Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

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

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

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

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

Video interview from a blog

Hello everyone, I have a particularly frustrating situation here. Okay, here's the story: voice actress Jennifer Hale purportedly voices a character named Samus Aran in the Metroid Prime trilogy of video games. I say 'purportedly' because there were no reliable sources to support this, only dubious ones like the IMDb, until this video interview with Hale was conducted by a blogger named Sadie a.k.a. "UltraNeko" and placed on her (Sadie's) blog late last year. She has performed several other interviews with voice actors, as well as other people in the video game industry. Within the video interview, Jennifer Hale confirms she voiced Samus (it's at about 2:10 into the video). So, I added that information to the Samus Aran and Jennifer Hale articles and used the video interview as the source, but a user named Gary King removed the information, stating the video isn't reliable because "the person in a video might not necessarily be who they say they are". Is that reasonable? Because to claim that one of Sadie's interviews isn't authentic is to claim they're all inauthentic. These voice actors look like themselves, and they even perform their characters' voices within the interviews.

At Gary King's request, I brought this to a user named Ealdgyth and she agreed with him that the video interview isn't reliable enough. But the fact still stands that Jennifer Hale confirmed she voiced Samus and I have the video to prove it. The interviews are definitely authentic, so why can't they be used? Or can they? Thanks to anyone that responds. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 09:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

All reliable sources have two inter-related components... the author has to be reliable, and the publisher has to be reputable (another way of saying reliable). The best sources (such as articles in peer reviewed academic journals) are strong on both components. However, for some topic areas (videogames being a prime example) we often have a problem because there are no sources of this quality. We often get reliable authors (such as game designers) making statements in unreliable publications (such as a blog or web forum). This is the situation you are facing... Ms. Hale is the author of her own statements, and Sadie's blog is the publisher of those statements. While Ms. Hale is a reliable "author", Sadie's blog is not a reputable (ie reliable) "publisher". Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for responding, Blueboar. I understand the importance of citing reliable sources, but this isn't a case of "some random blogger says Jennifer Hale voiced Samus, so let's use it as a source." Of course that wouldn't be considered reliable. This is a case of "Hale acknowledges she voiced Samus on video", so why does it matter who shot the video or where it's hosted? -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 02:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sesu Prime. We are getting into process wonkery to say that a video of a person saying something non-controversial isn't a reasonable source of what that person said. Given that this "publisher" has a reputation for doing exactly these kind of interviews, I'd call it an acceptable source unless someone expresses a basis for believing otherwise. That this is in a WP:BLP makes it more of an issue, but I just don't see the problem here. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The results of this discussion aren't exactly conclusive, so I would greatly appreciate more input on this. Thanks to anyone who further responds. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 09:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The Road Company

Is it a realiable source? http://theroadcompany.com/ Simone Jackson (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

aintitcool.com

I'm wondering about what people think about the reliability of this source. I came across it at Raiders_of_the_Lost_Ark#Impact. Dlabtot (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

aintitcool is an influential movie review site and has been recognized as such by the likes of The Guardian, the NYT and so on. 86.44.45.98 (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

permalink to its use here (footnote 39), since it has been edited out. I'm not sure the story quite supports the assertion in the article (that Roth "discovered" it) but that's a different issue. 86.44.45.98 (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Beuller? Dlabtot (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Forum threads.

Hello, just a question to help back me up. Are forum threads from a website a good reference for the article talking about the website? I think not, but I need opinions. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

While forum postings are generally not reliable, there are rare circumstances when they might be. You have not really given us enough information to definitively answer your question. We would have to look at the specific website under discussion ... We have to ask questions such as: Is it a closed community of experts, or can any Tom, Dick and Harry post, and: can we determine who authored the comments being cited? (there is a difference between a comment made by an anonimous member of the general public and one clearly attributable to a recognized expert) Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a an article about an online game, and some of the users of the game have decided to take to re-vamping the article. The forum they wish to use is of--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)f the game's web site. They want to use it to show threads talking about features and events of the game.--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so the article in question is Blockland, now, what reference are you talking about? Please don't again give some generic description. Just say what website, what forum, and what reference. Dlabtot (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The Blockland Forum is what people are planning on using as a source.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... not look reliable at first glance, but we are not done yet ... next question... how do they want to use it? What exactly are they trying to cite to the Blockland Forum? Blueboar (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

They are using a thread about the game being sold to Lego to prove that the event happened along with numerous other things that I am not fully informed of.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There should be at least a press release related to the acquisition. That would not be a generally admissible source, but it could be used as far as it provides information about the source itself, i.e. the company LEGO as a part of the subject of the article. Press releases can be obtained from companies, i.e. from LEGO in this case. The forum would be a source that provides information about a third party. Then, if the information comes from the editorial staff of the board, in my view, you would need overwhelming circumstatial evidence that it is correct, and the information should still be tagged as needing a proper source. If just some people on the board are saying so, they have no reputation for giving accurate information, and they probably are not really held accountable for any false information they provide. --Cs32en (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The sale never completed, and Lego doesn't own the game, so there was no press release.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

err, but the claim that they want to support with the source is that it has been sold to LEGO, or am I getting this wrong?

They want to use the thread as proof that LEGO had an interest in buying the game.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The source would not be admissible for such a claim. I don't say the following is the case here, but I could imagine people setting up a software company and claiming that a big firm is interested in buying them, with the aim of attracting credit or venture capital. (If you don't see any reason why something would have been faked, it's maybe just because you didn't think of the one reason for which it actually has been faked.) --Cs32en (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As I thought. Thanks.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For reference though, it would be nice to have the page versions/diffs in question listed, and to have the reference in question listed here as well, just so everyone can clearly see what is being discussed and what the claim is. Can you add these? Thanks! Chaldor (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The page they want to use the thread on is Blockland and one of the forum threads they want to use is this one.--gordonrox24 (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I would not include that information without further support by other sources, because of the likelyhood that it would be inaccurate by presenting the facts in a self-serving way. Thus, while a self-published source is acceptable in principle with regard to some of the information here (e.g. "I went to brickfest (a Lego convention here in Virginia) and talked with 2 lego executives"), the circumstances and content would indicate the need to be cautious here. In addition, he is making not only claims about himself, but about the intentions of other people, i.e. the LEGO executives, so this part of the information would not be admissible. (Things may be different if he presented a document from LEGO stating these intentions, as he would only be the medium then, not the publisher.) --Cs32en (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this posted by an owner of the Blockland company, or is it by a user? If we're positive it's by an officer of the company then it's essentially a press release and usable as a primary source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The thread I posted was written by the Blockland game developer, giving it some reliability. How much, I am not certain.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hate, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers and Extremists Reliable Sources?

In summary: What is the policy on Hate, White Supremacist, Holocaust Denier and Extremists concerning their validity as reliable sources?

Unfortunately, many of these haters, white supremacists and holocaust deniers have Ph.D., masters degrees (like Dr. Butz) and other advanced technical degrees from universities, colleges, technical schools etc... or these haters don't have top degrees, but extensive experience for example in execution technology like Fred Leuchter for instance (who worked in many states rebuilding execution technology and so forth see the movie Mr. Death about Fred Leuchter).

I don't condone these people getting advanced degrees in engineering or getting extensive experience in technology oriented fields, im just mainly concerned about their validity as reliable sources for example. Which came first the Holocaust Denier or the Holocaust Denier getting extensive experience in execution technology and then using that knowledge to claim or realize after extensive forensic study the Holocaust was grossly exaggerated. Holocaust Denial is something I abhor.

I started a conversation in the discussion talk area of the Leuchter Report article on wikipedia about including a link to the actual article the Leuchter Report, a research report which promotes Holocaust Denial. The problem I am having is DougWeller and a number of other editors for emotional and political reasons keep deleting and editing my discussion thread in the Leuchter Report Talk Discussion area preventing me from discussing the links to the actual research article called the Leuchter Report and thus preventing others from discussing it as well.

They also keep deleting the link to the Leuchter Report from the Leuchter report article because of hurtful feelings, sensitive political and emotional reasons, and I was wondering what the policy is on Reliable sources and can someones feelings or emotions be a reason to prevent such a link from an article. I make no personal attacks against the deleters, just their statements came off as very empty, hollow, lacking in merit and substance.

When I add the link to the actual Leuchter Research Report by Execution Technician Fred Leuchter to the actual Leuchter Report Article on wikipedia, User:DougWeller, User:RCS, User:WilliamH, User:jpgordon and a number of other editors keep deleting or arguing against the links, saying WP is not a directory of hate links, well I only added 1 or 2 links, as an argument against that, then they change the reason and say something along the lines Hate Sites links are not allowed on wikipedia or that you can't link to hate sites, Then I say there is no policy on linking to hate sites on a hate article. They then say / elude to hate sites are not valid and reliable sources, not notable, not good sources, one even said because of fears these links might convert people into neo-nazies by making it easy for them or make it to easy for people to find information on hate sites which arent considered valid or reliable they elude to. To restate they would rather people have to take the extra step and go to google to find the actual Leuchter Report, they dont want it easy for people to find the information.

I'm not suggesting we use references links from hate sites as sources or references for the mainstream version of the Holocaust, im just suggesting there should be a link to the Leuchter Report from the Leuchter Report Article on wikipedia and I keep meeting with emotionalism, politics, pseudo intellectual red herrings like the Hitler card or hate card. I make no personal attacks towards these editors User:DougWeller, User:RCS, User:WilliamH, User:jpgordon, my criticism is on their reasons and behavior - not the people themselves. Infact, I think these editors are very nice people in general, and their heart is in Wikipedia, I just find the emotionalism Politics to be against wikipedia neutrality and lacking in any kind of substance, but other than that: User:DougWeller, User:RCS, User:WilliamH, User:jpgordon are really really nice people with good hearts.

I do not in anyway shape or form support these hate sites, I just think on a hate article, there should be a link to the original source.

So what is the policy on hate sites? What is the policy on linking to hate sites? Is it not allowed on Wikipedia? What is the policy on hate references? etc.. etc..

Is there an administrator who can put their hatred of nazis (a hatred I share) aside, and look at this from a neutral stand point and help give me some clarity?

Markacohen (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Forum shopping. This can also be found at [1] and [2]. It would be nice to keep the discussion at one place. And despite what Markacohen says above, a link to the Leucter report was added to the article on the 23rd, just not one of the links to hate sites that Markacohen wants and is placing on other articles, eg [3]. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, although he has raised the issue again in the last hour at Editor assistance, he was referred here a couple of days ago. But since his post again, he's raised it also here: [4] along with a complaint about my converting a raw url by removing the http:// (on a discussion page, here's the diff [5]. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

To answer his question... there are several policy and guidelines that cover this topic... Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Extremist and fringe sources... Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources... and WP:Fringe theories come imediately to mind. We can talk about them and their views where appropriate (ie in topics where their viewpoint is notable), but we do not want to give such views more coverage than they deserve (Per WP:UNDUE)... essentially, citing such sources should be limited to articles about the groups themselves, or general articles about such things as racism or holocaust denial (where their view point is the major topic of discussion). Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Rarely even then; keep in mind that the purpose of holocaust denial is to perpetuate a lie; thus, a holocaust denial site is on its face not a reliable source, not even for the questions such as "what do deniers believe", as they can and do lie about what they believe. The most we can do is say "According to IHR, IHR believes...". But that's not even what's going on here. We've got other sources, not from denier sites, for the material in question; so we have no need to send readers to the hate sites. This issue should, therefore, be moot. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. I do find it surprising that we don't provide one single citation to the actual Leuchter Report in an article about the Leuchter Report. We cite Mein Kampf in the article on Mein Kampf after all. Remember the criteria for inclusion is Verifiability not Truth. If we are going to discuss what is said in the report, we should cite the actual report saying it. Blueboar (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Blueboar is right, acceptable as primary sources in articles about the groups themselves, or closely related topics such as Holocaust denial. Even a lie can be cited for an article about the lie. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What we actually have is a Scribd.com copy of the report. What needs to be understood is that the 'report' is actually a document published by the neo-Nazi Ernest Zundel's Samisdat Publishers, and contains a foreward by the Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson. It isn't just a copy of Leuchter's testimony. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If it contains more than testimony, that's a problem. Is the testimony archived anywhere more neutral? Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A lot of books have forwards. How would a forward invalidate a book or article? Would you not publish a link to the book mein kampf on the mein kampf book article because the forward was by the Angel of Death Dr. Mengele? It's like saying, because the research document has a forward on it, some how the document is no longer valid or the Forward some how changes the substance of the original document. In good faith assume most people are intelligent enough to form their own opinions on a book or research document.

Would it help if all the hate, holocaust denial, extremist and other fringe and pseudo academic works were all put on Archive.org which is a neutral source? Would this help solve the problem here? I have yet to hear anything of any Wikipedia substance or merit as to why you wouldn't link to an original source the article was about.

Markacohen (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Our policy seems very clear on this:

• (from Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Extremist and fringe sources): "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic, or extremist may be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals, especially in articles about those organisations or individuals..."
• (from WP:SELFPUB): "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves..."

Both of these statements seem to apply here... we may cite the Leuchter Report in the article about the Leuchter Report, especially for statements about what is contained in the Leuchter Report (ie quotes from the report). The fact that a published copy of the report has a forward that was not originally part of the report is easily dismissed... don't cite anything to the forward. Am I missing something? Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

He's talking about linking. The hate site links that he added have been replaced by another link, so there has been a link to the original report for several days. Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is getting confused. First, the Leuchter report is, of course, different from the testimony given in court. In fact, the report was specifically disallowed as evidence in the Zündel trial. Instead, Leuchter was put on the stand as a witness directly. But Leuchter's report was published, twice (by Zündel and Irving) independently of the trial. And I hate to shout, but THERE IS A LINK TO THE FULL REPORT in Leuchter report. What is not in there is a link to a copy on a Holocaust denier's website. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah... that is very a different kettle of fish. While the report can (and should) be cited, there is no rule that says we have to link to any particular website that hosts it. Which citation points to the full report? Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As the author of all but a couple of sentences in Leuchter report, I feel it is worth commenting on something. The beauty of citing a point in the report with reliable sources is that the reliable source not only a) contains the explanation as to why the primary source is wrong, but b) references the point contained in the primary source, thus minimising the need to cite a quintessentially unreliable source.

