because almost none of its content existed on Wikipedia in 2004.) Based on the reputation of the publisher that we've built up here, we don't know whether the book plagiarises from some other (more reliable) book or not: but IMHO as long as it's not from Wikipedia it doesn't matter.
To be clear, I have no disagreement with the claim that for the purposes of this noticeboard, it is indisputable that the publisher is not reliable. I have no problem with declaring, as far as this noticeboard is concerned, that books from this publisher are a priori unreliable, and being done with it. No further discussion is necessary here. I'm only opposed to the further idea of "banning" them altogether as unreliable sources (with some technological method like the blacklist or with bots that remove statements cited to a book by this publisher). The problem of circular references is obviously very serious, and, for (only) books or articles where that applies, some sort of warning to readers/editors about the danger of circular references, or even removing them directly, would be quite ok—but something more spanning all books would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with Shreevatsa on that. One might strongly suspect that the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Sanskrit Literature was compiled (as regards living authors) largely from materials provided by the subjects. But then that's true of Who's Who as well. We should quote it for specific facts, not for unsourced opinions (I noted the words "immortal fame" in the encyclopedia article: no one, till the world's end, is a reliable source on that). But, anyway, it's a sometimes-useful reference source and it wasn't compiled from Wikipedia. Andrew Dalby 10:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess I can understand that in this particular example you have a practical problem, concerning to do in terms of editing. I also agree that deleting an article which is probably sourceable, just because its only source is from one of these publishers, is not justified. That does not make it a reliable source, but I think this extra comment about what to do in editing terms is worth making. There are lots of articles with no sourcing. Many of them are not that bad, and it just requires someone to have the time to find sourcing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

3BM Television, The Age of Terror, Part 1

This TV series is being used to make the following claim , in Wikipedia's voice "making [The King David Bombing] known for decades as the deadliest terrorist attack of the 20th century." in the Menachem Begin article. Is the series (unavailable on-line, as far as I can tell) a reliable source for such a claim, or should it be attributed to the person making the claim in the series? Tzu Zha Men (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be attributed, either to the person making the claim or to the series. TimidGuy (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It does appear to be available online, though I am unsure of the copyright status of those sites. 3BM Television is a producer of television documentaries which has won multiple awards, and the particular series in question won a UK Broadcast Award. It would appear to be a reliable source. One should verify that the text accurately reflects the source, but it is not really a statement of opinion, but rather of fact, and so attribution beyond the footnote itself is not necessary. Fladrif (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

where is it available on line? Tzu Zha Men (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Google, at YouTube and various Torrent sites. They're probably all copyright violations so we can't link to them. Fladrif (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case, how can we verify that the text accurately reflects the source? Tzu Zha Men (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:SOURCEACCESS. It it easily verifiable. Verifiability does not depend on ease of access or the source being available for free online. You can buy, rent, or check out the video from a library. You can ask the production company or one of the channels that broadcast it if they can provide a transcript. There are other options. Fladrif (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Mule (newspaper)

Is the Mule (newspaper) a reliable source in this context:

• Article: Aaron Porter
• Statement: "Porter later said he had not heard anti-Semitic abuse."
• Cite: Fox, Tom; Pooler, Michael (February 2011). "Aaron Porter admits he did not hear anti-Semitic chants". Mule. Retrieved 15 February 2011.

It may be worth noting that the news report contradicts these earlier reports from mainstream newspapers:

1. Sawer, Patrick; Harrison, David (29 January 2011). "Student Leader Aaron Porter barracked with anti-Semitic insults". Daily Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group. Retrieved 1 February 2011.
2. Police clash with students in Manchester Financial Times 29-Jan-2011
3. NUS President Subjected to Anti-Semitic Abuse Jewish Chronicle 30-Jan-2011
4. Gallagher, Ian. "Student leader faces barrage of anti-Jewish abuse at rally as protesters accuse him of being a Tory". Mail Online. Associated Newspapers. Retrieved 1 February 2011.

Any views or advice would be appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a tough one. The publication certainly seems a lesser source than the others. But the reportage seems somewhat credible, and mainstream media do sometimes get things wrong. I don't understand why you say it contradicts the earlier reports. It's possible that both are true: anti-semitic chanting took place but that Porter himself wasn't aware of it. If he was the subject of a protest, and there was a lot going on at the moment, it's easy to imagine that he wasn't attentive to everything. Maybe leave it in and attribute? "The tabloid paper the Mule later reported that Porter hadn't himself heard the anti-Semeitic abuse." TimidGuy (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I take your point about my use of the word "contradicts". I really meant that the JC article (for example) quotes Porter as saying, "there were audible antisemitic comments", which doesn't seem to fit with "Porter himself also admitted to MULE that he had not himself heard any racial abuse". If the Mule isn't a reliable source in this context (reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy), then it can't stand against the Mail, Telegraph, etc. If it is a RS, then both views need to be included in the article and attributed. Thanks for your advice, it's appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't actually say he himself heard the anti-semtitic comments. How about this: "In January 2011 at an anti-cuts march and rally in Manchester, Porter was escorted away by police from a small section of the crowd of student protesters who were heckling him and called him a "Tory." There were also additional reports of some anti-semitic insults, although Porter is not Jewish and although may himself not have heard the anti-Semitic comments." TimidGuy (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a reliable source for this purpose. Agree that the various sources are not really contradictory. The current language at the article appears to accurately reflect the various sources. Fladrif (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. The issue has been subject to considerable to-and-fro recently with text sourced to blogs, etc. I hope your outside views can help bring some stability to the article now. I'd be happy to see this marked as resolved. --RexxS (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've mulled this over a bit the past day, and have some reservations about what I said. The point about whether he heard it or not doesn't really seem relevant to the WP article. It was used in the context of the Mule article to question whether anti-semitic comments were actually made. And that implication seems to be in the WP article. If it could be documented that there were many mainstream news reports independently verifying that there were anti-semitic comments, quoting people who heard them and what the comments were, then the Mule would seem to be a minor point of view, and could be omitted, since it's a lesser source. But if the mainstream news reports are less definitive, simply saying that a photographer said he heard anti-semitic comments, and each source repeating this claim, then the Mule would be an important source to use in questioning whether this actually took place. TimidGuy (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

YouTube footage as a source

The Swedish duo Roxette has an interview conducted in Argentina, which can be seen here. An editor Faezdel insists on supporting Argentina's Platinum certifications with that very footage at Roxette discography, see here. While I have tried to explain the editor that YouTube cannot be regarded as reliable, I'd like to make sure what others think about the reliability of that very footage in question. Also could someone who speaks Spanish confirm that the certification presenters do mention that the quadruple Platinum awards are for Argentina only (this very part starts at 5:40 minutes) or it's for combined sales of various south American markets (as one can hear them say in the footage) Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay? Thanks in advance.--Harout72 (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure Youtube can absolutely never be reliable. If I understand previous opinions posted on this board about this subject, a key question is whether it is clear who uploaded and made the video, in other words who is vouching for it? I think the situation is a bit like other internet sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. YouTube should not be used as a source (i) because more often than not the video is a copyright violation; and (ii) there is no way to determine if the original has been altered or not. If the records have been certified Platinum in Argentina, one would think that there are other publications, whether or not online, that would serve as better sources. Fladrif (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Although most user created videos should not be used as sources, Youtube videos that are news stories in fact can, and in some cases, interviews. I didn't see the video, (Youtube is blocked from my work), but if the video is an interview and the information is verified from watching the interview on youtube, then it should be allowable.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not really an expert on this, but isn't YouTube sometimes used as a cite where media companies post things and make their linking obvious? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That is indeed the case sometimes, as I believe Turbine (for example) has a dedicated Youtube account for PR purposes. To some level, material presented that way should be considered self-published so the specifics of what was being sourced would need to be evaluated on a case to case basis. If Sony on their youtube channel gave details about an upcoming game, that could work. If Sony on their youtube channel stated that they had cured all cancer forever, I would be dubious. Syrthiss (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but that the same if Sony claimed it in another media. If Sony on their YouTube channel claim that they are going to release a new thingamajig I guess we could consider using that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Syrthiss (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the sourcing for this video on YouTube, it was posted by an individual who identifies himself as a big Roxette fan. It is not being posted by the TV channel that originally aired it, and so it is a clear copyright violation, and cannot be used as a link or as a source. Fladrif (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

As is almost always the case, this youtube video is not a reliable source, for the reasons mentioned. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If Flafdrif is correct about the background, he is correct about his conclusion I believe.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm of the position that Youtube vids uploaded by a dedicated channel for an RS are reliable, but that is not the case here. However, couldn't the user just cite the interview without the youtube video?AerobicFox (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Oldest people

An ArbCom case is now closing on the topic of Human Longevity. The members of the World's Oldest People WikiProject are being urged to seek advice from uninvolved editors for guidance about how to improve the project. We've also been advised that an ongoing dispute about whether pages listed at www.grg.org are reliable sources belongs here, not at ArbCom. I have argued that they are not. Others, with more professional expertise in the matter, disagree. In my view, they are, as a prior RSN thread suggested, works-in-progress. They are used near-exclusively to source a host of lists and bios. But they are tables of raw data. The experts assure us that the data is not raw. That it's reviewed and verified in the same way a peer-reviewed secondary source journal is. If some uninvolved editors would take a couple of days to review the Oldest people page and some of the bios and lists it links to, review their sourcing, and opine, it would be most helpful.

Please take some time on this. You can count on those with another view to make their case better than I have, and more eloquently, in the meantime. We're not looking for a snap judgment. It's a longstanding issue and is about to lead to some bans for principal disputants. ArbCom has quite specifically refered us here on the sourcing matter.

Experienced RSN contributors without significant involvement in prior kerfuffles about human longevity can do a great service for the WikiProject and the larger community by providing guidance.

Thanks. David in DC (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Gerontology Research Group appears to be half a dozen or so academics who do this as a collaborative project with the help a several dozen volunteers around the world. Some sources seem to suggest that it has an official or semi-offical relationship with the UCLA Geffen School of Medicine, but that appears to be a bit of an exagguration or misunderstanding, as the group doesn't claim that on its website, and I couldn't find mention of it at the school website. Basically, the website looks to me like a group SPS; it is certainly not published by an independent third party. Under the circumstances, I do not think that it can be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Fladrif (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd also tend to see the site as a SPS. If it were unequivocally a reliable source, it would need to have a clearly defined editorial process or peer-review mechanism, because that's what we trust to give a RS its authority. To be usable as a SPS, the site would have to rely on the credentials of its authors to lend it authority, and I'd want to see where the authors were published in this field by reliable third parties, or were extensively cited by independent reliable sources. If neither of those two criteria were met, I would not consider the site a RS in this context. --RexxS (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This has to be one of the ugliest web sites I've seen in a while. But we are not concerned with aesthetics. I do not see any sort of editorial policy although editorial oversight may exist. But ultimately, a reliable source is one with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. In this particular case, this source has been cited by numerous independent reliable sources including:

• Medscape Today[28]
• Los Angeles Times[29][30]
• New York Daily News[31]
• St Petersburg Times[32]
• Toronto Star[33]
• Chicago Sun-Times[34]
• MSNBC[35]
• And literally dozens more[36]

This indicates that this source has earned a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. So, I'm leaning towards this being a reliable source. That said, reliability is not a binary 1/0 switch. Rather, reliability should be decided on a case-by-case basis. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I note that the pages linked above cite the GRG and its website in words such as "the GRG said yesterday", "the GRG says" -- in the main text, not in footnotes. They are citing the GRG for its opinions, and treating those opinions respectfully, but they are not (on those pages) citing it as a source of established fact. Andrew Dalby 12:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with naming your source or using in-text attribution. This style of writing is common among sources where the journalist has to rely on the expertise of others to make statements of fact, "Astronomers say the universe is 14 approximately billion years old", for example. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly right. It's a good and wise thing to do. But it implies -- as in the example you give -- that the source cited cannot be regarded as 100% reliable on the issue under discussion. Just as no astronomer is reliable on the age of the universe, so (these journalists imply) GRG may not be reliable on the exact age of those aged people. We can't argue, from the fact that the newspapers cite it in those terms, that GRG is a reliable source. Andrew Dalby 14:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any of us can attest to the truth of any of these statements. All we can do is verify what the source says. IMHO, if other independent reliable sources trust this source enough to cite, then we can do, too. If you diagree, what criteria would you use to determine whether or not a source has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about the journalism or the GRG website?

1. If the journalism, the answer is that this kind of citation by a journalist usefully limits what a fact-checker has to do. If the journalist says "X was 110 years old", the fact checker has to try to verify that; so if we consider the journal's fact-checking good, we might state it in our article as a fact (citing the journal in our footnote). If the journalist says "according to GRG, X was 110 years old", the fact checker only has to verify that the GRG said that. Well, we can't on that basis state it in our article as a fact; if we want to use it, we have to repeat in our article the attribution to GRG.
2. If you're talking about the GRG, these citations from newspapers don't tell us anything much (I think) about the GRG's reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. They only tell us it produced a press release at the right time, or that the site looked OK. Andrew Dalby 15:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm speaking in general. But I don't think these sources would routinely cite GRG if they honestly didn't consider the source reliable. But you didn't answer my question: what criteria would you use to determine whether or not a source has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, to answer your question, a reputation is a sum or consensus of people's opinions. So, if people say "the GRG site is accurate and they check their facts", it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Andrew Dalby 16:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally -- don't take me too seriously :) -- I'm not saying we shouldn't use this site at all. I'm saying that, just like the newspapers, if we rely on it for an assertion, we should attribute the assertion, just like those journalists do. Andrew Dalby 16:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Who are "people"? Can you give a little more detail? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary: Reputation: "2. The common or general estimate of a person with respect to character or other qualities; the relative estimation or esteem in which a person or thing is held." People: "6. a. Men or women indefinitely; men and women; persons, folk." Those are the senses in which I understood you to use the word "reputation" and in which I intended the word "people". I now bow out of this: I think it's getting silly. All my fault, I'm sure. Andrew Dalby 18:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm fine with using in-text attribution. It's a small consession to make if it resolves a content dispute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice to get some other editor's opinions here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Experiencefestival.com

Is there any reason to ever use this website, which appears to be a Wikipedia mirror? See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/All#experiencefestival. It's used in a number of articles = [37]. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there's a problem with using this website as a source. TimidGuy (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No, as a clear Wikipedia fork it is not a reliable source and needs to be avoided.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

DNB vs. ODNB as source?

