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

Florida's 13th congressional district special election, 2014

Do the following count as WP:RS sources?

>[1] WSJ Republican David Jolly beat his Democratic opponent Alex Sink on Tuesday in a Florida special election for Congress seen as a bellwether for this year's midterms.

[2] TheHill.com Lackluster candidates, millions spent, a third-party candidate: Every detail of Tuesday’s special election in Florida’s 13th District makes it unusual, but the bellwether district is still the first indication of the 2014 electoral mood.

[3] CNN But the contest for Florida 13 has landed smack in the middle of the national political spotlight. It's seen by some pundits as a bellwether for November's midterm elections. (written before the election, and pretty dang close to the Wikipedia usage)

[4] HuffPo Florida's 13th District Bellwether Report: Why Obamacare's Least Of Democrats' Worries (post-election)

[5] Reuters Florida election a bellwether for fall U.S. mid-term race (pre-election)

[6] Orlando Sentinel Republican David Jolly narrowly took the contentious and expensive special election on Tuesday to replace his former boss, the late Rep. Bill Young, in the Pinellas County seat in Congress that some believe is a bellwether for contests nationally this autumn.

[7] New York Magazine Whether or not it’s a bellwether, “It's now likely impossible for Democrats to pick enough seats in November to even have a chance of regaining the House of Representatives,” writes Ben Jacobs in The Daily Beast. Gaining 17 seats was always a long shot. But the fact that Obama won the 13th district twice made it one that was potentially up for grabs after the death of Bill Young, who held the seat for 40 years. The big question now is if Republicans can pick up six seats for control of the Senate in November.

The pundits:

“[T]hese results in the swingiest district in the swing state of Florida are a clear sign that, unless something changes, Democrats are in big trouble this fall.” —Jacobs

“Whether or not what happened Tuesday in Florida is a bellwether of anything, it will unnerve Democrats and energize Republicans.” —Cillizza

“The victory will embolden Republicans as they head into the midterm election and bolster their message — that the nation disapproves of the Affordable Care Act and Mr. Obama’s leadership.” —New York Times

“Democrats had a better-funded, well-known nominee who ran a strong campaign against a little-known, second- or third-tier Republican who ran an often wobbly race … Outside Republican groups — much more so than the under-funded Jolly campaign — hung the Affordable Care Act and President Obama on Sink. It worked.” —Florida political analyst Adam C. Smith

“[T]he Florida contest may or may not be a bellwether. But it did lay bare the Democrats' 'fix Obamacare' dilemma.” —Byron York (all from New York Magazine)

[8] AP After months of railing against President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, Republicans scored a key victory in a hard-fought congressional race that had been closely watched as a bellwether of midterm elections in November.

[9] CBS DC The chairman also touted a key victory this week in a hard-fought Florida congressional race that is seen as a possible bellwether of November midterm election. Republican David Jolly defeated Democrat Alex Sink in a special election Tuesday that largely turned on President Barack Obama’s health care law. (considered a major player in political punditry in DC)

[10] Canada Free Press (not in the US, d'oh) In a bellwether special Congressional race, a long-time aide for a long-time Congressman, a flawed (and former lobbyist) Republican David Jolly faced off against Florida’s 2010 Democratic gubernatorial candidate Alex Sink to finish out the term of recently deceased Bill Young, who had represented the district for forty-two years, the longest serving Republican in the House of Representatives.

[11] Sunshine State News In what was billed as a bellwether for November, Republican David Jolly defeated Democratic rival former state CFO Alex Sink by nearly 2 percentage points in a special election Tuesday to win the seat held for decades by his former boss, the late U.S. Rep. Bill Young.

[12] WSJ Professional political observers and journalists touted the election as a bellwether. "It's rare in politics that anything other than a presidential contest is viewed as a 'must win'--but the special election in Florida's 13th District falls into that category for Democrats," wrote Stuart Rothenberg back in January:

A loss in the competitive March 11 contest would almost certainly be regarded by dispassionate observers as a sign that President Barack Obama could constitute an albatross around the neck of his party's nominees in November. And that could make it more difficult for Democratic candidates, campaign committees and interest groups to raise money and energize the grass roots.

[13] DigiNews But Young was a moderate, and his district is a swing district; both sides treated it as a bellwether.

[14] NY Mag citing Frank Rich - noted liberal "pundit" This race was a bellwether to be sure — not of what’s going to happen in November, but of the true idiocy of our political culture. A ludicrous $12 million in campaign spending was poured into this single district in which fewer than 200,000 people voted. Much of the bloviocracy hyped the race before and after as a battle akin to Ali-Frazier or, perhaps given the Florida setting, Bush vs. Gore, and as a decisive verdict on the political valence of Obamacare. And now both sides are overreading meaning into an election decided by less than 2 percent of the vote (under 4,000 votes) in a race where a third-party Libertarian candidate received almost 5 percent of the vote.

[15] WWSB (pre-election) Today's special election to replace District 13's late congressman C.W. Bill Young is being watched closely by both political parties as a possible bellwether of things to come in the 2014 midterms.

Do they furnish sufficent basis to the claim"

Some political experts viewed this election as a possible bellwether for the fall 2014 elections.

One editor insists that only people with specific degrees in Political Science so qualify, although several of the "pundits' appear to have such degrees, they are not all given full WP biographies stating such. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those are RS for that simple claim. Academic degrees are one type of source but the mainstream media is our standard reference. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Some of those sources are better than others, but I concur that they are sufficiently reliable to support that claim. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Reliable. Obviously. Question is phrased and put as an almost rhetorical question, so simple answer. Two caveats, though. First, the dispute on the page is only tangentially about WP:RS. Second, the question of "bellwethers" is ALWAYS one of opinion, or judgement. The judgement/opinion that the race WOULD BE a bellwether while the race was on is arguably the more WP:N, and the opinions expressed, since they shaped both coverage and activity (money, voter's perceptions, turnout), more supportable as WP:RS, (as would meta-analysis) than speculation of what the race MAY mean in the future. Lumping the two together confuses the issue. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

did you note the words "possible bellwether" in the claim? Last I looked "possible" does not mean "absolutely sure-fire" nor should people interpret it in that manner in my experience. Collect (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"possible" is redundant, bellwethers, as stated, are always analogies varying in their imperfection, and matters of judgement.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

As Anonymous209.6 pointed out, Collect is being incredibly disingenuous. The original statement was roughly "Given the district's very evenly divided nature, some pundits believe this election will be a bellwether of the the fall 2014 elections." To which I added "However, professional election analysts warn against reading into the results of special elections." To support the second sentence I referred to political scientists showing the political science of special election, whilst commenting specifically on FL-13 (the article in question) - 538, LSCB, RPR, RCP, and 538. Now I raised this issue on the talk page, after Collect objected. He has constantly belittled my reasons whilst not addressing my concerns that the political science should be included. Instead he egregiously exacerbated the problem by changing the wording to "Some political experts viewed this election as a possible bellwether for the fall 2014 elections" which is obviously the point in contention. After I made a RfC, all those who commented were sympathetic, and I tried my best to edit my contribution (to satisfy both sides). So instead Collect posted this unnecessarily large amount of redundant sources and tried to claim his bringing comments here made a consensus in favor of his edit. He clearly never brought up the real issue here and never alerted the talk page to the fact he had posted here until after he could use it as an alleged support of his wording. Given his uncooperativeness and the RfC, I removed about half of the sources supporting his claim (leaving 7 local/national/round-up articles) and edited it to the following "Given this, some journalists called the election a bellwether for the 2014 midterm elections.(Collect's sources) Political scientists cautioned against overinterpreting the results, as with any special election.(My sources)." Please feel free to comment on which edit you think is reasonable. In the meantime, I have initiated a Dispute Resolution Request.(unsigned)