In compliance with WP:FRINGE, I figured that this was the most appropriate way to write this article, as disparaging references that prevent fringe theories being construed as anything more are encouraged.

On a related note, there is an AN/I thread related to this topic and Mark's conduct, which is now starting to arouse suspicion. WilliamH (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole substance and supposition of this entire exchange was to make this point, if you are going to write an article about the Leuchter Report or any report for that matter, you need to link to at least link the original document. If the document could not be found on a Neutral site, then the only alternative would be to link to it from a hate site - which is 100% valid according to Wikipedias policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources, Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and Wikipedia:PSCI.

I'm glad you guys put the hurt sensitive feeling and emotions aside for a moment in the name of making WP a better place by putting a copy of the document on a Neutral site (rather than no link at all). However, I think a better solution would be to put the document on a more long term web site like www.Archive.org as I'm guessing it will be a matter of time before the original document is deleted off Flickr.com and when it is I will put a copy on Archive.org where it can not be deleted and re-link it on the Leuchter Report.

So everything concerning only this specific issue seems to be Kosher for the time being, now on to the next struggle for putting emotional politics aside for neutrality and building a Wikipedia with proper sources.

The next conflict I was having was over Germar Rudolf, there is no Neutral web sites on the Internet where Germar Rudolfs books can be found. So I linked to a hate site to link to Germar Rudolf books online, and they were deleted for again reasons without Wikipedia substance or merit. What would be the solution here? To put the books on Archive.org a neutral site, before linking to them, so there aren't links to them from hate sites?

Question is this, can we talk more about the policy of linking to Hate sites from articles about individuals Holocaust Deniers, Extremists and Haters? There seems to be numerous links all over Wikipedia to hate sites from articles about haters, Holocaust Deniers, Extremists and so forth. It seems the policy is clear, you can link to hate sites from articles about individual Haters and Organizations.

I would like to put links on the Germar Rudolf page to the books he wrote, but coming up against the same group of people deleting the links for reasons that lack Wikipedia substance and merit. What do I do here?

Markacohen (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly read again what I wrote (probably twice) pointing out that we already had a link to his works? Our guidelines on external links make it pretty clear that external links should add something to the article, and as we already link to his works, adding duplicate links just added the hate sites to the article. This is the second article where you've claimed there were no links where in fact there are, and in this case the link has been there for a long time. I don't understand why you didn't check before claiming that there were no links to his works. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we also need to distinguish between citing something and linking to it. We don't have to link to a book or document when we cite it. Doing so is mearly a convenience. If we are going to provide a link as part of a citation, and we have a choice of websites to link to, then we should definitely link to the most neutral one available. Does this mean that occasionally we will end up linking to a hate site when citing a document? Yes... but we hope to keep such links to a minimum. Note, however, that this applies only to linking as part of a citation. For non-citation linking there are different rules (see WP:EL). Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Helium.com

Are Helium.com articles reliable sources? The article in question is Travian.--Joshua Issac (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not in this case. It sounds like their editorial policy isn't strong enough for an article to be cited for those allegations. Furthermore, "criticism" sections should have notability beyond RS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--Joshua Issac (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Court cases as sources

This is so silly that I sort of hesitate to bring it up here, but I don't know of a better forum for discussing what's an acceptable source. The Oom Yung Doe article currently has several citations to court cases (as opposed to specific court documents) -- the two references used are, in their entirety, "United States v. Kim, No. 1:95-cr-00214 (N.D. Ill. 1995)." and "People of the State of Illinois v. John C. Kim, et. al. No. C89-CH-10044 (N.D. Ill. 1992)". The editors who inserted these references have refused (or failed to respond to) several requests to identify in detail which document from the cases in question supports the statements that bear those citations.

My feeling is that this is not acceptable; a court case is an event, not a document that can be cited. A filing or transcript from a court case is, of course, a perfectly acceptable source. Can someone confirm that my feeling is correct?

Thanks. Subverdor (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are primary sources, and as such, must be used with caution. For example, in Roe v. Wade, a Findlaw link to the actual court decision is cited to support direct quotations from the opinion. A reader can read our article, follow the reference, and verify that our article is accurate. That is not the case with the references in Oom Yung Doe which simply refer to the name of the case to attempt to verify general statements of fact. Dlabtot (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that documents from court cases are primary sources and should be used with caution. Just to be clear -- are you saying that just citing the case as a whole is acceptable, or not? Subverdor (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that the case title (with the docket number) is verification for the fact that the case exists, but that is about it. Really, the only court documents that are reliable are the judge's decisions and rulings.Blueboar (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A repeatable email

At Talk:Republic of China#"De facto" capital? and Talk:Republic of China#Email from the government of ROC (automatic translation) a source has been provided that consists of an email that one of the editors claims was received from the ROC Ministry of Interior. Normally this would not count as a verifiable source, but in this case there is a twist. The claim has been made that if we send the same inquiry to Taiwan's Ministry of the Interior, we will get the same response. This would make the source verifiable because any editor can write the government agency for verification.

I have not done so myself to test the verification because My Chinese reading and writing skills aren't up to the task of using the link that was provided. But assuming I could do this task, and did to this task, and received the expected result that agreed with the other editor's letter, would this be considered a reliable source? Readin (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be careful. Even if that would be current practice at the moment, the ROC Ministry of Interior could choose to discontinue sending such e-mails at any time, so they do not commit to the content of the information in the same way as if it would be properly published. I would also be careful because there might be a specific reason why they chose to distribute the information in this way, instead of putting it on their website (assuming that it cannot be found there). --Cs32en (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, we often have links to sources and find later that the links are no longer working. Readin (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

An e-mail... even one that is essentially a form letter... can not be considered reliable by our guidelines because it is not published (ie disceminated to the general public). In each case it is a person to person communication. Also, using an e-mail that was sent to you would constitute Original research. Blueboar (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's not published because the ministry does not commit to give everybody the same information. (Many ministries have their own publishing department, so "published" needs to be defined in a quite abstract way here.) I'm not exactly sure about the question of original research. If the e-mail, for example, contains statistical information compiled by the ministry, then it's the minstry, not the WP editor, that has done the research. --Cs32en (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be OR because publication in WP would be the first publication of the material. Dlabtot (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it repeatable? Maybe so. Is it published? Definitely not. Dlabtot (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. Readin (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty International

Is the Amnesty International website appropriate for a source in the article Troy Davis case. I question their neutrality because they have voiced support for Davis' plea for innocence.JakeH07 (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The question would be whether it's reliable. If the information is mixed with non-neutral statements, then it must be paraphrased so that the language is neutral. (Unless the fact that the AI position on the matter would itself be notable, in which case the claim and the statements must be attributed to AI in the article's text section.) --Cs32en (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It really depends on what exactly what it is being used to support (ie the exact statement in the article) and what exactly is being cited to on the AI website. It certainly would be reliable for a statement as to Amnesty International's opinion on the case (Whether their view is notable and worth mentioning is something that is not within the scope of this noticeboard). Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually believe JakeH07 that he questions Amnesty International's neutrality because they have voiced support for Davis. He claimed that because they "represent" Troy Davis they are not an independent source. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how AI work. In the archives I found two previous comments about AI's reliability at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Human Rights Watch in a slightly different context:

"I suggest this thread be closed and archived; it verges on frivolous. HRW is not only acceptable as a source; it is – with Amnesty International – the best possible source on human-rights violations, period. They've been criticized as "biased" by every country they've ever published reports on, which is pretty much the whole world; this, as others have pointed out, tends rather to enhance their credibility than to diminish it."

"I was about to say much the same thing - that HRW and AI are second in reputation for accuracy only to the very circumspect ICRC."

The question is of course not whether AI is reliable for a statement about what AI think. The question is whether Amnesty International agreeing with the European Parliament, Desmond Tutu, the Pope and Jimmy Carter that Troy Davis is a victim of a miscarriage of justice outweigh a one-line decision by the US Supreme Court to not consider his case. The practical application is how much space should be given to exonerating evidence and Troy Davis' claims of innocence. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, I apologize for saying they "represent" Troy Davis, I mispoke. They do not represent him in a legal sense, however, they have voiced support for him. My problem is that AI is used as a primary source for the facts of the case. All I suggest is that we find a source that does not have an interest in the case (e.g. trial transcripts). Furthermore, just because the European Parliment and Jimmy Carter agree with AI does not make them more reliable, only the courts can truly decide the case (barring a pardon). I agree space should be given for evidence for Troy Davis' innocence, but space must also be given for the evidence against him. Despite what AI (and the article) say, there was ballistic evidence implicating Troy Davis. This article, http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/stories/2008/12/08/troy_davis_appeal.html?cxntlid=inform_artr, would be a good source because it shows both sides of the argument. JakeH07 (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

AI is not a primary source here. They have collected primary information with the intent of collecting it, so it's a secondary source. This is probably a case where both views should be given, with attribution to the sources. Given that AI's statements are generally regarded as properly checked and not manipulated for (short-term) advantage, I'd say divide for/against roughly by half, unless you have further circumstantial evidence that the information of some sources related to the dispute would be twisted. There are cases where the only relevant information actually passes through sources that have some kind of interest, and WP:RS sources, such as newspapers or TV companies, just choose whatever they think works best with their respective audience, to be honest. --Cs32en (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty International have a strong reputation for fact checking and accuracy; they are thus a reliable source, per our policies. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of people misunderstand the concept of NPOV. Our sources do not need to be neutral... WE do. A source can be biased. The important thing is that we report what the source says with neutrality, and present any opposing views. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Google results

I can find no policy indicating specifically that search engine results cannot be used as a source. Am I missing something? If not it really ought to be stated somewhere directly, as I've come across articles which try to use them as sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Google search results aren't published - they are dynamic searches of a database. Dlabtot (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Aye aye, but this ought to be specifically deliniated in some policy or another.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Completely agree with this statement. Google searches for two words, for example, using Google to prove "transsexual homosexual" is a term, yield the same results as "homosexual transsexual". In other words, it merely reports the times these words are uses in the same articles, nothing more. Yes, It would be good to specify this in a policy, as so many editors seem to rely on this measure. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree... something about this probably should be in the guideline. Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact "homosexual transsexual" yields 1,780,000 results, while "transsexual homosexual" yields a mere 2,550. You have to use double inverted commas to identify specific phrases. Google is usually simply used to establish notability of persons or concepts. It can be a tool to help determine the title of an article by identifying the most commonly used term. We should be very careful not to create policies to ban its use for such purposes. Paul B (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLE. Dlabtot (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest using Google Scholar for slightly more reliable sources, as compared to Google Web Search. TechOutsider (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for help in determining if this source is reliable

Source In Question: Dale Beyerstein's unpublished ebook: http://www.bcskeptics.info/resources/papers/saibaba

Question: Is this ebook a reliable source for the Sathya Sai Baba article?

Currently this ebook is used as a source in a number of places in the article.

• Author::This ebook is the original research work of Beyerstein and is maintained by him.
• Publication: Can this ebook which was never published nor its facts checked or verified by third party publication be used as a reliable source?
• Peer Review:This ebook was never peer reviewed.
• Viewership: There is no proof of viewership. I don't think this ebook is linked to any websites.
• Staff:: Thie ebook is solely written and maintained by Beyerstein. Not like a journal handled by team of staff or going through different stages of editorial process.

My concern is this ebook which is currently used as a source in the article seems to me like original research of Beyerstein. Does this ebook qualify as a reliable source for the article?

There are several such unpublished electronic books. What are the criteria for determining if a source is a reliable for using in a wikipedia article?. Radiantenergy (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the reference only purports to be "adapted from the book by Dale Beyerstein", the source is not the book by Dale Beyerstein, but this adaptation, made and published by bcskeptics.info. I don't find any hits in Google Scholar for either bcskeptics.info or The British Columbia Society for Skeptical Enquiry. Essentially, self-published. Dlabtot (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This self published source which is not backed by any reliable third-party publications cannot be used as a reliable source in the wikipedia article right? Radiantenergy (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, not a RSMartinlc (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Source?

http://deviousmud.tripod.com/ I don't believe so; sounds like an indiviual's blog hosted by Tripod.com. No author is provided. No date of publication. TechOutsider (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And also, notice that he speaks about Jagex, Andrew Gower, and Paul Gower in third person. Plus, why not put this on a subpage of Jagex's official site? And I know the Gowers and the rest of Jagex have better grammar than that... Unreliable--Unionhawk ^Talk 21:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Andrey Zubov

Since no one commented previously, I'm reposting my question about this particular source.