Interesting discussion here which could use more attention from sourcing specialists. --John (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• It seems the question is how to balance between two good aims: best possible new source, or a convenient online source. (I at least see both aims as good aims for Wikipedia.)
• There is some implication in the debate to imply that convenience should not even be considered, but I think that might be just rhetorical?
• The biggest concern seems to be that the online source being proposed is much older. I am generally speaking a person who is against knee-jerk dismissal of old sources. I think it depends on the subject matter. But obviously it is hard to argue against the generalization that newer is better.
• I can't really see anything inherently unreasonable about either position, and one would hope that rhetoric will not make finding a compromise impossible. I do not think the discussion should be considered as a debate between people who for policy and people arguing for breaking with policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Linking to the rather severe judgement at WP:SOURCEACCESS: "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources"]]. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I think that argument is a bit exaggerated. Obviously easy access is an aim worth considering as a positive, and concerning that easy-to-link source, we are not talking about a truly bad source, but just an older source. That's why I think that it should be seen as a case of balancing 2 good aims. Trying to pretend that a good aim is a bad aim is not a useful way to approach such a problem I think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi

A single editor has been using his inerpretation of a primary source (Namely the films themeselves) to suggest that these two films were in fact marketed and released as Star War Episode V:The Empire Strikes Back, and Star Wars Episode VI:Return of the Jedi. Yet they were in fact released as The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. His only other source for this appears to be a [1980 article, from Time Magazine. Yet there appears to be thousands of other sources that controdict this single source. He has reverted numerous references to the fims being released under these titles, [38], [39], [40]. And he seems to feel that his interpretation of the primary source trumps all secondary sources. George Lucas himself has also confirmed in the DVD commenatry that the films were marketed and released under the single titles and the "episode" titles only came into being after Episode I:A Phantom Menace was released.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

While I appear to have been the only editor recently making these changes to the correct titles, I am by no means the only one to do so. However, Jojhutton is absolutely incorrect in asserting that Lucas confirmed anything in the DVD commentaries - that is blatantly false, as it is a historical fact that two two sequels (but not the original film) have always had the full titles, including episode number, shown on-screen. Also, the original copyright records on file with the US Copyright Office show the full titles on the applications: Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. It's an open and shut case, IMHO. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

All primary sources, and The Empire Strikes Back record says, Title: The Empire Strikes Back.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The US Copyright Office is a primary source? I don't think so... And for the record, the record for TESB specifically states: Application Title: Star wars: episode V--The Empire strikes back. Copies directly from the page. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I see it both ways in reliable secondary sources. But re: the comment above, please look a little closer. The ref you provide lists the "Application Title" as Star wars: episode V--The Empire strikes back, but the "Title" as The Empire strikes back. I looked at two major and fairly authoritative sources of info on the movies: IMDB.com uses the longer title, starting with the Episode number [41]. RogerEbert.com does both. For some of the Star Wars series is uses the short and simple title (episodes 1 [42] and 4), for others (Emp Strikes Back [43] it uses the episode number as part of the title. Also, as you note, Time uses the Ep number. Sorry, I don't think there is a definitive answer.Early morning person (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

How about the library of Congress: The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. As well as the National Film Registry. If you want to keep the page names as they are now, I don't think that anyone was arguing that point. Its only your constant removal of any mention of these films, in any article, being released under the shorter titles, which they were. Trust me, I saw them all in theaters.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah - so are you claiming that you saw them in the theaters without the Episode numbers being shown in the crawl? Also, if you look at the full records for both the links you provided, you will see that it states: Copyright title: Star wars. Episode V, The empire strikes back and Copyright title: Star wars. Episode VI, Return of the Jedi.TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not what I said and this is not the first time that you have tried to change the subject by putting words in my mouth.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The main issue here is people (as well as news organizations, other writers, what have you) almost always use shorthand in referring to films with longer titles - articles on, say, the Lord of the Rings film generally refer to the indiviual films by the subtitle; same with the Narnia films, or the Pirates of the Carribean films. Doesn't change the fact that the actual title is the full title, even though you might have a perfectly valid reference stating otherwise. However, Jojhutton's assertation that the films were originally marketed and released by a certain specific title is even more problematic - if we try to claim that the original release was only The Empire Strikes Back, what about the fact that every poster that exists from the original release features a logo that calls it Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back? Same problem for Return of the Jedi. However, the fact that the films have always had the complete titles on-screen is (or should be) an uncontestable fact - and since that's how they've always been presented, it makes the naming issue moot, as far as I'm concerned. This has been debated time and again on the various film's talkpages - I'm not sure why it's an issue again now. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If its been debated and there is a previous consensus, why do you not link to that consensus?--Jojhutton (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

{EC} As someone old enough to have seen them when they first came out, I can tell you that only the first movie didn't contain the episode number. I can try to dig up some original comic books and bubble gum cards later. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If it was as simple as whether or not the episode number was in the opening scroll, this wouldn't be an issue. Its what the film was released as, and almost all sources confirm the they were originally released without the Episode in the title.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

And yet, if it was always shown onscreen in the crawl (which is an established fact for Empire and Jedi), then that's the title of the film - as the copyright records of the time show. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not what the LOC and the NFR say though is it?--Jojhutton (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Back in 2009, a related discussion took place on Talk:Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. That discussion was about moving the article, but the issue seems the same; and although there were both supports and opposes, the move did not occur. This seems to be about common names versus official names. Jojhutton, you say that there are thousands of sources which support the idea that the movies were released under the shorter names. What are those sources? Are they authoritative? We need to get down to the data. Omnedon (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

These films have been discussed in a very wide range of media around the world. If you want to respect WP:COMMON then it's a matter of looking at what many anglophone sources say (even if they're more noted for wide readership than for a rigorous stance on film nomenclature), rather than just choosing one specialist / definitive / initial source, so RS/N may be less helpful. Of course, WP:COMMON is not always respected, and sometimes wikipedians seem to prefer a "technically accurate" name instead... bobrayner (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If this is about what to entitle our articles on the films, we should follow our policy WP:Article titles, and go with the shorter and more common "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi" (per WP:COMMON). The more "official" version (with the episode numbers) should be given in bold letters in the lede. In the body of the text we can go back to the shorter informal versions (or even abbreviate as ESB and RotJ, both of which are fairly common on industry websites). Blueboar (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not about changing the name of the article(period) End of that discussion. This is about removing any and all references to the film being released under the long drawn out names that Lucas changed them to when he decided to release another three movies. Yes there are thousands of references. A simple internet search reveals very little for me since wikipedia dominates just about every search result and it would seem that the the new name tends to be scattered among the various search results. In order for me to combat that, I use a subscription based (Free though my local library), called NewsBank, which searches newspapers in the United States going back at least 35 years. When I type in Star Wars Episode V:The Empire Strikes Back. I get only one source for the years 1980. When I look at that source, it still says that the film was released as The Empire Strikes Back. There are also no articles using the term Episode V in the years 1981, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1987, or 1992. This seems odd to have no news articles for one of the most popular movies of all time for these years, which would make me believe that the movie went by a different title during that time. Its not until 1997 when there starts to be more articles (25) using the Episode title. Yet when I type in simply The Empire Strikes Back, without any reference to episode, I find 156 articles in 1980 alone all saying the same thing: The films title was The Empire Strikes Back. Not one even a single source says that the film is being released as Star Wars Episode V;'The Empire Strikes Back. If you need me to type some of the sources I can. Yet these sources are the Boston Globe, Washington Post, New York Times kind of sources so There's no worry about their reliability.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there is no serious debate possible about whether these films have long and short names, and framing discussion in this way is keeping discussion from getting to any solution. We do not need to even bother with the concept of what name is most "official" because WP policy on this matter (Wikipedia:Article titles is clear and also quite logical, and it does not tell us to be official. We use concise, common and recognizable names. The long names should surely also be mentioned, as explained by Blueboar, but there is no need to make our article titles longer than necessary. Concise, that means short, is what the policy demands.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue seems to involve determining the names under which the films were originally released. Jojhutton, I'm not sure that newspaper articles would be authoritative on such a subject, but I don't know the context of the articles you've found. Do they specifically address the naming, or are they simply articles about various other aspects of the films? If the latter, I would not be at all surprised if they used the shorter names for various reasons, but I'm not sure that's significant here. Omnedon (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Normal style where you have a long name and a short name is to put the long name in brackets at the first mention. I am sure there must be other non controversial solutions which could also work.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No ones arguing the articles title, yet. Although I have read some pretty convincing arguments for doing so. Its about interpreting the primary source over what all other reliable secondary sources say. It seems that there is a discrepancy in the thinking and the question is: should we rely simply on the interpretation of the primary source, or should we follow policy and rely the secondary sources as we should.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Like I said above, it is obvious that there are long and short versions of the names of these films. Both can be sourced, and just because a source is primary does not make it automatically a bad source in all contexts. I strongly suggest treating this as a case of a thing with long names and short names which are both correct, and not trying to give the principles involved any artificial importance.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Both can be sourced? This is exactly why wikipedia has policies and guidelines, so that they can be used in policy discussions, not to ignore them. The policy here is clear, interpretation of the primary source material does not trump the overwhelming secondary source material.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

My question is: what are these secondary sources, and are they appropriate for the specific application of determining the official release title, or are they about the movie (rather than the movie's title)? If you are presently focusing on news sources, what is the focus of those sources? I merely ask. Omnedon (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The only citation that specifically is about the titling of a film that I've found so far is this one from the week Empire was released, which specifically states "the movie is identified as Episode V. Since it is the immediate sequel to the original Star Wars, that opus has been retitled Star Wars: Episode IV, raising a meteor shower of questions." No kidding - 31 years later and someone still wants to argue over this. Frankly, I can't believe this is an issue. The films are specifiallly titled on-screen - this should trump any secondary sourcing - it's like someone saying my name is X because everyone just calls me that (and here's a bunch of third-party references to back me up!), even though my name is Y. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Interpretation of primary source does not trump what hundreds of secondary sources say. Doing so would constitute WP:OR. We should probably follow wikipedia policy on this one, unless there is a policy that says primary source material should be used over secondary sources.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not an "interpretation" of a primary source, it's a factual representation of the source. Answer me this - are the films identified on-screen in the films themselves as "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" and "Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi"? A simple yes or no will do. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a scroll that floats across the screen that says Episode V: the Empire Strikes Back, followed by three paragraphs of scroll. So according to your interpretation, the entire three paragraphs are alos part of the story. Or is it just the part that fits your POV?--Jojhutton (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but I'm not convinced that there is any real disagreement between what's been described as primary and secondary sources here. Surely it's more an issue of common usage. If a news source calls the movie by a certain name, I don't think one can say that the source is authoritatively saying that the movie's name is definitely X and definitely not Y. Rather, it's most likely just using a common name for the movie. Stating that the news source defines the movie's name seems to be a mis-application of the source. Omnedon (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Policy is what policy does. As WP:V, which is one of wikipedias three core policies, states that information must be verified by a reliable source and that its about what can be verified, not what is true. Sources use the phrase The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, its WP:OR to suggest otherwise.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a sample from these sources, please? Omnedon (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources use those names to reference the film, but they do not authoritatively state that that is what the film is titled (execpt in the case of the Time magazine mention above) - they're just using the common name. This is very simple - the film company states that the film name is X. The copyright application states that the film name is X. The films themselves state that the film name is X. Yet Jojhutton seems to be arguing that because there appear to be a bajillion secondary sources that state the film's name is Y, then Y must be correct. Sorry, but no. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(To RealFennshysa)Wikipedia is based on policies and guidelines. Please cite one that backs up this claim.

(To Omedemon) I will place citations with exerpts from these citations when I have access to my computer. (I left my laptop at home, and am editing on an antiquated CPU). Some are very telling and of course all policy based.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

To User:TheRealFennshysa: Do you still feel that the name that the copyright source is a good reliable source?--Jojhutton (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few requested citations that confirm that the titles of the films at initial release.

For The Empire Strikes Back

Shales, Tom Once a force, always a force: In just two weeks, Washington Post, The (DC) - Monday, September 3, 1979

The reissue of "Star Wars" serves as a vehicle to promote the forthcoming sequel, " The Empire Strikes Back ," set for late spring of 1980.

Kornheiser, Tony THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, Washington Post, The (DC) - Monday, May 19, 1980

On Saturday morning, at the world premiere of " The Empire Strikes Back ," or, "Star Wars II...

Arnold, Gary, Darth Vader's Surprise Attack! Washington Post, The (DC) - Sunday, May 18, 1980

So the inevitable sequel, " The Empire Strikes Back ," can't sneak up on the marketplace, obviously.

For Return of the Jedi

Arnold, Gary, Return of the Jedi, Washington Post, The (DC) - Sunday, May 22, 1983

There is more than a single irony to the title " Return of the Jedi

Misch, Laura. REVENGE IS SO OUT, IT'S IN, Miami Herald, The (FL),, - Sunday, May 22, 1983

Movie magnate George Lucas recently changed the name of his upcoming second Star Wars sequel to Return of the Jedi

Bittan, Dave. HE'S READY FOR 'JEDI' RETURN, Philadelphia Daily News (PA) - Thursday, May 19, 1983

The reason for the bonanza for collectors is that after printing 8,800 posters reading "Revenge of the Jedi," he changed the name of the film to " Return of the Jedi.