I never said Collect was being disingenuous. You are not reading my comments in an objective/neutral way. With regards to Collect's references, they are indeed WP:RS as to what is being said, which is a matter of opinion, but also a reporting of perceptions, a matter of fact. On the other hand, your treatment of YOUR references violates WP:RS, but not because the references you cite are unreliable, or bad; quite the contrary, as you observe, they are very good references. That is NOT, however, WP:RS. WP:RS is ALWAYS a matter of whether the references support the use IN CONTEXT, and your use is inappropriate, as you are also not citing THEM in a neutral/objective way. You set up the widely held perception, (held across party lines) that this could be regarded as a bellwether, and as stated in opinion columns and journalistic articles, as being OPPOSED by political scientists, ie that THAT is something that makes the statements controversial. It does not. The LANGUAGE of opinion columnists and journalists is punchy, direct and sometimes overly emphatic, but that is a comment on the nature of the writing style. That political scientists, or data analysts never make statements without a raft of qualifiers is also a function of the writing style and narrowness of the discipline, not an indication of opposition, as you stated. Except for the one ref of yours that does not relate to FL13, your refs state that there WAS the perception of FL13 as a bellwether, and that either the result DID change their perception of the upcoming race, or that it did not, but only because they had already reached the same conclusion through other, better metrics. The general quibble that there is never a perfect bellwether, or the observation that, had Sink won, it would have meant little to the broader election issues are minor points. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous209.6 Thanks for replying. Apologies if I misread you. From what you've said, there's no problem with my sources, but with how we represent their views. I'm perfectly amenable to editing the sentence. But I have to say I do read the sources as disagreeing with the idea that special elections can or should be called a bellwether (even granting, to an extent, the stylistic difference), even whilst they acknowledge the general perception of the race by non-experts as such. To illustrate, I am not aware of any special election to which any of the political scientists apply the term bellwether (whether or not the result was consistent with their predictions for the succeeding general election), because all think that puts far too much weight on said data. Would you agree with the idea that a) their views are notable b) at the very least we need a different sentence to represent their views since they can't be summed up as 'calling it a bellwether' (they certainly aren't calling FL-13 one)? (Aka we can't just tag them on as sources to the pre-existing sentence) 2406:E000:90F2:1:C5C5:C413:70A3:C376 (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Affirmative to both a) and b), obviously. Problem is, you are not stating their VIEWS, you are stating the QUALIFIER to those views, and are further inserting it as if it were a rebuttal, which it is not. The VIEWS stated in your own references are, for example,

"The special election result does strengthen our belief, as expressed in this space for months, that Republicans are in position not only to hold the House but to add some seats to their House majority in November."

"If Jolly wins: Because this is a seat that Sink should win in a neutral year, should she lose despite all her advantages we’ll have another data point that this is not shaping up as a neutral year."

"Republicans will almost certainly hold onto the House in 2014. They also have a chance to take back the Senate. But we knew that before the citizens in Florida 13th’s District voted."

which, if summarized with a qualifier along the lines of "while statisticians, pollsters and/or political scientists warn that there never is a true bellwether", would be fine. It is the setting up of that qualifier as if it were simple repudiation of OTHER peoples prognostication that makes this not WP:NPOV/WP:RS.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Problem: The IP appeared after the election to change language which had been there since November 2013 without any problems. He forumshops when an RfC is open but not going his way, edit wars while an RfC is ongoing, and makes ad hom comments on a noticeboard about reliable sources and what they reasonably can be stated to claim. Cheers -- but AGF is being bungeed. Why did you wait until after the election to insist on your own version? Note also that many quoted are not "journalists" in any case. Collect (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I have replied on the talk page. But to elaborate on a few points here: 1) I feel it's pretty rich for you to claim I forumshopped, when you posted here, without notifying the talk page, and didn't mention the dispute on the talk page. 2) The RfC has been sympathetic to my edit, they've said things like 'include both for NPOV,' 'both versions seem reasonable,' and the most recent person said if we tweaked them both could be included, which I have been open to. 3) I didn't edit until after the election because I didn't notice it until then. It doesn't change the fact that the political science is notable and which you are trying to exclude without any attempt to meet half-way, which I've tried repeatedly. (unsigned)

The claim is that people called it a "possible bellwether" which is proper wording for opinions cited as opinions. Your aside here that only "political science" experts can hold opinions goes against reason -- the top political reporters and political experts cited by them are surely sufficient here for the claim made. Cheers. And please start signing your posts. Collect (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

is PWInsider.com a reliable source?

Hello, after a recent discussion, we over at WP:PW would prefer a second opinion on whether PWInsider is a reliable source for professional wrestling. Frankly, our style guide's list of reliable secondary sources for professional wrestling is quite few, so we would like to add more sources to it. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is some background information, the site is run chiefly by Dave Scherer and Mike Johnson, who have an extensive history in professional wrestling. Scherer - webmaster for the Extreme Championship Wrestling (3rd largest American wrestling company at the time) website until 2001. Penned the Saturday pro wrestling column at the New York Daily News for two years. Founder of "The Wrestling Lariat" newsletter in 1995. Joined 1Wrestling.com in 1997. Started PWInsider in 2004. Also rote for the now-defunct WOW and ECW magazines. Johnson - was Extreme Championship Wrestling's official website historian and researcher on International talents... and helped with DVD / action figure / video game lines in ECW. Wrote for Wrestling Lariat, 1Wrestling and PWInsider. Consultant for Capstone Press on a series of children's books about professional wrestling. Co-hosts "The Mouthpiece Wrestling Show" - a radio show.

PWInsider has incentive to provide accurate information due to its paid subscription service "Elite", featuring exclusive access to news, interviews with wrestlers, podcasts and newsletters.

PWInsider has interviewed numerous wrestlers like Doug Williams, Billy Robinson, Bret Hart, Daniel Bryan, Triple H and Jeff Jarrett. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The site is primarily a "content aggregator" and blog AFAICT, existing primarily to provide many ads (more than twenty per page) and very little actual factual content. It cites reliable sources where it does have content, and it is those sources which ought to be cited, not an ad site. Collect (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Eh, I'm going to have to disagree. Personally, I would use PWInsider for its television and pay-per-view recaps of various professional wrestling programmes. Like this report of the WWE Main Event show on March 25 and another report of the Impact Wrestling show on March 13. Such TV/PPV reports are surely original content. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The material written by Scherer specifically should be citeable per WP:SPS, but I'm not seeing any indication of editorial oversight, fact checking or corrections when it comes to the site at large. Do established reliable sources ever cite the site? That could help. Siawase (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Siawase: - how am I supposed to prove editorial oversight or fact checking? Could you perhaps show me how BBC News does editorial oversight or fact checking as an example? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 02:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• However, corrections do occur. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 02:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• On whether established reliable sources cite the site, I can tell you honestly that given that professional wrestling is a lot less mainstream now than it was ten years ago and before, I don't see why any major mainstream news organizations would cite virtually any professional wrestling news website to publish information. This is the nature of the field. However, I found Latino Post and Multichannel doing so. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 02:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• However, within the wrestling news websites, those we already consider reliable such as slam.canoe.ca, pwtorch.com and f4wonline.com have cited PWInsider. starship.paint (talk | ctrb)

Mike Johnson claims to fact-check results from this site (its own accuracy disclaimer here). I'm sure he has others, too, but it's evidence of some checking. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

notifying WP:PW editors who contributed to previous discussion @HHH Pedrigree: @Wrestlinglover: @STATicVapor: @GaryColemanFan: @LM2000: @InedibleHulk: (Hulk, if you get this ping, please remove your name from here) starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Why? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:13, April 2, 2014 (UTC)

Nvm, it was to test if you got the second ping. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on http://www.pwinsider.com/contact.php it doesn't meet the criteria to be considered a RS. If you want to review the other sources, that's a separate discussion. This one doesn't appear to be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Why? Could you elaborate? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability and Popular Culture: Korean TV Dramas and Other Topics: Summing Up

Oops, bad timing. Anyway, I'll watch to see whether anyone replies to this, but am proceeding on the assumption that this is done. So:

Synopsis I knew Wikipedia frowned on interpreting primary sources as original research. I didn't know Wikipedia accepted interpreting primary sources for the purpose of synopsising a work of fiction. I'd be interested in knowing whether interpretations of this cognitive dissonance are documented.

Judiciary Act of 1793 More seriously, how far does this exception extend? This article was my first substantial Wikipedia writing, and despite a thin veneer of references and framing, it's essentially a synopsis of the law in question, which is not fiction. Good or not good?

Secret Garden (TV series) In this framework, it's clear what I should have done. I should have expanded the synopsis, perhaps removing the plagiarism at the same time, to English Wikipedia's normal spoiler-heavy length, and included in it something like this: "Meanwhile, the central relationship remains stalled in pursuit and flight until, in episode thirteen's famous "bed scene", Kim Joo-Won's second sexual assault on Gil Ra-Im convinces her that he really loves her, and she begins to return his feelings." Since I hate the show, I'm quite unlikely actually to do this, but at least now I know.

