Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. Please post new topics in a new section. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

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

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

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

Wikipedia's pictures not verifiable ?

On the page about the Israel Supreme Court building there is a picture of this building that shows CLEARLY a pyramid with an circular window at the top of each face. This picture was considered as verified.

I just added a note below the picture to point to the presence of this pyramid. My note was erased on the pretext that it is not verifiable. To be honest I consider this the same as the well documented Zionist media control that we all know but refuse to discuss about.

The picture used to be at the top right in poor resolution was improved and brought away from immediate view. Another disinformation tactic or a chance event ? 911allo (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers in countries without a free press

I am interested in whether a newspaper in a country without a free press can be considered a RS on news events? Specifically, I would ask about the Jordan Times, a newspaper that Freedom House considers "partly free" for the year in question. However I am more interested in the broader question. Thanks for any thoughts. Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Common sense seems to suggest no as the answer to the general question. Peter jackson (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would seem so to me as well, particularly in contentious areas such as the I-P conflict. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that free=/=reliable and unfree=/=unreliable. I would think this is obvious. I also think that Freedom House rankings are full of shit, personally. Last year, IIRC, Pakistan's noisily critical press was declared as unfree as China's, and India -- with draconian freedom of speech regulations and a very active press council -- was declared "partly free". Load of rot. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The rankings are one thing. The descriptions of a free press another. Of course free does not necessarily mean reliable as witness the tabloids, for example. Still, unfree would seem to suggest unreliable. So how does one determine reliability of an unfree or partly free press? Do you have any thoughts on the Jordan Times, Relata? Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

An unfree press might publish articles which are planted, in which case those would be unreliable. Or it might be censored, in which case articles it published would be reliable. A free press might practice self-censorship, and be reliable, or be held hostage by commercial interests, and be unreliable. Merely using a non-descriptive statement as "free" or "unfree" is, in the end, not helpful at all. On the Jordan Times, I don't have the slightest opinion, though I believe I have both added and removed academic book reviews from it at various points. [I note, however, that Jordan had a widely-publicised clampdown on the press in 1997, which seems to have eased somewhat a few years later. It is also true that this newspaper seems to largely be described as "independent".] --Relata refero (disp.) 21:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the claim that "it might be censored, in which case articles it published would be reliable". Why would a censored article be reliable? Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If there are two facts, X and Y, then just because X is censored does not mean Y is untrue. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It does not mean Y is untrue, but it does not mean Y is true, either, which is what you imply when you say "it might be censored, in which case articles it published would be reliable". In addition, selective censorship can easily lead to biased, misleading articles, which would alo smake the article unreliable. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct, I should have said "need not be unreliable". --Relata refero (disp.) 19:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is honestly an issue of case by case review. Pravda was probably a horribly unreliable source for the happenings of the Soviet government. Perhaps it might have been a reliable source for reviews of plays and works of art (maybe), I don't know. State control or state influence means that we should treat as suspect (or at least qualify as non-independent) claims made by the source about the government. Determination of that control is again a case by case manner. I can't support Freedom House's rankings as an editorial tool on wikipedia. We should review and act on individual claims about the editorial freedom of individual publishing houses. Protonk (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. You can't generalise this, particularly as the degree of state control is highly variable. In some "non-free" states, such as the old Soviet Union pre-Gorbachev, the media was entirely a creature of the government - it was owned by the state and reflected only official views (even on issues such as theatre and art which, let's not forget, were also subject to strict ideological controls). In modern Russia the media isn't formally under state control or ownership, but the state directs it from behind the scenes. At the next level down, the media in some countries may be subject to what could be called ideological conformity on some issues, even if they aren't controlled or directed by the government. I'm thinking of countries such as the Arab Gulf states, where the media is relatively free but still has to operate within certain ideological limits (such as not being overtly critical of the regime). I'm not familiar with the Jordan Times, but I would guess that it falls into the latter category. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting thought Chris, as to what entails "ideological" limitations in regards to something like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Freedom House said that the Jordanian press practices "self-censorship" since should one anger the government a reporter can lose his credentials and his livelihood. In which case, since Jordan involved itself in the Al-Durrah case (in particular after the reported death of the boy), there could well have been an "acceptable" viewpoint in relation to the reporting of the incident. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not confuse presentation and facts. The facts in an article may be correct, but the presentation and/or selection may have a bias. // Liftarn (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly so. This is the same in a lot of countries. It's almost always the case that certain avenues of argument are closed off by general social and political convention. (You'll never see criticism of King Bhumibol in the otherwise raucous Thai press, for instance). This isn't so much a restriction on free speech as a form of self-censorship, as you say - an unwritten agreement that the scope of free speech has certain boundaries. But the Western media has just as much of a self-imposed bias in various directions, as the whole "political correctness" debate makes clear. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Self-censorship due to state control of the press is very different from "political correctness" in a free society. A reporter can choose to be "politically correct" or not. In a country with a free press, there will be plenty of reporters who are neither politically correct nor self-censoring. In a free society with a free press, the marketplace of ideas and commerce will ultimately decide who "survives", not the government and its ideological thrust. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Where are the articles arguing in favour of underage sex and racial discrimination in the mainstream Western media? Every publication self-censors, for commercial, social, moral or political reasons. There's no such thing as an unfettered "marketplace of ideas" anywhere, simply because some ideas are considered unacceptable by the general population. The government doesn't have to censor if social pressure does the job for them (this is very much the case in Thailand with regard to criticism of the king, for example). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles in favour of underage sex and in favour of racial discrimination would not be the purview of mainstream reliable sources. They would be opinion pieces anyway. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the Jordan Times is controlled by the government. That makes it absolutely off limits, except when it is referencing itself or it has something to do with official Jordanian government policy. In general, non-free presses should be avoided, especially on controversial issues. IronDuke 23:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the paper is published by the Jordan Press Foundation. According to Alan George, the JPF is "62 per cent owned by the government via the Social Security Fund" [1]. Partial state ownership certainly doesn't make it off-limits; plenty of broadcasters (the BBC, France Télévisions and RAI are European examples that come to mind) are wholly state-owned. Don't forget that state ownership doesn't automatically equate to state control - it did in the case of Pravda, because that was directly managed by the Soviet government, but many state-owned media outlets have a strict arm's length relationship with the government. WP:V#Reliable sources sets out four criteria: it must be a (1) reliable, (2) third-party (3) published source with (4) a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Note that the question of ownership doesn't enter into the equation. Its articles are quoted by numerous published authors, so it clearly does seem to have a reputation as a reliable and accurate source, satisfying the first and fourth criteria. It obviously also meets the second and third criteria. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that if it were "controlled," as opposed to "owned," it would make a difference as to its reliability? I'll also point out, the books you link to are intriguing, but a) there is no context at all for the citations in the books, and b) the standards of any given random book may not be Wikipedia's -- is Winnie the Pooh a reliable source? What happens if we ask Google Books? IronDuke 02:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It may make a difference, but it really depends on the degree of editorial independence enjoyed by the media outlet in question. Some are totally under the grip of their government masters - The Herald (Zimbabwe) is a case in point. Others are stridently independent, like the BBC. Some are in-between with a sort of compromised independence, like RAI. The only real way to tell is to to find out what others say about the outlet in question and, in particular, determine how widely it's cited as a source, hence the usefulness of reviewing Google Books to answer that particular question. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Given we have no good way of teasing out what parts of the Jordan Times are independent (assuming any part of it is at all) I'm not sure how we can rely on them as a source. They are controlled by an undemocratic government, that makes them automatically highly suspect. Google books doesn't help at all here, although looking at the books on Google might. Again, despite our inability to write reliable articles, we do have higher standards than many of the works we reference. IronDuke 15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, ownership isn't part of our reliable sourcing criteria (nor should it be, considering the POV mischief that would permit - e.g. people trying to disqualify the BBC or Al Jazeera on the grounds of government involvement). You have to apply the criteria we have, not the criteria you'd like to have. If the JT is a reliable third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, then I see no reason not to use it. Note that I'm not arguing that it meets those criteria, since I don't know much about the newspaper - I'm just stating for the record that those are the criteria we have to apply. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

but policies and guidelines a descriptive of a community standard of behavior. I agree that we can't claim "WP:V says no state owned media" but it we instead claim "An editor has raised a concern in good faith that the lack of editorial independence at newspaper X renders it unfit to be used as a reliable source on issue Y", then that is another matter entirely. If we have good reason to believe that a newspaper would make editorial judgments at the behest (or in advance of that behest) of their owners on a particular matter, then we can discuss that. Even in England, we would be incorrect to cite a British paper on a matter subject to a DA-Notice as an authority on the matter--we would expect that they would withhold items related to the issue from publication. Protonk (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course ownership impacts reliability, especially when the owner is a state which censors and controls the media -- very much the case in Jordan. There are tough cases, to be sure, but this isn't one of them. You keep saying you don't much about the newspaper... fair enough. From what I know, it is unreliable, and I have seen no evidence that it meets the criteria you set out. Could a story in the JT be true in all its particulars? Most definitely. But there's no way to know, and good reason to be skeptical ... thus, it is unreliable. IronDuke 19:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We simply don't operate on that basis - it amounts to a back-door way of eliminating all media citations from particular countries. I see from Reporters without Borders that Jordan is actually rated the third most free country in the Middle East in terms of press freedom, after Israel and Kuwait. But then again, you're blurring the difference between government ownership (which in this case appears to be only partial, if George is right) and government editorial control. The British government owns and funds the BBC World Service 100%, but it doesn't exercise control. Your case seems to be based entirely on the assumption that the newspaper has no independence due to the government's partial stake in the fund which owns it. I don't think that's a logical conclusion. You certainly haven't cited any sources to back up your assumption that the newspaper is not independent. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I went to Reporters without borders. First sentence of their 2008 report on Jordan? “State security police have kept journalists under pressure despite King Abdallah II’s promises of democratic reform.” If that’s not a ringing endorsement, what is? More: “…self-censorship continues.” Also “state security stopped the weekly Al-Majd from coming out for allegedly “undermining national interests.” It had planned to run an article about Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his plans to boost his party. Copies were seized at the printers.” This is in addition to several other examples of censorship. So we have that, we have Freedom House, if TB is correct. As to your point about state ownership not equaling state control, that’s quite right. So… here we have the NYTimes “Once they are a sovereign country, we could sit down and have a conversation about unity,' said Abdullah Hassanat, editor in chief of The Jordan Times, a publication controlled by the Government.” (February 13, 1999, emphasis added). Okay… so Jordan papers are out, at least until something significant changes (argumentum ad googlem aside). For the larger question of whether unfree presses should be used, I think the answer is obviously no. If someone wants to introduce an unfree press cite, the onus is on them to show why a) it’s relevant and useful to the article in question and b) believable/reliable. IronDuke 23:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Another perspective: there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this question. Hugo Chavez got a law installed in Venezuela prohibiting criticism of *him* in the press, and has gotten television stations not favorable towards him shut down, while there remains a large state-dominated media machine. The press is not free in Venezuela; specifically, private enterprises cannot criticize Hugo Chavez, and leading private newspapers now often avoid identifying journalists in bylines. Do these restrictions mean that Venezuelan press articles aren't reliable on every other score, excepting that they aren't allowed to criticize Chavez? No, it just means that non-Venezuelan sources have to be used to complement what Venezuelan sources aren't allowed to report, and we have to use editorial judgment in interpreting Venezuelan sources, wrt 1) the state-owned enterprises and 2) limits on privately owned press freedom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem that I see with what you are saying, Sandy - is that once there is any state censorship, we can only guess whether other things are reliable -- that goes to the very heart of the definition of "reliable." Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Press sources that are not independent or are arms of the government like Granma should be used only to express the opinion of the controling entity, and sparingly at that. They should never be used for facts. Freedom House's rankings are a good place to start in evaluating media outlets. CENSEI (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No they aren't. See above. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I agree with ChrisO that sources on political subjects from countries with official policy of censorship (like Glavlit in the USSR) are unreliable. The problem arise with sources from countries without official censorship but where press is still "not free" according to independent reliable sources (not necessarily Freedom House). Then, some discretion should be applied. For example, reports by independent journalists and well known opposition newspapers (if any) from such countries should be considered reliable.Biophys (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, censorship implies that material is excluded. It does not mean that false information is included. That is disinformation. There is a correlation between the two, especially in totalitarian societies, but they are not the same thing. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's common practice that false information has been used by totalitarian countries, take Nazi Germany or Soviet Union etc. They even have an article on WP about it: Big Lie.--Termer (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

In controversial cases, why not just describe the source (preferably with a WP:RS for description) and let readers decide for themselves? ie, "the partially government owned such and such" or the "military contract owned so and so" or "the neconservative controled this and that"?? Carol Moore 02:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

PS speaking of Israel-Palestine, I have created this page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Links_to_reliable_sources_discussions which has a link to all the specific and general topics that might possibly be related to I-P, or just about anything political. In case you want to bookmark it for a quick look at the various links to topics covered here before. 'Carol Moore 02:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

As I indicate above, Jordan papers are clearly off limits. Carol, your suggestion is an invitation to well-poisoning, and creates a false equivalence between media outlets that tend to lean towards one end or the other of the political spectrum, and censored oulets that cannot be trusted with any confidence. To reify that elision into WP policy would be horribly damaging. IronDuke 00:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

POV-based exclusion of sources?

It's hard to see IronDuke's approach as being anything other than a way of excluding media sources from countries which you don't like. If you want to describe a particular country's point of view about an issue, then of course media from that country is likely to be the best source. Your approach simply assumes that everything published in the media of a country such as Jordan is inherently inaccurate. Of course, coverage of certain topics may be biased or incomplete due to ideological preferences about the topic in question. You would not necessarily look to the Russian press for unbiased coverage of the war in Georgia, for instance. But it's taking it to a ridiculous extreme to apply this sort of caution to every story in every media outlet in a particular country. Are Jordanian sports reports off-limits? How about reports on cultural or economic affairs? What about political matters involving countries outside the Middle East?

As well as that, the "IronDuke standard" is ridiculously ill-defined. What counts as "censored media"? Israel's media are heavily censored about issues to do with security matters; does that make it off-limits? Many consider Britain's media to be muzzled by very strict libel laws. India has a very active press commission. Thailand's media is distorted by political ownership and subject to drastic limitations in certain areas. In fact, if you look at Reporters without Borders' list of press freedom for 2007, Jordan is actually ranked higher than many "westernised" countries, including Thailand, the Philippines, Mexico and so on. It's in a roughly equal position with India. How about it, IronDuke - are you going to argue that the whole of the Mexican and Indian media should be excluded? Where do you draw the line? Considering who's brought this up, it's clear that this whole thing is just an attempt to exclude the reporting of one side in the Arab-Israeli conflict; nobody should take it seriously. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Denial of the Holodomor

-library science is not a reliable source in this respect [2] claims Relata refero regarding
Denial of the Ukrainian famine (1933) according to:

• Evolution in Reference and Information Services By Di Su, Jessica Tan Gudnason, Di Ed; p. 137 ISBN 9780789017239
  
• Legitimacy and Force By Jeane J. Kirkpatric; p. 80 ISBN 9780887386466
  

and keeps removing the fact and the sources from the article. Any thoughts?

Also, once this is here are sources like for example:

• The Soviet Union dismissed all references to the famine as anti-Soviet propaganda. Denial of the famine declined after the Communist Party lost power and the Soviet empire disintegrated @ Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity By Dinah Shelton; Page 1055 ISBN 0028658485
• After over half a century of denial, in January 1990 the Communist Party of Ukraine adopted a special resolution admitting that the Ukrainian Famine had indeed occurred, cost millions of lives... Century of Genocide: Critical Essays and Eyewitness Accounts - Page 93

reliable sources that would define the subject unlike Relata refero claims the article is a violation of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:NPOV?

Thanks!--Termer (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, I checked the talk page, and you seem to be mentioning a great deal of things that are unrelated to RR's comment about one specific source being inadequate for this purpose. Broadly speaking, RR's complaint - and it looks reasonable, on a first look, to me - is that the article is written such that it labels any failure to conform to a maximalist, intentionalist vision of the Ukranian famine of 1933 as an orchestrated master plan of genocide as "Holodomor Denial," a concept that does not seem to be well-defined or subject to serious academic study. It is as if someone were to write an article called "Iraq Sanctions Denial" about people who say that the UN sanctions on Iraq did not kill 1/2 million people; yes, the best evidence would seem to indicate that this indeed happened, and two consecutive UN Humanitarian Co-ordinators for Iraq resigned in protest of this "genocide," but that doesn't mean that "Iraq Sanctions Denial" is suddenly a notable topic and that people who say the evidence is unclear or Saddam is mainly to blame can be labeled as "Iraq Sanctions Deniers." <eleland/talkedits> 03:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically you're saying the article has notability issues? Please also comment on the question about the sources above. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather than notability per se, I am concerned that there has been some POV-forking, or that there is a potential for POV-forking. It might be better to reabsorb the denial article and the genocide question article back into the main article on the Holodomor. Keeping such articles within a sensible length usually helps with maintaining NPOV and does not detract at all from the importance of the events. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Termer, Relata is correct. The first reference above is to a book dealing with library science and more specifically the impact of the internet on information services. This is not a reliable source for a contentious piece of Soviet/Ukrainian history. That much is clear. The second source, which clearly Relata was not directly referring to in his "library science"{ comment, is from a book by Jeane Kirkpatrick, who seems to be well known for her anticommunist polemics. She may have held a PhD but in 1988 when the book was published she had long been entrenched in the front lines of Cold War politics, and should be very hesitantly used to source contentious aspects of Soviet history. That should also be rather obvious.PelleSmith (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Itsmejudith might have some valid points and in case WP:Consensus can be reached about it, why not to keep all Holodomor related subjects in one article. I'd be open to that. However, I brought the books here to validate the reliability of the sources in the context, not that much what to do about the article in general. That I think would be a separate discussion that everybody could give their input in the relevant talk page.

Regarding J. Kirkpatric being "in the front lines of Cold War politics" according to PelleSmith, that is a statement that would need some clear sourcing on its own I think. Has Kirkpatric been referred to by any other scholars as not being a reliable author who has promoted fringe theories about Soviet history or anything like that?--Termer (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I linked her entry in the hope that you might actually read it. She was a foreign policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and an outspoken critic of communism as a political figure. In terms of the Soviet Union, as far as I can tell, she was a polemicist and not a scholar. Where are her qualifications as a Russian or Ukrainian historian? We don't need an emphatic statement by another scholar about something that is this obvious. There are several writers who have PhDs and/or have taught at respectable Universities who also should not be used as reliable sources in areas that directly relate to their highly politicized public life - especially without any evidence that they have any academic expertise in these areas.PelleSmith (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, in relation to the first two sources, Relata is quite right that the first relates to library science, not to history. Also, the second is not a mainstream historical work. History articles should be sourced from books and articles by qualified and practising historians, published in academic journals or books from academic presses. Their authors will usually have worked directly with the primary sources and will be competent users of the relevant language(s). I doubt whether Kirkpatrick was working in that way. Her writing would probably be a good source for commentary on current affairs or recent foreign policy, but not for unpicking events that happened decades ago and that professional historians are struggling to understand. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, including PelleSmith' points that Kirkpatric would be more like a primary source that would be valid only for citing a POV on the subject rather than a secondary source that an article on WP should be based on. How about the 3rd and 4th book in the context?--Termer (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

3 and 4 are both RS. Only one caveat, that you avoid giving prominence to any points that these sources only mention in passing. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Itsmejudith! It all makes sense. Coming back to your previous points regarding the article in general, please let me know if I got it right. Since no serious mainstream scholar has really denied the occurrence of the famine ever. the subject itself is not considered "serious" subject of study since the 'denial of the famine' is limited to ...the communist Party of SU politics and some of it's supporters opinions. Therefore it's getting mentioned as a fact by those RS-s only in passing. But in general the subject itself is not serious enough or the denial is limited to too marginal political groups and therefore there is no point of studding it really or having a separate article on WP that: like put by someone at the articles talk page: provides a list of "crack-pot fringe-theorists" who deny the occurrence of the famine . Therefore it would be better to keep the subject as a part of the main article Holodomor? --Termer (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that some people are working hard to draw parallels between this famine and the Holocaust, hence the term Holodomor. And hence there is an article on Denial of the Holodomor. But Holocaust denial is a notable phenomenon in its own right. There is an extensive literature on it. There is no real parallel with denial of the Holodomor. Well, morally perhaps there is a parallel but we are looking for verifiability not truth. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

the similarity between 2 words Holodomor and Holocaust seems to be a concern for some editors. The similarity might be intentional and then again, it might not. (it is actually a good question how the name Holodomor came into use?) The real parallel would be there only if "Holodomor" would be accepted as an act of genocide by the majority in the world. So far it's not, so the name itself might confuse the reader. That's why I've suggested renaming the article to Denial of Ukrainian famine (1932) that would refer clearly to the denial of the occurrence of the famine as such and it would have nothing to do with "Holodomor genocide question".--Termer (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Christ, I had another look, and that article is an atrocity. It perniciously lumps everything together: naive offhand remarks by visting diplomats in 1933, official decrees from Soviet news agencies that Ukraine is an earthly paradise, and mild revisionism criticizing the political use of dubious claims about a Stalinist master plan of genocide is all treated as one phenomenon. Renaming it "Denial of the Ukrainian Famine" would be a silly little diversion. <eleland/talkedits> 01:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

lewrockwell.com

Besides Lew Rockwell, more than 350 of our articles link to lewrockwell.com (list at User:Tom harrison/rockwell-links.) How many of these are appropriate and useful? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm cross posting this at the Wikiproject econ. This is part of an ongiong dispute over the influence of the austrian school in our articles. Protonk (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Lewrockwell.com also houses AIDS denialist material and is frequently cited by our small but committed group of AIDS-denialist editors. I have no idea about the econ articles, where I suppose it might be a borderline usable source in some circumstances, but I'll go through and look for areas where it's being cited outside that scope. MastCell ^Talk 17:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    • It is probably being cited well outside of its weight in econ sections to. the econ project has a long running issue with Austrian sources (which are almost all hosted free of charge online) being used in article where their connection to the mainstream is vanishingly tenuous. Protonk (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
      • (ec) Mmmm... an WP:SPS used so widely in articles other than the author? That is very concerning. Given the long number of links it will take concerted effort to clean up. I will lend a hand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, the link in Fractional-reserve banking is exactly the sort of thing we (the econ project) need to agree is not appropriate at all. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
        • It's an interesting test case: I perceive it as a school of thought which has a major Internet and Wikipedia presence out of proportion to its actual significance among experts in the field. We run into this problem fairly often in the medical/alt-medical articles. Wikipedia tends to over-cover such topics, because a handful of editors committed to adding their pet material across multiple articles will generally overwhelm a handful of general-purpose editors interested in a balanced representation. MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Not much to add, except that fixing this up will almost certainly produce the usual disruptive reaction from the kinds of editors noted by Mastcell. Some sort of co-ordinated approach, backed by clearly stated applications of WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS is needed.JQ (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to help, let me know what I can do. Doug Weller (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of the articles linking to lewrockwell.com include Winston Churchill, Zora Neal Hurston, Inoculation, Elvis Presley, and Caffeine. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Eeee. I just finished cleaning up our links to mercola.com, which was referenced from a similarly broad (and inappropriate) range of articles. I'll look at these a bit later today. MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked for it in the caffeine article. Can't find a LewRockwell cite. Your list is probably outdated. Is there a tool which generates a list like this? II | (t - c) 17:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's even worse, the lewrockwell.com link at Elvis Presley is to an article by Gary North. Doubly bad. ImperfectlyInformed, here's what you want [3] Doug Weller (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's in the Caffeine article, you need to do Edit on the whole article and search it. I've left it as I don't have time to do a rewrite right now which taking the url out would probably require. Doug Weller (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue should be the credibility of the individual authors of articles, not necessarily LewRockwell.com. If the authors are professionals, authors, experts, etc. with knowledge of the topic in question, great. If they are just opinion pieces, which many are, they are more easily challenged. So let's go by wikipedia policy and not go conducting a purge based on our own personal prejudices (Aka POV) against a particular viewpoint. Carol Moore 03:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Wikipedia policy says that lewrockwell.com isn't a reliable source. Lew Rockwell may be a reliable source, or other authors on there. But lewrockwell.com is not reliable. Protonk (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If an individual generally recognized as a significant expert is published in LewRockwell.com, they are citeable, just as they would be citeable even on their own blog. However LewRockwell.com itself is clearly not reliable for WP's purposes. The judgment has nothing to do with "purges" based on "personal prejudices." The site is useful for quoting what "anarcho-capitalists" and "paleo-libertarians" are thinking, yes, but in most topic areas those groups are so utterly marginal as to be irrelevant. <eleland/talkedits> 01:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Continental Freemasonry in North America