Very clear.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

All that's clear from this is that these newspaper writers were talking about the movies and used shortened names. In my opinion, this is not in the least significant for this discussion. Omnedon (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well thats not what wikipedia policy says. Read WP:V for verification, because none of these sources even hints that these are the shortened names. You appear to be using WP:OR to come to that conclusion.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

And you may be able to ignore overwhelming evidence in the sources, but the Trailers don't lie:

Empire Strikes Back Trailer and the Return of the Jedi Trailer--Jojhutton (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to chime in here, you've just gone and muddied the waters with these trailer links. First off, the TESB trailer is the very early advance from 1979, so it's hardly representative. The RoTJ one has an announcer using the short title, but it shows the logo with the "Star Wars:" prefix. So, are you claiming the title is Return of the Jedi or Star Wars: Return of the Jedi? MikeWazowski (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well we can agree that they certainly do not say Star Wars Episode V:The Empire Strikes Back or Star Wars Episode Vi: Return of the Jedi, which is what is being claimed by some. And all of the trailers use the same titles regardless of release date.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not original research, because we know from various sources that the movies are sometimes referred to by their full names and sometimes by their shorter names. The newspaper articles you cited used the shorter names. How does that have any significance here? Omnedon (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If you know it, then please provide a source for it. If not, its WP:OR.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As you know, various sources have been mentioned both here and elsewhere; but for example, IMDB uses the longer names: TESB and ROTJ. So yes, we do know that both names are in use; that's not original research and surely it's not debatable, so let's not spend more time on it. I'm not at all surprised that the shorter names are the more commonly-used names; and it seems reasonable that both names might be used in the article. However, the issue seems to be: under what name was the film released? Or, put another way, what is the "official" name of the film? Just for clarification, as this discussion has gotten rather long -- what is your goal in terms of the contents of these articles? What result are you after? Omnedon (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion is about what title the films were released under, so years later and years after the names were changed to what they are no, there are plenty of modern sources that use both titles. That is why my sources predate all of that and are closer to the original release dates. As afar as what I was attempting to do. All I wanted was for the other editor to stop reverting any reference to the films being released by these titles, on any article. His persistant reverting of anyone who evenhints that the fims were released without the episode attached is disruptive as he has few source materail to back it up. He does provide a Time Magizine article, but that is a single article as opposed to the hundreds and thousands that say otherwise.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem here is defining what we mean by "released"... I saw the premier of RotJ in London... all the press releases, the posters, the news articles, TV promos, etc. called it "Return of the Jedi" (actually some of the press coverage called it "Revenge of the Jedi", but we can discount that)... On the other hand, I do remember that the screen crawl was headed with Episode VI (I remember because it was a back to back to back showing with the other two movies... and I remember being surprised when the crawl for "Episode IV - A New Hope" appeared on the screne when they showed the original Star Wars film... which lead me to take note of the Episode numbers on the other two). So my question is: what constitutes a "Release" name? Trying to be neutral about this, it seems to me they used both names when they "released" it. Perhaps the best way to deal with this is to ignore the question. Blueboar (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Then its a question of primary source vs. secondary source. In this case wikipedia policy tends to favor secondary sourcing--Jojhutton (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder what the deal with sourcing here actually is - secondary sourcing states that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." There's no question that stating the actual names of the films is a straightforward, descriptive statement, and from what I've seen over the years, there's can be no (or should not be any) question that these two films have always been identified in the actual films with the full titles. It's not really a question of sourcing - the titles simply are. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If the titles are, as you say, simply are, then what are the titles as depicted on screen? I ask this because there are several words on the screen, beginning with A long time ago...., and ending with three paragraphs of dialogue. Where does the title start and where does it begin?--Jojhutton (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just adding these here:

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/6794/esbboot01.jpg http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/9040/rotjboot01.jpg 81.106.168.51 (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the reliable sources notice board, not the random undated screenshot that could have created on your computer at home notice board. But thanks for trying. Jojhutton (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"released as" names for films - moving this to a generalized discussion

Maybe I am wrong but this almost looks like a discussion where there are two editors who think this is a policy issue, and everyone telling them it is not? Does anyone else apart from the two editors debating the long and short title thing think this is really a case for this board? If so, which policies are really in question that have not yet been explained above?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a policy question underlying this debate... the question is: "What are reliable sources for determining the "released as" name for a movie?" I think we have answered that... there are a lot of reliable sources: a "theatrical release" copy of the film itself, ads in the newspaper from the time when the movie was released, reviews and press releases from the time... all can be considered reliable. So the next question is: "What is the most reliable source for this information?"

I am not sure whether this is a question that can be answered... but if we are to attempt it, we need to move the conversation beyond just the Star Wars films... and try to answer that question in terms of any film (and if we can, then apply that to the films in question). Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

For my own part, I happened across this discussion between Jojhutton and TheRealFennShysa, and am trying to find out how policy dictates that newspaper articles from the 1980s must somehow override the fact that these two movies have full titles as well as shorter titles that are (understandably) more commonly used. Basically, I'm questioning the application of newspaper articles as reliable sources when it comes to determining the official title of a film. Omnedon (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I never thought this was an appropriate venue for this - frankly, I never thought this would be an issue or even *need* a venue. I could see someone raising a fuss over the original film - the differences between the original release title and the subsequent "episode" addition are well-documented. But this is a case that should be open-and-shut. The full title has always been on the film - we've even got reliable sources from the day that specifically address that. What *should* be most reliable is the actual product - just because some "verifiable" source uses a short name doesn't make that the *actual* name. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What are the reliable sources from the day of release that use the full title, as alleged? They have been asked for, but have yet not been produced. There is the Time magazine article which you have linked, but that appears to contradict other sources.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Again... lets move beyond the specifics of the Star Wars films and address this in terms of any film. Fenn, I take it that your opinion is that a film itself is the most reliable source for a "released as" name? Could you explain why you think this? Jojhutton, you seem to think that magazine articles are the most reliable. Could you explain your thinking?

I'll give us another option... Theatrical posters from the time. These are "official" advertisements for the film, issued by the film company that distributed it. I think there is a good argument that these posters are the most reliable source for what the film company considered the name of their film to be when they released it.

As yet another option... copyright. If someone has a "theatrical release" copy of the film, it should contain a statement as to what name the film was originally copyrighted under (look in the closing credits). I think this would be an extremely reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That opens up an even bigger can of worms - the posters show the film title as Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. You've just introduced a whole new set of names - which do we choose? As to film titles, yes, I'm of the opinion that the on-screen title of the film should be accepted as the film's name. It's like if I were to point out my name is "XYZ". But if a bunch of theoretically (and in most circumstances) "reliable" sources start calling me "XY", does that make my name "XY" because someone can point to a bunch of references and say "Well, THEY say it, so it must be so!"? I could point to a boatload of references that refer to The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring as simply The Fellowship of the Ring - doesn't make it the actual title of the film, though... As to the copyright, I don't believe the films show the title in the end credits - however, the copyright applications (linked somewhere above) for the original films do, in fact, use the complete title, with "Star Wars" first, followed by the episode number. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes... I deliberately opened that can of worms... my point in doing so was to move us away from "which is the best title (with episode or without episode)" to "what is the best type of source for this type of information". It does not matter that there are now three potential names instead of two; there could be fifteen possible names out there... once we determine which type of source is best, then we can apply it and determine which of the fifteen we should use in our article. If we determine that the posters are best, then we use whatever name is on the poster. If we determine that the copyrighted title is best, then we use the copyrighted title. etc. We don't debate which name we think is correct... we debate which type of source we think is best.

If we can reach a consensus on the best type of source for determining the "as released" name for films in general, then we can apply it to the specific case. So... what is the best, most reliable source for determining the "as released" name for Casablanca, Gone With the Wind, The Matrix (or any other film)?

The easiest answer would be the film itself - it is what it says it is. The examples you posted are quite clear on-screen as to their titles. Past that, the copyright records, as that's what the producing companies filed as the official titles, and they would know best. Past that, if it's still an issue, I don't see why a primary source shouldn't be acceptable, as we're talking about a subjective statement about a title, not an interpretation. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

OK... But what about films that don't contain a title sequence (there are some)? Do they not have a name? Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a particular example in mind? If not at the beginning, films usually state the title in an end credit sequence, such as in the cases of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, IIRC. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with BlueBoar that this issue would be best resolved by getting consensus on the question, “What is the most reliable source for this information?" —both for these films and for any others. I agree that the copyright record seems a very reliable source, because it gives clear indication of the intention of the maker of the film. The determination of the Library of Congress would also seem highly reliable. Unlike Hollywood posters and popular media, whose aim is not to adhere to scholarly standards but to entertain and promote, professional librarians take the naming of published works seriously, and so scrutinize names with due care. Its an important part of their business, with millions of titles to keep track of. This is the kind of editorial scrutiny and control that is held high in WP:RS.

The copyright records give ambiguous results: they list the film titles both ways, with both the long and short forms. For example, if you do a search for Ep #3, Revenge of the Sith, you get both Revenge of the Sith [44] and Star wars : episode III : Revenge of the Sith [45] There's good reason for this: copyright lawyers would naturally file all the plausible names to make sure the film is copyright protected. So not a lot of help here.

However, at the Library of Congress, they generally use the longer name with the Ep number, e.g., Star wars. Episode I, The phantom menace . . . [46]; Star Wars. Episode II, Attack of the clones [47], Star Wars. Episode IV, A new hope [48]; Star wars. Episode VI, Return of the Jedi [49]

But if you love ambiguity, you’ll be happy to know that there is an exception to the rule: ep number 5 is listed as simply, The empire strikes back [50]. But commonsense and reasonableness would indicate that their general practice is to use the longer title. And since the movie maker has filed it both ways and is therefore unlikely to object, it seems there is no reason from that angle to deny the use of the longer title as the best practice in this case. It does help in keeping track of all those episodes. Early morning person (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are interesting citations, but with one flaw. None of them appear to be copyrighted 1980 or 1983. All the dates are 1997, are so then these cannot be used as sources as to what the film was titled at time of release.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

1980 Reliable Secondary Sources on "Episode V" and 1983 Secondary Sources on "Episode VI"

I'm not going to wade through all of this above. It baffles me. Anybody who can use Google can see in about 5 seconds that there are a number of reliable, secondary sources from 1980 that state that "The Empire Strikes Back" was identified at the time as Star Wars: Episode V. [51] [52] Gary Arnolds May 18, 1980 Washington Post review states: The first indication of unexpected developments comes almost immediately. It is the appearance of the heading "Episode V" at the top of a prologue that crawls from the bottom to the top of the screen.[53] And, there are reliable secondary sources from 1983 that state that "Return of the Jedi" was called "Star Wars Episode VI"' [54] It is unnecessary to go to primary sources to confirm that these sources are reliable contemporaneous secondary sources confirming the "Episode" designations. Fladrif (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is more interesting synopsis. Yet the 1980 link for "Empire" gives us all of 4 hits, while the 1983 link for Jedi has 5. None of which ever says that the film is titled with Episode, only that they are Episodes (yes there is s difference). The same Google search for just the short title gives us 2160 hits for Empire, and 1970 for Jedi. If the titles of the movies on the day of release were the longer titles that are used today, you would think that there would be more hits on google.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the logic of that. It's not strange to me that the longer, more cumbersome name would be used less, and the shorter name would be used more. This is not about comparing the number of hits in a Google search. I thought it was going to be more about determining which source(s) would be most reliable for this general type of situation. Omnedon (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone offered a Google hits search, so I countered that argument. Plenty of reliable sources confirming the release title of the film have been presented.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

My concern with the Google news hits Fladrif gives us is that almost all of them put the words "Empire Strikes Back" or "Return of the Jedi" in quotes, but not the words "Episode V" or "Episode VI"... which leads me to think that the authors are using the episode number descriptively and not as part of the title or name. Looking at all our options, I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that the best we can say is that these movies were released under multiple "official" names ... and that it is probably best to simply omit mentioning the issue in the articles. Blueboar (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

All That needs to happen is to get some editors to stop reverting every single instance where the films are mentioned as simply The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi. Plenty of citations confirm that this was the original title. Yes Lucas changed the titles in 1997, but there appears to be no certain degree of certainty of that name prior to that.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

In looking at just one article, the one for The Empire Strikes Back -- the full name is used in the lead, but throughout the rest of the article, the four-word name is used in most cases. So I'm not quite sure what you mean by "reverting every single instance". Omnedon (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that's an interesting assumption, Jojhutton, that the films weren't retitled until 1997, when its common knowledge (and has been proven) that the two sequels have always had the full titles attached. Do you have reliable sources to back that up? I've seen plenty of citations in this discussion that claim (more authoritatively, I might add) that the titles have always been on the films. MikeWazowski (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar's phrase "multiple official names" is perfect. Flafdrif's post is also spot on. I think this question should be treated as a common sense question of what looks nice, and making sure all common names are included somewhere. I do not think policy rulings can solve every editing question. Arguing about how many newspapers use which words is like How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be perfect if we could identify sources that actually stated that there were multiple official names. In the circumstances, though, my suggestion on these two movies would be to open with a phrase like: "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (also known simply as The Empire Strikes Back) is a..." At least that's accurate and verifiable, and doesn't address the "official" part which seems difficult to cite in a way that satisfies all editors. Omnedon (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hoping for a perfect solution is a very poor strategy for this type of problem. I think it might be the basic real problem here. Thing is that if someone one day finds the perfect source, in two years time, then they can use it. But what do you do now? Consider WP:IMPERFECT.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I did a little looking at the articles, and the solution was there all the time - both Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi already mention the discrepancy in their "Releases" sections. For Empire, it reads "Simply titled The Empire Strikes Back in the publicity, the opening scroll stated "Episode V"." For Jedi, it reads "At the time of its release, the film was advertised on posters and merchandise as simply Star Wars: Return of the Jedi, despite its on-screen "Episode VI" distinction." Problem solved, apparently some time ago. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Is this really a reliable source issue? The primary source (i.e. the films themselves) clearly identified the films with the episode numbers in the titles. Secondary sources of the time widely ignored the numbering and just went with the sub-titles i.e. The Empire Strikes Back/Return of the Jedi. There are reliable sources that support both these stances, so the job is done on here as far as I can see. This should really be taken to WP:MOSFILM where these issues come up all the time. Betty Logan (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

TV-a-go-go: rock on TV from American Bandstand to American Idol

This book, specifically this link to the GoogleBooks page, was used to source a claim in the Hipster (contemporary subculture) that Austin, Texas is a town with a large Hipster population. I removed it, with an edit summary explaining that this is not an adequate source for this claim. This book might be an adequate source for the Austin City Limits article, since that is the actual topic on the given page. But, the passing reference, on that page, to Austin being a "hipster town" does not seem adequate for the Hipster article. I would like to hear from some other editors, though, on this subject. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have not looked at it, but just from the description it seems like a judgement call which might be a bit debateable amongst rational good faith editors. Obviously consensus has to be our aim, at least consensus between reasonable editors, and so obviously we should always try to avoid edits than might simply swing from one non-consensus to another. So with this general principle in mind, and just as a point of general good practice, rather than simply deleting the comment for being under-sourced did you consider whether a wording tweak might have resolved your concerns?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus for the information in the first place. It was added, recently, by an anonymous editor along with another claim with an even less reliable source. The section in which it was added was simply a straight listing of cities that are claimed to have a significant hipster population. All of the other examples given have solid resources that specifically address the subculture, which this was does not. So, a rewording was not really possible. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Very little reliable source, or spam disguised as source?