Dramabeans That said, this is where y'all disappointed me greatly. With regard to the particular person I was citing, javabeans, there's no question that this is self-publication, and she herself refers to it as a blog. I was citing her reaction to the bed scene. I'm getting two sorts of explanations for why that's no good. One is that because she self-publishes a blog, she MUST NOT be quoted except via a third party. Note that in this case, where I'm talking about her opinion, there is no issue of reliability per se: to get someone's opinion, you quote them. But because it's a self-published blog, it can't be quoted. Um, this isn't an explanation, this is a reiteration, and of a silly rule that isn't made less silly by reiteration.

More seriously, I'm told her reaction isn't notable. ("My uncle Al".) I've presented evidence of its notability, which has not been challenged. (Really. I'm physically near a complete collection of the YA Entertainment K-drama releases. Challenge me: I can go there and *count* how many times they quoted each blurb source. Dramabeans will win.) I can add to that: two days ago, I went to a lecture on K-dramas at the Seattle Asian Art Museum. The speaker, Bonnie Tilland, who is ABD in the University of Washington Anthropology Department, who taught a class at the UW last fall about K-dramas, and whose dissertation, almost finished, deals inter alia with the effects K-dramas have on Korean women's aspirations, was asked by the lecture organisers to cite a book attendees could read for more information. Her choice? Why Do Dramas Do That? by javabeans and girlfriday. I suppose your obvious reply is that unreliable sources ("She's ABD!") stick together, but isn't this getting to be an untenable line of argument?

English Wikipedia has done an excellent job of purging all explicit references to Dramabeans. To the extent that Dramabeans is a source for K-drama news and gossip, this is probably appropriate, although they normally link to their (Korean-language) sources. But I don't think citing their recaps and evaluative writing has been shown inappropriate. It's only inappropriate by undefended shibboleth. I expect English Wikipedia to continue refusing to cite Dramabeans, and I expect it to continue to have no good reason for that refusal. I'd like to be proven wrong on one of those expectations.

Korean drama I've posted in a bunch of places looking for help with this article and/or its Korean counterpart; I haven't contacted the final list of Wikipedians I was given, but have written to Ms. Tilland, within hours of her talk. So far, no results. As to the references which, contrary to the claims of Kuyamarco123, I did provide:

Jeon This is the central reference without which the "History" section collapses. It is a dissertation approved by the University of Glasgow Department of Theatre Film and TV Studies in 2013. Unfortunately, while its supervisors' online biographies make a convincing case for their authority in media policy studies generally, they make no case at all for those supervisors knowing Korean. Moreover, much of Jeon's writing - which is focused on media policy, turning historical primarily to document past policy and justify claims concerning the future - rests on a considerable number of interviews she did (although relatively less of what I cited is based on these). I don't see a persuasive way to rescue this source's reliability until and unless, in a year or three, people y'all see as reliable start citing it; and its topical reliabity is anyway doomed because what such people would cite for K-dramas' history isn't Jeon, but the books already extant in Korean.

With S2 This is an important source for the first half of the section, and although it's clearly based on research, it just as clearly doesn't provide any pointers to that research; it's self-published; it's pretty much the epitome of unverifiable.

DramaWiki I've shown that in a sample of over 4% of Wikipedia's 500+ K-drama articles, one fourth plagiarised DramaWiki. This fairly obviously calls for a system of vigilance, which could probably be automated: survey all articles in List of South Korean dramas and all additions thereafter (and since DramaWiki also covers Japanese and Chinese dramas, ...); find in each article the title in Hangul; find the DramaWiki page citing that Hangul title; compare for plagiarism. How could I find out whether anyone is working on, or even suggesting, such a system? Or does Wikipedia have a policy against being proactive?

Separately, DramaWiki can't be cited because its parent site, D-Addicts, is blacklisted by Wikipedia. Nobody offered suggestions as to how I could find out why this blacklist exists.

Separately, is DramaWiki an unreliable source? Several verifiability-related pages refer specifically to "open" wikis as especially unreliable. DramaWiki requires registration, but anyone can register; I don't know how open that makes it. Probably a lost cause, though, which is unfortunate, given that I also documented a habit of starting Wikipedia articles after a drama finishes airing, which makes Wikipedia's writers all the more dependent on DramaWiki for factual data. (I depend on D-Addicts itself for a list of YA Entertainment releases, for that matter, although archive.org offers an alternative involving original research...)

History of Usenet Here's an irony. Not only my work, but most of my sources, are in fact peer-reviewed. That's what posting to Usenet (unequivocally self-publication) did, in the 1990s and early 2000s: assuming your post was on-topic, it became available to peers to review. The difficulty, of course, is that such posts normally aren't revised to take this peer review into account; see, for example, at archive.org, my hierarchy summary of the NET.* hierarchy, which isn't safe to rely on without checking a later post. (Note that this is a different post from the summary of the net.* hierarchy. Detailed guidance to my sources, as of the end of my two main bursts of work on the topic, is available here and here.) In contrast, however, note Lee Bumgarner's pioneering oral history of Usenet, the "Great Renaming FAQ", an important source for all his successors, which he did revise to take peers' comments into account. (Then again, it's cited heavily in Great Renaming, also in Backbone cabal. So that's sorta fair.)

As it happens, there has been scholarly work on the history of Usenet, well, um, at least sorta, by one Ronda Hauben, but it doesn't extend much past the beginnings. Non-scholarly, but published, work which Wikipedia would probably find acceptable sources are cited in the NET.* post, with regard to a group called NET.test, which they (and Lee Bumgarner, following them) make false statements about. So in this case, verifiability seems to require propagating a falsehood. (To be fair, it's been about a decade since I last worked on this; I don't know how much the landscape in print has changed.)

Newcomers I have made a concerted argument against the verifiability policy as presently applied, and it's been answered by silence. This may be because this is an inappropriate venue for such arguments; but nobody's pointed me towards a more appropriate one. Is it simply unacceptable for newcomers to be told reasons for Wikipedia's policies at all?

I participated for a decade in a Usenet newsgroup dedicated to Usenet policies that lots of people had issues with, and already within a year I'd spearheaded this, meant to provide newcomers a one-stop shop for our side. Nor was I exceptional there, at that time. I'm unimpressed by what I'm seeing as a newbie here; I'm getting some pointers, especially but not only from WhispertoMe (apologies if there's a spelling mistake - I don't know how to get to the archived discussion), but only to Wikipedia policies and methods, not to Wikipedia explanations, let alone places to argue.

The most I've been able to come up with as a result of this discussion is that Wikipedia verifiability (at least) is a set of rules for a game, and you win the game by writing Wikipedia-verifiable articles. When I started posting to news.groups I was already in my late 20s, and the reward for playing that game was the creation of newsgroups. This game has far more complex rules, information about which is far harder to find, for less of a prize, and I'm a lot older now. I learned from my news.groups experience not to take oaths, but if the response to this post is as I expect, I doubt I'll be throwing much effort into Wikipedia in the future.

Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com

205.175.116.106 (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• First, if you make your questions short and to the point, rather than 50 sentences in 20 paragraphs, you'll get much better results.
• Second, the reasons we have WP:V are stated right at the top of it. "Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up." Surely that's not hard to find? Anyone, at any time, can edit almost any Wikipedia page, and insert errors, lies, or simple gibberish, and often do. So we need to insert references to respected sources that can't be similarly edited by anyone at any time. And I played on Usenet too: with rare exceptions, it was not what we'd consider a respected source.
• Third, if you make a user account, then people can follow what you're doing on Wikipedia. Just now, for example, I clicked on your IP address link to see if I can find the specific argument you're having (since you didn't link to it) and couldn't find anything since your IP must have changed since your argument. --GRuban (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This a continuation of the epic thread Verifiability_and_popular_culture:_Korean_TV_dramas, currently occupying archive 166. Readers access it at their own risk. Paul B (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

1) Well, be grateful I'm unhappy with Wikipedia then: I do write long, always have.

2) OK, so the reason DramaWiki isn't a reliable source is clear. But this doesn't say anything about blogs, except to the extent (common with a bunch of electronic sources Wikipedia does cite) that they can indeed be changed.

3) I've always put off becoming a registered Wikipedian because I didn't want to take the time to read the rules, which I estimated would be about 40-200 hours. Now for the first time I've spent a significant amount of that time, and this is basically my last attempt to postpone my decision never to become a registered Wikipedian; I'm really unhappy with a fair amount of what I found in that reading.

