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

References to soure material added for James Palumbo

Reliable references to souce material have now been added to the James Palumbo Wikipedia page...

How do we go about having the notice requesting reliable sources removed from the top of the page? [Anon]

The proper Wikipedia answer is, "be bold". If you are confident that the sources are appropriate and deal with the points of possible controversy, then remove the notice.

You can put a comment on the talk page saying you';ve done this, and inviting anyone who has doubts to say so. Or you can ask here specifically about any source or assertion that seems questionable. Andrew Dalby 19:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Alex Jones' Infowars.com

Would Alex Jones' infowars.com website be considered a WP:RS as regards conspiracy theories? I'm thinking in particular of this article, a "New World Order Report" by Jonathan Elinoff. It has been cited in the Conspiracy theory article. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

For obvious reasons it can be quite difficult to get impeccably reliable sources on one side of a conspiracy theory. :-)

Infowars is not something I would consider reliable for statements of fact about the real world, but it should be mostly OK to use them for statements about their own position or about groups/ideas they're connected to, and the Conspiracy theory article seems to be doing that (more or less), so I can live with it. I think the "Alex Jones InfoWars list itself shows the problem..." paragraph has some serious textual problems but the best answer there could be rewording rather than removing it. bobrayner (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not rs. However, the website contains mostly links to publsihed articles which may be rs, for example if they are from mainstream media. TFD (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If it isn't, then WP:RS is broken (in the ways I specified here). It would definitely be preferably to have a third-party, non-conspiracist, academic or mainstream media source to establish the existence of a particular conspiracy theory, using sources like Infowars/Prisonplanet/Alex Jones as a primary source for their summations. When that isn't available, treat it like a self-published source: it establishes that an opinion is held by some segment of the conspiracy theory community, but it doesn't show it is true or considered important outside that community. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Could be a RS to confirm that a conspiracy theory exists, but not prove the theory itself. Q:Is the website a blog?--JOJ ^Hutton 17:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Alex Jones and his outlets are definitely not RS (not watter what format (blog, website, radio).--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg is omitting how Alex Jones is being used so here is the context to better judge it:

An article in the New York Times points out "Other historians argue that past government lies, particularly in the past half-century, have helped fuel conspiracy theories, by giving Americans reasons to suspect their leaders. (“See, I’m not paranoid, I’m right.”)" using Alex Jones InfoWars list “33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out to Be True” as an example. (Zernike, Kate (April 30, 2011) "The Persistence of Conspiracy Theories" The New York Times)

Alex Jones InfoWars list itself shows the problem with trying to group all conspiracy theories together because in addition to the fully documented conspiracy theories of the Dreyfus Affair, Sicilian Mafia, Project MKULTRA, Operation Mockingbird, Watergate, Tuskegee syphilis experiment, Operation Northwoods, Nayirah (testimony), Iran-Contra Affair, CIA drug trafficking, Business Plot, Project Valkyrie, 1953 Iranian coup d'état, Operation Snow White, Operation Gladio, and Black Sox Scandal there are several often regarded as tin foil hat nonsense such as the New World Order (conspiracy theory).

How that you can actually see the context of how it is being used how do you evaluate the reliability of Alex Jones given it is used as an example of how conspiracy theory is defined by the New York Times?--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, a New York Times article is used as an excuse to coatrack in the Infowars material. That doesn't make the Infowars website reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it is an editorial not an article. In any case it does not refer to Watergate, etc. as "conspiracy theories". That is Alex Jones' writer trying to present a parity between his conspiracism and rational thought. The effect is that we are promoting Jones's viewpoint, rather than presenting it as his opinion. TFD (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

So is this more of a wording and weighting issue?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with that. bobrayner (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Peter Knight's Conspiracy theories in American history ABC-CLIO has the following in it: Sicilian Mafia (pg 451), Project MKULTRA (pg 490), Operation Mockingbird (pg 486), Watergate (pg 725), Tuskegee syphilis experiment (pg 38, 45, 538), Operation Northwoods (pg 117), Iran-Contra Affair (pg 349), CIA drug trafficking (pg 237), Business Plot (pg 625), and Operation Gladio (pg 231) and even flat out states "Watergate is a Ur-text of US conspiracy theory, evidenced by the ubiquitous use of the suffix “-gate” to denote any major conspiracy." on page 725.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That infowars article by Jonathan Elinoff is terribly sourced, one-sided and wrong. There is no way it can be used at Conspiracy theory. Binksternet (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Infowars is not a RS. None of his sites are reliable. Just because they get it right sometimes doesn't equal reliability, broken clock twice a day and all that. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not a reliable source. At best, it's a primary source which - generally speaking - should be avoided especially for contentious content such as this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Binksternet did that and I did this. Do read my edit summary. Apart from a mistaken date (publication instead of event?), the obliterated information had been reasonably accurate (as the 'diff' before/now proves). In case Binksternet's edit would not have been spotted quickly, without the inadvertently wiped content, it would have been impossible to do a search on sufficiently specific sub phrases or terms and have prevented finding a proper source - thus de facto having vandalized decent content.

I am not going to run behind the long list of Binksternet's edits that refer to this here section, but expect all those pages' content for which there is no clear and urgent reason to delete, to become restored. While a {{cn}} tag should be placed, the RS-questionable source needs to remain (e.g. in a hidden <!--...--> comment that also refers to this here section) to assist helpful editors in finding useful phrases/terms for their productive internet searches.

WP:RS clearly asks for common sense. I found it lacking in that systematical quick-and-dirty series of apparently tendentious and disruptive edits, which all too drastic action had not found consensus in this here section.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-20 07:33 (UTC)

You followed my "citation needed" tag with the proper citation and the proper quote, for which you should be thanked. I removed the direct quote of infowars, "A criminal act for security personnel to touch a person’s private areas without probable cause as a condition of travel or as a condition of entry into a public place", which was not useful as it was not the text of the legislation. I think we both improved the article.

In chasing down infowars references on Wikipedia, I'm keeping all the information that is attributed, and deleting the stuff that is simply using infowars as a supposedly neutral news source, without attribution. You can follow along behind or not, as you wish. Binksternet (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Infowars.com, in general, is a terrible source. But I'm not so sure about this edit.[1] Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. In this particular case, we have a film made by Jones and we are citing a web site run by Jones about that film. OTOH, I wonder if "The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off" meets our notability policy and if the article should be deleted.

BTW, if you're going after infowars.com, don't forget about prisonplanet.com and the other sites Jones runs. (For example, the use of infowars.com in Paul Craig Roberts is probably OK from a verifiability standpoint.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I will search for prisonplanet on Wikipedia. Thanks for the note! Binksternet (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Just be sure never to immediately delete content that became supported by Infowars, Prisonplanet or any other unRS: The reliability of sources being questioned does not make those sources and all that these ever stated blatant lies or wild fantasies. The content having been supported by such source must not be assumed wrong, in fact it will often be supported by WP:RS if one bothers to look for such, which often takes only a moment. Whomever found and cited a source that later became questioned or of which the contributor is most likely not aware that its reliability had been questioned, did not add something without a reference and thus that content needs to remain and only tagged by {{cn}} for at least as long a time as it takes on average, for probably some incidental other editor to become interested and, to provide a more reliable reference, or to fail at finding such upon which he/she should delete the unattributable content. Until then, as I explained yesterday at 07:33 (UTC), the UnRS needs to remain as a hidden comment to facilitate finding a replacer RS.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-21 09:34-10:51 (UTC)

I'd suggest a rule of thumb: Never delete unattributed or to an unreliable source attributed content that already survived article edits by at least five different contributors. Such content requires a {{cn}} tag. In case this tag survives for a duration equal to the timespan between the first of these five edits until the tag was inserted, and also newer edits by at least five different editors have occurred since the tag was inserted, only then one can assume the questioned content to be incorrect, hard to prove, or too trivial for anyone to care; and it should then be deleted. But not earlier. I think this combines highest article quality with least controverse.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-21 12:46 (UTC)

Except for WP:BLPs, of course. Binksternet (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

A rule of thumb typically recognizes exceptions. Here: following WP policies (which override all guidelines), or after careful consideration while using all the common sense one can grab and then still realizing that one's motivation for a deletion is free from POV. If in any doubt and yet unable to accept the rule of thumb, tag it, and open a WP:RfC or if less urgent put it up on the article's talk page.  ;-)
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-21 13:32-13:45 (UTC)

• With regard to the reliablity infowars and prisonplanet, way back in 2007 administrator User:Tom harrison went on record that he felt authorized to immediately block, without warning, any contributor who used infowars, prisonplanet, or any other site on his personal blacklist -- yet he was unwilling to make his personal blacklist public.

  I felt then, and feel now, that immediate blocks, without warning, are an excessively heavy-handed substitute for a good faith explanation of what is wrong with a reference to a blacklisted site. Geo Swan (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

About.com article on the Superman Curse

Is this About.com article reliable as a source for the Superman curse article? Nightscream (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Not for statements of fact. It might be appropriate for text along the lines of ""paranormal researcher" Stephen Wagner says that...". Under no circumstances would I trust about.com articles on fringey subjects for anything more than a claim of the writer's own belief. For examples see [2]. [3], [4]. I'd go so far as to say that some about.com writers use it as a platform for pushing deeply fringe views. bobrayner (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

About.com is really equivalent to a primary source, since there is virtually no editorial oversight. Reliable for the what the author thinks/believes, but then it's a question of whether what the author thinks is suitable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Betty Logan (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, because I did rely on it both for the author's arguments against the curse, but also for some factual statements, like what Bob Holliday did after playing the character. Can you guys look over the seven passages in the article where I cited that source, and tell me which you think are inappropriate? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello? Nightscream (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

All of them. About.com does not guarantee the expertise of its authors, "guides". Stephen Wagner's main claim to fame seems to be a book[5] published by PublishAmerica.[6] Read our article, or Atlanta Nights, about the quality of PublishAmerica. The source you're using is actually by Brian McKernan - I have no idea who he is, but I can't find any evidence he's a reliable source published expert on the topic. Without that, your source is basically one guy writing something and another guy putting it on the web. Not RS. --GRuban (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That said, the IP posting in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Superman_curse_(2nd_nomination) seems to have a reliable source or two for you. ABC News is a fine source. --GRuban (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

And I posted more sourced in the AFD. --GRuban (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

GRuban, so the CNN and People sources are not RS either? Nightscream (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a case where WP:SENSATION applies to sometimes reliable sources. No, under the circumstances, not reliable. It's tabloid trash. About.com is much like IMDB. It's user-created content. Certainly can't be used to establish notability. BusterD (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What about CNN and People? Just because the topic is sensationalistic doesn't mean that content is unreliable. CNN is either unreliable a source, or it's not, isn't it? Nightscream (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Communist crimes against humanity

Is this source "Boldur-Lăţescu, Gheorghe (2005) The communist genocide in Romania Nova Science Publishers ISBN 978-1594542510" reliable for this content inclusion?

The Piteşti Experiment has been described as a crime against humanity.

The editor who has removed it has not used the talk page although I have started a section for this [7] The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Boldur-Lăţescu is an expert in cybernetics, and has no formal training in humanities, only in engineering. At best, the book can be considered a memoir, thus it can only be used to source attributed opinions (uninformed opinions, for that matter). Nova Science Publishers is a rather dubious publisher (see also our WP article before being whitewashed [8]).Anonimu (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. However a formal training is not necessarily needed, more important would reviews of the book itself (by trained historians). If there are any that is.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find any review in the usual places.Anonimu (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

At first glance I can see no reason to exclude it. The book is published with an academic publisher (not the best though) in English and of course in Romanian as well. The author seems to be a normal well qualified academic (see [9], [10]) The Pitești-Experiment has an extensive well sourced article in the German wikipedia, that looks reasonably sourced with a number of differend sources (de:Pitești-Experiment). If somebody wants to exclude the book as source, he needs to bring a convincing specific argument. If some somebody wants to get a feel for the books itself, some parts are available at Google as preview ([11]).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The Romanian publishers can't be considered academic, as it published mostly belletristic, and occasionally some pop science books. Also, I have serious doubts about the reliability of the German article. Besides Boldur, a major source used by the article is published by "Soldiers of the Cross, Englewood", a white supremacist organization associated with Christian Identity and written by a "poet and publicist" condemned for membership in the anti-semitic fascist Iron Guard (and assumed as an Iron Guard supporter by the people claiming the legacy of the movement nowadays, see [12] [13]).Anonimu (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Guilt by association is pointless, this is not the german wiki, the publisher is from the academic press and you need to put forth an argument as to why it may not be used as suggested. The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It was just a side note so that uninformed editors don't start translating indiscriminately from the German article. As I said, Boldur has no expertise in this topic, we have no reason to present his partial opinion as fact.Anonimu (talk)

Actually the German article uses a large variety of sources, many of them definitely ok. But it is true some of the sources for inline citations are questionable indeed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS does not say "only approved correct articles are reliable" that I can find. Academic press = reliable source. Nor does WP:RS state "books printed in the wrong country are not reliable" either. Rather than exclude the source, those who dispute its words should find other reliable sources per WP:NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you please comment on my arguments instead of attacking a straw man? Nova Publisher is far from being the standard reliable academic (i.e. like T&F, Brill or major university presses). RS says "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." Is a book written by an engineer a reliable source for making a political and legal judgement? I doubt so.Anonimu (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

1. WP:AGF 2. Wikipedia does not say "some academic publishers are more equal than others" - in fact, Wikipedia does not require all sources to be from academic publishers in the first place. 3. Yes - an "engineer" can absolutely write about other topics. And be published by a reliable source. And be cited in Wikipedia articles. 4. The proper mode is to add reliable sources with other points of view - not to remove a point of view because IDONTLIKEIT. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You replied to arguments that nobody here supported, there's nothing to AGF. Read again the quote from RS: context matters. We're not in the Renaissance anymore, homo universalis can't exist nowadays. The fact that someone is an expert on a certain topic does not make him a reliable source on everything. An engineer writing about legal topics is about as reliable as a rocket scientist writing about brain surgery. per WP:FRINGE: "A fringe theory can be considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory". Boldur claim is unique, his book was not reviewed in any major publication 6 years after its publication, and Boldur, as the only author putting up the claim, is not independent of the theory. Also, per WP:UNDUE, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". One guy, even if he is an expert in cybernetics, qualifies as a tiny minority regarding the legal views presented in the article.Anonimu (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What you need to do is find reliable sources saying there was nothing legally wrong. That is how WP:NPOV works. We use the cards we are dealt, we do not discard a Jack because we only accept Aces in our hand. And assertions that a view is "fringe" is frequently a matter of "IDONTLIKEHISVIEWS and not a matter of finding people who disagree with him, as is required by WP:NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

As Boldur opinion is unique, and he has no expertise whatsoever in the field, we don't need a source to explicitly say he is wrong. Serious scholars don't go writing books just to reject claims made by some obscure non-specialist. We have WP:DUE to deal with such cases. And Boldur is such a case.Anonimu (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually depending on the context WP might very say (indirectly) that one academic publisher might be better than another (similarly for authors, journals), essentially that's what reputation is about. Anonimu has made a fairly reasoned point, why we should not rely on Boldur as a primary source for the article. That doesn't mean he can't be used at all (nor did Anominu claim that), but more reputable sources are preferable and Boldur should essentially be treated as a journalistic source (not more not less).--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

[14] seems fairly clear - comparing the acts to executions. [15] does not view it favourably either. [16] etc .... I find not a single cite which could conceivably be used to attach any "nice" adjectives to the experiment. But heck -- the NYT is generally accepted as RS [17]. The final report is long and occasionally lurid. One chapter recounts the chilling Pitesti experiment, in which young political prisoners were systematically tortured and subjected to brainwashing techniques by other prisoners in order to destroy their sense of self and replace it with loyalty to the state. The report charges the Communist authorities with crimes against humanity and puts responsibility for the misdeeds primarily on the party and its secret service, the Securitate. Seems that would be a nice item to insert in the article, no? Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Piteşti Experiment as such is in question. This discussion here is merely about suitability of Boldur as a source and what has to be considered there.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. It's about a book written by a guy with no expertise in the matter that makes some extraordinary claims, which no scholar cares enough about to confirm or reject. Nobody here wants to present the Pitesti "experiment" as a nice summer camp, but this doesn't mean we must take a legal judgement by an expert in cybernetics at its face value. If making legal decisions was so simple, people wouldn't spend years in law schools.Anonimu (talk) 09:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me point your attention at the fact that the Crime against humanity, like genocide is a legal term, therefore, we can speak about some misdeed as about this type of crime only if some court will make such a decision. This is a difference between this term and, for instance, the term "atrocity", or "torture". Therefore, the statement we discuss is incomplete. It is supposed to contain a name of some concrete court that come to such a conclusion. In other words, the statement should look like this:

"The Piteşti Experiment has been recognized as a crime against humanity by (the name of the court)."

In connection to that, does the source we discuss contain the reference to any court decision? --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Balderdash. Where an official government commission in a report termed the "experiment" as a crime against humanity, that is sufficient. There is no need for an official "court decision" where an official government report makes the statement, and is a reliable source thereon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, be polite. "Official court decision" or "official government report", whatever. If such a document is available, then we can speak about anything. However, I doubt if a scholar, whatever reputable he is, is in position to give such a characteristic to any event (unless he uses this term just as an allegory).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you have to see it that way. Correct is that we should not mix the legal term with a more general meaning but as long as the article is not mixing them and makes painstakingly clear what it is referring to, it doesn't have to be exclusively about the legal term here. Moreover even the legal term is not simply confined to actual court decisions, but it can also refer to the opinions/assessments of reputable of (legal) scholars about incidents or cases that have never seen any court (due to whatever reasons). However one way (and maybe) to avoid confusion and any mixing of legal and non legal meanings is of course to simply use different terms if possible.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think, we have here the same problem as we have had with the term "genocide". There are loose and strict definitions of genocide. The latter (a legal definition) can be applied (by courts or other judical bodies) to just certain types of mass murders and other examples of brutal treatment of population. However, the attempts (of some authors) to arbitrary apply this term (broadly defined) to the wider range of events makes this term to be too common to be useless. In that case it would become just an allegory, an another synonym of brutal treatment of peoples.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There appear to be problems with this publisher and I have asked User:DGG, who is familiar with them, to comment. This source is not an academic book and the opinions expressed have no notability. TFD (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• On the question of the reliability of Nova Science Publishers, a recent paper by Arno Tausch "On the Global Impact of Selected Social-Policy Publishers in More Than 100 Countries" published in Journal of Scholarly Publishing, Volume 42, Number 4, July 2011, pp. 476-502, ranks it as one of the top 20 social-science publishers in the world. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • You have taken that from the Nova Publishers article, and neither you nor I have read the article so we cannot know what it actually says. TFD (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    • You should refactor your baseless accusation, I have a copy of Arno Tausch paper "On the Global Impact of Selected Social-Policy Publishers in More Than 100 Countries" published in Journal of Scholarly Publishing in front of me. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, that puts the publisher reliability issue and related WP:RS issue to rest, then. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Arno Tausch is not necessarily a fully reliable source for anything, but the judgement is this case matches the reality--Novas is a medium grade academic publisher in the social sciences, although of low quality in some of the sciences It's good enough for the purpose of ordinary referencing However, I see from Worldcat that the book in question is held in only 98 Worldcat libraries which is not that great, indicating lack of general scholarly interest in it. But all publishers have better books and not all that good books; I'm a little more concerned at the possible bias of the author , who has published on only thisgeneral. But it's usable, but not for extraordinary claimsd. what is it being used to source? If we're quibbling over the wording "crime against humanity", that;s a very flexible term, and I 'd look for multiple sourcing for that. Any one author can call it anything that in hyperbola. To me this is ordinary this is ordinary Socviet-era political repression, and while ordinary political repression in one sense is a crime against humanity, nothing presented is actually extraordinary for the period. There is no point in hyperbola. It's especially important to have at least one english language reference in the article & if there's nothing else, I'd use it. I would not use it in preference to one of the truly first rate publishers, but if there aren't any on the subject , it will do. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Just to inform other editors regarding Nova, the survey which I do have access to and read actually attempted to determine "the market penetration of publishers in influencing policy level bureaucrats" for which Nova Publishers ranked 17/21. The bibliometric analysis conducted did not go to scholarly quality. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

GameFAQs and Gamespot shared database

I am bringing this here as there seems to be a double-standard applied to the reliability of these at WikiProject video games. Both sites allow for user submissions and both require credible evidence to be shown before any changeds will be made aside from very obvious mistakes (like a video game remake being released in 1892 when its original was in 1988). However, recent the project found that GameFAQs was unreliable inspite the evidence of this critiera. However, inspite info from GameFAQs itself that they share the same database and evidence found by other members that Gamespot uses similar practices in asking members to find evidence for data, Gamespot is still considered reliable. The argument given by Odie5533 is that one cannot confirm that GameFAQs uses all the same material. My contention is that if they say they share databases, you should assume they do, unless stated otherwise. (I'll note that Odie5533 says we shouldn't use either, but both sources have been used to support many feature articles and lists, especially Gamespot and their seems to be community conensus there that Gamespot is reliable, but not GameFAQS inspite very clear evidence from the horses mouth that they share the info.

So I'd like to get this ironed out, are they both reliable or are neither reliable for that info?陣内_Jinnai 14:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Could use some opinions here, especially as this could affect numerous feature articles and feature lists.陣内_Jinnai 19:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I tend to think we shouldn't use either, but I see that GameFAQS says "Gamers themselves publish almost all of the content on GameFAQs", so it seems more akin to a moderated forum than anything else. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I always thought that the information was a RS for stuff with editorial oversight, which would include the Gamefaqs info which originates from the shared database.LedRush (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

@Nuujinn - that is how its done at Gamespot save on a more transparent forum. Neither site takes anyone word for it; they require proof and do mention they do use their own discretion. I don't know if that meets editorial oversight, but its not like other sites that sit on their laurels when someone notes something. They also tend to have a very high accuracy rate. I'd say is 95%+, similar to any formal database.

@LedRush - yes there is some level of editorial oversight and fact-checking, but I don't know if its enough save the fact that their dates tend to speak for themselves. The shared database with Gamespot uses similar mechanism.∞陣内Jinnai 22:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

On what basis are the judgements regarding the sharing of data and editorial oversight being made? The links above seem to establish neither, really. --Nuujinn (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Patrin and Hammer to Nail

• Is Hammer to Nail a reliable source for commentary on indi movies? The site is prominent in the indi circuit. It was co-founded by Ted Hope, one of the prominent figures in the scene Its editors are notable enough to have pages in indieWire too. In particular, Michael Nordine, who wrote the review for Korkoro, also writes for LA Weekly and Slant Magazine(LA, Slant and indieWire). Another indi movie magazine, Filmmaker (magazine) quite often features Hammer to Nail reviews such as this. I was also able to find this review published in Film Independent's website, which presents the Independent Spirit Awards. It is also not so uncommon to find Hammer to Nail's comments listed in the press releases of movies along with mainstream magazines. So, can we use Hammer to Nail for indi movie articles?

• Patrin is widely recognised as a reliable source by the academics for Roma studies. With google, I was able to find lots of academic papers using Patrin as a source, such as this University of Arizona paper and this Oxford paper. Stanford university lists Patrin as a reliable source for information on ethnic conflicts. Lots of books on the Roma have used Patrin as a source. (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). United Nations High Commission for Refugees recognises this as a reliable source. There have been articles on BBC and Natgeo too, using Patrin as a source. So, is Patrin a reliable source for articles on Roma history?

Thanks _morelMW^illiam 02:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with Patrin's credentials as a source. From what I can see, Hammer to Nail has a fixed staff and editorial oversight, which would elevate above being considered a blog/fansite. That would satisfy me as to its reliability. Though, to be fair, I'm not exactly an expert so another opinion might also be useful if anyone wanted to agree with me or dispute me. GRAPPLE X 05:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Patrin definitely appears to be reliable; I see numerous citations for it in academic journals. I am not as sold on Hammer to Nail. I'd consider Michael Tully's opinions to be notable for commentary, but I don't see the website being consistently referenced by other sites. I'd say it is conditional and only use it for the opinions of Michael Tully or other notable figures, and not use the one for Korkoro or use the website for factual information. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hammer to Nail caters to indi cinema; it HAS been consistently used for the reviews in Filmmaker (magazine). I don't get it when one expects an indi movie film review site to be referenced in mainstream ones. Moreover, Michael Nordine, who wrote Korkoro's review, is a Los Angeles based film critic who writes for Slant Magazine and LA Weekly too. So, a review written by Michael Nordine in Slant can be used while the one written by him for Hammer to Nail cannot be? Am I the one who misunderstood the WP:SPS? It states "with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.". Hammer to Nail is not a user generated content site and all its writers are film critics in other magazines too. As it is a website for film criticisms, it would usually be used with attribution in the text body. So, no question about factual information.

There are a few questions here: 1) Is the source reliable for facts? 2) Is the source reliable for opinions? 3) Is the source notable? 2 generally gets a pass unless the source is proven to publish false interviews or something really low like that. I haven't really established 3 entirely, but my initial impression is that the publication itself is not notable. Thus, the opinions of the publication as expressed through its writers are not really that notable either (you could argue fringe cases I suppose). When Michael Nordine writes an article in a larger publication, he isn't just publishing his own work but he has the backing of the reputation of the entire publication. Is Michael Nordine such a notable person that all of his opinions are notable? I do not believe so. Although you don't specifically ask to consider the first question (your question was if it was a "reliable source for commentary"), I'll say that I don't think the site is reliable for factual information either. They don't have an editorial policy (do they watch the movies they review?), they don't have a list of editors, and I don't believe they have built a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy within the industry. Do they edit any of the articles they post? One would like to assume so, but based on the objective facts they do not appear to.