I was recently referred to the article Activities of the People’s Liberation Army During Tiananmen Protests of 1989 from a discussion on another website. I consider myself reasonably informed on this subject, and quickly found some bias and non-neutral POV in the article, some of them I even consider as hoax from other source I've read about this subject.

So I decided to check out the references. The NY Times article link is broken. The Asian Affairs journal link is broken. Then you go down the reference list and found some very strange links to completely unrelated websites, which to me seems spam. And after reviewing every reference, it seems there is only one online verifiable reference, the George Washington University one.

And it's not vandalism either. Those links were the way they are when Matt2972 created the article.

-- Ming Hua (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a side point. If you find a broken link to a New York Times article, obviously this might just be because the link changed. In such cases try to fix first, if you can, before tagging. Avoid deleting in any cases where there might simply be a fixable error.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Even though the links don't work, the sources are correctly referenced. I don't see a problem here, other than the need for someone to add working links. TimidGuy (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the Asian Affairs link and one of the NYT links. As Andrew Lancaster says, they were just broken links. The other NYT article - Crackdown in Beijing: A Huge, Troubled Army - doesn't seem to be on the newspaper's Website any longer. I couldn't guess why. Conceivably a copyright issue if Trainor wrote it as a freelance rather than a staffer. Barnabypage (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for taking the time to do that. TimidGuy (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Joe Baugher

Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 21 § Joe Baugher

Further information: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Bushranger § Oppose

Further information: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Bushranger § Neutral

Further information: User talk:The Bushranger § Joe Baugher

Further information: User talk:SandyGeorgia § Removal of Joe Baugher pages from External Links sections

Further information: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation § Sourcing problems creeping into aviation articles

Further information: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Resources § Evidence for Baugher as a RS

As you may have gathered, this has already been extensively discussed and there are acres of text to go through.

The basic question is "Does Joe Baugher's website pass WP:RS in respect of his lists of American military aircraft serials? Specifically the pages linked from here, here and here. No other part of his website is under consideration for discussion as to its suitability for use as a RS.

Joe Baugher is a WP:SPS, his work on American military aircraft is a hobby of his, which he has obviously put in a great deal of time and effort. Unusually, for a SPS, he does give a separate page of over 4,200 references. Following extensive discussion which started at the RFA of Bushranger, and then was transferred to the Aviation Wikiproject with some input from members of MILHIST, I am bringing this here so that the wider community can decide this issue. In effect, asking for an independant outside view on this. Obviously AVIATION and MILHIST members are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but for clarity I would ask that they disclose membership of either project. Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• As a member of both WP:AVIATION/WP:AIRCRAFT and WP:MILHIST, obviously I have irons in the fire here (as the links attest!) I would like to add that Baugher, despite his "hobby" status, has been cited as an "aviation historian" and "military aviation expert" by published sources, which reference and quote from his work: [55] ("-"ed to obmit other Joe Baughers and Wikipedia print-mirrors). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If that is correct then this is important. Being cited by experts as an expert makes you an expert for WP. The core policy pages can not be read any other way as far as I can see. One's academic qualifications and source of income can also be important of course, but many unquestioned expert sources, even in academic areas, are not people who are professional academics in the field where they are nevertheless recognized by professionals and academics as experts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

None of those (relatively few) books that explicitly reference Joe Baugher's website strike me as being first-rate works - they seem to be books by other aviation enthusiasts and and, as anyone familiar with this field can attest, the quality of such books can vary dramatically (some are excellent and meet scholarly standards while others are total rubbish). Given the huge number of works which are clearly RS on aviation topics I don't see much need to cite Joe Baugher's website. That said, the website has always checked out against published sources whenever I've used it, so there's no reason to dismiss it out of hand either. As such, I guess that it sits in a bit of a grey zone - I have no problem with it being used as a reference in stub to B class articles, but expect stronger sourcing in GA and above articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Nick, you make a fair point re the books. Would it be worth examining each of them in detail, and assessing where on the scale they fit between "total rubbish" and "scholarly standards". The better quality the book are judged to be, then the more weight it gives JB as a RS. On the other hand, should the books not be deemed to be RSs in themselves, then it would detract from the reliability of JB as a source. I'm not really comfortable with "good enough to use if nothing better available", which is what you appear to be saying. Either the source is useable, or it is not. If it is deemed not reliable, WP:AVIATION and WP:MILHIST will have to find new sources. Mjroots (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I think it is often important in such cases like this one seems to be to think of reliability of sources as a sort of spectrum from strong to weak reliability. If this expert is an expert only to other hobbyists, and this makes him only a "grey zone" reliability then I see no reason to get caught up in trying to make things black and white. A policy to keep an eye on would be, for example, WP:REDFLAG.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm personally comfortable with accessible and OK, but not top quality, sources being used to get articles started, particularly as not everyone has access to first-rate reference works, and this source does fall into that category in my view (and I think that this is in full accordance with WP:SPS, particularly noting the last two sentences of the first paragraph). I've checked some of the sources which come up in Google books, and at least three are reliable sources: The B-29 Superfortress: A Comprehensive Registry of the Planes and Their Missions is a RS (McFarland is a major publisher and, for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that I saw it on sale at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in 2009) and Aircraft record cards of the United States Air Force: how to read the codes is by the same author and publisher so should be a RS. Twilight warriors: covert air operations against the USSR was published by the Naval Institute Press, who specialise in very high quality military history books (often with a technical leaning) so is strong evidence that this website is a RS. None of the other sources look great though (the Osprey book on B-26 units should be a RS, but Baugher seems to have only provided photos). All up, three RS attesting to the reliability of this website is OK, and I think gets it across the line as being a RS itself per WP:SPS, though with the proviso that better sources are available and should be consulted. Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In regards to WP:REDFLAG, I made some spot checks on some parts of the website which cover topics I'm familiar with (early B-29 bomber operations against Japan) and they're fully in accordance with the published literature on this topic (in terms of factual accuracy and the weight given to various topics in the narrative), and are actually pretty good summaries of this. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note I have notified all five contributors to the original discussion at RSN of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Disclaimer, I'm obviously an involved participant, and don't want to see hobby sites introduced into audited content, but all of that has been well covered elsewhere (and I hope anyone weighing in here will find the time to trudge through all of it). For example, I see the notion that this site has been previously vetted at RS/N discussed several times, in spite of a very limited discussion in 2008 which showed pretty much ... nothing.

In all of the long discussions linked above, I'll highlight this quote from a respected editor as one example of why we prefer higher quality sources to hobby sites from authors whose training and background is outside of the relevant field, per WP:SPS, and why SPS cautions against using sources when other, more reliable sources are available for the content in question:

At Talk:Lockheed P-38 Lightning, the accuracy of Joe Baugher came up. He was on record saying the P-38 engines were prone to overheating and also had problems with the oil never warming up enough—a clear contradiction. I think Joe Baugher must be assessed on a page-by-page basis rather than accepted at face value regardless. All of this concern about Baugher should not affect anybody's suitability for adminship. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I also suggest switching the links above to permalinks, since this discussion is likely to be referenced in the future, after those pages are archived, or alternately, removing the extaneous links to user talk pages and an RFA, since all of the issues are covered on the relevant WikiProject discussion (I usually avoid linking to ongoing RFAs to avoid the impression of canvassing), and I'm not sure what benefit is provided here to readers who have to trudge through all of this from reading BillCat's disparaging of my character on Bushranger's talk page, which adds nothing to the reliability discussion.

With the exception of the one quote I provided above, which came from the RFA, all of the relevant info can be found in two places-- there was no need to link to disparaging comments on user talk pages or to an ongoing RFA to examine the reliability of this source:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Joe Baugher
• Permalink to Aviation Project discussion

I hope that will shorten the amount of trudging through long discussions needed. (Honestly, Mjroots, what did you accomplish by linking to a user talk page that contains a discussion that only served to make me aware that BilCat is disparaging my character?)

Further, Mjroots is requesting that Joe Baugher be specifically used for aircraft serial numbers; who has checked his info there specifically for accuracy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I was one of those contributors to the original RSN discussion... and the one who suggested that Mr. Baugher might be considered an "expert", even though he is an amateur. I'll stand by my comments there. One does not need to have a degree (or even primarily work in a related field) to gain a reputation as an expert on something... Amateurs can become experts. (A good example of this is Stan Fischler... a sports reporter by profession, but also an amateur expert on the history of the New York City Subway system.) I think Baugher does qualify for the "expert exemption" as laid out in WP:SPS... he has published on the topic, and his work has been cited by others. I see no reason to disallow his website... Of course, because it is an SPS anything taken from the website should be attributed in text... but I think he qualifies as an amateur expert writing on his subject of expertise.

Now, while all of this means I think that Mr. Baugher's webpage may be used as a source, I definitely did not mean to say that we must use his web page as a source... Sandy makes a good point about not using an SPS if there are other sources that are considered more reliable for the same information. Also, Reliability is not the only policy/guideline that relates to content... we need to consider WP:NPOV (and especially the undue weight provision of that policy) as well. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, I've not encountered any indication he has published on the topic outside of his website; could you please clarify? He does have two publications, but not in Aviation. SPS requires publication in their relevant field: as far as I've seen, Baugher does not have that-- do you have an example that has been missed? I'm worried that some editors want to link to his website for convenience (web access), when much better sources are available and are more likely to have been vetted for accuracy by professionals within the field. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Even his website "biography" ([56]) which has a list of his publications, does not include any published aviation articles, books, or otherwise. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 15:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Baugher is wrong about several aspects of the Lockheed P-38 Lightning. Here, Baugher says the Lightning was the first production fighter to have tricycle landing gear, a bubble canopy and to use the Allison V-1710 engine. The Bell P-39 Airacobra had all these characteristics and its prototype flew first, making it first, and there's the Westland Whirlwind which also used the bubble canopy before the P-38. At his XP-38 page Baugher tells the reader that the prototype's armament configuration was one cannon of unnamed caliber and four 50 caliber guns; the XP-38 was not fitted with guns except for a non-flying mock-up of the central gondola which had one 37 mm cannon, two 50 cal and two 30 cal guns. Later in the text, Baugher contradicts himself and says that the XP-38 had no armament but then at his YP-38 page he returns to saying the XP-38 was armed, this time with a 20 mm cannon and four 50 cal guns, both incorrect. His XP-38 and YP-38 references do not include the exhaustive Warren M. Bodie book, The Lockheed P-38.

At his P-38D page, Baugher says the 'D' model had better performance from a change to elevator mass balances, but the mass balance was a deal forced upon Lockheed by the USAAC, according to Kelly Johnson. Johnson saw no performance improvements from the external mass balances—the internal ones hidden in the vertical rudders were fully sufficient.

At his Lightning I for RAF page, Baugher says that the RAF refused delivery of the Lightning I after testing three inadequate-performing examples in England in Spring 1942. However, Warren Bodie writes that the Brits canceled in late summer or autumn 1941. The whole British order was picked up by USAAC in December 1941 after Pearl Harbor. RAF tests in April to June 1942 did not have any affect on the earlier cancellation.

At his P-38J page, Baugher implies that Ben Kelsey thought he flew at 750 mph in a diving P-38J. Kelsey would not have thought anything of the sort! He was a hard-nosed realist, a mechanical engineer from MIT who knew perfectly well the plane was unable to fly faster than its terminal velocity of 68 percent of Mach 1 no matter what, and that airspeed indicators greatly exaggerated their readings at high speed. Baugher also says that the P-38J with power-boosted ailerons had the highest roll-rate of any fighter, an elevated claim I do not believe is correct. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The above posts appear to be criticisms of Baugher by a Wikipedian. They may well be correct, but actually it is quite common that we are forced to include things in Wikipedia which we personally disagree with, and which maybe really are wrong, simply because our project here does not aim to publish original research but just to summarize what people with a reputation for fact checking have written.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Your analysis appears to be slightly wrong, in that other editors here are using their opinions to argue that Baugher is reliable, while SPS specifically addresses why hobby sites should be used with caution. Binkersternet's examples specifically address that. We are not forced to include self-published hobby sites that may be wrong when more reliable sources are available, and when other editors are also expressing their "opinion" that Baugher is often accurate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The post you are responding to explains why I think Binksternet's arguments are of a type which we can't normally use to judge whether someone is an expert. (There is a strong theme throughout all WP policy which tells us not to try to decide what is reliable by arguing out our own opinions, here on Wikipedia, between Wikipedians. Instead we look for outside evidence. I think this is really an essential thing.) For the more general point see my more general remark below.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

And I still disagree. We use CONSENSUS all the time to determine where a self-published site falls on the spectrum of reliability, and when errors are pointd out in a self-published hobby site, we take that into account. That some fanbooks have cited Baugher and lauded him can't overrule the obvious errors. More reliable sources are available and can be consulted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If the only citations of Baugher are fanbooks and not considered reliable, that would of course make things different than what I am describing. But it seems there is no consensus that Baugher is only mentioned in fanbooks?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

My read (could be wrong) is that he is most often quoted in lesser reliable sources (fanbooks), and some of those sources could be propogating his errors, although Nick-D appears to have uncovered a few good sources in which he (Nick-D) vouched for Baugher's work in those limited areas. I don't think we should take a few good examples and use them to offset the examples of errors; even a stopped clock is right twice a day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Counter-proverb: To err is human. Even experts make mistakes. Mlm42 (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Andrew Lancaster: Of course I am a Wikipedian criticizing Baugher; we all are that unless we support his webpages without reservation. Your main point is wrong, however—I am not a Wikipedian expressing my individual opinion, shooting from the hip as it were, I am instead comparing the very fine Warren M. Bodie book on the P-38 to Baugher's version and I am seeing that Baugher differs from Bodie in several ways. Baugher does not measure up to Bodie in terms of scholarly reliability, so Baugher is assumed wrong when the two differ. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This brings up another of my concerns about Baugher. There was an allegation, that I thought to be unsubstantiated, at WT:AVIATION something to the effect that his work is updated regularly. When errors are pointed out, does he fix them on his website? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