As for links? You participated in that discussion ("my uncle Al" - so hey, is javabeans still our uncle Al?). Anyway, I found it: here. But the argument there is mostly pretty diffuse. Its core is something I didn't write in one sentence - The existing verifiability policy makes significant areas of interest excessively hard to document on Wikipedia, because it rules out whole classes of communication that are primary ways those areas are documented.[1] - and something I did - It's also an engine of hostility between Wikipedia and communities. Which is what made me think of news.groups, whose policies were often accused of being such engines, and where a bunch of us spent a lot of time dealing with such accusations.

Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com

[1] As witness the plagiarism.

128.95.223.115 (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

1) Thanks for coming down from the wall of text.

2) In general, if it's a blog written by a reliable author (one who's written a reliable source before on the topic), then it's a reliable source, and if it's written by an unpublished amateur then it's not. I strongly doubt that Korean television dramas are only covered by amateurs, and never in professionally published books, newspapers, or magazines. They may only be covered by amateurs in English, and you may not be able to read the Korean, but that's no more an excuse than saying that we should allow you to write an article on high-energy physics based on some guy's blog because you can't read the math used in real high-energy physics texts.

3) Yes, are a lot of rules (and what's more, they keep changing, from discussions like this one, in fact!), but you're no less bound by them by editing from an IP than from a user account. There are no disadvantages of registration, only advantages. --GRuban (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

2) This is becoming circular. I cited a *reaction* reported on a blog. One response was that because it's a blog it's an unreliable source even for such an opinion. This is insane, though it may be policy. Reactions, in this case to sexual assault portrayed as romantic entertainment, are not physics, and it's a fundamental epistemological error, so fundamental as to impair the errer's ability to function in life, to hold that only authoritative sources can decide what someone's reaction is.

The other response, *yours*, was that the blogger is equivalent to "my uncle Al" - why should we care? So it's a notability question, albeit not the same *kind* of notability question as governs what should have separate articles. [1] I've presented a bunch of relevant evidence: Dramabeans is cited by a lecturer I saw, by two random people I've run across, and by a marketer on a bunch of specific DVD cases I can name, if requested, within a few days. (As well as by Wikipedia articles in European languages, and some plagiarisers in English Wikipedia.) Is this inadequate evidence? Fine, then I'll try to make it more adequate. I don't know what the criteria for citing critical opinions are; I assume there's some written Wikipedia policy somewhere. The policy I was pointed to wasn't about critical opinions, but about self-published opinions. By itself it discourages citing Jonathan Rosenbaum, former film critic at the <Chicago Reader> and author of several books, now that he's self-publishing on a blog; um, come to think, it would discourage citing anything William Morris published of his own work at Kelmscott Press. So it can't be the whole story.

But in any event it's a separate question from reliability. I wrote that some people object strongly to scenes in a drama. Objections are proof of that statement, regardless of where they've been published. Your reasonable response that not all objections have the same weight is what I thought we were discussing.

Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com

[1] By the way, English Wikipedia has around five hundred articles on K-dramas produced since 2000. There haven't actually *been* that many notable K-dramas since then, y'know. Unless it's been decided that K-dramas are notable simply by virtue of being K-dramas - in which case there are some sticky edge questions (cable shows, single-episode dramas...).

66.212.73.228 (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Rosenbaum would probably be fine specifically because he is a former film critic and author of several books, as per WP:SPS which I linked to above. If you want to nominate some of the KDrama articles for deletion for lack of notability, feel free to follow those link too. Except, of course, you'd need a user account. --GRuban (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable self published sources used as reference in a succession dispute

The users MD.ET, MUFADALQN are using following sources for the article Mufaddal Saifuddin

1. http://www.badremuneer.in/62%20Reasons/53%20Reasons%20NOT.htm

1. http://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/

The http://www.badremuneer.in/62%20Reasons/53%20Reasons%20NOT.htm is an exact duplication of the self published blog http://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/ both of which are rather propoganda sources which work towards forwarding personal opinions on a heavily disputed and succession issue of Burhanuddin [16][17] Summichum (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Respected admins User:CallaneccSam Sailor Anup Mehra User:Ftutocdg, the current version of the above wiki article is based on citations from badremunir which is one of the claimants own publication and the other fatemidawat.com is another claimants own publication, you can imagine the dubious nature of above source as they have duplicated the above blog on their domain to get accepted on wikipedia hence I request all statements citing the highly biased references of badremuneer be removed and remove all the claims which dont have the citations to support the claim. Also note that this is a very serious controversy and media is closely following this case as billions of dollars worth property is at stake and both the claimants are using all means possible to get control over it. hence Wiki as a champion of neutrality should not allow biased claims from sources published by both the claimants. Persisting the article with stale claims shows poor quality of the article and I request the admins to do a cleanup operation and remove superfluous,dubious claims ref: WP:RS self published source Summichum (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: believesyednaqutbuddin.com (used 7 times), It is indeed an unreliable source and should immediately be removed from the article including contents for which it is being used as inline citations. It is a blog written by a follower of Saifuddin (see "About" of the blog). The article is fully-protected to be edited only by administrators. I've submitted an edit-request on talk page regarding the same. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• • • thanks Callanecc, but those references and higly misleading statements remain in the article from the source http://www.badremuneer.in/62%20Reasons/53%20Reasons%20NOT.htm which is an exact duplicate of the blog source you removed and this badremunir is not even a blog , but specially created to act as a placeholder for the contents of the other blog , in hort both are duplicates of each other. Anup Mehra Please remove http://www.badremuneer.in too . Summichum (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

  Badre Muneer is independent publication of Dawoodi Bohra and not "another self published source of one of the claimants". This magazine has vide circulation all over the countries where Dawoodi Bohra lives and act as mouthpiece for Dawoodi Bohra;

Details: The Internationally Acclaimed Monthly Magazine of The Dawoodi Bohra Community

BADRE MUNEER Neelam Publications, 2nd Floor, Nagindas Chambers, Dhebar Road, RAJKOT - 360 001 (INDIA). Phone : +91-281-2226517 / 2235056 Fax : +91-281-2223944 Mobile : +91 93757 45252

Follow them from wherever you are:

On Web: www.badremuneer.in On Facebook: www.facebook.com/badremuneer On Twitter: www.twitter.com/badremuneer On Buzz: www.google.com/profiles/badremuneer On Grouply: http://badremuneer.grouply.com On Orkut: http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profileuid=14396410947135118255 the-magazine-issue-with-the-highest-number-of-pages [18] --Md iet (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Partisan group self published source Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites in Saudi Arabia

The article [19] has a lot of citations from a single partisan self published source which reflects only a fringe standpoint of history. Many of the names of the graves mentioned are not even verified , here is the source:

http://www.al-islam.org/history-shrines/history-cemetery-jannat-al-baqi

It looks more like a blog presenting personal opinions on a matter and that too by a fringe group which accuses a Jewish conspiracy in the destruction.

Hence proof of the graves from reliable independent, non sectarian sources should be added. Relevant tag: WP:BIASED,WP:FTN (fringe theory).

Persianfootball.com

Is Persianfootball.com an RS? And if not, how do we address an editor who keeps on posting it in article talkpages across the Project? And reverting editors who delete it?

See, e.g., here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here. Epeefleche (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Epeefleche: - ridiculous. How can these online forums be considered an RS. No way to prove these posters are experts in their field. Content is WP:USERGENERATED. self-published media such as Internet forum postings... are largely not acceptable. I am going to delete those links from the talk pages, if the editor keeps reverting just go to WP:AN/I. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

partisan base self published source

in article Mufaddal Saifuddin

However, Muffadal Saifuddin's succession has not been accepted by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, who claimed the title of the 53rd Dai of the Dawoodi Bohras Himself.[10] Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin performed nass on him 49 years ago, a ritual during which he appointed him as his successor in private, just before he was publically appointed as Mazoon, second-in-command in Bohras hierarchy.[11] After the death of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin he claims that the succession was not done in London as Mohammad Burhanuddin suffered from a full stroke at the age of 100, that made it difficult for him to write, speak, or move.[1] Khuzaima Qutbuddin explains that he never claimed to be the rightfull successor, as per Mohammed Burhanuddin's instruction to keep it secret.[12][13] It is further claimed that former CJI upheld the validity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin as the rightful successor.

Reliability of these Russian sources

1. Source. A user added 3 sources in Russian language in this revision: [20]
2. Article. Caspian race
3. Content.

   The phenotype is prevalent to the following ethnicities: Azerbaijanis[5][6][7]...