I am curious, is "indi" short for "independent" (which I usually see abbreviated as "indie") or is it short for "indian" or something else? --Odie5533 (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the notability of Hammer to Nail, did you miss the press release of a movie that I linked in my first post? Why would a not so notable website's comments feature in such many movies' press releases? Here is a reference to it on The Wall Street Journal. Here is a reference to a Hammer to Nail interview in Senses of Cinema. Here is a coverage of the launch party for Hammer to Nail on Variety (magazine). You could have done some googling than assuming on its editorial policy. There is an indieWire link that I provided in my first post which states that Michael Tully is indeed the editor cum head writer. Here is a Filmmaker (magazine) article stating the same, along with introducing the site to its readers and its new policy to host critical commentary from then on, with content from Hammer to Nail. I was also able to find coverage on the Hammer to Nail awards presented by the site on Filmmaker (magazine) (this), GreenCine Daily(this) and on indieWire(this). The site has received mention in multiple third party sources. That makes it notable. And it does have an editorial policy! By the way, weren't you able to infer from the site on which indi I was talking about? I was indeed referring to Independent Cinema. Thanks. _morelMW^illiam 11:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on a few of the sources you provided, it appears marginally notable but perhaps not very reputable. Movie press releases do not count for anything; advertising agencies will seek out any source imaginable to find someone that will say that the thing they are selling is worth buying. The reference from Senses of Cinema and GreenCine are trivial and do not support the notability of Hammer to Nail. The only two that support notability are the indieWire and FilmMakerMagazine articles. You stated that Hammer to Nail does have an editorial policy. I would very much like to read it. Where can I find it? Also, please WP:AGF in the future. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I did assume good faith. What about the reference on WSJ? I wouldn't buy your sermon on the advertising folks. They wouldn't find it suiting to include some nondescript source in the limited space that they have to use. The references, though trivial, acknowledge the commentary that goes on at Hammer to Nail, and well, it also means that these sources used Hammer to Nail for supporting their facts. GreenCine daily had many other articles too, quoting the comments by reviewers at Hammer to Nail. These establish the way HTN reviews are being received. You stated earlier that they have no list of editors and now are asking for its editorial policy. We can only think what an editor is supposed to do. Here is what I found on what he thinks of his role and here is a comment by a staff writer. And every article gives attribution to its writer. Moreover, Senses of Cinema has writers who also write for Hammer to Nail, and these articles introduce the writers as Hammer to Nail contributers. If it had been some non notable SPS, I don't think it would have deserved such mention. Every other reference to Michael Tully introduces him as the head writer/ founder / editor of HTN. I wouldn't regard it wise to introduce a rather notable person with a not so notable website. _morelMW^illiam 13:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I could not read the WSJ reference. I concede that the site is weakly notable, but I am still concerned that it is not reliable. I can not determine that it has a history of fact-checking and accuracy. You stated earlier, "And it does have an editorial policy!", but now you're saying that the policy maintains a more figurative existence. I recommend not using the site for factual information, and I would personally not use the site for reviews except for ones written by Michael Tully. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

While you might personally choose to not use HTN for reviews, it has other takers such as WSJ. Here is the part which refers to HTN : " Writing on the Hammer to Nail film blog in 2009, "Tiny Furniture" director Lena Dunham—who was born 16 years after "David Holzman" was produced—speculated that the slyly self-conscious conceit presaged a "future of webcams, reality TV and Slacker culture." GreenCine Daily too has quoted the comments by HTN writers. It has coverage in multiple third party sources such as Filmmaker, indieWire and WSJ. How would that make it 'weakly notable' as per WP policies? Or is it an another personal comment? Regarding the editorial policy, do you expect to find something like 'I sweep through my staff writers' criticisms. So, I am the head writer/ editor' from Tully? _morelMW^illiam 07:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What I would expect for a site to really prove notability is a sizable review or analysis of the site published by a reliable source. They are quoting comments here and there. Even the quotes some of the sites make are just "Michael Tully writes" and then the citation says that it was written in the Hammer to Nail. The WSJ reference again uses the author's reputation in addition to stating where the comments were written. That is why I said it is weakly notable, and I stand by my assessment. Here is the New York Times's editorial policy. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In regard to Is the source notable?, do we require that sources be notable? Most of the sources we use are not notable, or are written by non-notable people. In regard to Hammer to Nail, I don't think it is inherently reliable, as it seems like a group blog, but I think it might be used with care for non-controversial statements such as plot summaries, much in the limited way we allow use of IMDB. I would add that any articles there posted by recognized experts should be considered reliable per WP:SPS, which says Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. So if an article is written by someone with a history of publications in magazines and journals, I think that would be considered reliable. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In that case, the writer of the article that has been used for Korkoro, who also writes for Slant Magazine, Reverse Shot, LA Weekly and Not Coming to a Theatre Near You, becomes eligible to have his commentary used in Wikipedia. Another point to be noted is that all the writers at HTN are either notable film makers or film critics who also write for other publications. _morelMW^illiam 12:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In regards to Nuujinn's comments: I would not say most sources used on Wikipedia are not notable, but I'd agree that some are not notable (how can one maintain a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy without having any reputation to speak of?). The question I posed is to help determine whether or not the commentary of a publication is useful for inclusion in Wikipedia. I do not believe the comments of a non-notable publication are, well, notable for inclusion as comments of anything. However, if the source is determined to be reliable, then perhaps the comments are not useful but the facts are. Others might not agree with my assessment here, but I think the question at least helps to determine what commentaries are useful for inclusion because commentaries from unreliable sources are sometimes still useful as opinions. I hope this makes sense. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In regards to MorelMWilliam's comments: In the article, Korkoro, it states "Hammer to Nail wrote that [...]". If you are basing the inclusion of the comments on the author's reputation and not on the publication's reputation, I think you should change it to "Michael Nordine wrote that [...]" or at least include his name. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the latter makes good sense. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Michael Nordine is now given the attribution for HTN statements in Korkoro. But the question now rests on HTN's notability. With coverage in multiple third party sources, which includes full featured articles in Filmmaker and indieWire and references to criticism published in HTN in multiple other sources, why isn't it notable? Thanks for the NYT editorial policy link. Could you fetch LA Weekly's too for me? Also, for a film criticism site isn't it common to have disclaimers that free the editors from holding responsibility for the authors' statements published? _morelMW^illiam 06:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"Could you fetch LA Weekly's too for me?". Your words are insulting; I am not your dog. Let me know when you wish to continue actual discussion. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Applying WP:MEDSCI to Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence

An editor who joined a talk page discussion through a request for a third opinion has suggested that the reliable sourcing guidelines for medical articles is appropriate for Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (see talk page discussion here: [18]). In particular, the editor is suggesting that WP:RSMED#Use_up-to-date_evidence is applicable. That guideline states: "Here are some rules of thumb for keeping an article up-to-date, while maintaining the more-important goal of reliability. These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." The subject area of Jewish IQ is generally a sparsely studied one with significant papers on the topic being published at a rate of 1-3 per decade.

It seems to me that this is not an appropriate use of WP:RSMED. Do others agree? aprock (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As the 3O respondent, can I encourage editors who wish to comment to do so at the article talk page rather than here. MEDRS has been talked about there (Aprock and I disagree about its application) but it is not really a material issue in terms of any content dispute. Additional contributors to discussions about the article would be welcome, though. --FormerIP (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the perfect place for getting outside feedback on the scope of WP:RSMED, especially since the general answer affects many articles besides just this one. Likewise, since this matter is very tangentially related to the actual content of the article, having the discussion on the appropriate noticeboard makes sense. aprock (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's a fair point that it is tangential to the article talk page. But, since there is no real content issue, maybe posting at WP:RFC/POLICY would be a better bet than here if you really want the issue to be discussed. --FormerIP (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems perfectly applicable, especially the part about "need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made". If I may be so bold, I suggest writing something like "modern science doesn't study ethnic intelligence differences that much any more, since that smacks of racism, but here is what people wrote in the bad old days". I suspect a reliable source or twelve may be found for that. --GRuban (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify this please. When you say "this is what people wrote in the old days", how should we apply this to the issue of sourcing? In particular, how do we determine what the "old days" are? aprock (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was speaking colloquially and imprecisely. The answer to your original question is just my first sentence: yes, WP:RSMED does seem to apply, and even have a specific exception for this case. The rest was an encouragement to find sources that would say that the study of the correlation of intelligence to ethnicity should be viewed as historical, rather than an active area of modern study, then write what those sources say. --GRuban (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not really sure what you're suggesting here. Are you saying that any source older than 5 years be considered historic (per WP:RSMED#Use_up-to-date_evidence)? If that's the case, then I take that you're suggesting that the usual sourcing guidelines at WP:RS apply for those sources, not the WP:RSMED up to date guidelines. aprock (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see the logic of applying WP:RSMED here in any case. How exactly is the claimed linkage between IQ and ethnicity a medical issue? If the link is genuine (a big 'if'), then possibly there is a genetic element to it - but 'genetic' doesn't equate to 'medical'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the article be written from a historical point of view, rather than one of current study. The correlation of race and ethnicity to intelligence was studied much more enthusiastically in the 1920s than today, and focusing on just studies of the last 5 years is inappropriate to the subject. --GRuban (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Writing it from a historical context implies that WP:MEDSCI doesn't apply. Likewise, it appears that you agree that WP:RS is more appropriate than WP:RSMED sourcing guidelines. Is that correct? aprock (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Opinions on "ArchDaily" as a RS

Hi folks. I'm working on an article for the new library in Surrey, British Columbia and I came across an article on the above site that has a lot of good info. Was hoping to get some input on "ArchDaily" before I used it, perhaps someone is familiar. Article: [19] About page: [20] Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 22:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not a frequent reader but so far found to be reliable. Is however always a good idea to cross-check the facts with other sources you can find, and see if there are any inconsistencies. --Elekhh (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'd say no. I don't really see other reliable sources referencing ArchDaily despite the website's enormous amount of content. Give how much content they have and the fact that no one else is drawing on them as a reliable source, I don't think Wikipedia should use them as a reliable source either. They also don't include a proper byline in the article you link to: "Amber P." --Odie5533 (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The byline did worry me a bit. But there is some claim of editorial control on the about page. The Interior (Talk) 09:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is essentially the same as a press release issued by the architects http://surreycitycentrelibrary.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/bing-thom-press-release-const-begins-070610.pdf but unless there's anything really contentious here, I think that release would be okay as a self-published source speaking of itself, per WP:SPS. Barnabypage (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer the primary source, depending on what is being discussed. But if the primary source says something like "this is the best library in the world", I would prefer a secondary source for something like that. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Har har, I'll try to avoid using phrasing like that:) Thanks for finding the original, Barnaby. While we're all here, I've found an article at fastcodesign.com, which is apparently a offshoot of Fast Company (magazine), which I'd like to use to cite Bing Thom's social media effort during the design phase. The layout is a bit bloggish, but at least we have an identified author. Article: [21] The Interior (Talk) 16:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Fast Company is certainly a RS so I would think fastcodesign.com is fine, per WP:NEWSBLOG if not WP:NEWSORG itself. Barnabypage (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

VentureBeat

One editor claimed to me that VentureBeat, though it describes itself as a blog, qualifies more as a "news blog". Specifically, the question is whether it is okay as a reliable source for reviewing the quality of another website (see this edit, where I self-reverted my removal of the source). I found a discussion in the RSN archives from March 2011 that indicated that it may be reliable in some cases. Any opinions? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is ok because the site has an editorial board and the author is a journalist. Zero^talk 08:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Tarbut V' Torah

Hi, I just restored an edit of a critisim section regarding a California Jewish day school. The section sources to the series of articles on the blog of a rabbi in that community. As a prominent community leader I think that Fisher's statements regarding the school are notable but I'm unsure of the use of his blog as the source. What are thoughts here? Joe407 (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I just removed it - you shouldn't add it and then come here, first get clarification for the addition/blog external as reliable - the content was removed with the edit summary of - "Removed defamatory criticism, which did not maintain a "neutral, unbiased POV" - the content this query is about is below. I note that the D. S. Wyman institute have Dov Fischer as on their "academic council", one of fifty three names on that list, not as in the desired addition, the Assistant director.Off2riorob (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Howdy, I have no beef with the school at hand. The section has been there for a while and the account that removed it looked like an account associated with the school (same name, single edit). As such, I first restored the edit (what had been the consensus) and then considered if the section should be removed under RS grounds. The subject of an article removing critical statements is a common problem and that's why it caught my eye. If the conclusion is that Fischer's statements should not be included, that's fine, but I think the section should remain in place until a better reason for removal than the institution saying "We don't like it" is found. A question that someone familiar with the community in question might be able to answer is who is Fischer and how prominent a persona is he? Joe407 (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

In July 2010 Rabbi Dov Fischer, in his role as Assistant Director of the David Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies , published an extensive analysis criticizing the school's academic program. In his analysis, Fischer continued expressing the deep dismay he published in 2008 regarding the school's "institutional failure to achieve the results charted at leaner, more modestly funded Jewish Day Schools operated throughout America under Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox auspices." Fischer's critique criticized the school's ongoing track record, claiming that it does not meet its mission as a community Jewish Day School because of failures in inculcating grade-appropriate Hebrew reading-and-writing skills, meaningful student acquaintance with the Jewish prayer book, and a foundational knowledge in Chumash and Bible studies.

• - http://www.rabbidov.com
• - http://rabbidov.com/TVTfailure.htm/TVT%20-%20Tarbut%20v'Torah%20and%20the%20Crisis%20of%20Failure.htm
• - http://ravfischer.blogspot.com/2008/09/when-i-was-ordained-in-march-1981-with.html

This is self-published and not a reliable source for information about the quality of education offered by the school. --FormerIP (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

But if it's the author's blog then it's certainly a reliable source for his opinion. ElKevbo (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Only if he were "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", per WP:SPS. --FormerIP (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

But "self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." When it comes to personal opinions and judgments, "reliability" is a pretty low bar. (Note that I distinguish "personal opinions and judgments" from "professional judgments and opinions" for which the bar is higher for obvious reasons.) The real issue, as Arxiloxos gets at below, is whether the opinion is notable. If the opinion isn't notable or expert then it doesn't matter if it's reliable. ElKevbo (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well it isn't notable, but it also isn't reliable. "Information about themselves" does not include their opinions about educational establishments (i.e. per the guideline "it does not involve claims about third parties"). Either way, it seems like we have our answer. --FormerIP (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

How is "I think that..." a claim about a third party? And how can you assert with a straight face that an individual's blog is not a reliable source for that person's opinion? Barring weird circumstances - hacking, mental illness, compulsive lying, etc. - a personal blog is a de facto reliable source for a person's opinion. ElKevbo (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• I can't find any evidence that Fischer's critique of the school has been covered by third party media such as The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles or by news organizations in Orange County. As such, either based on WP:RS or on WP:WEIGHT, it doesn't seem to me that it merits inclusion in the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless a blog is formally linked to one's employ, it's generally polemical in nature; and there are instances where "personal" blogs are actually written by teams of employed pundits. That said, if the blog is the only instance of mention of something by someone and there's no wider press coverage of what that someone said, then WP:WEIGHT probably applies, not to mention claims regarding third parties which have not undergone formal review. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Conversation not done above

Is there some reason why, after asking an initial question or starting a discussion on this board, some editors just disappear, and follow-up questions don't get answered before the discussion is shuffled off to the archives? Can someone please respond to my question from September 7 above? The discussion is not closed, and it's been two weeks. Nightscream (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You actually did get an answer, but I don't think you understood it. I'll answer above. --GRuban (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

NYT blogs-Krugman specifically

Going by Wikipedia:NEWSBLOG, blogs can be varying in their reliability. How should this apply to New York Times blogs? It's coming up for me now with Paul Krugman's blog. Certainly, most of his blog posts should be considered opinion pieces, and referenced as such if they're used at all. But, are they under the editorial control of the NYT, or does the NYT just provide the platform that Krugman uses? I don't see an easy way to identify that on the blog page itself. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

All NYT blogs have the same fact checking and editorial control as the regular newspaper. They are RS, but as always opinion should never be stated as fact in Wikipedia. Brmull (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where NYT states this explicitly but I verified it personally through correspondence with Times reporter/blogger David M. Herszenhorn. Brmull (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless I get a disagreement, I'll have to go with that. Thanks. (Still kinda hard to believe, though. The blogs can be so bloggy.) CRETOG8(t/c) 22:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

David Shulman

This book, is written by David Dean Shulman who is an academic and the book is published by an academic press. But it is written as a first person memoir, not an academic work with citations and footnotes, and is not in Shulman's academic area of expertise. Can it be used unattributed for statements of fact? The relevant article is Ezra Nawi. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not if this is a RS (it is) but that even RS can be wrong. If someone presents another RS that has different factual information then both should be included, unless it can be demonstrated through primary sources that one of the RS is wrong. If this is the sole source for factual information that is disputed, then it should be attributed. Brmull (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

'Can it be used for statements of fact?'

The contested text reads:

According to Shulman, Palestinians at Um al-Kheir, which lies a few meters from rows of red-roofed settler villas at Carmel, require building permits for any house construction or extensions to their tents or shacks. Such permits are almost impossible to obtain since on average, in the West Bank area administered by Israel, Area C, only one is released per month by the Israeli Civil Administration for the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian residents there.

One per month = 12. The author is writing in 2007. This is what Amnesty International reported a year later.Israeli NGO, Bimkom, calculated in 2008 that only 13 building permits were issued to Palestinians in the West Bank per year.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that Shulman uses 'on average', the official datum from Israeli government statistics cited by the Israeli NGO corresponds with the figure cited by Shulman. Therefore, Shulman's figure is a fact, and I don't even know why 'According to Shulman', which I've conceded, should be there.Nishidani (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

But the plaintiff has phrased the issue more broadly, asking if anything that is factual in Shulman can be cited as factual because he is writing a' memoir'. I'll recapulate the 'facts' of Shulman's reliability as an expert source for the area.

In short, we can use articles from Haaretz, Ynet and theNew York Times, written by journalists, to document a page on an activist most of them meet once or twice for an interview, if ever, whereas if we have a 'memoir', actually pages from his diary (an important distinction, since memoirs may suffer from the fragility of memory: diaries are written day by day immediately in the aftermath of events, dealing with Ezra Nawi, stretching over several years, meticulously dated, and written by (a) a scholar with over a dozen major publications to his name (b) a world-ranking expert on Indian and, 'above all, in the relevant Middle Eastern languages (he graduated in Farsi, is fluent in Hebrew and Arabic) unlike most journalists covering the Middle East, (c) who has published studies on Islam (Tamil Islam), witness his article, 'Muslim Popular Literature in Tamil: The Tamimaṉcāri Mālai,' in ed. Y. Friedmann (ed) Islam in Asia, , vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984); (d) who has a thorough grounding in, and espouses, Gandhian pacificism, and (e) a decade of work, anthropological and activist, among the Bedouin people of the South Hebron Hills (f) whose memoir, here contested as a RS, was published by the peer-reviewing University of Chicago Press, to acclaim, with Emily Bazelon evaluating it as one of the best books of the year (2007), A. B. Yehoshua and Avishai Margalit, world-class Israeli intellectuals appraising it in glowing terms, cannot be used to document what the book is specifically written about!!!!!!

Why because, technically, it is a 'memoir'. What's that mean? It means that Shulman presents, exactly as the many journalists we use on the article whose RS status is not under challenge, a book of his direct, first-hand experiences as activist and witness to the events desribed.

The implication here is, that the taxonomic classification of a book as 'memoir', which lacks footnotes, downgrades a first-class documentary testament by a world-ranking academic with direct knowledge and academic background in what he describes, beneath the level of newspaper pieces written by journalists who have had a visit or two to the area, often lack knowledge of the relevant languages being spoken by the participants, and who never 'footnote' their articles.

This ia a no-brainer. And the question should never have been raised here, where borderline issues of reliable sourcing from websites, blogs or selfpublished books are mostly evaluated.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani seems correct based on the information presented above. Seems to have covered all angles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The source is used in 5 different places in the article. But my question is broader. Does the fact this book is written by an academic make it automatically a reliable source for statements of fact? It is obviously not an academic work. Shulman is not a journalist. The fact he is writing as an activist is not under dispute. So are books written by activists who happen to be academics reliable sources for things other than their opinion? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page. If Shulman says 'the earth is flat', I'll give it attribution. If he says it is round, or makes a comment that is factual, banal, obvious, that any (Israeli) newspaper (right or left) reader knows, because these things are frequently reported as facts on the ground, then one shouldn't supply attribution. Academics, particularly of his stature, don't make a career or get a MacArthur fellowship or a prestigious academic chair, by playing fast and loose with the facts. He's not an activist, by the way, but a pacifist, i.e., he volunteers to get beaten up and arrested to shield hardscrabble farmers as they try to get their sparse subsistence crops in, and none of his writing shows enmity or resentment for the 'fact'. When one is arrested, or harassed or beaten up, and drily describes the incident, where several other eminent Israelis and police etc., are present, it is not an 'opinion'. If he did that the camera work, or the police reports, readily available to contrary minded journalists, would have the deception unmasked. The incident he quotes is referred to by three different sources, and they all say the same thing. You're labouring the point. Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Does the fact that the book is written by an academic make it automatically a reliable source for statements of fact? If Shulman were not an academic, just a crazy activist, the book would still be a RS for statements of fact because of the publisher's reputation. Historians will consider the author's biases in deciding how much weight to give his account, but we can only assume that it is true unless it is contradicted by other RS/PS, or disputed as uncorroborated (in which case inline attribution is appropriate). Brmull (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Some points that haven't been mentioned yet, but would seem to be relevant. This is a BLP, so sourcing should be impeccable. We aren't really looking for academic sources in a BLP, though. Independent sources are the best, and some are essential to establish notability, even though sources closely linked to the subject are fine for non-controversial information. The source mentioned appears to be reportage, and reportage of the highest quality, because it is published by an academic publisher, where peer review, or at the least fact-checking, is in place. I don't think we spell out clearly enough the status of reportage. We say that news sources are of high quality, although we know that much of the news comes through the news agencies. We require op-eds to be attributed. Reportage, in many cases, is better than news. To cut a long story short, this source is fine for a BLP. Be careful not to coat-rack, i.e. stick to the facts of what the subject has done or thinks, and keep down to a minimum description of what is going on in Israel-Palestine, even though it is the backdrop to the subject's activities. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I used over 40 sources other than Shulman. Ethan Bronner' article in the New York Times, certainly neither Bronner nor the NYTs shares Shulman's values or 'activism'-say exactly what Shulman says, and I have used Bronner as much as Shulman. They all report the same incidents. There is no coat-racking, the only racking is the attempt to undercut the use of the best source we have. The person's biography is only about what he does, in Palestine. I know it is taboo in some quarters to report the facts, but not on wikipedia. Why Shulman is held hostage to 'concerns' is a mystery, but for the fact that he deals in facts in an area that gets mst people, not me, nervous.Nishidani (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Zee News

This link [22] from Zee News, a notable Indian channel says that Bodyguard is the second highest grossing Indian film. As per general agreement, the Indian film industry is divided into the Bollywood (North) and the Southern film industry (though there are many more) and the majority of the sources say that the top three highest grossing films are Enthiran ($60-90 million), 3 Idiots ($70 million) and Dasavathaaram ($55 million), out of which Enthiran and Dasavathaaram are south Indian films. Then Bodyguard, with a gross of $52 million must be naturally fourth. Zee News is credible, I agree, but no source is 100% perfect and this is a mistake they have made. It should state that "Bodyguard is the second highest grossing Bollywood film" and not the second highest grossing Indian film. I'll try contacting the site and ask them to change it, but for now this source is not reliable. I tried changing the sentence, but User:Scieberking doesn't seem to accept the statement. Accept with good faith, but please accept the facts and get it right. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 12:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I only said Zee News, by all means, is a reliable source. And of course I realize that there are several film industries in India, including Hindi, Tamil, Telugu etc. I've changed it to "Bollywood's second", instead of "India's second", which was not even my edit, addition or selection of words anyway. Just misleading and an unfortunate attempt. Scieberking (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Zee News's reliability but if you are skeptical you can either not include it at all in the article (provided no other editor wants it included) or you can include it but state that, "According to Zee News, Bodyguard is the second highest grossing Indian film." Finding another source would be great, even one that just says "the top grossing indian films are..." Also note that WP:V states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Personally, I'd include the statement but also state in the prose that Zee News said it. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Zee News as per my view is a reliable source, but no idea about their info on film articles. Karthik Nadar (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Forgetomori.com

The above site was used as a source on the article Time travel urban legends Particularly relating to the section Modern man at 1941 bridge opening however it has recently been removed on the basis that the site is Self Published. Whilst the site appears self published, it is regularly cited as an expert source in the field of pseudo science and a quick google reveals that magazines and journals on both sides of the Pseudo Science debate cite the site regularly. More importantly, Knowyourmeme states that the forgetomori article was an important article both in bringing the legend to a wider audience (such as the specialist press), and Fortean Times (normally regarded as an RS, but used with care) not only cites forgetomori but repeats the conclusions that forgetomori draws (issue 263, May 2010, "Future Imperfect", Bob Rickard). Whilst I could use FT as a *reliable* source, here it is only tertiary with Forgetomori being the secondary source and carrying out a far more detailed investigation. Furthermore a published research paper into this case (Harkness, D., et al., The Mystery of the "1940s Time Traveller": The Changing Face of Online Brand Monitoring. In J. Trant and D. Bearman [eds]. Museums and the Web 2011: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Published March 31, 2011. Consulted March 31, 2011.) specifically cites Forgetomori as authoritative about the subject in question. From this I would consider that the site is considered expert per the allowances of the self published sources section of Verifiability. The source is only being used to reference the fact that the items regarded as anachronistic in the case did actually exist at the time, it does this by citing primary sources from the period which we cannot directly use without engaging in original research and we repeat no hard (fringe or otherwise) conclusions about the case from forgetomori. The removing editor has replaced the source with {{fact|date=September 2011}} templates which do little to improve the article or benefit the project in comparison to use of this source, yet he refuses to allow the source in on Self Published grounds - some independent consideration of this source and it's usage would be helpful. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Further to Above: Link to Article Source [23] The source was used to support the following statements:

Further research suggests that the modern appearance of the man may not have been so modern. The style of sunglasses first appeared in the 1920s, and in fact Barbara Stanwyck can be seen wearing a similar pair in the film Double Indemnity three years later. On first glance the man is taken by many to be wearing a modern printed T-shirt, but on closer inspection it seems to be a sweater with a sewn-on emblem, the kind of clothing often worn by sports teams of the period. The remainder of his clothing would appear to have been available at the time, though his clothes are far more casual than those worn by the other individuals in the photograph.

and

Debate centers on whether the image genuinely shows a time traveler, has been photomanipulated, or is simply being mistaken as anachronistic.

Discussion on a number of sources related to this legend including the source above can be found at [Talk:Time travel urban legends#Hipster Time traveller story] Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello? Any thoughts on this from third parties appreciated. I suppose we could go with this on an IAR basis. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

AllRovi

The article List of avant-garde films of the 1990s uses the website http://www.allrovi.com/ as its only source. Is this site considered reliable for determining film genres? In particular, is it a reliable enough source to justify calling Delicatessen a "surrealist film"? Is it a reliable source for defining what is and is not an avant-garde film? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Rovi appears to have taken over the All Media Guide, which included AllMovie and AllMusic. I'm not sure about AllMovie, but AllMusic has been considered RS for music articles. The Interior (Talk) 02:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion suggests that the Film Project considers it RS for details like release dates, runtimes, etc. In regards to genres, I'm not sure. I've actually never seen "Delicatessen", you think Rovi is way off base here? The Interior (Talk) 02:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think AllRovi, like AllMovie before it, is way off base when it comes to genres for a lot of films. I will take this up with the folks at the Film Project. Thanks! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Reference to RSA debate in article on The Spirit Level

Participants in the Spirit Level mediation would like an opinion from RSN on the inclusion of a citation about a debate concerning the book The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better held by the Royal Society of Arts (RSA). Participants in the mediation have been unable to agree on whether or not to include a citation about this debate. A third opinion was requested, but two of the three participants disagree with the 3O. As mediator, I consider that a ruling from RSN would be helpful in resolving the dispute.

1. The source in question, including link: Royal Society of Arts (22 Jul 2010) RSA Debates the Spirit Level.
2. The article in which it is being used: The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better
3. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting:

In July 2010, a debate hosted by the RSA (Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce), took place between Christopher Snowdon, Peter Saunders, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, and was subsequently uploaded to the internet.

4. Links to relevant talk page discussion:

• Information about the debate was added to the article on 30 June 2011 [24]
• There has been considerable discussion about adding a link to the RSA debate on the article talk page [25]
• A third opinion was requested and provided on 26 June 2011 [26]
• The mediation began on 7 September 2011 [27]
• The objection to the third opinion, that neither WP:Notability nor multiple sources are relevant to this addition, was summarized by one of the participants [28]
• The counter argument, that there is no reliable third party source to establish notability (WP:V#notability) is summarized by another participant [29]

All three participants in the mediation have signed their agreement with the above request to RSN and will take a considered opinion from RSN seriously. [30] We ask that any reference by RSN to "notability" be supported by directly citing the relevant wording in policy. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sunray (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for filling out the template properly, but it doesn't appear as if anyone is questioning the reliability of this source. Instead, the debate seems to be centered on:

1. Weight - whether the content belongs in the article. Are secondary sources required to establish weight?
2. Value - Does this content actually provide the reader with any useful information?

Both issues are debatable and I don't think there are any easy answers. First, let me clarify one point: WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTABILITY are two different policies. Editors frequently confuse the two. In fact, it happens so often, I usually just ignore it and focus on the substance of what an editor is trying to say. But since it seems to be a point of contention in the debate and editors are quoting from policy verbatim, I'll spell out the difference:

1. WP:NOTABILITY applies to an article's existence. Should an article be deleted or not?
2. WP:WEIGHT applies to content inside an article. The article exists, but does this content belong in it?

So, to address the issue of weight, the central question is whether secondary sources are required to establish weight. Some editors insist that primary sources also be covered by secondary sources to establish weight. Some don't. In my own editing, when an editor wants a secondary source, I try to honor that request. Unfortunately, the wording of WP:WEIGHT doesn't specifically state "secondary" but I think that meets the spirit of what that policy is trying to say. (Just so this isn't taken out of context, that doesn't mean primary sources should never be used. I can and do cite primary sources, but for non-contentious content.)

The second issue is about value. Does the reader gain any useful information from this content? I'm sympathetic to the argument made by Sunray that simply saying "The RSA held a debate" doesn't really tell the reader anything informative. Somedifferentstuff does a nice job explaining why they think the content is important, and if the content actually contained this analysis, it might be a different story. But it doesn't. In order to include this analysis, we would need a secondary source to do it for us. That said, I don't think that it doesn't necessarily hurt the article to keep it. It's not as if the article is too long and content needs to be trimmed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, A Quest For Knowledge, for your thoughtful response. I appreciated your mention of WP:WEIGHT as the definitive policy in determining whether content should, or should not, be included in articles. When the others have had a look at your response, there may be some follow-up questions. Would you be willing to entertain such? Sunray (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

[Cross posted from RfM the Spirit Level (book)] Would User:A Quest For Knowledge or another contributor like to comment further on whether the source is primary or secondary a) in general for this article, b) for the proposed sentence?

