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.

Secondary sources contradicted by primary document

A number of secondary sources assert that the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge described Hitler as "an insane and arrogant prophet' but the official English translation Mit brennender Sorge in English on Vatican.va contains nothing like this. I deleted it (as another editor did previously) but another editor has restored it, citing WP:RS. How should a situation like this be handled?JQ (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the original German text of the encyclica has a corresponding passage (Wer in sakrilegischer Verkennung der zwischen Gott und Geschöpf, zwischen dem Gottmenschen und den Menschenkindern klaffenden Wesensunterschiede irgend einen Sterblichen, und wäre er der Größte aller Zeiten, neben Christus zu stellen wagt, oder gar über Ihn und gegen Ihn, der muß sich sagen lassen, daß er ein Wahnprophet ist, auf den das Schriftwort erschütternde Anwendung findet: „Der im Himmel wohnt, lachet ihrer“). The English translation is rendered as Should any man dare, in sacrilegious disregard of the essential differences between God and His creature, between the God-man and the children of man, to place a mortal, were he the greatest of all times, by the side of, or over, or against, Christ, he would deserve to be called prophet of nothingness, to whom the terrifying words of Scripture would be applicable: "He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them" (Psalms ii. 3). Unfortunately, not even the numbering of paragraphs is consistent - it 20 in the German version, 17 in the English one. "Wahnprophet", translated as "prophet of nothingness", can be more literally translated as "insane prohpet" or "delusional prophet". So the conflict is not really there. In general, I would say that for the interpretation of a lengthy document written in a ritualistic and stilted style, competent secondary sources should trump interpretations of editors. If there are obvious problems, we should, as always, qualify the statements with an "according to" clause. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The primary document does not contradict the secondary sources... but there is a discrepancy in translation. The best, most NPOV way to deal with this is to mention this discrepancy in translation, and discuss who translates it which way. Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

How can you prove that the original text contains that ? I think on wiki en We should consider any source available in english your translation of the passage can be termed as original research --Notedgrant (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You're free to use a dictionary or learn German if you doubt my translation of that one phrase. Try [1] and [2] (and know that German has compound nouns). The encyclica was originally published in German and is available in the original language directly from the Vatican. I would assume that the authors of the reliable sources also worked off the original version. There is more original research in the interpretation of the English translation than in the confirmation of what reliable sources say about the original version. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is just a suggestion, but if the translation is in dispute, you can try asking for confirmation at WP:RD/L. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your translation is correct I used google translator and got the same result

You can use the following link to source your argument [3]

--Notedgrant (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would trust scholars more than Google translator. If several reliable sources are translating it as "an insane and arrogant prophet" I think we can accept their scholarly opinion. If different scholars disagree, then we should mention that disagreement. Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Schulz, that for "interpretation of a lengthy document written in a ritualistic and stilted style, competent secondary sources should trump interpretations of editors" ... or even literal translations of primary documents. Note that the primary document does not even mention Hitler by name, and we need to rely on secondary sources to even say that the extract refers to him. Of course, if reliable secondary sources disagree, we can mention that (keeping WP:WEIGHT in mind). Finally, Google translations (and translations by Schulz :) ) are useful for talk-page discussions, but should not be used in the article itself. Abecedare (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree very much. I'm not offering my translation as the one and only correct one - I just wanted to point out that the perceived conflict between the primary source and the secondary sources is not stringent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Stephan, We do agree! Your translation on this noticeboard was perfectly appropriate and very useful for non-German speakers like me. I know that you were not proposing its inclusion in any article, and I was only trying to make the broader point in case someone else thought that google/wikipedian translations of such texts was considered reliable. I tried to indicate that with the smiley ":)"; sorry, if I was not clear enough. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Also, translations are not static over time. The word as used in German should be translated as it would have been translated at the time it was written, IMHO, which makes Google translations a bit useless. The Vatican translation, which was done at the same time as the wrk was released, is likely the best available translation (not least because the Vatican is known for diplomatic skill in word usage). Collect (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this, everybody. I changed the text to read "It include criticism of "an insane and arrogant prophet" ("Wahnprophet"), taken by some scholars to be a reference to Hitler", with citations to Botenkotter following. My impression is that, while no one has explicitly disagreed with Botenkotter, and some subsequent writers (general church histories rather than specialists) have followed him, the absence of anything like this in other writers and the differences with the Vatican translation suggest that this is a rather tendentious and polemical interpretation. I think the phrasing covers this, and avoids OR.JQ (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification should be made in WP policy