   Please verify source 5, 6, and 7 (those new Russian sources).
4. Additional notes. There is a recent sock puppetry on that article. That user added these sources after the article protection. Also, he didn't translate those sources to English OR providing English version of them, just added a bunch of citations to support his desired claim and content.
5. My request. The reliability of those three cited sources (or an English version to verify them). Thanks.--Zyma (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• • Source [5] is a book (apparently) written by a wikinotable anthropologist and historian who is a corresponding member of Russian Academy of Sciences. It is published by the most respectable russian publisher of scientific literature. Source [6] has been published under auspices of the leading Soviet anthropology research institution, though here some caution should be excercised, because soviet anthropology was not completely free from political agenda (this is not to suggest that it was a bolshevist soapbox, I think it was quite credible generally speaking). Not being an expert in anthropology, that's all I can say. Эйхер (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Then they are non-expert and non-reliable for this article (this topic) and I can remove them, right? --Zyma (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That's actually the exact opposite of the opinion you were given. In so far as ethnography itself is a science - and that is debatable, see Ethnography#Evaluating_ethnography and tell me those are the criteria for evaluating a science - these are written by expert ethnographers, focusing on this specific topic. Note that 6 and 7 have the same publisher, so comments about 6 should also apply to 7. --GRuban (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That edit was removed from the article, because they are added by a sock puppet. But if they're reliable, add and discuss them. Actually, I think that article needs a better revision with more sources. --Zyma (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Citation of Wikiversity articles as sources in articles.

See here: [21]. It appears that having instituted some sort of 'peer review' process, it is now being claimed that Wikiversity meets WP:RS and/or WP:MEDRS. Frankly, I see no reason to see this as remotely compatible with WP:RS policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

For an indication of the validity of the 'peer review' see this example being cited: [22]. A high-school project taking the average weight of 19 teaspoons. As to the remainder of citations, since the articles are medically-related (with the corresponding need for higher standards), I have raised the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I note that all the articles so far linked from Wikiversity seem to have been written by the same person - User:Mikael Häggström. I shall inform him of this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

At best only "marginally reliable" clearly - I would demur on actually using any of them as a real cite. Collect (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd be surprised to see any content on Wikiversity that was near RS. Certainly the vast majority of it is garbage and there is no way that we can have any sort of blanket approval of the site as being reliable overall. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

This is probably an aside, but the sources we describe as "reliable" are notionally reliable, and they often include garbage as well. The quality of Wikiversity content will depend, like the quality of everything else, on who wrote it. I do not however mean to suggest that any of it should be cited here. James500 (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

'Who wrote it', in an open Wiki like Wikiversity, amounts to 'more or less anyone' - which is one reason we don't cite open Wikis as sources. As for the supposed 'peer review' process, see [23] - it clearly doesn't comply with what we would expect from a reputable peer-reviewed journal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not dispute that. James500 (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a useful list, we need to make it empty. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol. Immunosurgery cites [24] - in other words, an editor creates an article here, then creates one at Wikiversity years later and uses it as a source. All of the Wikiversity articles were created by Mikael Häggström (talk · contribs) and the two articles of ours I've checked were either created or heavily edited by him. Ah, Andy knows that, I've just seen Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Citation of Wikiversity articles as sources in medical articles. Also see [25]. Not good. COI? Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup. And the 'Wikiversity:Peer review' article [26] which claims that "A major reason of having a work peer reviewed in Wikiversity is the possibility to summarize it in Wikipedia..." was written by Häggström too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec) While I can applaud Mikael Häggström's enthusiasm, sympathize with his intentions, and appreciate the value of many of his efforts...Wikiversity just isn't the right venue for publishing the information in a way that Wikipedia can or should rely upon. As an editor, it is frustrating to have to acknowledge that the content in question here (dubious judgement about teaspoons aside) is likely correct, but has been 'published' in such a way that we cannot use it.

Given the way Wikiversity functions, there's no significant practical difference between 'publishing' in one's own 'journal' on Wikiversity and posting the same material on a personal website or blog. I get very twitchy about the tail wagging the dog when v:Wikiversity:Peer review#Usage as a reference in Wikipedia talks so explicitly about using Wikiversity publication as a way to gain access to Wikipedia's large audience. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I see this discussion has basically asserted the Wikipedia guideline at Wikipedia:Wikiversity#Using a Wikiversity page as reference in Wikipedia, saying "Wikiversity content is generally not identified as a reliable source in Wikipedia. Therefore, usage of Wikiversity as a reference in Wikipedia is generally not advisable.". Yes, Wikiversity inclusion does not automatically mean it is a reliable source for inclusion in Wikipedia. Yet, I still think such inclusion is possible, as can be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

For self-published websites, we can look at the reputation of the author. For wikis, any other editor can change the pages to a biased version. There are simply no guarantees of quality. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a page history and it is possible to link to a particular revision. I am fairly certain that the ability of persons other than the original author to (harmfully) edit a page on a wiki is not the issue here. James500 (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Generally agree. The problem I see here is that the publisher, the editorial board, the principal (and often sole) author of every single paper, the person who solicits and considers the referees' comments, and even the fellow who registered the domain (wikiversityjournal.org) is all one man.

Also worth a glance is v:Wikiversity:Publishing in Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. Lest we be unclear on the point, the stated purpose of this project is to create material to be cited in Wikipedia—which is a rather unusual scope for a journal. In practice, what we have is one person deciding which sources (primary, secondary, and tertiary) should be used, summarizing and synthesizing them along with some admixture of his own personal knowledge and opinions, and packaging it all together in such a way that Wikipedia might cite the resulting composite article and be insulated from considering the quality or reliability of the underlying sources. Unfortunately, the project's process – ultimately, the endorsement of Mikael – just isn't sufficiently robust and rigorous to justify that insulation.

The fact that he happens to be hosting his journal project on Wikiversity (or on any wiki) doesn't have to be a big deal—though it is additionally problematic that he has been linking to a 'live' version of each page in citations rather than to a nominally-approved static revision. (That said, I can also foresee some potential challenges with ensuring the perpetual validity of embedded figures....)

(Incidentally, the local page Wikipedia:Wikiversity here isn't an accepted editing {{guideline}}. It was written essentially entirely by Mikael Häggström and has received very little attention, so should not be considered in any way authoritative.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, only me and above user have edited the "Using a Wikiversity page as reference in Wikipedia" section so far, and my optimism about the Wikiversity Journal is obviously a potential conflict of interest in editing the guidelines in this matter. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment-- this material is certainly better quality than we find on many articles. They are reviews rather than primary sources, which is good. They have inline citation to reliable scientific sources, and the material has been through a peer review. On the negative side, the journal is not currently MEDLINE indexed (this is apparently a work in progress). The best way to describe this is an open access journal ... and this in itself does not make it an unreliable source. On the whole, I would say that they are reliable sources, and this would be strengthened once it is listed in MEDLINE. When citing one's own publications, WP:CITESELF is worth a read if the editor in question has not already read it. Lesion 12:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I acknowledge that there are a huge number of problems with the Wikimedia community writing articles in one Wikimedia project and then using them to cite content presented in Wikipedia. In this case, however, there are no plans to scale up this project anytime soon and the Wikiversity project exists as a proof of concept. I feel that information from whatever source should be considered critically to judge its reliability. Undoubtedly without a respected peer review process no publication can have the respect of a medical journal. What is on Wikiversity does not have a respected peer review process, but I see no problem with people speculating as to whether it could be possible to develop one which meets standards equal to all others. Of course this is a wild idea.

I have no comment about the citation of anything published in this way on Wikipedia. It seems like a dubious prospect at this point due to lack of established and respected peer review, but since it is happening on a small scale for the sake of discussion, I think nothing is harmed by judging this on a case-by-case basis and that no serious burden is put on the Wikimedia community by exploring this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we'll have a better idea of how Wikiversity Journal will turn out once articles from other authors will turn up. I haven't announced the opening of the journal to any of my colleagues yet, because I want to arrange for doi codes first, because I believe such a standardized citation format is a major drive for researchers to submit articles. Next week, however, I'm going to present the project for my colleagues at Gävle Hospital and later, if all seems to go well, to doctors at other hospitals as well.