Can they say any more about the implication of WP:WEIGHT? My interpretation is that since WP:WEIGHT is a section in WP:NPOV, and since its purpose is to ensure that small-minority views aren't unduly represented in articles, and since it is certain that RSA doesn't represent a small-minority view, then we do not have to worry about violating WP:WEIGHT. Do they agree with that? (If they don't have any more to add, and if we don't have consensus in this mediation, we might take that to the NPOV noticeboard.)

Is this summary by the RSA reliable as a summary of how the book was received?

Much broader, and they may not have much to say without more detail, are they able to comment on whether, in principle, statements made by participants in the debate are reliable sources for the views of the book's authors or critics? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I want to discuss Value, which there is no applicable WP policy on. My assumption is that this is probably intentional. When you look at the article as a whole, you see this:

Peter Saunders, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Sussex University, published a report for the think tank Policy Exchange questioning the statistics in The Spirit Level. He claimed that only one of the correlations in the book—that between infant mortality and income inequality—stood up to scrutiny, and that the rest were either false or ambiguous.[24] Wilkinson and Pickett published a response defending each of the claims in the book and accusing Saunders in turn of flawed methodology.[7]

Christopher Snowdon, an independent researcher and adjunct scholar at the Democracy Institute,[25][26] published a book largely devoted to a critique of The Spirit Level, entitled, The Spirit Level Delusion: Fact-checking the Left's New Theory of Everything.[27] One of its central claims is that Wilkinson excludes certain countries from his data without justification, such as South Korea and the Czech Republic. It also argues that Wilkinson and Pickett falsely claim the existence of a scientific consensus when much of the literature disagrees with their findings. Wilkinson and Pickett released a response to questions from Snowdon[28] and responded to similar criticisms in the Wall Street Journal.[22] Snowdon has in turn responded to their criticisms on his blog.[29]

This establishes context for two of the people mentioned in the proposed addition. If someone reads the article, they'll see the two sections cited above, and then learn that a debate was held featuring these two guys along with both of the book's authors, in an event that was videotaped and subsequently uploaded to the internet. The question I have regarding this is: How does this content not provide useful information to the reader? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC) ("videotaped" would need to be added to the material.) Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

And my question is: How does it provide useful information to the reader? What is the supposed useful information in this? What do they learn? You talk about context, what context?

I also interpreted WP:Weight as only concerning NPOV. To me it would make sense to interpret it so that secondary sources are needed about these kinds of statements that are in themselves neutral. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith:

• It would be considered a primary source.
• Determining WP:WEIGHT is a judgement call and editors editing in good faith can reasonably disagree. There isn't necessarily a right answer or a wrong answer, but simply a disagreement of opinion.
• At one point, WP:NPOV said that WP:WEIGHT applied not just to points of view, but to other content as well. But I can't seem to find this part in WP:NPOV. I'm not sure if this change was intentional or not. (I don't recall having a discussion about this, but it's hard to keep up with all the different discussions on Wikipedia.)
• Although it might be an accurate summary, no, it's not a reliable source for how the book was received. We should use secondary sources which are independent of the topic.
• Yes, statements made by participants in the debate are reliable sources for the views of the book's authors or critics. But again, we should try to avoid too much reliance on primary sources and instead try to use secondary sources to make this determination.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure any of this is particularly helpful. Like I said, there are no easy answers and this is a judgement call. I think that the current article works both with and without this content. I think that somebody proposed that we simply have an external link to the debate. This seems like a very reasonable compromise. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you once again. This is helpful. I think we can resume the mediation discussion and hopefully wrap this up now. Sunray (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It's extremely helpful, as it supports what most external opinions has been saying all along. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Mohammad Ala promotional entry

User MehranVB and user In_fact, have been trying to add questionable and self-published sources to Mohammad Ala entry, which is also nominated for deletion. Please remind them that websites such as persiangulfstudies.com and www.stiltij.nl are not reliable sources. One is a shady "martial arts" / "meditation" site and the other is a questionable, self-published site. Thanks. -- Marmoulak (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

See WP:DISPUTE. That being said, I see no reason to believe that either is a reliable source and until they can be determined to be reliable, neither should be used anywhere on Wikipedia (not in refs or external links). --Odie5533 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Skip Hollandsworth

I am seeking clarification re: a BLP. A google search of "Skip Hollandsworth" resulted in 8,940 results, one of which is this result: http://www.elliscountyobserver.com/2011/08/22/texas-monthly-editor-skip-hollandsworth-pleads-guilty-to-dwi-receives-probation/

The editor of the Ellis County Observer (above) states that "this was actually Brandon P. Reed and The Daily Phalanx‘ story originally."

The article above provides this link http://www.dallascounty.org/criminalBackgroundSearch/ which when the name Hollandsworth is entered leads to a public record providing details about this person's DWI-2nd guility plea.

The individual co-wrote the upcoming Jack Black, Matt McConahay (sp?) film "Bernie," and won the National Magazine Award, the most prestigious award in magazine journalism in 2010.

Having established that he is a national celebrity, I verified the information about the DWI-2nd, not in an effort to do original research, but to verify the public information pubished in the Ellis County Observer.

Is this a violation of BLP? If so, my apologies. My opinion is that if the information is published elsewhere and then verified by an editor, then this is not a violation of the BLP policy. But I am not as knowledgeable about the issues.

Thank you.

Remember to sign your comments on discussion pages!! It is original research to go look it up yourself. Remember, Wikipedia deals with verifiability, not truth. Only use information from reliable secondary sources as references for articles, not the primary background searches you've performed yourself. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Berezovsky article

Editors are removing reliably sourced information from the Boris Berezovsky article, and on the talk page seem to indicate that it is a WP:BLP violation. Can uninvolved editors take a look at Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)#Use_of_libel_tourism.2Fterrorism and opine over there. There appears to be gaming going on to keep relevant information out of an article. Appreciate any input on the talk page. Thanks, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 20:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue appears to be one related to whether material not directly related to the person should be in his BLP - "Libel tourism" might be a separate article at some point, and the material is clearly relevant to such an article. The issue, moreover, is not one of "reliable sources" but whether an article saying that a libel suit (won by the person) should be deprecated as being won due to something somehow improper in choosing a venue. The clear consensus of editors at the page, moreover, runs contrary to Russavia's assertions, now made on a great many noticeboards. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Percentage of Christians in Egypt

There is a source cited that puts the percentage of Christians in Egypt at 18%, which contradicts numerous other sources which puts it at a maximum of 10%.

From the Egypt article:

There is a significant Christian minority in Egypt, who make up between 5% and 18%[110][111] of the population.

The source cited: David B. Barret, ed. World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Study of Churches and Religions in the Modern World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 2740.

I tried to search for it, but all i could find is that apparently the World Christian Encyclopedia does not even contain 2740 pages.

Can anyone help?

If numerous updated sources contradict the 30 year old number, then just exclude it. Jesanj (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say people want to know the ~10% number, (with maybe a slight dose of the variablity given) but not the dramatic (fringe) range we could cherry-pick. Jesanj (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.Darkjudah (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I would agree to exclude it because the source is 30 years old, you were unable to verify it, and also because encyclopedias (as tertiary sources) should be avoided in the first place, whenever possible. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. I notice that our page on the World Christian Encyclopedia says (with a citation) that it "consistently gave a higher estimate for percent Christian in comparison to other cross-national data sets". Andrew Dalby 13:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Nazism

There is currently a discussion on the Nazism talk page in were I am being told the following sources are A - No good. Or B - I am quoting out of context. Are the following sources reliable? And am I correct in my quotes?

• The rise of the Nazis Manchester University Press (2002) By Conan Fischer pp54 says "This form of socialism could appeal across class barriers with far greater ease than marxist socialism" I am told that I am incorrect in saying this means the Nazi`s practiced a form of socialism.
• Legal symbolism: on law, time and European identity Ashgate (2007) By Jiří Přibáň pp154 says "The regimes shared many common attributes such as an extreme form of socialist ideology" and apparently this source is of no use as it is about law and not politics. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

They are both solid academic publishers and the two authors are both affiliated with very reputable universities, so although I haven't actually looked at the books, on the surface of it I'd say they are absolutely RS.

On the Fischer quote: assuming the phrase "this form of socialism" refers back to a mention of Nazism in an earlier sentence then, yes, it seems to me to follow that your atatement is correct.

On the Priban quote, yes, the author is a professor of law and the title of the book suggests it is about law rather than politics. I personally think a professor of law would have a pretty good grasp of political history in his chosen period of legal history too. But you're never going to win that argument with some editors who believe that academic disciplines exist in absolutely distinct silos, I'm afraid. Barnabypage (talk)

"I haven't actually looked at the books": then you cannot possibly claim that a quotation isn't taken out of context. And what you "personally think" about what a professor of law's understanding of political history is beside the point. On a subject like this, there is quite enough evidence from reputable mainstream historians on the question, and a couple of cherry-picked quotes to the contrary are of little relevance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, I don't have (and didn't express) a view on whether the quotes are taken out of their context or not. The question posed was whether the sources meet our reliable-source standards, and it seems to me that they do by virtue of both authorship and publishers.

Obviously, sources that are reliable can still be misused, and although the original questioner's proposed statement does seem to follow logically on from his quote from Fischer, if the quote is being taken out of context or misleadingly edited or something like that, certainly the editors working on the article are right to question its use.

On what I "personally think" - actually, I'd argue it's not beside the point at all; judging source reliability is not an exact science and it involves an element of judgement. However, having said that, I've looked at the two authors a little more and it seems to me that while Fischer has written extensively on this very subject, it's perhaps tangential to Priban's research interests.

For clarity, I'm not arguing that Priban is necessarily wrong (or right), just that Fischer is the better source on this particular topic. So perhaps focus the discussion on him and on whether or not that passage really means what the questioner says it does? Barnabypage (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Until you've read Fisher's book, you are in no position to say anything about the context, or what the passage 'really means'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't comment on the context, having no access to it (other than to acknowledge that phrases can be taken out of context), and certainly didn't comment on what it 'really means' (on which I have no view, not having read the book). Barnabypage (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've not got the book either, but Google books found the relevant passage easily enough:

"The adjective 'socialist' within the NSDAP's title was meant sincerely, but only in tandem with the adjective 'national'... It was the socialism of a thwarted ruling people (Herrenvolk) rather than that of the chronically underprivileged and oppressed seeking justice and equal rights... Hitler, as the charismatic leader of Germany, aimed to effect the salvation of his people not just from its external enemies, but also at their expense. This form of socialism could appeal across class barriers with far greater ease than could Marxist socialism, which posed uncomfortable dilemmas for middle-class citizens..."

The quote from Fisher isn't even a full sentence, and the passage makes it quite clear that he doesn't understand the Nazis 'socialism' as being in any way that of socialists - it only exists "in tandem" with nationalism, and has elements which are totally in contradiction to socialist ideology. So yes, it is taken out of context, and no, it cannot be cited to suggest that Fisher considered the Nazis to be socialists - he doesn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I found the same passage somewhere shortly before you posted. We're moving beyond the RS question here, but the crux of the matter seems to be the ambiguity of the word "form", capable of meaning anything from a very close relationship ("a terrier is a form of dog") to a rather distant one ("a doghouse is a form of stable"). It would seem to me to be fairer to say that Fischer describes Nazism as "having some elements related to socialism" or some similar phrase.

So, to summarise for the original questioner: yes, Fischer is a reliable source on the subject of Nazism, but you need to be careful that you are accurately describing the nuances of his argument - looking at it another way, you need to regard the whole passage, chapter or even book as the source for his views, not a single word or phrase. Barnabypage (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

While both these books are reliable sources, Fischer's comments have been taken out of context and Přibáň's opinions should be excluded per WP:WEIGHT. It is very easy with Google books to type in keywords and find statements that support or appear to support a particular viewpoint. In order to assess weight, we need sources that explain the weight given to different theories, and we do this by reading the most relevant literature. If for example I wanted to know (rather than to prove) whether nazism was a form of fascism, I would look at a recent book about fascism and look for a discussion of whether scholars consider it to be a form of fascism. I would not accept an isolated reference to nazism as a form of fascism or use a text about another subject entirely. TFD (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

@LastAngry: you seem surprised that others are seeing this as an issue of due weight, but I think the scene was set when you only asked whether two works were RS in a generic way. Please remember that nearly any source is reliable for something and there is no context-free reliable source. Context is everything. Concerning this particular question getting careful wording is going to be very important, and that will be a job for the article talk page. Nazism was a type of socialism in the sense of being an answer to socialism. In other words it was intended to replace socialism, and was an anti-socialism. OTOH it took over some really socialist things, including the name of course. So it maybe should be mentioned, but in a careful way. It is a bit like whether e-books should be called a kind of book. It is quite healthy that there is some caution about sourcing, wording, weighting etc on a subject like this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment re Andy the Grumps views on Fischier, this article [31] quite clearly says that the Nazis practiced a form of socialism The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's obviously not good practice to take the views expressed in a book from a review of the book. What the review says is: "Unlike some historians who brush aside several aspects of Nazism simply as opportunistic, Fischer takes the Nazis’ use of ‘socialism’ very seriously, albeit only when linked to the adjective ‘national'". Wouldn't that seem to suggest that it would by OR for us to attribute views to him about "socialism" decoupled from "national"? --FormerIP (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes - that is precisely the sort of meaningless cherry-picking we should avoid. The 'article' The Last Angry Man links to seems to be nothing more than a review (written by whom?) of Fischer's book, containing the quotation already cited by the OP - and the reviewer clearly doesn't see the Nazis as unambiguously 'socialist' any more than Fischer does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

And the communists in 1921 practiced a form of capitalism, as do the Chinese Communists, and there are atheists who are theologians (Altizer) etc. Never let words obscure the concepts.

If the endeavour is to equate, by reverse logic, socialism with Nazism, the POV-tinkering is obvious. The word 'socialist' in Nazi rhetoric functioned to draw the support of the working class from their proper representatives, the socialists, and acknowledged how powerful the promise of socialism was in European political communities. It cannibalized the word only to mock its history. Bismarck passed 'socialist' reforms in order to stymie the socialists.

Andrew Lancaster has, I believe, put his finger on the problem. The 'socialism' the Nazis practiced essentially destroyed the key doctrine of socialism as classically understood and practiced, since it excluded whole sectors of the community, homosexuals, the crippled, the foreigner, the internal communities of Jew and gypsy. 'Socialism' embraced differences where Nazism repudiated them on behalf of a corporativist race. By this logic, since Roosevelt's New Deal, as indeed Hoover charged, would bes fascist (interchangeable with Nazist later on). These fine distinctions are widely discussed in the historical literature, and to ignore contexts and tamper with language is to risk seeding a variety of American right-wing anti-state rhetoric (liberalism=socialism= communism= nazism=totalitarianism) and the dull thud of its concocted verbal drumbeat into articles.Nishidani (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Business Insider

Use of Business Insider has been questioned before, reinforcing these concerns Marco.org (blog) indicates that Business Insider commonly recycles blogs while giving the impression that these are staff articles: obviously unreliable and something to watch out for. Of course the original linked blogs themselves might be usable if they're by a recognised expert, subject to the usual restrictions on using blogs, but citations to Business Insider should evidently be treated with caution. An AP blog comments on its recycling of other stories. . dave souza, talk 17:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that any citation to Business Insider should be viewed very skeptically. In one article, I reverted three assertions, all cited to BI. And there, BI clearly said what its source was, and the actual source was unreliable.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Is American Heritage magazine considered a reliable source?

In this discussion, accomplished real life historian User:Rjensen makes the assertion that because American Heritage magazine isn't a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, and because one author asserting a point within is a journalist and novelist (not a professional historian like himself), the source is "dubious." I'd like opinions on the subject. I certainly agree the journal isn't as scholarly as it used to be under Bruce Catton, but can't see it as a dubious source unworthy of use on Wikipedia. BusterD (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In that discussion, one of the lines in WP:RS is being quoted out of context. The bit about "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable" does not apply to newspapers or magazines. It's intended to address situations where a source claims to a peer reviewed, academic journal but isn't. For example, the Creation Research Society claims that their CRS Quarterly is "peer-reviewed by degreed scientists" and features "scholarly articles representing the major scientific disciplines"[32] but it's not actually taken seriously by the academic community. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that writers for the American Heritage Magazine are reliable. However, I am for Wikipedia editor consensus on how much weight a particular article writer has at American Heritage Magazine and in the general academic community. If Wikipedia editors, not one editor, are not in consensus over a source from American Heritage Magazine, then I agree that the source, even if reliable, could be excluded from a Wikipedia article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

American Heritage Magazine is a reliable source. If there is controversy about a specific fact then that should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If you can find a more scholarly (peer reviewed) source than American Heritage then by all means use it. No source is accurate 100% of the time; to be considered reliable, they should have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Peer review is not required but is great to have when available. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. As a long-published popular history journal, AH has every reason to ensure they're providing accurate and reviewed content. I suspect (but can't prove) they have a battery of well-known popular historians who review and doublecheck everything they publish; they'd look foolish and lose credibility right away if they were known to employ shoddy editing. Perhaps that's what Forbes allowed to happen. BusterD (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

When used as a secondary source for reporting (as opposed to opinion pieces), American Heritage Magazine is generally reliable. aprock (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Generally, AHM is reliable, but as with any magazine or news article, it must bow to scholarly sources if there is a disputed fact. Binksternet (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

American Heritage is a valuable resource for historical mainstream articles. If there is a question on an authors "peer review" credibility, then I believe that author's credibility can be discussed in the talk page for Wikipedia editor consensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This surely cannot be a reliable source by anyones standards

[33]

from this section of the article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Masonic_conspiracy_theory#Extension_to_Zionism_and_Noahidism

currently source #26

it looks like a webpage that someone knocked up in their bedroom. Vexorg (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on with this article, but sweetliberty is most definitely a blog and not a RS. It appears to be based on a bad translation of the spanish article and gone downhill from there. I see you are in a slow edit war with someone(s) who either doesn't understand the rules or is pretending not to. I'm inclined not to request deletion since it exists on spanish WP, but if it's not possible to work together on this then deletion may be the way to go. Anyone else have thoughts? Brmull (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, this was removed twice without explanation, and when it was brought up on the talk page, an entire revision of the page was provided, not a diff. Don't accuse me of edit-warring and not understanding rules when the information necessary to justify the deletion as anything besides vandalism was not provided when and where asked for. We are not at liberty to simply delete things that we do not agree with here on WP. If you go look at the talk page of the article and the article history, you will see that no rationale was provided for the deletion until it was brought here, and I was not the only to revert the removal. I also do not consider it to be civil on your part to assume my (or anyone else's) motivations or understanding without having asked first.

As for the topic matter, go look at CNN or any other news site that allows posting - almost anything dealing with Israel's foreign policies has something to say in its comments about "Zionist bankers", "Jew bankers", "Freemason Jews", etc., which all ties right back into this very topic. Therefore, the conspiracy theory is alive and well. Not that the idea here is "verifiability", not "truth" - there is no truth to it, but it clearly informs behavior. MSJapan (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The page cited is a reliable source that some people think this rubbish.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The article needs to be rewritten using reliable secondary sources, i.e. sources about the conspiracy theory, not sources that repeat the conspiracy theory. Peter Knight's book, already cited, seems good; it's called an encyclopedia but is nevertheless probably to be regarded as secondary rather than tertiary. I agree that this conspiracy theory has existed in the past and is still current in some circles today, but we need to show that from authors who investigate conspiracy theories. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a difficult and distasteful area. Very few sane people want to spend their time reading up about anti-semitism.

There is also a filter or relevance paradox at work here. Imagine someone researches the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy and its history

• If they correctly conclude that it is nonsense - you will accept their books and articles as reliable sources. You may even bend the rules on reliable sources a little to accommodate them them as reliable sources.
• If they come to opposite conclusion - there is a danger that you will say that they are just repeating the conspiracy theory.

--Toddy1 (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

So what? This is just how Wikipedia and the real world work, and it's OK as it is. Hans Adler 11:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a primary source. Although relatively unknown fringe can be mentioned in contexts where it is particularly relevant, we tend to require secondary or tertiary sources to establish noteworthiness. Hans Adler 11:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

SweetLiberty is self-published and is therefore only useful as the unedited opinions of one Jackie Patru and should not be used for factual information. If the opinions of Patru are required on a page, it should be established that Patru's opinions are notable for inclusion and not just the opinions of a random person with a blog. If Patru has written a few well-respected books on the subject which others have cited and also given talks at universities around the world, I could definitely see including her opinions. But I doubt that is the case. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Patru is or was a fairly obscure radio commentator in the USA.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sport commentary at matches

What is the policy regarding sport commentators as reliable sources? The case in question involves the match commentators for the Canberra Roller Derby League who did the 24 September match between the Brindabelters, and the Black and Blue Belles. They did the stadium commentary, and their commentary is what will be used when the match is replayed on local television. They provided information about team records, when they came into existence, new skaters, etc. Would the match commentators be reliable sources about the league, the teams, the players and the referees? --LauraHale (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

How does this differ from a live event? Unless the commentary is published in a reliable form - transcripts or DVDs - then it is not verifiable, and so not a reliable source.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Television episodes are considered reliable sources aren't they? There is a template for episodes. Hence the question and I didn't see this covered on Wikipedia:Reliable sources, nor did I know if because the event will be televised, if the act of it being televised made it more reliable. :) Honest mistake if it isn't and I haven't cited it yet. Wanted to be sure before doing that. --LauraHale (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Television episodes that will be repeated years into the future and sold on VHS/DVDs/ITunes are verifiable.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Note also strong copyright claims made by almost every sports league that the commentary is provided "solely for the entertainment of viewers only and may not be redistributed in any way" or the like. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair use would still allow for a quote though, I'd imagine. I'd agree with the above comment that we'd need to be able to verify the info though, i.e. via transcript. Tarc (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :No such commentary appears on on televised rebroadcast of matches on ChannelVision and no such claims were made in person. There were no statements regarding things being copyrighted and people were encouraged to take a lot of pictures. No such claim appears in the program guides. Given both, does that impact the reliable source issues as it pertains to my specific situation of wanting to use match official match commentary, which will be rebroadcast in full on television and in part on ChannelVision's website, as a source on the Canberra Roller Derby League article? --LauraHale (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can cite ChannelVision's website may be a reliable source, assuming that it can be watched/read at any time and is therefore verifiable.

Taking photos has got nothing to do with the commentary.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Toddy mostly; this is a verifiability issue rather than an RS issue. Sport commentary may be a reliable source in some instances, but it has to be publicly accessible in some form to be citable in an article. That said, I work on the snooker articles a lot and I would never use stats by commentators since half the time they get them wrong; generally if the stat is important it will be available somewhere. Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Searchlight Magazine

The article on the English Defence League contains several references from the Searchlight Magazine I don't feel this is appropriate as the magazine on its own website that it is the magazine of Hope not Hate and that it also states on one of it articles "It’s time to act against the EDL" which I would say it is not a NPV C. 22468 (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality and reliability are two different things - and when dealing with an extremist organisation like the EDL, you'd be hard put to find an independent reliable source that wasn't opposed to their activities. In any case, we can only deal with questions about sourcing where specific cases are mentioned - what exactly is it that Searchlight is being cited for that gives you concern? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with Andy it will be impossible to find a source that isn't hostile to the EDL, I don't think Searchlight qualifies as a reliable source. It's an activist group, and has no track-record for fact checking. Something like The Guardian also wouldn't be unbiased either, but at least it's generally regarded as a reliable source. Betty Logan (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have in the past expressed concearn aobut using a source that is not just hostile, but avoidadly hostile to the far right in the UK. It is in no shape or form neutral on this subject (and neutraility is a concearn if it is form an advocacy group talking about what they advocate (for example) as searchlight is and does). It does however seem to be hightly regarded by the press in matters of the far rightSlatersteven (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say for Far-Right articles the best answer would be from the BBC, Using searchlight though is similar using The Watchtower to describe the Church of England, so more mainstream media outlets would be better C. 22468 (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Searchlight has come up before here. It carries out respected investigative journalism on the far right and is RS, in fact it's one of the best sources on the far right. The BBC and the Guardian are also reliable sources, but they often take information from Searchlight. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Searchlight has been discussed a lorra lorra times and always comes out as an RS. It has a reputation for fact-checking etc, which is the standard we apply. It is reliable for factual claims but it's opinions should not be presented as fact (as with any publication). --FormerIP (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Which was what I was going to say. The article seems to use it appropriately, mentioning Searchlight in the statements where it's used as a source. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Searchlight is an activist website/org as said, it's not just hostile its stated main purpose is activism against groups, and as such its not NPOV in its reporting and needs to be used as little as possible in articles against its opponents, and never if there is another more neutral reliable citation reporting the same thing, and never without attribution or in situations were they make conscientious claims that no other WP:RS make. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::::We get the point, you don't like it, no need to bold. A lot of sites we use are pov in their reporting, eg many newspapers have a political leaning. I presume you mean contentious claims, but I don't see why a contentious claim should rule them out just because no other source are making them, we'd need to take that case by case. Dougweller (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Its not that I don't like it - the thing I don't like is people that support them as a reliable source because they support their position - Searchlight are an activist organization actively attempting to present their opinions as if fact, and as is to be expected, portray their stated opponents in as poor a light as possible. Its currently used about only about eighty times in en wikipedia articles and only about five or six are in BLP articles (that fact alone is telling - and why should we not give groups the same care and protection from attack by their activist opponents) - but usage may require a closer look. They are definitely not reliable for their own contentious claims that no one else is reporting (case by case or not)- they are an activist organization. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

For undoubted fact - maybe. Opinions (which dominate the article) are, however, only opinions, and should, as always, be clearly marked as such. O2rr is correct. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• - I just removed this unverified (and for what its worth, unattributed) controversial claim from the activist org, even if you were to add, according to an activist organization opponant of the group, it still shouldn't be cited to them. - "The origin of "United People of Luton" lies in the Bedfordshire BNP and the tactic of distancing the EDL from the BNP was proposed by Alan Lake who provided funding for the EDL. Lake was also responsible for suggesting that Lennon use the name "Tommy Robinson" in the early days of the EDL.<ref>''Searchlight'', 1 March 2011, p. 7</ref> - Off2riorob (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• note -User:FormerIP is claiming a consensus here as a reason to replace this disputed claim about living people. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What information is added by the epithet "activist"? This is a magazine that has an excellent reputation for investigative journalism, in an area where that is difficult to conduct. It is known for fact-checking and regularly applauded and cited by UK mainstream politicians and the quality press. Monitoring the activities of extremists is arguably "advocacy", but like some other kinds of advocacy it does not have an adverse bearing on reliability as to facts. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

None of which changes their goals and ambitions, they are the stated activist opponents of this group. By that simple fact they are not cit-able here only for simple un-contestable facts - the like of which are to be found in much much more neutral locations anyway. Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the content that you're reverting, I'm not clear on what the problem is. Are you suggesting that Searchlight is not a reliable source for this? Given that it does not appear to be covering an opinion article, this seems like a dubious claim. Maybe a more complete ref plus an excerpt would help? aprock (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes - searchlight are not a reliable source for this contentious claim. an excerpt and a "more complete" ref, won't change anything. When I have a spare hour I will go through all the externals to their website and remove any that make contentious claims about anyone. Off2riorob (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Rob, no you won't, because the clear consensus is that the publication is a reliable source. As it has been many times at RSN. It has a clear political bias, but it also has a strong reputation for accuracy and not making things up. Agree with Aprock, though, that considering the wording in the source may be helpful. If they couch the claim in uncertainty or attribute it to someone else, then it may well be that we should not include it. --FormerIP (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The more complete ref and excerpt wouldn't be for your benefit. Rather it would help uninvolved editors to make an informed judgement. As the statement appears to be a straightforward statement of fact, it seems possible that the sourcing is good here. I'm not sure what the contentious issue you're referring to here is. Maybe you could address that point with details? aprock (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources

Is there a list of possible unreliable sources available for editors to use so they can be aware of website citations they may want to double check for credibility? I've created http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Flagged_sources as a sample of what an idea like this might start out as. Eventually, there would be a browser gadget, like "Proveit", or added onto "Proveit" to notify an editor when they are citing a site which may not be reliable or credible. This gives the editor a hint to check it over before submitting it. We will never keep up with all the self-published SEO content sites, but we may be able to make editor's lives easier if we can catch some of the larger ones.