Full disclosure: I know very little about freemasonry. That being said, I was recently drawn into a discussion about this by a post at the BLP noticeboard in regards to the now redirected Grand Orient of the United States of America, a relatively new Masonic grouping. Consensus on the article talk page seemed to be emerging that the article should be redirected to Continental Freemasonry, but the original author decided to redirect to a new article called Continental Freemasonry in North America. I object to just about every source in the article as a reliable source. The bulk of the sources are simply links to homepages of various masonic lodges or groupings in North America, such as Le Droit Humain and Grand Orient of the United States. These are certainly fine external links that prove these lodges exist, but, in my opinion, do not constitute reliable, secondary sources. The only sources that do not come from a specific lodges website are masonicinfo.com, an anti-freemasonry website that doesn't seem reliable at all to me, and freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com, a blog maintained by Christopher Hodapp. Are any of these sources actually reliable? AniMate 23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

These are not in general reliable secondary sources, except Hodapp's weblog is okay for some things per WP:SPS. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A couple of small corrections. Masonicinfo is very much a pro-freemasonry site, it's just against Continental Freemasonry (most native English speaking Freemasons tend to belong to "Anglo-American" masonry, hence the English wikipedia's systemic bias towards this tendency). I also did not agree to the redirect to Continental Freemasonry, but to the Continental Freemasonry in America article. So Animate jumped the gun on a misunderstanding.

Although King may or may not be a reliable secondary source he surely contributes to notability as he's certainly independent of the source.

JASpencer (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If King is not reliable, then he does not contribute to notability... if he is reliable, then he does... but that also means his views should be represented in the article. You can not split the difference (ie unreliable, but contributing to notability).

This is actually more complicated than it at first appears... masonicinfo.com is highly regarded in the masonic community (frequently referred to and quoted on various masonic blogs and forums), but it is essentially a self-published website reflecting the view of one person. Until this issue came up, the Freemasonry Project has deemed the site to be reliable ... and it has been used as a citation in many of the articles relating to that topic. It will certainly be a headache to root out all of these references and find new ones (it can be done... it will just take a while). Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that simple. Reliability for BLP (especially accusing people of fraud) has to be a higher standard than notability. BLP is about higher standards of proof. JASpencer (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nightingale Research Foundation

There's an ongoing discussion about if the following book is a reliable source regarding chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS):

Nightingale Research Foundation; Goldstein, Jay E.; Byron M. Hyde (1992). The Clinical and scientific basis of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Ogdensburg, N.Y: Nightingale Research Foundation. ISBN 0-9695662-0-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

It's is apparently a self-published source, but the primary editor, Byron Hyde, has published regards CFS. Here is his biography from the publisher of the book (Nightingale Research Foundation). I believe the problem is that the position that there is a difference between CFS and myalgic encephalomyelitis is a minority position. I don't have the details but I figured a posting here would hopefully deal with the complaints on the various talk pages. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 01:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The publication, which I have read from beginning to end, contains the proceedings of the first international ME conference, some 75 full-size and richly sourced articles in total. The difference between ME and CFS is not discussed in this publication at all; CFS didn't get into fashion until a couple of years later; the book does however contain the article in which CFS was introduced.

The book was published by the Nightingale Research Foundation, not by the editor. The foundation has since carried on ME research as one of the few research institutes to do so. This book is with distance the single most quoted work on ME, and is known by the nickname 'Bible of ME'. It gives a complete overview of all knowledge about the disease at the time in some 750 pages A4, with over a hundred contributors and historical pictures of them all. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the correct reference is: Byron M. Hyde (ed.) (1992), "The Clinical and Scientific Basis of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis / Chronic Fatigue Syndrome", The Nightingale Research Foundation, Ottawa, Canada with editorial and conceptual advice from Levine P and Goldstein J., ISBN 0-9695662-0-4 Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Nightingale Researching Foundation published the book. Byron Hyde founded the foundation and runs it. Byron Hyde is the editor of the book. So Byron Hyde is editor and publisher. Authoritative works are usually published by a not vanity press. You don't usually have to set up your own press to publish something when it has quality. That's why Wikipedia has a thing about self pub. This is a self publication spreading a medical fringe view. RetroS1mone talk 02:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The foundation already existed years before the publication of this book. It helped organize the conference, and was asked by the attending experts to publish the proceedings. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WLU that there is a problem with this work. As has been demonstrated on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome, most researchers regard ME as a form of CFS. The whole subject is dominated by intense debate that has gone sour on quite a few occasions (not just on Wikipedia). This book represents a small fringe of researchers who insist that ME is distinct from CFS. It has no standing in the academic literature on the subject, to the point that a recent literature review that quoted from it extensively (PMID 1693596) was inaccessible on the journal website for months, reportedly because it was receiving additional editorial scrutiny. It is unfortunate that Guido has been unable to find a more representative source for his perspective. JFW | T@lk 05:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The 100+ contributors to the book are all highly credited experts in the field, including Acheson, Bell, Buchwald, Goldstein, Hickie, Holmes, Komaroff, Levine, Lloyd, Peterson, Ramsay, Richardson and Suhadolnik, all of which you have no problem refering to outside this book. These contributors wrote the articles as well as the conclusions on behalf of what is now the IACFS/ME, not Hyde. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It is still a self published book. Expert contributors will have stuff in fact checked and reliable sources. Find those sources, use those sources not the non rs self pub. RetroS1mone talk 12:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the researchers I mentioned are no experts? That is interesting. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The book is also 18 years old. If it is the most recent source that represents the ideas advanced in the book, that suggests that there is very little mainstream interest in it's contents and therefore it would be undue weight to place much emphasis or text on it. If the ideas promulgated by the book were not developed in the past 18 years, this suggests that mainstream interest died shortly after it's publication. If interest persisted, the book is useful as a historical text but the more current references should be used to expand the relevant pages. Indeed, as suggested on the CFS talk page, recent publications (2008) by researchers suggests that ME and CFS are considered interchangeable, with an overall preference for CFS (though always with the mention of ME and a notation that it is an alternative name for CFS). WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles still refer to the real Bible, which is even a bit older. Let's discuss only reliability here, shall we? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 15:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Only about what the Bible says, certainly not for, say the origins of the earth, animals and humans. That's a logical fallacy because it implies that the Bible is used for verification of scientific information. The Bible is not, it is used for historical and cultural information and even then, if it is contradicted by archeology the archeology wins (Jericho#Walls_of_Jericho for example). On the other hand, The Clinical and scientific basis... is being used to verify scientific information, so the age, publisher and general acceptance is very relevant. You have failed to address the ultimate question here - how accepted is the book by the scholarly majority? WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, we have a new main issue now that the old one didn't fly. The book is still sold and cited, if that is what you mean. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) What exactly is being used from the book? This is only an SPS problem if Byron Hyde is also the author of the material being used. It may be a poor quality source, and there seem to be many other reasons to be cautious in using it, but being an editor while also being the publisher of the work of others is not an SPS issue. To those who think this is an SPS issue I would caution against stretching SPS so far as to equate editorial oversight of any kind with actual authorship.PelleSmith (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, nothing written by Hyde himself in this book is used anywhere in Wikipedia, except for one reference to his historical chapter to mention that the history of ME/CFS dates back to the 17th century, copying his source. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that it's a reliable source of course. It simply means its not an SPS issue. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't sales and citations, it is if the contents have been eclipsed by later literature and if the conclusions have been rejected by subsequent scholars and the community at large. That use seems fine, but it would seem to be undue weight to use the book to justify, say, that ME and CFS are different conditions. That's one example, but in all cases the context of the citation should be examined to see if an unambiguously reliable source can be substituted. On the Origin of Species is still sold and cited but no-one bases their work on it directly or uses it's contents to discuss the transmission of genetic traits - they use post-modern synthesis works on chromosomes, genes, etc. OtOoS is a classic, but it has been eclipsed - you'd only use it to say "Since the time of Darwin^[1]..." or something similar. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is not used for that at all. The book is referenced to nowadays mainly because it contains the definition of ME, an extensive historical overview (not just Hyde's chapter, but 5 chapters in total), and information on the epidemics; also, some research is not outdated yet. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be at least two definitions of ME (Ramsay 1988 and Dowsett et al 1990), though the latter seems to share a considerable overlap with CFS. Does anyone use Hyde's definition to do research? If they do, in recent studies that are published in MEDRS, that'd be a boost for it's reliability. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 18:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hyde (ed.), 1992 includes your second reference:

• Dowsett EG, Ramsay AM, McCartney RA, Bell EJ (1990), "Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (M.E.) -- A Persistent Enteroviral Infection?", Postgraduate Medical Journal, 66:526-530

as chapter 28. This does, however, not contain the definition of ME, but an overview of complaints. The definition can be found in chapter 4:

• Ramsay AM, Dowsett EG, "Myalgic Encephalomyelitis -- Then and Now: An Epidemiological Introduction"

and has not been published elsewhere. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That makes Dowsett 1990 reliable but does not make Hyde any more so. Were it to be published in Hyde first, then in the PMJ, it would argue for Hyde being more reliable. Where is the elsewhere? WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 20:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you've lost me here. Not a clue as to your reasoning. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If the Dowsett piece specifically has been published in a peer reviewed journal this means it is clearly reliable by our standards. I'm not sure the order of publication actually matters here, though I think WLU is willing to assume that if chapters of Hyde's book end up passing peer review in notable publications then that reflects well on Hyde's own editorial discretion in compiling the book (WLU feel free to tell me if I've not understood that correctly). While that may be the case, in the end as WLU states at first, the fact that one entry is peer reviewed elsewhere has no bearing on any other entries in Hyde's book which have not been peer reviewed.PelleSmith (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Dowsett was published before the Hyde chapter, PelleSmith is correct, my argument doesn't really apply and I tried to indicate that in my earlier post. The only weight my argument would have had would have been "since the book passed a peer review to land in a journal, that suggests the peer reviewers were convinced of its merit, therefore it has some acceptance by the majority." WP:UNDUE is the appropriate policy here - we don't emphasize minority positions beyond their approximate acceptance by the mainstream. That is what I was getting at Guido. In other words, PS understood and elaborated on my reasoning exactly. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 00:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pelle and WLU, if an article that got peer reviewed got in Hyde's book to, then it is acceptable but why would you cite Hyde's book not the peer reviewed article in hte reliable source. Guido tried to say I question the authors' expertness, I do not. I just said experts will say the same things in peer reviewed sources and those are acceptable. In a book from a "press" like this from a foundation like this the fact checking is not acceptable may be by WP standard. We can't know w/o original research, that is why Wikipedia goes for sources that are not from a one-book press. Think about a hypathetical example like if a psychosomatic conspiracy doctor started a foundation called "CFS is Depression" and a press called "CFS Depression Press" and published one book where he edits just articles from his friends that think CFS is totally psychological. If the stuff is not peer reviewed it is not reliable, and the weird selfpub by a one book press and a agenda foundation is also not reliable. What would Guido say about a book like that i wonder. RetroS1mone talk 02:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make things up, you have not even seen the book. Everything in the book is peer-reviewed by Hyde, Goldstein and Levine to begin with. Quite a few articles in it have been published in a journal, and where we refer to those I believe we are in fact refering to the journal.

I fully trust WLU to keep an eye out for WP:UNDUE, so can we please go forward now that you have been found wrong? It would be nice if you returned the references that you removed yourself. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 07:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we're done here - Hyde is for the most part a source of very tenuous reliability, and can only be used for uncontroversial information that is not contradicted by other sources. Whenever possible it should be replaced with sources that are newer and more reliable. It is not an adequate source for a page saying ME and CFS are different things, and at best can be used to illustrate a minority point that some researchers consider the two different. But given WP:UNDUE, this should clearly be portrayed as the opinion of a minority and given a proportionately small amount of text.

My opinion is it should only be used in subsidiary articles on the controversies of CFS, perhaps the history. And quite clearly most editors believe Guido is wrong. I'm not sure what is gained trying to portray it as any other way considering how clear it is in the above prose.

Does anyone besides guido think we're not done? WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 10:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not refered to Hyde to prove that ME and CFS are different, thanks. For that, I refered to the WHO, the CDC, the IACFS/ME, the name change workgroup and Jason. Now, since the reliability issue has been settled, I will not respond here anymore. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The reliability issue is not settled well except if you go with consensus, one editor says its non rs, three editors say the reliablity has problems and you should use representetive sources, one editor rejects everyone elses opinion. Like WLU said this source at best is tenuous. Like PelleSmith said stuff in here that got published in a more reliable source can be accepted but it doesn't mean the book is reliable. Like JFD said this is not a representetive source. Peer review doesn't mean edited by the publisher, founder of press, founder of organization, back to selfpub. Theres thousands and thousands of peer review sources for CFS and some of the stuff in this book is in peer review sources. Theres only three reasons to use it, you want to promote it, you don't know the peer reiview literature or your trying on making a point with it against wp:undue. I am hoping Guido doesn't pretend this means they can use this source like its the bible again. RetroS1mone talk 11:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: I just want to make something clear regarding a comment Guido made. This is book is not peer reviewed in any sense meaningful to sourcing standards. People getting editing credit for a work do not function as "peer reviewers" because they are by no means impartial. Please do not make such claims because it destroys the meaning of "peer review". Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't agree with you there. Critical comments on the articles are even included in the book, so your premise that editors can't be impartial is clearly incorrect. Peer review for conference bundles can be just as strict as for journals; I've been on both sides of the equation in either case. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have never even seen this book but I stand by what I wrote. You are mistaking editorial oversight of various kinds for peer review. Peer review generally functions anonymously, as our entry here (linked above) aptly puts it - "to help foster unvarnished criticism, and to discourage cronyism in funding and publication decisions." I have never heard of the attributed editor of a collection of essays equated with a peer reviewer, or the process by which this editor collects and reviews the essays as a "peer review". These editors are not impartial because their position vis-a-vis the publication is in diametric opposition to that of an anonymous critic. They have a very public stake in a book publication which attributes to them editorship. You are of course free to provide evidence to the contrary but I do not agree even remotely. If the book was "peer reviewed" then it was not by the attributed editors and if that is the case I see no proof of it. Please note that my concern is not with this book and its specific contents but with the standards by which we are willing to use the term "peer review" to support a claim of reliability.PelleSmith (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but at the same time peer review for journals was not always anonymous, and even anonymous reviewers often have an interest in seeing the publication appear - or not. Personally, I think that anonymous peer review is a mistake. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You think that anonymity should not be part of peer review? Good to know your opinion, but its pretty immaterial here. I'm sure you know, that the differences between the type of editorial oversight given to this book and any type of "peer review" (anonymous or not) are still enormous. Peer reviewers do not take credit for the work they review in any setting, unless again there is something I don't know and you'd like to convince me with some evidence to the contrary. I'm not sure why this is continuing. All I ask is for there to be some care in using phrases like "peer review" which have a very specific meaning in terms of sourcing standards - a meaning which cannot be maintained when it is not adhered to. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The book should be used with extreme caution, and replaced whenever possible. It's not peer reviewed, but it may have some, very careful use, as delineated in WP:SPS and should only be used when it's not contradicted by other sources. Any reliability it gets is from Hyde's name and reputation, but this does not give it the same prestige of an actual peer-reviewed work. Anyone want to throw a resolved template at the top? WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Some publications that refer to this work are:

• DiPino RK, Kane RL (1996), "Neurocognitive functioning in chronic fatigue syndrome", Neuropsychology Review, Issue Volume 6, Number 1 / March, 1996, Pages 47-60
• Marshall EP, Williams M, Hooper M (2001), "What is ME? What is CFS? Information for clinicians and lawyers", England
• WAMES (2004), "ME & CFS: A Report for the Welsh Assembly Government", Welsh Association of ME & CFS Support (WAMES), February 2004
• Kennedy G (2004), "The Specificity of the CDC-1994 criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome: comparison of health status in three groups of patients who fulfill the criteria", Annals of Epidemiology, Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages 95-100
• Hooper M (2007), "Myalgic encephalomyelitis: a review with emphasis on key findings in biomedical research", Journal of Clinical Pathology 2007;60:466-471

Apparently, these authors and the journals consider the book reliable. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Totally irelevant to Wikipedia's reliable source policy, and these are not all rs any way. And please stop making personal attacks on me like saying I didn't see the book. RetroS1mone talk 01:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Huffington Post, AJC, & E&P

It seems that the issue is now the reliability (aka bias) of the two sources, among others in the never ending dispute over sources on Criticism of Bill O'reilly page. I have already argued successfully that blogs (non self-published) can be valid sources (as seen in WP:V), after the recent discussion diverged from a WP:EL claim (which is completely unfounded, as it was a cite, not a External Link), and now is on the reliability of the two sources. While Huffington Post probably has been discussed already (and already discussed on the talk page of the article), I would like it reviewed, in addition to Editor and Publisher, as reliable sources. Huffington Post specifically to end the issue, and Editor and Publisher because I don't know anything about it and it was raised as a issue. Thank you. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC) edit Sorry for the edit, but can this be added: Atlantic Journal Constitution as the objections seems to have changed (as they always seem) from those two (which were what the section was originally about) to this one and another? I don't know anything about the Atlantic Journal Constitution. And, would you know a link to where Huffington Post was discussed? I don't have the time to find it/don't know where it would be. I'll remember to not use it in the future, except for specific cases (ex. criticism) and to identify it clearly. Thank you.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Huffpo has been discussed before. It's my personal opinion that the site is not really reliable. they run wire service reports, minimal self produced news and lots of opinion pieces. they don't distinguish well between opinion pieces and news pieces and even the news pieces have a political slant. In short, the only way for something to be reliable from huffpo is if the writer is independently well regarded on a subject. So Sam Nunn on non-proliferation, etc. Otherwise, no. Protonk (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• E&P is a little different. their job is coverage of media and they do it fairly well. they have been accused of bias from the left and the right, which means they are doing an ok job in my book. I don't know how they treat their online postings (for some reason I can't get to a link), but material that appears in the print journal is reliable. They may have a left leaning bias, but someone would need to confirm that with a source before applying that qualifier to fact or opinion cited to them. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• The underlying source for this item appears to be this blog item from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is the main newspaper in a large city, so presumably the newspaper is a reliable source and its blogs are more reliable than the average blog. But I am concerned that just throwing items into Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (commentator) may violate WP:NPOV. Consider that Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (commentator) is already more than four times as long as Criticism of Osama bin Laden. Perhaps the O'Reilly article may be getting out of hand. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I don't consider it at all odd that criticism of papa bear is 4X as long as criticism of Bin Laden. Bin Laden is a murdering terrorist with a long history of extremism. Very little of what we would file under "criticism" would apply to him. Criticism of him would be something like "he responded poorly to the russian invasion of afghanistan, wasting troops and ammunition" (true, although he was a really local figure and it was just a few battles). We wouldn't really seek to put "oh yeah, he's responsible for the deaths of thousands" in a "criticism section". :)