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

Британская администрация почему-то передала населенные армянами уезды Елизаветпольской губернии под юрисдикцию Азербайджана. Британский администратор Карабаха полковник Шательворт не препятствовал притеснениям армян, чинимым татарской администрацией губернатора Салтанова. Межнациональные трения завершились страшной резней, в которой погибла большая часть армян города Шуши. Бакинский парламент отказался даже осудить свершителей Шушинской резни, и в Карабахе вспыхнула война. Англичане пытались разъединить армянские и азербайджанские войска. Когда же они ушли из региона, азербайджанская армия была в начале ноября 1919 года полностью разгромлена армянами. Только вмешательство англичан смогло предотвратить поход армянских войск на Елизаветполь и Шемаху. [6]

Translation:

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

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

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

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

ISBN 0198203586, 9780198203582, p 247

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

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

As one can see, Zubov has no idea what he is talking about. He does not know the basic facts, such as the date of the events in Shusha, the date when the British army left the region, etc. In my opinion, Zubov cannot be considered a reliable source on the topic of events in Shusha in 1920. Grandmaster 10:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what smoke-and-mirrors exercise is going on here (i.e. what facts Grandmaster wants removed from the article by removing the Zubov reference) - nothing is ever what it seems. However, there are not "claims of a massacre", there was a massacre (the article exists to describe the massacre), and the phrase a "certain Andrei Zubov" to characterise the source is objectionable. The translated text mentions nothing about "British troops interfering to prevent the Armenian offensive" (the "interference" could mean political pressure, such as via the Paris Peace Conference), and it does not say that British troops had not left the region by August 1919. There were also several massacres, culminating in the pogram event. The whole article is in a mess - but removing sources for POV reasons is not the way to mend it. Meowy 17:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Read the source carefully. The author says that this whole thing took place in 1919, not 1920. He says that after a massacre in Shusha a war started in Karabakh, as result of which the Azerbaijani army was defeated in November 1919. In fact, the event he calls a massacre took place in March 1920, a good historian would know that. So if the "massacre" was in March 1920, how could it result in a war that ended in alleged Azerbaijani defeat in November 1919? And then he says that the British command tried to stop the war, but the British army left the region by 1920. Basically, this source is a total mess, and the author has no knowledge of the events in the region at that time. I don't think it can be considered reliable, since every sentence in that source is inaccurate, and contradicts the known facts, supported by other sources. Grandmaster 06:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been reading the source (using google translate). In my opinion the work seems to be written entirely from a Russian viewpoint, and in many places with a strong Russian bias, sometimes laughably biased and straying into paranoia (little wonder Russian historians are not well regarded). But what content are you wanting removed from the article? You claim the source supports claims of a massacre. However, there are not "claims of a massacre" - there was a massacre, and the fact that there was is not in dispute. If all you are wanting removed is the section in the intro with the Zubov quote then why not just remove it. It seems out of place there and serves no purpose. The source seems OK for bare facts, but I don't think it will be suitable where the author is interpreting those facts, and it is not suitable for direct quotes. Meowy 16:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this source should be used at all, due to its poor quality. If the author does not even know such a basic fact as the date of the event, how could it be considered reliable? Plus, it says lots of other nonsense, such as British interference in fighting after the events in Shusha, while the British army evacuated the region by that time, or Armenian offensive on Shemakha, not reported by any other source (indeed, this could have happened during the March days, when dashnaks completely destroyed the city, but not in 1919 or 1920), says that Andranik led guerrilla war in Karabakh, while Andranik never made it there. The list of mistakes in a very short paragraph is very long, so in my opinion this source is completely unreliable. If there was a massacre, there should be no problem with finding reliable third party sources to support the claim. This one is not such a source. Grandmaster 07:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"If there was a massacre". So you are saying the whole article is a fake, there were no massacre, no pogrom, and the whole entry should be deleted? The smoke and mirrors are lifted. Meowy 17:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Irfan Yusuf

There is a question about whether an author's claim about how many newspapers he's been published in can be accepted. There are no sources contradicting the number given, but one editor thinks it's "doubtful" and that it's an "exceptional claim" (WP:REDFLAG). See Irfan Yusuf#Self-published sources. Rd232 ^talk 13:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a more recent source contradicting it, also written or based on information supplied by the subject. We'll probably use that instead. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict it :( but it is a more useful claim so we'll go with that. Rd232 ^talk 14:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Is Scribd.com a Reliable Source?

This is in regards to this edit [7]. The entire section is sourced to a single cite [8]. Is Scribd a reliable source? I'm not that familiar with that Web site but it appears than anyone can upload a document to it. Even if it was reliable and the document accurate, I'm concerned that this constitutes WP:OR. I did an albeit brief Google search and did not find any reliable sources that covers the release of this document. I also posted my concern on that articles talk page here [9]. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if there's any way to authenticate the document. The document appears to have been uploaded by a citizens-journalism project called Historycommons, but I can't find much about that organization. However there are other sources that cover the "minders" issue, try this Guardian article "9/11 inquiry alleges witness intimidation". [10] Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Scribd is just a repository. The reliability of documents uploaded there has nothing to do with them being hosted by Scribd. They are either reliable or not. An interesting question, though, is if uploading to Scribd counts as "publication" and if this material, if otherwise unpublished, is suitable for Wikipedia. I would generally only consider this as a primary source, and would certainly try to verify the original source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it can be used as a link of convenience for genuine published material so long as there are no copyvio problems. But unless a document has been 'normally' published elsewhere, I'd say it's SPS. Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I don't think you could even use it as WP:SELFPUB because there is no way to verify the identity of the uploader. Dlabtot (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As others have said, it's a convenience link, nothing more. --NE2 16:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. WP:convenience link: the term "convenience link" is typically used to indicate a link to a copy of a resource somewhere on the internet, offered in addition to a formal citation to the same resource in its original format. This is not offered "in addition" to a formal citation to the same resource in its original format, it is offered as the citation. Dlabtot (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean it should be used only as a convenince link. --NE2 17:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Needs alternatives to YouTube videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEDyC0QRyM0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBLz-ChkPQo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0cVU-Uv7p8

Above are three youtube movies which are in an information/lecture format with an expert delivering the information to the camera. They are in the public domain, produced by the US Geological Survey and available on YouTube. They tie directly to the subjects of Supervolcanoes and Volcanism in Yellowstone National Park. There is no better source for information on these topics than the individual, Jake Lowenstern, speaking on each short movie. He's the scientist in charge of the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory and he's in many ways refuting widespread misinformation about the Yellowstone's volcanic status. Is there a better source? I tried posting these as "external links" in the "supervolcano" page at the bottom they were quickly dumped i guess due to the youtubiness of the links. Can someone please help me get around this problem? TravisBickleLogic 18:08, April 24, 2009

The above post was at the top of the page. I moved it to the bottom and added a section title since it did not have one and I didn't know what else to do. I notifed the editor[11] that I moved their post. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this help you? [12] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no blanket prohibition against using YouTube either as references or external links. However, how about [13], [14], and [15] ? Dlabtot (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with YouTube (and the reason why many people believe that that there is a blanket prohibition against it) is two-fold... First, there is the issue of copyrite. Because YouTube lets people post things they may have recorded without permission, linking to YouTube can place us in the position of linking to a video that is in violation of copyrite laws. This is not a problem if it can be established that the person or entity that has posted the Video to YouTube is the owner of the copyrite, or had permission to post it. Unfortunately, this is not always easy to establish, and we take a "better safe than sorry" stance. Second, we have the issue of verifiability. Video is easy to edit and manipulate. There is often no way for us to know if something posted to YouTube is true to the original or has been edited in some way. Again, if the original creator of the video is the same as the person who posted it to YouTube we can be relatively sure that the version at YouTube is identical to the original... but in other cases we can not.

To give an example of how this can all play out... the BBC has its own YouTube channel, where it posts video clips connected to news stories. The clips are tagged as originating from the BBC, and so can be considered reliable. However, If an annonomous YouTube user posts a news clip that he says was recorded off of the BBC TV channel, that can not be considered reliable... we have no way to know if the clip was edited or manipulated. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Tacosort

Recently, an article I had created about the tacosort sorting algorithm was deleted for a lack of reliable sources. However, since the deletion, the National Institute of Standards and Technology included this in their dictionary of data structures and algorithms in this article: [16]. Would this constitute a reliable source and be grounds to recreate the article using this new information? Mbernard707 (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's a start. In general you need multiple independent sources. So one more would probably do it. You really should be able to get this published at SIGCSE in 2010 as student research. That with the NIST source would be enough for me (though I'm pretty darn inclusive and care a lot about the area). I also suggest you work on your analysis of the algorithm. It looked wrong when I looked it over, but I wasn't sure. (CS prof am I). http://www.cs.arizona.edu/groups/sigcse09/ Hobit (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• What is the criteria for inclusion in the dictionary? Is it just sending an email to Paul Black? As you appear to be the creator of the algorithm, and as you appear to be attempting to use Wikipedia to promote your work, I strongly suggest that you wait until you have many solid sources before recreating it. 98.122.180.107 (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The site is part of NIST and has significant editorial control. Could be viewed as a SPS, but really I'd say it is at least the equiv. of a Washington Post blog by one of the columnists. Not enough by itself, but reliable IMO. Hobit (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC) (didn't realize I wasn't logged in)

You should probably build up a paragraph on Tacosort within an article on sorting algorithms instead of a separate article. I've been on too many AFDs that went bad even when sources were being found. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Are UN affiliated orgs reliable sources?

I would like to get some clarification on whether or not documents published by the United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights (specifically this document) and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) (specifically this document) are WP:RS' in the context of a debate over how to describe the Israeli locality of Ramot. An editor at Talk:Ramot seems to be suggesting that precedence should be given to "mainstream, neutral, English-language sources" rather than those from "other organizations". It is my belief that these UN affiliated organizations are mainstream English-language sources (I'd also argue that they are neutral but that's really irrelevant since NPOV does not preclude expressing POVs that are properly attributed) and do in fact constitute high quality RS's. Could someone take a look see and offer their thoughts? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 08:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that "Palestinian Rights" groups can't be neutral due to their declared mission statement. This is even more of an issue when referring to Israeli matters and I'm not even going deeply into improprieties such as several of them (including the UN ones) having militants on the payroll[17] or that they purposely keep Palestinians and their -- now 4th generation -- descendants under the "refugee" status for 60+ years. I can't follow the suggestion of them being neutral in the raised context and I have to agree that precedence should indeed be given to mainstream, neutral, English-language sources rather than ones that are actively campaigning against both Israeli and Palestinian rights under the pretense of being a "Palestinian Rights" group.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

p.s. What other sources do we have on the locality that you insist on these sources? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That's clearly a political argument, Jaakobou; it's irrelevant to what Wikipedia's policy requires, as set out in Wikipedia:Verifiability. I note from our article on the United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights that it "is a part of the Department of Political Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat." It's clearly not simply a "UN-affiliated organisation" as Tiamut (I think mistakenly) suggests, it's part of the United Nations Secretariat itself, which is one of the principal organs of the United Nations and is headed by the UN Secretary General. In other words, the United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights is a core element of the UN, not some sort of affiliated group. It's under the direct supervision of the Secretary General. I think we would assume as a matter of course that the UN Secretariat was a reliable source. We certainly would not reject material from other UN Secretariat divisions solely because someone had a political objection to it. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you clarifying that for me ChrisO. I wasn't aware that the Division for Palestinian Rights was such an integral UN division. In any case, a very good mainstream, English-language source that is a secondary source (i.e. discussing usage of the term "settlement") was (re-)brought to my attention by NSH001 and is being discussed at the centralized discussion page for this mammoth issue (which ressembles in many ways the issue in the current Arbcomm proceedings). Until NSH001 brought it to the table, we were dealing largely with primary sources (i.e. those using the terms only). Now I'm quite sure that others will accede to what is expressed in this high quality RS (It's the BBC style guide for their reporting). Still, its good to know that these UN sources are generally considered reliable. Tiamut^talk 13:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Heyo ChrisO,

You make a notable point but I'm not sure it makes a big difference to my raised concerns. This concern, btw, is not just my own political one, but a general argument repeated by a number of bodies. It's not a new issue that the UN has several bodies that are inherently anti-Israeli and the recent "Durban 2" shindig is just one of many "UN sanctioned" examples. For example, has this "Palestinian Rights" UN-body ever issued any statements against the deportation/ethnic-cleansing of 400,000 Palestinians from Kuwait?

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jaakobou, but that's an explicitly political argument. WP:V excludes political arguments from consideration. A source may say things with which you disagree, but that's where WP:NPOV comes in: you can use a reliable source to "represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views", but you can't simply exclude a source on the grounds that you don't like what it says. You can use the source to represent the UN viewpoint, if you wish, but I don't think you would have any grounds to exclude it altogether simply because you consider it to be "inherently anti-Israeli". Lots of sources are anti-something or pro-something else, but that doesn't make them unreliable. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to point the policies to me as I actually never meant that it should be completely excluded. If you note, my first comment is that "precedence should indeed be given to mainstream, neutral, English-language sources rather than ones that are actively campaigning". I also took interest in what other options we have on the material. As a side note, I point out that I supported the use of a "pro-Israeli" advocacy organization when (a) the content was verified to the point where there's no reason to believe anything was mistreated, and (b) no quality, neutral replacement was found. The source wasn't used for language though, so I'm not sure this one fits entirely. I don't object to have all notable POVs represented though.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, it isn't our sources that are required to be neutral, it's us as Wikipedia editors. NPOV is about dealing with "conflicting verifiable perspectives". We don't exclude sources because someone considers them to be biased - we use them to represent significant verifiable viewpoints, writing a neutral article that summarises "multiple or conflicting perspectives". -- ChrisO (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO,

I understand the policies quite well, thank you. To be frank, I don't follow why you're "lecturing" me here as I've not advocated the censorship of notable perspectives (have I?). I have accumulated a reasonable level of experience on this project and it would be nice to have some of the people I sometimes work with assume a bit of good faith. To be a bit blunt, there's a couple other editors on this thread who habitually violate NPOV and I'm simply not one of them.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack, your rationale could be used to disqualify any pro-Israeli group due to their "declared mission statements" and employment of figures from within the Israeli government and/or military... Is this really your point of view?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 30.04.2009 12:40

There is no comparison, Pedrito, and I disagree with your perception of the issue. For starters, I'd support disqualifying pro-Israeli advocacy groups that have numerous terrorists on their payroll. Secondly, which "pro-Israeli" groups are you referring to exactly? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that UNDPR would, in general, be a reliable source for use on wikipedia. Note though that the document linked in the first post is a a media review containing abstracts of media reports in the region. Searching for Ramot in the page, I found the following quote:

Israeli bulldozers started to raze agricultural land in the village of Beit Hanina At-Tahta located near the "Ramot" settlement north of Jerusalem for the construction of the separation wall. Israeli forces prevented villagers from approaching their land after having declared the area a closed military zone.