I think it is impossible to decide whether to forbid or accept the entire idea of using Wikiversity Journal articles in Wikipedia, just like with most scholarly journals out there. Therefore, I think the actual discussions should be centered at each Wikiversity Journal article talk page, or the talk pages of the Wikipedia articles where they are used as references, as clearly linked from each Wikiversity Journal article. Several issues are identical across the articles so far, such as the journal creator and article author being the same person, but consideration should also be taken to the context in which the information is presented in each Wikipedia article. After all, not 100% of peer reviewed work in Wikiversity will make it to the Wikiversity Journal, and in the same way I fully understand that not 100% of Wikiversity Journal articles will make it to (or remain in) Wikipedia after community discussions. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thus, the worst thing that can happen, as I see it, is that some Wikiversity Journal articles will eventually get a shameful tag that says something like "This article was previously used as a reference in Wikipedia, but was removed." I think the fear of ending up like that will be a motivation for authors to put serious effort into Wikiversity article creation. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Any discussion regarding the validity of citing Wikiversity material on Wikipedia must take place on Wikipedia - what goes on in Wikiversity Journal article talk pages is of no relevance here. And since this is clearly a contentious issue, I would request that, until the issue is resolved, no citations to Wikiversity articles be added to Wikipedia articles without prior discussion, either on this noticeboard, or, in the case of medically-related material, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. I would also request that the 'Wikiversity:Peer review' page [27] which states "A major reason of having a work peer reviewed in Wikiversity is the possibility to summarize it in Wikipedia..." be edited to remove any implications that Wikipedia will accept Wikiversity-sourced material until such time as this matter is resolved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have now removed the cited statement at Wikiversity:Peer_review. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Wikiversity is the most appropriate target for having centralized discussions in Wikipedia about usage of Wikiversity articles as references. If there is a need of supervision of such usage, there could be a rule that the author must make an entry at Wikipedia talk:Wikiversity that links to each Wikipedia article with such usage. Thereby anyone who wants to keep track of it can simply add Wikipedia:Wikiversity to the watchlist. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I do not support using Wikiversity articles here: --LT910001 (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Articles present a clear COI of the community in general and also the authors.
  • Am not in favour of supporting this journal just because is slightly better than the worst example journal we can think of.
  • Journal is new, has an authorship of 1 and a readership limited to tens so the opportunity to catch errors is minimal.
  • Journal is used by any practitioners outside of the creator and/or direct contacts. If, for example, anatomy articles (my primary focus of editing) were published in this venue instead of a reputable journal, the utility would be laughable.
  • Without a track record this journal may be dominated by "power users" who pump out articles and then cite them here, or users who have been rejected from professional journals
  • At this point is it likely that all reviewers know the authors of the articles or have been contacted by them personally, which is not ideal.
  • This discussion needs to take place on Wikipedia as well, as we will be affected by any edits that cite the Wikiversity data.
  • I would, however, think that this is a good place for Wikipedia articles to be published and used for continuing professional development purposes if necessary.
  • There are also a lot of worst-case scenarios. How can we defend if article is released on the journal, and the author then uses the majority of the journal paper article in the Wikipedia article, citing the journal article? This is similar to the point raised above that we are essentially relying on a single person to synthesise and create data, and then citing that in the collaborative venue of Wikipedia.
  • This may be idealistic, but are any of the same ethical, legal and contractual obligations on researchers as with those that release data to actual journals, which (along with the funding institutions), have a degree of reputation to uphold?
  • In conclusion, am not usually pro-guidelines, but I think a moratorium for at least a year, or until the journal has some veneer of respectability, may be in order. --LT910001 (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Mikael Häggström, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Wikiversity is the most appropriate target for having centralized discussions in Wikipedia about usage of Wikiversity articles as references." There is no centralised place for all of the many Wikipedias, and the centralised place for this Wikipedia is here. Decisions about sources to be used on this Wikipedia cannot be made elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai

Soka Gakkai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Soka Gakkai - Revised

Most of your source citations for the Soka Galkai post are erroneous and misleading; you should reference Dr. Dayle Bethel's work The Value Creator which discusses the life of Tsunesaburo Makiguchi and his reform efforts within the Japanese Education system prior to WW II. His successor, Josei Toda also reformed Japanese society after the war by alleviating the public's suffering based in their beliefs in false religions which brought the Japanese defeat and misery. To be sure, Toda spoke out against the use of Nuclear weapons in 1957 long before the peace movement of the 1960s; hence the motto: Peace, Culture and Education. We're you aware of that? Now, Honorary SGI President Ikeda (who simply recieves a salary from the organization) carries on the efforts of his mentor Toda as it concerns Peace, Culture and Education. As an academic, I am voicing my opposition to your assertions in the article posted as your ideas are either false or one-sided.

Sincerely,

Paul Neuhausen, MSCIS

Unless you have a specific question about the reliability of one or more sources used in the article, it's unlikely that anyone will act on suggestions or questions left on this noticeboard. But please feel free to edit the article or to make specific suggestions and comments in the article's Talk page! ElKevbo (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Celebritynetworth.com take 5

In the past we have talked about celebritynetworth.com and its reliability. I am bringing this up again as we have a few editors this week going over many bios adding net worth based on celebritynetworth.com. What if any decision has been made about this site? I am concerned because of the parameter "net_worth" at Template:Infobox person that does not explain in any way what is a reliable source for this parameter. In a few cases I have seen Forbes estimates replaced with celebritynetworth because it looks more upto date. Lets look they are close but in a few cases billions off the mark from one and other Forbes list vs Celebritynetworth list -- Moxy (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

[28] It has always been found to be dubious and shouldn't be cited as being generally reliable. I don't see that anything has changed. If there's no reliable source for net worth, a specific figure shouldn't be in the article based on a non-vetted guess from this source. Infobox parameters are optional, they shouldn't be filled at all if there's only rumors. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

World Tribune

Is this paper reliable for this reverted edit? The paper has reported that the government forces now control 80% of Aleppo. But it is being removed for no good reasons that I can see. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

See The New Yorker article about it.[29] It fails rs. TFD (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty much the most efficient response I've seen around here lately. What a take-down that New Yorker piece is, eh? Good find.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Though I've never heard or WT before now, it does appear to have the bona fides for being a RS. The staff is composed of experienced journalists. However, it does trouble me that none of the articles I looked at used any sort of byline. Perhaps that might related to the mobile browser I'm using.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You've never heard of it before now but your first impression after glancing on it on your phone is that it appears to "have the bona fides for being a RS" even though we have an article in the New Yorker explaining that even though it appears to have to bona fides, it actually does not? And while the staff may or not be composed of experienced journalists, it's composed of people "who still have their day job" according to the publisher. The publisher admits that they have to keep their day jobs to write for the website. And they don't sign their pieces. All in all, the evidence is strong that this is not reliable for anything whatsoever. Although I will grant that they seem to have a sense of humor, given that they list Roy Cohn as their legal counsel.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't see the composition of the editorial board? Bill Gertz is about a heavy hitter as they come. While I'm not surprised the New Yorker would try and find a problem with an organization whose membership all have close ties to the Washington Times, the dated article complains that the WT isn't really a newspaper (well,the distinction 10 years ago might have been important) but that they weren't even UK based. I'm not sure about where the last part came from, or where he was going with it, but I'm assuming he was making some sort of point. More of a smug shove than a takedown. In fact the only valid complaint I see is the one I mentioned; the lack of a byline.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sigh. The main point of the NY-er article is that they report stories based on a network of anonymous informants and they're like WorldNetDaily and a number of their stories, reported as fact, don't appear in legit newspapers. Like the one at hand. The Ny-er article doesn't seem so dated when you consider that it's about a story in 2003 that ended up not being reported by legit newspapers, and here we are in 2014 with a story about how the Syrian government controls 80% of Aleppo, also not being reported in legit newspapers. One assumes that if the reporting were reliable Gertz would be printing it in the Washington Times rather than on a website whose lawyer is Roy Cohn.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Assumptions.... In any case the proposed edit wasn't a good one not because of the source, because it didn't reflect what the source said; Diplomats made this claim. The WT wasn't making this case.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

They are not unreliable because they are right-wing, they are unreliable because they report things that are not true. A good standard to follow in articles about current events that are widely reported is to use sources that are widely known and respected, such as the New York Times.

Also, the source does not say 80% of Aleppo is occupied, but that "it is believed." IOW it is someone's opinion, not a fact.