• As for NPOV, that's a hard question. Part of it is evaluating the source. The next part is evaluating the placement of the source in the article. I'm not sure how to make suggestions on that one, it is always a thorny question. Protonk (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Do we have a guideline for who gets an article in Category:Criticisms of living persons articles, and what should be included in such an article? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    • These articles are usually spinoff articles when a criticism section gets too long although criticism sections are considered bad and the recommendation is to weave critical material into relevant parts of the article. A "criticims of..." article could be looked at as a criticism section and perhaps dealt with in that context. MrMurph101 (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• You know the longer WP drags its feet about this kind of crap the bigger the problem is going to be, and this is a good example. Blogs should NEVER be used as a primary source for contencious issues, and reliable sources repeating a blog (aka BLOGWASHING) should not be used. If something is notable, especially regarding a WP:WELLKNOWN then there will be several MSM reports regarding the issue. This section in the BOR article is backed up almost entirely by Blog sources based on the logic that Blogs may sometimes be used. Arzel (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am on the record as not liking blogs as citations, period. I know that SOME blogs are now associated with Journals and newspapers, but these are still pretty much opinion pieces written by an individual. Wikipedia has a bizzilion rules, policies, guidlines and two bizzilion exceptions to those rules, policies and guidelines. The amount of wiki lawyering going on in this project is pretty disgusting, imho. I would argue that there should be a pretty dam good reason for including a blog, one, and two, there had better be dam good consensus for doing so. The reason WHY a blog is used as a citation should be clearly laid out and explained for all to see, whuch has not been the case so far. I have now asked 5 times on the talk page for why it is so important to add this citation with no answer, just Wikilawyer and blather. If 10 editors, say "Tom, you are a jackass, and this citation belongs in the article", then I will put the saddle on and ride off into the sunset. Again, the overwheming ownous should be on WHY this is being added, especially when it relates to criticism of indivduals or contensious material. Cheers, --Tom 14:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not answering that question. There are more than 1 questions on the page. I was refuting the claim that blogs can't be used outright. I never touched (or officially addressed) the notability, as certain editors just wouldn't get that blogs can be used according to wikipedia policy. That is why I created the outdent on the talk page!!!! Please leave this discussion to the reliability of the source, NOT about the discussion on that talk page. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this article has been how to manage what I call "bloat" which adds recentism that no one may care about in the near future. There has been some consensus that inclusion should at least show there is media coverage of the issue beyond what a specific individual or organization bring up. For example, we do not bring up everything that Media Matters or Keith Olbermann have to say but note that they are major critics. A reader can be directed to MM's website if they want to get more specifics. Where I'm at right now is that the article should undergo a peer review and see what is a proper way to handle these kind of articles. MrMurph101 (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Has there been a "ruling" here? An editor has advised me to "move along" and is edit warring over this. I will not revert again but leave this up to others and see how this progresses. Thank you, --Tom 17:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea that Tom has advanced, that blogs can never be used no matter whether they're from a large news organization or have editorial control, strikes me as unnecessary hostility toward the technology regardless of the merit of the source. Yes, there are unreliable self-published blogs, just as there are unreliable self-published newsletters. That does not apply to blogs from major newspapers or magazines such as the AJG or E&P. For instance, Newsday has their sports beat writers maintain blogs for the teams they cover, and many times an article that would've gotten printed in the newspaper and that was cut only for space reasons (not article quality or anything like it) runs in the blog instead. These are fully reported sports articles with quotes and attribution. If we adopt Tom's rationale, we would be forced to ignore articles like these, even if they enhance the encyclopedia and inform our readers, just because of the technology used to present them to the world. Croctotheface (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Croctotheface, may I clarify. Above, I believe that I stated that I have come around to the "consensus" that not all blogs are equal. It is true that I am not a fan of their inclusion as citations. My point on the talk page is that editors wanting to use a blog as a citation should really spell out to the community WHY the blog is relevant and how it makes the article better, since they are "generally" discouraged. I now that I will be accused of "shopping" for a reason for non inclusion, but from the git go, I have wanted to know WHY is it so important to include this blog as the 3rd citation. All editors have different opinions and reasons for their edits. Anyways, I do agree with your comment about trying to get each editor to state what they are trying to accomplish as you pointed out on the talk page of said article. --Tom 18:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Croc, I think the big problem is when Blogs are used to push a contencious issue that has not recieved main stream attention. This and when a rumor is pushed by a non-reliable source or blog is then picked up by one of these so-called reliable blogs to give reliable weight to the rumor. But the biggest problem is that there is a case by case basis of logic that doesn't match up. Some simple rules are needed to keep things orderly, such as I have suggested earlier. (Note, this is MY suggestion) - "BLOGS may never be used as a primary source of information for contencious issues." This simple addition should solve most problems including weight issues related to Blogs in general. Arzel (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I have stated before that wikipedia policy states that blogs can be used if not self published. See WP:V the cite note next to blogs. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP Reliable Sources supercedes V, and it only says that they MAY be acceptable. Even so there is confusion as to there use hence this discussion. Arzel (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are using selective application of policies, may I quote from the Self-published sources section in WP:BLP:

Main page: WP:SELFPUB

Yes, WP:BLP says: MAIN ARTICLE: SELFPUB. and where is that? WP:V. that essentially means, that WP:BLP references WP:V, which says it can be used. Your argument falls flat there. In addition, the Self Published sources are only to self published sources, and do not apply to non self published sources.

And the reliable sources section which you quoted says below that:

Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

You seem to have ignored this section. Again. Despite me quoting this exactly on the discussion page. Multiple times. I even said it here at the top. It makes me think you are refusing to get the point (see WP:IDHT). I am only replying since you are continuing to add irrelevant arguments to this page that has nothing to do with the reliability.

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: I'd like it if all parties already involved in the discussion on CoBOR page not give opinions here, and let it be a 3rd party analysis of the reputability and credibility of the sources, keeping other discussions there. That is what, I think, this noticeboard is about. I was only asking for if the sources were reputable, not specific cases. Thank you. I will refrain from posting on here in the future, and hopefully so will User:Arzel, User:Threeafterthree (Tom), User: Croctotheface (yes, I included supporters of both sides of the argument who have posted here to remain fair). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the request in your note is unreasonable and unfair. Both sides should be allowed to present their opinions, just as you have freely done. Secondly, I think you may be misreading WP:BLP based on taking the above paragraph out of context, with the larger goal of BLP and the purpose of Wikipedia. Yes, these newspaper interactive blogs may be acceptable in some cases. But in reality, you would still need consensus to determine whether the use in the article is acceptable. Since there is no consensus on those sources, I'd suggest you find objectively reliable sources, or just wait until they arise. Remember there is no deadline here. Finally, the overriding theme of BLP is to find sources of the highest order before adding info into articles. I don't think anyone would argue that the AJC and E and P are not reliable sources, but there is legitimate dispute about whether that translates over to their respective blogs. Also, the paragraph you cited does not exist in vacuum-- undue weight, NPOV, consensus will still apply to information even if it comes from a reliable source, or fits the exception you cite. After reviewing the dispute my suggestion would be to remove the blog sources. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Volokh Conspiracy (legal blog)

Resolved

 – Not an appropriate source for a WP:BLP. Protonk (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Two legal scholars, Eugene Volokh and Orin Kerr, have been quoted in the Tucker Max article. While I believe that the aforementioned are indeed notable law scholars, their quotes have been culled from a blog called The Volokh Conspiracy. Even though those quoted are experts in the field, should this blog be considered a reliable source from where to quote them? The blog is not all about law either [[4]], [[5]], so I am thinking it should be treated as any other blog - not a reliable source. Any opinions? Thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The governing policy here is WP:BLP not WP:SPS. The answer is always no. Self published sourced can't be used to source material, good bad or indifferent about a person who isn't the source. While I consider the Volokh Conspiracy a good read and a good source for legal matters, we can't use it in the Tucker Max article. Protonk (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless the source is a newspaper/editor controlled non self-published blog as defined in WP:V (which WP:BLP references to instead of detailing exactly), then no. If yes, then it also has to pass WP:NPOV/other non RS/V related policies. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you quote the part of WP:BLP that says these sources are unacceptable? McJeff (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources, which says "Self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article..." Protonk (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Human Nature Review a Reliable Source?

I am a novice on Wikipedia, so I'd like to canvass opinion on the Human Nature website: http://human-nature.com

Quote: Human Nature Review is a significant source of analysis and commentary for readers at leading universities and research institutes in over one hundred and sixty countries and is one of the most popular sites on the whole world wide web. Esterson (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look great. The "affiliated" site seems to belong to one school of psychoanalysis. It doesn't seem to be part of the academic mainstream. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. But the affiliated website does not have a Human Nature URL: http://www.psychoanalysis-and-therapy.com/

I think it's only "affiliated" because it is the specific interest of one of the editors. The Human Nature website itself has articles and reviews by academics on a wide range of scientific topics: http://human-nature.com/nibbs/contents.html Esterson (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC) This gives a better idea of the contents of the Human Nature Review website: http://human-nature.com/nibbs/browse.html Esterson (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Human Nature Review is definitely not part of regular academic publishing. If you want to use an article posted on it that was written by an academic who also publishes in peer-reviewed outlets, then it's best to treat it as self-published, as if it appeared on his/her blog. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Esterson (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Facebook

Resolved

 – No, but use judgment for material you know is wrong that is in an otherwise reliable source. Protonk (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Facebook a valid source for the birthdate of a subject? Tanya Tagaq Gillis has the wrong date and her Facebook page gives the correct date but it's not viewable unless logged in. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 09:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ability to view the page isn't relevant, I can think of a whole range of reasons why Facebook isn't compliant with policy. Whether it should or shouldn't be for some items is up for debate, although on balance I don't think there are any good arguments for considering it reliable.

ALR (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This birthdate issue has been annoying me for a while. Her correct birthdate has been added a couple of times but without a source. Both times I removed it because the source given is a relilable one but gives the wrong year. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 10:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well you'll see from previous discusion that I have serious concerns about the blanket endorsement of newspapers being reliable. I see the point, and personally think you could probably come up with an argument for removing the incorrect date, although you're then left with a blank.

ALR (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, reliable isn't the same thing as correct. If you don't have a reliable source attesting to a different, specific birthdate but you can show other editors reasons why the newspaper birthdate is wrong, then you should just try to convince them on the talk page to have it moved to a birth year or month. We don't need to reference facebook (oh god no), but we shouldn't let a policy stop us from getting an article right. Protonk (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll probably just take it out. Nobody else is trying to keep it in and there was only one other editor who entered her correct birthday and I took that out as unsourced. The only way that I can "prove" her birthdate is wrong is to use even worse sourcing than Facebook. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 07:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The differences between reliable, wikipedia version of reliable and accurate is essentially my point. Regrettably I do see a lot of retention of incorrect data on the basis of meeting the wikipedia criteria. Whilst that is frustrating it's understandable, particularly where there might be some dispute over the accuracy. I've also seen, regularly, an extremely legalistic approach which essentially recognises that data are incorrect but exploits the weaknesses in the guidance set to inject a position on a topic which essentially biases it. Personally I find it a disturbing prostitution of intellectual integrity, but some people are happy with it.

In this instance it doesn't appear to be contentious.

ALR (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

More than one source needed?

Based on what was in an academic paper, I inserted into an article details about what was found on a manslaughter victim's person. Another editor reversed, saying that the information wasn't in other sources. It should probably be mentioned that these others sources are silent on the issue, they don't contradict the first source. Is it necessary or desirable to have multiple sources for material? 130.156.31.33 (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• This can depend on the kind of claim that is made. Some claims, which are very contentious, require some pretty solid sourcing. If one source is not impeccable, it is not wrong to request some corroboration. However, this is usually only the case for extraordinary claims. What is the claim in question? Protonk (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The claim is that the manslaughter victim had money in her hand when police arrived. The victim was a store patron whom a store employee erroneously believed was stealing merchandise. A physical confrontation ensued, with the employee eventually shooting and killing the victim. The shooter was convicted of manslaughter. Police who investigated the incident and viewed the store videotape concluded that the victim was not stealing, and the money in hand was intended to pay for purchases. 130.156.29.230 (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

An academic paper is a reliable source and if it isn't contradicted then there probably is no problem with including the information. The incident you describe is not what wuld be called "an extraordinary claim". It would be possible to say something like "according to an academic paper blah blah, but this was not in the initial newspaper reports". But if you do that make sure that it does not read like an attempt to discredit the academic paper. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Help with Jon & Kate Plus 8

There was a previous case where outside people are trying to unbalance the article Jon & Kate Plus 8... (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive437#Jon_.26_Kate_Plus_8. Now, the SPA's are back (see: [6] for the contributions of the SPA in question. They want to add a controversy section to the article (these SPA's have a anti-Kate Gosselin POV), and have added a press release of a former child star, Paul Petersen, through the foundation A Minor Consideration, who claims that the Gosselins are putting their children at risk by continuing to film the show. This seems to me to be not a WP:Reliable Source, they don't have any RS covering the statement (its a primary source).. Since this seems to be an ongoing issue with an organized group of SPA's on this article, could I get a view on the "controversy" section and the statement of the foundation? (if it keeps up, this might be a good candidate for BLP) SirFozzie (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources being used for Early British Kingdoms articles

In this case, specifically Glastening‎ but also others. Three sources concern me - none of them are, I think, RS. 'The History Files' - [7] - I can't see any sign of its being a reliable site. David Nash Ford's 'Early British Kingdoms' [8]- David's a nice chap but the site is his own personal website. And finally Britannia.com, a website run by an American about Britain [9] This article and a few others rely heavily or virtually exclusively on these three sites and need some work. Doug Weller (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Far too many others, in fact. I agree entirely with Doug Weller's remarks above. On these sites sources are not normally given, fact, legend and imaginative reconstructions are hopelessly intermixed and presented uncritically: these are not reliable sources. There are others in the same category but they are mainly a problem with articles on Celtic mythology and early literature. I'm not even very happy with having them as external links as they are so misleading and likely to result in yet further contributions based on what is found there. So how do we go about establishing a firm policy on this? Should we have a page listing these dubious sites and summarising our policy so we can place a convenient link to it when reverting bad references? Should the list include unacceptable printed sources as well (as primary sources in the articles[s])? Do we need a template, for instance? Good to see this being discussed, anyway. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this considered a reliable source?

Can this be used as a source for Christian rock in the infobox at Thousand Foot Krutch? Landon1980 (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Musicmight appears to be the site formerly known as Rockdetector. See here for a discussion of Rockdetector as a reliable source from a few weeks back. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I cite a source that uses Wikipedia as a source?

Resolved

 – Yes, otherwise reliable sources which cite Wikipedia remain reliable. Take care to look out for the possibility of circular reference or sources which copy large amounts of text verbatim. Protonk (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I gather that The Comics Journal is generally considered reliable. Is it a problem when they put Wikipedia in their bibliography for an article? In "Stop, My Butt Hurts!" The Yaoi Invasion (NSFW), they cite perhaps this version of Yuri and this version of Yaoi. Is it okay to selectively use parts of the TCJ article which don't bear resemblance to those old article versions? -Malkinann (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• No problem at all. You are citing their work. The "circular reference" problem comes from cites which are just mirrors or forks of wikipedia being cited on wikipedia. sites which merely reference wikipedia as fine. I'm not sure what your second question means, though, can you elaborate? Protonk (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I mean - I've looked up the versions of our articles which TCJ would have seen when they wrote the article. It's ok to use the bits of TCJ's article which don't seem to be Wikipedia-derived? -Malkinann (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• As long as they are just using wikipedia as a reference in the same way you would use their journal as a reference (summarizing, rather than copying), you can cite any part of it. I imagine that you have looked through the articles here and the reference to see if there were any blocks of text copied right over. If you haven't found any, the whole article is ok. Protonk (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Talking points memo

Just thought I'd raise the question of whether this is an RS for their non-opinion pieces. They are obviously partisan, but they also do real journalism (professionally) and have won awards for it. They also seem to make a clear distinction between journalism and opinion.

I wouldn't trust any of their conclusions or synthesis, and they would never be a particularly high-quality source, I'm just wondering if they can be referred to on simple matters of fact. This came up at Sarah Palin over this post of theirs - if you read the post, it's well-sourced and the narrative it gives, stripped of the POV, is not actually that unflattering for Palin. It looks to me like journalism, and they do have a professional reputation to uphold. Homunq (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• There is, somewhere in the RS/N archives, a discussion of which elements of TPM are reliable sources. I don't remember which are and which aren't, but this has been answered before. Protonk (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's in archive 9, but the issue remains a bit contentious on Talk:Sarah Palin.Homunq (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, regardless of the presentation of facts or the competence of journalism involved there is no escaping the fact that this is an avowedly partisan source (Well, maybe not avowedly, but they are obviously partisan to any reasonable observer). My guess is that you will be unable to find consensus on the use of TPM as a source for reporting of fact (rather than opinion) unless both sides happen to agree on the facts in question. Take your pick as to whether or not those are POV or RS concerns, but people will have them. So, rather than send you to the WP:NPOV/N, I'll just tell you that the answer there will not resolve the situation either. Sorry. :( Protonk (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is the only online source I know of for two facts, one of which is mildly pro-Palin and the other of which is mildly anti-Palin. It names its own source for both, which is RS (actually a newspaper Palin once worked at!) but not online or accessible. Betcha can't guess the solution proposed by the pro-Palin crowd :) Homunq (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm

I can't decide if this meets the criteria of being a RS. I don't think that it does...but on the off chance that it does, I'm gonna ask about it. Cheers, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 04:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The Black Parade genre

There has always been a debate of the genres used to classify the band My Chemical Romance's music. This debate continued to the album article The Black Parade. The genre emo is disputed. The album is listed as emo in the allmusic review of the album. An article about the emo nature of the album can also be found here. A discussion about the inclusion of emo can be found on Talk:The Black Parade#Genre Changes to "Emo" and on User talk:Friginator#The Black Parade Genre Controversy and I was wondering if these sources are reliable enough to warrent the inclusion of the genre.  Orfen  ^T • _C 04:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Full Discussion:

Needless to say, the genre of the album keeps getting changed to emo, and almost immediately changed back, only to be changed again and so on. My proposal is that it be accepted either way. I don't see any harm either way, and I think there are more important things to do on Wikipedia than cause an endless edit war about something completely arbitrary. There is no official genre for almost any album. It's all open to interpretation. I think we need to list the genre as simply, "Rock," since that is the only status the band has given its work. The problem is that there is no evidence either way, and therefore no reason to state it as encyclopedic fact. Let's just all just say from now on that the album is NOT classified as "emo," due to a complete and utter lack of evidence. However, I do not have any personal opinions either way, I just see this as the only way to minimize the article being changed back and forth. I'm not quite sure how we would go about making a desicion like that, but I'm sure there could be a way.--Friginator 2:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• While I understand your concern the genre for emo is actually sourced and should be included. That is why I keep changing it back. It is sourced through the allmusic review of the album. All of the genres must be sourced. Reliable sources would have to be provided saying this album wasn't emo if that genre was to become disputed. The genres listed currently aren't just genres I or other users feel this album is like. It is sourced by allmusic which is what they say the album sounds like. Genres require sources other than the band to classify for sure what it is. All information needs to be sourced by a reliable source and the genres provided were provided by a professional reviewer.  Orfen  ^T • _C 20:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Or, to put it succinctly, WP:BURDEN states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". While I feel the subject does qualify as emo music, I'd need to find some article (preferably in a music magazine like Rolling Stone) that specifically called The Black Parade emo. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Orfen: Though I would obviously say that Allmusic.com is a good source of info, I don't see how their interpretations could be seen as an official designation of Genre. In my opinion, the genre should simply be changed to "Rock," because that is the only genre acknowledged by all parties, including the band themselves. Since the band has specifically stated that they are NOT emo, and that neither is this particular album, I would say there is good evidence against the inclusion. I do agree that if Rolling Stone actually classified the album as emo, a good case could be made. If a statement is open to interpretation, it should by not be included in an encyclopedic article. --Friginator 20:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• The band themselves don't count as a reliable source though. We cannot use primary sources for things such as genres. We need to use the opinions of reliable music critics to decide what we include in Wikipedia not the ediotors or the band. Yes, the band's opinion is worth mentioning (although I am not sure if there is something about them denying the term emo specifically for The Black Parade) but they ultimately don't decide on Wikipedia what their album sounds like. Yes, they made it, but it is up to the critics to decide for us what the album is classified as regardless of our opinions. Whether we believe if this album can be classified as emo having sourced information makes for a better article and a better encyclopedia.  Orfen  ^T • _C 05:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