— Ma'an News Agency

If this is the bit we plan to cite, it should attributed to the Ma'an News Agency and not quoted as UNDPR's position. Abecedare (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not planning on using this particular source for this particular issue given that a secondary source discussing usage of the terms has been found. I would note that while I generally agree with what you are saying here, UN sources all use "settlement" to refer to Israeli localities in Jerusalem beyond the Green Line without any hesitation. There is also no indication that this is a direct quote from Ma'an News Agency. Having worked on media summaries like this previously, I can tell you that they are paraphrased and that in general the terminology used reflects that preferred by the organization doing the summarizing. But your detailed reading and analysis is still very much appreciated. Tiamut^talk 13:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion does not represent the crux of the issue. Putting aside whether advocacy organizations are reliable sources (they should not be, and clearly there's no consensus that they are), the question is whether these orgs' terms are given greater precedence then the terms employed by international mainstream news sources. The readers are probably well aware, but what's behind this thread is the debate in the article Ramot whether it should be described as a "settlement" or a "neighborhood". The only sources that use the word "settlement" are the UN-affiliated orgs and Ma'an News Agency, a PA affiliated news source. The other mainstream sources, NY Times, LA Times, BBC all use the term "neighborhood" and never use the term "settlement" when describing the area. So even if were to accept that these terms employed by these orginizations are somewhat reliable, their terms never trump the terms used by mainstream international news organizations.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Please see this extensive discussion of the question from 6 weeks ago. Dlabtot (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, imho, the lead of Ramot does a good job in a NPOV manner of informing the reader that Israel and the United States don't like to refer to it as a settlement. When sources are in dispute, we report the dispute. That's what the article does. Dlabtot (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Questionable Wheel of Time Source

A user recently added "http://folk.uio.no/morters/wot/WintersHeartv6/Chapter22.html" as a source to the Minor Wheel of Time characters article. I haven't explored it thoroughly, but it appears to be a verbatim copy of most of the books of the Wheel of Time series on a Norwegian website. This has got to be some kind of copyright violation on the part of that website, right? Should we be using something like this as a source? Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Similiar sources from the same site were also added to Ta'veren. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We should not be linking (through references or external links) to copyvios. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will remove the citations and leave word for the editor. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Would the work above be considered a reliable source for information on the Soviet positions and POVs of various subjects? John Carter (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Fine with attribution, I would have thought. Jayen466 15:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• In some cases, yes. Care must be taken to avoid mixing up Soviet interpretations of facts with Soviet versions of what the facts are, however. And don't forget that when Soviet positions changed the GSE changed too -- an infamous case is when Beria went out and the GSE replaced him with Bering's stuff. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Depends how you use it. It is fine for a source of information on the Soviet positions and POVs, but I wouldn't give it much weight as a source for the article on Trotskyism, for example. According to the Encyclopedia: "TROTSKYISM. Contemporary Trotskyism is not a political tendency in the working class, but rather an unprincipled, ideal-less band of wreckers, saboteurs, agents, spies, murderers, a band of accursed enemies of the working class, acting for hire of intelligence organs of foreign governments." It wouldn't be reasonable to place a POV tag on the article Trotskyism because it didn't give equal weight to the Soviet POV. Martintg (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • That sentence is marked as a verbatim Stalin quote. As such it surely could be used profitably, for example. Jayen466 23:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    • In context yes, but not as a general source that would allow me to contest the neutrality of the article Trotskyism in its current state. Martintg (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Encarta, Globalsecurity.org and Onwar.com

There’s an ongoing disagreement on the article War of the Pacific as to whether Bolivia declared war on Chile. Several sources actually state that Bolivia did declare war on Chile. Among those are; Encarta http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761565235/war_of_the_pacific.html ; Onwar.com http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/papa/pacific1879.htm and Globalsecurity.org http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/war-of-the-pacific.htm One user claims these sources are not reliable since they don’t list any references. Is this the case? I read somewhere that Encarta, Britannica and other online encyclopedias are authoritative. Please advice.

Likeminas (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Authoritative"? Yes. "Inerrant"? No. Sometimes some sources are wrong. If you can't figure out which are which, word it something like "It is unknown whether Boliva declared war on Chile", and explain the problem on the talkpage. If somebody figures it out, the article will be improved. If nobody can, then that's the best representation of the events that can be. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Other sources also say that Bolivia declared war on Child, including Erik Goldstein's "Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991" and others found here and here. I have to think that those sources can be at least used to say at the very least something like "Bolivia is reported to have declared war on ..."... John Carter (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't use "is reported". Either you are sure, then state the fact (with source), or almost sure (source with attribution), or present both positions, with attribution to the sources.  Cs32en  23:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest checking through these: [18] Concentrate on the works published by reputable academic publishers – University Presses, Greenwood Publishing, Routledge imprints, etc. For what it's worth, this book, published by a research unit associated with Durham University, states that Bolivia declared war on 14 March 1879. But check through at least a couple of dozen reputable works; if there are differences of opinion on the facts among the most reliable sources, include and attribute both versions. Jayen466 17:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

For international relations, this often will not work. Both sides (or all of the various sides) often have the resources to sponsor peer-reviewed research, encyclopedia etc.  Cs32en  23:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There are sources that claim that Bolivia declared war on March 1st, March 8th, and March 14th; along with the sources that claim Bolivia declared no war prior to Chile's declaration of war. Like I pointed out in the article's talk page, I think that it would be best if the information was presented in a neutral point of view where it is noted that it is unknown if Bolivia truly declared war at that particular date.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see those sources that claim Bolivia declared no war prior to Chile's declaration of war so I don't even know if they exist. But, when sources DO conflict, we don't throw up our hands and say it's unknown, rather, we simply report what the various sources say, without giving undue weight to fringe viewpoints. But that is a discussion for the NPOV noticeboard, not here. Dlabtot (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There are books (in Spanish) written by mainly Peruvian and Bolivian historians that claim Bolivia passed several decrees against Chilean interests in the region, which in turn, were interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war. Likeminas (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There is one Chilean source in there that seems supportive of the claim Bolivia did not declare war but rather simply took highly aggressive actions. However, they do tend to be mainly Peruvian and Bolivian historians. The vast majority of what could be called "neutral" sources tend to favor the idea that Bolivia did declare war but, as we all should know, "neutral" does not equal "accurate" or "knowledgeable" and therefore sometimes they can be vague sources that do not provide as much information that is necessary to serve as verification. From my perspective, using a vague source to certify what is supposed to be describing something important is by no means correct.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(reply to both) It would be very helpful, if rather than just stating that these sources exist, you actually identified them. Dlabtot (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Encarta is a reliable tertiary source but it's also a competing encyclopedia so we should see if other sources are available. Globalsecurity.org originated from the Federation of American Scientists and is very well-respected. Onwar.com I wasn't familiar with, but from searching for it on Google Books it looks adequate. Try for more book sources for the declaration of war. If they conflict on the exact date you can say "early March" and cite them all with the exact date in the footnotes. If the sources conflict on whether a formal declaration of war was made then dig deeper. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a quote from user Arafael, which argues the opposing view of the argument (I'm attempting to be the "neutral" third party between him and Likeminas), which is the one in favor of Bolivia not declaring war on March: "Check out these books about the Bolivian decree [19] of March 1: Mariano Felipe Paz Soldan - Peruvian [20] Luis Peñaloza Cordero - Bolivian [21] Atilio Sivirichi - Peruvian [22] Juan Pereira Fiorilo - Bolivian [23] Alejandro Soto Cárdenas - Chilean [24] Casto Rojas - Bolivian [25] Alcira Cardona Torrico - Bolivian [26]."--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The books that Arafael presents look to be reliable sources. All of them make specific mention of the decree of March 1st, citing the aggressive actions taken by the Bolivian government, but none of them make mention of a declaration of war. If a war was indeed declared during that time or due to that decree, then it seems obvious to me that they would have had to make mention of it (A declaration war cannot be simply "skipped" as it is highly important). Now, I'm currently not an expert at these things (even though I eventually plan to be) of evaluating sources as reliable, but it seems to me that there is also a strong and verifiable position in favor of Bolivia not declaring war on March. Even if "neutral" sources tend to claim otherwise, sometimes they are not correct even if they think that they are correct. However, since the lot of you here are more experienced at this, do you think that the sources provided by Arafael are reliable? (Because if they are not, then this whole argument would be done and dead).--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

We have established that multiple reliable sources say that Bolivia declared war. It seems that no reliable sources exist that dispute this. Rather, we have Wikipedia editors who are reaching this conclusion, based on their own interpretation and analysis of sources. Lacking sources that actually state that Bolivia did not declare war, we must simply state what the sources say. Sources that don't mention the absence of a declaration of war certainly could not be used to assert the viewpoint that Bolivia did not declare war. Dlabtot (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

How exactly is there an WP:OR problem if in the first source that Arafael provided, it states: "Declaración de ruptura de comunicaciones con Chile y embargo de propiedades de súbditos chilenos." Roughly translated to: "Declaration of Rupture in Communications with Chile and Embargo of Chilean Properties." This the declaration of March 1st that allegedly is the declaration of war of Bolivia. There is no Original Research when the title of the decree, and the information within the decree, essentially make no mention of war. The other sources, which explain what happened on March 1st, also make no mention of a declaration of war. How is this "our" (I say "our" because I'm defending Arafael's point, please remember that I'm just trying to figure out the truth of the matter as a good 3rd party editor would) "interpertation and analysis" of sources? Have you not read them yourself?--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It's actually pretty simple. If a source says that Bolivia did not declare war, then we can report that that source said that Bolivia did not declare war. If a source does not say that Bolivia did not declare war, we can not report that that source said that Bolivia did not declare war. I have nothing further to say about the matter. Dlabtot (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, then, since the sources that Arafael have provided do state that Bolivia took aggressive measures during the declaration of March the 1st and make no mention of no war, then we can and should report that "according to Peruvian, Bolivian, and Chilean historians that analysed the Bolivian government's decree of March 1st, Bolivia took aggressive measures against the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory, but make no mention of a declaration of war." Having said that, it is neither stated that Bolivia declared or did not declare war on that date, all that is stated (as the sources verify) is that there is no mention of a declaration of war. Since it has also been agreed that the sources are reliable, then there is no problem with them. Oh, and by the way, does your "I have nothing further to say about the matter" mean that you read or did not read the sources? (You seem to have forgotten that question).--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"On March 1st, Bolivia passed an internal decree against Chilean interests, which in turn, were interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war"

• Chilean source [27]. Historian Guillermo Lagos Carmona. History of the borders of Chile.
• Bolivian source [28]. Diplomat and historian Ramiro Prudencio Lizón. The occupation of Antofagasta.
• Peruvian source [29]. Historian Atilio Sivirichi. History of Peru

Arafael (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That’s been my point from the very beginning.

Sice I’m not a historian I don’t know whether these sources are 100% correct or not.

What I do know, is that they are reliable and they state a point I want to reference. That’s all.

To me it seems, Arafael and (now MarshalN20) are adding their own interpretations to the story. It also looks like the interpretation version is the minority point of view.

In any case, please let’s continue the discussion on the talk page.

Likeminas (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Audrey magazine

Is Audrey magazine a generally reliable source? (It appears to be borderline gossip mag) Particularly for this quote from an interview in the article Freida Pinto: Pinto states that she is "completely pure Indian", but her family is Catholic and some of her ancestors were probably of Portuguese background, which explains the origin of her surname Pinto. Sung, Helena. [[30] "Destiny's Child"]. Audrey Magazine (February - March 2009). Retrieved 2009-04-29. {{cite journal}}: Check |url= value (help)

Thanks! -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It's appropriate to use a celebrity magazine for articles about celebrities, especially if it's an interview with the celebrity and theyre on the cover page. I looked the magazine over and it doesnt look too sensationalistic to me. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Fox News website reliable source?

Is the Fox News website a reliable source? I am editing the Human Rights and the United States page and another editor wishes to use this Fox News article as a source for the number of times waterboarding was used on detainees: Article here. I am happy to use the ICRC report linked to in the article, but I am not sure about the testimony from the un-named "US official". I would also question the reliability and credibility of Fox News generally, but not sure of its acceptability on Wikipedia. Pexise (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean foxnews.com? Yes, it is a reliable source. National news service. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources are those with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In broadcast media, I think that applies more to the news programming than the talk programming, because individual commentators are of course separate. I tend to think Fox News is generally counted as doing as much fact-checking as any of the other major broadcast media, so I'm guessing they do qualify as a reliable source. That isn't saying that a source from, say, the Guardian or the New York Times might not be a better source, but I have to think Fox News is counted as reliable enough to qualify. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The NY Times article simply reports what is stated in the footnote of the previously classified memo. The footnote is viewable here: http://documents.nytimes.com/justice-department-memos-on-interrogation-techniques#p=121. As for the Fox News article, I suppose there would be nothing wrong with using it to verify a statement that Fox News disagrees with the CIA about how many times the CIA waterboarded detainees. Dlabtot (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The article explains in detail why the numbers disagree, explaining different usages of the word "waterboard" - the question being what counts as an instance of "waterboarding". Foxnews should be regarded as reliable but care needs to be taken in using this particular article to explain what is meant when one says a terrorist was "waterboarded n times". Readin (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, that would be giving undue weight to Fox News' fringe view that they know better than the CIA what the CIA did. Nothing wrong with noting the fact that Fox News has this fringe viewpoint, however. Dlabtot (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

For our purposes, Fox News is a reliable source and is perfectly acceptable. I think the real question here is what happens when reliable sources disagree with each other? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dlabtot that Fox News cant be considered a more reliable source than the CIA on what the CIA did or didnt do. I'm not a big supporter of "verifiable trumps the truth" (see: User talk:Camelbinky) but in this case it doesnt matter if Foxnews.com or whatever IS correct, the CIA should be the most considered the ultimate source that trumps all news reports or opinions on what the CIA does/did. And of course commentators or other non-news programs on Fox or the website (Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, and Bill O'Reilly) are NOT reliable sources no matter how many (or few as the case may be) people agree with them, same goes for Lou Dobbs on CNN. Remember that the wikipedia guidelines and policies on the matter of reliable sources does state that a source must be reliable on THE PARTICULAR TOPIC IN DISCUSSION, it is therefore not acceptable just to say "well Fox is just as reliable as any other news agency and is a reliable source in general therefore a reliable source this time and everytime", they MUST be a reliable source on this topic. They simply cant be considered reliable or as reliable as the CIA on knowing how many times the CIA waterboarded! Fox was not there with cameras and reporters everytime the CIA waterboarded they simply cant know, and one must assume the CIA does, even though the CIA may be lying.Camelbinky (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a conflict of interest about what the CIA claims about what the CIA did? I would think that for an issue such as this, the CIA is only reliable for what the CIA says. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Not in a classified memo that they never thought would see the light of day. Dlabtot (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Even still, reliable sources are defined as being third-party sources. This is a first-party source. The memo itself is only reliable for what the CIA says. So I would not directly cite the document for a direct statement of fact. That is to say that is there a difference between the following two sentences:

• "The CIA says it waterboarded X number of times."

...and...

• "The CIA waterboarded X number of times."