On its own, finding that a source claimed to be an expert source disagrees with other sources claimed to be expert sources, is nothing unusual, so it proves nothing. You need to focus more of the discussion on other points. To me the critical issue seems to be the claim that Baugher is never cited by expert sources, but only by fan websites. There seems to be quite some difference of opinion on that but it is also not where the discussion is currently focusing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following you, so pending further clarification, I must disagree. Reliability of sources specifically speaks to editorial oversight and fact checking ("In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication"), and a self-published website is typically lacking in those (in this case, it certainly appears to be). And you seem to be comparing a self-published website by someone whose training and experience is not in the relevant field (SPS) to more established military historians (by training, education and vocation), and books from serious publishers with editorial oversight, fact checking, and review-- a meaasure of reliability. I agree the discussion here is focused incorrectly, and we're seeing folks googling more and more dubious fanbooks, reporting that they use Baugher, which is a concern in and of itself, as errors are propogated. Clearly, if reliable military historians in serious publications disagree with Baugher's self-published hobby site, then there's a problem with his fact checking and editorial oversight. I was intending to raise this yesterday when one poster here with EDITCOUNTITIS weighed in, so I stayed silent, but would a MilHist person clarify who Robert Mann is and on the credibility of that publisher? Books that rely on a self-published hobby site do not speak well for the credibility of those authors as military historians. I dodn't see an article on Robert Mann on Wikipedia (or the publisher), while I do see, for example, Barrett Tillman and Eric M. Hammel. I'm unimpressed by the googling here to come up with fanbooks that use Baugher as an attempt to promote him as an "expert". If someone produces an established, scholarly, well-published military historian who reports Baugher is credible, I'll change my opinion, but for now, we have evidence of fact checking and editorial oversight deficiencies in Baugher's work, which directly speaks to reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Permalink to a discussion of errors in one article, referenced above by Binksternet, here. Specifically, "This shows poor regurgitation of multiple sources." I've seen it asserted several times in these discussions that, since Baugher cites his sources, that makes him reliable. Could independent reviewers here comment on that assertion? This example highlights one reason that SPS requires authors to be published in the relevant field, and discourages hobby sites over other reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Other previous discussions (with more unfortunate disparaging of good-faith editors): Jan 2008, Oct 2008 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(This is about the point of principle, not the specific case. I'll post a link to this thread on the relevant policy page.) I think it is clear that being cited by experts as an expert can be considered as evidence that an author is an expert. If someone's personal webpage is widely cited in expert publications, then I think that also means that website has a reputation for fact checking. I've never seen an argument to the contrary based on either normal word meanings, or the spirit of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and norms. I have OTOH seen the argument now presented here, which is based on taking a literal reading of one bit of wording on the current WP:SPS page to be the last word on this in Wikipedia. But where there is an obvious difference between the intention of our policies overall and one bit of wording, then that one bit of wording looses out (and eventually should be changed). The wording on WP:SPS which defines an expert in terms of publications probably covers 99.9% of cases, but we keep seeing cases where it excludes people who are obviously considered experts outside of Wikipedia, but who for whatever reason do not publish in an orthodox way. And here on Wikipedia we are not supposed to over-rule outside experts, which is what we would be doing if we decide here that some widely experts are more equal than others. Wikipedia can also not consistently define an expert in any way which conflicts with WP:RS which makes it clear that the most important thing is a reputation of fact checking, and if there are a small number of cases where the current wording of WP:SPS is in conflict with that, then now that we've seen it a few times those words need to be fixed. Until that time there is an inconsistency, and WP:IAR can and should be invoked. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree-- when consultation with more reliable experts published by more reliable sources pinpoint errors, we use CONSENSUS to determine the reliability of a source, particularly when self-published by a non-expert, regardless of how many lesser quality sources cite it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously two experts could disagree with each other, and experts can also make mistakes. It doesn't mean they're not experts. Mlm42 (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The examples of "consultation" under discussion above just look like a Wikipedian's own personal debating points to me. The basic idea of a lot of Wikipedia norms and policies is that we avoid turning things into personal debates.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Indeed, the current wording of SPS doesn't require that he is published in a third-party source, but rather that his work has been published in a third-party source. These two are slightly different.. if a reliable third-party source reproduces something from his website, then that could count as his work being published - hence making Baugher satisfy WP:SPS. Even though his website may not be a "high quality" source, I think this discussion is only trying to determine whether it's a reliable source or not. Mlm42 (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, Mlm, for dropping that discussion on WP Aviation talk last night, as I was just tuckered out, but

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, one should take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

I believe the second sentence is most relevant here. We have higher quality sources, and examples of errors in Baugher's work, so he should be used very cautiously, if at all. The counterexample I gave at WP:AVIATION is a website (blog) by a highly reputable undeniable expert extensively published in the relevant field, who clearly meets SPS:

• Tourette's Syndrome: minimizing confusion

This is a blog by Roger Freeman, MD, clinical head of the Neuropsychiatry Clinic, British Columbia's Children's Hospital, professional advisory board member of the Tourette Syndrome Foundation of Canada, and former member of the Tourette Syndrome Association Medical Advisory Board. Dr. Freeman has over 180 journal-published articles on PubMed. Why would we change policy to encourage us to cite an expert's blog, when higher quality sources are available? And this is an example of an author who would clearly meet SPS, and for whom I'm not aware of any errors-- a much stronger case than Baugher. I don't want to see us open the floodgates to lesser quality sources, which will impact articles beyond Aviation and lead to protacted disputes about who is an "expert", such as the one we're having here. If the Aviation Project would amend their freshly minted resources page to reflect *how* we appropriately use different kinds of sources, I suspect we could wrap this all up more easily. The impression is now left that all of these sources are broadly reliable across the board, which is never the case in any discussion of reliability of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand.. are you saying Baugher isn't a reliable source because there are higher-quality sources out there? This discussion is about whether it's reliable or not. A possible answer is "yes, but you can probably do better". Mlm42 (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying there is no such thing as whether a given source is generally reliable across the board for all purposes, and that is true in all RS discussions. For example, The New York Times is generally considered a reliable high-quality source for most purposes, but it should never be used to cite medical fact, as the lay press often gets it wrong, and better sources should be used. I'm saying that the caution to use hobby sites like Baugher's appropriately is the matter at hand here, and the notion that he can be broadly considered reliable, when better quality sources show errors in some of his work, is faulty. There is no such thing in RS discussions as "it's reliable or not"-- it depends on the context and the text being cited and editor consensus comes into play. That is what is now missing in the Aviation Resources page, where they want Baugher to be considered reliable across the board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I see; I'm not too familiar with RS discussions. But it appears that "sometimes" Baugher can be considered a reliable source. Mlm42 (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, and my contention is that the "sometimes" is covered now by SPS-- use cautiously, because if the info is important and correct, higher quality sources will have covered it, and they can be used. The thrust of the problem with Baugher seems to be more that editors want to use him because he is accessible online, but if higher quality difficult-to-locate-offline sources show errors in his work, then we've got an issue. Looking at it that way avoids this whole personal issue, where some editors really want him to be considered an "expert", even though he's self-published outside of his area of expertise and better sources are available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia editors aren't the only ones who consider him an expert in the field. You're claim that this is "outside his area of expertise" is highly disputed. 18:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlm42 (talk • contribs)

Nope, several aviation editors agree, and a list of errors has been supplied--likely to grow if others begin to look closer. Some fanbooks lauding him do not make this so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, experts can make mistakes. It doesn't mean they're not experts. Mlm42 (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

And the whole problem here is the desire to label him as an "expert" rather than considering how to appropriately use the resource, a self-published hobby site. When higher quality sources show him to be wrong, they should be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

We're really only talking about a handful of writers who haven't gotten their best work published, the work that MILHIST editors and others like to cite (see all the citations and the nice things people say about Joe Baugher at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Joe+Baugher%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C34&as_ylo=&as_vis=0). Why don't we (at MILHIST) help these guys get this stuff published in some form? That would presumably satisfy everyone, especially Baugher. - Dank (push to talk) 18:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong :) His work does contain errors; why not consult the original sources instead? He is regurgitating, and sometimes incorrectly, work that is already published! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Who says he wrong though? Only people on Wikipedia or someone else? This is what you should be explaining.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Higher quality sources published by experts-- see Binksternet's sources and responses. These are not opinion: they are high-quality sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

PS, this is no different from practice in all areas of Wikipedia. Example, no matter how "expert" Mayo Clinic may be considered to be, just about every long-time medical editor can point to a Mayo website page that gets it wrong relative to recent, high-quality, secondary medical journal-published reviews. Hence, we reject most sourcing to Mayo in favor of higher quality sources, regardless of their "expert" reputation because better sources show them to be sometimes wrong. That doesn't mean new or inexperienced editors don't or can't cite to Mayo; it means we correct and educate when we see it happening, about how to use medical sources correctly. That's what I'm asking here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

So if the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources were changed to remind editors to use sources like Baugher cautiously (as per WP:SPS), then I think this is a step in the right direction. Mlm42 (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Well, yes, that has been my point all along :) Adding another thought about the appropriate use of self-published sources, as they relate to the discussion on WP:AVIATION relative to featured articles. FAs require a thorough survey of the relavant literature, including high-quality sources, per WP:WIAFA. Even if Baugher were declared reliable for some purposes, a thorough survey of the relevant literature at FAC would involved checking the original sources to make sure Baugher hasn't gotten something wrong, which we know he does. So, GAs now sourced to Baugher would need to be resourced to higher quality sources. Why should we encourage editors to use inferior sourcing when higher quality sources are available? If the Aviation Project wants to use Baugher to cite stubs and start-class or C-class articles, do they want to limit their production to beneath the GA-class level? They can do better-- if they'd make the appropriate use of Baugher as a site clear on their resources page (he can be used to locate better sources and consult them, as he does appear to list them), that will better serve our editors and readers, and help avoid propogating self-published errors in any level of article. Aren't we all better served if articles don't have to be re-cited later, and editors learn the appropriate use of sources early on? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A low-quality, self-published but reliable source is way better than having no source at all. Mlm42 (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In some cases, it may be, but all of our articles, regardless of assessment level, should strive for accuracy-- why wait until an article reaches GA or FA level to make sure it's correct when better sources are available and we may be propogating errors. And, as I've stated elsewhere, in the medical realm, I believe that no information is better than incorrect information, which can be dangerous, as in BLPs. Perhaps not so for Aviation, but do we want to alter SPS in ways that will open up the potential for errors across the board in all Wikipedia articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought this was a discussion about Baugher as a source, not about altering SPS? It appears that (at least sometimes) his website can be considered a reliable source under the current wording of WP:SPS, so there's no need to change it for this discussion. Mlm42 (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Lancaster has already suggested altering SPS, at WT:V, based on this discussion (and others, I think, not sure). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I think there are two separate matters. One is a question of a policy wording and one is this case. The two things can be separated because the policy wording question is also not a question of changing policy, but rather because there are some words on a policy page which conflict with WP policy more generally. I think there is no doubt at all that WP policy tells us that if we do not have a clear and simple case about who is an expert we try to look for outside evidence about who experts cite. A reliable source is a source with a reputation for fact checking. That is the hard core of WP:RS, and WP:SPS is supposed to be consistent with that, and to be explaining a detail about that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In reply to SandyGeorgia, I linked to all discussion in order that those who were willing to could see all discussion that there had been on this topic that I knew of. I didn't want to leave any of it out so that I would not be in a position where it could be said I was picking out what I wanted to push my position. As has been made clear elsewhere, I think that JB is a useable source, but I was trying to keep my opening post as neutral as possible. The intention was to get eyes outside WP:AVIATION and WP:MILHIST on the subject, which is why I asked that members of those WPs disclosed the fact. I also deliberately raised the issue in relation to the specific three webpages and those linked from them. The wider issue of other sites and SPS is not what this discussion is about. There are other pages on JBs website which may or may not be reliable, but they are outside the remit of this particular discussion. Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suggest that linking user talk pages that add nothing new to the discussion except disparaging of good faith editors didn't help others who have to trudge through all of this, even if did help make me aware :) YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused about where exactly the disagreement is at the moment. I changed Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources so that it cautions about Baugher's website (since we should use caution when using any self-published source). Are there people who think we should ban Baugher's website outright, from being used as a source? If not, then aren't we done here? Mlm42 (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it ever wise to declare a discussion over at internet speed, before many others have had a chance to weigh in. There are several editors who participated yesterday who haven't weighed in here, and we've only got (I think) one or two independent persons weighing in here. But then I also wouldn't have had spread this discussion across multiple pages to begin with :) And I'm still curious about why the Aviation Project wants to consider Baugher reliable for aircraft serial numbers. Where did that come from? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It came from me, because that is what I've been using JBs website for. The discussion should run for a minimum of a week, to give as many editors as possible a chance to comment. This discussion is not about the entire website. Please let's all stick to the issue I raised in the opening post, any other webpage on JBs website is not up for discussion here, but may be raised as a separate issue if an editor wishes to do so. Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the interesting facets of Wikipedia is that one editor doesn't get to determine the course of the discussion: the general reliability of Baugher is an issue, regardless of how you framed the post here. What led you to consider Baugher reliable for aircraft serial numbers when his other work contains errors? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, one of the ways you all might consider of getting around some cautious use of Baugher as a source is by attribution. If you say "X is a fact" with a citation to Baugher, that is very different from saying "Joe Baugher's website says X is a fact". Then our readers have a better idea about what they're reading, and we are less inclined to present self-published info as cited fact. Just a thought. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There is more than a bit of irony in an editor who has posted nearly 40 times to this single discussion in the course of a few hours accusing another editor of trying to determine the course of discussion. Perhaps if the editors who have gotten so wrapped up in this issue across a multitude of talk pages, noticeboards and even a RFA would step away from their keyboards and let uninvolved editors get a word in edgewise, the noise to signal ratio here might get down from ∞:1.