My problem with the genre change, though, is that "genre" is an opinion, and can't be stated as a fact either way. The album got generally positive reviews from critics, but we don't state that the album was "good" or "bad," because this is not fact. I don't think that the band themselves are any less reliable than allmusic.com. We could always note the critics' interpretations, but we could not verify their opinions as fact. Also, the term "emo" is so specific that it couldn't apply to the entire album. One song ["Mama"] incorporates Russian polka, but this is not the subgenre either. With virtually every Wikipedia article on music, there are debates over genre and subgenre, which is why I think that the entire situation has gotten out of hand, and Wikipedia needs to separate all the opinions from the facts. --Friginator 29:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• The genres source by reliable sources who are considered experts in their field aren't just considered opinion. Those are reliable facts and as such we should list them. If there is a dispute then the dispute should be listed but there needs to be reliable sources showing a dispute. This isn't an encyclopedia that tells the opinion of its users but rather what published experts in the field have listed as their interpretation. Allmusic or any other website hasn't listed the genre of the album as Russian polka. Yes, some mention the fact that "Mama" is a different song for the band and list why but even then I'm not sure if it is specifically labeled as Russian polka. We can't add how we think the album sounds. We have to add how respected publishers feel the album sounds. Yes, there are sometimes a lot of bias in the disputes on talk pages but in the end we are creating an encyclopedia based on the published views of others. We can't let how we think an album sounds or how we feel a band should be labeled come into play when making an article. Excluding the genre emo would be POV since we wouldn't be covering a neutral POV as we have obviously made our own decisions on how we think the album or the band sounds.  Orfen  ^T • _C 03:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree for the same reasons as before, but more importantly, IGN's review specifically states that this particular album is not emo, whereas Allmusic.com (the given source) only has "emo" listed as one of the many styles. Allmusic classifies the genre, however, as simply "Rock." Again, the opinions of others should not be listed as fact, despite who these others are. Not including a genre is not POV or any type of bias. It would be POV to state that the genre is not "emo", but refusing to choose a side either way is just staying neutral. --Friginator 23:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• You say to look at your talk page but I have already read this. How can you refuse to choose a side? You can't. Not listing means you are saying it isn't emo. Listing it is saying it is. You can't just not take a side. One needs to be taken based on the reliable sources. IGN actually says "My Chemical Romance is NOT an emo band. At least that's what they want you to believe. Not only have the members of the band said so publicly, but they are going out of their way to back up those words with their music." Also some more sources to add are AOL and FYE. I don't understand how not including it as a genre means it isn't emo. There are also a couple non-music related sources that say the album is emo and part of an emo movement. The band article also lists them as emo. I don't understand why the sources don't point to emo.  Orfen  ^T • _C 01:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason I referred you back to my talk page is that I feel there are better ways to discuss this than through edit wars. The IGN quote you mentioned does make a specific case against the "emo" classification for this specific album, even if it doesn't insist upon it. As long as there are reliable sources, and something is open to interpretation, you can't just go around stating it as fact. Encyclopedias are based on stating the facts, not the opinions. "Emo" is an opinion, and if there are conflicting sources then you can't pick sides. No one is suggesting that Wikipedia insist that it is not emo, but until there is some sort of infallible proof that the album is unarguably emo, we can't go around stating what only SOME of the critics interpret. What I don't understand is why you think staying neutral is in itself some kind of bias. How can the album meet criteria for the "emo" genre if those criteria don't exist? There's no specific way to verify arbitrary claims. If something can't be proven, you don't state it to be true on an encyclopedia. Reviews and consensus don't count as proof of something, especially if other reviews and consensus point otherwise. About your new sources: neither actually reviews the album, they both just cite a review from allmusic that you already cited. Plus, neither of them list "emo" as the genre, just one of several styles. Even if you are going to go against the very purpose of having an Encyclopedia, you still would have to come up with ONE reliable source stating that this album IS emo, which you still have not. Coming to conclusions like that because-- "I don't see why the [as of yet ungiven] sources don't point to emo" --violates WP:OR.--Friginator 03:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is based on second party sources. The allmusic source is a second party source. The genre isn't listed in the review but it is listed as a style of the album. Not the band. It is a style for the album. Also it is a covered subject in the UK where it is believed a suicide took place due to the "emo" nature of the album. Located here. Saying that the second party sources do not indicate this album is emo is ignoring the sources completely.  Orfen  ^T • _C 02:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The suicide article/incident has absolutely nothing to do with this. A suicide report is not an appropriate source for defining a music genre. Anyway, "emo" would be (in your previous examples) from a secondary source, but I don't see how that's relevant either. For example I could find several secondary sources implying "Onions taste bad," but I wouldn't state that insinuation as fact on the "Onion" page. The way onions taste is up to the taster, just like whether music is "emo" or not is up to the listener. It's an opinion, and just because some second party sources have that opinion doesn't make it a fact. That's why we stay neutral. Wikipedia gets all its credibility from the credibility of secondary sources, but it still only states the facts. That's why Dictionaries, Textbooks and Encyclopedias exist. To separate the facts from the opinions so others can learn enough to form their own opinions. --Friginator 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• You still don't understand. Yes, everyone has their own opinion as to what an album sounds like. If in the instance experts believe the album sounds emo then it should be stated. You almost seem like you're suggesting that all genres are based upon personal opinion. Well then why not remove all the genres? Why do you only have problem with the emo genre which is covered in secondary sources. Wikipedia is based upon the things secondary sources write. Allmusic lists the album as emo. Listing it as such isn't POV, not listing it even after a reliable secondary source lists it as such is POV. It is saying "I don't think this album sounds like emo and think it is just someone else's opinion so shouldn't be listed". You say that Wikipedia gets its credibility from the credibility of secondary sources. Allmusic is a credible reliable source. How is the album sounding like emo an opinion while the album sounding like rock is a fact? You are picking out certain genres you feel apply to album and not targeting those. Your argument is that the emo genre is an opinion but then doesn't that make all the genres listed an opinion of allmusic? Your example of onions is different from what is the case here. You are talking more about reviews which if you look there are good and bad reviews for this album which is listed. Genres are decided not by my opinion or yours but by that of reliable secondary sources. Allmusic is a reliable secondary source, their opinion should be listed. If it needs a source then all it takes is a reference to the allmusic review.  Orfen  ^T • _C 04:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If a statement 1. is open to interpretation 2. can't be proven, and 3. is almost unique to every person who states it, it's an opinion. If all genre classifications were as arbitrary as this one, then NOT removing them would be POV, and YES I would want them taken down if a large amount of people disagreed with their validity. But everyone agrees that the album is a "rock" album, and there's no evidence to the contrary, so the genre can be listed as "rock." This is still not to mention whether the sources you gave that supposedly have that opinion (though they don't state it outright) are reliable or not. I also disagree with your choice to cite an editorial about why people commit suicide, as if it knows more about the album than the sites that actually listened to it carefully and reviewed it. The IGN review I mentioned is actually about the album, and actually mentions whether it's emo or not. However, you still forget that my intention is not to have the album classified as "NON-emo." My intention is to not take a side in this big controversy. --Friginator 06:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to direct your attention to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Black Parade genre. We both obviously have Wikipedia's best interests at heart but have a different view on how to improve it. Perhaps an outside comment can help put this to rest.  Orfen  ^T • _C 04:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. this argument is getting repetetive. --Friginator 05:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

End Discussion

Free Inquiry magazine for religious/anti-religious topics

Resolved

.

Is Free Inquiry magazine reliable for religious topics? Their interest in promoting atheism could potentially affect their choices in the articles they publish. Specifically is there an issue with this Gregory Paul article used here and here as a reference? It seems to me to be not meet wikipedia's standards for reliable sources as they prescribe, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." The article is on history, but Gregory Paul is not a historian, he is a Paleontologist.

Furthermore, the approach he used and bold statements he made in his later, more publicized foray outside of paleontology attracted criticism from more authoritative subjects in the field (see here) as well as within later volumes of the same journal, see here and here. Additionally, Mr. Paul is not a neutral source, he has a history of taking pro-atheist sides in whatever forum available, see here. I don't think someone who makes the effort to step outside his discipline multiple times from history to sociology/statistics just to uniformly arrive at an anti-religious conclusion in order to tout it to highly skeptical crowds can be considered unbiased. opinions? Madridrealy (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC) fixed punctuation Madridrealy (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but your description of Paul and the reception of his work is extremely one-sided. First, the quality of his later paper on sociological issue does not necessarily implicate the simple historical discussion of the paper in question. But secondly, the serious papers you cite all acknowledge Paul's work as useful and interesting, if no definitive. Far from "refuting" him, they more refine the work. Criticism is an inherent property of scientific work. Your comment about a "history of taking the pro-atheist side" is a classical false dichotomy. Arguing for evolution and against pseudo-science in not "pro-atheist", but "anti-nonsense". Many Christians are doing exactly the same. Similarly, pointing out failures of religious groups and organizations is not necessarily anti-religion - the pope himself has acknowledged and apologized for the persecution of Gallileo. The journal in question is usually considered reliable but opinionated. However, for statements of fact I'd usually trust them. Interpretative statement, I would usually require explicit attribution. Paul does cite his sources, so it might be possible to avoid this discussion by going to the original source, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz said "But secondly, the serious papers you cite all acknowledge Paul's work as useful and interesting, if no definitive." Yes, but we are looking for more than "useful and interesting" we are looking for someone who sticks to the evidence and doesn't make unsupported statements. The main concern with Mr. Paul was him making further statements than was supported by the evidence or as the Gerson Moreno-Riaño, Mark Caleb Smith, and Thomas Mach paper said , "What one can state with certainty is that one cannot in any way be certain as to the effects of religiosity and secularism upon prosperous democracies at least as based upon the methods and data of Paul’s study." and as far as usefulness the same paper said

"Paul does not provide the reader with a meaningful opportunity to evaluate his findings, for he provides no correlation coefficients. He also fails to determine or report the significance of these correlations, so the reader is left to trust Paul’s judgment that a negative correlation between theism and indicators of societal health has been established."

And as Jenson wrote 'In short, Paul’s analysis generates the “desired results” by selectively choosing the set of social problems to include to highlight the negative consequences of religion.' Why should we think he refrained from doing that in his other work? 'And who are you quoting with '"refuting"'?

"Paul does cite his sources, so it might be possible to avoid this discussion by going to the original source, of course." Yes that's is what I guess I will end up trying to verify. The first problem was the secular humanism site that were cited as sources didn't have the in-text citations for some reason. However I just managed to find one that did here. Fortunately the part in question is not either of the parts where he referenced himself 8-|. Unfortunately it is a few paragraphs before it gets to the citation, but I assume it is 24 since that is the next one down: "Klaus Scholder. The Churches and the Third Reich vols. 1 and 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979 [English version 1988])" which is of course out of print at amazon. I personally am slightly suspicious because of accusation from semi unreliable sources of incorrect sourcing before, so if I can I will check on the book especially the assertion that,he "banned freethought organizations" as the wikipedia page puts it. If anyone has any more insights please add them. If not I will put this as resolved when I check back. Madridrealy (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a reliable source on topics related to religion, unless used as a primary source of criticism. Here is how the magazine describes its own purpose:

• "The aim of Free Inquiry is to promote and nurture the good life - life guided by reason and science, freed from the dogmas of god and state, inspired by compassion for fellow humans, and driven by the ideals of human freedom, happiness, and understanding. Free Inquiry is dedicated to seeing that one day all members of the human family thrive by embracing basic humanist principles."

It is unabashedly published from a point of view critical of religion and in promotion of humanism. I don't doubt that the actual quality of scholarship is very high in its contributions but that doesn't change the unfortunate fact of its stated purpose. I also highly doubt that anyone needs to use Free Inquiry as a reference for historical facts. Go to the sources used by the articles, published by academic presses or in peer-reviewed journals.PelleSmith (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Pelle. Our article on Nazism should be sourced only to top-quality historical works - there is certainly no shortage of those. And I'm sure a better source can be found for the short mention of Nazi Germany in Discrimination against atheists. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I can probably find a better on for the quote, the problem is despite all the available sources I can't find anyone else that refers to him banning freethought organizations, other than pages that refer to his paper (which help lead up to this ending up on this page in the first place). Also he uses the phrase "anti-godless" in quotes but I can't find any books that seem to refer to this with Hitler on google books, just with communists and in the case of 1947 Jewish Spectator, Americans, ("Nor is it in any ,way more uplifting if the attempt is made, as is being made, to flaunt the banner of the Warriors of Christ for the purpose of inducing the Americans to be less exacting creditors and more anti-Godless-minded anti-Russians."). And I can find no mention of the words: Hiter Anti-godless anywhere on google scholar nor JSTOR. I am not even sure which one his source is for the statement that was cited in wikipedia (23 or 24) because most statements seem to have the source ending a paragraph, however, when I checked something I thought was dubious ("He and Heydrich modeled the S.S. after the disciplined and secretive Jesuits; it would not accept atheists as members.") I noticed the source that came after (21) just said "Neopaganism was far more prevalent in the S.S. than in German society as a whole: even according to Party statistics, paganism never claimed more than 5 percent of the general population" which gives no information on banning atheism and even for that statement of neopagans, only a vague source for the statement. Again my concern is him going farther then his evidence.

Also I think it would be better for wikipedia to link to a less pov pushing, more historical oriented paper if possible (preferably by someone who chooses to write about the topic based on historical, scholarly interest, not to push a world-view). The out of context statements and cherry-picking of statements by the paleontologist could give a very biased opinion to someone looking at it. I think this should be mentioned. I can go into more detail if need be.Madridrealy (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• There is a 1931 reference to a large "Anti-Gottlosenbewegung" here Template:De icon by a socialist Christian, who describes the "anti-Godless movement" as aimed primarily against the German Communist Party (KPD). It seems that "Gottlosenbewegung" (movement of the godless) was a 19030s German pejorative for communists/socialists, for reasons that would appear obvious – wanting to cause revulsion against these movements in burgeois circles. I don't think religion had really all that much to do with it, it was just a convenient and effective putdown, playing on widely held prejudice. (I'm no expert on 1930s German politics though, so please take it with the proverbial pinch of salt.) Jayen466 17:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I can replace the source for that part with that.Madridrealy (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Mohammed according to Hindu Scriptures: False Claims

Hello everyone,

The wiki topic on Mohammed (the prophet) has a sub-topic titled "Views according to Hindu scriptures" (ref:https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Muhammad#Views_according_to_Hindu_Scriptures)

This topic claims that Mohammed has been mentioned in the Rig Vedas, Bhavishya Purana and is also Kalki, one of the avatars of Lord Vishnu!

Most of these "claims" are based on doubtful/spurious sources (the Bhavishya Purana-which saw a lot of editing in the 19th century). To put it simply, this "sub-topic" is very misleading. Do I remove the topic or provide a write-up saying that most of these claims are "not true" (by giving the side by side analysis from other scholars debunking such claims)? freewit (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes we have a relentless sockpuppet who keeps adding this stuff. It's been raised on this noticeboard several times. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DWhiskaZ Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RajivLal (2nd). Get rid of it. Paul B (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Phoenix TV reliable source?

Is a documentary by Phoenix TV on Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China reliable source? This is disputed on that article as the transcript was originally hosted on a so-called Chinese propaganda site by FLG practitioners but is verifiable that such programme exists (heck you could download the whole documentary from the net) and I have personally verified the transcript (accurate, although the translation is a bit shoddy). Please also see Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China#Phoenix Television for the full (and lengthy) discussion we've had. --antilived^{T | C | G} 22:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like yet another WP:LAME edit war trying to win by disqualifying sources. Just cite it as the "Hong Kong-based Phoenix TV report says that..." Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems to have put this stupid edit war to an end. --antilived^{T | C | G} 01:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the question itself was phrased in a misleading manner. There is a widely documented, ongoing propaganda campaign against Falun Gong practitioners in China. The so called "pheonix TV video" being used as a source here is a video distributed by chinese consulates - the only thing is that it seems they had it aired on pheonix TV too. A major concern here is that the source itself is engaged in a big propaganda campaign. US Congress Resolution No. 188, Unanimously Passed, states : "propaganda from state-controlled media in the People's Republic of China has inundated the public in an attempt to breed hatred and discrimination[against Falun Gong]" Another analysis worth considering is the RSF report on CCP Propaganda.

In specific, There are two aspects to consider:

• The video is a piece distributed through CCP controlled outlets and chinese consulates.
• Just because the chinese authorities had the video broadcasted on Pheonix TV dosnot make the "source" "Pheonix TV".

WP:RS states:

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities, or where they are necessary to explain other groups or events; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious, and it should not involve claims made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You're not seriously calling Phoenix TV (or CCTV or Xinhua for that matter) "extremist" are you? What's next, labelling Hu Jintao Hitler? Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: do you have any evidence that it is not from Phoenix TV but instead is made by Chinese authorities? This is really lame. --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is. That a central interview in it is orchestrated. Independent, neutral productions donot have orchestrated interviews. Further is there any evidence to establish the video is neutral? I only see strong evidence to the contrary.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we agree that the source of the video is not the TV stations? It sounds like the stations merely aired it, so the context on how they aired it is probably worth explaining. i.e. which TV program was it aired during? Dilip rajeev is saying that is distributed by the Chinese consulates? Who created the video? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see the information here by the two Canadians with regard to this documentary (a former crown prosecutor and MP, the other a human rights lawyer). It appears to be a propaganda piece (yes, in the context of persecuting/vilifying Falun Gong, CCP-affiliated media are extremist sources), but it should be allowed in this article under the condition that it is relevant to explain what other sources have said in response to it. Because of that video Kilgour and Matas say have confirmation of at least one of the transcripts of doctors admitting to going to prison to select Falun Gong practitioners for organ harvesting. There is a clause about reliable sources which allow otherwise unreliable or extremist sources under certain conditions. Under these conditions I think it would be appropriate to introduce the Phoenix production in order to illustrate these wider points which have been taken up by other sources.--Asdfg12345 10:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is appropriate to "introduce" it - as would be necessary to present evidence released by Kilgour Matas in August 2008. What I disagree with is presenting content from the video as if it were a legitimate analysis and as if the video and its propagandistic commentary somehow constitute a legitimate reason for "doubt" of the veracity of third party reports and analysis. Doing so is, as you yourself note, in violation of wikipedia policies. Please verify that this is exactly what the paragraph I removed does.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What? The station didn't merely aired it, it's presented by its usual presenter of the series (a programme similar to 60 Minutes in the US]]), Phoenix TV themselves have a page on this specific episode. The Chinese government may have endorsed it and distributed it through its embassies but is that necessarily a criteria for propaganda? Heck the FLG media heavily endorsed the K&M report, so does that count as FLG propaganda? How is this extremist? TV station sanctioned by the government? Well the K&M report is sanctioned AND paid for by FLG-groups, does that count as extremist? This double standard is alarming. --antilived^{T | C | G} 21:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What you are saying now is David Kilgour and David Matas were "bought"! I hope you realize how ridiculous your statement sounds. Here is a video of the International Press Conference where Matas/Kilgour submit their reports. In the beginning itself they state the investigations were done voluntarily and were not funded by anyone.

Another aspect is that Falun Gong HR work, such as by faluninfo.net is accepted as accurate by the Human Rights community ( Ref David Ownby). There is no comparing this HR work with the baseless propaganda pushing by CCP. That the CCP has been engaging in a propaganda campaign aimed at inciting hatred against practitioners of Falun Gong has been documented by all major HR organizations, academics and governments.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Presented" in what sense? That pheonix TV has a page on it is only natural when they have aired it. Independent of all that, it has been proved, beyond doubt, by David Kilgour and David Matas that a central interview in it is an orchestrated piece. Kindly reply to the concerns I have raised in my post below.

Also note that sources including the WOIPFG, have stated that Pheonix TV has been used by the CCP and play an important role in propagating CCP propaganda and that its reports on critical topics never deviate from the party line. Reporters Sans Frontiers note that Liu Chang-le, the head of Phoenix Satellite Television Holdings was the former propaganda chief of the People’s Liberation Army.

RSF report on internet-censorship in China notes that "Phoenix TV is based in Hong Kong but its website is registered in Beijing, which makes it subject to Chinese legislation and to supervision by the Beijing Information Office. It applies a stricter censorship than Sina and Baidu’"

The reason why this video fails WP:RS has little to do with whether it was broadcasted by Phoenix TV or not - the central reason is that the vitiated nature of the video has been demonstrated by Kilgour and Matas in a recent update to their investigative reports.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but did I ever said "bought"? Stop stuffing words into other people's mouths. Not funded? Check out the appendix, in the CIPFG letter:

"The Coalition will pay for all your expenses upon presentation of receipts."

What they actually get paid is never announced, but I would've thought that FLG media would have been raving about how they didn't receive any money if they really did it for free (and being asked to work on something is not called volunteering).

I don't care what the HR community say, but has there been any accusation of propaganda for this particular video? Your jsf links are aimed at Xinhua, K&M never called in propaganda in here, so where's the evidence?

Presented as in the usual presenter, Zeng Zimo (曾子墨), hosting the interviews, the intros, the conclusion, etc.? Don't believe it? Go watch the video! Proven beyond doubt? They released the audio recording after they noticed this video, and now goes around saying they are the same person, with no endorsement by any audio engineer. There is no such thing as proving without doubt, so please refrain from your hyperboles next time.

Note the important part, "including the WOIPFG (World Organization to Investigate the persecution of Falun Gong, another FLG mouthpiece)". Uh huh, so the CEO was involved with producing propaganda during the cultural revolution. Do you know how long ago that was? Do you know the consequence of not getting involved back in those days? So you turn this into an ad hominem attack on the CEO? Bravo, mon ami.

Yes, that's internet-censorship, and your point is? You do realise that internet and TV are separate media don't you?

Again, they never said those words, you did. These are your opinions, not theirs. --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

First, stop thinking other editors will buy into your attempts to foul things up. Its only too conspicuous. You take a letter requesting independent investigation from CIPFG, in which they politely offer to reimburse costs of investigation - and twist it to push your vile, twisted story. The offer was obviously turned down by Kilgour- Matas. They also present the letter, openly, as part of appendix of their reports.See streaming videos of the International Press Conference where the reports were submitted. In the begnning itself, they emphatically state they did not receive any reimbursement and did the investigation independently and voluntarily.

Secondly, stop insulting others' intelligence and perhaps your own. It is obvious to anyone who goes through the evidence Matas/Kilgour has presented - what kind of video they are saying it is. ( Hint: A central interview in the video is orchestrated is what they establish ) I would urge you to stop personal attacks on others, including the aspersions you pile on Hon. David Kilgour and David Matas.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol, if the CEO was a Cultural revolution guy - its like saying - oh he was just an ex-Nazi. You know how far back it was? I noted it here only because RSF reports considered it note-worthy.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Whats your point harping about the presenter of the video being the usual guy? Why, is the CCP known to be afraid of "usual" media show hosts? and refrain from injecting propaganda into shows any time he is around? They cannot broadcast anything in China that deviates from the party line without having to pack off. That even their website is highly monitored and censored only shows they do not function as an "independent" media in China.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• (de-indent) Ok I guess that's irrelevant anyway, so I apologise for bringing it up in the first place. But even if they were not paid, they were still "sanctioned" by FLG media, promoted by FLG media (oh just do a Google search, more than half of the results are from FLG mouthpieces), so what makes it that this is OK but Phoenix TV is not?
• Yes it is obvious and you have attributed words which they have never said. It is your interpretation, so stop presenting like it's a known fact.
• No, a more appropriate analogy would be being a German citizen under the Nazi regime: you were coerced into putting up posters during the regime ("producing in propaganda") and then all you ever do must be taken with the notion that you did such thing? We don't know to what extent his involvement was, nor is it relevant, and it is a very hazardous thing to assume bad faith, to assume they're guilty unless proven innocent (oh the irony). --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That, I assume, is quite different from being the chief of a propaganda department

Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like an analogy (I love analogies): Say you have 2 kids, kid a and kid b, fighting over something. Both claim that the other started it first, and kid a labeled kid b's argument as lies. Now what would you do when you write a report about this? That the fight is kid b's fault because kid a had given a response to kid b's argument, or do you note both their arguments AND kid a's response, but make it balanced so that neither view point is over represented (or under represented)? --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Friend, this has nothing to do with two "kids" "fighting". The CCP is documented by International Human Rights Organizations, Academics and Governments as engaging in murder and torture of practitioners. Victims include many foreign citizens as well. Amnesty documents even Foreign correspondents being intimidated and harassed for attempting to report on the persecution. Falun Gong human Rights work is considered to be of a high quality by academics as well as major human Rights Organizations. CCP is documented as engaging in a vicious propaganda campaign against practitioners ( Ref: Amnesty, US Congress, HRW, Kilgour Matas, etc.) - the sole purpose of which being incitement of hatred and thus to gain support for the inhumane persecution. Please think about it, there are hundereds of cases of murder of innocent practitioners, including women and elderly, documented by Human Rights organizations including the Amnesty.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't read any of my arguments do you? I'll come back when you have something new, instead of just regurgitating your stale arguments. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly do. But must admit I find some of them truly hard to make any sense out of - like your claiming The Ex -People's Liberation Army Propaganda Chief was pretty much an innocent guy coerced into sticking posters; A brutal persecution campaign to kids fighting. Saying Matas/Kilgour are not "qualified audio engineers". Presenting a line from a polite letter requesting independent investigation and claiming Matas/Kilgour was "funded". Insisting that the "usual" media channel host in a chinese state sanctioned video implies its neutral - despite the evidence to the contrary published by Matas/Kilgour - to mention a few.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Kindly allow me to point out the concerns I have with the particular piece. The section below, am copying from my discussion on the page's talk:

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities, or where they are necessary to explain other groups or events; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious, and it should not involve claims made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources. - WP:RS

• The video is something, the entire content of which, has Chinese state sanction[ and was made available through Chinese consulates and embassies].