TFD (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Wether it is someone's opinion or fact is beside the point, we write what is in the sources. In ongoing war-related articles we write exactly what is claimed in the sources and we attribute those claims to the person that is claiming it per the source. This was done with the edit in the Battle of Aleppo article. The New Yorker's assesment of the World Tribune from 11 years ago by all intents and purposes can be considered out-dated. There is no proof provided that the World Tribune is still an experiment news website as it was more than a decade ago. EkoGraf (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't the World Tribune website more recently a nest of Birther conspiracy theory nonsense? This isn't a generally reliable source. (It still seems to be promoting its "Cosmic Tribune" website.) As for this edit, we don't "write exactly what is claimed in the sources", we write what is found in reliable sources, if it deserves due weight. Rumor and speculation from a generally unreliable source shouldn't be given weight.__ E L A Q U E A T E 10:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You know very well that I ment what is found in reliable source, because that is the point of this discusson. And I am still not seeing any factual proof provided that the World Tribune is today considered an unreliable source by other reliable media, except the personal opinions of some editors based on an article from over a decade ago and their personal observations. EkoGraf (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory stuff and Cosmic Tribune stuff aren't from ten years ago. The fact that you don't see proof that it's unreliable is also not proof that anyone actually considers it reliable. The fact that no other reliable source vouches for or mentions this source is not somehow proof it is credible. We aren't supposed to give undue weight to fringe viewpoints. Looking at their archives, if we relied on the World Tribune, we would have added many unsourced reports that Bin Laden died multiple times over the years, that Obama's birth certificate was "100% forged" and other patent nonsense.__ E L A Q U E A T E 11:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

About.com poll in comfort food article

Is this About.com page on comfort food reliable for the list of American and Canadian comfort foods in this section of the comfort food Wikipedia article? The author of that About.com page is indicated to be a "food service industry professional" (which could mean that she could be anything from a head chef at a four-star restaurant to a burger flipper at McDonald's), but the list of comfort foods is indicated to be derived from a poll that isn't specified or linked to. Nightscream (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No. I like some About.com stuff but this poll is inevitably far too limited for us to use. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Tend to disagree. Most of About.com content is not reliable, or just a random reposting of bot-generated material. This is content written and edited by their professional staff, and Peggy Trowbridge Filippone probably DOES meet, as lifestyle and cooking editor, the WP:N. Would probably be more comfortable, since she is interpreting reader feedback to determine what is a comfort food, if it were treated not as a statement of fact, but as WP:RS of OPINION, aka, sourced as opinion.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand that she simply looked at the replies she got on the forum (281 replies but not all of them about the writer's favorite food and not 281 different people), and added them up to get a result. So not opinion, but a tiny poll on a website that doesn't have a huge audience used to list 25 comfort foods. The numbers involved to get that 25 are really quite tiny. I really don't think we can use that. Even if it were her opinion I'd question whether it would be significant enough for the article. And of course it's 10 years old - food fashions change. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Henry Kriete Letter International Churches of Christ

Copied this here from the Reference Desk Miscellaneous. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have a question about the Henry Kriete Letter that exposed a lot of abuses in the International Churches of Christ. Because Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter (husband and wife) aren't they the best source on the letter that they wrote?

In several posts I tried to explain something to User JamieBrown2011, but he keeps saying that Henry and Marilyn Kriete's website and Henry and Marilyn themselves are not reliable sources on the letter that they themselves wrote. I don't understand that.

Here is some of my reasoning:

@Qewr4231, personal blogs are not Reliable Sources for Wikipedia, yet you insist in trying to insert content from them. Even if you agree with the opinions of the authors it is still not appropriate for Wikipedia. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@JamieBrown2011, who wrote the Henry Kriete Letter? Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter. Who's website is this? http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/ This is Henry and Marilyn Kriete's website.

Again, let me ask you . . . who wrote the Henry Kriete Letter? Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter. Who's website is this? http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/ This is Henry and Marilyn Kriete's website.

Again let me point something out to you . . . who wrote the Henry Kriete Letter? Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter. Who's website is this? http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/ This is Henry and Marilyn Kriete's website.

I quote from WP:RS

"Definition of a source

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

• the piece of work itself (the article, book);
• the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
• and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

WP:RS says that a credible source is "the creator of the work (the writer, journalist)." The source I used was Henry and Marilyn Kriete's own website Gloriopolis (http://henrykriete.com/). Further I sighted the exact source that the material came from: Gloriopolis (http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/). This is a nine part series written by Henry and Marilyn Kriete, on their own website; however you called what WP:RS calls a reliable source, unreliable.

Qewr4231 (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually now it's a 12 or 13 part series that is still continuing. But you know what? Here's the kicker . . . The Henry Kriete Letter was written by Henry and Marilyn Kriete. Qewr4231 (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Qewr4231 (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a primary source. If this letter has received attention elsewhere, then you should cite the independent sources. You can also include a link to the letter itself. If it hasn't received attention elsewhere, then it isn't relevant to the article. I'm copying this discussion to the the reliable sources noticeboard, the proper place for these questions. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

There are some sources used in the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill that I'm not sure are up standards for context. I'd like feedback from the larger community.

• In the lead, we have the statement: "Due to the months-long spill, along with adverse effects from the response and cleanup activities, extensive damage to marine and wildlife habitats, fishing and tourism industries, and human health problems have continued through 2014."

I've bolded the part of that statement I have concerns with. The source for that is here: [30]. Since we have claims of ongoing human health issues, shouldn't this meet MEDRS standards? Is this source good enough? And shouldn't we have a source more recent if the statement applies to 2014?

• The next sentence says: "In October 2013, Al Jazeera reported that the gulf ecosystem was "in crisis", citing a decline in seafood catches, as well as deformities and lesions found in fish." The source is here: [31]. Fishermen and seafood industry people are interviewed, but are these anecdotal reports enough to establish facts of marine biology and fishery science? Shouldn't SCIRS apply here? Geogene (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed the copy and human health problems have continued through 2014. from the article. Gandydancer (talk)

I guess I'd be concerned that the article calls propylene glycol "a known animal carcinogen". The FDA has designated propylene glycol as "Generally Regarded as Safe" (GRAS), and states that no toxicity is observed when it comprises up to 5% of the diet by weight. Its not only widely used as a solublizing agent in drugs, its a permitted food additive. And his/her statement that propylene glycol bioaccumulates in the food chain is just plain incorrect. Not only is there no data supporting this, but as a small, hydrophilic compound it has exactly the opposite physical properties from those that are known to lead to bioaccumulation. Given these misstatements of fact, it is very unlikely I would trust the reporter's comments on any other chemical toxicity issue. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS is a guideline not a policy and it is intended to ensure that information about health is properly sourced. But I do not think that the guideline is broad enough to cover this article. We are allowed to say for example that people were injured in an earthquake without waiting for a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed studies of the health impact, which would never come. Of course even the most reliable sources may contain errors which should not be included. Unless there are sources that say human health problems stopped at some point, then there is no reason to exclude that information. TFD (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think its a complicated issue. I have little difficulty believing that residents are still experiencing health issues, but I don't think the article is a reliable source for any of the details such as which health problems are plausibly related to the exposure. Given that it quotes individuals who state that their health issues are exposure-related, I think it can certainly be used as a source for a statement that "Residents state that they are still experiencing health problems that first arose in the weeks following the spill", or something along those lines. Anyway, don't mean to be overbearing, that's just my thought. Its a pity that its so difficult to find good sources for some things. Formerly 98 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Amazon.com, Target.com and Itunes sales pages as reference for discography

From time to time I use advanced searches to try to locate spam links. Today I looked for Amazon.com and came across a page I would like some advice on before taking further action. Here is the basic information:
1.Source.62 separate Amazon.Com product pages (and 1 Itunes + 1 Target sales page). Here is one example (they are all the same, different songs): http://www.amazon.com/What-Makes-Beautiful-Glee-Version/dp/B007YO6ZUO
2.Article.List_of_songs_in_Glee_(season_3)
3.Content.Here is one example:
! scope="row" | "Bamboleo" / "Hero" | Simon Diaz / Enrique Iglesias || Sam Evans and New Directions males || 12. "The Spanish Teacher" || style="background:#9EFF9E;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;" class="table-yes"|Yes || The Complete Season Three || <!!ref!!cite!!web|url=http://www.amazon.com/Bamboleo-Hero-Glee-Cast-Version/dp/B0072T976K/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1327797395&sr=1-1%7Ctitle=Bamboleo / Hero (Glee Cast Version)|publisher=amazon.com|accessdate=January 28, 2012

Summary: This is a discography for the Third Season of the TV show Glee (Disclosure: I have never seen the TV Show). The page is entirely sourced by sales pages fro various retailers for individual MP3 download pages. The use of the pages is not necessary: Although the third season page is almost entirely sourced based on these sales pages, articles for seasons 1 and 2 are not. Further, a small number of the links for the season 3 article are not to sales pages. I performed a brief Google search and was able to find a number of alternative sources; although most of what I found had some sort of COI problem, almost none of them were selling something directly on the page containing the information that would need to be referenced. For example, see:

• http://www.gleethemusic.com/us/episode/purple-piano-project
• http://www.allmusic.com/artist/glee-mn0001790434
• http://www.discogs.com/artist/1667953-Glee-Cast
• http://www.billboard.com/artist/302914/glee

The Problem: This is the first time I have approached the Noticeboard for advice. Typically in this situation, I would change the references an note the changes on the Talk page. In this case, I checked the talk page before making changes, in order to determine what happened to allow the article to get into its current state. You can view the Talk page here. Amazon and Itunes show up in various discussions with a number of different users going back to 2012. All of the discussions seem to take it for granted that Amazon and Itunes are non-controversial, reliable sources. I am concerned that if I simply remove these links my edit will simply be reversed as soon as I stop watching the page. I do not want to watch a page; I find it leads to emotional investment/stress, prevents me from working on more constructive things, and is not a long-term solution any way.