The memo only supports the former, but not the latter. If you want to write the latter, I would simply attribute it to a different third party WP:RS such as [31] which do contain third-party, statements of fact. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If the majority of reliable sources are reporting a different number, then we do not select to use the oddball source as the reference for our article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The more I look at this Fox News article, the more it looks like 'spin' than an actual news report. The whole article is a refutation of the claim that there were 183 waterboarding 'sessions' - a claim made by no one. See my comments at Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#ICRC_Report_2. Dlabtot (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, I wondered that myself. It almost reads more like an opinion piece. Personally when I add content to an article, I always ask myself whether a source would survive a challenge on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If I'm not fairly sure it will pass muster, I won't use it. The possibility that this particular article might be an opinion piece or that it hasn't gone through the normal editorial review process creates enough doubt in my mind that I wouldn't use it. I'd try to find a more solid cite. But again, that's just me.

So to clarify my earlier answer: Is Fox News a reliable source in general? Yes, of course. Is this particular article a reliable source? I think so, but I don't know so. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

To further clarify: I agree with Red Pen's comment that "If the majority of reliable sources are reporting a different number, then we do not select to use the oddball source as the reference for our article." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean Fox News produced something with spin?! WOW! No way, must be a mistake. They are "fair and balanced" and have a "no spin zone". No but really- Fox News shouldnt be considered a reliable news source on anything politically based.Camelbinky (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. When it comes to politics, or any topic that conservative politicians might have an agenda on, FOX News is only a reliable source for the opinion pushed in their broadcasts but nothing like a reliable source for what really happens anywhere. DreamGuy (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Fox news puts us in a pickle. As does huffington post. Both entities have named authors on the byline, they have editorial staff, they state that fact checking is performed and they are (as has been said above) national news services. Both organizations have seats at the press briefing room in the white house. Both organizations run a mix of reported material and opinion and are usually clear when a piece is obviously one thing or obviously another. So, if we play the straight man, both sources are reliable. They can technically be used to support 99% of all claims made in our articles...

But hopefully we all have functioning brains and bullshit detectors. Both Fox and Huffpo (among other "news" sources ranging from the unreliable to the fairly reliable) are relentlessly partisan and while they distinguish pure opinion from reported material, their editorial slant sneaks in to reportage constantly. Apart from the obvious bias involved with selection of content (which thankfully isn't too big a deal with us), presentation of facts, use of data and couching of spin will push left for huffpo and right for Fox. Far enough for either organization that I would be hesitant to use them as sources unless I really had to.

So my 'official' recommendation is "Of course Fox News is a reliable source". My recommendation for the personal practice of editors is that the fewer contentious claims we source to organizations like Huffpo or FNC the better. Protonk (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Fox News doesn't put us in a pickle. We can simply cite the CIA for what it says and cite Fox for what Fox said. We do this all the time even for sources that are much more partisan than Fox. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Squidfryerchef. Probably at least half of all users on wikipedia have a political preference in real life (though it would be pretty neat to somehow poll a good cross-section of editors on their preferences and see how it breaks down on political vs. non-political and their leanings left or right and how strongly, though I dont know how that would be done), and those that lean liberal would be more inclined to call Fox News on their bullshit and those that lean conservative probably wouldnt have Fox News' bullshit show up on their radar, and vice versa for a liberal equivalent though none come to mind... :-) So stating that "hopefully we all have functioning brains and bullshit detectors" is a nice sentiment but unfortunately whenever politics injects even a little on a source our bs detectors arent all calibrated the same way and "some" of us dont have functioning brains. Example- the news reporter, I dont remember if she was affiliated with Fox News or not, that called the "fist bump" used by Obama and his wife a "terrorist fist bump", she was "reporting" the news, not being an opinion or commentator she was a reporter, and how many people with "functioning" brains (ie- they can breathe and walk) probably still believe that it was a sign of terrorist sympathy? And now think to yourself- those people can and do edit on wikipedia, maybe even that same reporter edits on here.Camelbinky (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

AMEU

Just wondered; is Americans for Middle East Understanding a WP:RS? See http://www.ameu.org/index.asp Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems you are referring to this. I wouldn't characterize it as an 'unreliable source', but it's not a reliable citation to support that sentence. The source does not say that The majority of the survivors and their descendants reside in Ramallah. Dlabtot (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources in Billy Herrington BLP

I think that all of the sources in this BLP may be unreliable. I'm concerned about the following in particular:

All of the sources definitely need assessment.

Born Gay (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Are these sources reliable?

Hello, one of the contributors in Republic of China is using the sources below as a basis for some of his edits. In particular, he wants to put in the article that Nanjing is the de jure capital of the ROC. However, some of us argue that these sources are not acceptable since they all take their content from Wikipedia (see the small prints at the bottom of the pages). There are no sources other than these five links, which he keeps bringing them to the discussion. So are these sources considered reliable per Wikipedia's criteria? Laurent (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC) [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

They clearly are not. Mirrorsites and sites that take their information from Wikipedia are not reliable source, and those sites clearly state the information is taken straight from Wikipedia. It's not even one of those iffy sources where you think old non-sourced info shows up on another site and later when that site is used as a source here you think- "well, did the info come from them originally and then was put on wikipedia, or was the information on wikipedia first and they got the information from us?" You cant skirt the policy on not using wikipedia as a source simply by using a mirror source.Camelbinky (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to say that is absolutely correct. Those sources can't be used. Why would anyone think you could use a copy of an article as a source for the article? Dougweller (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advices. He has now found this source on encyclopdia.com: [37]. I suppose this one is fine as it doesn't seem to come from Wikipedia? Laurent (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

New Man magazine - extremist and fringe?

We have a dispute with User:Hrafn on the use of New Man magazine to cite the following three statements in Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum.

• The Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum is a creationist museum in Crosbyton, Texas, opened in 1998.
• The museum also bases the Mount Blanco fossil excavation team who go on "digs" and investigate fossil evidence according to a creationist view.
• He became interested in fossils after cleaning and preparing bones at the La Brea tar pits, and made a 10-foot-by-40-foot casting of the Waco, Texas mammoth site, now on exhibit at Baylor University. He returned to Texas in 1984, to make a living as a fossil collector and mold-maker.

Removing the source, Hrafn wrote "New Man is not RS per WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources". I looked it up (wrote our article about it yesterday, in fact), and New Man has been around since 1994, with between 100,000 and 400,000 subscribers in all regions of the United States and in Canada, it has separate editors, writers, and publishers. It's a Christian magazine, originally affiliated with Promise Keepers, but not particularly an extreme one. The New York Times has written about it a few times, but never called it extremist.

Now Hrafn writes "... the article in question is rabidly creationist. Creationism is widely acknowledged as a WP:FRINGE viewpoint, lacking any scientific merit. Ergo Wikipedia:RS#Extremist_and_fringe_sources applies." The article in question is:

• "God's Bone Hunter", by Terry P. Beh, May/Jun 2000, New Man.

At no point does the article affirm creationism, other than stating that is the point of view of Joe Taylor, founder of the museum. It calls him courageous and says he has a strong faith in God, but surely that's not the same as affirming his views - being courageous does not make you right. Instead, the article says "even the Christian scientific community has backed away from this evidence". I don't believe that's "rabidly creationist", and, I don't think it is either in the letter or the spirit of WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources to forbid it as a source for the above three not particularly controversial statements.

Hrafn isn't bringing up any evidence on his side, but does keep reverting. He did, however, suggest we come here (not quite in those words :-)). So, here we are. Our discussion is on the article talk page, Talk:Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum#New Man as a source. What do you think, folks? --GRuban (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is transparently pro-creationist, but that does not mean it is unreliable as a source for biographical information about the museum's founder. Paul B (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

New Man magazine is clearly Creationist. However, I agree with Paul, for these specific claims it is ok. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that an article/magazine that is so blatantly & uncritically regurgitating Taylor's position is likewise unlikely to fact-check Taylor's claims about his biographical details. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be the one to say it, but WP:RS are supposed to be third-party. Can't you find better sources for this content? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It is thoroughly third party. New Man is a US national (+Canada) publication, based in Florida, not affiliated with Taylor's small museum in Texas. All they share is a rather large country and a rather popular religion. While the article is nice to Taylor, it doesn't specifically advocate his views, and, as mentioned above, states that not all other Christians do either. In my research about New Man for the New Man article, I've never seen them called Creationist. The assumption here seems to be that Christian = Creationist, which isn't really so - most Americans are Christians, but relatively few are Creationists. --GRuban (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the presumption would be that Biblically literalist Christian = Creationist. That Beh is taking a creationist slant is clear from his use of the term "evolutionist", his scare-quotes around "experts", "150 years of evolutionary hype", the "cone of silence" claim of censorship of creationism, his fawning eulogising of Taylor as "courageously daring to do their own primary research and are digging up, preserving and presenting fossil evidence that has evolutionists running scared." This is not legitimate or neutral journalism, it is a blatantly creationist puff-piece. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. I thought he was afiliated with the magazine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Do either of these help? [38] [39] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The first one requires a subscription which I don't have, while I think you'll see the second one is already used as a source for what it covers. Thanks, though. --GRuban (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A source that we're already using [40] states that the museum opened in 1998, Taylor is a creationist and is located in Crosbyton. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Right. (I wrote the article. :-)) That first statement is easy to source, even to the museum's site if necessary. The other two, though, I think are useful to the article, and I suspect strongly will be deleted by Hrafn without it. They're simple not very controversial statements, but there are people who will do what they can to delete absolutely every statement not strictly sourced, no matter how innocuous. Here's the sort of information Hrafn deletes as unsourced: [41]. Though there are multiple other references for the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum article, the New Man article is the longest single source. --GRuban (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The USA Today article [42] I mentioned earlier can be used to establish that this is a creationist museum. So, can we agree the first sentence is covered?

Sure. --GRuban (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the last two sentences, there's no way this [43] is a WP:RS. I wouldn't trust it for biographical information either. Hrafn's concern is well-founded. However, you can use this article for some of the biographical information [44]. It looks like lubbockonline.com has covered this quite a bit. I recommend doing a little more research and rewriting those two sentences to fit what lubbockonline.com says. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds do you say that, please? Notice that the two RS/N people commenting immediately before you have disagreed, so "no way" seems overly strong. What makes you not only sure, but categorical? --GRuban (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to.

• "What does this guy have to say that has evolutionists running scared?" Evolutionist is a term used by creationists and rarely used today in the scientific community.
• "For decades these "experts" have told us that dinosaurs roamed the earth for eons" Note the use of scare quotes around the word "experts" to imply doubt in the credibility of evolutionary biologists and paleontologists.
• "threatening long-cherished views of evolution" Threatening? Nonsense. There is no serious debate in the scientific community regarding the validity of evolutionary theory. Nor is there any kind of threat. The evidence supporting evolution is vast and overwhelming. In terms of validity, evolutionary theory is on par cellular theory and Einstein's theory of relativity. Perhaps even more so than relativity since scientists haven't been able to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics. Anyway, see our article on Evidence of evolution.
• "Here, at the beginning of the 21st century, after more than 150 years of evolutionary hype" So 150 years of scientific research and experimentation are being dismissed as nothing more than hype?
• "the 'cone of silence' that has surrounded all opposing facts and ideas" Cone of silence? Is New Man Magazine honestly proposing some sort of conspiracy theory about scientists actively suppressing legitimate scientific research?
• "is beginning to be broken by men like Joe Taylor" Which peer-reviewed, scientific journals has Taylor been published in?
• "are digging up, preserving and presenting fossil evidence that has evolutionists running scared" The fossil record is one of the most powerful sources of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. See Evidence_of_evolution#Extent_of_the_Fossil_Record.
• "This lack of "missing links" has been a grand puzzlement to evolutionists, and represents no small obstacle to their theory." More nonsense. There are plenty of transitional fossils. See our list of transitional fossils.

Need I go on? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well put. OK, I'll see if the article can live without this source. Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I posted a Google search link at that article's talk page. I think you'll be able to get a lot (but maybe not all) the biographical information you want from those sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I see the argument, I just felt those details were pretty innocuous so long as they were clearly attributed (now, that I should have said -- you write things like that saying 'the magazine' or so and so, or an article, said thus and thus). But if it had called him 'Dr', or 'archaeologist', yeah, dubious. Dougweller (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Quest For Knowledge is mistaken that the phrase about "this lack of missing links" is nonsense. If there is a lack of missing links, that must mean that the links have been found: a view in line with mainstream science! Also, a cone of silence is a completely fictional thing. Either the New Man's author writes very confused prose, or he is subtly satirising the bias he is required to express. However, there is no doubt that the article is very very biassed, but that does not mean that the journal is not as reliable as others as a source for uncontroversial biographical information. One can find biassed, distorted reporting on politics in much mainstream journalism. Paul B (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I think it's sloppy journalism. If you look at the rest of the sentence, it says "This lack of "missing links" has been a grand puzzlement to evolutionists, and represents no small obstacle to their theory." Subtle satire? I think that's giving them too much credit. Sloppy journalism is just another reason why this isn't a reliable source. Also, keep in mind that reliable sources are those that have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Does New Man Magazine have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking? If so, on what basis? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a pretty serious problem with the New Man references being replaced with citations to different newspapers. There's a couple places that are now tagged as unreferenced that were clearly backed up by the New Man article ( about the La Brea tar pits and returning to Texas ). Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Persistent removal of controvery section from Intelius

IP editors keep removing the whole controversy section from this article as can be seen in this edit. Are these sources reliable enough that the article be reverted and locked from editing if necessary?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2008-02-04-598541874_x.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22956815/

http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/5343

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004163328_webintelius04.html

http://www.wirelessweek.com/article.aspx?id=157142

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Verizon+Intelius&cf=all

Thank you

—Zener 14:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The first 2 are fine, the 3rd maybe but unnecessary, the 4th duplicates the first, the 5th is ok, the search is not. I'll take a look at the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In the past, IPs have removed well-sourced criticism from the Naveen Jain article, and a discussion occurred at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Naveen_Jain. Intelius is run by Naveen Jain. I've semiprotected the article to forestall the continuation of apparent WP:COI editing. I don't see any BLP violations in the information being removed, so I think it's fair to expect the IPs to explain their concerns on the Talk page, which so far they have not. Other admins may modify the protection as necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And guess who 63.231.16.57 (talk · contribs) is? Whois tells us: CustName: Naveen Jain Address: Private Residence City: Medina StateProv: WA [45]. Talk about COI!. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Is ChartingStocks.net a reliable source?