First of all, Stephan's translation of Wahnprophet as "delusional prophet" instead of "insane and arrogant prophet" is an improvement, no question about that. However, I have not researched whether it would be appropriate to use it instead of, or in addition to, the Vatican's translation.
As it happens, I was involved in a dispute about Primary Source vs. Secondary Source only recently at Richard Williamson (bishop). An IP made an edit which initially I reverted as vandalism. The IP editor then edit warred with myself and a number of editors on that point. (Click on the "History" tab of the article). However, I then examined the primary source – the interview with Swedish television conducted in English and available on a variety of websites including youtube – and found that the subject of this WP:BLP article had been misquoted in some of the media articles reporting on the interview.
Next I explained my change of mind on the Talk page and tried to gain consensus for implementing a change in the article to better reflect the evident truth and stay clear of WP:BLP Libel violations.
The discussion, mostly between myself and two editors, went on and on and despite my best efforts seemed to make no headway. They kept quoting policy at me in a robotic manner ("verifiability not truth") and refused to acknowledge that once the misquote had been pointed out to us (by the IP editor on May 9) we were obligated to stop republishing it as fact.
I believe that, as a minimum, changes should be made in the appropriate places in WP's Policy pages to make it clear that Wikipedia does not republish demonstrably false claims about living persons. Editors more conversant in the policy pages of WP than I are hereby requested to make these changes. More generally, I believe the mantra "verifiability before truth" should be modified to accommodate all cases in which the truth – the facts as evidenced by a Primary Source – require no translation or interpretation and are clear as daylight, as in the case of the TV interview with Williamson.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition to WP:GREATWRONGS, there should be a guideline like WP:MINORNONSENSE, stating that assertions from a single WP:RS sources must be attributed to the source if there are WP:RS sources that contradict the statement. For example, if Reliable Source 1 say "A is always B." and Reliable Sources 2, 3 and 4 provide examples that some As are not B, the statement from source 1 should be either left out or be attributed to the source. It should not be necessary to find another reliable source that explicitly says "A is not always B."  Cs32en  15:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC) [I withdraw the second sentence of my comment as it might be misunderstood as referring to the particular discussion that is going on on the talk page of the Richard Williamson (bishop) article. I didn't read the (rather long) discussion there before posting the comment.  Cs32en  17:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)]

Interesting but I do not see the connection to my posting above. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I admit I have not read the discussions at Talk:Richard_Williamson, but it seems to me that in such a case, editors must use common sense and not republish claims they know to be inaccurate, but, due to our no original research policy, neither can they use Wikipedia to 'correct the record'. Dlabtot (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Dlabtot. If you know for certain that the information is inaccurate, do not include it. Verifiability not truth is good and well, but we don't intentionally publish false information about living people just because the sources that disprove it are not considered reliable by our standards. If there's no RS correcting the error, then just don't include the information at all. لennavecia 12:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters and News Hounds

Would either Media Matters or News Hounds ever be considered reliable sources, like in the Gretchen Carlson article? There is a question on this at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Gretchen Carlson.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 20:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I followed Media matters for a very long time and it might not be black or white. Given its function as a news watch organization its mission entails integrally very political work, and they probably criticize the right more than the left (partially true). On the other hand, they seem neither a tabloid, nor aggressively distortionary like some think talks, political organizations. I don't see "Carlson" on the page noted above. I think scholars with higher standards that wikipedia would use them as a source, but not carelessly assuming fact. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few reports by Media Matters for America consist of stating accurately what content can be found in various prominent media outlets. Thus, the work of Media Matters doesn't depend on something like "We heard from a confidential source that Columnist X was threatened with exposure of his adultery if he published this story." It's more like, "Last year, there was a story like this about a Democratic politician, and Columnist X covered it (link), but this year, despite similar reports about a Republican politician (link), Columnist X has been silent." Reports of that type can readily be reviewed by those criticized. If there had been any inaccuracies, they would have been exposed. Media Matters is not ideologically neutral but neither is the Wall Street Journal. JamesMLane t c 21:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In this case they are not reliable. They are fringe sources picking at minor, isolated incidents. John Asfukzenski (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters is a self described "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" so they should not be viewed as being an unbiased source, but it may be appropriate to cite them in statements such as "liberal groups have criticized x, y ,z" or to cite their compilation of other sources such as videos and quotes from other more reliable sources. -- Gudeldar (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