• The environment in which the video was aired being a strictly controlled one where only the communist party's line on the topic could have been aired constitutes a central reason why the video entirely fails WP:RS

• The authority involved in propagating the video and in whose sanction and control the material was broadcast is widely documented as engaging in a large-scale media propaganda campaign against the subjects of the video.

• As another editor also noted - the sole reason for notability of the video arises from its notoriety which was established by David Kilgour and David Matas

• David Kilgour and David Matas establish based on voice analysis that the interview with Lu Gopin is orchestrated and the person in question is lying so by logical extension this pertains to other "interviews" in the video. You may also have noted that the sole reason Kilgour and Matas refer to the video in their website is to bring attention to its notoriety.

• To be noted, again, that the most prominent analysts in the subject matter bring attention to the video solely for the purpose of demonstrating its notoriety and also to present publicly verifiable evidence showing that a main interview in it is an entirely orchestrated piece.

• Further, the video attacks widely acknowledged authorities on the topic such as Kilgour and Matas. Note that WP:RS states, any material from such a source "should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities" and also that any such material used "should not be contentious" and "should not involve claims made about third parties." All these policies are violated in the manner in which the content has been recently added to the article.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also kindly take into consideration these pages where Kilgour and Matas present evidence demonstrating the propagandistic nature of the video.

• Matas/Kilgour's Letter to Chinese Ambassador. The page also notes that the video had been made available though Chinese embassies and consulates.

• Matas/Kilgour present evidence showing that a central interview in the video was orchestrated .... [10] .

Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• No it wasn't. They aired it on public television, and then get distributed by Chinese embassies. What's wrong with state sanction? The report has FLG sanction, otherwise they wouldn't promote it so heavily; Epoch Times is FLG sanctioned and funded media, so why are those OK when Phoenix TV is not?
• Same as above: Epoch Times and the like can only say things that follow the line of FLG, so why are they in the article?
• Yes and FLG media heavily propagated the report, so does that count as "large-scale propaganda"? Tell me, what is wrong with being handed out by the Chinese embassy?
• Uhh no, have you seen WP:RS? "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed"
• "Voice analysis"... Hah, are they qualified audio engineers?
• Are you really saying what I think you're saying? So there should be no source that attack the K&M report? Hah that's so WP:NPOV. They were never "acknowledged authorities" (if anyone can be acknowledged authorities with writing just 1 report on the subject...). So you're calling Phoenix TV extremist? Can we have someone with more authority, 'cos I certainly can't see any in my google search. If you mean "extremist" as "someone who's on one extreme on the issue" well FLG media is on the other extreme isn't it? And yet you're perfectly fine with Epoch Times and WOIPFG and whatnot? No, you simply cannot stand any thing that can be damaging to the image of FLG, that everyone should join it and embrace its ideologies. You are a zealot, you delete on sight anything that can be damaging to FLG (like removing a good-faith IP edit bringing this source to light, perhaps?), and throw a huge tantrum every time there's an attempt at working things out. That does not work, not in here, not in real life, not anywhere. --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• *sigh* you may want read your "comments" once more yourself. Anyway, my favorite was: ""voice analysis"... Hah, are they qualified audio engineers?"

Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Using an article from the Radio Free Europe site as evidence for qualifications of an author

In the article Kaveh Farrokh the author is described as "an expert in the field of Iranian history and linguistics" on the basis of this article. [11]. I don't think that this is a reliable source for such a statement - which is particularly misleading as the author's PhD is, according to the article, in "the cognitive and linguistic processes of Persian speakers" and he has published on dyslexia and the sociology of languages, whereas the claim in the lead is, I think, meant to give him credence in the field of historical linguistics (as the purpose of the article is to, IMHO, push him as a historian). In any case, I think the source isn't sufficient. I removed it because of that and it was replaced, so I'm here now. Doug Weller (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dead link - "Unexpected error happened" --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the link, an 's' got added to the end somehow.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I get the same result. Maybe the article has been removed? If so, it isn't verifiable, so it can't be used in any case. But I think the policy you need to look at, Doug, is under Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations, specifically: "For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment." So if you have scholarly sources (such as an author biography published in such a source) that should be preferred over a media report. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, having had another look at the article you mention, I think it clearly fails WP:PROF - thus I've nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaveh Farrokh. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Copying Information With Permission

Resolved

 – Not a reliable sources issue. Protonk (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it within the rules of wikipedia to reproduce information from an external source, without paraphrasing it, is direct permission has been given from the author? In a contribution, I copied a paragraph with the author's permission, and it was deleted because it was copied. Was this deletion justified, or does the permission allow me to reproduce it? Thank you in advance.Tkma (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to ask such a question, please add all the facts so that responding editors know what you are talking about. You've framed this question so that the most likely response would be "yes". You added this to Cameron Diaz on September 29 2007. I removed it 16 December 2007 with the edit summary "removed. uncited OR". It was certainly uncited, and it looked like OR, but I did not remove it because it was copied, because I didn't know it had been. You are misrepresenting what I did. Since July you've been contacting me on my talk page, and finally in the last couple of days you revealed which article you were discussing and said that you had received permission from Monsters and Critics. Looking at the page, the first thing I noticed was a copyright notice at the bottom of the page, so I told you that copyright material was never acceptable and referred to our policy. Looking again later, I noticed that the page shows a credit "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article about Cameron Diaz." Actually it doesn't just use material from Wikipedia, it copies it verbatim. Looking through the different versions of our Cameron Diaz article, it would appear the website is using a version of the article after you added your paragraph. If your paragraph was added to Wikipedia before it was added to the "Monsters and Critics" site, and it is not your own work, you need to be forthcoming about where the text originated from. If you've received permission from the copyright holder, you should identify the copyright holder, produce the permission, and stop speaking in riddles. Maybe the copyright issue is no longer of concern, and if so, this goes back to my original reason for deletion and my original edit summary. It seems to me that you are using this venue to make a point, and that this has come after failing to resolve it with me over the last 2 months. You first disputed this with me on 21 July, you identified the article 2 months later on 18 September and made your first assertion of copyright permission on 19 September. I find it hard to understand why you didn't mention the copyright permission back in July when you first raised this. If that's your main argument, shouldn't it be the first thing you mention, rather than wait until someone else raises it 2 months later, and then say "How do you know that I did not receive permission? I in fact did receive permission." Excellent. Show the original source and the permission. Rossrs (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask Billboard

Hi people, recently I have noticed a trend whereby answers from "Ask Billboard" are used as sources. While Billboard is a great source, this particular section of it makes we a little uneasy. I'll assume that most have heard of it but to sum up, "Ask Billboard" is a section of the website where people post questions and Billboard staff members reply to them. The questions and answers seem freely visible to all readers and generally revolve around sales figures, chart positions, release dates etc. They seem to have an archiving process to keep past discussions. Are my concerns unfounded? — Realist² 14:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Billboard is a reliable source, especially for questions about the music industry, what's the concern? Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Jared Israel, Editor of Emperor's Clothes

Is he a valid source for citing? Why or why not? JJ4sad6 (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The website seems to be a political blog and therefore not a reliable source. Come back if you think it is something else such as the website of a mainstream newspaper or an academic website. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think he might be citable on a fairly narrow range of topics, such as 9/11 conspiracy theories and pro-Milosevic activism in the West, not as a source for actual facts but as an example of what the conspiracy theorists claim. It's iffy. Some people prefer to exclude whacky sources altogether, which is understandable. <eleland/talkedits> 01:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No, definitely not reliable. I've come across this website before. It's an extremely fringey source dedicated to conspiracy theorism, particularly about the former Yugoslavia and 9/11. It probably represents a slice of far-left-wing opinion, but it's well out of the mainstream. In addition (this was the context in which I came across it), much of the material on the website violates copyright - it copies material from numerous other sources, such as news stories from media outlets, and uses them to support its conspiracy theorism. Remember that WP:EL prohibits linking to "Material that violates the copyrights of others". The copyright problems with Emperor's Clothes were so severe that, in the end, I had to do a linksearch and do a mass purge of links to its pages. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Carly Fiorina

Ongoing debate at Talk:Carly Fiorina regarding "reporting" vs. "published". See thread here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The question seems to be the reliability of CNN's blog. As was already said in the thread you link to, policy does allow use of reliable media outlets' blogs so long as the material referred to is official output of the newspaper or broadcaster. This seems to be the case here. Having said that, I share the concerns about recentism and turning this BLP into a running current affairs commentary. It is highly notable that the subject is working at a high level within the McCain/Palin campaign. Details of that are helpful, e.g. when she is invited to speak at a high-profile event. Not everything she says in that capacity is notable though. Of course when interviewed she will "aggressively" defend Sarah Palin's record. This is the run-of-the-mill of campaigning and not notable unless as an event it attracts independent media commentary. If you need to unpick this further, the NPOV noticeboard would be the place to take it. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Is "The Epoch Times" a reliable source

Resolved.

In the article for the People's Republic of China, the paper is used as a source for the number of falun gong practitioners. Is the source reliable?

Absolutely not reliable on such topics. While Falun Gong may be persecuted in China this paper has a specific POV to promote and does not abide by the types of quality control we rely on here. From our entry about the newspaper:

• "Dr. Liu Kang, distinguished professor of Chinese Cultural Studies at Duke University and Associate Director of the Chinese Populations and Socioeconomic Studies Center, asserts that the paper does not adhere to basic journalistic standards of professionalism and objectivity, and is 'not viewed as an independent objective news media' by mainland Chinese."

I'm not sure what the best alternative is and if there isn't one maybe someone can suggest how to use this source, but it should be treated as "reliable" by our standards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The Epoch Times is a falun-gong mouthpiece. As such, there is a strong bias in favor of falun-gong and against the PRC government. I would say that it is not reliable for the reasons listed above. Ngchen (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the view of Mainland Chinese, who have never had free and open access to a reliable news source, is pertinent to this discussion. The question is how we view it. I am not sure how Wikipedia interprets its standards, which is why I asked the question here. The newspaper is independently run and seems to have adopted basic journalistic practices. Though, of course, if people have some actual evidence that it isn't reliable (and being critical of the PRC is not enough, IMHO, I'd like to hear it.LedRush (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion does not trump the commentary of a distinguished professor of Chinese culture at Duke University, who asserted independently of his comments about its reception in China that (as paraphrased in our entry) "the paper does not adhere to basic journalistic standards of professionalism and objectivity." Also you will need to back up your view that the mainland Chinese have no concept of reliability in their news media with more than just prejudiced assertions.PelleSmith (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would defer to them in a discussion simply because I have never read the Epoch Times or even heard of it. I have no opinion on its reliability either way, but I suggest that if you want to assert its reliability here that you provide some evidence that ET operates a regular newsroom and has concrete editorial policies. For those who think it is not reliable or is too laden with bias, please provide some more evidence (like the DU prof above) about the fact checking/bias/etc. Protonk (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting. I went to the Wikipedia article quoted above, and there is a section there called credibility. The only negative statement about the credibility is quoted above. Elsewhere in the section it says:

Arthur Waldron, a leading China scholar and Lauder Professor of International Relations in the Department of History at the University of Pennsylvania says he finds The Epoch Times "particularly striking," and believes it is obvious that "its reports are drawn from a network of correspondents inside China, a network that the authorities have not been able to destroy." He recommends those who want to get a sense of what is really going on in China should "pay at least as much attention to The Epoch Times as they do to the People’s Daily."

and:

The paper denies all accusations of bias, stating that "We are not funded by Falun Gong, we don't speak for Falun Gong, and we don't represent Falun Gong."[8]

I just thought that people on this board had some voodoo to figure out reliability, which is why I asked the question here.LedRush (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If the Epoch Times is used with regard to China and/or Falun Gong issues, it should simply be identified as having a pro-Falun Gong viewpoint. I see no reason to not include it as a reliable source. We don't censor notable viewpoints and news sources simply because an authoritarian government persecutes them. Wikipedia is not Google, after all. And the irony of the statment that the paper is "not viewed as an independent objective news media" by mainland Chinese" should be self-evident. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is the "irony" self-evident? On what grounds do you make such an assertion? Also, there is nothing in what Led quotes that speaks to reliability in the least. Arhtur Waldron's comments don't in any way address the issue. What on earth does the fact that he finds the Epoch Times "particularly striking" have to do with reliability? Ngchen is correct. The newspaper is the mouthpiece of Falun Gong. It simply cannot be trusted on issues that are highly politicized in terms of this group ... like membership numbers in China.PelleSmith (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment No one on this board has any special understanding of WP:RS. We are usually just independent of the articles that cause the issues and interested in the application of WP:RS at the margins. Just like any other part of the wiki, this leads to pretty reasonable results. Protonk (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Commentary about The Epoch Times

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm finding it less than easy to find good additional commentary about this news source. Please feel free to add to this list.PelleSmith (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC) "The same logic can be applied to Chinese diaspora newspapers in London. Taking The Epoch Times as a case study, one can find the content of the Chinese ‘victim’ diaspora paper (they claim to be religious victims of Chinese government) is divide into three categories: propaganda, advertisement and entertainment. All its news is about the deprecation to Chinese government, the ‘persecution’ they endured, the metaphysics involved in their theory and some international news with an intense please to American and British governments." -- Huang, Kuo. "Understanding Diaspora Cultures in the Context of Globalization." Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 2005 Annual Meeting Notwithstanding its claims of objectivity, Epoch Times concentrates heavily on negative news of the Chinese government and sympathetic special pages about Falun Gong. Thus Epoch Times represents a major step in the evolution of Falun Gong-related alternative media. Instead of focusing on promoting Li’s or the narrow objectivity of “truth clarification,” this paper can be seen as a more Gramscian public organ, articulating the Falun Gong perspective on a wide range of issues.” – Zhao, Yuezhi. 2003. Falun Gong, Identity and the Struggle over Meaning Inside and Outside China”. Contesting Media Power Edited by Nick Couldry and James Curran. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers p. 219 "Falun Gong also have their own media (Li, 2005b), and are heavily involved in the Epoch Times, a free newspaper that is most well known for its polemic Nine commentaries on the Chinese Communist Party, which Li promotes (Li, 2005c)." -- Kavan, Heather. "Falun Gong in the media: What can we believe?" Conference paper, Power and Place, Wellington, July 2008. "The staunch support of the World Journal in North America and the New York-based Epoch Times for Falun Gong activism is but one example of a consistently critical position in relation to the PRC that can be found within the diasporic Chinese media (Zhao 2004)." -- Sun, Wanning. 2005. "Media and the Chinese Diaspora: Community, Consumption, and Transnational Imagination." Journal of Chinese Overseas. 1(1):65-86. "Movement media outlets, like Falun Gong’s Epoch Times organize popular action from afar. Just as American and Mexican labor organizers coordinated strikes and media blitzes against unscrupulous practices in border factories, The Epoch Times sought to orchestrate a mass resignation from the Chinese Communist Party (Thornton, chapter 10). Engineering such events from abroad can produce a boomerang of transnational support and help manufacture dissent, though high-profile activities may also backfire, if scandals or negative press tarnish the reputation of domestic activists and their international backers." -- O'Brien, Kevin J. and Stern, Rachel E. 2007. "Studying Contention in Contemporary China." Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1104748 Following your invitation, I've run a search in Questia (questia.com) on the Epoch Times; the results were as follows: Books The Epoch Times is used as a source in "Dangerous Strait: The U.S.--Taiwan--China Crisis." (Contributors: Nancy Bernkopf Tucker - editor. Publisher: Columbia University Press. Place of Publication: New York. Publication Year: 2005. Page Number: 237.) The reference is attached to the following passage on p. 109: Sixteen cases of personal property loss have exceeded $12 million each, and none of them has been redressed legally, even though the Chinese Communist Party issued a red-lettered decree for proper settlement. Indeed, a lawyer who had represented hundreds of cases was denied reentry to China after he made the issue public.41 Ref. 41 then simply lists one article in the United Daily News, one in the China Times, and one in the Epoch Times. Journal articles The academic paper "Criminal Defamation and the Evolution of the Doctrine of Freedom of Expression in International Law: Comparative Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights," (Journal article by Jo M. Pasqualucci; Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 39, 2006) uses the Epoch Times as one of the sources for the following statement: For some, exercising their freedom of expression can be deadly. Journalists may be murdered for reporting on corruption, human rights abuses, or governmental incompetence. Eleven journalists were assassinated in the Western Hemisphere in 2004 due to their professional activities as social commentators. (235) The footnote reads: (235.) ANNUAL REPORT OF SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR, supra note 23, ch. II, [paragraph] 7; see Serena Parker, Threats to Press Freedom Remain in Latin America, Say Analysts, THE EPOCH TIMES, Dec. 3, 2004 (discussing the dangers faced by journalists in Latin America) The Epoch Times is used in a similar way as a source in "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf? the International Criminal Court as a Weapon of Asymmetric Warfare" (Journal article by W. Chadwick Austin, Antony Barone Kolenc; Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 39, 2006); the footnote reads: (279.) Even when investigations are undertaken, critics of U.S. policy are rarely satisfied. For example, in light of the scandal at Abu Ghraib and the subsequent investigations, Amnesty International called for an "independent and public inquiry into all allegations of the torture of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. and coalition troops." Amnesty VOA News, International Calls for Inquiry into Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners, THE EPOCH TIMES, May 4, 2004, http://english.epochtimes.com/news/4-5-4/21248.html. Amnesty International claims to have received scores of complaints of ill treatment. Id. The Epoch Times is used as a source in "The Politics of the Dalai Lama's New Initiative for Autonomy" (Journal article by Baogang He, Barry Sautman; Pacific Affairs, Vol. 78, 2005); the footnote reads: (109) Tsering Tashi, "SFT mark Nobel Prize conferment on the Dalai Lama," 12 December 2004, available on the Times of Tibet Web site, , (8 December 2005); Brian Marple, Lori Har-El and Laura Market, "Protestors, Welcomers Converge on Chinese Leader's Arrival in New York," The Epoch Times, 14 September 2005, (8 December 2005). The Epoch Times is used as a source in "Olympic Ideal Demolished: How Forced Evictions in China Related to the 2008 Olympic Games Are Violating International Law" (Journal article by Martha M. Hopkins; Houston Journal of International Law, Vol. 29, 2007.). The text cited to it reads Beijing resident Chang Liang recalled his parents' Heavenly Light photo studio, a business run from their home, being forcefully demolished. (188) The photo equipment and tools the family depended on for their livelihood were destroyed in the incident. (189) Additionally, if any compensation is received, the evictor rarely takes into account a business' loss of future income, which further exacerbates the problem. (190). The footnotes read: (188.) Feng Changle, Forced Demolition: The Story of Young Chang Liang's Life, THE EPOCH TIMES, Sep. 1, 2004, available at http://english.epochtimes.com/news/4-9-1/23080.html (detailing the numerous tragedies befalling a young Chinese citizen). (189.) Id. The Epoch Times is used as a source in "Smoke, Mirrors, and the Joker in the Pack: On Transitioning to Democracy and the Rule of Law in Post-Soviet Armenia" (Journal article by Karen E. Bravo; Houston Journal of International Law, Vol. 29, 2007.) The text cited to it reads The Russian, Ottoman, and Persian Empires are long gone, yet the tensions live on or have found new manifestations among their political descendants. Iran, Persia's modern incarnation, threatens the world's security with nuclear dreams. (335); the footnote reads, (335.) See Western Powers Seek UN Council Pressure on Iran, THE EPOCH TIMES, Mar. 15, 2006, available at http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-3-15/39323.html; Nazila Fathi, Iran is Defiant, Vowing to U.N. It Will Continue Nuclear Efforts, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 25, 2006 at A14. Magazine articles (these are all mentions in The New American) The Epoch Times is mentioned several times in "Terror in Chinatown: President Bush Calls Communist China a "Partner" in the War on Terror, but Some Chinese Americans Are Accusing China of Bringing Its Own Terror Campaign to the USA" (Magazine article by Roger Canfield; The New American, Vol. 22, April 17, 2006); the text reads: Leung's murder "is spreading terror ... [to] warn [those who] ... dare to oppose the CCP," the Epoch Times reported on March 8. "We have now seen the long arm of the Communist regime infiltrate the United States itself.... It is ... a frightening escalation of the Communists' plans to silence and intimidate the overseas Chinese people, in San Francisco, here, and around the world." These accusations seem well founded. In mid-2005, Chen Yonglin, the 1st secretary of the Chinese consulate-general in Sydney, Australia, defected and revealed his network of 1,000 spies and enforcers whose job it was to intimidate people of Chinese descent. And the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution urging the U.S. attorney general to investigate Chinese consular officials in these actions on U.S. soil. ... Pak has a still darker side. "Rose Pak is known to be the spokeswoman of [the] Chinese Communist Party, as well as a special agent for the Chinese Communist Party," according to the Epoch Times. Backing that assertion, the Singtao Daily reported in 2001 that Chinese Premier Jiang Zemin once honored Pak for defeating a resolution by San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly condemning China's persecution of the practitioners of Falun Gong, a Chinese system of exercise and meditation: "President Jiang was very happy ... with the work done by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Rose Pak." Friends of Rose Pak told a Chinese-language reporter, "She came to San Francisco with a clear mission to go into Chinatown." And a Chinese-language reporter has recently discovered that circa 1970, while she was in Australia, Pak made frequent contact with none other than Li Peng, who between 1998 and 2003 ranked second in the Communist Party of China behind Jiang Zemin on the Politburo. ... Within weeks, Allen Leung was brutally murdered. Killing Leung would make sense to the CCP because in Chinatown only a few stalwarts stand in the way of the CCP's goal of being the dominant influence in the community, and Leung was one of the anticommunist stalwarts. Several sources told TNA that Leung was systematically organizing opposition to the CCP just before his death. A Mr. Lin told the Epoch Times, "Allen Leung ... was listed on the CCP's blacklist." Norman Yang, executive president of the Cross Strait Prosperity in Peace Association, told the Epoch Times, "His death ... is a big blow to the anti-CCP ... groups." ... (two further similar mentions of the Epoch Times follow) The Epoch Times is mentioned twice in "Terror in America, Made in China: While U.S. Corporate Elites Export Technology to Communist China's Cyberpolice, the U.S. Government Allows China to Export Brutal Repression to Our Shores" (Magazine article by William F. Jasper; The New American, Vol. 22, March 20, 2006.): At the February 15 subcommittee hearing, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) introduced one of the most recent victims of Communist Chinese brutality on U.S. soil, Dr. Peter Yuan Li, who was seated in the audience. Dr. Li received his Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Princeton University and for years worked as a scientist for Bell Labs, where he is credited with many inventions. In 2003, Dr. Li began working full time as chief IT specialist for The Epoch Times, a newspaper he had helped found two years earlier. The Epoch Times is associated with the Chinese exercise and meditation sect known as Falun Gong, which since 1999 has been systematically targeted for persecution by the Chinese Communist Party. Tens of thousands of peaceful Falun Gong practitioners have been rounded up and sentenced to prison or forced labor camps. According to Falun Gong press releases, there are more than 2,838 documented cases of Falun Gong practitioners being beaten and tortured to death while in detention. ... This was not a robbery-motivated home invasion; Dr. Li points out that the invaders used military precision and left many valuables that ordinary robbers would have taken. Dr. Li believes he was targeted because he has been in the forefront of helping The Epoch Times develop computer programs that enable Internet users in China to break through the firewalls and filters the communist authorities use to deny them access to the truth. The Epoch Times is mentioned in "Slouching Inspectors, Hidden Dragon" (Magazine article by William F. Jasper; The New American, Vol. 23, August 20, 2007.): I consider myself to be more-than-average vigilant concerning China's designs on our food production, but this was news to me. The first notice I got of China's massive penetration of our vitamin/drug supply was one week prior to the above-cited Seattle Times article, in a May 27 online edition of the Epoch Times, a pro-freedom newspaper started by overseas Chinese associated with the persecuted Falun Gong meditation/exercise group. The article, "A Costly Trade With China," reported: "Currently, almost all of the world's vitamins are manufactured in China.... Last year, the last vitamin C plant in the United States shut down." Could that be right? No more vitamin C is being made in the United States? Most of the world's vitamins are now "Made in China"? I fired off an e-mail to the author of the Epoch Times piece, Heide B. Malhotra. However, even before she responded, I was able to Google confirmation of the disturbing news from multiple government, industry, and media sources. And, of course, as most Americans now know, China is exporting not just vitamins but other food supplies to the United States as well (see cover story). How does it happen that a foreign country--one run by a totalitarian oligarchy that still brands the United States as "Number One Enemy," no less --gains control over a major portion of our nation's food supply, and no one seems to know about it until it's a fait accompli? Why is it that the ubiquitous "Made in China" label that is affixed to everything from cellphones and clothing to toys and pottery is mysteriously absent when it comes to informing consumers about the provenance of products that are going inside their bodies? The Epoch Times is mentioned in "Torture Survivor Tells His Story; Dr. Charles Lee Survived a Three-Year Ordeal in a Communist Chinese Prison. His Story of Physical and Mental Torture Reveals the True Nature of the Communist Regime in Beijing" (Magazine article by Roger Canfield; The New American, Vol. 22, August 21, 2006.): TNA: The Epoch Times has reported that the communists are performing organ removal on live Falun Gong prisoners. What do you think? Lee: I believe it is happening. China has the world's largest supplies of body organs. The CCP has harvested the organs of executed prisoners for many years. I witnessed it as a young doctor. Today you can get a kidney in a matter of days versus a three-year wait in the U.S.A. Practitioners of Falun Gong have been brainwashed, put into mental hospitals, imprisoned, and tortured to death. Why not live organ harvesting? TNA: Would the large numbers of organs available reflect the beliefs of the Chinese people in regard to organ transplants? Lee: Ninety-nine percent of organ removals are forced, not voluntary. Deeply held Chinese traditions favor an intact body alter death. The only exception is family members lovingly donating organs to their own family members. Those are all the references to the Epoch Times that come up in Questia. For comparison, Questia hits for the China Times total 205 matches in books, 56 in journal articles, 9 in magazine articles, and 14 in newspaper articles. Questia hits for the United Daily News total 77 in books, 19 in journal articles, 3 in magazine articles, and 9 in newspaper articles. I had hoped for some more definite statements, but at any rate, that's what is there in Questia. Jayen466 21:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Mentions of the Epoch Times in google books (perhaps a better place to look ;-) ): [12] Jayen466 22:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe we should put all of our sources into a collapsible box? I'm not entirely sure what to make of those references especially in light of their dearth. I also ran into references to news stories from The Epoch Times when I was searching for commentary about the paper in various media studies, political science and social science databases - there were not many of them there either. Every comment directly about The Epoch Times seems to highlight their obvious POV in relation to Chinese human rights abuses and anything related to Falun Gong within China. Some of those sources (see above) claim or suggest much stronger affiliations between the religious group and the newspaper than the newspaper officially claims itself -- 1) the Epoch Times is part of "Falun Gong-related alternative media", 2) Falun Gong "are heavily involved in the Epoch Times, 3) the staunch support of the ... Epoch Times for Falun Gong activism, and 4) "Movement media outlets, like Falun Gong’s Epoch Times". Our own entry states in the lead that The Epoch Times was founded by members of Falun Gong and that it is critical of the CCP, the latter of which is also echoed in most of the sources I listed above. Being critical of the communist regime and supportive of Falun Gong related activism doesn't automatically mean they are unreliable. However if we look at the credibility section of our entry in light of these other materials, in evaluating their reliability at best we have sourced statements like this -- "It's hard to vouch for their quality because it's difficult to corroborate, but it's not something to be dismissed as pure propaganda" and at worst sourced statements like this -- "the paper does not adhere to basic journalistic standards of professionalism and objectivity, and is 'not viewed as an independent objective news media' by mainland Chinese." Given their obvious POV and documented slant its hard to understand by what measure we should consider them a reliable source on things related to Falun Gong that are disputed by the Chinese Government. I just don't see it.PelleSmith (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced that The Epoch Times is a reliable source under Wikipedia standards, but I am disheartened that you have repeated an argument that was proven to be misleading above. At best, "The Epoch Times" has been described as follows:

Arthur Waldron, a leading China scholar and Lauder Professor of International Relations in the Department of History at the University of Pennsylvania says he finds The Epoch Times "particularly striking," and believes it is obvious that "its reports are drawn from a network of correspondents inside China, a network that the authorities have not been able to destroy." He recommends those who want to get a sense of what is really going on in China should "pay at least as much attention to The Epoch Times as they do to the People’s Daily."

I hope that we can look at the argument on the merits and come up with the best answer.

Also, the dearth of hits is partially because the paper's most popular circulation is in Chinese and the paper is only 8 years old. Of course this doesn't mean it is more reliable (quite the opposite, possibly), but let's discuss this for what it is.LedRush (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Having just checked out their website, I would find it hard to believe that they aren't closely linked to FLG. This is a bit of OR on my part, but almost every page of theirs has ads for NTDTV and/or Sound of Hope radio, which are well-known FLG outfits. They definitely have an pro-FLG, anti-CPC agenda. That being said, having an agenda does not automatically invalidate a source; however, IIRC there have been some really questionable things related to FLG put out by pro-FLG groups, such as the unsubstantiated organ-harvesting allegations that have never been proven, and indeed might have been debunked. Ngchen (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Political advocacy groups can still be reliable sources. There was a short-lived policy at WP:RS#Political_advocacy_groups that proposed certain caveats for their use, but it was rejected. Remember that "reliable source" is not the same as WP:NPOV. Even if it's directly linked to FLG, it is still a primary source for information about FLG. In that cause, you'd simply quote it as "The Falun Gong-linked newspaper Epoch Times says XYZ" Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Right but the most positive statement about their reliability is in fact that we're not sure at all if they are reliable and the worst is that they do not meet basic journalistic standards for professionalism and objectivity. The fact that they have a known POV simply makes it more problematic to use them on matters related to this POV. That's my basic point. I am not sure why Led keeps on quoting the fluff about the paper being "striking" because while that is a compliment it has nothing to do with their reliability.PelleSmith (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Your final point may be correct, but I was just pointing out a flaw in your argument and suggesting that if you were to more fairly present the evidence, your analysis may carry more weight. Again, this is not to say that you're not right, just that I don't think you are presenting the whole story.

Anyway, it looks like we have something close to consensus: The Epoch Times is of dubious reliablity and we should be wary of using it to back up Falun Gong and anti-Chinese Gov't statements. I have removed the citation from the article.LedRush (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Are Variety and The Hollywood Reporter reliable sources for film reviews?

The documentary The Other Side of AIDS received reviews in Variety and The Hollywood Reporter but people in the AFD discussion are saying that they are not reliable sources!! What would be a relaible source for films if not these newspapers?? miniluv (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty suspect. Variety is pretty much the standard trade journal in the field. It's not your average celebrity magazine. Libraries archive it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be "pretty suspect" indeed....if anyone had made such a statement. I noted in discussion with several AfD participants that both are reliable industry mags with long history. However, the relevant WP:NF criterion is not "coverage in any reliable sources" but "widely distributed" in conjunction with "two or more full-length reviews by nationally known critics". Even if "Other" had been widely distributed (it was not), only one of the two articles in question is a full-length review (assuming the reviewer is "nationally known"); the other is a short "capsule", specifically excluded by NF, a guideline I respectfully encourage Ministry and Squidfryerchef to revisit. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin said "The article fails WP:RS". That's why I came here. miniluv (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Standing aside from any of the detail in this case, I would say that either of these publications is a suitable place for a review as specified in the notability criteria. You'll remember that the criteria say "two or more full-length reviews", so that should be borne in mind. Major Hollywood movies and many art-house films are also reviewed in daily and weekly newspapers. For details of how a film was received there are probably better sources than these, but notability is the question here. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up regarding Vevmo and MM-Agency

Resolved

Back in July I asked if Vevmo was a reliable source, and it was resolved that it was not. Then in August, I asked if the MM Agency was reliable, and it was resolved that it was, though not for contentious claims or notability issues. Now, an editor added some info to The Real World: Brooklyn article. The source was MM, but MM indicated that its source was Vevmo. What do we do? Nightscream (talk) 06:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that when a reliable source quotes a self-published source, then both can be quoted in WP. The reliable source is still a reliable source, just like a newspaper interviewing a man on the street. And the self-published article, because it was quoted by an RS, becomes a primary source. And if you don't want to quote either as gospel, you can say "Source S, quoting a contributor to fansite F, says XYZ". Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. That brings me to my next question: The assertion is about the cast list for The Real World: Brooklyn, and the source says that one of them is transgendered (a first for The Real World), and even completed their surgery during filming. Would that be considered contentious? Nightscream (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Protonk (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I figured as much. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC with sourcing concerns raised

An RfC has started on whether the word "terrorism" can be mentioned and discussed in the article space of several articles, and the question of whether or not the sourcing is adequate. Editors knowledgeable about WP:RS would be welcome at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC]. Many sources have been provided in the article, most recently at the top and bottom of the RfC page. Articles affected are Bill Ayers, Weatherman (organization), Bernardine Dohrn, and Obama-Ayers controversy. Please comment there, not here. -- Noroton (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Myspace blog

I know this has probably been brought up before but what is the reliability of a myspace blog? (The situation: The birth year of Alex O'Loughlin has never been reliably pinned down but on what is presumably his myspace page he blogged clarifying his birth year.) My first thought is to say no to the use of myspace personally, but the section on 'self-published and questionable sources about themselves' makes me hesitant on this. Should/can this be used as a source or not? --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 19:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If it can be verified by a reliable source that it is his blog, there should be no problem using it as a self-published source. --NE2 19:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• My gut says no. We have no way of knowing whether or not he (or someone else) operates his myspace. WP:BLP is stricter than WP:SPS with regards to blogs, etc. My opinion is that it is better to leave the birth date blank unless we can cite it reliably, but there is a wide range of opinion on that. Protonk (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How can/should one go about verifying the legitimacy of a MySpace page as actually being that of the celebrity in question? Nightscream (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If it is directly linked to from their "official" site with some pretty obvious "this is me (or really a publicist or intern) on myspace". Protonk (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

University Thesis

Is a University Thesis by someone about another person that is passed away considered to be a reliable source?Vivaldi27 (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty borderline. If it's a biographical article I'd still try to find more widely-published sources. It would be a different matter if it was a thesis about an uncontroversial technical topic. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

usually no. Most universities will let you get a MA or PhD with almost any thesis and the university is not officially on the hook for the claims made in the article. What is the source in question? Protonk (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Finding a thesis is often useful as it gives you the name of an author. You can then search for books or articles written by that person. Academics often derive articles from their thesis while they are writing it or soon afterwards, and the whole thesis might be published in amended form as a book. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A PhD thesis is certainly a RS. It isn't self-published and goes through a review process by a group of experts in the field. That's more than most books. Is a university Thesis something different? Hobit (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is true at all. Not all university theses are created alike. Plenty of PhD granting universities out there will accept a thesis that could never get published in academic press. The purpose of the thesis is mainly to demonstrate that the writer can formulate an independent work of scholarly interest. Usually the thesis ends up being published somewhere, but that is only after it is submitted for peer review. I absolutely disagree that a thesis is RS simply because of the review committee. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A PhD dissertation (at the very least in the humanities and social sciences and in the United States) goes through a rigorous review process by the dissertations readers most of whom are experts in the field and who are "on the hook" in some way or another. Protonk, the reason why a given PhD dissertation may not be publishable has nothing to do with the perceived reliability of its content. Do you have any evidence of that being the case because I've never heard this before?PelleSmith (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are three older discussions related to this one: 1, 2, and 3. I will note that I only think a PhD dissertation from an accredited university (and not a lesser type of "thesis") should be considered reliable yet even in that case should be avoided when possible for novel and contentious claims.PelleSmith (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I know that PhD's in the US in all fields go through a rigorous review. One of the elements of reliability (in terms of the "publisher") requires that the publisher take responsibility for the content. I also realize that many PhD dissertations are not publishable for reasons other than reliability (good and bad). Novelty bias, scope of subject, length of dissertation all impact likelihood of publication and do not impact what we would consider accuracy. Another element of reliability is editorial control. While PhD theses may be vetted for claims and evidence, most universities will eventually accept a thesis on most any subjects (assuming that the major professor ok's it). This is the antithesis of reliability in a publisher sense. We rely (rightly or wrongly) on third parties to select and cover topics. Fact checking is only an element of that outsourcing. Protonk (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm with ProtonK here, and I'll add that, as always, the devil is in the details. If you're looking blanket statement that PhD theses from qualifier1, qualifier2, qualifier3 university are always/never reliable sources, then I don't think you're going to get one. In many subjects, theses from certain universities may be valid sources for certain types of claims, but in many cases they won't be. Theses aren't "published" in the usual sense of the word, and if claims made in a thesis are notable and/or valid, then one would hope that the claim would eventually show up in an unambiguously reliable source. In my own field (chemistry), crappy not-otherwise publishable material is sometimes (not often--but still with an unfortunate regularity) crammed into theses, since sometimes the best way to get rid of a lackluster grad student is to pass him/her out of the program. It's clean and easy, and everyone gets what they want--the prof gets rids of an underperforming grad student and the student gets a PhD. Happens all the time, even at "prestigious" universities. Yilloslime (t) 22:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize now that I wasn't as clear as I had hoped to be. Here is my rundown: Reliability of a source (in this case, the word source refers to the publisher not the author) stems from three things. A reputation for fact checking. A reputation for selection and control of content. And a reputation for responsibility for that content. A PhD thesis from a major university only meets the first element. The rest are at best met on a case by case basis within given departments. Protonk (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this assessment. To suggest that there is no "selection and control of content" by seasoned experts in the field who are not the PhD candidate themselves is absurd and clearly wrong. Sure the university itself may not take responsibility in the manner of a publisher but it seems like neither of you are willing to account for aspects of the dissertation process that are simply different from the publishing process but may accomplish similar ends in terms of reliability. To suggest that dissertation readers (as opposed to the university as an institution) take no responsibility for the content of the dissertation is odd. We get it, the dissertation writing process is not the same as the process of getting a book published by an academic press, but why on earth is that the standard by which the dissertation needs to be judged in terms of reliability? Yilloslime, in your hypothetical situation everyone does not "get what they want". The university and the department in question will lose in the end if they continue to produce scholars who can't get jobs in no small part because the research that was approved and supervised by the department is of poor quality. Don't forget that a lot of garbage is published by university presses as well for various reasons. Could either of you offer something more than simple anecdotes to support the assertion that PhD dissertations cannot be considered reliable sources in most instances? I'm happy to repeat the notion that they should not be used for contentious and novel claims. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that I'm not saying "never", I'm just saying "not usually". First, I don't agree that universities have incentives to maintain doctoral dissertation quality. That incentive is transferred largely to the student. In most fields there is a pressure to produce something worthy of publication in order to seek academic employment. In that case it is in the interests of the student to produce something of quality. For students who will not seek academic employment the university has no real incentive to control quality. Efficacy of graduate programs are judged based on the employment prospects of graduates and time to graduate, not the quality of dissertations. Second, we have no information on individual colleges and departments. While we can (and often do) judge sources bu their public face--tabloids are rebuked as tabloids, journals which practice rigorous fact checking are noted--we have no real way to determine this for the thousands of PhD programs in the United States alone. We can spot obvious diploma mills but review of these programs from a fact checking and editorial control standpoing is spotty at best. Third, we still don't have strong editorial control. While I agree that selection of a topic and scope are subject to the whim of the major professor, there is no guarantee that this results in some meaningful selection. I also want to contest the "just anecdote" notion. I don't see that you have offered some data about the overall accuracy of doctoral dissertation (or the average eventual publication). We are both providing reasons for our arguments and anecdotal (sometimes) examples. I can tell you that I go to a large Midwestern PhD granting university who is not in the top 10 academically. Our standards for dissertations are lower than the standards for publication in most fields. I have plenty of reason to believe that there is considerable variation in the quality of dissertations between universities and that they may not always be reliable sources. Protonk (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much more than anecdotal information myself, but I'm not asserting that a certain form of large scale research project supposedly done under expert supervision and receiving the stamp of an accredited university is often an unreliable source for facts. Is it possible that your experience is more salient in specific fields of research? I can't imagine many of these "PhD mills" in the humanities and social sciences, but maybe my experience isn't the more common one. The idea that oversight comes in the form of professorial "whims" seems pretty cynical to me. Of course the scope of the project isn't in question here the reliability of the finished product is. You are convincing me, even if only by example, that there is a lot of variation across programs and disciplines which would make a generalized statement here more problematic. Yet what I'm not convinced of is that the difference in "quality" between universities relates directly to the reliability of information within dissertations. That was my initial concern when it was suggested that the fact that most dissertations are not published speaks to their unreliability when I don't see any evidence of this. When advised on how to write a dissertation that would have a better chance of being accepted for publication I've never come across any advice about reliability and/or the accuracy of information. I'm not sure good data exists on the accuracy of information from books published by academic presses either. Perhaps no one needs to use a dissertation as a reference anyway if we all agree that novel/contentious claims should be avoided from these sources leaving factual information which can always be sourced elsewhere. Protonk I do not doubt that your appraisal is entirely sincere and based upon good experience in this area, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise with my "anecdotal" comment. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll attempt something of a reply here, but I think we agree on some narrow issues. One of the biggest issues with WP:RS is that we have three distinct connotations for the word source. We may mean source in the manner that RS means it: a publisher of information. We may mean source to be the author of that piece of information. And we may mean source to be the actual font of data that the piece compiles. In the case (broadly) of PhD dissertations I still think that they are not a homogeneously reliable source in the first definition. If there is a wide disparity in dissertation quality and appropriateness of topic selection then I am hesitant to leave the judgment of the accuracy and acceptability of a dissertation to the editor alone. I kind of answered this below, but I feel that there is a big continuum of PhD quality from top flight universities to diploma mills. there are plenty of PhD granting universities who have competitive admissions, comprehensive examinations and difficult coursework but which may (or may not) not undertake strong control in the selection of topics and coverage of material (I concede the point that fact checking is largely done). I also want to revisit my "whim" comment. I just threw that out there. I didn't mean it literally and I should have clarified. Topics are agreed upon (usually where I have seen) between student and professor but my point was that there are many more students than professors and the assent of the major professor to a student topic isn't the same thing as an editor pushing for a story and selecting among different stories (Mostly because students eventually write the dissertation where reporters or columnists may--for some papers--write several stories before one is selected). Remember, back to the "sources" issues. the problem at hand isn't the "reliability" of the information but of the PhD dissertation process. That is the important element. We may accept the NYT as a reliable source even though they messed up and published the WMD business in 2002-2003. This is a rough cut from a blunt tool, but it seems to work reasonably well. I just feel that if we apply it to dissertations we end up with the answer that usually it is impossible to tell if the dissertation process is reliable school to school. Protonk (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(out indent, EC)

• OK, this is verging upon the bizarre. Let's go one thing at a time.

• First, I don't agree that universities have incentives to maintain doctoral dissertation quality. That incentive is transferred largely to the student. In most fields there is a pressure to produce something worthy of publication in order to seek academic employment. In that case it is in the interests of the student to produce something of quality. For students who will not seek academic employment the university has no real incentive to control quality. Efficacy of graduate programs are judged based on the employment prospects of graduates and time to graduate, not the quality of dissertations.

• Believe me, there are strong incentives to maintain doctoral dissertation quality. Schools do not want to be known as a paper mill. Faculty members don't want to be known for having shoddy PhD students. Graduate programs are judged almost solely on how good of students they produce. US News rankings have been making a bigger deal about number of graduates, but for departments it is peer-review that matters. And believe me, quality of PhD students (which is judged mostly by what they've done/written) is the number one issue there.

• I'm not saying that they don't. Schools are certainly rated on the success of their graduates and this gives the university a strong incentive to get them to write publishable dissertations. What I'm saying is that there is a difference between being accountable for inaccuracies, bias and topic selection and being accountable for student outcomes. And it isn't just diploma mill vs. not. There is a pretty big leap from (say) the University of Chicago and the University of Phoenix. Most top of the field schools will produce dissertations that go on to be published in some form. Schools which don't (a big chunk of them) still have rigorous and comprehensive PhD programs, but we can no longer say that a high percentage of their students' dissertations go on to be published. It is those schools which we are concerned about. Not harvard.