Is this article from the blog Charting Stocks[46] a reliable source for the article Ning? -Kangaru99 (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That site appears to be just some run of the mill blog by no one of any importance or demonstrated knowledge. It doesn't look like a reliable source for any article, and the claims on the page you linked to are especially problematic. DreamGuy (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Charting Stocks provides stock market news and insight. Recently, the following major media organizations have quoted or referenced the ChartingStocks.net news site: Wall Street Journal, Schaeffers Research, Dow Jones News Wire, and I.N.N. World Report.

New York Times

[47] Apparently this is not a reliable source, allegedly because it links to a travel site. This is being used to justify removing a cite on Ushuaia, substituting with a dubious tag. I personally can't see a problem with the cite but as it seems to be the locus of a content dispute thought I'd bring it here. Justin talk 21:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair this is really just the New York Times reposting something they borrowed from Frommer's. So the reliability of the source can't really be attributed to the New York Times, but rather Frommer's. That being said, though, Frommer's is a pretty respectable travel guide. I'd have to see exactly what information folks are disputing to say more. I'll take a look. — e. ripley\^talk 21:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not reliable only for what they themselves witness, but also for information that they choose to pass on from other sources (unless the reliable source indicates that a certain source is dubious). Otherwise, whenever a major newspaper begins a report "According to a highly placed source in the White House..." we wouldn't be able to use it because it comes from an anonymous source. We depend on reliable sources to evaluate the credibility of less well-known sources for us. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. However, this was copied directly from a Frommer's entry; the Times, I'm sure, considers them a fine source for travel information, but that they chose to recite it in an entertainment section doesn't automatically mean it's been given some extra stamp of approval in this instance. Take a look at the link and you'll see what I mean -- this isn't a Times-generated article where a reporter chose to cite an unnamed source, it's information lifted directly from Frommer's (and identified as such with a Frommer's ad graphic). — e. ripley\^talk 00:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how reliable frommers is. Folks with experience working w/ travel guides can comment, maybe. I will say that 'in between' content like that shouldn't be cited as the times. It should be as Frommers. The link can point to the times, but I have every reason to believe that this is content produced and served automatically under contract and that the times probably doesn't excercise control over the content. Whether or not the times considers them a source is largely speculation. We don't know if this was a partnership, paid placement or what. Depending on the motivation for the placement, what the times thinks of them is obscured to us. Protonk (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Generally speaking, Frommer's is a long-time and respected travel guide. — e. ripley\^talk 00:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable?

Is Planet Bollywood a reliable source? It seems to somewhat gossipy to me. I also noticed that on its About Us page it says it has been featured by major news organisations, but not used as a source. None of the articles appear to have credited authors, just the somewhat ambiguous (and misspelled) byline "Planet Bollywood Special Correspondant". Copana2002 (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Philip Markoff BLP

I'd like some feedback regarding the inclusion of a Facebook link to a page for a group supporting Philip Markoff (the accused in the Boston Craigslist killing and assaults).

A rather contentious editor, Theo789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (who I believe previously edited as 63.215.27.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) has insisted on this wording and link:

Markoff's friends have formed a group and set up a Facebook webpage entitled "Philip Markoff Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty." The on-line group now has hundreds of members.<ref> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=162619985050&ref=search Facebook Page Phil Markoff Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty </ref>

I have removed the Facebook link and swapped it for the following identical text with a reliable source as citation:

Markoff's friends have formed a group and set up a Facebook webpage entitled "Philip Markoff Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty." The on-line group now has hundreds of members.<ref name="supporters">{{cite web|url=http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=794986&category=REGION |title=Craigslist killing suspect has supporters|last=Gustafson|first=Kristi L.| date=2009-04-29|work=Albany Times-Union|accessdate=2009-04-30}}</ref>

My understanding of policy is that Facebook is not a reliable source, and links to it are to be avoided, per WP:ELNO. Since the Albany Times-Union RS citation covers the matter and is not problematic, I have tried to explain to User:Theo789 that we should go with the RS, not the Facebook link, but he has repeatedly reverted and attacked me and my edit as somehow representing that Markoff is guilty, which in fact has nothing at all to do with it.

Please note that this is not a content dispute - the text is identical. It is completely a sourcing issue.

I'm not an expert on precedents regarding Facebook links here, so I would appreciate some opinions on how to proceed. And we can use some help over on that article to keep it neutral - Theo789 has not sought or received consensus for his edits, and is just doing as he sees fit, insulting editors and ignoring policy. (See Talk: Philip Markoff#Commentary and Talk: Philip Markoff#Edits by Tvoz, for example - other examples in edit histories and elsewhere on the Talk page.) Thanks. Tvoz/talk 22:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, Tovz... In the absence of a relable secondary source (such as the Times-Union article) we could have allowed the Face Book page (as a primary source, verifying its own existance). But the Times-Union article is a better source for the same information, and so should be used instead. Blueboar (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar - I may need you to reinforce it with this guy, but I'll try first. I'll holler if I need a hand. Tvoz/talk 01:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

← Now this same editor has added this footnote which is a link to a Facebook discussion page. Could you explain to him why this is not an acceptable source? I'm about to give up on this. Tvoz/talk 05:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare Fellowship

An editor wants the publications of the Shakespeare Oxford Society ([48]) to be considerecd RS. The SOS, which is not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, is dedicated to the belief that Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, was the true author of Shakespeare's plays. His argument is that "the journal and website are edited by Roger Stritmatter, PhD, and the publication includes on its editorial staff four PhD's in literary studies -- Dr. Daniel Wright of Concordia University (English), Dr. Felicia Londré of the University of Missouri at Kansas City (Theatre History), Dr. Anne Pluto (English) of Leslie College and Dr. Roger Stritmatter, Instructor of English at Coppin State College in Baltimore, MD. As such, the journal and its website are indeed RS. If you want to fight that, then feel free to take it to another level of Wiki administration." [49] The fact is that all these people are committed Oxfordians (Stritmatter is also Wikipedia editor under the name user:BenJonson). The journal is a purely private publication with an absolutely polemical agenda. As we know, it is possible to fill journals with PhDs who support creationism, crystal healing, or anything one wants. The fact remains that this is the internal publication of an organisation dedicated to a fringe theory. Paul B (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I would not call the idea that de Vere was Shakespeare a fringe theory... it is a minority viewpoint, yes, but one that a lot of people, including some very well respected scholars take seriously. However, I do agree that the SOS is not large enough for its journal to be considered more than a Self-Published source. Thus, it can be considered reliable for some types of statements, and not reliable for others (See: WP:SPS). Blueboar (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And which "well respected scholars" do you refer to? I would suggest that you are unfamiliar with the overwhelming body of scholarship on this issue. Your reference to WP:SPS is irrelevant unless you can show that relevant scholars have published in in reliable sources and are recognised as more than marginal contributors. Paul B (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar, not RS, self-published, usable only in very limited circumstances. Dlabtot (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was necessary to ask this here—since this is an unreliable source according to our policies, we can confidently reject it for the Shakespeare article, whatever the result of the present thread. Unless we stick to the principle of best sources, Wikipedia will rapidly fall victim on many different articles to fringe theories (Blueboar, I'd define a fringe theory as one for which there's no valid evidence; I'm not aware of any well-respected scholars who believe this stuff) and become useless. Quality of source is the key: there's a large industry devoted to the idea that Shakespeare didn't write his own plays, but it has not penetrated good university presses. The same with many other fringe theories. It would be a victory for this industry to break Wikipedia's defences. qp10qp (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a major problem with the initial report by Paul Barlow above - he cites the wrong website completely. The Shakespeare Oxford Society is not the source being suggested. Mr. Barlow surely knows this and may be trying to poison the waters before an honest conversation can be had. Mr. Barlow, who recently defended "nastiness" as an appropriate response to those of us interested in the Authorship debate, has not presented an honest case. To be clear, the source being submitted (I should know as I submitted it) is the journal of the Shakespeare Fellowship. Here is the correct link to the website [[50]] and here is the correct link to the particularly well-referenced article that I wished to cite [[51]]. Further, I was being very selective (as Blueboar suggests), only wishing to quote representatives from the Victoria and Albert Museum about a portrait and artist with which they were familiar. Here is the edit that offended Mr. Barlow and resulted in this conversation being brought here [[52]]. Now that the correct information is on the table, perhaps we can have an honest discussion. Thank you. Smatprt (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

We could have an honest discussion always. I refered to the wrong website by mistake

Other than in Shakespeare Matters or other publications of the Shakespeare Fellowship, have Wright, Londré, Pluto and Stritmatter published works on the topic of Shakespeare Authorship in reliable third-party publications? What about Barbara Burris? Has she? Dlabtot (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Strittmatter and Wright have. I will research the others. I would also like to add the following in response to the initial accusation. I agree with Blueboar that the authorship debate is not a Fringe theory, but a minority viewpoint. It has been supported by scholars, professors, Nobel prize winners, Supreme Court Justices (including a good percentage of the current court), not to mention some of the greatest writers of all time including Mark Twain, Henry James, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Walt Whitman. Also, Sigmund Freud, Orsen Wells, Tyrone Guthrie and many other notable figures from world history also doubted the mainstream view. And hundreds of current or former academics. Several universities do, indeed, teach the authorship debate and host annual international conferences, as has the prestigious Globe Theatre (London) and Oregon Shakespeare Festival (Ashland). Hardly Fringe.Smatprt (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The claims by Paul Barlow in this thread seem to me to be full of abundant misdirection.

• The wrong source is named.
• "not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page" is cited as reason for the (incorrect) source not to be RS.
• "an absolutely polemical agenda"
• "it is possible to fill journals with PhDs who support creationism, crystal healing, or anything one wants."
• "fringe theory"

These seem to me to be misdirections and trumped up alarms and inflammatory falsehoods to cover the fact that Paul simply does not like the well-sourced, meticulously researched and cited information contained within the source and noted in the Wikipedia article. I might add that Paul seems to me to be attempting to exercise WP:OWNERSHIP of this article, the bulk of which he created and which he seems to be patrolling so as not to allow sourced viewpoints which disagree with his own, which is in violation of NPOV. Softlavender (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the reliable sources noticeboard. We like to discuss sources here. Please refrain from commenting on other editors, or continuing disputes, and stick to discussing sources. Dlabtot (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no misdirection in any of my comments. I referred to the wrong webpage by mistake. Since I linked to the talk page, it's hardly deception, and the Fellowship is just as unreliable as the SOS. It certainly has a polemical agenda. It certainly is a fringe theory. It certainly is "possible to fill journals with PhDs who support creationism, crystal healing, or anything one wants." All this is true. It is also true that the SF does not publish "meticulously researched" work at all. It is a purely polemical, amateur, fringe publication with no independent peer review. Paul B (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

All right, fair enough; however other posters should be held to the same level of accountability and relevance, that is, recognition that (1) Shakespeare authorship scholarship is not a fringe theory but rather an ongoing scholarly investigation exploring the gaps in Shakespeare scholarship; (2) the "agenda" of such sources is not "polemical" but investigatory; (3) this has nothing to do with creationism, crystal healing, or any such insubstantial intangibles; (4) the fact of having a Wikipedia page or not is not a criteria for a source's reliability. Also, the information mentioned in the Portrait article has nothing to do with the Shakespeare authorship question but rather to do with the identification of the sitter of a portrait believed to be Hugh Hamersley by some (one investigation) and Edward de Vere by others (two investigations). Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

One investigation was by a non-specialist in 1940, whose investigation was motivated by ideology and whose publication contained known false assertions. There is also strong suspicion that he falsified his results. The second is by an amateur in a fringe publication. The Hamersley identification was made by established experts and its results were published in reliable journals. Paul B (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

On Dr. Wright, (obtained from Concordia University website): "Dr. Daniel Wright has been a member of the Concordia University faculty since 1991. He is the author of the acclaimed book, The Anglican Shakespeare, as well as over three dozen scholarly articles and reviews in publications such as Germany's Neues Shakespeare Journal, Studies in the Novel, International Fiction Review, The Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, Renaissance and Reformation, The Sixteenth Century Journal, The Elizabethan Review, The Oxfordian and Harper's. He currently is completing another book, The Gothic Antichrist, a work that examines the inversion of sacred iconography and rhetoric in 19th-century British Gothic fiction. He teaches Shakespeare, British Literature, The Gothic Novel, Russian Literature, The European Novel, The Psychology of Authorship, Sports Literature, and a number of other engaging and popular courses. Professor Wright is the founder and director of the Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference, the world's largest academic symposium dedicated to the investigation of the origins of the works by the writer who called himself Shakespeare. Among many affiliations, Professor Wright is an Associate Trustee of the Shakespeare Authorship Trust of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre in London, and he is a Patron of the Shakespeare Fellowship--from whom he also is a recipient of the Outstanding Achievement in Elizabethan Studies Award. He is the Faculty Advisor to Sigma Tau Delta, the English honor society; and he is the Faculty Marshal for the College of Theology, Arts and Sciences. He lectures worldwide, leads study abroad tours, and directs residential study programs for CU in the United Kingdom." Reliable source? I would hope so. Smatprt (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

On Dr. Strittmatter, (obtained from UMass Amherst): "The marginalia of Edward de Vere's Geneva Bible: Providential discovery, literary reasoning, and historical consequence, by Roger A Stritmatter, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Abstract - This dissertation analyzes the findings of a ten year study of the 1568-70 Geneva Bible originally owned and annotated by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604), and now owned by the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington D.C. (Folger shelf mark 1427). This is the first and--presently--only dissertation in literary studies which pursues with open respect the heretical and thesis of John Thomas Looney (1920), B. M. Ward (1928), Charlton Ogburn Jr. (1984) and other "amateur" scholars, which postulates de Vere as the literary mind behind the popular nom de plume "William Shakespeare." The dissertation reviews a selection of the many credible supports for this theory and then considers confirmatory evidence from the annotations of the de Vere Bible, demonstrating the coherence of life, literary preceden, and art, which is the inevitable consequence of the theory. Appendices offer detailed paleographical analysis, review the history of the authorship question, consider the chronology of the Shakespearean canon, and refute the claim of some critics that the alleged connections between the de Vere Bible and "Shakespeare" are random."Smatprt (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Stritmatter has also been published in the ”Review of English Studies", n.s. 58 (2007), co-authoring “Shakespeare and the Voyagers Revisited, among other independent journals and publications.Smatprt (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