John Asfukzenski cites no basis for his charge that Media Matters picks at "minor, isolated incidents". By this edit he removed all mention of a Media Matters report that was based on review of every transcript of "Fox & Friends" interviews of Bush administration officials. That's an example of the kind of information that's perfectly proper. In fact, it's rather dubious that, in a case like that, the information even needs to be identified in text as coming from a liberal group. I agree with Gudeldar that such identification is generally proper when Media Matter is quoted as giving an opinion, however. JamesMLane t c 22:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Joe Capilano

The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Capilano is not referenced and has not been verified for several years, and I am wondering what the historical implications could be if information like this is never challenged and verified. What are the steps to take, and should this be taken given the information is simply many peoples opinions or stories they have been told. Sovereign Squamish Nation (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It is referenced, it just lacks inline citations. I don't know about verification since I lack access to the sources. Taemyr (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically someone pulled them out of a book and they cannot be verified? Sovereign Squamish Nation (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

They can be verified, but only by finding the book. What statements do you object to? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The 1st objection is that this man is not a Capilano at all. There is no lineage and his family who has seen the photo, denies that this man is a Capilano blood line. In those times, someone from an area would be called, Joe from Capilano country, and the confusion made him "Joe Capilano". The 2nd is that if this man was not of the Capilano blood line, then he was not "a leader of the Sḵwxwú7mesh (Squamish)". Sovereign Squamish Nation (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can only go by what the various reliable sources say. A google book search turns up a bunch of info on him. They seem to say he was a Squamish chief.[4][5][6] You might want to look through some of those sources and see if one explains the discrepancy you're describing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The article says that he was given the title "Kiyapalanexw" when he was about 56 years old, which was anglicized to "Capilano". The article doesn't imply that "Capilano" was the surname of any of his ancestors, and so I don't see the relevance of whether he was or wasn't of the Capilano blood line. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The article implies the surname as being listed as "Joe Capilano", in the format of a firstname surname format. Who gave him the name? Sovereign Squamish Nation (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is vague on that point (it says that "many local white settlers" called him Joe Capilano). I guess we would have to refer to the sources that the article claims to be based on. But I'm not sure why this is of particular concern; as long as the subject did become known as Joe Capilano, that is how he can be referred to in the encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The true Squamish Capilano family claims that there is no Joe Capilano in their lineage or family tree and to list his name on Wikipedia as "Joe Capilano" is to imply a firstname, lastname individual existed within the Capilano family. There is no evidence of anyone giving him the name - during these times names were taken and changed quite frequently by the Canadian Governments Indian assimilation departments, names were also taken by transients who attempted to create a place for themselves by using other family names. If a true identity for this individual cannot be found, and without a reliable source as to who gave him the name, we request this posting to be deleted from the system or at a minimum all references of the Capilano family name be removed. The Province newspaper reported on August 30th 1906 "Capilano Joe visits King Edward VII", this article states the following " He was "Capilano Joe" before he went, after he came back he was Chief Joe Capilano". Actually he was not a "Capilano" at all - not by blood." This is similar to Mike from the city of Seattle calling himself Mike Seattle. Sovereign Squamish Nation (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• If the Capilano family had an objection to Sa7plek (as he was originally known) calling himself "Joe Capilano", they should have taken that up directly with Sa7plek, although he has been dead for 99 years so they may have waited too long. Or if he has any descendants who use the Capilano name, they could complain to those descendants (although they might not get a favorable response, since the descendants could have been using the surname for 100 years or more). But I don't see what that has to do with Wikipedia. If Mike from the city of Seattle chooses to adopt the name "Mike Seattle", and he becomes famous under the name "Mike Seattle", then Wikipedia can have an article titled Mike Seattle about him. That is true even if his original name was "Michael Kowalski" or "Michael Petropoulos" or "Michael Shapiro". We don't require Mike to get permission from anyone else with the surname "Seattle" before he can call himself "Mike Seattle". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the point precisely. He was only famous because he "took" the Capilano name and tried to use it to his advantage to be admitted to see King Edward VII, however he was refused to see him but when he returned he was somehow then a Chief. Historically and traditionally, this does not add up. “Apparently, he received the title of ‘Chief” (via recieving the name Kiyapalanexw (Capilano), in order to facilitate his trip to Ottawa and to London, to meet King Edward VII.” One blogger writes from past information listed in Wikipedia http://qmackie.wordpress.com/ The Capilano name is a sacred name and as tradition goes is only passed along from father to son throughout the Capilano bloodline, it is not given for the convenience of meeting arrangements as done with Sa7plek by unconfirmed sources. The tradition of passing the name down to the son is common among all patriarchal societies. There are people with an interest in distorting this families true history because they have never signed a treaty or amalgamated into any of the Canadian Government's Indian Band corporations. If Sa7plek is was his name, then this page should be changed from “Joe Capilano” to “Sa7plek”, otherwise the name is used in fraud and Wikipedia continues to regurgitate a historically incorrect fact. Sovereign Squamish Nation (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Further to the facts, the article written in The Province newspaper on August 30th 1906 (Vancouver City Archives) "Capilano Joe visits King Edward VII", this article states the following " He was "Capilano Joe" before he went, after he came back he was Chief Joe Capilano". Actually he was not a "Capilano" at all - not by blood." Was in fact written by J.S. Mathews - the City of Vancouver's first archivist and an early historian and chronicler of the city.