There are numerous, independent reliable sources which identify Baugher as an expert on military aviation and aircraft. His Encyclopedia of American Military Aircraft is repeatedly cited in books by reputable publishers as an authoritative source. Those citations include reference to his lists of serial numbers. See e.g. [57] Clearly, he is an expert by Wikipedia's standards, and that expertise extends to aircraft serial numbers. WP:SPS, however, requires more. It requires not only that the person be an expert, but that his "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". It does not appear, notwithstanding his expertise, that his work in the relevant field has been published anywhere other than on his website. All of his publications by third party, independent publishers, has been related to his profession rather than his avocation. Thus, I would conclude that, notwithstanding his clear expertise on the broader topic of aviation and the narrower specifics of the question posed above, his website cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia. Fladrif (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like that source Fladrif cited has published Baugher's "work", and hence Baugher's "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". He's not the author of that publication, but the wording of WP:SPS doesn't insist that he is. (If this seems like wikilawyering, that's the reason Andrew Lancaster was trying to get the wording of WP:SPS improved.) Mlm42 (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There are arguments both pro and con for the use of Baugher's work. The following attributes are present in his work:

• Provides verifiable sources for his research;
• Has been acknowledged as credible by other sources;
• Has detailed, structured and professionally written accounts;
• Information is dated and updated to reflect new findings;
• Although posted on a personal website, the material is publicly accessible and is non-commercial.

Is he an expert in aviation subjects? an area in which he has devoted considerable time and effort to collect and disseminate a series of articles that could be considered aviation profiles, dealing with types and sub-types of predominately American aviation subjects? How do people become recognized as experts? By publishing? He does publish in an electronic medium. By using professional standards of research and writing? Debatable but he does provide the sources for his research findings. Is he the best scholar? Again, a matter of debate, but certainly neither the best nor the worst. Do we consider him a reliable source for Wikipedia? The community consensus is what will decide this question or some level of acceptance. Is he a hobbyiest? Yes, but so are many other authors whose acceptance grows as others find their published work of use. What has happened in the past is that established, experienced editors have tried to use the most reliable sources in either third-party or tertiary works by acknowledged experts. Does he do original research? What Baugher has done is not truly original research, he has relied on a variety of sources to substantiate his accounts, provided those reference sources, so it is possible that he may not have referred to the most recent published works. Is his work static and not reflect changes in source materials? His material is updated and he does provide a publishing date. FwiW Bzuk (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

break

This source does not appear reliable according to the standards of WP:RS. Those calling him an expert seem to be hobbyist themselves, at least one from an suspiciously pictorial book published by k-12 publishing, rosen publishing. There are much better sources out there by people whose living it is to document and write about such information, and whose works have been reviewed for inaccuracies before publication. This source shouldn't be used here for GA's, or expressed as fact. A simple "From XXX website we have ..." would suffice for articles < GA, but would need some better sourcing for GA++.AerobicFox (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, let me give a specific example - 1947 BOAC Douglas C-47 crash is a recent DYK of mine. It uses Baugher to reference the history of the aircraft involved in the accident. This is what I've been using Baugher for, and hence the scope of the discussion I've raised at RSN. Other info given by Baugher is corroborated by The Times, the Accidents Investigation Branch, Flight and Aviation Safety Network, all of which are reliable sources.

Are we really saying that Baugher is not a reliable source to use for this? Baugher gives his source for info on the aircraft in question as an e-mail from John Anthony. In this case, it is unlikely that we are going to be able to access the original source. Mjroots (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused, so I may be missing your point. You seem to be saying that you have three reliable sources that could be used, but you are instead relying on Baugher's self-report of a private e-mail. That in and of itself is dubious, and I'm not understanding why you would use Baugher when you have reliable sources. And the fact that Baugher may be correctly reflecting reliable information in one case doesn't negate that he is wrong in others, or speak to his fact checking or editorial oversight. What am I missing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(Mjroots here, flying visit but back in an hour or so.) SG, the info used from Baugher is that of the history of the aircraft, serial numbers, owners, dates. All other info about the aircraft on Baugher's page, such as date of loss, casualties etc is sourced elsewhere and corroborates what Baugher says.

If Baugher managed to get this info published in book form, by a recognised publisher, there would be no question as to the reliability of him as a source. 86.23.41.233 (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There are problems with incorrect 'facts' in many expert aviation books. Joe Christy has made mistakes, Mike Spick has made mistakes, Martin Caidin has made mistakes (lots of them)—and these are all prolific published authors. The mistakes I pointed out in Baugher are not the kind which would drop him from being considered an expert. All of our sources must be considered relative to others in the field—no single source gets a free pass. Yes, we must be careful with Baugher, just like we are careful with Spick, Christy and Caidin. What we at Wikipedia are good at is the balancing of sources, some of which may be clearly in error, and some of which may be in conflict with no discernible right or wrong version. Baugher is no better nor worse than some other authors considered experts. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, Joe has now been cited in several dead tree works (why that makes him more reliable is a mystery to me). However, these works have been dismissed as fancruft above. I beg to differ. One of the best books I have ever read on the F-5/F-20 is Frederick Johnsen's work, Northrop F-5/F-20/T-38. He CITEs Joe in several places, and I would hesitate to call him a hack. So, what, if anything, does this mean? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

My read is that we're coming to a consensus, expressed by Nick-D and others, that it can be "used as a reference in stub to B class articles, but [we] expect stronger sourcing in GA and above articles", and "with the proviso that better sources are available and should be consulted." I wouldn't be unhappy with that, but hope that the Aviation Project will take steps to assure that editors working in that area understand the need to consult better sources and to doublecheck his content, and that if they write articles sourced to Baugher, they are limiting the assessment level of those articles to below GA-class. On the other hand, some others have said it violates SPS, so I'm not sure if we're ready to close up shop yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that any article can never get above B class if it's got a reference from Baugher, even if that is the only source for that particular piece of info? Or are you saying "Baugher may be used, but every effort should be made to find an alternative source, if one can be found" Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

First, I don't know about A-class-- I think (not sure, I don't participate) that is Project-dependent, and not all areas even have A-class reviews. Second, WP:WIAFA requires a thorough survey of the relevant literature and high-quality sources, so FA is out for Baugher: a thorough survey of the high-quality sources would involve going to the sources he allegedly cites. I think GA is a remaining question: I will stay on record as seriously opposing the use of self-published hobby sites for GA-class articles, when other better sources are available, which they are generally for Aviation (the claim is that Baugher cites his sources, so the sources are clearly available). If Baugher is the only source for a particular piece of info, the question becomes, where did he get that info, since he's not a professional in his field? We have one report above of him using private e-mail, which raises eyebrows. As I've stated elsewhere, one possible way around tricky text or iffy sources is to use attribution: if you're getting something only from Baugher and can't locate any other source, then you say that inline ("According to Joe Baugher's website ... "), which alerts the reader to the source of the claim. But WP:WIAFA requires high-quality sources and a survey of the literature, so whether a particular piece of info with inline attribution to Baugher could get by FAC would have to be evaluated case-by-case. Typically, the way such situations are handled at FAC is for the nominator to state in the nomination blurb something like, "I have done a thorough survey of the relevant high-quality sources, and the only source I can find for X statement is Baugher, so I have attributed that inline to his website", but we usually see such statements for uncontroversial info on, for example, pop culture articles, and they might raise eyebrows in Aviation. Again, it would be case-by-case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not support this position. It is Nick-D's post above that I believe to be untrue - the link I posted is the counterexample he asked for, IMHO. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Sandy has done a good job at summing up the arguments and where consensus is heading up above. If his info can't be found elsewhere then he is doing original research. If you really are wondering where he got a particular piece of information from then why not just email him? I'm sure he would be glad to point you in the right direction. Also, there is a peer review process whenever you get a book published, so typically publication makes a source more reliable than the same source prior to publication.

If an aviation fan has gotten a hold of all this info from a variety of sources then I see no reason a Wikipedia project cannot get a hold of the same info for a GA article.AerobicFox (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That goes to my earlier question on whether he updates his info once issues are identified to him. Does he respond to e-mail? What whoud happen if one of y'all asked him about the info from another source presented by Binksternet above? I'd feel much better about using him as a source if I knew he updated his info, or at least explained why he differed, in such cases. Do any Aviation members have e-mail contact with him? Conversely, how would you feel about the strength of his website if I e-mailed him about a known error and he didn't even respond? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a minor point in the discussion Aviation Safety Network has been quoted as a reliable source in this discussion and is via Template:ASN used as a source in over 1700 articles (including featured articles) is a self published hobbist website! not that different to Baughers MilborneOne (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj date of birth

The only ref giving the exact date is culturefemme [58]; another - Vibe [59] - only says 1984.

This has been quite an ongoing controversy, because some definitely-non-RS gives another date, and makes a fuss over it.

I've tried to keep checks on this BLP. There are also issues re. ethnicity, and other things.

I'm suggesting we start a FAQ page, but would need help to sort it out. See Talk:Nicki_Minaj#FAQ. Cheers.  Chzz  ►  14:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Do any of these sources help?[60][61][62] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Frank Spiller as a usability expert

At Tablet_computer#History there's an article by usability expert Frank Spiller used as a reference, about the reasons why MS tablets didn't get consumer popularity. At the talk page we're discussing whether Frank Spiller can be used as a reliable source for the usability topic.

This guy regularly publishes at hci and design conferences[63], and his work has been cited[64]. But has also many self-published articles, like the one used as reference. So he's an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, which is the defined criteria for self-published sources. Does he count as a reliable source for the design of tablets? Diego Moya (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Which third-party reliable source has published one of his articles? Can you please link to it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the above citation, his work was included in The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction, published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. That's clearly a reliable source, so his self-published work in that field may be usable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, that seems like a reasonable argument. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

He's published in an edited book. That doesn't make him an expert that I'm aware. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The word "expert" has a Wikipedia meaning. See WP:SPS.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, WP:SPS has been brought up. I disagree with the application and interpretation, based upon what little has been discussed so far.

Let me elaborate my position: That doesn't make him an expert by any definition that I'm aware within Wikipedia, especially WP:SPS. He's published in an edited book. That doesn't make him an expert.

WP:SPS has two criteria by my reading: 1) That the individual is an expert on the topic. 2) The expert has published work in the relevant field that has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. I'm don't think he meets either, as the published work appears far from what we're trying to include in the article.

WP:SPS also states, "However, one should take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." --Ronz (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to make a distinction between an edited book and a third party publication. Can you elaborate on the difference?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it as very significant to the matter, but an edited book is just a compilation of individually written articles by different authors, all writing on related subjects, edited for grammar and presentation. Just as anyone can author a book, any group can author a edited book, and it's easier to do so because the individual effort is easier. --Ronz (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how any of that matters if the book is published by a respected publishing house which apparently it has. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The publisher, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, is certainly reliable, so it definitely establishes Spillers as having published in that particular field. His other publications are worth investigating as well. This is far out of my own field, so I can't offer any meaningful opinion on how relevant that field is to what we're trying to include at tablet computer. If it were relevant, then his self published source may be used (emphasis on the "may") if editors decide to through discussion and consensus.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Normally we treat such editing which goes into making a book, a form of fact checking, and that is what we need to keep in line with WP:RS. Is there something special about this case?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly someone else has also reported the same information, there were already a previous reference by Ars Technica included in the article covering the same topic, and many others sources have also expressed their opinions and given hints for MS Tablets not taking off. I just happen to like the Spiller version the most as it gives a deeper, more to the point description of the usability issues at hand. (I've copied the Ars reference to the discussed paragraph to also show its relevance there).

As for the relevance of Spiller's work to design of tablets: his published papers seem to be for basic HCI research such as task analysis and emotional design. Those principles are widely applicable to commercial & user-centered design. Given that the article at hand was published prior to the iPad announcement, I'd say his analysis was a remarkable prediction of what Apple's strengths later supposed to the market.