On Felicia Londre: Dozens of books, articles, essays (from a quick search on Amazon Books) The History of North American Theater: The United States, Canada, and Mexico : From Pre-Columbian Times to the Present (The history of world theater) by Felicia Hardison Londre and Daniel J. Watermeier; De Vere As Shakespeare: An Oxfordian Reading of the Canon by William Farina, Felicia Hardison Londré; No Applause--Just Throw Money: The Book That Made Vaudeville Famous.(Book review): An article from: Theatre History Studies by Felicia Hardison Londre; Words at Play: Creative Writing and Dramaturgy (Theater in the Americas) by Felicia Hardison Londre; The History of World Theater: From the English Restoration to the Present (History of World Theatre) by Felicia Hardison Londre (Paperback - April 1999); Love's Labour's Lost: Critical Essays (Shakespeare Criticism) by Felicia Londre (Paperback- Nov 2, 2000); Alexander Shurbanov and Boika Sokolova. Painting Shakespeare Red: An East-European Appropriation.(Book Review): An article from: Comparative Drama by Felicia Hardison Londre; Federico Garcia Lorca. by Felicia Hardison Londre (Hardcover - Jan 1, 1984); A History of African American Theatre.(Book Review): An article from: Theatre History Studies by Felicia Hardison Londre; History of North American Theater: From Pre-Columbian Times to the Present by Felicia Hardison; Watermeier, Daniel J. Londre (Hardcover - Jan 1, 1998); The History of North American Theater: The United States, Canada, and Mexico : F by Felicia Hardison; Watermeier, Daniel J. Londre (Paperback - Jan 1, 2000); The History of World Theater: From the English Restoration to the Present (A Frederick Ungar Book) by Felicia Hardison Londre; The History of World Theater: From the English Restoration to the Present (History of World Theatre) by Felicia Hardison Londre (Paperback - Jan 1, 1999). Wow - Now I'm impressed. Ms. Londre appears to be more reliable than many of the sources being used in the articles in question.Smatprt (talk) 04:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

On Anne Pluto:(brief websearch) Much Ado About Nothing, Anne Pluto editor, Oxfordian Shakespeare Series/Llumina Press; Pluto is a published poet and professor of English at Leslie University. Will attempt to do more research on her this weekend. But in short, yes she has been published on Authorship matters. Smatprt (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, she's a poet, not any kind of an expert on Shakespeare, and her "publication" is through Lliumina press, which is a self-publishing press. [53] The rest of your verbiage is similar misdirection designed to create the impession of scholarly weight, but listing people who are almost all marginal. Paul B (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Marginal is simply Paul's opinion and is off topic. The editorial staff meets the threshold. Period Smatprt (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There's certainly no reason to clutter up the page with off-topic references such as publication of History of North American Theater: From Pre-Columbian Times to the Present. It just causes eyes to blur and in my case has lead to a case of WP:TLDR. I asked whether these folks had published works on the topic of Shakespeare Authorship in reliable third-party publications because that's what the policy requires. All this other stuff is totally irrelevant. Dlabtot (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The quick, non-cluttered, answered is yes, 3 of 4 have, as have several contributing authors who are members of the Fellowships' Board of Trustees. If that is all the policy requires, then the threshold has been met.Smatprt (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you post the quick, non-cluttered answer that actually includes the citations? By the way, the policy we are talking about is WP:SPS. Even if these criteria are met, use of the source would still require caution. Dlabtot (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes - here is a short non-cluttered list. Quotes are not mine, but are from the online descriptions or forwards. While I still agree with Blueboar that the Fellowship source should be considered a peer-reviewed journal, both he and you both have cautioned about use of the source to limited circumstances. I will certainly respect that advice, and understand that you (Dlabtot) are referring to the SPS policy only.

• The Anglican Shakespeare, Elizabethan orthodoxy in the great histories, by Daniel L. Wright. Published in 1993, Pacific-Columbia Books (Vancouver, Wa)From the forward -"For author Dr. Daniel Wright this view of Shakespeare’s purpose in writing the history plays was significant in his eventually accepting (and now actively promoting) Edward de Vere as the true author of the Shakespeare Canon (Dr. Wright now heads the Dept. of Humanities at Concordia University (Portland, OR), and in 1997 founded the Edward de Vere Studies Conference, held each spring on the Concordia campus)."
• Shakespeare and the Voyagers Revisited, by Roger Stritmatter and Lynne Kositsky. The Review of English Studies 2007, 58(236):447-472. Alternate dating of the Tempest to pre-1604, the year of De Vere's death.
• Edward de Vere's Geneva Bible, by Prof Roger Stritmatter, Oxford Institute Press, UMass. "Dr. Stritmatter's revealing study of the annotations and marginalia of Edward de Vere's personal Bible, now in the possession of the Folger Shakespeare Library."
• De Vere As Shakespeare: An Oxfordian Reading of the Canon by William Farina, Felicia Hardison Londre. Softcover, McFarland & Co Inc Pub, ISBN 0786423838 (0-7864-2383-8)
• Love's Labour's Lost: Critical Essays, by Felicia Hardison Londre ISBN 0815338880. Publisher: Routledge. "Selections discuss the play in terms of historical context, dating, and sources; character analysis; comic elements and verbal conceits; evidence of authorship; performance analysis; and feminist interpretations."
• Shakespeare Around the Globe : A Guide to Notable Postwar Revivals by Samuel L. Leiter, Langdon Brown, Felicia Hardison Londre,Tice L. Miller. ISBN 0313237565 / 9780313237560 / 0-313-23756-5. Publisher: Greenwood Publishing Group, Incorporated. "An important resource for any scholar working on the production history of Shakespeare's plays"

These authors have also published numerous essays and articles, and have lectured on authorship issues around the globe. If you want further additions to this list, I'll need to contact them for those specific details. In addition, if you want publishing history on any of the Fellowship Trustees, I can provide that as well.Smatprt (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The single possible exception is Wright. The other two figures mentioned are Stritmatter, who worked for his PhD solely to promote Oxfordianism. That was his purpose and that has been his purpose in everything he does. In academia he is thouroughly marginal. Londre is a writer of generalist books on theatre, not a specialist on Shakespeare. These are three people. There are thousands and thousands of Eng lit scholars throughout the world. Also, this query concerns the reliability of the source, which is the internal publication of the Shakespeare Fellowship. It's not the reliability of texts published through legitimate sources. A creationist magazine, for example, does not become a reliable source because it has someone on the editorial board who has also published on some aspect of geology or natural history in a mainstream publication. If we allow that argument we open the doors to everything. Paul B (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS states: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. That's why I asked that specific question, and that's why publication on the topic of Shakespeare Authorship in other reliable third-party sources is relevant to the discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying and I hope I have answered your question. I agree that the topic of Shakespeare Authorship in other soruces is relevant to the discussion. It's the overlying theme, after all. Smatprt (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "produced by an established expert". This concerns specifically an article by Barbara Burris, who admits that she is a complete amateur. As I understand she was an early member of the Fellowship. I know of no relevant qualifications that have ever been claimed for her. Smatpmt is trying to misdirect (after the usuaal accusations directed at me) by listing people who are associated with the Fellowship, but whose writings are not being discussed. Even if the editorial board members had published on authorship matters in reliable publications, which I don't think they have, that would not make their journal reliable, since it is a specifically polemical publication with no independent peer review. The specific article (or rather part of it) can be seen online here [54]. Again, if this argument is accepted then any content of any fringe theory journal can be allowed just because a claim can be made that someone on the board published something in the field. Paul B (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If we are specifically talking about the article by Barbara Burris, then no, she is not an established expert. This is one of the times when we have to be very specific. This sort of problem always reminds me of a certain 'cult archaeologist' who claims that HSS has been around for millions of years and that aliens influenced him, yet managed to get published in a couple of at least somewhat respectable archeological magazines (on less controversial topics I hasten to add). Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... The Shakespeare Fellowship's website has been discussed and cited in a positive light by no less that the New York Times. I think there is a good argument for calling its website a peer reviewed journal. If so, the papers that they host or link to are more than just SPS. Yes, some of these papers are written by amatures. However, they are amatures who has been able to get their work published in a peer reviewed journal. This counts for something. We may think the work is full of flaws and that the authors are completely wrong, but I do think we have to consider them at least boarderline RS... certainly reliable for a statement of opinion if not for a statement of fact. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a reliable source. According to this guideline: "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. How reliable a source is depends on context". The context here is that this source has no credibility.

By the way, newspapers, even the best ones, are not a good source for Shakespeare scholarship either. There's no shortage of high-quality Shakespeare scholarship, believe me. qp10qp (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Saying the source has no credibility is misleading. Just because a scholar of note supports a minority viewpoint does not mean they have no credibility. Smatprt (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point. I am not saying that the NYT is a reliable source for Shakespeare scholarship... I mention the NYT mearly to show that the Shakespeare Fellowship's website might be considered an accademic journal. If that is the case, then the papers that the Shakespeare Fellowship publishes shift from being purely SPS, to being papers published by someone "with a reliable publication process". The Shakespeare Fellowship obviously thinks Burris has at least some credibility, or they would not have published her paper. As for context... the context is the debate over the authorship of Shakespeare. Burris's view may well be a minority one, but it is one that has been deemed worthy of publication by a notable society... a society dedicated to the discussion of exactly that issue. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not missing your point, I am saying that it is wrong. And I am saying that a citation in a newspaper is irrelevant. The Shakespeare Fellowship is not a reliable source for Shakespeare studies. It is a POV organisation publishing a POV organ. qp10qp (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Not an RS for Shakespeare studies. A fringe organisation pushing a fringe belief (in the mainstream of Shakespeare scholarship and the public at large). Verbal chat 14:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is the question, isn't it?... but for the sake of argument, let us assume that it is just a POV/Fringe organ... if this is the case, then the NYT article makes it a notable POV/Fringe organ, and as such its POV should be included in the article (per WP:NPOV). We can mention that it's opinion is POV/Fringe if need be... but it should be mentioned. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way... People often mis-use WP:FRINGE to omit any discussion of Fringe theories... but WP:FRINGE specifically says that we should discuss notable Fringe theories: "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." ... in the case of the debates over the authorship of Shakespeare (and especially the possibility that he might have been Edward de Vere) a quick glance at Google Books shows that multiple major publications have at least discussed the possibility, and thus it is notable. This has no bearing on the discussions about the Shakespeare Fellowship or Burris... I raise it only to say that the theory should be discussed. If there is a better source, that can be used instead. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, this is not a discussion of whether the authorship controversy should be mentioned or not. It is a discussion on whether this publication is a reliable source or not. It is a profound mistake to assume that any publication passing a low threshold has a right to be cited in a Wikipedia article. There are thousands and thousands of sources for Shakespeare, including some from which we can reference the authorship issue, and we should use only the best ones. qp10qp (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah... that is a different question (not one for this noticeboard). My point was simply that the Shakespeare Fellowship seems to pass RS (just). But if there are better sources that discuss the various theories on who Shakespeare might have been, obviously we should use those instead. Which is the best source for this is an editorial decision that should be made by consensus at the article. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The question we have apparently been asked is determine whether an article published by the Shakespeare Fellowship is a reliable source "to quote representatives from the Victoria and Albert Museum about a portrait and artist with which they were familiar", not to cite that that Shakespearean authorship has been disputed (which is easy to source from many, many indisputably reliable sources). The V and A representatives are named living people who in an email correspondence with Burris apparently made certain statements.[55] Burris, the reporter of these comments is, all (including the SF website) appear to agree is "an amateur art historian", not a published scholar in the field. She is publishing her work in a newsletter affiliated with an organization dedicated to the promotion of one particular viewpoint of Shakespearian authorship. Despite the listings above, the newsletter does not appear to be peer-reviewed in any real sense of the term given that none of the editorial board listed is an art historian; in fact Burris' article was critiqued later by others, as also noted by the website itself. [56].

So, no, I do not consider this newsletter to be a reliable source for this information or any other information. This particularly the case because it involves quoting living people. I am also concerned about undue weight; if these views of scholars from the V and A are notable and significant, then they will be also be expressed and published in other, better, sources. --Slp1 (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The NYTimes and other major news organizations have been used repeatedly to reference entries about the Cobbe Portrait in the same article. But they can't be used about the Hamersley portrait? Why? Because the wiki article editors are overly biased against anything that involves the Authorship debate. If the Cobbe portrait was purported to be of Oxford, the RS standard would have been changed to suit the whims of these biased editors. This kind of double standard should not be allowed to continue. Blueboar is correct that the NYTimes bolsters the case for both the Shakespeare Fellowship and the Burris article. The Fellowship journal is Peer Reviewed just as the Shakespeare Quarterly is. The Quarterly is biased towards the Stratford View and against any authorship discussion at all. At least the Fellowship is open to all scholarship and allows critiques of its writers and articles. The Quarterly is RS, as are other journals that agree with the mainstream view. The Fellowship journal should be too.Smatprt (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Smatprt, The difference here is that the NYTimes does not talk about the portrait, Burris, the e-mail from folks at the V&A... I only raised it to show that the Shakespeare Fellowship might be a reliable journal. It does not support what Burris says. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the NYTimes article I'm looking at does mention the Burris info (but not the V&A quotes). We must be looking at different articles! Here is the link (see paragraph 5) [[57]].Smatprt (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So use the NYT article for the information it contains; thus it needs to be presented as claim by Burris in a publication by the fellowship, not a fact. --Slp1 (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for cluttering up the lists, but many of the books mentioned in the longer posts have applications to the study of Shakspeare and Shakespearean Authorship, including books related to the theatre (of course). To be more concise, however, we have agreement that Dr. Wright is RS. \As to the other three - Yes, Strittmatter has been published on the subject by independent publishers, so he passes the test (regardless of his motivation). As has Londre. And while Pluto may not have published work on the subject, one can certainly imagine why having a Professor of English on the review Board of a scholarly journal would be helpful, if not necessary! I think this group obviously passes the muster. If they find an author's work worth publishing, that should count here. Blueboar is correct on this.Smatprt (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems to confuse identifying who would be a reliable source in their own right per SPS, with who is qualified to peer-review articles about art history. Peer review means exactly that; you need to have a peer, ie somebody who knows about art history on the review board for the purpose of checking facts and accuracy. None of the people listed have any qualifications in this field; how can they give a peer review in this case? That's why reputable independent journals usually have large editorial boards; so that they have access to the relevant expertise to do the reviewing. And why they send submissions out to other reviewers who have expertise in the area. I note, for example, that the Shakespeare Quarterly has more that 20 people on their board in one capacity or another.[58]--Slp1 (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Slpl, that was an excellent post. Using the NYT article, and presenting the information as a "claim" by Burris, etc., makes complete sense. And your clarification of "peer review" should help everyone involved with this discussion. In this regard, it should be noted that the Shakespeare Fellowship has a Board of Trustees of 9, in addition to its 4-member editorial Board. The Trustees include researchers on various aspects (law, science, literature, etc.) who are called upon when their expertise will be helpful in reviewing submissions to the Fellowship journal or website. Of course, the wide experience of the editorial board certainly covers many aspects of Shakespearean studies, many of which have applications to the Authorship debate, including Shakespeare and religion, Renaissance history, Theatre history, English Lit., Poetry, and Philosophy, to name only a few. As such I think for the purposes of Shakespeare Authorship information, the Fellowship's publication can indeed be considered an academic journal. However, I also agree that there is no Art Historian on the review Board of the Board of trustees. My comment on this would be in line with what Blueboar has already suggested - that the Fellowship believes in Burris' credibility or they wouldn't have published her paper. As such, it should be quotable, but only as a "claim" made in the Fellowship journal, a journal that represents a minority viewpoint. NPOV would seem to require its inclusion just as the Authorship debate was included in the FA on Shakespeare himself. Smatprt (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments and I am glad that you consider my insights/suggestions valuable. However, despite your clarifications above, I cannot still agree that the Fellowship newsletter can be considered a peer-reviewed journal whose contents can be used as a source, except for the views of the SF where appropriate. Peer review also means being reviewed by a broad range of academic peers, not just a subgroup of those who are all proponents of a particular minority theory or view. We don't accept creationist or fringe medical journals as reliable sources, for exactly the same reasons. If the submitters to the newsletter can't get their research published in better journals than the newsletter, then there is likely a reason why. This view appears similar to that held by Paul Barlow, Dlabtot, qp10qp and Dougweller, and Verbal above.