• Second, we have no information on individual colleges and departments. While we can (and often do) judge sources bu their public face--tabloids are rebuked as tabloids, journals which practice rigorous fact checking are noted--we have no real way to determine this for the thousands of PhD programs in the United States alone. We can spot obvious diploma mills but review of these programs from a fact checking and editorial control standpoing is spotty at best.

• At the very least the same is true of newspapers and magazines in the US. Which local papers are "reliable?" There are a lot more local papers than PhD granting institutions. And we have a high degree of certainty that more time was spent on the thesis than a news article. Both in the writing and the editing.

• Maybe. There are Editor & Publisher, Columbia Journalism Review, and other journalism reviews. For schools we have Inside Higher Ed and The Chronicle of Higher Education, whose focus isn't really on the quality of dissertation.

• Third, we still don't have strong editorial control. While I agree that selection of a topic and scope are subject to the whim of the major professor, there is no guarantee that this results in some meaningful selection.

• And somehow you think that the selection of topic and scope by a news reporter and her editor results in meaningful selection? Why one and not the other?

• Yes of course I do. Newspapers have a limit to their possible coverage, the number of pages they can print. They also have meaningful tradeoffs in assigning a reporter to issue A rather than B, or C or D. The only thing that limits topic selection for dissertations is grad students. We can cherry pick bad topics just as easily as we can cherry pick good topics.

I think you are holding one type of publication to a higher standard than the others. The work is reviewed by a committee (by definition) and directed by an expert in the field. If a Thesis claimed that "Bob Jones was a murder" I'd certainly be hesitant to take that as fact just because someone wrote it in a thesis. But I'd be hesitant to take that as fact just because the NYT said it. That "discovering the optimal scheduling algorithm for certain caches is NP-hard" is something I'd believe from a thesis, esp. as it would have evidence therein to back it up. In that case, there's also a journal paper (which should be cited instead). Hobit (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to respond inline just to make things worse. :) Like I said above, my suggested answer isn't never but "often, no". I don't see that as descending into silly season. The field that I dabble in has plenty of MA and PhD theses which push the discipline forward, mostly because it is so new. I wouldn't have a problem citing one in a paper but I probably wouldn't (even if I knew the research) cite it in wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Resolved

 – No, per WP:SPS. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is members.aol.com a reliable source? Specifically this? Yes or No & why or why not please. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The page is not reachable. Even if it were, see WP:SPS. Self-published sources are only acceptable if they are published by an acknowledged expert, and even then they should be used with care, and typically not at all for making claims about living persons. For an AOL user page, it would even be difficult to verify who the author is. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I didn't think it was but, was trying to give someone the benefit of the doubt. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Citing unverifiable Amazon 'editorial reviews' as book reviews

This specifically involves the 'blurbs' here [13]. There is an ongoing dispute at Kaveh Farrokh‎ and Shadows in the Desert: Persia at War‎ about whether these can be included in the article as book reviews. Some editors including myself say no, others keep reinstating them. My argument is that we actually need to be able to verify them, and that means seeing the original sources. This is particularly important as they are selective and at the moment there is no way of knowing what the rest of the statement was. I see this as similar to the way critics' reviews are used on billboards for plays, etc. The rest of the comment may have been very negative, but Amazon is after all a commercial venture trying to sell books - another reason not to use these I think. Unless our readers can actually see the entire source, I don't think these are verifiable and thus should not be used. (No one is accusing Amazon of lying, by the way, although one editor seems to have thought that was being done). Ironically, I was involved in a disagreement about this in another article recently, where I was able to find the original source. Part of the problem here is that there seem to be no published scholarly reviews of the book, which is probably why some editors are so keen to include these (unless you count, as several editors have, the book's introduction as a review).Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

One other point about these being possibly misleading other than that they are incomplete (as you can see by the elipses. If you note, the first couple are from academics in relevant fields. Then we have someone's personal website, another academic, a right wing anti-semitic radio broadcaster, a chemistry graduate student from New York [14] writing in Persian Mirror which its website describes as "The modern magazine for Persian Weddings, Cuisine, Culture and Commentary" (this one is verifiable [15] but is it useful?, and finally "Timothy Baghurst, The Traveller" which doesn't mentioned that Professor Baghurst is Timothy Baghurst, is an assistant professor in the Health Science, Kinesiology, Recreation and Dance Department at the University of Arkansas. So what we have is excerpts where we can't check the context, and attributions which are incomplete to say the least. Doug Weller (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad this has been raised, as I think we need to make a firm ruling about blurbs once and for all. The reliability of Amazon isn't at issue. It is usually - and in this case also, I think - the publishers who cherry-pick from the reviews for back-cover blurbs. I came across a bad case on a contentious article, when a major reputable publishing house had snatched one favourable sentence from a distinctly poor review. There were other untraceable statements that were perhaps commissioned specially for the back cover. Let's just say no. Book reviews are great sources, but there must be the possibility of verifying the whole review. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Amazon does not do any substantial vetting of user reviews, they only weed out obvious abuse. Thus, those reviews are at best self-published sources, and nearly always by non-experts. I would not use them for anything contentious, and preferably not for anything at all. The way to handle biased unreliable sources is not to add balancing unreliable sources, but to remove the bad ones in the first place. But also note that "verifiable" does not mean "free online". If a clear reference is given, it may well require a trip to the library and an inter-library loan. If you are talking about the excepts in the "Editorial Reviews" section, I would say those have the same value as back cover blurbs, i.e. none. You would need to find the full original sources of these comments.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to say that I am talking about 'editorial reviews', which I also call blurbs. I agree, verifiable does not mean free online, but it does mean providing a source where it can be found somehow. Doug Weller (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We all agree then. We treat the Amazon "editorial reviews" as back-cover reviews and don't use them. But of course any editor could follow a lead in one of these snippets, track down the review from which it was taken, and then reference the full review in the normal way, whether it is online or not. They might even choose to reference the very sentence that the publisher pulled out - so long as it was typical of the flavour of the review as a whole. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, sometimes the editorial reviews are complete from reputable publications, so Amazon could be a convenience link. If one can extract data from a condensed one that could hardly not be independent of the rest of the review, even if it were pure vitriol, that might be usable. (e.g. giving the date of birth of somebody hard to track down.), but these are special cases. For this book, the two reviews by scholars are more complete at the publisher - the Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones one looks like a complete capsule review in a journal, but the other still has ellipsis. The main problem with these is knowing exactly where they are from though, perhaps attribution to the publisher would be OK for the first.John Z (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, no one has been able to find any journal reviews. Random House is not the publisher but the US distributor for Osprey I believe. I normally can find sources for Amazon editorial reviews without the problems I'm having with this one. Doug Weller (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Same here. I can't find anything at all. I suspect that these quotes were obtained by the publishers writing to the academics individually. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Publishers do often send out "review copies" to sympathetic reviewers to obtain some puffs for the book's publicity material. (Yes, they're actually called "puffs" in the trade.) They can be quite shameless at times. I know of one case of a best-novel book which appeared with a glowing "review" from a prominent author. The author in question later admitted that he hadn't even read the book but just gave the publisher the words they were expecting. So I would say that such puffs are pretty much useless as reliable sources; they're just part of the publicity machine, no more reliable than a promotional press release. They certainly shouldn't be confused with actual reviews in third-party publications such as journals and newspapers. If the only source of the "review" is the publisher or bookseller, then you should be very suspicious. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the reviews are actual book reviews, usually by notable people and publications, so as long as you find the full txt of the review and use that, it doesn't matter that Amazon is where you started, just don't cite it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Amazon is a great source to start a search with, but one cannot cite it. --Crusio (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes,just as an example, writes book reviews in Amazon for books he has read [16]. His opinion carries some weight, good or bad. Wouldn't the fact of a well-known historian or academic reviewing another's work be valid in speaking to notability? I would not make a blanket "no-cite" ....even blurbs are not usually offered by people who do not respect another's work. It's an issue of intellectual integrity. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What confirmation do we have that such reviews are by the people they're claimed to be by? Does Amazon do any editorial control of reviews? If it doesn't, then it seems to me that there's nothing potentially to stop a person from posting reviews under the assumed name of another individual. You wouldn't get that problem with a third-party source. Remember, a lot of Amazon's content is user-generated. WP:V specifically assumes that there has been a process of "fact-checking and accuracy" where sources are concerned. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazon does in fact "check" on who people are. [17] Reviewers who are who they say they are, may get a "Real Name" badge beside their reviews. Others, like Pipes, are clearly obvious, based on the fact that he sells books as part of his "profile." [18] Many of the "editorial reviews" merely tell a bit what is inside the book without praise or censure, for example this one about Azerbaijani Turks [19]. No reason one cannot use it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read the discussion. We are not talking about Readers' reviews, we are talking about the blurbs that Amazon calls Editorial reviews. These are no better than the blurbs on the back of book jackets. They are unveriable and in this specific case we know they are not even complete. Doug Weller (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Here's my take. Amazon "publishes" three different types of editorial reviews: 1: Excerpts from published reviews (NYRB, WSJ, etc). 2: Publisher reviews or synopses. 3: "Blurbs" from other sources usually found on the backcover. Only the first of the three is originally from a reliable source, but I wouldn't be comfortable citing amazon for it. Usually a google search can find the original source of the review. My overall feeling is, no, the amazon review page can't be seen as a reliable source. Protonk (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Gibnews.net and User:Gibnews

I would appreciate a second opinion on this issue. User:Gibnews runs a Gibraltar-based news website [20], which he has used as reference or primary source in various occasions in the past. At the moment, there is an ongoing content dispute centered on this particular issue, whether he should be allowed to use this website as a reliable source, which he uses to back up his edits (many of the published pieces seem to be official press releases from Gibraltar local government). Link to dispute here. Regards, --Asterion^talk 09:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No way, jose. Not a reliable source at all. check their about us link. they basically say they will run uneditied releases from anyone. Protonk (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I feel very uncomfortable about the conflict of interest this represents. An editor citing his own website as a source? What is to stop him adding <RANDOM> to his website and then citing that on Wikipedia as evidence of a claim? The website would surely count as a self-published source and wouldn't be usable as a reliable source anyway. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Chronicles from the 17th and 18th century

Are chronicles from the 1600s and 1700s reliable sources? In my opinion, even quoting from such an old source directly (i.e. without a secondary source acting as a filter) is original research, because words change their meaning over such long periods of time (either by losing some of their original meanings or being enriched with new meanings the original author never intended to use). Of course, if the meaning is undisputed within the community then that isn't a problem, but what's the proper course of action if the meaning is disputed? --Gutza ^{T T+} 13:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In most cases I would agree, though there may be exceptions. I would, e.g. tend to accept (attributed!) excerpts from James Cook's log books or Joseph Banks' reports to show their contemporary impressions. I would not allow them as sources for statements of facts in the editorial voice, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with describing what they say without any original interpretation, especially when the source is available online (those works are obviously PD) and anyone can verify if the wording in the article is conformal or is just the personal view of an editor.Xasha (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that with such old sources one needs to be a historian to determine what the chronicler actually meant, specifically because of the way a language evolves over time. In my opinion simply copying information from such an old source can be misleading as a result. In other words, I think that such old sources require interpretation by a contemporary specialist, especially regarding controversial matters. --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

While that can be a problem, it's not substantially different from many modern sources. To read a modern research paper, you also need to be a specialist and be aware of nuances of meaning in words that have more vague or even quite different colloquial interpretations (see e.g. metal in astronomical contexts, or |resolution in formal logic). However, mindset and context are often very different for older sources - that's why I picked Cook and Banks as examples that essentially have a modern scientific mindset, even if they have a quite different set of cultural baggage. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

When the author and athe age are explicitely named in the text (and not hidden in a ref tag) the reader understands it is just the opinion of that particular author, and not necessarily the truth. So it's perfectly acceptable.Xasha (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not acceptable per WP:PRIMARY (only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge) -- you cannot ask the average reader to be familiar with the mindset of a chronicler in the 17th century. --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

But it requires an educated person, thus someone with a fair knowledge of culture, not just some punk from the street.Xasha (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, not every educated person is a historian. --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The answer to this is that while such documents are considered reliable sources... their utility as sources, and the appropriateness of citing them or quoting them in a specific article is limited. Such sources are considered "Primary Sources"... and as such (while we can use them) we must use them with great caution. We have to be particularly careful not to misuse them in ways that would violate wikipedia's WP:No original research (WP:NOR) policy. It really depends on how you use them and what you are trying to use them for. Blueboar (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up question: if the quotation of such a source is disputed by other editors, is it reasonable to seek consensus by eliminating said source in favor of a secondary source, or is that an unacceptable proposal? --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that this can be properly answered in the abstract. It's obvious that you have a specific source in mind, the meaning of which is disputed. Is it in English? Are the disputed terms translated - in which case some interpretation may be involved - or presented as written? Paul B (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I do have a specific source -- and dispute -- in mind; and yes, it is obviously disputed. While the source is not in English, one can find enough references and discussions to make up their own minds, but unfortunately there's a lot to read. However, if you're willing to investigate, by all means -- see here: Talk:History of the Moldovan language#Cantemir, Ureche et al (other sections within that talk page might also be relevant). --Gutza ^{T T+} 00:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, so this is essentially about Moldovan nationalist claims. Someone is claiming that 17th century references to the "Moldovan language" imply that "Moldovan" was recognised as a distinct or separate language? That certainly seems to fall into the WP:SYN, since these chronicles seem to be making no claims about linguistic separatness from Romanian, just describing the language people speak in Moldova. Paul B (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It can be argued however that the person inserting those sources is not breaking WP:SYNTH because the article does not contain any such claims -- it simply quotes the chronicle, and the chronicle does indeed contain the words "Moldovan language". And in my opinion that's the debatable point -- can you quote a chronicle as a reliable source in this context, given that the very word "language" has evolved significantly over the past 400 years, as to include a sense of separateness that the original author never intended? Mind you, my claim that you cannot requires interpretation of the chronicle, which contradicts the letter of WP:PRIMARY -- but I posit that given the age of the source and the dispute around that specific wording it is reasonable to reject that specific primary source and require a secondary, modern source to provide the proper interpretation (and, incidentally, the reliable sources all agree there was indeed no intent on the part of the chronicler to imply such a separateness from Romanian). --Gutza ^{T T+} 10:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It all depends on availability of reliable academic interpretations. Once you dig into a relatively small academic field with plenty of nationalist agendas, they become a dying breed. However, the 1600s-1700s sources are too recent to cause any misunderstanding to present-day native Romanians, just like an average Englishman can keep the track of a Hamlet play. Plus, Costin was not a monk so his mind was not as rigidly indoctrinated as that of a monastic chrohist and he apparently did not insert biblical riddles in the text (the first thing to remember reading older Eastern European chronicles). To me, translation/interpretation of his statement is not a problem at all. It's all about presentation - whether it's a one man's opinion or something larger. I would take his words for what they are worth: that, in Costin's opinion at the time of writing ... then follow his point. Nothing more. NVO (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I think that naming a 17th-century politician and pamphletist a chronist is itself a cause of conflict. Chronist invokes medieval standards of passing (copying, altering, synthesizing) knowledge of past centuries through compiled chronicles; a 17th century text is quite different, it's an original work. NVO (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to be as succinct as I could, but I think that has affected the presentation -- it seems I have to explain the matters in more depth. The word language, in its modern interpretation, intrinsically implies a sense of identity -- when you say "the Klingon language" you uniquely identify that language, and do not expect that specific language to be called any alternative names (see for example the lack of articles on the Austrian language, American language etc). This interpretation is relatively recent, and it has come about roughly at the same time as the concept of a nation state (late 18th century, compare Nation state#History and origins and History of linguistics#Historical linguistics). By contrast, in the 17th century and early 18th century (when there was no notion of a nation state, and no political load associated with linguistics, let alone any serious claim on Moldavian's distinctiveness from Romanian), "language" simply meant "the way we speak over here", without any political, national or ethnic load -- it could translate to modern "language", "dialect", "speech", "accent" or "variety" just the same. As such, chroniclers like Dimitrie Cantemir write about the Moldovan language in one chronicle, and then in another they explicitly say there is no such thing as a Moldovan language, since Moldavians speak Romanian -- they don't see any contradiction in that, and feel no need to explain things in any detail (Miron Costin specifically makes the same point explicitly; incidentally, historians agree that it was Cantemir who reiterated Costin's statement when he said Moldavians spoke Romanian).

Of course, you can dismiss all of the above as my original research -- but the academic interpretations all concur (actually, proper academic papers don't even discuss the matter, they simply include Costin, Cantemir and Ureche as sources when discussing Romanian)^*. In this context, I don't think it's fair to give the modern reader a false impression by quoting Costin with "at the time of writing, the Moldovan language was this and that", because it's not reasonable to expect the average modern reader, educated as she may be, to be aware of the intricacies of how the concept of language has evolved since the 1600s.

Regarding chronist, please see chronicler; cross-reference Miron Costin, Dimitrie Cantemir (specifically "Hronicul vechimii a romano-moldo-valahilor – aprox. "Chronicle of the durability of Romans-Moldavians-Wallachians""), and Grigore Ureche. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

----

^*) For clarity, I don't have academic sources to support my theory regarding the synchronicity between modern linguistics and the appearance of the concept of a nation state -- while I don't have sources for that assertion you can verify the synchronicity in the articles provided. --Gutza ^{T T+} 00:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, wikipedia has no text on chronicler (the man) and chronicles as art/craft/tradition/ideology (you name it), just a bare definition followed by an arbitrary list. One big void. As for your opening paragraph, I am surprised that the obvious subject (changing sense of language and national identity over time) needs presentation at all. Those who attended middle school should remember it; those who press their agenda won't listen. NVO (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If I understand your reply correctly, you're basically saying "I agree there was no such thing as a distinct Moldavian language in the 17th century, and the chronicler/politician/pamphletist certainly doesn't suggest that, but the average reader is already aware of that". If my understanding is correct, why do we need to include that information in an article entitled "History of the Moldovan language" -- is the title in today's Wikipedia meant to reflect realities in the 17th century? --Gutza ^{T T+} 01:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

1. No, you did not understand it correctly. 2. If the article is titled History... then historical references presenting the changes in attitudes towards the subject are relevant. The title does not reflect anything, it's the content that reports historical views and (ideally) modern interpretation of those views (i.e. how the understanding of language in 17th century relates to contemporary understanding). 3. Whether the subject exists and whether it warrants a separate History.. is a whole different story, but the articles are already there. NVO (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What if there are no modern sources on the topic? Is the article's existence reason enough to warrant its continued existence? Can I create History of the Australian language and defend its existence by its prior existence? --Gutza ^{T T+} 03:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Describing a misreported news item

I would like to edit the article on James D. Watson to include the fact that when he attempted to clarify his controversial comments about race and intelligence, his clarification was misreported by several media sources. For example, the journal Nature reported

Watson has apologized and retracted the outburst... He acknowledged that there is no evidence for what he claimed about racial differences in intelligence.

However, if one reads the original text of Watson's apology, it is quite clear that Watson did not state that there was no evidence for his opinion about race and intelligence. The closest he came to saying this was that there was no support for the notion that Africans were inferior in general, which is not what he had meant with his original comments. Since it is a very common misconception that Watson said what Nature claimed that he did, I would like the article about him to make mention of the fact that Nature's reporting on this was inaccurate.

This is not original research or original synthesis, because a number of well-known science blogs have covered this misreporting. The best-known of them is Gene Expression, arguably the most widely-respected blog that exists about genetics. However, the user Hardyplants has twice reverted my edit about this, saying that blogs cannot be considered a reliable source. I know that in most cases, information from blogs cannot be verified, but here the contradiction between Watson's apology and what Nature reported about it is visible to any observer. Can a well-known science blog such as Gene Expression be used as a source for something like this which is independently verifiable?

Captain Occam (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, no, under our policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). BLP is quite strict when it comes to proper sources. Have you tried a news search? There seems to be lots of coverage there, and not just from Nature Protonk (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm able to find plenty of of news articles that cover his apology accurately, but right now I can't seem to find any non-blog articles that specifically point out the way certain news sources misreported it. In general, pointing out the errors of other news stories is a practice that seems more common among bloggers than in mainstream news media.

Does Wikipedia have any kind of standard practice on how to cite the fact that a news story was misreported? Can it only ever be mentioned if the misreporting itself is specifically described by another news item?

Captain Occam (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In most cases the answer is yes: where blogs are not allowed per policy on self published sources, they may not be used to correct material in the article. However, editors should not be constrained by this rule if it means getting the story wrong. In general, obvious errors in fact are corrected by the paper in an errata column later on. The example you suggest is not a simple error in fact. Nature, for whatever reason, chose to make that statement. Perhaps it was a mistake. Perhaps they wanted to place Watson in a better light. Perhaps they didn't feel that the nuance was important. Perhaps they felt (as I do, reading the original text) that absent some declaration from Watson to the contrary, the sentence was not particularly controversial. I think that (and I suspect that the editors at the article feel similarly) this is a nuanced subject and not a case of clearly misreported fact. Further, the Times Online would have to have directly misquoted him. In this case that means we have two sources making a similar claim. I'm inclined to say that the story wasn't reported but you may be reading it too narrowly. They seem to be quoting him from outside his written apology in the independent. In this case it is true that his written apology/explanation didn't include an explicit statement that there was no scientific support for his beliefs. But while true it also seems irrelevant if the issue is his apologies in general rather than that specific column. Protonk (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The article in the Times Online is not directly misquoting him, but it is quoting him out of context, and that's also fairly easy to see by looking at the original text of Watson's apology. Here is a more complete quote:

To those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief.

In other words, the belief for which he is stating that there is no scientific basis is the belief that Africans are inferior in general, not the belief that this difference in intelligence exists. To some people the difference between these two ideas might seem a trivial point, but to anyone involved in this debate, it is essential--if the scientific evidence supports the existence of a difference in intelligence, we do not want this to be used as justification for the sort of racial policies of the past that have assumed some races to be superior to others. Since Watson's article is included in Category:Race_and_intelligence_controversy, it is likely to be read by people researching this debate, so certain news sources' conflation of these two concepts is a problem that I think ought to be addressed.