If the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Flagged_sources page is not in the right place, please move it. Jjk (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard to discuss the reliability of specific sources. I think you want Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Fatou K. Camara Undue weight

[[34]] It is stated "Fatou K. Camara, such statics are misleading. In her papers "Secularity & Freedom of Religion in Senegal Between a Constitutional Rock and a Hard Reality" and "Moving from Teaching African Customary Laws to Teaching African Indigenous Law", she provides a different statics" Is this person in a position to be included in an article on stats when she is the only one completely re-representing stats? I think their is too much weight to be used. It is also a FRINGE sentiment unique to her.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I can not understand your question exactly. Perhaps take a step back and rephrase it. In regards to the link you have provided, it appears to be a slide show presentation possibly for use at colloquiums. These should not be used in articles on Wikipedia because they are self-published and are not peer-reviewed by the scientific community. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok been busy fighting proving the sky is blue. In an article on "Offical" statistics this source was used as proof that the official statistics were incorrect. the person is cited as a scholar and an authority on the subject See [35]--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:DISPUTE. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

Is http://persianempire.info/ a reliable source to be used in Surena? Thanks. In fact ( contact ) 12:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

?! In fact ( contact ) 07:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Almost certainly not. Say what page you want to use, and how you want to use it, and the answer might be different. Andrew Dalby 12:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to use this page as a source to add the picture of the bronze statue of General Surena to his article. In fact ( contact ) 12:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. I see there's already an image of the statue on Commons, and it is already used on some other wikipedias (e.g. Spanish) on the Surena page. You could just use the image, saying "tentatively identified as Surena". However, if anyone objects, it would be better to be able to quote the identification from a published/peer-reviewed source. I see no evidence of whether that site is peer-reviewed or compiled by acknowledged experts, though the page you link to looks like a serious piece of work. My guess would be that they take the identification of the statue from the book they are advertising, because it's the front cover image of that book, isn't it? The book itself would be a much better source. It is on Google Books, but the caption for the illustration isn't visible there (to me). If you can get to see the book somehow, that would be your ideal source. Andrew Dalby 14:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that we actually have an article on this statue, based on good academic sources (Statue, National Museum of Iran 2401). The sources used for that article apparently contain no reference to Surena at all. This was repeatedly discussed both here on en-wiki and elsewhere. The fact that the same image is also used on other wikis is also due purely to the insistence of this one user, who has pushed its inclusion in several places ([36]), and other Wikipedias evidently then copied the claim uncritically from us. About the book you mention, I can see the description of the statue on its page 56. No mention of Surena. It just describes it as "bronze statue of a Parthian prince from the Iranian site Shami, usually dated either to the first century BCE or CE". There appears to be a single reference to Surena in this book, on page 12, but it is unrelated to the statue. As for the website, the fact that they are using our own image of the statue suggests that they themselves might have taken the claim from us (though it's of course no proof). Incidentally, the website is cobbled together from plagiarized material; the whole page containing this image is taken without attribution from George Rawlinson, The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World: Parthia and Sassania, from 1873 [37] (But that work of course doesn't deal with the statue either; the website has just slapped the image somewhere in the middle of the text as a decoration). – In general, I strongly oppose the suggestion that we could simply say "tentatively identified". A claim in an unreliable source doesn't translate into a "tentatively" on Wikipedia. We say "tentatively identified" if a reliable source proposes a tentative identification, not if an unreliable source suggests a certain one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Future Perfect, those are important points. (Incidentally, I am unable to see page 56 of the book: I suspected it would be the relevant image, so I'm very glad you can see it.) I withdraw the suggestion that the image might be used in this way without citing a reliable source for the identification. Andrew Dalby 18:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I am going to continue this discussion in the article's talk page. In fact ( contact ) 20:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this piece from the Rolling Stone Culture Section a RS?

"The Neverending Nightmare of Amanda Knox" by Nathaniel Rich is used for several sole-source statements in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. While Rolling Stone is generally a reliable source, this particular piece seems to be a partially fictionalized account of the murder.

Of many questionable passages, the most egregious is on page 5 where there is an extended dialog of Knox's interrogation which the author himself admits, further down the page, was never recorded. It seems highly likely that the author imagined it.

Those of us who edit MoMK are used to sources with factual errors, but at what point can we agree that the author has taken too much literary license and deem the piece as a whole unreliable? Brmull (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence that any part of this is fictionalized, and the passages that this is used to source are not particularly controversial. Quite honestly, if this editor wished to work collaboratively rather than disruptively, I'm sure we can find second sources for some of the statements in the article. For those editors not familiar with the article, there are several editors on each "side" of this issue which contribute regularly, and no one else had a problem with these edits because the source is obviously a RS and it comports with other accounts. The reason the source was used as much as it was is because it was a good "summary" article at a time when most article were "update" articles. But as I said, because none of the statements sourced in here are particularly controversial and because they comport with other accounts, everyone at the article talk page ok'd these edits, despite the fact that discussions over there can be quite contentious.LedRush (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You sure haven't lost you incivility, have you...TMCk (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to make a constructive comment on the subject?LedRush (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, it seems that the RS source is used 4 times in the article. In 2 of those times, it is used with another source, and two of those times it is used as the sole source. For one of those sources, it makes a direct quote of one of the prosecutor's which is easily checked on the internet, and we use the source with direct attribution to Rolling Stone. That leaves only one statement. "Knox has maintained that she was with Sollecito at the time, but during police questioning after 10 pm on Monday November 5th 2007, Sollecito said that he could not be certain she was with him when he was asleep." This generally comports with the other accounts and RSs on this subject.LedRush (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like if possible to get others' input on whether this is a RS. We've already tried to collaborate on specific cites which I'll summarize again on the talk page. Brmull (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"It seems highly likely that the author imagined it"...is original research unless you have an RS which states this.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the assertion that Berean points to above caused me pause as well, and I am also curious as to the support for it.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Rolling Stone has a long tradition of in-depth coverage on topics of interest to its readers that would make it more of a reliable source than the many superficial tabloid newspaper accounts and blog articles strewn throughout the article. That's where the real problem with fictionalized versions of events exists. Based upon the editor's previous actions, it seems clear that he wishes it were not a reliable source solely because he disagrees with its conclusions, largely based upon opinions formed from reading early tabloid reports that have since been proven erroneous. DreamGuy (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As someone who knows a bit about the case, I'd say this article presents a good case study for the "verification vs truth" debate. It's full of inaccuracies, but RS is an RS, so what can you do? At present I'd say it's pointless worrying about the state of the MoMK article, because the appeal verdict is so imminent and, whatever the outcome, the article will soon need a serious revamp. --FormerIP (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not original research if the same page that has the purported dialog says that the dialog was not recorded. It's self evident that it was made up. That goes beyond "truth versus verifiability". It goes to question of "truth versus fiction." Brmull (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The article makes it pretty clear that the quotes were Knox's account of the interrogation. There is no discrepency at all between reporting what happened (via Knox's account) and saying there was no recording done. Your issue seems to be that the author believes Knox's account, and not the police account. Seeing as the Italian Supreme Court threw out the "confession", it seems that maybe they also didn't believe the police account.LedRush (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You say it's "pretty clear" (on what evidence I don't know) that the quotes were Knox's account of the interrogation. Then isn't it also pretty clear that the paragraph immediately preceding, which describes Sollecito's interrogation, is also a defence account, and should be attributed as such in the article? Brmull (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If you read the article, you'll seAmanda-Knoxs-note.htmle that it says "The most remarkable thing about Knox's account of the interrogation is that, even as she signed her confession, she didn't realize that she was a suspect." It says this right after the section in which he relates what happened in the interrogation.LedRush (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, if that interpretation is correct, then where does Paxton's account of Knox's account begin? Does it include the sentence, "Sollecito finally stated that Knox could have left his apartment for several hours on the night of Kercher's murder while he was asleep"? Because that is most certainly false, according to Sollecito's confession released by the police and published in Corriere and several British newspapers. Brmull (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, Knox's account does not include Sollecito's account, obviously. And I don't see a conflict with Sollecito's other statements as reported in reliable sources and this. I would like to remind you that the police accounts of interrogations are not the only accounts, and that participants in interrogations on both sides often elaborate on what transpired afterward. You not liking a statement doesn't make it false, and it certainly doesn't make an unquestionably reliable source into an unreliable source based on your opinions and misunderstandings.LedRush (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with User:FormerIP, User:DreamGuy, and User:LedRush. Rolling Stone is a reliable source, obviously, and this article meets every criteria under WP:RS, specifically WP:NEWSORG. The article does not appear to be a fictionalized account, but rather Knox's recounting of the interrogation. Knox was in the room at the time, so her account of the interrogation/interview should not be branded as "fiction." Also agree with Borean, that "It seems highly likely that the author imagined it" appears to be WP:OR. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Cosmology

In this article there is a section sourced exclusively to a blog. [38] I removed this section per WP:RS but it was reverted back in. Does the blog Pharyngula qualify as a reliable source. Note it is also used to support this statement about BLP`s "it isn't a real science journal at all, but is the ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics" It strikes me as a BLP violation to use a blog to call people cranks. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And whilst here is this a reliable source? [39] Darkness Shines (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether Cosmology itself is a RS, the blogs at scienceblogs.com such as Pharyngula are not RS's. Anyone can apply to have their blog included there, and there's no evidence of editorial oversight. Brmull (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.throngmedia.com/

Thong Media seems like a web-2.0-ified press release agency focusing on television shows and particularly reality television shows. Their about page makes this clear. I'm a little concerned that thong seems to be being used on pages like The Apprentice New Zealand (season one) as the sole source of information. (a) Am I right in thinking that Thong neither third party for the purposes of notability? (b) Am I right in thinking that articles in other places with textual similarity (i.e. cut and paste) to Thong articles are also not third party for the purposes of notability? (c) Am I right in thinking that the other places carrying the articles with textual similarity don't count as third party for the purposes of notability, by virtue of carry the articles with textual similarity? Stuartyeates (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A question on sources

I have just been told that this source, Edwards, Lee (2000) The collapse of communism Hoover Institution Press (2000) ISBN 978-0817998127 ppXIII is not a reliable source for the statement that 100 million died under communism as the author did not provide a citation for this. "Communism, the dark tyranny that controlled more than forty nations and was responsible for the deaths of an estimated 100 million victims during the twentieth century" Does an obviously reliable source really need it`s own reliable source? The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

100 million is a nice round number, but it's reasonable to ask how the author arrived at it. He might have said 90 million yesterday and 110 million tomorrow. I'd look for a better-documented source. Andrew Dalby 12:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. While it is a round number, if the book is considered an RS, I don't think there is reason not to reflect the number simply because it is a round one. I don't believe we generally require an RS to in turn indicate an RS it uses as a source. In any event, that would be somewhat circular -- it would suggest that RSx could quote this RS as a source for the same information, and then everyone would be happy. BTW, while generally we don't require that the source of the statement be indicated, at times that may mollify those who are uncomfortable (e.g., say: "x wrote in y that z".--Epeefleche (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

We have statistics on all of these things. At a glance that figure is memory work running together a vague assortment of data dealing with the Soviet Union and China. In both those cases there are 20% differences in expert calculations. In any case, a good general point to start from is Matt White's Necrometrics webpage here- Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the question seems to be related to the discussion at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes, I think extreme caution is in order. The source seems reliable, but I'm not at all sure what that 100 million figure includes--deaths by mass killings only? Deaths by forced starvation such as in a concentration camp? Is simple famine which arguably might have occurred under any system of economics or government also included? Under communism in the PRC, there were large numbers ascribed to famine, but those numbers are not firm, and not far out of line with earlier famines in China. The question is not just whether a source is generally reliable, but for what is it specifically reliable. Also, while we do not require that an RS have its own reliable sources, it is also true that one measure we apply to gauge the reliability of an academic source is the quality of the material upon which the source is based, so a lack of references in a reliable source is indeed relevant, and I'm also troubled by the color of the prose, which does not suggest an impartial historian, but that a person with a definite point of view. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The principle should be, don't cite inferior sources that are vague when good precise statistically based analyses are readily available. Matthew White's book on the subject is coming out this fall. Just for curiosity's sake, the combined figure roughly overlaps with the total figure for deaths from consumption of legitimately commercialized but lethal tobacco in the 20th century. Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a RS, but a RS that's supported by reliable primary sources generally trumps one that isn't. Especially when we're talking about casualty figures which are frequently politicized. If two or more equally credible sources conflict then it's best to give a range. Brmull (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• I would suggest inline attribution (e.g., "Estimated death tolls vary. A 2007 publication from the Hoover Institution attributed 100 million victims to 20th-century communism.") There are several reasons - first of all, these estimates are notoriously variable and imprecise, as any thinking person will quickly grasp. It's one thing to attribute a death toll to a specific Communist government (although even that is controversial, for instance in the case of the Great Purge).

  It's quite another to ascribe a death toll to an ideology. How does one attribute a death to "communism"? Were the people killed in the Russian Civil War, or the Spanish, victims of "Communism" (as opposed to a struggle between Communism and other ideologies)? If one applied similar metrics, how many victims would be attributable to "free-market capitalism", or even "libertarianism"?

  It's an inherently arbitrary and politicized question - and the Hoover Institution is political. It's a retirement home for old Cold Warriors, with a strong and overarching conservative ideology. That certainly doesn't invalidate it as a reliable source, but it does argue in favor of in-text attribution. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell except for the fact that I don't see the reason for in-line attribution for this text. The figures, even for the Spanish civil war, on which side killed more innocents swing wildly in the best of sources, exactly as they do for Russia and China. The site I linked to gives a very ample range of first rate RS sources on each issue, and overall statistics. I suggest the editor use that as a reading guide and then produce a range, from low-medium to highest figures. One can find this all on White's pages.Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where attribution is required, but I think it would be best to document the range of figures and to use the most specific sources available. The Edwards source seems from this one quote to be well above the ground, so to speak, and I think the kinds of figures from the web site you presented are more appropriate. And it is best to not engage ourselves in tallying up figures and attributing them to a single cause, when events such as famines general result from multiple intersecting problems. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I essentially agree MastCell. Even if you consider the book formally as RS for most of its content, it should be obvious that there are better sources for such claims, that can and should be used instead. Hoover Institution Press hardly looks like anything you'd call a reputable publisher, instead use well known academic publishers such as Springer, Wiley, Kluwer etc. or some university press as far as books are concerned. Or use some peer reviewed academic journal articles that have dealt with this particular question in detail.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Edwards isn't an expert on mass population losses, and his statement appears in a foreword (pp XIII) not the body of the work where Edwards is making academic claims. Edwards is not a High Quality Reliable Source, nor is he a reliable source, for this statement, as his academic competence does not extend (in this work at least) to the history of mass population losses. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Iranian.com has an Op-Ed section like other newspapers

Iranian.com has a blog section and a regular section with articles in it. Are the articles in its Op-Ed section[40] considered reliable sources? They divide things into "news" which just links to a different site with a summary of a news item, "blogs" which are personal blogs apparently anyone can post whatever they want in, and "articles" which I believe should count as reliable sources. Someone has to approve these, so it has editorial oversight, and the people chosen seem to have backgrounds in their field of expertise. Note, the other sections on the site aren't in English so I'm not bothering asking about them. Dream Focus 02:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.iranian.com/main/node - Of course its not a reliable source . copied for educational reasons only and not for republication - "Ahmadinejad has mastered the art of Persian bullshiting theatricals. He represents the very persona of many of us inside and outside of the country. He is real. Like many of us, he lies without hesitation and in most situations, he actually believes his own lies." - can I add this opinionated blogger crap to wikipedia? I can't see any clarification that the website as a whole has any assertion of editorial oversight. This location isn't reliable to support any contentions content. .. Off2riorob (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Off2--can you clarify whether you are quoting an article on the page or a blog on the page?--Epeefleche (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

In my understanding - it's an article http://www.iranian.com/main/2011/sep/iranian-art-lying - Off2riorob (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks--I just wanted to clarify that, for the other readers here. See below, as to my comments on what this publication terms "articles".--Epeefleche (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.iranian.com/main/faq "What is the difference between an article and a blog? Articles are well-thought out essays and features that can be submitted for prominent display on the front page or section pages. The Chief Editor will decide whether they will be published or not.Blogs are more immediate and personal. When you submit a blog, they will be published automatically." Dream Focus 10:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Dream -- their description of an article as a "well thought out essay" suggests to me that it is not an "article" as wp uses the term, but rather an opinion piece. For opinions, the applicable guidance is WP:RSOPINION.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that this is an example of an article, I think Epeefleche is correct, and I'd suggest that the site overall is probably not reliable. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, these links to supposed articles are pure crap. They give no confidence in anything else published at iranian.com. Zero value to Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Alright. I removed the bit about him writing articles for them. [41] Any reason to doubt the award winning college professor when he claims on that site, that he has "taught in Iran, China, and the U.S.A." [42]? Dream Focus 18:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the source looks like a personal bio and says "teaches", not "taught". In the US, professor is a position held, so if he's not a professor at an institution, he's not a professor. I think you've well sourced that he was on the faculty at Cal State LA, but I'm not sure we can say he's a professor without knowing where he serves on the faculty. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• http://web.mit.edu/isg/surveyadvisory.htm In fact ( contact ) 20:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

There has been some debate as to whether this source should be used in the Casualties section: [43]. Some editors feel it is a published source by an expert, others say it is an unpublished PowerPoint slide presentation. Johnfos (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That source appears to be a self-published slide presentation and is not reliable for factual information. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Per WP:SPS; "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." Peter F. Caracappa has been previously published in Health Physics and Physics in Medicine and Biology, both peer-reviewed journals. He has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal and the Christian Science Monitor. He seems to be an expert in the field, so I would not dismiss his "slide presentation" as immediately not-reliable. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Do we have any supporting documentation regarding the meeting? Also, a pdf of a powerpoint presentation is not the same as the presentation itself, and much of this data seems raw. I would strongly suggest that this is really a primary source, and should be handled with caution. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources at Astrology

I'm concerned about the use of fringe sources to debunk mainstream research. Correlation is the main point of concern. What do you folks think of its reliability and usability in terms of WP:UNDUE. --Daniel 20:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Daniel surely knows that he has not presented the situation appropriately (the talk-page discussion is here). He is referring to a situation where an independent and objective review of a statistical analysis was performed by a leading authority, considered eminently qualified to undertake the reappraisal: Hans Eysenck. The reappraisal highlighted significant flaws in the research, and condemned it for failing to adhere to appropriate standards. It is appropriate that these criticisms are reported because they are now part of the 'mainstream research'. They are substantiated by numerous references, and supported by the 2008 review by Vidmar Joseph, (past professor of psychology at McNeese State University). This was published in Correlation, which is regarded to be the premier journal of astrological research; its remit according with the standard academic requirements "that all submissions are peer-reviewed by suitably qualified experts in the fields of astrology, physics, and statistics". So this is not a case of using "fringe sources to debunk mainstream research", but an appropriate reference to directly relevant facts that demonstrate how an old experiment has undergone significant review and reappraisal, which has shown its original findings to be flawed and unreliable. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 22:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Correlation, the Journal of Scientific Exploration, and ISAR International Astrologer are not reliable sources for scientific claims. None are indexed in Web of Science, none are widely cited, and none show signs of being part of mainstream academic discourse. The fact that these references are being used to "debunk" a paper published in Nature (journal) is particularly troubling and is an unambiguous violation of WP:UNDUE. Skinwalker (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds to me like an appeal to authority, in itself an unscientific approach. The main journal of any discipline, especially if it meets the spirit of the reliable source guidelines, is a reliable source of that topic. It doesn't have to be part of what you call "mainstream science" to be reliable. If the articles in question demonstrate the scientific method in peer-reviewed journals, that's a reliable source. And by the way, Nature is not a reliable source on astrology due to having no editors versed in the subject. SLP (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm suspecting the deliberate use of evocative phrases like "fringe journals" being used "to debunk a paper published in Nature". This is not the "debunking" of a reputable paper recently published in Nature, but the reappraisal of a 26-year old experiment which has fallen apart due to criticsms that subsequently came to light. There is no doubt that Nature would not include that paper now, given the flaws that have subsequently been identified. And whether widely cited by scientists, or not, the paper published in The Journal of Scientific Exploration Appraisal of Shawn Carlson’s Renowned Astrology Tests was produced by Professor Emeritus Dr Ertel Suitbert. When there is a range of substantiating reference to these criticisms, produced by various highly respected authorities, in journals that adhere to peer-review standards, then it is clearly not a violation of WP:UNDUE, which states: " "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". -- Zac Δ ^talk! 22:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Skinwalker, and I'd go a bit further: Astrology#Research is a complete embarrassment to Wikipedia and to anyone who takes seriously this site's content policies or its goal of creating a serious reference work. I don't even know where to start with the above comment, except to reiterate that anyone who treats Nature and the Journal of Scientific Exploration as equally valid sources (because they both claim to practice "peer review") is probably unsuited to produce a serious, accurate representation of scientific thought on the topic. MastCell ^Talk 23:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's an embarrassing statement. Non-astrological journals such as Nature are not reliable sources on astrology because they lack subject matter expertise not just within their editorial board but including their wider contacts, too. Naturally, they are excellent sources on subjects which they regularly publish. SLP (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you don't get to create exclusive in-universe definitions of the scientific literature to suit your purpose. Believe me, if there were convincing scientific support for astrology, Nature would publish it in a heartbeat. Heck, they published a paper supposedly proving the basis for homeopathy (and by the way, it's worth looking at that situation to see what it looks like when a Nature paper is actually invalidated by subsequent study). MastCell ^Talk 00:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

People, be aware of off-site recruitment regarding the astrology articles in general and the Carlson study in specific.[44] Since last spring there has been a steady influx of single-purpose editors. The article has slowly turned into a lengthy apology for Western astrology. Skinwalker (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That blog post and its comments are very interesting reading. I especially liked the statement that knowledge is being "cannibalized by the gate keepers." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've seen that link pointed out and explained a few times. It has no relevance to me and I don't see that it has any relevance to this discussion on reliable sources. It is of concern if editors seek to remove reliably sourced information for reasons apart from the reliability and verifiability of the information. A reliable source is not just a publication; it's the piece of work itself and the credibility of the author too (WP:RS). The credentials of the authors and the credibility of their work is not in question. This is a case of clearly substantiated facts being objectively reported which show both sides of the argument and demonstrate the current consensus of the experts who reappraised the experiment in response to history of criticisms. Given the multiple citations that support all the points covered, I see no reason to raise the matter here in the first place. If the point is to be discussed, it should be reviewed objectively, not sensationally.

MastCell, I am not sure if you are aware of this, but the published papers do not provide "convincing scientific support for astrology". Of course, if such a paper were available, Nature would publish it. The reappraisal only shows that the 26-year old Carlson study is no longer considered credible. This is of no particular interest to a journal like Nature, but it is of relevance to the coverage given in the article, where it discusses the famous criticisms made against astrology, what those criticisms comprise of, and the extent to which they are valid (or not). -- Zac Δ ^talk! 00:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There's something to be said on both sides of this argument. First, that only experts are to be believed on any particular subject. To that extent, Zac is right. But Astrology is not part of science in that it hasn't, if I'm right, ruled out conventional causes for any statistical support it may have. And such statistical support would be the only claim it has to any legitimacy at all. This is all from memory of what little I've read. More important for Wikipedia, I don't think Astrology has any institutional claim to being a part of science. Thus Zac is wrong that we should take Astrology seriously. He says "This was published in Correlation, which is regarded to be the premier journal of astrological research; its remit according with the standard academic requirements "that all submissions are peer-reviewed by suitably qualified experts in the fields of astrology, physics, and statistics"." That's all well and good as far as specialized expertise goes, but Astrology is pseudoscience. We should be careful however to allow astrologers to speak for those things for which their publications are RS, such as the claims of Astrology. I'm not sure what MastCell thinks is wrong with the Research section of the article though. This is already probably more than I should say without doing further research. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 01:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

One problem with the "Research" section is that it does not clearly attribute what is claimed to the party claiming it. It's full of things like (paraphrasing) "errors were found in the Carlson study" rather than saying who claimed to have found the errors, i.e., proponents of astrology. (This is not the only problem; the whole thing should be gutted and rebuilt.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal What is needed is clarity about what each section is about and what kinds of references are accepted. I can see three main kinds of content appearing under Astrology#Research: (a) pre-split research showing the state of research in times prior to the split between astrology and science, using only terminology, processes and references from that period OR modern references from main-stream history or main-stream historiography; (b) post-split astrology research using terminology, processes and references from main-stream astrology; (c) post-split astrology research using terminology, processes and references from main-stream science. These need to be separated. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments that offer constructive criticism. To be clear though, Becritical, I'm not proposing that anyone needs to take astrology seriously; nor that only the subject-expert opinions are valid (though relevant). My point is that a publication like Correlation has a reputation for fact-checking and ensuring that its content is properly reviewed by experts in the fields of physics and statistics as well as astrology; in addition to which the analysis of someone like Hans Eysenck carries weight. He is not an astrologer making a case for astrology. So I believe the suggestion that the errors be reported by 'proponents of astrology' would be incorrect, but this sort of thing could be looked at to make sure that any lapses or areas of confusion are clarified. It is very helpful to have suggestions of how certain things which could be seen as problematic in some eyes, are rephrased in a way that ensures proper neutrality and objectivity.

What is not helpful for Wikipedia, is the way the article has been vandalised tonight by a series of editors who, with no prior interest or concern for this article, have hacked out major chunks of reliably substantiated content, including the entire section which reported Gauquelin's research and all its accompanying references, without any attempt to discuss their reasons or enagage in evaluation of the content. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 01:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware that personal attacks, including specious accusations of vandalism, are cause for sanction. It would be helpful for all concerned if you could rephrase your comments so that they could not be construed as such. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll clarify that I found nothing unreasonable or innapropriate about the edit you made. The editor who preceded and followed you removed over 500 words of highly significant text, substantiated by 21 references, without any attempt to engage in discussion. I see that as the opposite of constructive editing. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 02:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You are being told, by a consensus of editors, that the sources that much of the article is based on are not reliable. This is the substance and result of the discussion. Skinwalker (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I undid the edit that took out a lot of text. I'm not familiar with the sources, but it seems to me that there's no reason not to use astrological sources to source what astrologers think. What's needed is good attribution and specificity, as Short Brigade Harvester Boris said above. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 04:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The main problem with the section your restored is the fact that it is OR and SYNTH that presents astrology as if it were an actual science: conducting "research", "methdology", "empirical", "experiments", etc. While the sources can indeed be used to source what astrologers believe, they cannot be used to source the contention that astrology operates like a true science. Feel free to rewrite the section to remove the veneer of science, and it can stay. I'm afraid the adjustments you've already made are not enough. Agree about the attribution; there should be no possibility of any reader assuming that the beliefs of astrologers are anything but fringe, or that the claims of astrologers are presented in the voice of WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That would only need attribution "astrologers say they use the scientific methods of..." The veneer of science is part of what pseudoscience is. If it didn't have a veneer of science, it wouldn't be pseudoscience. We can't write that it's pseudoscience and then refuse to show how that name applies. I doubt that the astrological sources are insufficient for such a section, but if it's OR then that's different, and I don't have the time at the moment to do that much research. But at any rate I don't think mass deletion is always the way to deal with it, although I deleted a paragraph or so myself. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 06:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article to suggest that astrology is an actual science. You are confusing the terminology applied to the subject, and the description made of it, with the terminology applied to the statistically analysis that has been made of it. The article reports those studies objectively, as it should, presenting the criticisms of both sides. The results are not persuasive one way or another. In your desire to ensure that the claims of astrologers are not given any coverage in this article about astrology, you removed the entire section relating to the studies of Gauquelin. Though these make no major claims in favour of astrology at the end of the day, the story and the details of Gauquelin's work, the controversy attached to it and the discussions that extend from it, are of pivotal interest to the modern history of astrology. Wikipedia would become a laughing stock to censure such highly relevant content as this.

And sorry, but nothing has been appropriately restored. In the space of a few hours, with this request for noticeboard clarification not yet half a day old, and with less than 300 words of discussion on the talk-page, Dominus Vobisdu and 3 other editors have removed almost 1000 words of highly significant content supported by 30 reliable references. Not discriminately or critically - just deleting whole passages with their accompanying references. This is content that has been developed cautiously by a wide-ranging team of editors, with great regard to the relevant WP policies. It is clearly marked on the talk page that the subject of the page is controversial and substantial changes should be undergo discussion and evaluation before being introduced on the main page. This is the policy that the contributing editors inherited and have been restrained by.