In this particularly case, you also cannot assume or state that the Fellowship believes in her credibility. The SF website itself only states that she "claims" that the clothes come from a different period.[59] and the newsletter itself contains a disclaimer to say that the views of the contributors do not necessarily reflect that of the Fellowship.--Slp1 (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does the NYT article make Burris's claims acceptable in a Wikipedia article? The NYT article is a news article, and news articles often mention writers that might normally not be considered reliable sources here. 'Newsworthy' and 'reliable source' are not the same thing. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends what you mean. The NYT is a reliable source; and the NYT article contains information about the dispute about the portrait, and some of Burris' claims are mentioned as part of this. I would say that this information (only) could be included (though see below for caveats) The NYT mention does not mean that reliability is extended the newsletter (and the information in it) of course.--Slp1 (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So, Slpl - are you saying that as long as a posting states that the information is "claimed... as reported in the Shakespeare Fellowship journal" then the information is usable? If so, then I find that requirement agreeable. I don't think anyone is trying to hide the fact that these are claims, or that they originate under the auspices of the Fellowship. I would still disagree that the material is "Fringe", and will argue that the material is rather "minority viewpoint". Given the breadth of notable individuals who adhere to the minority viewpoint, the subject has surely left the definition of "Fringe". As Jimbo posted "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". Based on the prominent adherents I have already listed, the Authorship debates fits this definition exactly. Can we agree on this?

Also, allow me to clarify what I (and I believe Blueboar) was saying in regards to credibility. I am saying that the Fellowship believes that Burris is credible as a researcher who would not attribute comments to the V&A officials that were fictitious. No one, except Paul Barlow, has made that insinuation. I was not implying that the Fellowship believes that what every writer contributes can be taken as a fact. Does that make sense?

Finally, my only remaining issue would be over the Journal's status as a reliable source. The problem with your comment about getting research in "better" journals, is the sad fact that those journals are strictly mainstream who actively banish worthwhile discussion of anything having to do with the Authorship debate, with many going so far as to state - as a fact - that no such debate exists. This is of course ridiculous on its face, but it is also the sad truth. This kind of problem is acknowledged in various sections of WP policy relating to alternative views and minority viewpoints which continually remind us that minority viewpoints must be reported, as long as they are reported as such. I have no problem with that. Smatprt (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you should use the NYT, only, as a reference; you'll need to negotiate with editors on the page concerned about what can be cited from the NYT, but as far as I can see, they report a claim by Burris that the fashions were more consistent to 1580, when Hamersley would have been only 15. There's nothing in the NYT article to say that the SF subscribes to her view. But you need also to consider that the NYT, as a newspaper, is probably not the greatest source for any of this either, and you may need to debate this with article editors in the know, but you would be on stronger ground to begin with. The newsletter is not, in my view (or many others who have commented) a reliable source. Can't you find a real art historian who has made this point about the portrait in a reliable source. Why haven't they, would you say?

I would say that this is because "reliable sources", as defined here, are strictly mainstream, and as such simply do not print material that challenges the traditional viewpoint. Minority viewpoints are thus only printed in minority publications which rarely, if ever, are considered RS by the mainstream wikipedia editors that control content.Smatprt (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that the authorship debates has prominent adherents or that it is a minority view that needs mentioning; but there is no need for the SF or its publications as reliable sources for this. There are much better, much more clearly reliable, much more notable sources about this available; and these should always be used. As you seem to understand, WP follows the mainstream view, like it or not. No editor here is considered competent enough to judge the merits of these arguments and minor points related to them, so if you want to get the word out, start with the academic conferences and journals and convince academia with your excellent scholarship; even get them to try to refute the claims; when somebody in reliable sources pays attention to the arguments then WP will happily report them too.

Your beliefs about what the Fellowship believes are unfortunately irrelevant. As noted above, the SF's own statements do not appear to corroborate your confidence, since they report her views as "claims". But I am not sure the point of this conversation, since I do not believe either Burris as quoted in the newsletter to be a reliable source, most particularly for any claims about living people.--Slp1 (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand your points and while I may not agree wholeheartedly with everything you say, I truly appreciate the opportunity to discuss them with you in a reasonable manner. For that, I thank you. Smatprt (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the offending section and, based on this discussion and the suggestion made by Slpl, have replaced with material that cites the New York Times article. Here is the dif edit: [[60]]. However I also note that Blueboar still considers the Fellowship cite RS (barely), that SoftLavender and I both agree, and that Dlabtot has stated that the Shakespeare Fellowship newsletter can be used as a source under limited circumstances. Thanks for the input, everyone. Smatprt (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course Soflavender and you agree. That's irrelevant. Your input is utterly predictable, as, of course, is mine. The fact that you choose to "include" such opinions as part of a summary indicates the level of its reliability. What matters is independent opinion. BTW, Barbara Burris makes a number of completely false statements, most amusingly referring to the 1847 mezzotint as a "woodcut". In her article she states that she sent Susan North the "woodcut" of the painting. In other words Susan did not even see the original, or even photograph of it (this is the mezzotint. The clothing is so dark it can barely be seen.). We then get excerpts from letters, but we don't know the real context of what is being said. Content might have been heavily edited. Frankly, the reason to suspect this is the long history of misrepresentation and distortion associated with Oxfordian literature. Smatprt may get indignant about this, but it is hardly news. Susan was involved as a consultant in the 2006 exhibition, and her quoted views (not referring to the Ashbourne do not seem consistent with the Burris article. I have not contacted Susan directly, though my wife knows her, but I think the time has come to do so. Paul B (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

In the summary above listed by Slpl, you Paul were listed, as having the same view as Slpl. So having SoftLavender and myself listed in the opposing summary is perfectly appropriate. And your continued attacks on Oxfordians have no place on this page. Have I gone into misrepresentation and distortion by orthodox scholars? No. Why not try and stay on point? Since I have removed the reference to Susan and the V&A, instead referencing to the NYTimes, and since Slpl has edited my post, I don't see the point in your BTW posting.Smatprt (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out the long history of misrepresentation and distortions in Oxfordian literature (which is still continuing) is hardly an attack.Tom Reedy (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And has no place on this page, no more than the long history of misrepresentations, deceptions, assumptions and circular logic in mainstream Shakespearean literature. I mean, how many "scholars" and "peer-reviewed journals" have made mistakes over something as simple as Shakespeare's birthday? Please. Smatprt (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Such representations and distortions about William Shakespeare are not the accepted scholarly consensus among literary historians, which is the difference, and which really is the heart of the topic in this discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most groups are pretty bad at self policing or acknowledging their own mistakes. But this is all off-topic and these generalizations are not what this notice board is all about. As far as I can tell, we're pretty close to being done here, so I'd like to thank the regular editors of this page for their helpful insights and suggestions. Cheers. Smatprt (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Publication date

I know that WP prefers newer sources to outdated ones, for example a 2003 source is better than a 1920 one. Where's the policy/guideline dealing with that? Squash Racket (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we don't automatically prefer newer sources to older ones... we prefer the most reliable sources on any given topic. In most cases a more modern source will be considered more reliable than an older one (as it will probably have taken into account subsequent scholarship, discoveries, and events, which might have changed the scholastic view of the topic)... but there are exceptions. Modern sources are not always the most reliable. There are some old sources that are still considered the difinitive work on their topic. It really depends on the topic and sources in question. The determination of which sources are best to use in a given article is left to the consensus of editors at the article talk page (as they will know the specifics of both the topic and the related sources far better than those of us who focus on writing policy.) Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Facebook or Twitter?

Can a post on Facebook or Twitter ever be a WP:RS? There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Tea Party protests#Mike Huckabee. The background (at least from my possibly slanted POV) is that on April 29 President Obama commented on the Tea Party protests. On the same day, former Governor Huckabee posted on Facebook and Twitter "Astounded Pres. Obama still doesn't know tea parties were led by moms, dads worried about future...that's serious and no game!" Huckabee's official website links to both, so I assume they aren't fake accounts. JCDenton2052 (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Facebook and Twitter accounts might pass muster as Self-published primary sources for use in an article on the account holder (ie Huckabee's Facebook page might be used as a source on the Mike Huckabee bio article), but not in other articles. If Gov. Huckabee's comment is notable enough for inclusion, a secondary source will have picked up on it and reported it. No need to quote from Facebook or Twitter. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If a publiched news source quoted the Twitter, then the Twitter becomes a primary source and doesn't need to pass SPS. Whether it's useful to our article to quote Twitter is up for debate. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Huckabee's Twitter post was cited by Think Progress, but unfortunately that's not an RS because of Wikipedia's bright-line rule against blogs. JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Senses of Cinema

...is an online journal devoted to film. About the journal: it has an ISSN (ISSN 1443-4059), is financially assisted by Screen Australia and Film Victoria, indexed by Google Scholar and the MLA (Modern Language Association of America) International Bibliography, and is listed in the MLA Directory of Periodicals. It does not seem to claim any academic affiliations or be run by credentialed scholars (its founding editor is an "independent filmmaker"), but does seem to be cited in the literature.

Is this a reliable source? Any comments appreciated. Skomorokh 18:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ajaxian

Is Ajaxian a reliable source for information on software or websites? This came up in an AFD. To me it screams non-RS but I've never been particularly trusting of blogs and other not particularly traditional websources so I'm trying to see if I'm in a minority here. Nil Einne (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an expert SPS. It looks usable for information, but I don't think it counts towards notability in an AFD. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

HipHopDX

www.hiphopdx.com has, for a long time, been used as a reference to source album sales. For a long time, I've deemed this site unreliable as it wouldn't get past GA as a reliable source, let alone pass an FA. I tried search for information of Cheri Media Group (the apparent host of HipHopDX) and I've found nothing, except its website, which provides absolutely nothing. I'd like to get other eyes on HipHopDX to determine whether or not this should be used as a source. — Σxplicit 04:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, they have editors and writers [61], I don't see what the problem is. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Does having writers constitute a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? That's the main probably I see. Also, would this be able to pass an FA? — Σxplicit 18:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Having staff writers and an editorial board is a start. While we have the language about "reputation" in our guideline (and remember RS is only a guideline; the less restrictive WP:V is the policy), for uncontroversial topics writers and an editorial board is unsually enough unless we hear otherwise on reputation. At any rate, HipHopDx has been cited by a number of news outlets, such as NME, the New York Post, the Jamaica Observer, news.com.au, New York Daily News, Sports Gamer, TV.com, AskMen, Hollywood News, and others, which speaks positively of it. [62](Google News Archive search) You do have to be concerned though whether a count of albums sold is encyclopedic information. If we'll have to update those numbers all the time, we probably shouldnt use a running count and instead concentrate on whether an album made Platinum or how many copies were sold in its debut year. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

References on Hauke Harder

Tough one, as most of these are in German. For your convenience, here is the link for Google Translate: [63].

The majority, if not all, of these references, look to me to be not reliable sources, but simple announcements of performances, program notes, or self-published. Where the sources do appear reliable, Hauke Harder is just briefly mentioned.

FYI, most of these sources have been added after I nominated the article for deletion.

Your comments would be appreciated. As a regular poster at RSN, I'll recuse myself from the discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read and analyzed the references. See below. I express no opinion on WP:NOTABILITY (or not) of the subject.

Program notes, 3rd party Promo website, artists group Promo website, self Program notes, 3rd party Promo website, artists group (?) Publisher's catalog listing Concert review, private (?) Promo website, artists group Reference to article on German Wikipedia Program notes, artist website RTF file (did not open due to fear of virus) Authorship of scientific articles in peer-reviewed publications: 1st author (1), co-author (8), sole author (2) Promo website, self Catalog of an exhibition Promo website, self Promo website, art gallery dupe Review of mult-artist festival, private (?) dupe Program notes, multi-artist, private (?) Program notes, multi-artist, 3rd party Program notes, multi-artist, 3rd party

--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yacht Delivery

http://www.charternet.com/greatgear/captains-free.html

file:///C:/eric/profesiona%3b%20mariner.htm

file:///C:/eric/Automatic_Identification_System.htm

file:///C:/eric/bermuda%20maritime.htm