Proposed Solution: I will be frank. While there may be some scenarios in which linking to retail sales pages is considered a legitimate reference for this encyclopedia, I have never seen a legitimate use of such a link in an actual article. 99% of the Amazon links I have seen is someone too lazy to use Template:Cite_book. The other 1% are on these Glee pages that I am consulting with you about now. IMO, they should be removed immediately and replaced with citations from the sources I listed above. These sources are widely known and respected for listing and tracking music production, or it is a list produced by the distributor of the music.

Anyway, that is the problem and my proposed solution. This seems to be the place to go to get consensus from people not involved with any specific page. I look forward to your feedback and will respect whatever the consensus decision here happens to be. Thanks. Jay Dubya (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think major retailors like Amazon.com can be considered reliable for basic information such as what is being used on that Glee list page. As a major company selling the product, they can generally be expected to have the basic information about the product correct. I also don't think the fact that they are selling the products is enough of a concern that they should never be used if another source isn't available. However, if reliable sources are available that aren't selling the product, then I think using them would be preferable. Discogs.com is not a reliable source per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_48#Discogs, but as far as I know allmusic.com and billboard.com are reliable sources (I don't know about gleethemusic.com). So I would say go ahead and change the sources to use allmusic.com or billboard.com if the same information being cited is available there. Calathan (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I've run into exactly this problem. While I think that amazon and itunes are sufficiently reliable for uncontroversial information such as track listings, I think their use for this purpose is problematic as we're linking to a site that sells the item in question (see WP:ELNO #5). Where there is a physical artifact, I prefer citing the artifact for track listing just as I would cite a book. I don't have a good solution for material that this download-only and is only found on pay sites. I could argue that, as the track listing information is unlikely to be challenged, a citation isn't required (until a challenge occurs, at least). I think a stronger argument is that if the track listing info is only available on the site selling the music, there's no particular reason we need to include the track listing info in the article. Hope that helps. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

In some cases though when it comes to things released in North America the only things that have these reliable release dates are sources like amazon or the primary source for the company selling the product, this is not just confined to things sold in the United States. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

See musicbrainz for why Amazon's dates aren't particularly reliable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That link doesn't say anything that Amazon's dates are unreliable. It just warns that caution should be used when more than one date is given. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Jay when it comes to removing amazon.com as a reliable source then you are talking about a huge deal, there are a lot of article on Wikipedia that use amazon as a source for release dates, and I feel it would require a broad consensus from the community. There have been discussions in the past regarding amazon and consensus has been so far that it is okay. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Previous discussions about using Amazon.com as a reference

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 56#Amazon.com for digital music release info
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Is_Amazon.com a reliable_source?
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 43#Amazon.com as an RS for unreleased material
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 114#Amazon.com
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 7#Amazon.com as a RS for merchandise?
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Amazon.com for publication/release information

The general consensus of all of these past discussions have been that Amazon.com is a reliable source to prove that certain items exists and for release/publication dates after the fact. However, upcoming dates are generally viewed as a crystal ball. But there is absolutely no consensus that the links to Amazon.com are "spam" when used as references as the OP did here, here, and here. Unilaterally removing these reference without a consensus is disruptive. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's feedback so far; with the exception of the "background check" ran on my contributions above, which I do not appreciate. I came here to *avoid* finger pointing and ad hominem. I fail to see how removing references and proposing more reputable replacements without touching content is more disruptive than, for example, trying to shame other editors who have asked for advice in good faith.

I would like to clarify my prior summary. This is a situation in which Amazon, Itunes and Target.com are to be used as factual sources to determine whether music was used in a television show. The article is not about a specific soundtrack album. The retail references establish that such music exists on the show through a sales page for an MP3 that lists the name of the song and the name of the show. In this instance Amazon references are not the only source of information, I have listed four other possible un-used sources that are not sales pages (in the Summary section in my original post) that could easily be used instead (there are other options for the diffs provided above, also). My objection is not that Amazon and Itunes are "commercial" sites as such. In fact, one of my proposed sources is from the record company that releases the soundtracks for the show. I do not think of reliability as a black and white proposition; I think of it as a continuum of various shades of gray. IMO, music sales analysts, journalists and the record company that produced the music are all more reliable than a retail outlet who sells music. In a situation where no other sources exist and retail outlets are the only option, I am not sure what the correct course of action would be. Fortunately, that is not the issue in this case.

I am not claiming that Amazon can never be used as a reliable source, or that any reference with Amazon.com included should be deleted on an automated basis.

I have reviewed the archives provided for reference in the links above above and what they seem to indicate is that this is has remained a controversial topic. That said, when the archives do show agreement, they seem to indicate that Amazon is to be used with some explicit provisos that I do not believe apply in this case.

For example Archive_21 is mostly a flame war, but when it calms down three users state: "Amazon cites should be replaced by non-commercial reliable sources where possible"; "For basic facts, it can be seen as a source of last resort", "My gut says: 'don't cite'". Archive_7 asks if Amazon is a reliable source for the existence of merchandise which is not what we are talking about here - we are looking for whether Amazon is a reliable source for songs used in a television show, not whether a soundtrack album exists. Archive_115 only has two editors respond, not enough to establish a consensus, and both of whom disagree: "Until something is released, it falls into the "crystal ball" category" and "perhaps notable enough that we could use them with an 'According to Amazon.com'".

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_56#Amazon.com_for_digital_music_release_info appears to be directly related to this issue; but it isn't. This archive deals strictly with the issue of release dates as provided by retailers. In this context, the consensus is not to use Amazon: "None of the sites are reliable for release dates." "Amazon often list items (such as books) that they say will be published then are not". Archive_114 again does not have enough responses to merit a consensus claim. Only two editors responded, and both of them speak to very different issues. Once again the notion that Amazon is only a reference-of-last-resort makes an appearance: "Much to my reluctance I'd say that if you can't find a better source it should remain" while also putting a number of other restrictions on use, as part of already published policies: "You may certainly cite an advertisement as a reliable source, under the same sorts of circumstances that you would cite a business's own website, press release, or other marketing materials. All advertisements and other marketing materials are considered self-published."

To summarize, I respect all views listed here, however I have found no indication of a broad consensus at least as evidenced by the links provided above. All evidence so far seems to indicate either controversy or that retail sites should only be used in situations where no other references are available. I look forward to further comment and appreciate any further citations to prior discussions that might fit the circumstances of this discussion more closely. Jay Dubya (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Patheos blogs

Hello! MjolnirPants (talk · contribs) has added two Patheos blog articles (Exhibit A and Exhibit B) to the article God's Not Dead (film) in order to prove his point that the film is based off of an urban legend. Are Patheos blogs acceptable as reliable sources on Wikipedia? Furthermore, my assessment was that adding in a link to that urban legend in the article as a reference violated WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because this website does not even discuss the film. It seems to be used only to support the user's claim that the film is based off of an urban legend. The sentence that User:MjolnirPants is using these sources for reads as follows (diff):

Numerous sources have cited the film's similarities to a popular urban legend. The basic structure -that of a Christian student debating an atheist professor and winning in front of the class- has been the subject of at least two popular legends and a popular Chick tract".

I would appreciate any comments and feedback. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

menaopportunities.info

I'd like more input on the use of the website menaopportunities.info as a source. This page has been used to support the inclusion of two people on the page List of Lebanese by net worth ; what makes it especially problematic is the fact that one of the main contributors to the menaopportunities.info website is the person who has repeatedly used it as a source in the Wikipedia article, and there is a very clear conflict of interest in that the editor is repeatedly adding the name of a relative against consensus. Even discounting the COI issue, the website does not appear to meet WP:RS at all, to me, but I would welcome other opinions and insights on this. --bonadea contributions talk 10:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)