As I mentioned earlier, this is NOT constructive editing. I have recommended that the content be restored to what it was before these policy-breaking edits, so that any point that has been ruthlessly erased, is subject to the proper process that the policy of the page dictates. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 05:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

To respond to the initial question here, Correlation is not an academic journal, even if it tries to appear as one. It isn't reliable for any scientific claims. It might be reliable, if carefully attributed, for statements about what astrologers believe, or even about the history of astrology, although our main sources for history of astrology should be mainstream academic historians. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am the current editor of Correlation, the journal of research in astrology that has been referred to as a fringe journal because, it is alleged, it is a journal of pseudo-science as defined by Wikipedia. Correlation is a journal of research in astrology and publishes material that has been peer reviewed by mainstream academics with a good understanding of astrology as applied to science and the humanities where the material submitted applies astrology to that particular academic’s specialist field of interest. The journal also publishes reports from researchers about ongoing projects. It publishes comments from readers on papers that have appeared within its pages and it has a Letters page for critical comment of any part of its published content and to encourage objective intellectual exchange. It has also published material of a philosophical nature in order to encourage scientific and sociological research, which includes statistical analysis, and new approaches in thinking to the ever-present challenge of designing good studies that are appropriate to the research question. The journal aims to inform its readers on research matters and to encourage its readers to express their opinions within the journal in order to promote balanced and informed thinking in any issue that relates to research in astrology. The peer review process seeks to ensure a high standard is maintained within the journal pages where these matters are concerned. That which is defined as pseudo is that which is false, counterfeit, pretended or spurious as in the case of scientific claims, for example. The journal, Correlation is, therefore, not a pseudoscientific journal.

Pat Harris, PhD, MSc., DFAstrolS., Editor, Correlation.

Who's on the editorial board? Where can we read about the peer review process? Has it got a website? Can we look at the tables of content for the past few years? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Harris's statement "...publishes material that has been peer reviewed by mainstream academics with a good understanding of astrology as applied to science and the humanities where the material submitted applies astrology to that particular academic’s specialist field of interest" could be understood to mean that the journal also publishes articles that are only about astrology and don't touch on "mainstream academics" and so are only reviewed by people who believe in astrology. This process reminds me of the Roman Catholic Church's practice of bringing in subject-matter experts when investigating miracles to decide if a candidate should be canonized. The use of such experts can't really be expected to convince skeptics that God, miracles, or saints actually exist. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Is Correlation indexed by any of the services that cover reputable journals, such as Thompson Web of Science or PubMed? Short Brigade Harvester Boris, PhD, MS (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Many respectable but minor journals aren't on WoS, and if they're not medical, they're not on PubMed. We're on a different planet here. Correlation isn't even on Google Scholar. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Correlation does not publish religious articles. Articles are sent to peer reviewers with an understanding of astrology in their specialist field of interest. Peer reviewers hold a neutral outlook with regard to the potential value of astrology in the sciences and the humanities. A list of consultant editors who contribute to the peer review process is published on the inside cover of every issue of the journal. Pat Harris, Editor, Correlation.

A real academic journal is proud to list its editorial board and peer review process publicly. Most journals are distributed by academic publishers like Sage, Elsevier or Taylor & Francis. I've never seen one before without a website, even in those marginal cases where nationalist views are promoted. By the way, in what year was your PhD awarded, because I see you give different dates on different websites? Who were your examiners? Is your thesis in Southampton university library? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

My PhD was awarded in 2006 but completed in 2005 and the ceremony took place at the University of Southampton in 2007. I was supervised within the Deparmtent of Social Statistics and my examiners were situated there and also in the Department of Social Work Studies. This is not relevant to the discussion, here, but I hope you find the information helpful. Correlation is available on line at the website of the Astrological Association which publishes the journal. You will find the list of the consultant editors within its pages. Perhas you would now like to provide some information about yourself? Pat Harris, Editor, Correlation.

Random example of respectable but minor journal. See how much more transparency? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

People are reverting the changes, and I can see where they would be disturbed by wholesale deletion. I would suggest that we focus more on attribution and less on deletion (I deleted things wholesale too, but maybe that isn't the right approach). I'm sure some things will get deleted, but I'm also not sure if some of the deleting editors were acknowledging that astrological sources are RS for astrological beliefs. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 14:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Belief in God has always been a question of faith. The "experts" referred to are not trying to prove the existence of God - they're trying to prove the existence of miracles. Shouldn't Jc3s5h refer to an expert's report before generalising that such reports have no influence on what people believe about miracles? As for saints, of course they exist. They're saints because they suffered unimaginable torment before they were martyred for their faith.

Mention of Gauquelin reminds me that since I read his book many years ago it has been the only research I have ever encountered which suggests that there might actually be something in astrology. There are two drawbacks, however.

(1) It cannot be duplicated, because births these days are induced so that they happen at times convenient for the hospital staff (Gauquelin found that this causes the correlation to disappear).

(2) It is a self - fulfilling prophecy - if people's star charts say they should be athletes or warriors because of the strong presence of Mars (or whatever) that is what they will train for, because they think they will have an aptitude for it. 86.167.131.152 (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Gauquelin's results have been replicated in at least 3 studies plus in the analysis of the data collected by sceptical groups in France, Belgium and the USA. And yes, astrology tests can be affected by self-fulfilling prophecies and such artifacts must always be taken into account and such issues make testing astrology very challenging.

It appears that the main concern in this thread is not so much about the sources but the results. The main issue is in connection with the Carlson test (Nature 1985), which has been the landmark test on which criticism of astrology has been based. By involving up to 28 astrologers and 100 subjects, it has been widely accepted among the scientific community that it was possible to refute the principal claims of astrology under scientific conditions.

Since 1985, six papers in peer reviewed journals have shown (or argued) that not only were Carlson’s conclusions wrong but in more recent studies that the data showed that astrologers were able to rate charts with psychological profiles in blind studies to a statistically significant level in one test and to a marginally statistically significant level in the second (Ertel 2009). Three of the papers were written by independent professors in related fields of psychology and statistics and only one of the six by an astrologer.

The original Carlson study was sponsored by CSICOP in response to the debacle of having replicated the Gauquelin studies and was, exceptionally, published in Nature at a time when the editor, John Maddox was a CSICOP fellow. There have been no astrology papers in Nature or any studies that support Carlson’s conclusions in the 26 years since then.

Editors of psychology journals will refer authors of studies involving astrology to astrological journals like Correlation or ISAR. Sometimes a paper involving astrology will be published in a journal that does not specialize in the field. This happens when the test relates more to the field of the journal like psychology or medicine or if the paper does not include the words astrology but terms like seasonal biology or cosmic meteorology. The journal Correlation publishes peer reviewed papers on astrology by sceptics, independent researchers and astrologers. Like ISAR, Correlation is the natural place for studies whether supportive or critical of astrology. It is a circular argument to insist that astrology provides evidence, but to suppress publications that provide the evidence from authoritative sources.

The claims from the most recent tests of Carlson’s paper are not that astrology is a science. It all comes down to the statistical data that anyone can check. It should be clear to any statistician that there were serious sampling errors in Carlson’s work where he merged two experiments with different sample sizes. No doubt there will be papers that attempt to refute Ertel’s calculations of the full dataset but for now Professor Ertel’s results (2009) have not been refuted even though they are well known to sceptics including Carlson.

Sceptical minded editors may not like evidence that appears to support astrology, but our job here is to faithfully report these results until refutation or criticism of this data comes along. So quibbling about the publication in this context seems to be more like an attempt to hide inconvenient facts than cleansing Wikipedia of pseudoscientific claims. No impartial editor should support this kind of cover-up. Robert Currey talk 15:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Basically you're right, it's not about what astrologers say, it's about other things such as attribution, and I think some skeptical editors didn't understand that it's okay to use astrological sources to say what astrologists believe. As long as we make it clear that this is considered pseudoscience, there should be no trouble rounding out the article with in-universe sources. As I said above, you can't call it pseudoscience and then refuse to show how it emulates science... because that's why it's pseudoscience rather than religion. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 16:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think anyone - "skeptical" or otherwise - has a problem with citing these sources as evidence of what astrologers believe. The problem is that a small group of editors are presenting these astrological journals as carrying independent scientific weight, sufficient to "rebut" or "debunk" material published in Nature. These astrological journals are not part of mainstream scientific discourse, but the article misleadingly presents them as if they are, by juxtaposing them with (and even giving them preference over) actual scientific sources. MastCell ^Talk 17:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I made edits to that section. The Carlson study is old now and of course it could have been overturned. But we haven't had any evidence that it has been. Eysenck is a notable figure, but controversial for a variety of reasons, and here not writing in his main field. None of the other material presented was relevant to scholarly research. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, but juxtaposition would be fine if attributed would it? As would attributed rebuttal. It would be a matter of being careful with the text don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Becritical (talk • contribs)

Definitely not. Look back at WP:FRINGE. A few bits of writing in fringe sources can't be juxtaposed with an article in Nature. It's OK to use astrologers' sources to say what is belived in astrology. But a to-and-fro between astrology and mainstream science is way outside policy. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Attribution alone doesn't solve all problems. For example: "The National Institutes of Health believes that HIV causes AIDS. Peter Duesberg disagrees, arguing that that HIV is a harmless passenger virus and AIDS does not exist." That paragraph is fully attributed, but still grossly violates WP:WEIGHT by virtue of juxtaposing two views with very different levels of scholarly acceptance. MastCell ^Talk 17:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Everything has to be seen in the context. Shawn Carlson was a 19-year-old physics undergraduate at Berkeley when he started his experiment and lacked any experience of psychological measuring techniques which were integral to this test. Hans Eysenck was meanwhile Professor of Psychology at the Institute of Psychiatry, authored ~80 books and at the time of his death was the living psychologist most frequently cited in science journals (Haggbloom 2002). Since Carlson's publication (with the help of CSICOP) in Nature, the only and most appropriate place for professors, no matter how eminent, to publish papers on astrology is in journals that specialize in astrology. Robert Currey talk 19:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure some people would like to be silly about these things, but when you've got the whole article clearly stating that astrology is pseudoscience, why would there be any reason not to discuss what astrologers say relative to what scientists say, juxtaposition or otherwise? Once you're down the the sectional level and have stated there's no scientific support, you should be able to do anything you want. Then it would be

"The [scientific body] believes says that XXX. Astrologer [where it's clear that astrologer = pseudoscientist] so-and-so disagrees, arguing saying that YYY."

So what you have there is a situation where you've made clear that anything an astrologer says is pseudoscience and then you just go on to discuss anything notable. I would think the test of inclusion would be whether these ideas have broad relevance/notability in the astrological or scientific community. Of course there might be a problem if the astrologist was given the last word, which looks like the current case, but that's really not WP's problem but rather a problem with the texts. I wouldn't exclude something [45] because there hasn't been a mainstream response. Is that what you're saying we should do?

According to our article on Hans Eysenck, "At the time of his death, Eysenck was the living psychologist most frequently cited in science journals." If that's true, then I seriously do not understand the deletion above. Unless Eysenick was actually another pseudoscientist, it also looks like sometimes real scientists publish in the fringe journals? [46] B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 19:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It was another deletion that flounced WP policy. This should be clear enough to anyone who contributes to the discussion page (see Talk:Astrology#Achieving Neutrality).

The original request concerned the appropriateness of quoting from Correlation. The hoped for clarity on that point got waylaid by uncritical deletions which didn’t distinguish whether real problems existed, and if they did, whether they concerned neutrality, objectivity, undue weight, or the reliability of the sources. The point made in this notice board is that reliability is often dependent upon context. The editors that have contributed to the astrology article have been working to a plan (established in earlier discussions that have now rolled off the discussion page), to have the content critically reviewed. Though the article is not ready for that formal request, sceptical editors have had an involvement in the process of development, and even invited to comment when they have gone quiet, because there is an objective to resolve long term problems and develop the article to FA status. It’s not the case that a group of editors are trying to push a position, but if you consider how evocative this subject is, you might appreciate how much work has to go into getting the balance of the content right.

In response to the controversies this discussion triggered, I’ve initiated a procedure on the talk page to ensure that all of the passages that drew attention are systematically analysed and rewritten, if and where necessary, to achieve a robust consensus on neutrality. This will help to distinguish between criticisms based on what the content is saying and those which concern reliability of sources. I believe it is only the latter that is of direct relevance to this particular board, so it doesn't seem helpful to confuse various issues here. Therefore, I am recommending that this particular discussion is brought to a close, so attention can be focussed on the necessary analysis. If the criticism of any comment ultimately hinges on doubts concerning the reliability of its source – then that particular source should be brought for review here, so it can be specifically discussed, in context, without having to carry the weight of non-essential side-issues that range from the existence of angels to where and when the editor of Correlation received a PhD. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 22:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to add but I do want to say I've noticed that sometimes people at WP don't realize that RS are largely a matter of context. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 03:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Are resume's and CVs reliable soruces for BLPs?

Reviewing the article George J. Borjas, it appears that some of the article is sourced to his 2005 curriculum vitae: [47]. Are CVs appropriate sources in general, and BLPs in particular? Are there any specific guidelines on what they can be used for? aprock (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

CVs are not suitable for use for establishing notability. They are, however, useful as references as they may provide useful disambiguation information (to distinguish between multiple people with the same or similar names) and personal information (ethnicity, religion, etc). Stuartyeates (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/Stuart, as a general matter. Though, for certain claims, we would want something other than a CV. We treat them as a primary source (to be used with care), and the same way we would use a personal blog from a notable person.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A note about CV's, they can sometimes be a little embellished. You can also have cases where the person updates them constantly. For instance, my brother did research work for this odd woman who had a 72-page CV. Though I guess that is something we like if we are looking for more info. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 27 Elul 5771 21:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Just as a small aside, an academic's CV can run into many pages because all classes taught, research projects, consultancies, conference papers, journal papers and other publications are listed. The CV on the university website is the best one to go with because it is most likely to be accurate, although it is actually supposed to be embellished. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes they are reliable sources on education and job history, publications and personal info such as date of birth. However we need to be sure that the CV is in fact made by the person it claims to be made from so they should come from a an official website for that person. That can be a job or a site that is clearly affiliated with him/her. As a rule you don't find CV's for dead people.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A book about textbooks

Is a book describing and quoting school textbooks a reliable source regarding history?

The book:Schissler, Hanna; Soysal, Yasemin Nuhoğlu (2005). Berghahn Series. The nation, Europe, and the world: textbooks and curricula in transition. Berghahn Books. p. 55. ISBN 157181549X claims (allegedly) that something (probably transfer of Germans) was the "largest population transfer in history". It's probably a quotation from a German textbook so the statement informs about German nationalistic indoctrination rather than compares population transfers in human history. Population transfers in China were several times bigger than in Europe. Xx236 (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like an over-generalization that text books are notorious for or the general ignorance of the author on the issue. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If a textbook claims that the editing nation is the best I become cautious. European textbooks used to be and many still are nationalistic or ethnocentric or West-centric. France and Germany did fantastic work rewriting textbooks after WWII, Poland and Germant too, but there is no symetry - Poland implements the agreements, German lands are authonomic. When a German textbook claims that Germany was the main victim in history - I don't believe the story. Xx236 (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Imho you will however be hard pressed to find a (proper) German textbook claiming such thing. Afaik even older textbooks (50s, 60s) usually dealt with "unpleasant" topics by ommission rather than making dubious claims. --Kmhkmh (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

But I have found the statement about the "largest population transfer in history". I'm not able to check the original context, I doubt any library in Poland has the discussed book and the quoted textbook. It's part of rewriting history. Hahn and Hahn quote this Wikipedia article as a prove of the rewriting. Xx236 (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well but what is the exact textbook? All i understood so far there might be some textbook that might claim.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What's the article concerned, and the statement it would support? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950) and the statement is that the expulsion of Germans were the biggest. There are different opinions regarding details - the biggest ever, in modern history, in Europe, in the 20 century, the biggest ethnic.Xx236 (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In general (high)school textbooks may be (temporary) acceptable sources, but they are often not a good source and almost never an optimal source. All content that is covered in such school books, is covered in academic (university level) literature as well and the latter is the source that ultimately should be used.

Potential pitfalls with highschool books, that might render them unusable as a source in individual cases, have been mentioned in the postings further up already. In many countries or cases they can have a strong national or religious bias and are often politicized (see school book battles in the US over evolution, religion, race for instance). In addition even school books not subject to those problems may contain oversimplifications for didactical/pedagogical reasons, which are not appropriate for an encyclopedia such as WP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the overall answer to this, but one thing to consider is the issue of trying to contradict the claim by comparisons that may or may not be appropriate. On the talkpage or the article, the OP talks about population transfer in China at a certain time being greater. Assuming that is true, though, the question is might raise is how a "population transfer" is normally defined. The Chinese and German cases appear to be different in that the first consists of transfer within a country whereas the second is a case of transfer between countries. Is there a standard way that the phrase "population transfer" should be used? --FormerIP (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the "Expulsion" is that the Expulsion isn't defined and the documentation by Schieder was politically motivated, it wasn't an academic work. Read texts by Hahn and Hahn aboout Mythos Vertreibung. Germany created a myth and still supports it. The numbers of deported and dead persons are undefined, the place is described as "The East", even if Germans came also from the West and any other direction. BTW - there weren't exactly countries in 1945 but occupation zones. Germans themselves claim that lands obtained by Poland in 1945 were only provisionally administered, so big transfers took place inside Germany.Xx236 (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Per arguments above, especially Kmhkmh's point about oversimplification in school textbooks, avoid this book for this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The book is available: http://books.google.pl/books?id=B72a3gJIn20C&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=Fink,+Hans-Georg+(1997).+Geschichte+kennen+und+verstehen&source=bl&ots=iqu4jVXrDz&sig=IK-WtIAUO4koEHSJzsc8Bwl4SRo&hl=pl&ei=jzOETr_NMcit8gPDj51Q&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=largest&f=false

As far as I understand, the texbook statement "the largest" describes population transfers in Europe, not only the ones regarding Germans. So the Wikipedia editor misquoted and I'm removing the quote.Xx236 (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Pdf of a letter acceptable?

See the two pdfs in this edit [48]. I'd say they aren't as there is no proof they are original. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone's spent a lot of time on the article. I'd say the pdfs pass RS, but the material should not be included in the article per WP:PRIMARY, because they do nothing to establish that the activities they describe are noteworthy for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. The article already goes into sufficient detail about every single other thing the subject has ever done. --FormerIP (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia depends to some degree on the honesty of its editors when it comes to obscure citations like those in specialized libraries. Were the pdfs being used right, I would say they are innocent until proven guilty. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 19:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Official facebook notes

I'm drafting an article about a recently deceased biologist and found this obituary published by Connecticut State Museum of Natural History which the subject was the founding director of. The only thing is that it is only found on facebook and I am apprehensive about using it because of this. Does this count as reliable? (If I reference it I will archive a copy so that it can't go dead). Thanks SmartSE (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What if you contacted them for confirmation? B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 20:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I could, but based on this it is pretty obviously official and other facts match up, it's just that I wouldn't normally consider anything published on facebook as reliable! SmartSE (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that too. It technically falls under self-published, but it actually looks like the policy is out-dated and was made before institutions started using facebook. The source looks reliable to me, without actually reading it. If you really think you'll be questioned on it, I guess you better get confirmation, but if it were me I'd use it but be ready to defend having used it. Just my opinion though. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 20:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

On the Museum's main page, they have a 'Follow us on Facebook' link.[49] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

[50] B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 21:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Cascadia Cup

There are references to old results that are given on a fan site. I understand that the tournament was started as a competition sponsored by supporters (fan) groups, but is this an acceptable source? The results seem to have achieved consensus in any case. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Reality check

In this edit, I removed from the article Azerbaijani American -- on the basis of WP:CRYSTAL -- a paragraph speculating about what the new U.S. Census results will show about the number of Azerbaijani-Americans,. While the paragraph was heavily referenced, with general studies about ethnic undercounting and media reports of numbers fed by pro-Azerbaijani sources, none of the sources provided could, in my view, be considered reliable on the specific subject of what the Census will show about the number of Azerbaijani-Americans. All that was presented was speculation on what the Census would show, or, more precisely, what the editor who added the material (User:Saygi1) hoped the study would show -- a precipitous rise in the number of Azerbaijani-Americans.

In any event, my understanding of WP:CRYSTAL is that we should not be presenting speculation as information -- the Census will be released, and it will say what it says, and that information can then be added to the article.

I'd appreciate it if someone could look at my edit to see if I'm off base here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Saygi1 notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion here and here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Think you were correct with the removal. There's no way that wasn't synth. If there has been significant media coverage of the specific hot topic of how many Azerbaijani-Americans will show up in the census, that should be brought to the table and the content restored. --FormerIP (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

BMK, removing a large paragraph with some 18 (!) reliable and verifiable sources cruicial to the article about an ethno-national group of people in U.S., by citing an exaggerated concern of "a paragraph speculating" is an overkill, don't you think? You've done it 3 times: [51], [52], and [53].

• For starters, you can simply re-phrase any sentence you feel "speculated", instead of just reverting.
• Secondly, there is no attempt to predict what the Census will say - all the article said is: "The 2010 U.S. Census results, to be released by the end of 2011, are expected to reflect a more current official estimate on the number of Azerbaijanis in the U.S." How's that a "prediction"? Naturally, a 2010 Census would give figures up till 2010 - more current than 2000 figures. How's that an "attempt to predict"? Although, Census results can only show an increase as is clear from the cited facts, such as annual statistics of naturalizations between 2000 and 2010 (the years of Census) and the fact of natural growth (more births over deaths) typicaly for this community. However, since it can border on WP:OR, it can be re-phrased, and I will do so to alleviate any possible concerns. Again, you could have simply re-phrased just one sentence to make a good-faith edit instead of removing a huge block of sourced material like you did.
• Thirdly, there are virtually no "pro-Azerbaijani sources" cited - some 95% of sources are American newspapers, news sources and other U.S. government, media and NGO sources. Only one source is from an Azerbaijani source - an article by Dr. Paul Goble, an American citizen, ex-CIA analyst and RFE/RL high ranking executive, that was published by the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy.
• Yet even if there would have been many Azerbaijani sources - that's OK, too, as the article is about Azerbaijani-Americans, and naturally, Azerbaijanis would research or comment on that topic most. Sounds quite logical, don't you think? I think it's natural that Italian Coppolla makes films about Italian culture, Jewish Spielberg about Jews, Scottish Gibson about Scotts, Nobel-prize winning Turkish author Pamuk writing about Turks, Russian authors writing about Russians, Arab-American Dr. Zogby famous for his research on Arab-American community, etc. As I've shown, Asian-Americans testify in the US Senate about census undercount of their community, Latino's about undercount of their community - and they are all reliable sources.
• If by "pro-Azerbaijani sources" you mean the fact that Azerbaijani-Americans were interviewed or published by the U.S. newspapers and sources - so? Is that prohibited? Who else should give interviews, or know more about their own community - the people themselves, or someone else? How's a statement from John Doe about Azerbaijani-Americans any more reliable than a statement from a Azer (a typical Azerbaijani name) about Irish-Americans or a statement from Hans (a Germanic name) about African-Americans, or Jose (Hispanic name) about Chinese-Americans?
• Fourth, the claim "general sources about undercounting in the census, with no mention of application to Azerbaijanis" and that being "non-reliable cites" is really a wild overstretch. All these sources clearly state that Census undercount affects primarily minorities (as well as poor, which many immigrant minorities are in the their first 10 years of life, before earning more income than average citizens, and children, which affects everyone). None of the census undercount studies need to cite all the ethnic groups ("minorities") by name in order to be valid sources for citing in Wikipedia. It's enough that they all concur that minorities, especially immigrant minorities, are particularly affected by this, and then proceed to cite several cases, such as undercount of Brooklyn, NY residents (where a large number of Azerbaijani-Americans lives), or undercount of Iranian-American community (which is very close to the Azerbaijani-American community as is proven by multiple sources).
• Fifth, per your previous complaint [54], you don't know what "Boro Prez" does or signs. If you visit all their websites or call them, you will find out that 1) they don't always issue such documents, and can refuse, and do refuse all the time; 2) they do their own research and verification. But more importantly, they, being a government source, are a reliable and verifiable source. And we have not one, but three (3) such government proclamations. It's just as reliable as a census, for example, since we already have shown that census routinely undercounts, and then shown the State Department and the White House ignore the US Census figures and cite much larger figures for the, for example, Iranian-American community (e.g., if the 2000 census reports smth like 338,000 Iranian-Americans, then White House and State Department say there are 2 million Iranian-Americans).
• Sixth, I re-phrased some of the sentences in the new version, along with restoring the paragraph with 18 valuable, reliable and verifiable sources that BMK blanked out [55]. Also, per the Census undercount discussion, note that I added 3 new US Census Bureau studies on the undercount as well as one study of the effect of undercount on the US Congress and one testimony in the US Senate about the Census 2010.
• Seventh, you did not remove (blanked out) the paragraph with heavily sourced info per WP:CRYSTAL as you try to claim again, as there are no speculations there, and you could have easily discussed it with specifics on the Talk page and then re-worded it. You removed it per WP:REVENGE, pure and simple. You removed, once again, a lot of sourced information that several other editors and admins have not removed over the past month - and they can read and think, too. So please, stop such disruptive editing, especially since you admit on your own talk page that "the topic area is so far afield from my natural haunting grounds", i.e,. a WP:LACK. Add to that WP:BATHWATER and WP:RUSH although they are about deleting the whole article, and in this case, half of the article. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Saygi1, TLDR in general. "are expected" indicates to me that we don't yet know what the census reports will be, and thus CRYSTAL seems to apply. Also, please refrain from characterizing editor conduct here, it's not helpful. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see the last version that BMK reverted, there was no such wording [56]. There was smth to that effect in an older version of the article [57], which literally said smth different than what BMK alleges: "The 2010 U.S. Census results, to be released by the end of 2011, are expected to reflect a more current official estimate on the number of Azerbaijanis in the U.S." [58]. (BMK claimed above this: "paragraph speculating about what the new U.S. Census results will show about the number of Azerbaijani-Americans") As you can see, there is no prediction of Census results of Azerbaijani-Americans even in the older version of the page, before it was re-written, but simply informing the viewer that there was a recent Census and its results will be available soon. What kind of results, it does not say and does not speculate. Yet it was still reverted by BMK, improperly citing CRYSTAL. Even if there would have been a speculation over the number of people, that's not a license to blank the page and remove 18 sources along. There is no CRYSTAL violation here. He could have simply removed one word or re-phrased one sentence. But he preferred to revert the page 3 times in one day, despite my repeated pleas on his talk page and the talk page of the article itself. --Saygi1 (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's see, looking at this version:

• The 2010 U.S. Census results, to be released by the end of 2011, are expected to reflect a more current official estimate on the number of Azerbaijanis in the U.S. But ethnic communities in the U.S. are still grossly underestimated by censuses mostly due to poor participation, assimilation or misclassification. Azerbaijani-Americans are not an exception in this regard, as both unofficial and semi-official estimates show that there are more Azerbaijanis living in the United States than claimed in the 2000 Census. The sources, http://www.civilrights.org/census/education-kit/reasons-behind.html, http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/12/31/22261/state-officials-say-census-undercounts-california-/, and http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/140831/making-census-of-it--brooklyn-officials-claim-2010-census-undercounted-borough, do not mention Azerbaijanis at all. Linking the three statements is WP:SNYTH, as the sources do not directly support the first and third statements. At most, you could use those sources to make general statements to the effect that some group believe that the census numbers will turn out to be inaccurate, and that does strike me as fitting CRYSTAL in this context, since a conclusion is being drawn about a particular group not mentioned in the sources.
• http://www.azeris.org/images/proclamations/May28_BrooklynNY_2011.JPG, http://www.azeris.org/images/proclamations/May28_Missouri_LtGov_2008.pdf, http://2010.census.gov/partners/partners/current-partners.php?A, http://2010.census.gov/partners/partners/current-partners.php?U, http://www.fuquay-varinaindependent.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Muslims+celebrate+national+holiday%20&id=7470429&instance=news_special_coverage_right_column, http://www.stlamerican.com/reader_interaction/letters_to_the_editor/article_a906f9d6-4a8f-11e0-9d87-001cc4c03286.html, http://onlineathens.com/stories/050409/let_436059460.shtml: none of these are reliable.
• http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insightb/articles/eav050809c.shtml may be reliable, but they attribute the figure of 400K to USAN, which is not, I think reliable. Likewise http://www.irex.org/system/files/Baghirova_VOA.pdf attributes a figure of 200K-500K to Elin Suleymanov, the consul general for Azerbaijan. I'm not sure he's reliable on this topic. http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/article/2006/10/iazerbaijan-deserves-us-public attributes a 400K figure to Javid Huseynov, a doctorate student at UC Irvine. School newspapers are not generally considered very reliable sources, and in this case the person to which the statement is attributed does not appear to be an expert. http://www.news.az/articles/5620 appears to be a press release from the AAC and lists 400K as an "unofficial figure", which does not lead me to think it is reliable, either.
• http://books.google.com/books?id=DHCVPqlsmvgC&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q&f=false may be reliable, but looks weak--Facts on File is a publishing group oriented towards public libraries and schools, and the source seems to be of textbook quality. No footnotes or bibliography.