I thank User:Ronz for explaining why he thinks the published book doesn't count as a third party source, but as Cúchullain pointed out I think your view (that compilations of articles aren't reliable) is not correct in this case. Diego Moya (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that too. A responsible publisher (which it seems to be agreed Lawrence Erlbaum Associates is) would expect an edited book to meet the same standards as a single-author book. The same level of peer review, copy-editing and fact checking would be done in both cases. Andrew Dalby 16:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like a clearer response to my efforts to determine what it means in this context to say an author is an expert. Let me try to summarize from what's written so far: It appears that editors think that if an author has anything published in a book by a reputable publisher, that person is an expert on related topics and that authors self-published works are reliable sources. Am I misrepresenting others' opinions this way? --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting what I'm saying, at least. Having publishing in the field establishes that an author's work can be used in articles related to that field; it's up to the editors to decide whether it should be. In other words, it's no longer a reliability issue, it's an editorial issue, best decided by the editors at the article in question. And of course the burden is on the ones who want to include it to defend it. (And this assumes the field Spiller has published in is really relevant to what we're trying to include at tablet computer; as I say, I'm not qualified to offer a useful opinion on that).--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

My view on the specific issue here is that Spillers has commented usefully on the topic, and may be regarded as an expert to the extent that his views are definitely worth citing; but since these are opinions they should be attributed to him by name in the text. At present he is not named in the text, nor even in the footnote: that's unsatisfactory. Andrew Dalby 10:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

CBRD

We have a very large number of links to "Chris' British Roads Directory", Special:Linksearch/*.cbrd.co.uk. It's a roadgeek site. I am not convinced the number of links is justified by its actual authority (and some of the facts supported by the site seem to be at the fringes of what we should be doing, for example establishing neologisms). Guy (Help!) 19:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a very nice website, and very informative, but it's just some guy's website. Unless someone can show that he is a recognized expert in the field whose work in the relevant subject matter has been published by independent, third party publishers, this can't be used as a source on Wikipedia. I have seen that, in some cases, there has been sentiment for using such sources as External Links, but not as references for the text of an article. Fladrif (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Who is the author? The site is cited in a few items accessible on Google Books and Google News.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing {citation needed} tags from redlinks in "List of ..." articles

I have asked for {{citation needed}} on several unsourced redlinked assertions in the List of astronomy journals. One user has repeatedly removed the ^{{{tl|citation needed}} tags on the dozen or so requests. This has been going on for a month, with a total of maybe three removals to date, sometimes after the tags have been in place for over a week--so I don't know if this fits the definition of edit warring or not. It definitely does not get us anywhere near WP:3RR. I have on three occasions tried to discuss the issue on the Talk page, and until today, the subject editor has not entered the discussion. In the edit summaries, and in her/his comments today, I have been accused of edit waring. I would very much appreciate some additional overview of the situation by other editors. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the discussion on talk:Journals, or on the article talk page, reached a clear consensus on this. I personally agree with your assertion that to be on a list, a journal which does not have its own Wikipedia article should be referenced to a reliable source.Some people argue that every assertion in an article should be sourced, regardless of whether there is a wikilink to another article, because no-one should have to click through to look for the source.Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What needs to be sourced under WP:V is "any material challenged or likely to be challenged". That policy explicitly applies even to list articles. That being said, the tags in this particular case strike me as an over-enthusiastic misapplication of the policy. Taking even a cursory look at the journals on the list that you tagged as needing citation, it is clear that those I looked for (no, I didn't bother to look for all of them) are all real publications that you can verify in seconds with Google. Are you really challenging that the journals exist? I suppose it might be a useful thing if every journal on a list like this includes a hotlink to its webpage, but that is not really the function of Wikipedia, and this tagging looks like overkill. Fladrif (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A couple points:

• Having a reliable source is a best practice, but technically, our WP:V only requires that the information be capable of being sourced.
• I would define edit-warring as any revert beyond WP:BRD cycle. A slow edit war is still an edit war.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

We have been having a lot of discussions about lists over at WP:NOTE recently, and a concept that is beginning to gain some consensus there may be of help here... it's the distinction between navigational lists (or indexes) and informational lists (which are articles in list format). It strikes me that the List of astronomy journals is purely navigational in character, ie it has the sole purpose of pointing readers to articles about these journals. In this, it is similar in function to a disambiguation page. We do not require sources for disambiguation pages because they are not considered "articles", and likewise I feel we should not require sources on other forms of purely navigational pages (and they should not be seen as being "articles"). However, we also routinely remove red links from disambiguation pages... and I think the same should apply here. Since red links do not point the reader to an existing article, they don't aid the reader in navigation. (They can always be added back when an article on the journal in question is created). It isn't a reliability or verifiability issue... its a functionality issue. Blueboar (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Flafdrif, just on the side subject of that WP:V wording, there is a discussion at the village pump. A question that's been raised I think rightly about the use of that wording (not the wording itself) is whether we are clear enough about how to define "likely to be challenged". There are a lot of Wikipedians concerned that the current wording leaves open some abuse in the sense that a POV pushed can say that some words are likely to be challenged simply because they just challenged. I know there are some people who argue that all challenges, even by obvious POV tacticians, are good because they can lead to improvements. Their ideal Wikipedia apparently has two or three footnotes on every sentence! :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Princeton University's website and Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism journal

In the High-fructose corn syrup article an editor removed the following referenced material citing MEDRS:

Princeton University's website stated that "Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same. In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides." Parker, Hilary (March 22, 2010). "A sweet problem: Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain". Princeton University. Retrieved Feb 15, 2011. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) however, the study methodology has been criticized. "HFCS makes rats fat? ''Marion Nestle''". Foodpolitics.com. Retrieved 2010-11-06.

[...]

Purnell, Oregon Health and Science University

A study by Purnell at the Oregon Health and Science University shows that fructose and glucose produce opposite reactions from the hypothalamus. When the hypothalamus senses an abundance of fructose (such as found in corn syrup) "it stimulates a sense of hunger, which leads to the animals eating more and gaining excess weight. In those same laboratory animals, pure glucose, or sugar, does not appear to incite the desire to eat more." Korn, Peter (Feb 9, 2011). "OHSU study adds to corn syrup, obesity link; New research points to brain 'reward' differences between high-fructose corn syrup and sugar". The Portland Tribune. Retrieved Feb 15, 2011. {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 46 (help) The work was published in the online version of the Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism journal. Purnell, J. Q., Klopfenstein, B. A., Stevens, A. A., Havel, P. J., Adams, S. H., Dunn, T. N., Krisky, C. and Rooney, W. D. (2011), "Brain functional magnetic resonance imaging response to glucose and fructose infusions in humans." Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 13: 229–234. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1326.2010.01340.x

To my eye The News section of Princeton University's own website, The Portland Tribune, and the [Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism] (published by Wiley) all meet the criteria of MEDRS.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to make sense of this post, but it doesn't appear that you've read WP:MEDRS. As far as I can tell, you want to cite a primary source about rats or a press release from an association affiliated with the researchers or a lay report in the media for medical information, not conforming with MEDRS and likely also WP:RECENTISM. And a rebuttal from a blog site? If you have a diff to the actual text removed it might help-- I can't tell from the above what is what, but on first glance, it looks like a correct removal per MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to understand your response. The News section of Princeton University's own website fits under Wikipedia:MEDRS#Respect_secondary_sources as does The Portland Tribune and BOTH explain the content of peer reviewed material. Note that most of us are laymen and therefore not experts and cannot correctly interpret what some of these articles say--that is what secondary sources are for.

Please note that I removed the following: "however, the study methodology has been criticized."HFCS makes rats fat? ''Marion Nestle''". Foodpolitics.com. Retrieved 2010-11-06. as that was a blog website and yet that nonsense was kept in by the very same editor that removed the News section published by Princeton University itself. So we are asked to regard a News report published by Princeton University itself as not meeting MEDRS but a blog by Foodpolitics.com does? Does this make a lick of sense? I think not.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Diffs to the actual disputed text removed would help; the blog doesn't seem to belong. No, we don't typically source medical fact to the laypress or to press releases from the researchers, and WP:RECENTISM is also an issue. We usually wait for secondary medical sources to review primary studies before reporting on them, unless they are extraordinarily notable and widely reported and just haven't yet been reviewed by secondary medical sources. And, you're selectively using one part of MEDRS incorrectly; review the sections on "Use independent sources", "Assess evidence quality", and "Popular press". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that the Hilary Parker does not seem to be by the researchers themselves but a news report by Princeton University. The problem is the Bocarsly et al. section goes on for about three paragraphs without really explaining just WHAT the importance of the study was. The abstract of the article in question ends as follows: "Over the course of 6 or 7 months, both male and female rats with access to HFCS gained significantly more body weight than control groups. This increase in body weight with HFCS was accompanied by an increase in adipose fat, notably in the abdominal region, and elevated circulating triglyceride levels. Translated to humans, these results suggest that excessive consumption of HFCS may contribute to the incidence of obesity." The Princeton University news report is a lot easier to read than that and says basically the same thing.

The abstract of the Purnell study ends with "In normal weight humans, cortical responses as assessed by BOLD fMRI to infused glucose are opposite to those of fructose. Differential brain responses to these sugars and their metabolites may provide insight into the neurologic basis for dysregulation of food intake during high dietary fructose intake." which to average person reads like Star Trek technobabble hence the layman reference which says the same thing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No diff yet, and you don't seem to be reading me, so I'll move on and let someone else try. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Again I don't understand your point here. The difference if that critical can be determined by going to the article and looking at the history (ala [[65]] (which is why the article was linked) and has no bearing on the merit of the resources involved nor does it address making the content of the referenced journal articles understandable.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The journal article by Purnell is a primary source per WP:MEDRS. The Portland Tribune is popular press, should not be used as a source per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Popular_press The Princeton website falls under the same category; it is not a scientific journal. Foodpolitics.com is a blog, and isn't a reliable source for anything.

What is preferred would be a secondary source in a scholarly publication reviewing the study. Clearly, it is so recent that there will be no such reviews at this time. The issue under MEDRS in that circumstance becomes whether this new study is actually important or notable enough to be included in a Wikipedia article. Studies come out all the time. Absent secondary coverage in a scholarly publication, the Wikipedia editor is making an individual decision about the study's significance and notability. My reading of WP:MEDRS is that this study should not be included in the article, and these sources should not be used. If and when this study is considered important enough that it is reviewed in a scholarly journal, at that time the review can be cited as a source. Fladrif (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Fladrif: MEDRS guides us to use sources that review the literature and studies on a topic. This study is a single primary source (no matter how many times it is re-reported), and we need to wait for medical journals or similar publications to assess the primary source and weigh it against other studies and reviews in the field. It is inappropriate to include this study in the article. Although at some time in the future it may become corroborated and eventually accepted by a systematic review, we would then cite the systematic review, not the original primary study. --RexxS (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

All very well stated, and I agree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Ann Coulter as a source

Mass killings under Communist regimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In reviewing the always fascinating Mass killings under Communist regimes article, I found the following quote from Ann Coulter: "From Marx to Hitler, the men responsible for the greatest mass murders of the twentieth century were avid Darwinists."

Mindful of WP:V which says, "Exceptional claims require high-quality sources", I pose the question: do we let this ride as a statement of Ann Coulter's opinion, or does it come out on the grounds that she is not a reliable source for a historical/sociological assertion? I also see potential WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE issues. (Not to mention WP:COATRACK and I suppose also WP:SYNTH as the Darwin-Communism nexus is kinda unclear.) Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

She's not a high quality source. She's neither a historian nor a sociologist. Her opinions on this matter are not encyclopedic. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Coulter's claims on just about anything other than Ann Coulter need to be verified to be used, and we might as well just used the verified source in that case. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Its not a source to whether or not the information is true, but it is a source if you wanted to use it to quote her only. {ie: Ann Coulter says....}--Jojhutton (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, I just checked out the article in question and the quote from her is taken as being indicative of claims amongst religious conservatives. It's fine in that context. I changed "written" to "claimed" to highlight that it's a personal opinion. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not she's a religious conservative, she's neither a historian nor a sociologist. I do not understand why the considered opinion of historians and sociologists needs the addition of commentary by unqualified blowhards. Unless, of course, Wikipedia has embraced the values of Idiot America. -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Ann Coulter should only be used as a source in Evil of The Devil. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 01:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I suggest we keep this discussion thread open while regular editors of the article have a chance to respond. TFD (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I think this quote provides an excellent and credible basis for someone to start an article for Mass Killings Under Darwinism. --FormerIP (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

We already do. K-T extinction, Triassic–Jurassic extinction event, Permian–Triassic extinction event, Late Devonian extinction, Ordovician–Silurian extinction event... Throwaway85 (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Coulter is a reliable source for her own opinions, cited as such. Use of "claimed" is, however, not a preferred way of doing that - "claimed" has a pretty clear implication of untruth, which is not up to WP to make. "Said" or "wrote" is considered a preferred means of not expressing a POV about any opinion. By the way, many articles contain opinions which are "not encyclopedic." The whole idea of using opinions rests in them being opinions, and not simple statements of fact, and it is not up to WP to value or devalue any author whom editors like or dislike. All we do it report what they say. Collect (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Everyone is a reliable source for their own opinions. Can you provide a reliable source that shows (a) that Coulter bases her opinions on a knowledge of the subject (if there actually is one, other than as a Wikipedia synthesis), and (b) that this makes her opinions more noteworthy than anyone else's? I'm sure if you asked her, Paris Hilton could express an opinion, but that isn't a reason to put it in an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What about the issue of WP:COATRACK and WP:SYNTH? It seems we have to get through several leaps of logic and topic to get from "Mass killings under Communisn" to evolution science. (Yes, I know this is the Reliable Source board, but still...) Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"Wrote" has the opposite problem, in that it has the same connotation of truth that "claimed" has of untruth. Her claim *is* untrue, but it would seem strange to quote her and then write, "This claim is false.^[1]"

Re: "Coulter is a reliable source for her own opinions, cited as such." Yes, she is. However, a reliable sources of that kind are appropriate only for the biography articles, or for, e.g., the articles about the obscurantist views of some anti-Communists. My conclusion: it is a reliable source ... for the article about anti-Darwinist obscurantism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a wider issue. Coulter's book was published by a division of Random House and she has written for the National Review and appeared on Fox News Channel. That seems to be the level of excellence required for inclusion in this article. If we disagree, we should upgrade the types of sources required rather than pick on one scholar. TFD (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

""I like to stir up the pot. I don't pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do..." [66] Scholar? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Collect, is that your view of scholarship? Do you not draw a distinction between books and articles published by the academic press and the writings of Ann Coulter? TFD (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Mass killings are a perfectly legit topic, but why communism, instead of non-democratic regimes, as that seems as if it would be the natural category? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a joke. Did she mean Mass killings under Darwinist regimes? Of course if she said "Neo-Lamarckist regime", that might be something reasonable. Biophys (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Coulter is going to be called as an expert witness at Nuon Chea's trial to discuss the influence of the modern evolutionary synthesis on the actions of the Khmer Rouge any time soon. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

One of you was kind enough boldly to delete the language in question. No one has reverted yet (the page is subject to the one revert rule).Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a scholar, a notable commentator on politics, but this doesn't add anything to our understanding of genocide. It is just a swipe at modern biology. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Coulter is a generic pundit and of no special value on this topic. Merrill Stubing (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Seek-it Publishing as a source for Financial astrology

There are some pretty bogus sources in the article, as might be easily imagined. An SPA has been inserting a single author from Seek-it Publications. That's the only source I can find about them. Rather than argue endlessly with an SPA I thought I'd like you guys call it. And yes I intend to look at the other sources in the article, but this set looked to be the 2nd worst. Smallbones (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can register a company and get a ISBN. The registered address of the publisher seems to be a residental house[67]. It publishes authors that have published only at this editorial or that have only published once or twice outside that editorial.[68][69][70][71][72][73]. There are two exceptions[74][75] but they seem to be misidentifications (for example,amazon says that Wilson has only ever published the Seek-it book)

We need a WP:SECONDARY source that establishes the reputation of the publisher. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Seek-It Publishing resolves to the same street and PO Box addresses as "Merriman Market Analyst" a "financial astrology" company run by a Raymond Merriman.[76][77][78][79] This is basically just a SPS, as the author runs the "publishing company" that, as is noted above, he runs out of his own house. Definitely not a reliable source. Fladrif (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

MEDRS and Weston Price biography

Over on the Weston Price article there is the following medical claim:

"Price was outspoken on the relationship between endodontic therapy and pulpless teeth and broader systemic disease, ideas derived from focal infection theory, and held that dental health - and consequently physical health - were heavily influenced by nutritional factors. These applications of focal infection theory fell out of favor in the 1930s and are not currently considered viable in the dental or medical communities. (Baumgartner, J. Craig; Siqueira, Jose F.; Sedgley, Christine M.; Kishen, Anil (2007), "7", Ingle's Endodontics (6 ed.), PMPH-USA, pp. 221–222, ISBN 978-1-55009-333-9)

The problem is that this claim is NOT supported by the majority of the reliable sources (see Wikipedia:NPOVN#Weston_Price_and_Focal_infection_theory and so I want to put in the following which IMHO better shows the state of affairs:

The dental part of focal infection fell out of favor in the late 1930s (Thomas J. Pallasch, DDS, MS, and Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal", Journal of the California Dental Association.) with a special 1951 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association stating "Many Authorities who formally felt that focal infection was an important etiologic factor in systemic disease have become skeptical and now recommend less radical procedures in the treatment of such disorders."("An Evaluation of the Effect of Dental Focal Infection on Health" JADA 42:609-697 June 1951) though the idea never disappeared from the dental community.(Editorial. JAMA 1952; 150: 490.) (Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit (2009). Textbook of Endodontology. Wiley. pp. 135–136) While, recent discoveries have caused a cautious reevaluation of focal infection in dentistry ((2001) Fowler, Edward B "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001)) and there are studies on the quality of diet regarding oral health in adults (Bailey, RL (2004) "Persistent oral health problems associated with comorbidity and impaired diet quality in older adults". J Am Diet . Assnc. 104:1273.) these are independent of Weston Price's work.