Captain Occam (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, if your issue is that Times and Nature aren't directly quoting the printed apology, that can and should be fixed in the article (if the article said that). Doing that just requires a change in wording and does not require a source arguing that they specifically misinterpreted or misrepresented the apology. But we shouldn't use this issue as a proxy for issues of race and genetics. We should just deal with it scrupulously and cautiously. I am willing to admit that watson appeared to be speaking out the side of his mouth in that apology. However, that specific observation can't be included in the article until it is made by a reliable source. The fact that you and I are having this discussion should be some evidence for my claim that this is not a clear case of misreported fact. As such, it is a matter of interpretation. You have a good faith difference in interpretation with other editors on the subject and what should prevail in the article is, unfortunately what is in reliable sources. It sucks (as is noted below) but the basic idea is: "If all the reliable sources are wrong on a subject, Wikipedia will be wrong, too". Protonk (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, looking at The Times article again, I'm not sure their reporting of this was such a problem. They broke the quote into two parts, so I didn't initially notice that the first part of it was there also, but I think it's clear enough from a careful reading of their article that the thing for which Watson was saying there is no scientific basis was the notion of superiority/inferiority, rather than intelligence. So it's really just Nature's reporting we're talking about here, as well as the other news sources that got it wrong. There are enough news sources which reported it correctly that those which reported it incorrectly are probably in the minority.

In any case, there's more to this issue than just whether it's only a matter of interpretation that a difference in intelligence isn't the same thing as superiority/inferiority. According to Nature, what Watson stated in his apology was that his earlier statement was simply wrong, along with their claim that he "retracted" it. According to Watson himself, his earlier statement was misinterpreted by many people, but it was also an acceptable theory for a person to hold. The inaccuracy of Nature claiming Watson admitted he was wrong, when Watson himself said otherwise, seems like more than a matter of opinion to me.

Captain Occam (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, then I don't see how it would be controversial to just not cite Nature in the controversy section and avoid claiming that he had fully retracted his statement in his written apology. That doesn't require the addition of new sources. The downside of that (for you) is that our ability to follow that sentence up with an explanation of why or why the distinction is important can probably not be made until some RS covers the mis-match of apology and coverage. Protonk (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly better than citing one of the inaccurate articles, but part of my original point is that the way his apology was inaccurately reported by sources such as Nature is probably notable enough to be worth including in the article, if there's a way around the reliability issue. The article already mentions the fact that his apology was insufficient to stop the controversy that resulted from his original remarks, and I think it's likely that part of the reason for this is because most people were unaware that he said anything other than what Nature claimed that he did. (Nature also isn't the only mainstream news source that misreported this, although they were probably the worst example.) This has certainly been the case in all of the online discussions I've been involved in about this news item--most people don't seem to even consider the possibility that a major news source like this is misreporting something, unless it's pointed out by a source that's more widely read than a science blog. These are the main reasons I would like the misreporting to be covered here: because of its notability, and in order to help correct this misconception about what Watson said, not because of the importance of this distinction in the intelligence/genetics debate.

Does Wikipedia's policy not allow this unless the inaccurate reporting of sources such as Nature is pointed out by another mainstream news source, though?

Captain Occam (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) To answer your basic question in this comment: no, we can't make press criticism unless it has been reported elsewhere. We can ensure that the factual record is correct but we can't make news of the error (or choice) Nature made unless it has already been made elsewhere. That is fundamentally distinct from a correction of the facts. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a very backward-looking resource. Protonk (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - It seems a very odd policy that an article cannot accurately, truthfully and verifiably point out that the printed media is misrepresenting the subject of the article, when a well-respected source already points this out, but cannot be cited because it's a blog. Odder still that the basis for this is a heightened scrutiny for biographies of living persons, in part because such persons may have an action for defamation. So instead, we republish and perpetuate the misrepresentation, all in the service of a policy that's supposed to prevent exactly that. TJRC (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see what's odd here. Watson made a statement which is published on the blog of The Independent. That is a reliable source for his stated opinion; it can be cited and is cited in the article. (Blogs are usually regarded as unreliable, but this case is special - there is no doubt at all that it accurately represents the argument Watson wanted to make at that point.) Nature summarised the statement in a way that you read as inaccurate. The solution, as Protonk says, is refrain from citing Nature and instead to cite the statement on the blog of The Independent. (But please summarise and don't quote the exact words; the section is such a quotefarm it is almost impossible to read.) Nature's possibly incorrect or questionable interpretation of the statement is off-topic for this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

While the distinction at hand is not one that can be easily solved through interpretation of Watson's apology versus the printed review of it, Itsmejudith is right here to note that this section would be greatly improved if serial quotes were avoided. As a matter of fact, this might help editors on both sides of this issue to agree on a section wording. Summarize quotes except when they are a particularly deft and/or iconic statement and even then keep it short. Protonk (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(In reply to a comment above by Cpt Occam.) Nature's report was not so far off the mark to constitute an actual error. The worst you can say is that it was a momentary slip from the journal's usual level of accuracy. The article could carry a footnote that Nature described this as an apology, but since there is no source to say that it was not you might not want to do even this. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Just document the facts. Our readers are generally not morons, and can read between the lines. 'Watson said "[quotation]"/[description of what he actually said], and this was reported in [name some journals]. However, Nature reported his statement as having "apologized and retracted the outburst...[and] acknowledged that there is no evidence for what he claimed about racial differences in intelligence."' — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion; I've followed it now. Just as a side note, though, I notice that numerous other items in the Watson article cite the same article from Gene Expression which I was not allowed to cite about Nature's misreporting. Are all of the other citations of this article mistakes also, or is a different standard being applied to other parts of it?

If it's the first one, they should be corrected. But if it's the second, I don't think the part of the article which I've been editing should be held do a different standard from the rest of it.

Captain Occam (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Are NBA official height listings reliable - do they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?

Here are some links and quotes calling into question the reliability of NBA list heights Sports Illustrated - Heights of Hilarity Sporting News - Predraft height hype is out of hand NYtimes - When Height Becomes a Tall Tale Draft Express - A historical look at Pre Draft Measurements

From Sporting News "A sampling of current NBA players measured by the league in advance of the annual draft shows their teams have doctored the heights for 12 of 15 -- 80 percent. Only one of the names I picked at random -- Kevin Durant -- is listed precisely at his barefoot height (6-9). Chris Paul's height is rounded up from 5-11 3/4 to 6-0, which counts as a square deal. "

From Sports Illustrated "It was in the run-up to the 1992 Olympics that the world finally learned what the cognoscenti had long suspected -- that Charles Barkley was more like 6-4 5/8 than 6-6, and Magic Johnson closer to 6-7 than 6-9. Likewise, it was a measurement in 1988 before the Games (citius, altius -- but not unduly altius) that exposed Danny Manning, who had been a 6-11 freshman at Kansas, as a 6-9 NBA draftee-to-be. "

From NY Times " “They lie,” said Charles Barkley, a basketball commentator for TNT. “I’ve been measured at 6-5, 6-4 ¾. But I started in college at 6-6.” Even the N.B.A. lies, apparently. According to Barkley’s biography on NBA.com, he is 6-6." and "Sam Smith, a longtime N.B.A. writer who recently retired from The Chicago Tribune, said: “We sort of know the heights, because after camp, the sheet comes out. But you use that height, and the player gets mad. And then you hear from his agent. Or you file your story with the right height, and the copy desk changes it because they have the ‘official’ N.B.A. media guide, which is wrong. So you sort of go along with the joke.”"

From Draftexpress "A human’s height does not include the addition of shoes, so it’s misleading when a player chooses to be listed at their in shoes height. The NBA has also done a poor job listing players consistently across the board. Many players are listed at their height in shoes, but some are listed at their barefoot height, and some are listed above their in shoes height (John Starks) or an inch below their barefoot height (Kevin Garnett, Desmond Mason)."

I think I've made a strong case of showing that the NBA does not list heights accurately - and that draftcamp measurements (which are generally freely available) are a much more reliable source (since the NBA official guides have a poor record for fact checking and accuracy from sports journalists in relation to height), feel free to look up your favorite players' heights here DraftExpress Pre Draft Measurements and compare to their official team roster height.Zzmang (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sports promotions fiddling with the heights and weights of their athletes where it is desirable is nothing new. Unfortunately, I do not see an easy solution to finding reliable numbers for this info. The exceptions I've found are in combat sports, where the fighters are generally measured by a government athletic commission which would, in theory, have no reason to pad the numbers. east718 // talk // email // 17:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not making any comment on the reliability of these sources, but could it be that these guys have actually shrunk a little as they've aged? Afterall, they're running around all the time, and that's got to compress the spine after awhile, etc... Yilloslime (t) 18:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

east718 I agree that pro-sports fudging numbers is nothing new, which is my point. The thing is WE DO have a reliable source for NBA heights and that's when players are measured barefoot in the NBA Draft Camp so I think that should be the preferred source, or the olympic measurements.

Yilloslime That's possible for some players, though I doubt it would be many or by much. For instance Michael Beasley was listed at 6'10" in college, measured at 6'7" barefoot in the draft camp, and was listed at 6'10" in the NBA - so he didn't have his spine compress 3 inches for his draft camp measurement, then expand 3 inches when he started playing in the NBAZzmang (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

One more source Many players in NBA are telling tall stories Quotes " The NBA doesn't measure players, which is probably why 1993 Most Valuable Player Charles Barkley got away with being listed at 6-foot- 6. Many who played against Barkley said he was, at most, 6- 4. "

" NBA spokesman Tim Frank said the league counts on its teams to give accurate measurements of their players"

" The NBA's top official isn't about to call for league-mandated measurements of players. Commissioner David Stern, whose height isn't listed in the NBA guide but was once estimated at 5-foot-9, said the disparity between reality and hype only adds to the intrigue of the game. "Zzmang (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed how sources do not agree on this, just as a casual basketball fan. I'm not sure what this noticeboard can do to solve that problem, though. Is DraftExpress considered a reliable source? It may be way more accurate, but is it considered reliable in general. If it is, then the issue should be debated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Basketball on which source to use. If DraftExpress is not considered reliable, then maybe the infoboxes and height stats in say Michael Jordan should say "Official NBA height" instead of just "height". It looks like you have the sources at hand to make an article describing the discrpancies in NBA heights. If that article was created, and "Official NBA height" was used instead of "height", it might even link to it. I think I may create that page myself, you've provided a number of good refs. ;-) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

IMDb

I'm getting a little tired of this one. We have a whole slew of templates for citing IMDb, and IMDb is cited, probably over a million times, in Wikipedia. Yet I keep running into people asserting (twice with regard to Rudolf Wanderone, for example, once on its talk page, once on its 2nd peer review page) that IMDb isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. This really needs to get settled. Maybe have a referendum on this issue (WP:RFC?), or whatever it takes, and either declare it a non-reliable source categorically or clarify the guideline that sites like this can be reliable for some things (titles, release dates, other basic information) and non-reliable for others (movie trivia, mostly contributed by readers). If it is deemed wholly unreliable, then we need to immediately TfD the IMDb templates and set up bots to remove (or, as with deleted images, comment out) IMDb citations that use them. This hemming and hawing on the issue, and ensuing general confusion, is making the WP:PR, WP:GA and WP:FA/WP:FL processes much more painful than is necessary. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think an RFC is a good route to take. I think that there are some serious issues with sourcing imbd. We have a general consensus here on the noticeboards that the bare facts of a movie (but not an actor) can be sourced to imdb most of the time, but that anything beyond that is usually user-driven and so not acceptable. This consensus here doesn't at all translate to general practice which has been (probably not a million times, but thousands of times) to cite imdb for the details it provides on everything except trivia, quotes, errors and obvious fan generated stuff. I don't have a strong enough opinion to force the issue (mass TfD is probably not the right route), but it should be discussed. At the very least if there is some wide community consensus on the issue I can make an FAQ for this page listing past links to it. Maybe I should do that anyways. Protonk (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

According to IMDB itself, some guy named Sundar Chakravarthy managed to insert into Julianne Moore's IMDB biography that she was married to him from 1983-1985... AnonMoos (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Rememberly.com when linked from the subject's web site

If the subject (David Copperfield (illusionist)‎) of an article links from his website to [21] (the memorial site for Copperfield's father), would material in the rememberly site be considered a reliable source?-- The Red Pen of Doom 10:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily - I would say that just as notability is not inherited, nor is reliability. The source has to be reliable on its own merits, not simply because someone else says it's so. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of explanatory texts from museums

In Cyrus cylinder (concerning an ancient Babylonian artifact), I have quoted an explanatory text that the British Museum displays in front of the artifact in room 52 of the museum. I've verified this personally at the museum. The text is not officially online but a copy can be seen on Flickr (see [22]). Another editor, Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs), is disputing the use of this source on grounds that are not entirely clear (he calls it "anecdotal" and "poorly sourced"). As far as I'm concerned, it's eminently reliable - it's from the institution which actually owns the artifact, it's published, it's on public display, and I would think it reasonable to consider the British Museum a source "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". What do other people think? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it necessary to use the museum text? This artifact is very famous, and widely discussed in secondary sources; I would imagine that anything said in the museum sign could be found elsewhere. I'm not necessarily against using museum descriptions, especially with more obscure objects/works of art/etc, when there aren't many other sources, but when there are journal articles, books, etc. that discuss the subject I would prefer using those. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The museum text is being used in the article specifically to document the British Museum's interpretation of the artifact. That obviously requires a text that is sourced to the BM, not just secondary sources that discuss the artifact in general. As it is the custodian of the artifact, the BM's own interpretation is a very important part of the picture. There are plenty of secondary sources elsewhere in the article that discuss other people's interpretations. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't rule it out completely, but I think there should be better sources around, e.g. papers published by the museum staff or a catalogue. A museum inscription is necessarily short and addressed to the general public. Also, attribution would be annoying - the inscription is a condensed version of the opinion of the museum about the claims made on the cylinder. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that this is suitable for describing the museum's view of the artifact and the history surrounding it, but one must take care to not lend the museum's view too much credence. Are there any other publications - even a catalogue - from the museum containing the same information? Also, the complaint that it's "anecdotal" doesn't seem entirely spurious to me: the unattributed "object has been referred to..." could be a problem. east718 // talk // email // 16:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll certainly see if there are papers that present an "uncondensed" Museum view, so to speak. There may well be a catalogue, as the cylinder was the centrepiece of a major exhibition back in September 2005 (which I attended). One would presume that there would have been a catalogue produced then, if not before. Re east718's comments, I'm not sure what you're getting at - the article doesn't say "object has been referred to..." and the statements in the article that cite the text reflect exactly what the text says. When Tundrabuggy calls it "anecdotal", what he means is - to put it bluntly - that he thinks I'm lying about it. (See Talk:Cyrus cylinder#British Museum.) He refused initially to accept that the text was real, then refused to accept a verifying photograph of the text. The other editors on the article disagree with him. That is really the nub of this dispute. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Clarification of my position on this issue. ChrisO is using this text to assert that the British Museum is calling the Cyrus Cylinder "propaganda." I, on the other hand, have found three sources presumably from the British Museum in relation to the Cylinder (the first one appears to be the catalog comment) --[23][24][25] and not one of these references use the term "propaganda." My problem is with linking the British Museum to the concept of "propaganda" which is later expanded upon at great length in the article, thus giving the impression that the interpretation given below in the "Propaganda" section is somehow sanctioned by the BM (pardon the abbreviation, no offense intended ;)) --Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet, strangely enough, the BM text does explicitly call it a work of propaganda, as does the BM's Director Neil McGregor in Art and Cultural Heritage: Law, Policy, and Practice, as does the BM tie-in book Biblical Archaeology: Documents from the British Museum (authored by the BM's Keeper of Western Asiatic Antiquities - the man who is directly in charge of the cylinder). All of these are quoted in the article but are apparently not sufficient for Tundrabuggy. Plenty of other historians say the same thing. That's not sufficient for Tundrabuggy either, it seems. Essentially, Tundrabuggy has a personal disagreement with this interpretation of the cylinder and wishes it to be kept out of the lead, despite it being the topic of a substantial section of the article (see Cyrus cylinder#As an instrument of royal propaganda). -- ChrisO (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For ChrisO-- I did not "initially refuse to accept the text was real" - that is a mischaracterisation. I did not accept the text only after I discovered the three links from the BM that did not say what you claimed they said. Perhaps they have changed their view since 2005 or whenever it was that you last went to the Museum yourself. I simply feel that it is helpful to WP for readers to be able to simply and quickly check the footnotes to see if they are accurate. Easily verifiable material is much better than material which requires a trip to London to access. It would not be the first time that material has been referenced that does not say what the author claims it says, especially in contentious areas (which are many). I do not find it attractive that you would take such things personally, and accuse me of "thinking that you are a liar." Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No, strangely enough, none of the DM text except yours (referenced through a Flickr photo) uses the word "propaganda." If you think so, please demonstrate which link it is and where exactly it is. You specifically wrote that the DM claimed the cylinder was "propaganda." If you wish to say so, you should show that the British Museum does indeed say that. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that the BM hasn't changed its view since two weeks ago, which is when I visited it (I live only a few miles away). But your argument suffers from a basic logical flaw. You've cited a number of short web pages that don't mention the word "propaganda". I've cited an inscription and two academic works from the same source that do. You seem to think that the one cancels out the other. But it doesn't. Just because your sources do not use the word "propaganda" and mine do, that does not mean that your sources are disclaiming the "propaganda" interpretation. They're not - they simply aren't mentioning it, no doubt for reasons of space. My sources are rather longer, so they have the freedom to go more deeply into the various academic interpretations. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop this current line of discussion on this page -- the above digression is not an RS issue. Take it to the talk page.PelleSmith (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil

I am developing this article and I use an authoritative and comprehensive published lexicon to cite the existence of borrowed words in Tamil language

Some people who dont accept the lexicon's authority are threatening to delete my work and have extensively tagged my article with "citation necessary" tags. Kindly help. ­ Kris (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think they're "threatening" deletion on the grounds that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the article is likely to be of interest to scant few English speakers. It also looks like the article might contain a lot of original research, another reason for deletion. Yilloslime (t) 20:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Book/CD reviews

This is an outgrowth of a discussion I had recently. I'm wondering if book or music reviews (assume that they are printed in reputable publications) are themselves RS for purposes other than saying in the article on the book or movie what kind of reviews they got. For example, [26]here I removed a matter sourced to a book review. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Using a single review for a definitive evaluation of merit is pretty chancy. It can also be worded, according to the review by x in the Y,... In this case, the review is being proposed asa source for as a fact about something other than the book reviewed, and, again, its supported only by the reputation of the reviewer. In academic journals reviews are almost never peer-reviewed--they are recognized to constitute individual opinion. Even in the NYT, as here, they're not the same as news articles. DGG (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Interviews as RSs

What is the consensus on interviews that are conducted by a normally non reliable source? Specifically this interview for Kevjumba. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

They're generally as reliable as the interviewee's own blog. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

TV by the Numbers

http://www.tvbythenumbers.com is a website that tracks Nielsen Ratings like no other website on the Internet that is open to the public. In August alone, The New York Times had it in their sources list, quoted one of its editors, as did The NY Post, TV Week and the Fox Broadcasting Company and listed-in-Google News-websites Broadcasting Engineering, NewTeeVee and Contact Music. Why can't I just use other websites for ratings? Because their numbers are less precise, get archived or do not have specific ratings. e.g. At http://www.abcmedianet.com, preliminary ratings are released to the nearest ten thousand television viewers, whereas TV by the Numbers releases the numbers to the nearest thousand and they upload the final ratings a few weeks later. This is rarely done on other websites and when it is, the numbers match those on TV by the Numbers, so it has been proven that they are not pulling our legs. This is the second time that this has been posted (see above: "In August…"), but last time, no one responded and I need this tro pass to take an article back to FAC. For an example of how TV by the Numbers is cited in an article, see the first two sentences in The Other Woman (Lost)#Reception. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it used as a source by the New York Times, The NY Post, TV Week and Fox and those other reputable sites, I believe that TV by the Numbers can be considered a reliable source. The question is whether TbtN has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is hard for us to judge, so I think we should follow the New York Times' lead. You listed one example where the NYT quoted them, and here Brian Stelter uses their analysis for some statistics. Obviously he feels they are reliable, and the NYT has deemed him knowledgable enough to write about TV statistics. Good enough for the NYT is good enough for WP. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Screenshots OF sources

Pursuant to this discussion over these edits, is a screencap of a source appropriate, as User:70.108.115.9 suggests? My guess is that it isn't, but I said I'd ask here. If so, how would it be used? Uploaded to a site like ImageShack and then linked to? Nightscream (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Nope. I can get you a screengrab of almost anything. Court documents (even the pdf from the clerk of courts) are iffy in BLPs anyway. Protonk (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

ETC magazine

How should ETC [www.etc.se] be used in articles? I can hardly find any info on the magazine, but it seems to be a partisan publication of the socialist left in Sweden. Troopedagain (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell, but maybe someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden can help. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

rape fantasy

the sources listed did not state any specific survey that these percentages are associated with nor did they cite the number of participants in said survey

example of article

One book estimated that 24% of men and 36% of women have had a rape fantasy, and 10% of women report this to be their favorite type of fantasy.[2]

example of sources 1. ^ Rape fantasy or domination and submission desires? | Scarleteen 2.^ mentalhelp.net 3.^ Crépault C, Couture M (1980). "Men's erotic fantasies". Arch Sex Behav 9 (6): 565–81. doi:10.1007/BF01542159. PMID 7458662. 4.^ a b c Ravenstone, Desmond. Ravishment: The Dark Side of Erotic Fantasy (2005) ISBN 1-4116-5547-8

none of the sources above include said survey

The mentalhelp.net source should not be used. I don't know if the site is reliable, but the linked page doesn't discuss the survey. I'll remove it. The "Men's erotic fantasies" is one you can't check without going to a library. I guess you have to assume good faith unless there's some history of an editor adding unreliable info that I don't know about. The Scarletee site doesn't sound like it meets our requirements for reliable sources. I'm not sure how much of that first paragraph is sourced to it, but all part that are should be removed. I'll leave that to editors with more experience on the subject. The reference [27] under Roleplay doesn't look to meet our requirements. The Ravishment: The Dark Side of Erotic Fantasy reference looks like one where we would assume good faith. If there isn't an edit war over the article, I would just remove all uncited info. If there is an edit war, I would take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents since it sounds like a very controversial subject. I've made these comments after looking at the article for a short period of time, so there may be nuances I may be missing. Good luck. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)