Throwing lots of weak or non-reliable sources doesn't help in terms of referencing. I haven't looked at all of the sources, but what disturbs me is that no source presented attributes a number backed up other than by a raw assertion by some individual or group. Where are these number actually coming from? Is there a study, a survey? Or it is just the case that numbers were plucked from thin air and shopped around? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn,

• the source from Margaret Kaeter has bibliography, you just cannot see them in Google Books preview. And can you please provide more detail on your judgment whether it is a textbook or research work?
• The proclamations from various U.S. government offices are also reliable, as they are issued based on scrutinized review of information. What is concerning is that some of the users disputing at Talk:Azerbaijani American are actually claiming that the claim to unofficial figure of 400,000 is made by lobbyists or Azerbaijani government agents, which neither Missouri Lt Governor nor Brooklyn Borough President are.
• The U.S. Census links listing organization as Census partner are meant to assert exactly that listed fact, that both USAN and AAC were Census partners. What is not reliable about that?
• The figure provided by AAC officer in UCLA Daily Bruin is meant to reflect, again, an unofficial estimate, already confirmed by several other sources listed. How is it not reliable when other sources, unrelated to AAC or Daily Bruin, say the same thing? Atabəy (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Atabəy:

• Kaeter's work has a table of contents, and that is visible, and does not list a bibliography. There are no footnotes that I can see, and I base my judgement on the publisher's web site, see http://www.infobasepublishing.com/AboutUs.aspx. The book is part of a 15 volume set. This is not a high quality work published by an academic press.
• Why do you say that proclamations are "based on scrutinized review of information"? That is generally not the case with such proclamations, which are pretty much just "feel good" documents. In any case, Lt. Governors and Borough Presidents are mid level politicians, not experts in census data or demographics.
• I do not doubt that USAN and AAC were census partners, but that fact is not a source for the numbers being bandied about, and that fact does not make the USAN and AAC experts census data or demographics.
• No source seems to actually confirm a number, they seem rather to simply repeat it, and that makes me nervous. If a source referred to where that number came from, how that number was arrived at, it would be a much different matter. If there were a study or survey done by researchers that was referenced, it would be a different matter.

I hope that all makes sense. I think we could put a statement in that there is are unofficial estimates, but we should attribute the sources and be very careful about how to do that. But these really are weak sources, so we'd have to be very careful about attribution. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Since editors continue to restore the speculative material to the article despite the consensus of uninvolved editors, I have brought this issue to WP:AN/I, [here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, you've used the wrong version of my edited article, I've specifically warned against that and said to use the last version I edited, where I re-phrased some of the sentences and notified the admins about it [59]. Your exclusion of a bunch of sources, like the US Census Bureau, three US state government proclamations, opinion of a Consul General, and multiple newspapers from all across the country as "unreliable" is of course hard to even consider. There was no speculation about Census 2010 (Beyond My Ken's original complaint), and the 400,000 was clearly indicated as an estimate. Like with other minority communities, there are always estimates, and they deserve to be reported if they represent the majority of opinion and thus pass Wikipedia's requirements. All of the sources and the paragraph in question comply with WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE among other. It is more reliable than similar articles like Iranian American and Armenian American - would you care to analyze them as well, and compare to Azerbaijani American? --Saygi1 (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at the demographic coverage in Iranian American and find nothing there to complain about: citations from CNN (quoting the 2000 Census and independent surveys), the Wall Street Journal and NPR all seem reliable and support the statements made. The only statement about Iranian organizations in relation to the Census says that they are banding together to educated Iranian-Americans about the Census. There is no synthesis and no attempt to predict what future numbers will be. It's all straightforward use of citations to support straightforward statements.

I haven't looked at Armenian American, the article more difficult to parse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

BMK, you are not exactly a neutral editor here. Secondly, it is funny and shows once more the double standard you exercise. Because it was me who edited the Iranian American article and placed information you are citing, including the US Census undercount, which you don't seem to mind there (which is based/referred to the information from an Iranian NGO), and several references to Iranian (not American, but Iranian) newspapers, such as Payvand, and others. Also, a dispute tag was removed without much hesitation and explanation, and no one seems to object to that. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In that case your edits fell within policy, in this case they did not, so in that case I have no objection, and in this case I removed them. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at [60], and pretty much everything I said above applies to that version as well. Do you have any notion what the figure is based on? Also, please be careful how you state things--a proclamation from the President of the Borough of Brooklyn is not in any way a US State Government proclamation, as the Borough is more a city level entity. And I am in no way excluding the US Census Bureau, as their figures are definitely reliable. Some of the sources could be used, but carefully, with attribution. My suggestion would be to look for just 2-3 of the best sources you can find and suggest a conservative edit, rather than throwing a mass of poor and unreliable source up and linking sources not directly related to the subject (thereby violating SYNTH). --Nuujinn (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

By three US state government proclamations I did refer, among others, to the Brooklyn proclamation - it is a city in the state of New York and is fully under/within/part of that state, and can't declare independence/secede (unlike a US state that can declare independence from the union, from USA, and thus be outside of federal government's reach). But let's call it "local government" if it's better - doesn't change much, as it's still a (local) government source, still authoritative, still reliable, still verifiable. Meanwhile, the last version of the article I pointed to your attention does not have the lines that BMK complained about, and does not speculate. More importantly, it would have been simply re-phrased by him, but he chose to blank it out and remove 18 sources. Also, those sources are all cited appropriately and are verifiable. The article is about an ethnic group, relatively new one, not about some complex topics like nuclear engineering or rocket science. The fact that 95% of sources are U.S. sources only adds to credibility. Of course being about Azerbaijani-Americans it would rely often on various Azerbaijanis about it. The 400,000 is available in Google Books source as another user showed. That along with 3 (local or state) government sources and others (such as statement from a Consul General, whose job is to know such things, as they have to deal with visas, passports, and other demographic questions all the time) and organizations like AAC and USAN that were specifically chosen by the US Census Bureau for the Census 2010 partnership, makes that estimate more than worthy of inclusion. Especially when you compare and look at the Iranian American page, and check the MIT Iranian Student Group survey (a poll or survey done by Iranian-Americans at MIT - that's a scholarly source), that at least 11% of Americans from Iran are actually ethnically Azerbaijani.[61] Since the U.S. Government (White House and State Department) say there are 2 million people from Iran, that's some 240,000 Azerbaijani-Americans just from Iran alone. Doesn't include Azerbaijanis who came from Azerbaijan, Russia, Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, etc. So as you can see, there is plenty of evidence, direct and indirect. But more importantly - these sources and that paragraph specifically should not have been removed/blanked out by Beyond My Ken without explanation. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Consul General, local government officials, state officials, members of congress, supreme court justices, and even the President would not be experts in census data and demographics, and thus not really reliable sources. I think your assertion about AAC and USAN being partners and thus reliable sources for these estimates would have to be supported by sources--if you read http://2010.census.gov/partners/, you see that census partners help ensure participation in the census, and are not sources of data themselves, and from what I've read, the census program encourages all interested groups to participate in the partnership program, so partnership in the census says nothing about an organizations's ability to accurately assess or generate population figures. I'm simply not concerned or interested in the Iranian American, as what is there is not relevant to this discussion. Pulling data from various sources and drawing your own conclusions is OR, and we cannot use the results from that OR in articles, plain and simple.

The most I think you can do with the some of the sources you have presented is to say that specific groups or individuals have themselves made the claim that the number is X, Y, or Z, depending on the specific group or individual. Finally, I would point out that this venue is not appropriate for discussion of editor conduct, and you should take those concerns elsewhere. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, Saygi1's statements above about Brooklyn etc. are incorrect. Brooklyn was an independent city up until the turn of the 20th century, when it merged with New York City (Manhattan) and other jurisdictions to become "Greater" New York City. Now, Brooklyn is one of 5 boroughs of New York City, each of which is coextensive with a county. (That is, NYC is not within a single county as most American cities are, but has within it 5 county-level entities.) Brooklyn is Kings County, but there is no "Kings County" govermental structure, it is all handled by the Borough President. Thus, the Borough President of Brooklyn is equivalent to the County Executive of other U.S. Counties, but somewhat less so, since many of his dutues are ceremonial, all the real power residing in the Mayor of New York and the City Council.

Next, neither counties, cities, nor states can secede at will from the higher-level entity above them -- the American Civil War was fought over just that issue on the state/Federal level. The victory of the North established that secession of states from the Federal union is not allowed. So there's no way that a state can "be outside of federal government's reach". Lower down the hierarchy, there has been, over the years, popular support for New York City (and perhaps the surrounding counties) to secede from New York and become the 51st state, but to do that there woul have to be (1) a vote in the seceding counties, (2) a vote to allow the secession in the New York State Legislature, approved by the Governor of the state and (3) A vote in Congress or votes in 3/5s of the American states to accept the new state. For these reasons, it's never going to happen -- for one the state legislature will not approve it.

This has nothing to do with the current issues, of course -- except for the fact that the Brooklyn Borough President is neither a high official, nor an expert in American ethnic demographics -- I just hate to see such blatant mistatements of fact be bandied about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Author profiles

If a publisher provides profiles of its authors, are those reliable sources? Are they considered independent of the author? The relevant example is William Lane Craig and the participant profile provided by Closer to Truth. Huon (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The correct publisher is Closer to Truth, not Closer to the Truth. Maiorem (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Correct, thanks. I've updated the link above to avoid confusion. Huon (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No, especially not for a BLP, since the publisher is not independent of the author. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim that the publisher is not independent of the author, especially in regards to author profiles? Even in terms of primary sources, shouldn't their reliability be determined by the context of their statements rather than simply by their being primary sources, per WP:PRIMARY? Maiorem (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This wouldn't be a RS for a BLP, but ordinarily the subject's blog would be a RS for info about himself. Brmull (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that standard BLP criteria apply, in particular the self-sourcing standards that

it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Applying those standards carefully, I think the profile is far from an ideal source for the material it is cited for, although it is better than similar citations to the subject's own books, which appear to be OR/synthesis from primary sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, please explain how Closer to Truth is considered "self-sourcing". Do not just say "This wouldn't be a RS" or "I think the profile is far from an ideal source" but explain in what way is it lacking as a reliable source. In addition, citations from the subject's own books are not OR/synthesis from primary sources. Please take a look at WP:OR to understand what is OR/synthesis:

The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.

In this regard, there is no OR/synthesis when citing from the subject's own books. Please do not make baseless allegations concerning the sources or the citation of sources. Maiorem (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

To me it seems possible to sometimes use such author notes, but it is not ideal. I think that it makes sense to treat it like information on an author's webpage (indeed author's webpages are often based on the same types of texts that appear on their books) and indeed the main thing to be careful of then is to avoid anything un-duly self-serving or promotional. It seems better than nothing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Richard Robert Madden

I just wanted to know if Richard Robert Madden author of a number of books the most notable being The United Irishmen, their lives and times (1843, 7 Vols.), which are listed in his bio, would be considered to be reliable source on the subject. Madden is the most cited author on most if not all books on the subject of the United Irishmen and 1798. I would suggest that unless Madden as a source is challanged, or contradicted by a contempory source it can be used. If however a source can be found which dose challenge Madden possibly both should be used, but that is only a suggestion. When Madden is supported by contempory sources, would it be advisable to use Madden or the contempory source, or can we use both? Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 16:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In terms of pure general principle all the answers you provide to your own questions seem reasonable, but not necessarily always correct. But you do not give any specific examples. Is there a controversy somewhere about a citation of him? In general, modern secondary sources are preferred for subjects like this, but older more "primary" sources are often very handy to have also, as a good straightforward to source what people said and thought in their own words, and sometimes this is necessary. Older and more primary sources normally become more controversial if they are being used in order to make a judgement style of statement about historical events, as if it is clear that modern neutral researchers would agree. In many cases the controversy can be avoided by making the wording an attributed citation and not just something "in the voice of Wikipedia" for example instead of writing that "group X tended to be rich people" you could change to "according to a contemporary member of group Y, group X tended to be rich people".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew for taking the time to have a look at this. It is my contention, based on the source, in this case Madden, that the origins of Irish Republicanism lay with Irish Volunteers (18th century). All I would like to establish at this point, is that first a)that this is the case, and b)Madden is an acceptable source for this. I will offer contemporary sources to supplement this view. But first Madden:

That the Irish Volunteers (18th century) did indeed contain republicans:"It is not inconsistent with truth, though it may be with the military glory of this institution of the Volunteers, to say that it combined in one great national phalanx the talent, the intolerance, the chivalry, the extravagance, the prodigality, the embarrassment, the republicanism, and patriotism, for one brief epoch, of all ranks and classes". The United Irishmen, their lives and times Vol. 1 first edition Page 147

Another quote in the same vain:"The republicans and the reformers had been united under the common name of Volunteers, without very distinctly perceiving that there was any difference in their designs and objects, until the progress of the French Revolution began to fill the Irish whigs with alarm; they seceded from the Volunteers ; many of them began to oppose the projects of reform which they had previously advocated, and once more the party to which the country I had looked for redress of legislative grievances was broken into hostile fragments." The United Irishmen, their lives and times Vol. 1 first edition Page 17

Now as to the origins of republicanism:"In 1793, an order from government to disperse every assemblage of that body by military force, gave the death-blow to the Volunteers: they made one faint effort in Antrim for their last review; the army was marched out of Belfast to prevent its taking place, and, in prudently giving up the review, the great body of the citizen-soldiers of Ireland gave up the ghost. But their principles were not then doomed to perish; they rose from the ashes of the Volunteers, and the course of reproduction was but a short transition from languor and hopelessness to activity and enthusiasm, and, with a perilous excess of energy in both, their principles became those of the United Irishmen in 1791." The United Irishmen, their lives and times Vol. 1 first edition Page 153

Again in the same vain:"The preceding pages were intended to show the vast influence over the mind of the nation and its rulers, which the Volunteer association at one period exerted; the failure of the only measure effected by it, namely, the independence of the Irish parliament, and the necessity for reform, more than ever felt at the time of its suppression. The society of the United Irishmen was formed with a view of accomplishing those objects which it had failed to carry into effect." The United Irishmen, their lives and times Vol. 1 first edition page160

Now the supplementary sources:"A paramilitary tradition in Irish politics was launched by the Volunteers of 1782 and that tradition, whether nationalist of unionist, loyalist or republican, has continued to shape and delimit the contours of Irish political activity. The force of argument had been trumped by the argument of force". Ireland: A History, Thomas Bartlett, Cambridge University Press, 2010, 9780521197205, page 190

And again:"If Irish nationalism dates from Strongbow, or even the Danes, Irish republicanism was an offspring of the Volunteers of 1782 and owes much to the external influences of the American and French revolutions." Fenians and Fenianism, Maurice Harmon, Scepter Publishers Limited, 1968, Page 65.

Now a contemporary or Madden: "This republican temper of a large portion of the Protestant population of Ireland was the germ, first, of a growing parliamentary opposition to the measures of the English Government, and ultimately of the Volunteer Association and the revolution of 1782". IRELAND IN '98, J. BOWLES DALY, 1888 Page 21

"The first Society of United Irishmen grew out of the ashes of the Volunteers and the disappointed hopes of the legislative revolution of 1782; the Volunteers grew out of the parliamentary and popular opposition to British government which had shown itself at intervals almost from the beginning of the century, and had gone on steadily widening and deepening from the accession of George III to the American war".

"The Republicans and Reformers joined under the common name of Volunteers without at first perceiving that their designs and objects were identical. The French Revolution filled the Whigs with alarm; they seceded from the Volunteers, some opposed the projects of reform, and in this way broke up the party. The Republican section in Ulster sought a reconciliation with the Catholics of the South, with the view of obtaining equal rights on equal terms with the Catholics". IRELAND IN '98, J. BOWLES DALY, 1888 Page 64

Another contemporary"After the publication of another philippic against Government, a meeting of the United Irish of Dublin was dismissed by the sheriff, as persons holding seditious and republican views. Thus, in 1794, terminated the legal existence of the last of the Volunteers of 1782; convened, under their new name, two years and a half previously." The Croppy: A Tale of the Irish Rebellion of l798, John Banim, James Duffy, 1865, Page. 5"

Based on the above, would it be consistent with the sources to say that Irish Republicanism had its origins with the Volunteers? The next issue I'd like to address is did the Irish Volunteers call themselves "volunteers"? That however is another issue. If you need additional information let me know and thanks again. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

After a quick perusal I would suggest using attribution for this type of historical commentary, such as "According to 19th century historians such as X, Y and Z, ....". If you do not use attribution you may end up with someone tagging you for using an old secondary source that MIGHT not still be something modern historians agree with. Ideally though, I would try to find a more recent source to add to what you have.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look Andrew and offering your advice. I understand the use of attribution, having used it quite often, but in a case were there is no contradictory source is it still necessary? For example it is not disputed that "The origins of Irish Republicanism lay with the both the American and French revolutions. Morgan Llwelyn, Irish Rebels, O'Brien Press, 2001, pg 29, isbn 0 86278 857 9 and Sean Cronin, Irish Nationalism: A History of its Roots and Ideology, The Continuum Publishing Company, 1980, pages = 1-2, isbn 0 8264 0062 0. Again it is not disputed that the Volunteers were established in response to the American revolution, therefore is it consistent with the sources to say that Irish Republicanism has its origins in the Volunteers, and that these sources could and do indeed support such a suggestion:"A paramilitary tradition in Irish politics was launched by the Volunteers of 1782 and that tradition, whether nationalist of unionist, loyalist or republican, has continued to shape and delimit the contours of Irish political activity. The force of argument had been trumped by the argument of force". Ireland: A History, Thomas Bartlett, Cambridge University Press, 2010, 9780521197205, page 190. "If Irish nationalism dates from Strongbow, or even the Danes, Irish republicanism was an offspring of the Volunteers of 1782 and owes much to the external influences of the American and French revolutions." Fenians and Fenianism, Maurice Harmon, Scepter Publishers Limited, 1968, Page 65. If this is the case, I would like to address the issue surrounding the name used by members of the Irish Volunteers to describe themselves, namely 'volunteer.'? Thanks again for taking the time to work with me on this it is very much appreciated. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping you from not using attribution. It is partly just to avoid it drawing drive by tagging and the like. I have no idea how other editors knowledgeable in this field will feel about it and in the end consensus is the aim. If there are no contradictory sources, then you have either looked at modern sources, in which case I suggest naming a few, or else maybe they just haven't been looked at yet and maybe that can be a long term aim.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

womensmafia.com

Is the interview at http://www.womensmafia.com/2011/06/talent-qa-davina-reichman/ a reliable source for Davina Reichman, who is being interviewed there? Dream Focus 08:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a fairly simple website outfit, with two people named, one of whom conducts that interview. They also do not explain their editorial techniques which makes it important to try to find out whether any other sources cite them as if they have a reputation for accuracy. So does not look good for controversial stuff at first sight, but this particular interview looks like one that the living person involved has attended voluntarily, which means we can perhaps use that interview like we would use that person's personal webpage: i.e. ok for anything which is not obvious self-promotion. As in all such cases of people in their own words, bu on the internet, the main concern apart from self-promotion would be whether there is any chance that it is fraudulent, and not really involving the individual we want to write about. It does not seem likely in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

2012 phenomenon

Two years ago an astrologer named Raymond Mardyks made an anonymous edit to this article, attempting to claim credit for originating a mystical idea about 2012. Mardyks had a personal grudge against the astrologer who is usually given credit for it and was trying to use Wikipedia as a means to "correct" the situation. However, his edits were reverted on the grounds that the source he used, The Mountain Astrologer, was not valid. This led him to shift his vendetta against the editors of the article, leading to a two-year talk page battle and multiple blockings. Now however, there seems to be a shift in consensus, and The Mountain Astrologer is being considered a reliable source. I would like an outside opinion. Serendi^podous 08:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll go out on a limb and say it must be a reliable source for some things and not for other things. You need to explain what is being used for. OTOH, your posting makes it seem like you are possibly most interesting in asking whether, because a source has been considered useless for one purpose, it should be considered useless for all purposes. If that is your question, the answer would be no.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Mardyks has been regularly spamming in several places using various IPs trying to promote himself. The discussion about this is at Talk:2012 phenomenon#Mardyks, a section I started asking people to delete his posts, but if you read the posts by Hoopes you will see the arguments for inclusion. I think Maryks is posting again with an IP and signing Jimini Cricket (see also the following section he started again promoting Mardyks and a Britney Spear YouTube video. You can ignore the hype about Mardyks' posts on the Aztlan mailing list, it doesn't reflect the beliefs of the list members whose posts I've read. Also see User talk:Hoopes#Uh, Hoopes where Professor Hoopes enlarges on his rationale for including it. Note that I was asked by Professor Hoopes to intervene and it is at my suggestion that Serendipodous brought his request here. Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Mountain Astrologer is the primary source on what, exactly, was published in it. As such we can certainly cite it specifically for that fact.

The other question, which I think Hoopes and Serendipodous discussed some way back, is not really for this board; it's whether the information (i.e. the publication and existence of Mardyks's piece in TMA) is notable. It will be notable once Hoopes has published about it, as he promised to do. Till then, I think what would be needed is some other reference to Mardyks's piece, as demonstration that it's notable. But, as I say, that's not a reliability question. Andrew Dalby 13:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful discussion. Mardyk's piece in TMA has been cited in several books that address the 2012 phenomenon, including the book Maya Cosmogenesis 2012 by John Major Jenkins. I think this makes it notable. I think the discussion above of Wikipedia:RSN#Sources_at_Astrology is also relevant. As noted, The Mountain Astrologer is the primary source on what was published in it and when. Hoopes (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Bollywoodhungama.com (alias Indiafm.com)

The so-called critic by the name of Taran Adarsh who has been reviewing films for Bollywood Hungama.com is being disputed on his so-called reliability which seems to be driven away by the fact that he plainly promotes a film industry rather than acting like a critic or calculating genuine box office figures. Recent examples of his marketing schemes can be seen in recent Bollywood hit films, like Wanted, Dabangg, Ready Bodyguard, Singham and Mere Brother Ki Dulhan. Another instance of his tomfoolery can be found on the fact that he has posted a review of a film a day before its worldwide release here, naturally with a high rating. His film ratings of 4/5 and 4.5/5 seem to be opposing more experienced and recognized critics who panned most of the above films. I wish to get more opinions on whether his ratings and figures can be used on WP, which is NOT an advertising medium. Thank you! Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 17:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree to the post above, his reliability is highly questioned whether is for Critical reception or Box office figures. He should not be considered a reliable source for both CR & BO here at WP --Meryam90 (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with both of you. I remember a few months ago, some even said that, we cannot take the statements of producers when it comes to budget or gross of a film. As statements made by this man are highly disputable, don't think this can be taken into reliability. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 18:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What's been happening here...? "Shouldn't be used" per what policy or "highly questioned" by whom? You're clearly misunderstanding WP:SOAP, which doesn't say anything about third-party sources and/or reliability of sources. Taran is a leading film critic and trade analyst of Indian cinema and Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. His work has been featured on indiaFM, Zee TV, Zee News, Times of India, Hindustan Times and countless other highly esteemed publications and mass media. Even international names like BBC, The Guardian and Variety have cited him, or used his reports in an indirect or direct way. Nothing an individual says can put him in a bad light or make him a dishonest critic. Pauline Kael is considered a controversial figure in film journalism, but, at the same time, she's still one the greatest and most influential film critics in history. No direct, germane comparisons, though. Secondly, I suppose, you can't write something like "he plainly promotes a film industry rather than acting like a critic or calculating genuine box office figures" on Wikipedia, including even the talk spaces, without citing or quoting some third-party, for WP:BLP reasons. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between "critics" and just plain "reviewers". Have you ever seen Taran Adarsh criticize a film in any way as the other people do? Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 05:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That's your own decrepit theory, but to answer your question, yes, many a times. 1, 2 and 3 are just a few examples. Scieberking (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

These examples clearly prove that he judges films based on whether they will score at the BO or not, unlike a critic who is someone who manages to criticize a film to the greatest possible extent he/she can(regardless of BO expectations)! Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 06:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, that's your POV. There's nothing more to it. Scieberking (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, its not my personal opinion. I'm quite sure User:Vensatry and User:Meryam90 will agree with me. Anyway, we have lots of other critics and notable media working for Bollywood, so there will be not much of a change if we remove this guy's reviews. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 08:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

On what basis or Wikipedia policy? I guess that would be totally unacceptable removing a highly reputed film critic's reviews for totally illogical reasons. Scieberking (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything much about the guy, but I have seen many references to him on Wikipedia. If he is very popular, and is often cited by mainstream media, I see no reason to ban his reviews. It should be fine to say that he gave film X 4 stars, but reviewer Y only gave it 2 stars. If he always gives inflated reviews people will figure it out on their own and take what he says with a grain of salt. BollyJeff || talk 11:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

He may be highly popular here on wiki, but that doesn't change the fact that he's not taken very seriously by the people, esp when it comes to stars' films...some films has been panned globally, yet he gives them 4s & 5s just because he thinks they will do well at the box office. What I have an issue with is his BO numbers and verdicts. he had a famous dispute on twitter with Abhishek Bachchan over budget of Bbuddah... Hoga Terra Baap and just very recently, he called Mausam below average when it's an obvious Hit and Shahid kapoor also reacted to him. and let's not forget the infamous ATBB verdict for Ready when it's only a BB... --Meryam90 (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think its time to bring in the Wp:IAR policy here. Adding dubicious ratings is in no way encyclopedic. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 06:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, misinterpretation of a policy. If you think Taran is "dubicious", provide third party reliable sources that report he is. Otherwise, don't push your POV here. For the record, Mausam has been declared a FLOP by BOI. Scieberking (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should debate whether his critique of films is reliable or not. As a matter of fact, none of them are inherently reliable, not Nikhat Kazmi, not anyone else. This is simply because critiques are his/her personal opinion. Whether Taran Adarsh is biased or not, we should not care. If he is a reputed film critic, he should be mentioned, regardless of whether he called Mausam a hit or a flop. If other external sources doubt his credibility, then alone can we decide upon inclusion of his critiques. Lynch7 14:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point. How can you call a leading critic's work "dubious" without providing third-party reliable sources? And of course the Mausam verdict is irrelevant here, and for the same reason, I used "for the record". Scieberking (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That was my point to! Since his opinions prove undesirable, I suggested a ban only on his reviews and not on his BO calculations and interviews. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 16:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Un"desirable"? To whom? Lynch7 16:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of Executive Biographies on BusinessWeek.com

If I wanted to state that Michael H. Jordan had been a Director of Young & Rubicam, Inc., would BusinessWeek's Executive Profile and Biography of Michael H. Jordan be a reliable source? (Be sure to click the "Read Full Background" link to disclose the hidden text.) Thanks 199.46.245.237 (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

BusinessWeek is WP:RS and so, absent conflicting information, this material is also RS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The concern is represented by the footnote: "*Data is at least as current as the most recent Definitive Proxy", as there is no Definitive Proxy for private companies, such as one currently under discussion, BlackLight Power. The concern is whether the BW summary is based on more than just BlackLight's website. Given that there is another published source (NYTimes) indicating that he's no longer among the living, the odds of him serving on Y&R, BLP or any other boards seem pretty slim. Accordingly, I must conclude that BW is not a RS for such details. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Are El Nuevo Diario and El Universal (Mexico City) reliable?