I should mention the following "Additionally, recent evidence associating dental infections with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases has also helped resurrect the focal infection theory." (Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) "Essentials of oral medicine" PMPH usa; Page 159) Both Silverman and Baumgartner are now published by McGraw Hill who also publishes little gems such as:

"Homeopathy works best with chronic health problems and some acute health problems" Repetitive strain injuries McGraw Hill pg 179.

"Homeopathy works by treating the whole body, including body, mind, and spirit" ("Without ritalin: a natural approach to ADD" McGraw Hill pg 115).

"We have no idea if this is technically true, we still don't understand how Homeopathy works. There has been no good basic research into the mechanism of action of homeopathic medicine..." (Vogel, John H. K.; Mitchell Krucoff (2007) Integrative cardiology McGraw-Hill Medical pg 347)

Homeopathy works?!? SAY WHAT?!? Despite these red flags we are told by certain editors that the ONE reference by People's Medical Publishing House/McGraw Hill must superseed references both before and after by such reliable sources as the Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and J Am Diet . Assnc and even an earlier People's Medical Publishing House which is now also published by McGraw Hill simply because these other sources do not mention Price and yet we DO have a reliable source that does mention Price:

"The focal infection theory, supported by many including Dr. Price, has been attacked, debated, accepted, criticized, agreed upon, etc. but it has not been covered up." ((1994) Annals of dentistry: Volumes 53-54 New York Academy of Dentistry pg 42) Why is the word "rejected" not part of that list? The author of this piece states that Root Canal Cover-up Exposed "contains unsubstantiated statements, misunderstandings, and it would definitely have benefited from a better proofreading. Infected tissues/organs, such as teeth, can serve as a source of infection which can be transported, in the form of microorganisms..."

I must ask does pushing a clearly inaccurate reference in the light of so many others that say the exact opposite thing make sense per MEDRS?--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

A medical textbook is a reliable secondary source per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Books Fladrif (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't read the references. Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit (2009). Textbook of Endodontology. Wiley. pp. 135–136 states that "in spite of lack of scientific evidence the dental focal infection theory never died (O'Reilly, PR Claffey NW "A history of Oral Sepsis as a cause of disease" Periodontal 2000 1997; 13:121-48)(Pallashe TJ (2000) "The focal infection theory: appraisal and reappraisal" California Dental Association Journal 28: 194-200)" Wiley is a textbook!--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Your posts are very hard to read (see WP:TLDR). You asked if a medical textbook was a reliable source, got an answer that it was, came back to point out that it's a medical textbook. What is your question? Perhaps you're asking for resolution of a content dispute instead of reliability of sources. That's a different matter. If you'd shorten your posts, say what you want to cite and what source you want to use, it would be helpful. Perhaps reading some other inquiries here, to see how they're framed, will help you help us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I could support your revision. All of these sources appear to be reliable. Your point is really more related to WP:UNDUE. (There's a separate noticeboard for that — WP:NPOVN.) To be in accord with that policy, I do think it's appropriate, even though Price isn't specifically mentioned, to indicate there has been a reevaluation of focal infection theory. TimidGuy (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It would help if editors would not speed read through what I post and say they can't understand it or post information that is already in the post because they are in too much of a hurry. If you go back to the top of this you will see that I referenced a thread at WP:NPOVN!

As I pointed out in that WP:NPOVN article the Mcgraw-hill website states Ingle's Endodontics (also a medical textbook I might add) is Only for sale in EMEA, Canada, Tailand. To put it as bluntly as possible a textbook that the publisher itself states is NOT to be sold in in the US and who also publishes books that claim homeopathy works despite no studies that support such a claim is being used to override known reliable sources such as the Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Does this make a lick of sense? There is nothing to show that People's Medical Publishing House was reliable and just because McGraw-Hill picked up the rights to their works doesn't magically make them qualify under WP:RS which was my point even over at Wikipedia:NPOVN#Weston_Price_and_Focal_infection_theory.

My question to my fellow editors is can a textbook that even its own publisher will not allow to be sold in the US, publishes books that claim homeopathy works (including one form its medical division), and is contradicted by not only known WP:RS but by an earlier work by the very same publisher be considered a reliable source per MEDRS?--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The premise of your question is false. This textbook is sold in the US. You've completely misunderstood and misinterpreted the publisher's disclaimer. That McGraw Hill imprint of Ingle's Endodontics (6th Ed) is only for sale in those countries because other publishers have the rights in the other countries. BC Decker has the distribution rights in the US. [80] This is a textbook that has been renowned for decades. It is unquestionably a reliable source under WP:MEDRS, and your continued arguments are starting to sound like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. As other editors have pointed out, if you think that it has a particular detail wrong, with reliable secondary sources that meet WP:MEDRS, take it up elsewhere. But, I would also point out that you raised this question in relationship to a sentence in a BLP, and arguing over the state of dental focal infection theory strikes me as being completly a WP:COATRACK issue. Fladrif (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Behind the voice actors.com poll(s)

With Wikipedia’s high standards would this website’s poll count as an approved reference?

Here’s the link. I noticed Wikipedia at least uses behindthevoiceactors.com to reference what roles an actor did.

But, would the largely debated topic of Sonic the Hedgehog truly be acceptable? I already contacted BTVA and they confirmed that the current poll results are accurate.

But, they also said that a forum on another website did a campaign to bolster votes for a particular actor. Would that also affect its usability?

Thank you for your time, reader. Viceroy kai (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Reference for what? On-line polls are never reliable sources. The "author" of this poll posted it under a pseudonym. It looks entirely like reader-supplied content. This cannot be used as a source in a Wikipedia article. Fladrif (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"Reference for what?" For example: If someone were to post these poll results on an actor’s wiki page and used BTVA as reference. I assume it would then be promptly removed, right? Viceroy kai (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not promptly. But eventually it would be removed, as soon as someone with an understanding of WP:RS noticed. Fladrif (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Publisher of hosted files

I have questions about two sources.

• This is a presentation (in Korean) about Korean high-speed railway experience prepared by the Korean Railroad Research Institute (KRRI). It was prepared for presentation in the government programme "Science Touch on Friday", which aims to present cutting-edge research to the general public. The file is hosted on the Science Touch website, but the presentation pages indicate KRRI only. Who should be the publisher in the |publisher= parameter? (I wrote "Science Touch on Friday, KRRI".)

• This is a presentation prepared by Korea's national rail carrier Korail, a technical description of a then new train. It contains an important technical detail (the feature designated with Latin characters as "1C2M" on slide 12, and illustrated with a block diagram on slide 9), for which I can't find any other sourcing—except on private blogs, the Korean Wikipedia, and Wikipedia clones. The problem is, the original of the file is not available on any Korail page any more, this copy is hosted on a community site for a school reunion(!). So, (1) would it be a problem to use it as source; (2) who is the publisher? (I'd write the site name and Korail). --Rontombontom (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a dispute about this, such that these sources are a matter of controversy, or are you simply asking for advice? If the latter, then I'd say go ahead and use these sources. I think your approach to identifying the publisher is fine — host and then the source. (You could maybe find the original of the technical description on the KRRI website in the Internet Archive.[81]) TimidGuy (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. No, there is no controversy, I just asked for advice with view to GA/FAC nominations, and for future reference. The problem with looking for the original of the second file at the Internet Archive is that I don't have the original URL, and Korail's website is vast (with multiple domain names), it's sheer impossible to find it by browsing all hits. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Palestine Telegraph

Is this a reliable source for contentious information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? It seems to be nothing more than a self-published operation, with user generated content. The "About" description says "The PT encourages controversial creative writing" and "All the people of the world are free to contribute to The PT". "The contributor's article will only be edited for grammar, punctuation and spelling if necessary.Unlike other newspapers, The PT is an independent endeavor that relies on no governmental or organizational support." Note the use of non-journalistic, sensationalist headlines like "Israeli Maniacs stabbed Palestinian to death " (http://www.paltelegraph.com/palestine/west-bank/8461-israeli-maniacs-stabbed-palestinian-to-death.html) Why Me Why U (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

On the whole, it seems to fall under WP:NOTRS: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion." I would think any contentious material should either be better sourced or omitted. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree with that assessment. TimidGuy (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Autobiographical essay in a reliable journal

The above article is partially an autobiography written by the late Oliver H. Lowry, a preeminent biochemist, that was published in the Annual Review of Biochemistry. It can be freely accessed via the link after "doi:". Is it, and if so to what extent, acceptable to use it as a source for describing the details of Lowry's life? NW (Talk) 05:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Full link is here (PDF). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Would think that it being in a journal, not just self-published, would be a point in its favor. Similarly a memoir that is a commercial book, has that going for it (the editor, the importance, the liability of the publisher). Doesn't mean it's all right and we should certainly look at controversial claims carefully. But to get numbers of children and dates of birth and the like, seems pretty legit. Won't mean it's perfect, but then scholarly bios are not always either.TCO (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There is some discussion of this in the archives for Project biography. A professionally published autobiography is not "self published". It's professionally published. It's self authored. But not self published, the way a resume or website is, or a vanity press autobiography. See here: [82]. Also, if you look at all the cautions wrt self published bio stuff, they never talk about real memoirs (or professional articles). Obviously, need to take things with a grain of salt given the COI, if it's contentious, but would think for dry stuff, it's OK.TCO (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why there would be any problem with using this as a source for information about his life. If it contains any controversial claims regarding his research, that would have to be looked at in the context of other sources about the research. TimidGuy (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Commentary magazine

Is this article in Commentary magazine reliable for the idea that the UN failed to condemn a Lebanese army attack on a Palestinian refugee camp? I believe it is op-ed rather than a news report. This is in Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. There is another Commentary article cited in that article, but that is by Anne Bayefsky, a scholar and activist, so perhaps counts as a notable viewpoint. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The web site has editorial oversight so its not a blog but a magazine of sorts, but it states that it consists of a collection of editorials.[83] Therefore I would call it a reliable editorial with limited usage and should be used with caution, only if nothing better is available and only with an attribution, letting the reader know it is an editorial.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a bit more than a "magazine of sorts", a regular political magazine, but carrying commentary rather than news. Which is true of most political magazines, actually. Thanks, will try to find better source. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It is, as you have identified, an opinion piece and not a news report. Commentary is of course, a real magazine that's been around for over 65 years. It does have editorial review, and a political POV that dramatically shifted 40 some years ago, but I would regard it as a reliable source for reporting the opinions of its authors and editors. I would be inclined to allow the source, with attribution to the author. This is one instance where one could verify with a bit of digging the accuracy or inaccuracy of the factual claim by checking primary sources. If those sources confirmed that the claim was factually true, I'd then be inclined to remove the attribution. Fladrif (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This particular article completely contradicts UN statements and also seems to support an extremist group. I thought perhaps the problem would be that the UN Security Council hadn't condemned the attacks within a particular timescale so wouldn't be reliable for whether it had done so since. But actually the UNSC did condemn the attacks (on civilians) at the time, but blamed an al-Qaeda affiliated group more than the Lebanese army. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The November 3, 1948 front page of the Chicago Tribune cannot be cited as a reliable source that Dewey actually beat Truman. There were in fact UN Security Council resolutions condemning the fighting at the Nahr el-Bared refugee camp in 2007 well prior to the article, and decrying civilian casualties caused by either side in the fighting. [84] IMJ is correct - apart from the admonition to all sides that they are obligated to avoid civilian casualties, the resolutions blamed Fatah al-Islam for violating Lebanon's soverignty, and recognized Lebanon's right to deal with Fatah al-Islam. The most that the Commentary article might be sited for is the opinion of the author that the UN should have condemned the Lebanese army (instead? As well?), but not for the contra-factual assertion that there was no condemnation of the fighting at the refugee camp. Fladrif (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Politics Show

Hi. I used BBC Politics Show East Midlands as a reference for an article on Nicky Morgan who courageously appeared as PPS to the Universities minister just after the announcement on raising student fees. The purpose of both the show on 7 November 2010 and the article was to show her views and her opponents on this key issue -I recorded a private copy of the sound track to ensure accuracy. The program remained on BBC IPlayer for a further week and a DVD is available on request from the BBC. Someone has removed the reference on the grounds it is no longer verifiable. Could you provide the official view? JRPG (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no requirement that a source be online or easily accessed. If a DVD is available on request from the BBC, then it meets our policy of verification. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)