I'm personally not familiar with the news services of central and south America; therefore, I'd like to find out if El Nuevo Diario (from Nicaragua) and El Universal (Mexico City) (from Mexico) could be regarded as reliable. I'm trying to support a sales figure of a Mexican singer Luis Miguel at the List of best-selling music artists with these two articles, one by by El Nuevo Diario and the other by El Universal. I would appreciate it if someone with knowledge about those two news agencies could confirm their reliability.--Harout72 (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see these newspapers as being problematic themselves (admittedly, I'm not familiar with them, but they don't look unreliable). However, these newspapers have the same problem with reporting career sales figures that many newspapers throughout the world do -- namely, it's likely that when they report the worldwide sales figures for an artist, they are probably relying on information supplied by the artist's management or record company, not on actual research by the newspaper. I would recommend following the same practice required at Talk:List of best-selling music artists for other artists -- namely, accept the sales figure reported by the newspapers (60 million) only if the artist has record certifications to support a sufficient percentage of the reported figure. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes, "opposed" and sourcing

In reviewing infoboxes for various economists, I came across a curious "opposed" field. This field ostensibly lists other academics to which the economist was in some way "opposed". However, the sourcing for this opposition is generally flimsy to non-existent. For example, the article Arthur Cecil Pigou lists him as being opposed to Lionel Robbins. However, that is the only mention of Robbins in the article. Looking at Lionel Robbins, there is no mention of Pigou at all, though it does list him as opposed to Marshallian Economics economics. Maybe this is a by product of the high degree of infighting in the field of economics, but all of these poorly source "opposed" fields somehow feel misplaced. Thoughts? aprock (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a dubious practice to me. I would say that if this box is filled in then it should be explained and sourced somewhere in the article. I would suggest tagging or trying to start talk page discussion on this basis.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not just this infobox, but a good dozen or so. I'll open discussions on talk pages. aprock (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes a long time to finish doesn't it? :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Using reports of market research surveys

This concerns Metrication in the United Kingdom, and I'd appreciate input because things have been getting edit-warry. The dispute is over whether we can use reports sourced to the BBC, Which? magazine, and other typically RS sources to include content that describes how two major supermarket chains (Tesco and Asda - one and two in the UK by market share) cited their own commissioned research on consumers' preferences for imperial and metric measurements and how it determined subsequent policy (reintroducing pricing in imperial measurements in in one form or another).

Here is a paragraph containing the material that is disputed. (The Asda information is also mentioned in the lede as a 2011 state of affairs reference):

Following the results of a survey of their customers in early 2011 - which concluded that 70% of them would prefer products to be labelled in imperial units - the Asda supermarket chain are experimenting with selling produce in round imperial measures again.source A similar survey of 1,000 customers conducted by the Tesco supermarket chain in 2000 showed that 90% of their customers used imperial measures.source Tesco's use of imperial units over metric, with prices per pound displayed more prominently that those per kilo, was identified in a 2004 Which? magazine report as a possible means of appearing cheaper than its rivals.source

Extra RS for Asda here and here and for Tesco here (coverage is also in the Daily Mail, Express and Sun, but I don't like those as RS - but clearly it adds to dueness).

One pair of editors (and I'll do my best to fairly describe their arguments) is suggesting that because we do not know very much about the surveys themselves (we know sample sizes and a few key results that were announced but little else), why it was commissioned and because commercial organisations can lie about research we should not include this material. People may misunderstand the report of the survey and come away from the article thinking something else. Also, Asda was recently taken over by Walmart and for this reason one editor argues we shouldn't believe what Asda says, and Tesco also is claimed to be untrustworthy. They have also cited "lies, damned lies and statistics" and asserted that it is necessary to have done statistics at undergraduate level to understand the problem, which both of them say they have. One of them even kindly suggested a statistics textbook for the rest of us to read. A third editor objects on the grounds that insertion is an abuse of WP:verifiability.

The other group of editors (including me) argue that the material is due because of RS coverage, and that so long as we attribute clearly, then it is fine to put the material in. According to multiple RS, the surveys took place, the supermarkets announced some of the findings, and their reactions to those findings, which also indisputably took place. An editor's personal belief regarding companies and their surveys counts for nothing regardless of any claims to expertise: we need sourcing that explains why these particular surveys should not be mentioned in the article.

As such, no evidence specifically relating to these surveys, or to any general tendency of the two supermarkets (Asda and Tesco) to produce bogus research has been produced. None of the RS mentioning these surveys has raised doubts over their authenticity. (I would say that at least one or two appear to take the results at face value, but that's my view) This is not - and we're all clear on this - to say that we treat the surveys as topnotch RS on the state of public opinion: they should be reported with attribution.

Your input would be greatly appreciated.

Anyone with even more time on their hands might look at other disputes on that page, notably whether or not the London 2012 Olympics is relevant to metrication in the UK. Things are getting a bit shirty.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

As a note: One of the users wanting to omit the material has described my summary as fair save that "I would like it mentioned that both HiLo48 and I (user:Martinvl) have claimed real life qualifications in statistics. I think that this is relevant because we are both using our "expert" knowledge to interpret the sources and the degree to which "expert" knowledge should be heeded might well be a factor. (I used the term "expert" is the way that a witness in court might be an expert witness)" VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Just in case this is helpful. There is a Market Research Association in the UK, which the major polling organisations are members of, and it has a code of conduct which would forbid findings being doctored to suit the sponsor. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"A poll, commissioned by the British Weights and Measures Association (BWMA) last year, said most people preferred to maintain imperial measures, alongside metric. The survey, carried out by an independent polling company, found 72% of youngsters and adults in the UK wanted to keep imperial measures." From your second EL, BBC News. That's the kind of thing I meant, and is good enough to cite. If the source doesn't say that an independent company did the survey, it could be the supermarket asking customers while they shop, and that's not so valid at all, so I would omit. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Judith, I think you're mixing two points together. One is finding good sourcing for public opinion on metrication. The other is how we report an event (a supermarket changing its pricing policy) that is clearly due. On the first point, I would have been reluctant to treat the BWMA survey as RS because the BWMA is an advocacy group opposed to metrication. As the survey was done by BMRB, does that mean we needn't worry about who commissioned the survey? (I'm surprised by that if it's the case, but I'm (in ignorance, admittedly) dubious as to enforcement of the MRA guidelines). On the second point, the decision by Tesco to start giving prominence to imperial measures is clearly important - it's the biggest retailer in the country, and in addition to the contemporaneous RS, the BBC even mentions the move in its "on this day" (in previous years) feature five years later, and all reports mention the survey. If the survey isn't trustworthy in itself (I can only find this article in RS to suggest it was "commissioned" rather than done by Tesco themselves), what should we do? Not mention the numbers, but generally describe the result (eg "Stating that their own customer research found strong support for imperial measures")? I think omitting all mention of the survey would be odd, given it's a consistent feature of all reports.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, the claim is reported in secondary source, Which being a source that is a reliable source, the article linked verifies the claim. That gentlemen is more than good enough for wikipedia. As an aside, I see several familiar names in the history list, who will no doubt see this comment as "invalid" due to past editing disputes. However, I have seen that wherever they seem to edit there does seem to be conflict, perhaps this is not suitable for this board but rather an RFC on user conduct would be better. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:EXPERT, although an essay, does give relevant guidance - in particular Unsourced "expert opinion" and unpublished conjecture have no place in an encyclopedia. The two editors concerned must provide a cite to back up their expert opinion. What I saw in the talk page wouldn't pass muster. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This is frustrating. I've had people attacking someone described as me, without anyone going to the trouble of checking up on what I actually. I posted a lot of well thought out comments in the original thread. Very few people here seem to have read them. Surely responsible editors would have checked on what I actually said. One simple point I now repeat about the stores' alleged surveys.... The sources did not tell us the exact question(s) asked, who was asked, and the context in which they were asked. When I go to the supermarket it's with very explicit goals, which would not include stopping to respond to a survey, so people like me don't get polled. Now you at least have something real from me to attack. Do carry on. HiLo48 (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have your expertise in this kind of research (and you have asserted expertise as if it gave weight to your view), you'd know very well that a properly done survey would take into account the demographic of people sampled. People like you (age, gender, etc) will get asked. An anecdote: An old sociology professor of mine said that he realised he was getting old when his occasional deliberate walks past supermarkets to see what was being surveyed no longer resulted in being stopped to be interviewed. Old people were easy for them to find, whereas the younger him had been a catch. It's not a perfect method, but it's better than ignoring demographics altogether. In any case, you're still missing the point. It's not whether the survey was reliably done, it's whether it's due to mention the survey results even if there is doubt over their validity.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm not sure which survey we are talking about. If a poll wasn't done by an independent company in the MRA then it should either not be mentioned or given little weight. If it was done in that way it will be possible to find out who commissioned it, who was polled and how. That information should be given. I found this report of a BMRB survey from 1999, which does seem relevant to this article if it is carefully described and not given undue weight (sorry). Itsmejudith (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Judith, the point is that the pricing move by Tesco was widely reported (it should be beyond debate that Tesco's actions are DUE content for this article), and in all those reports, Tesco's justification for the move (that 90% figure from their survey) was also reported. Do we omit all mention of the reason Tesco gave, which is - as far as I can see - the position of HiLo48, or do we make paraphrase reference to the results, or state the number but be absolutely clear it was Tesco's own survey? Those of us who think it should be included are happy to acknowledge that as a genuine measure of public opinion or even Tesco shoppers it might be rubbish, but because it gets mentioned consistently in RS, we should find some way of including it (without giving the impression we accept it as a good measure).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would support the latter approach if it could be made 100% clear that we know nothing about how the survey was conducted. That's not going to be easy to put into encyclopaedic language. Do you have a proposed wording? HiLo48 (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry if you were offended by my remarks, which were intended as a measure of honest feedback. I did look at the talk page and spent an hour reading through it. My impressions were of two editors claiming their "expertise" made them better equipped to give weight to a source than other editors. Moreover, it seemed that rather than improving the article, it was about promoting the metric system as being more popular than it actually is in the UK. I saw agenda driven editing behaviour and interpretation of sources. As regards the question originally posed, the edit conforms to wikipedia's policy and whilst we give great latitude to editors in deciding content I see no real reason for excluding that information - it honestly appears to be as a result of WP:IDONTLIKE. Honest feedback from an uninvolved editor, you can either accept it or reject it as you like. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

to HiLo48: Excellent - we're finding common ground. I agree it's very tricky to get perfect wording, as we can't say for certain that the details weren't put out by some RS somewhere at the time. (It's depressing that none of them thought to actually include relevant details like...er.... who actually did the survey.) What would be great is tracking down a press release to see if they give details there. Failing that, we could turn an IAR blind eye to a word like "claimed", which is usually seen as weaselly.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jyjou*

Hello, I sent this article about a french mime to AfD because I've been unable to find sources independant from himself. Some advice would be appreciated over there. Thank you, Comte0 (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Techno Management

Are these sources reliable?

http://www.microsoft.com/project/en/gb/find-partner.aspx?country=qatar

http://www.microsoft.com/industry/government/solutions/EnterpriseProjectManagement/default.aspx

http://www.techno-management.com/Partners.aspx

http://www.esri.com/apps/company/contact/index.cfm?fa=distributor.lookup&country=Egypt

http://www.pfizer.com/home/

http://www.gmegypt.com/content_data/LAAM/ME/en/GBPME/999/index.html

http://www.mof.gov.eg/english/Pages/Home.aspx unsigned comment left by User:Wessam Fawzy Comte0 (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Reliable for what? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

http://candles.lovetoknow.com

Is http://candles.lovetoknow.com (and lovetoknow.com in general) a reliable source? It seems to me to be one of those write-articles-with-little-editorial-control sites, but I could be misreading it. It was recently used to support several statements in Gurley Novelty. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to come up with something a bit more concrete than "It seems to me to be". Do you have any proof that the information contained is unreliable? It seems pretty knowledgable to me. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's the other way around - I don't think we presume that any given website is "reliable" without some indication that it satisfies the general requirements of reliability. At least that's how I read the discussion. Also the burden of reliability is on the person asserting the fact. This is pretty lightweight stuff - no reason to think it's not true - but if the information is true and concerns a notable company, there should be something suitable out there to cite. JohnInDC (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The magnifying glass always comes out whenever the subject is contentious. In this case it's just a novelty company that manufactured millions of tiny holiday candles that virtually everyone in the 1960s-1970s bought. If you can find any published references please add them. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That gets WP:Burden precisely backwards, I think. Also, I was alive during the 1960s and 70s and never heard of the company until this article. Of course that doesn't prove much of anything but as I said before, if virtually everyone in the country bought this company's products then it shouldn't be too hard to come up with some sourcing other than arts & crafts blogs. JohnInDC (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

JohnInDC, no, it doesn't. It means you aren't familiar with the proper use of {cite} tags. If you are challenging the validity of a statement you may add the appropriate {cite} tag to the statement to give other editors an opportunity to explore supporting references. What you are describing are situations where the statement is false or the result of vandalism, and that is clearly not the case here. Wikipedia is full of articles that could benefit from better references, but we don't scrap half of our articles waiting for a reference to show up. You make do with the best you can find. As for not being familiar with them. I don't know how experienced you are with collectibles but in the future, if you're unfalimiar with a collectible and concerned about its existance I suggest you check out a site called eBay. It's an online auction. If the collectible in question ever existed you shoul;d be able to find it there pretty quickly. In the case of Gurley candles there are literally hundreds of them listed at any given time. As for books on Gurley candles, there was an interesting discussion that happened on eBay about two years ago on just that subject. You can find it at http://forums.ebay.com/db1/topic/Decorative-Holiday/Info-On-Gurley/2000221182 - Ken keisel (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

My objection is to creating articles based on unreliable or blacklisted sources and then calling upon other editors to find better ones if they express concerns about the poor sources you provided. As the author of an article it is incumbent upon you to get it right - or at least close - from the start. Other editors aren't here simply to clean up what you start! JohnInDC (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I would advise editors to switch over and view JohnInDC's recent comments on User talk:Ken keisel. He is now challenging the contents of a book he admits he doesn't own and has never read. JohnInDC also challenged the notability of popular Navy bandleader Anthony A. Mitchell, and tried to have the article deleted, to which he was unanimously outvoted. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering Ken keisel stated that it "took him a trip to Amazon" to find the information, and that instead of answering JohnInDC's question about whether he owns the book, he tried to switch the topic to an article that was discussed months ago, and that he originally stated that pages 68-70 were "devoted entirely" to Gurley Candles, when there's only a passing mention on the first of those pages, I'm prepared to draw certain conclusions about the source and the editor.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Love to know's editorial policy suggests minimal oversight on the articles, my feeling is that we would have to base reliability on a given article there on the expertise of the author, not the site per se. Not reliable in this case as far as I can determine, and the article seems a fit candidate for AFD. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed this source from the subject article and substituted a slightly better one. There's one other - christmasnite.com - that also seems questionable and if anyone cares to opine on that, I'd welcome it. Otherwise, Sarek's original question seems to have been answered and addressed - JohnInDC (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

As long as I'm here...

What's the reliability quotient on this source? I'm in the middle of a big merge and this is the only source for some information in one of the pages. Serendi^podous 18:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that's a reliable source, but admittedly I also don't see why we would want to list all the occultation events in the first place. Anyway, the website looks like a self-published source, and for all I can tell, the author is a hobby astronomer, not an acknowledged expert. Huon (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Using autobiographies

One of the main sources I have used on the Katharine Hepburn article is her autobiography, now I'm worrying people will say this is not a reliable source...is its usage okay? I am primarily using it to reference details about her life, and I figured this is pretty much the most reliable source you can use seeing as she wrote it herself. But it seems people may view it as biased. I want to put the article forward for GA soon so I want to check up on this, would appreciate some input and advice (I'm not experienced with this place). --Lobo512 (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd advise caution. For uncontroversial statements or for Hepburn's opinions, it can be used without problem. But secondary sources would always be preferable. Ater all, an autobiography is the best place to put a positive spin on your own life's events. The relevant policy is WP:PRIMARY. Huon (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

SELFPUB. Wifione ^Message 16:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

So autobios do count as a primary source? Okay I didn't realise that. I think that primary source page should mention it. I'll try and make sure I only use it for the things you said. --Lobo512 (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It does. Wifione ^Message 17:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

Is the following quote "The Soviet Union under Stalin sided with the proletariat, but, as it prepared the way for industrialization and communist internationalism, it perpetrated the most brutal acts of terrorism against its own population, particularly the peasants." from "Gellately, Robert. Kiernan, Ben. (Editors) (2003) The Specter of Genocide: Mass Murder in Historical Perspective Cambridge University Press ISBN 978-0521527507" suitable to support this statement "Communist terrorism is a term that has been used to describe actions carried out by communist states against their populace" given that the USSR were a communist state? The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No, as it doesn't "describe actions carried out by communist states against their populace", only acts of terrorism carried out by Stalin's regime. I have not looked at the source, so I am making no claims about it's general reliability, just that the quote provided does not support the statement. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The quotation you provided supports the claim that at least one communist state used terrorism against its own population.

But as it does not use the term "Communist terrorism", it is difficult to see how it could support the claims about how the term "Communist terrorism" is used.

What you need are some sources that used the term "Communist terrorism", and see what they meant by that phrase.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This still comes back to the precise definition of terrorism. It is used so often as a politically loaded term. I'll bet Stalin didn't call his actions terrorism. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he did. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like someone wants to add a statement in their own words and is looking around for a text to support that statement. The correct way round is to ask if the source is right for the article and if it is then to try and summarise its argument faithfully. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hang on here a moment, you people are actually saying that a source which clearly states the USSR carried out terrorist actions against it`s own populace does not support the statement that communist terrorism has been used to describe actions by communist states? The USSR were a communist state, source says they carried out actions of terrorism. Please explain why the source does not cover that? @ Judith, a cn tag was added for the statement in question hence the search for a source. Now we all know that many actions carried out by communist states have been called terrorism, Pol Pot`s actions or the Holodomore being a prime examples. This is a sentence which should not even need a source for gods sake. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You are providing a source to support your statement about the use of the term "communist terrorism", but your source does not use the term let alone explain how it is used. Essentially you are defining the term yourself, which is prohibited as original research. TFD (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Do not tell lies regarding my person again, it is not my statement. It is in the article and a cn tag has been slapped on it, so naturally I went looking for a source. I am not defining anything it is common sense that actions carried out by communist states have been called terrorism, it should not even need a source. The Last Angry Man (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That is the source of your conflict with other editors. You have a viewpoint you want expressed in articles, then search for sources that support them. However the sources you provide either do not support your viewpoint or are unreliable. A better approach would be to read relevant quality literature about topics and then ensure they are presented with proper weight to different viewpoints. TFD (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoa! This is the RS/N noticeboard, not the "sins of editors" noticeboard, and sidetracking legitimate issues with attacks on others impresses no one here. The source as presented is quite sufficient for the linkage it makes, and your charges now are inapt here or on any Wikipedia noticeboard. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Care to comment on TLAM's accusation of another editor of "lying"? Any reason for using bold text? TFD (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

OK everybody needs to settle down and focus on the source question. By the looks of it there is clear consensus against using it in this manner, a position I support as well for the obvious reasons that you can't define a term based on a source that doesn't use it, and indeed doesn't generalize about a concept that is synonymous at all, but merely provides facts about a specific series of historical events.Griswaldo (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

'Stalin was a communist, he practised terrorism, therefore he was a communist-terrorist'. 'Stalin had a moustache, he practised terrorism, therefore he was a moustache-terrorist'. The latter is clearly nonsensical - so why isn't the former? Or if you think that is a ridiculous argument, try substituting 'male' for 'communist', and then look at the history of terrorism - you might think it is relevant, irrelevant, or beside the point, but that is your opinion, not that of the source cited. If we are going to use sources to make 'linkages' they don't explicitly state, we are opening up Wikipedia to all sorts of special pleading. Unless the source says that Stalin's 'communism' and his 'terrorism' were linked, we shouldn't. This is hardly contentious - it is at the core of Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly right.Griswaldo (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Re definition of terrorism, the following quote can be useful:

"Jeffrey Simon highlights that there are at least 212 different definitions of terrorism in use throughout the world, with 90 of them used by governments and other institutions. In one of the most rigorous attempts to define terrorism, Alex P. Schmid and Albert J. Jongman examine 109 different definitions of terrorism. Thereby they identify 22 elements in these definitions, calculate the frequency of their occurrence, and issue a lengthy consensus definition incorporating most of these elements.
"In a more recent study, Leonard Weinberg, Ami Pedahzur and Sivan Hirsch-Hoefler examine 73 definitions of terrorism from 55 articles in three leading academic journals on the topic, and come to the conclusion that “[t]errorism is a politically motivated tactic involving the threat or use of force or violence in which the pursuit of publicity plays a significant role.”"(Alexander Spencer, Questioning the Concept of ‘New Terrorism’ Peace Conflict & Development, Issue 8, January 2006)

I looked at the Weinberg's article (Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol.16, No.4 (Winter 2004), pp.777–794), and I found that among 73 definitions he examined there were no "Communist terrorism". --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The editor is not seeking to say "Communist terrorism is a tactic used by communist states against their populace". He's seeking to say "Communist terrorism is a term that has been used to describe actions carried out by communist states against their populace". Very different. The latter is essentially just defining a term -- a very narrow task. And for that, he would definitely need sources that use that exact term ("communist terrorism") and define that way. Herostratus (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• It comes down to whether we believe State terrorism is possible or a contracdition in terms. I think the suggestion of including this in Communist terrorism is misguided and confuses two topics. Terrorist acts commited by communist insurgent groups and state oppression which is of course not exclusive to or necessarily motivated or condoned by a communist ideology. We could justy as well make an article on capitalist terrorism and cite all the books describing scorched earth strategies used by capitalist states against socialist insurgents. It makes no sense.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

With Nuujinn. One shouldn't come to wikipedia with a monocular bee in one's bonnet. Nearly all historic states have carried out terrorism against their populations, and it's called State terrorism, which is a contradiction in US law, as Maunus implies, but not a contradiction in terms, since states are widely founded on war and consolidated by terror, and empires sustain themselves, at times, by pure terror. Do we need Spartan terrorism, French terrorism, German terrorism, Russian imperial terrorism, Australian terrorism (genocide in Tasmania), US terrorism (hundreds of incidents like the Wilmington Insurrection of 1898). If you want an index of statistics on the use of state terror in post Civil War US, look up Michael Mann's The Sources of Social Power, vol. 2: its systematic institutiona violence exceeded that of Tzarist Russia; if you want a theoretical survey of terror as integral to stat formation look up Barrington Moore Jr., or any number of historians. Alexandre Kojève in a famous footnote said Communist terror-driven industralization did capitalism's dirty work with more efficiently than a liberal state could have managed, and thus unwittingly served the global system. Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Please supply a full citation including the authors of the chapter, the page range, and the title of the chapter. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Rodda Smoke Burner

Titus Salt states that Salt tried and failed to get other mill owners in Bradford to use a device called the Rodda Smoke Burner. In 2007 I failed to find any references for this, and challenged it with a {{fact}} tag. This July, User:90.203.53.220 added a link to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRsalt.htm, which User:Keith D then converted to a proper citation. I noticed this and added a comment to the talk page, but did then not take further action. I claim that the source is not reliable: first because it is a website of unknown authorship, with no references; and secondly because I showed here that it makes two statements which, while I cannot definitely disprove them, would appear to be inconsistent with the published sources I have referenced.

I would appreciate other opinions about the reliability of that source. --ColinFine (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The Spartacus site is not of unknown authorship - see [62]. John Simkin is a credible writer of the kind of history source that would be used in a school curriculum - the facts will all be there, the dates will be correct, but one would look elsewhere for in depth analysis. As for the Rodda smoke burner, I've a couple of books about old Titus hanging about the house (he being a local chap) - I'll have a look to see if this is mentioned. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Time to axe the Daily Mail

Once a source starts putting up fake news stories, surely it's time to nip it in the bud. If the verdict had been the one they expected, then that story would have stayed up with the fake quotes, and the fake reactions. A complete farce. Time to strike it off as a reliable source. Betty Logan (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Damn, the one time I wish the Fail was right. But yes, I support the withdrawal of any and all support for the Daily Mail as a reliable source. It's often been seen by John Q Public as suspect to say the least, and their habit of attack journalism has always shaded them as untrustworthy to me. If a self-published source were to engage in this shoddy a level of journalism, they'd never be allowed as a reliable source. I fail to see why circulation numbers should change that. GRAPPLE X 01:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Pathological liars. Any publication can get things wrong occasionally, but all the evidence suggests that the Mail just doesn't care. Print what people want to hear, and ignore reality... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune once published the wrong winner of a US presidential election.[63] That doesn't mean that the Chicago Tribune as a whole is unreliable. Reliability, as always, depends on context. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The 'context' is the history of the Daily Mail - littered with crap they invented themselves... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between calling something wrong (i.e. a mistake) and putting up an entire fake article with reactions and repsonses, which clearly must have been invented (i.e. fabrication). Mistakes are acceptable to a degree, and the job of RS is to determine to what degree; outright fabrication crosses that line. Betty Logan (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Dewey Defeats Truman was a mistake made by overestimating a set of statistics; it was not a fabricated story with colourful invective and potentially libellous (I say potentially only because the Mail story was taken down) material. A simple "Knox declared guilty" headline is a mistake. A full article with fabricated statements is disgracefully poor journalism. GRAPPLE X 02:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Terri's 'death' mistakenly reported by CBS News. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering even the NYT was caught with "fabricated stories" I suspect that there are no "sufficiently reliable sources' for every topic under the sun. That is not, however, a reason to toss the baby out with the bathwater, so the Daily Mail and all other newspapers remain WP:RS but not WP:TRUTH. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much the fact that they got the story wrong that's the problem; some of us remember the major US paper reporting the selection of Gepheart as John Kerry's running mate. It's that the story is so plainly an invention, not simply getting the facts wrong, but inventing them out of whole cloth. The phony quotes are crushing evidence of unreliability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the Daily Mail a Murdoch rag, or is it from some other fine and reputable publisher? HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a tabloid aimed at housewives. Sensationalistic and unreliable to the extreme. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

My view is that if you need to use the Daily Mail to source information (ie no better source covers the matter) then the information is suspect enough already. Its political agenda interferes with its news reporting far too much. A couple of recent cases: compare this BBC report and this Daily Mail coverage of e-petitions regarding the death penalty. The Mail headline accompanying the paper edition "MPs to vote on death penalty" was not actually true - it was a possibility in the future. The Mail article omitted mention of petitions opposing restoration completely, giving the impression of this "clamour". (There's a note at the bottom of the article "We have been asked to point out that there are also petitions in favour of retaining the ban on the death penalty" - but not that a petition to retain the ban was also (one of the) most popular.) Then there's this piece implying that the BBC was dropping all references to BC/AD, which it wasn't. These are front page stories, not oversights at the bottom of page 37.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Nick Pisa is a reputable freelance reporter. He writes the same stuff for other newspapers. Obviously they put up a draft report by accident. It's true Daily Mail should be avoided if better sources are available, but it's a RS on a case by case basis. Brmull (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A draft report wouldn't have falsified comments in it, though. It's not an innocuous occurrence. GRAPPLE X 03:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Brmull pretty much got here before I did; most newspapers have two versions of a story - especially murder trials and the like, with sourced information on either side of the verdict, so as to make deadline a helluva lot less chaotic. That The Mail screwed up royally would seem enough to remove it as a RS, considering the speed at which news to print can happen nowadays. I think that while the Dewey/Ike reference is a fair comparison, we live in different times. Internet makes what could just be seen as a misinterpretation of results (the presidential race too close to call at deadline meant a reasoned guess) versus some jackass wanting desperately to scoop someone else by a few seconds gambled on being right.

Something that brought me here is an aside made by an editor at Talk: Karen Gillan. Gillan is the ref-headed woman in Doctor Who reported to be wandering nude down the halls of a New York hotel she was staying at. The Mail reported teh incident; no one else has, though the question has been followed up on talk shows with an almost 'aw shucks' non-response from Gillan. I don't know if The Mail made it up, but it is currently a RS, meaning the incident can be reported in the article. I'm not married to the matter one way or the other, though I am leaning towards allowing it in,for while we are not character assassins, we are not our subject's fairy godmothers or guardian angels, either. Celebs are often dumber than a sack of hammers (redacted names) - many examples spring to mind; we aren't making it up, and until The Mail is considered less than a RS, we take them as true. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Minor point--WP:BLP applies here, too, so it's probably not cool to specifically name two celebrities as being "dumber than a sack of hammers". Qwyrxian (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, you are right, Qwyrxian. I had thought that non-article space allowed for candid discussions. As per WP:BLPTALK, I was incorrect in my assertion. I am redacting/rewriting that bit. Thanks for the heads-up. Nice to learn something new today. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well apart from http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/esmagazine/article-23985088-how-karen-gillan-went-from-sexy-sidekick-to-super-siren.do

And http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/3663222/Karen-Gillan-found-naked-and-mumbling.html and http://www.metro.co.uk/showbiz/867565-karen-gillan-found-naked-in-new-york-hotel-after-wild-night-out and http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-06-28/news-interviews/29712340_1_ny-hotel-security-personnel-guest Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Brmull's comments - it's not the journalist we assess, it's the newspaper that has the track record that determines whether it is a reliable source. Even established experts' own blogs are suspect as RS.

Quotes, descriptions, all fabricated, make it pretty clear that it not a good idea to use the Daily Mail without agreement by other editors, particularly for BLPs, where if the Daily Mail is the only source it's probably, right or wrong, not apppropriate to put it in the article. I don't see how a 'draft report' can be an excuse for making up quotations, which would almost certainly have been printed if the verdict had gone the way the original story said it did. Dougweller (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, and it's quite obvious what happened here. It's straight out of the movie Chicago. They printed up articles for both possible decisions ahead of time, getting quotes from relevant people in advance in terms of what their reaction would be if it went one way. Thus, they would be able to release their article immediately after the verdict is announced and be the first ones to dominate the news. But, clearly, they got the wrong information just ahead of time on what the verdict was and put up the wrong version they had made. Once they realized their error, they took it down and ultimately decided that they would save themselves further embarrassment by not putting up the other version. It's pretty classic, actually. Silverseren^C 05:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Getting quotes from relevant people in advance in terms of what their reaction would be if it went one way". Bollocks - nobody is going to give out such quotes. Or do you have a source to the contrary? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

How do you know the quotes aren't real? Or do you have a source to the contrary? I see no reason why they wouldn't give out their quotes ahead of time if asked. Asking "If the verdict comes back as guilty, what would your thoughts be on that outcome?" isn't really that hard to believe at all. Silverseren^C 05:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail report said: "Amanda Knox looked stunned this evening", "she sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears", "A few feet away Meredith's mother Arline, her sister Stephanie and brother Lyle, who had flown in especially for the verdict remained expressionless, staring straight ahead, glancing over just once at the distraught Knox family.", "Following the verdict Knox and Sollecito were taken out of court escorted by prison guards". Except, you know, none of this happened. It was all made up. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

None of that seems like anything specific. It all seems like general information. So, yes, it's made-u, but it's made-up in the sense that it is extremely likely to occur if the verdict was guilty. Again, this is what happens when you make both sides of a possible news article ahead of time. Silverseren^C 15:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No, this is not at all typical. At least once a year, for example, a prominent news organization accidentally looses a prepared-in-advance obituary for a prominent person who hasn't, in fact, died. Those pieces never include fake "reaction quotes." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Do obituaries generally contain quotes? I didn't think they did. If you consider a number of news stories that are released pretty much immediately when some known event occurs, if not ahead of time, you can assume that all the quotes in that article were obtained beforehand. I feel very confident in saying that all major news organizations do it. This time, however, the Daily Mail accidentally released the wrong version. Very embarrassing, yes, but it really doesn't mean anything overall. Silverseren^C 16:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Saying she "sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably" isn't "specific"? It gives the feeling that it is direct reportage, as in a reporter in the courtrooom or watching on TV actually saw her do this. What if she had been found guilty and she acted completely calmly and nonchalantly? (I know, not the most natural of reactions to being told you are going to prison for life) The Mail would have still published this story, because the causal link between what actually happened and what they reported is not there. The whole reason people are making such a fuss about it is because it goes beyond just prewritten-obituary/prepared-story mistakes. This is completely false reporting of basic facts. I'd say this destroys the Daily Mail's credibility, but that would suggest they had some to start with. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support axing the Daily Mail for good. The evidence here is damning -- made-up quotes, made-up reactions from prosecutors and family. It's just not "reliable". --JN466 09:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as the proactice of getting quotes in advance is both common and widespread - and has been for a very long time. In fact, the practice is absolutely necessary if one applies an ounce of logic to writing a thousand+ word story in five minutes or less with dozens of quotes. See comments in next section. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Undecided - a series of very public blunders make me doubt who's actually in the room during the verification process in the newsroom, but the practice of pre-writing a story is as old as news reporting itself. Just because its an English "tabloid" doesn't make it non-reliable. Major news stories have been broken by just these sorts of media outlets. I think I need more convincing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support axing – Interestingly, both The Guardian and Sky News reported the incorrect verdict but stopped short of including "quotes". If there were any pre-released quotes I'm pretty sure other news accounts would have inlcuded them. This isn't a case of jumping the gun, publishing a draft, or just getting it wrong, this is an issue of fabrication. If the Mail were indeed to clarify that they had obtained these quotes in advance then fair enough, poor practice but probably acceptable, but there is nothing to indicate here they did not fabricate the quotes, nor have they set the record straight. Until it is ascertained that they did not fabricate the quotes, then they should be struck off. Betty Logan (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

We have no evidence the quotes are made-up, and much as I dislike being in the position of defending the Daily Mail, I don't see why it should have to assert that they weren't. As several people (I think) have said, and I will echo, obtaining quotes in advance on a what-if basis is not uncommon. If you look at the original article on Google Docs, the only thing the reporter must have made up is Knox being taken to a police van. (The family may have also misinterpreted the first guilty verdict, and reacted in the way that he describes, although I grant it's quite possible that was made up, or shall we say "anticipated", too.)

That was wrong of him, but are we going to sacrifice an entire major newspaper as a source forever because of one fabrication of a fairly irrelevant detail by a freelance reporter? (After all, if she had been found guilty, which presumably he genuinely albeit mistakenly believed, it wouldn't really be a major consideration whether she was taken to a van or a car or a helicopter or what-have-you...) Barnabypage (talk)

• • Comment Absent any reason to believe other than what is known as common practice was followed, the supposition is inapt. Such quotes are routinely obtained, and routinely used in articles, and while I know some editors have iterated distaste for the Daily Mail, such distaste should not be then used to find something other than what logically occurs on many newspapers - including the Guardian, New York Times etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
    • They cannot have got the bit about Knox "sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears" in advance though - it was an outright lie. And yes, I have an "iterated distaste for the Daily Mail" - because they routinely do this sort of thing. If Knox had been found guilty, we would have 'RS' for her sobbing, based on journalist's imagination. Crap like this may be good enough for the Mail, but it isn't good enough for Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Thet are not alone on this (action or incident).Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Current issues aside, the Daily Mail has been around for over a hundred years. We should not create a rule which disallows material from earlier eras before it and the other UK tabloids descended to their current depths. However I agree that under its current editor it must be considered unreliable.   Will Beback  talk  23:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a useful distinction. --JN466 23:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No newspapers say they write the truth

Not since Fox News won the court case against Jane Akre in the Court of Appeals, arguing that under the First Amendment they should be allowed to print whatever information they want, even if they know it is false. The court agreed, saying that the FCC rule on truth-telling was just a "policy", not a law. Therefore, the ruling stated that all news organizations (in the US) are allowed to print articles that they know contains false information and they can't get in trouble because of it. And I know the Daily Mail is from the UK, but the point still stands in terms of US news organizations. We have no way of knowing if any information fed to us from US news organizations is correct. Silverseren^C 05:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The US constitution may very well defend the right of the media to lie through their teeth - but what exactly does this have to do with the question as to how we assess the reliability of the Daily Mail? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the first thing we should be doing is waiting to see if the Daily Mail releases an apology and statement on their incorrect news report, unless you are going to say that making a false news report automatically puts you on the banned list. If so, then we should add the Los Angeles Times, New York Post, and so much more. Silverseren^C 05:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

SilverSeren, are you honestly arguing that all newspapers anywhere should be treated as equally (un)reliable because of a US Supreme Court judgement? That would make editing Wikipedia rather more problematic.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, obviously not. :P I'm saying that all newspapers, especially the major ones, make false news reports every once in a while, most often because their sources gave them bad information. And I don't believe we should write off one of a country's major newspapers just because of one article that was removed once they realized their mistake. Silverseren^C 06:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither would I, but I wouldn't have treated the Daily Mail as RS before this anyway. I think it proves the point that many people have been making about the Mail for a while. It's not their sources that's the problem, it's what turns up on the pages themselves. That BC/AD thing I posted above - it was entirely based on a comment made on discussion thread by someone managing the religious affairs section of the BBC website talking specifically about that particular section.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Except the Daily Mail isn't even close to being the only news organization that puts out news of this nature. Seriously, if this goes through, I feel like I have a boost to try and get Fox News labeled as not an RS once and for all, after all of the prior discussions in that vein. Considering that they've done false and incorrect news reports just as much, if not more so, than the Daily Mail, it should be an easy sale after this one goes through. Silverseren^C 06:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This isn't just putting out a false story: this is a journalist doing false reportage. False story is one thing: having a prepared obituary or prepared stories about a major story with background information, that's fine. Having a story lined up with made up reportage that gets accidentally published is pretty damn surprising. If they hadn't overturned Knox's appeal and found her guilty instead, they would have published this story with the false reportage and nobody would have noticed. That other newspapers pull this kind of stunt too doesn't justify it (any more than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does). The Daily Mail is a major newspaper, sure, but not a reliable one, especially here: this is a source that could potentially have had huge BLP implications if Knox and Sollecito had been found guilty. As someone who handles BLP issues frequently, I'm sure you understand the implications of sources that contain completely made up rubbish about living people. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest it is germane that other newspapers do it. It points to the fact that this is an inherent issue - or potential issue - with all newspaper sources, from which the logical next steps are (a) live with it and guard against being caught out by it (for example by multiple-sourcing) or (b) don't use newspapers at all. Banning the Daily Mail as a non-RS doesn't appreciably minimise the danger of it happening again, and thus limits our sources without really achieving anything. Barnabypage (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't about correctness or rules: in this case, it is very simple. It is about attitude to truth. Here we have an embarrassing, clear as day example showing that the Daily Mail's attitude to truth and honest reporting is non-existent. All newspapers are suspect of lying and deception (just as we all are: everyone on the planet has told a lie once in a while) but the sheer chutzpah of this story undoes any claim of reliability we can place on the Daily Mail. As for the other newspapers? Just you wait. They'll do the same eventually, and then we'll be justified in tossing them out too. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Appalled by this. We can't and shouldn't cite newspapers who make up news. It's the very definition of not reliable. --JN466 09:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The "Daily Mail as a reliable source" joke has been stale for a few decades. This latest event only confirms that it is not a reliable source except maybe for soccer results and the day of the week. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There is some context here http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/daily-mail-criticised-over-amanda-knox-guilty-story-/s2/a546216/ which explains why not only the Mail but also other news outlets including The Guardian and Sky News got the story wrong at first. I'm no fan of the Mail, but I therefore don't think this particular incident justifies its RS status being removed. I agree it should be used with caution, especially on politically-charged stories and on medical stories. Barnabypage (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much getting the outcome of the trial wrong; it is the wholesale invention of detailed events that never happened, and surely would have remained in the article. [64]. We are better off relying on other sources. --JN466 10:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

But as someone mentioned above, it's quite possible that the quotes were obtained in advance (on a "what-if-this-happened" basis), which is not uncommon. It's quite possible that the reaction that occurred in the courtroom did, in fact, initially occur in response to the guilty verdict on slander...while it's also of course possible that it's made up, or exaggerated. We really don't know. The bylined writer, Nick Pisa, is not even a Mail staffer as far as I can tell. It doesn't add up to evidence of systematic, regular falsification at the paper. Barnabypage (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry: "As Knox realized the enormity of what judge Hellman was saying she sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably ...", "Following the verdict Knox and Sollecito were taken out of court escorted by prison guards and into a waiting van which took her back to her cell ...", "Both Knox and Sollecito ... said they would take the case to the third and final level of appeal". These things did not happen. [65] A newspaper that is happy to report as fact things that did not happen (this is by no means the first time) is not a reliable source. Period. If it's important, some more reliable source will have reported it. --JN466 11:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would contend this is a fine example of news reporting. At best, it's an unfortunate combination of a misunderstanding and some slightly naughty but (as others have said) extremely widespread journalistic shortcuts. My point is that it is nowhere near the scale of the falsifications perpetrated by, say, Stephen Glass at The New Republic or Jayson Blair at The New York Times or Janet Cooke at The Washington Post, all of them regarded as highly reliable sources. It's just not enough to justify excluding everything in a major newspaper as a RS.

Can I also add one observation: we have all, many times, read similar stories to this where the reporter didn't make an error in understanding the judge's verdict. They have probably appeared in the newspapers we like most and consider most reliable. How can we possibly be sure that the reporters hadn't written those stories ahead of time, obtaining what-if quotes and inserting imagined "facts" on the basis that they were almost certainly going to be accurate if the verdict was guilty (the shocked family, the removal in a police van...)?

It is inherent in using newspapers as sources at all that we run the risk of sometimes relying on stories that have been assembled in this way. And, if we are going to have articles on current events, we have little option but to use newspapers as sources. Barnabypage (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest that the Mail (and maybe Fox, for that matter) be treated as RS when it comes to judging weight (notability or due content), but not be used themselves for actual sourcing of information? Does that make sense?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Fact: Reporters frequently do get "quotes ahead of time." And the quotes are not "made up" but simply gotten on a "suppose this result" basis. I have had journalist relatives (and newspaper owners) and this is not all that strange. The mad rush to get a thousand+ word story out in under five minutes pretty much requires this practice. Do you really think any human reporter can get a dozen quotes in interviews in under five minutes? The Internet exarcerbates the problem - but it has always existed. The principle is that the press is not set to run until they have some confirmation -- but please note Wikipedia itself has given obits for people who are not quite dead <g>, as have almost all major newspapers (which have obits and the like already set in type well before a person dies, and sometimes including quotes from others about the person.) Sorry folks - this is "da facts." Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• True enough; I once cited an obituary whose writer had died well before the person whose death he was reporting, and I think we all understand that. But besides any quotes which one might charitably assume had actually been obtained beforehand, the Mail story contained colourful details which were simply made up. That's not good enough. There was also this: the Sunday paper in question was the Mail on Sunday. The Mail on Sunday was the only paper to run that story, which actually originated partly in Wikipedia and was again completely made up (and nearly ruined the man's marriage). Enough is enough. --JN466 12:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I note they did on fact take it down. Now I am with the "if one paper is not RS for making stuff up (and It may have ben a mistaken posting)" then that shouold apply to any newspaper or news organisatio that makes things up.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Collect is right. I remember reading a book (I think) about Dan Rather, The Camera Never Blinks written back in '84, before the internet was anything of a controlling factor in the news, and he criticized how reporters would have their stories half-written before they even started looking into the facts. So, the practice is lazy, but it isn't a recent event. Of course The Mail committed an Epic Fail, but one that every paper or news outlet has committed (while perhaps not as spectacularly) at one point or another.

The subsidiary problem to arguments of this sort is that news organs feed off one another. One paper might lead a news story, but everyone else follows, the idea being that if they don't report it (after quickly checking the provenance of the sources), they look like they are a sack of nincompoops. Presumably, the other papers have an editorial board that stipulates what is required by way of verification before they go to print. I have no idea at all what this entails, but these requirements are there. Sure a tabloid broke the story about Prince Charles' infidelities with Camilla Parker Bowles, but the other news organs picked it up and ran with the story because they were able to verify the sources. I have a LOT of difficulty believing that any outlet would blindly follow another outlet's breaking news without verifying it first. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If you were following online news sources when Gabrielle Giffords was shot, that would not be terribly difficult to believe. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't, but I am not surprised. As I said, I can see both sides of this discussion; during a breaking story, it's clear that news outlets appropriate each others' stories in the hopes of building on them. This is how Watergate and Iran-Contra unfolded; seemingly innocuous page 19 stories that were picked up by another outlet and developed further. That is the nature of the beast as well. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say that this is correct. Journalists do write stories beforehand on the basis of counter-factual assumptions, and they also get quotes that have been gathered under these assumptions. But that is not really "made-up" in the sense of the article in question. The Daily Mail here not only wrote the story under counter-factual assumptions, which is acceptable, and an accident if published. What they did do was invent factual details that didn't happen and even in the case of the verdict turning the other way, might never have happened. In summary: Writing under assumptions is entirely acceptable. Inventing "factual" details is not. The last part makes the RS status of the newspaper void or at the very least extremely suspect. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's just slow down

Read this, please. Do you see the sections that state things like "As with many high profile stories, a few publications prepared copy ahead of the verdict’s delivery" and "A source from the paper said the quotes were given by the prosecutor in advance" and especially the last paragraph of commentary by the author "It’s possible that the publications heard the judge tell Knox she was guilty of defamation and jumped the publishing gun before hearing that she was innocent of the murder charge. In the highly competitive and fast-paced world of online journalism, this is more than likely what happened. But at least for these publications the correction could be made quickly. The Chicago Tribune didn’t have the same luxury in 1948." I would hope this clears a lot up. Especially since if we do this to Daily Mail, then we have to do the same for the Sun and Sky News, since they put out similar stories. Silverseren^C 17:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if you are going to quote from the Washington Post article, how about this: "The Daily Mail, called by detractors the Daily Fail, has been criticized for lifting quotes, photos and even whole stories from other publications. Last month, the Mail was accused of rewriting Post writer Steve Hendrix’s story about an F-16 pilot ready to sacrifice herself on 9/11 and then contacting him to look for photos". And no, we don't consider The Sun as WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Lifting stories doesn't make you unreliable. It's not like those stories are unreliable originally. It does mean that they can get sued by the people they lifted it from, but that has nothing to do with us. As for the Hendrix story, which i've read about, that was more just really, really rude what they did. Beyond rude. But the rewritten story wasn't inaccurate, just hyperbolic. Silverseren^C 17:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm no lawyer (etc...), but I'd have thought that maybe treating a source we know routinely plagiarises others as reliable might have legal implications too: What if we attribute a quote to the Mail which they have purloined from elsewhere? In any case, if they can't be trusted to report where they get there stories from, why should we trust the stories? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, this would lead to excluding virtually every British publication, and many in other countries. It happens, all the time, on a modest scale, although of course some publications are more prolific offenders than others. FWIW I think editors on Wikipedia generally (I'm not pointing the finger at any individuals in this discussion) have a very exaggerated, or perhaps I should say idealistic, view of the depth of reporting and level of fact-checking that actually happens day in, day out on a modern newspaper. Of course it takes place to All the President's Men standards occasionally on big, big stories. But the routine process of news-gathering and editing is nowhere near so thorough. Barnabypage (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that is why we need to be even more careful regarding treating newspapers as reliable sources - and why we have to make decisions based on their "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" ([[WP:RS)). The Mail has a deserved reputation for not checking its facts, and being inaccurate... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it is a source that needs caution, especially with certain subjects (not particularly court reporting, as it happens - ironically, this particular mess-up is not the main kind of problem with the Mail; I'd be more concerned about its extremely, ahem, imaginative science and medical reporting). I'm merely concerned that we don't exclude a whole source, and open the floodgates to excluding a whole further slew of sources, on the basis of one not-really-that-significant incident. If there were a WP:SOURCES_BATHWATER I'd cite it! Barnabypage (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Kindly examine WP:Baby and Bathwater for what I think is the point you wished to make - in any case, edit it so it does conform with your position. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

@Collect - yes, that's more or less my position. I may edit your essay at some future point. I would wish to form first a firm view on when occasional, bearable unreliability becomes systemic unreliability, and how that can be detected. I don't, in fact, have a strong view as to whether the Mail would pass such a test or not; what I do know is that this incident doesn't on its own constitute failure. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Barnabypage (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This error reflects badly on the Mail, but our view of its reliability as a source depends on more than just this one occurrence. RS guidelines used to say of newspapers "especially those at the top end of the market". I'm not sure why that was taken out. Mail is definitely not at top end of the market, nor is the Sun. These papers are still reliable for a few things, although usually a better source can easily be found. I think we still need to judge case by case. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The simple truth is, no news source is going to be reliable 100% of the time... and no news source is going to be unreliable 100% of the time. Reliability depends on context. We should never ask: "Is Newspaper X a reliable source?" because the answer is always going to be: "sometimes, but sometimes not" ... Instead we need to ask: "Is Newspaper X a reliable source for statement Y?. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of articles and books by journalists that refer to systemic fabrication of article contents, mis-representation of quotes and use of quotes from individuals with no authority or inherent reliability.

Andrew Marr in his book "My Trade" talks about an example of an entirely fictional interview undertaken in UK that related to another fictional individual in North America, can't recall whether it was the US or Canada. A newspaper at that end was asked to obtain an interview and delivered one.

That is not to say that news media can be dismissed entirely, if the content is corroborated elsewhere. There should be caution about what that corroboration actually consists of as equally many of the news outlets source their stories from the same originators; Reuters and AP etc.

ALR (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"pre-prepared stories"

Wikinews has a slew of pre-prepared obits and other stories.

Also some news services have, in fact, errantly released obits, from the time of Mark Twain onwards:

[66] Steve Jobs obit.

[67] The Washington Post, for instance, reportedly has about 100 obituaries of major figures on file, whereas the Associated Press news wire has close to 1000.

See also List of premature obituaries shoing a large number of "relaible sources" doing the same thing.

[68] explains a bit -- Knox was found guilty ... of slander. Thus fooling The Sun and The Guardian as well, by the way.

So the whole brouhaha about the Knox verdict is tempest in a teapot at best. IMO. Collect (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, pre-prepared obituaries are not the issue. You can write a pre-prepared obituary by basically getting together all the sources on the person's life. But if you had a pre-prepared obituary that then went on to describe the exact manner of the person's death and had "deathbed quotes", that would be more like the Daily Mail situation. I've written a pre-prepared obituary on Wikinews for someone, and it's all basically background information. When the time comes, you still have to fill in the blanks with the actual details of the person's death. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And for about-to-be-live stories, the reporters ask for quotes ahead of time - there is no way to get a dozen quotes in five minutes otherwise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no way to get stories about how Knox "sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears" in advance either, without engaging in blatant fabrication. Why are you defending this clearly unreliable source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

An error in release != anything much. Consider the newspaper which printed all of Johann Hari's "interiews" which were shown to have problems ... ought it be "axed"? I suggest we simply accept that no source is the WP:TRUTH in every case - that all we can so is trust that balancing sources gets us close to a reasonable article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Verification failures

I posted the following on the Adminstrators Noticeboard but was advised to bring it here:

The article Hitler's Pope contains the following text "Some commentators have characterized the book as having since been "debunked".[2][3][4][5]" There is no doubt that particular points of the book had been subject criticism (most obviously the very title) and these are included in the article. I cannot find in the cited text that the whole book has "been debunked" so I deleted the text with the reasons given in the edit summary. This was reverted and following an unproductive exchange with the editor who reverted I placed an appeal on the article talk page asking if anyone would please paste the text on the talk which substantiates that the book has been "debunked"[69]. On receiving no reply I proceeded to delete the text once again but user Mammalujo has reinserted it on the basis that "Deletion of well sourced text did not fail verification and is against consensus"[70]. In terms of bias I am no defender of Cornwell's book and particular dislike it's title but it seems to be stretching it to say that Ronald Rychlak who is cited as having debunked the book himself uses Cornwell as a reliable source on numerous occasions in his own book (at least seventy times) even though he has a separate chapter detailing his objections to those issues he disagrees with in Cornwell's book. The editor in question appears to have had a number of accusations relating to his use of sources but these have been deleted from his user talk page. I don't know how to proceed and any help would be appreciated to break a cycle of reverts.Yt95 (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yt95 (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Dalin seems to make the claim -- the word "some" is a bit encompassing -- as long as a second is found to use the term, it is hard to deny the claim as stated. A claim of "all" or"most" would require substantially better sourcing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I appear to be a bit dim but can you copy the text of Dalin that says the book has been debunked. Obviously he doesn't accept Pius XII was Hitler's Pope but that isn't the same as claiming the book in total is debunked. Yt95 (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems to somewhat of a language issue. If you call a book or piece of work debunked, that doesn't mean you've debunked any single claim in them but merely that you've debunked (most of) their major claims or principal notions.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Note your comments but all I'm looking for is the text that supports what the article currently states with multiple citations, especially when it's given as a direct quote "debunked" I'm not interested in what a religious apologist would like them to say. ThanksYt95 (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Karen Gillan incident - RS challenged

Not sure if this belongs here or in BLP:N, so feel free to direct me accordingly...

I have been following the discussion in RSN regarding the reliability of the Daily Mail - the recent Knox-Guilty reportage is, by any measure, an epic fail on their part. Part of the frustrating part of that discussion is that there are folk who think all media outlets are bad, and none are reliable. I get this point, and share it somewhat. However, following that extreme point of view would render Wikipedia irrelevant and make editing current events problematic to the point of an article never getting written.

I am on the fence about the issue of reliability, myself. Major news stories have indeed been broken by tabloids as well.

My problem is this: while the initial story appears to have been covered by the Daily Mail other, far more reliable sources with their own verification and editorial boards have also written stories about the matter (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) The last citation I list refers to an interview where she giggled about the incident "but refused to elaborate". More than anything, that appears to be confirmation to be. Why not just call it "bollocks" and be done with it?

As to relevance, Gillan is on the FHM's Top 100 Lists of Sexiest Women, so the story is indeed of interest, though somewhat of a prurient one. Additionally, when one searches the subject on Google, the incident lists over 472,000 hits (other engines retrieve approximately the same results as well). I am wondering what differentiates our treatment of this BLP from that of Vanessa Hudgens, Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton. I am not suggesting it dominate the article, but I think it should be noted, much like we note the details of Stanford White's murder by a jealous husband and many other examples. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Actress drunk at party? Complete non-story from start to finish. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If I've counted correctly, Jack Sebastian cites the Daily Mail itself, four sources that cite the Daily Mail and quote it verbatim, and two sources that lazily say the story was "reported". Even if all they have "their own verification and editorial boards" as Jack asserts, those resources were not called on here. No one vouches for anything in this story except a certain "Suzanne Leonara", on whom a Google search just brings all this stuff up again and nothing else: my guess is, Suzanne Leonara is a jealous Time Lord in love with Doctor Who.

Judith's right. Even if a reliable source existed, forgetting the way to your hotel room, dressed in a towel, is not notable. Andrew Dalby 12:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This has never really been an issue of reliable sourcing, it is simple WP:BLP. We make judgement calls as to what is relevant to a person's biography. Being drunk and splashed all over the TMZ-style parts of the media has no relevance whatsoever. If Ms. Gillan's behavior ever rises to the level of, say, Charlie Sheen or Lindsay Lohan, then that is a different story. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

www.castlesoftheseas.nl

www.castlesoftheseas.nl has been used at HSS 1500 to add a reference regarding the controversial term "British Isles". I consider this a case of WP:SELFPUBLISH but seek opinion here. Bjmullan (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Definitely WP:SELFPUBLISH and nothing that would lead us to suppose the author is an expert on usage of the term. Barnabypage (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I added the reference, and looking at it now I agree it is self published. A couple of points do need be be made; the term "British Isles" is not controversial, apart from to a limited extent in the Wikipedia community. The small number of editors that object to its use sometimes tag the term for a reference, presumably as a means of getting it removed. This may, or my not, be the case here. I wonder if the term British Isles was not used, and instead "UK", for example, was used, whether it too would have been tagged for reference; again maybe it would, so I'll AGF. Van Speijk (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Tapani Koivuniemi

It'd be nice if some people more experienced in evaluating the reliability of foreign language sources to chime in at this afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapani Koivuniemi. It's a Finnish BLP (although it should be renamed to be about the group after the AfD closes) that has no available English language sources. There is extensive coverage in Helsingin Sanomat, a documentary on YLE, and coverage in other Finnish sources. There's not currently agreement at the AfD about whether or not foreign language sources can be considered reliable. Kevin (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

SF Site

Is SF Site, a webzine, a reliable source? The article in question is http://www.sfsite.com/12a/ob70.htm^WebCite, which I noticed while reviewing Obernewtyn (novel) at Wikipedia:Peer review/Obernewtyn (novel)/archive1. Cunard (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)