You can pontificate about his "blood" as much as you like, but it will make no difference. According to policy we use the most common name, which this appears to be. See WP:NAME. There is nothing stopping you from adding material to the article, but you have so far provided no relevant sources for your repeated dogmatic utterances. Paul B (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Paul B you seem to take this personally. I am simply trying to correct historical inacuracies. If J.S. Mathews is not a "relevant source", considering he was a historian for the area, then what would be? Sovereign Squamish Nation (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Who says it's not a relevant source? That material can be added to the article, but the title should still give his most common name. That's the policy. Paul B (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to change the page name to Capilano Joe, rather than Joe Capilano, as to show he was a man named Joe from the Capilano area. Several references actually use this naming convention for the individual. Please advise as to your thoughts. Sovereign Squamish Nation (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• At this point, it would not be acceptable to me, given that there are more than 10 times as many Google hits for "Joe Capilano" compared to "Capilano Joe." If you can find evidence that the subject is more commonly referred to (say, in books written in recent years) by some other name than "Joe Capilano", I would reconsider. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Question:Can an articles be updated as per the new 2009 Consular Travel Warning For India?

My question is if the US Department Of State modifies or updates the Consular Information Sheet removing an earlier warning can this information be updated in the relevant article?

• In the 2006 Consular Sheet there was a travel warning to Andhra Pradesh in the Consular Sheet indirectly refering to Sathya Sai Baba under the crime section. Link to 2006 Consular Sheet: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consular_Information_Sheet_-_India

It stated as follows "U.S. citizens should be aware that there have been unconfirmed reports of inappropriate sexual behavior by a prominent local religious leader at an ashram (religious retreat) located in Andhra Pradesh. Most of the reports indicate that the subjects of these approaches have been young male devotees, including a number of U.S. citizens.".

• Since July 2007 US State Department removed all indirect references to Sathya Sai Baba from their Official website under the crime section. Please look at the Consular Information Sheet for 2009. http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1139.html#crime the earlier warning statement has been removed.
• We don't know the reasons why it was added in the first place and why it was removed. May be there was a misconception earlier and later after clarification from the Sathya Sai Organisation it was probably removed. The underlying question is the article is still quoting the old travel warning which does not exist anymore. Can this be removed as per the new Consular Information Sheet?. Please advice.

Radiantenergy (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Not looking to deep into this, but if that's a reliable source, then you could just say that one version says X and the other doesn't mention him. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The 2009 Consular Sheet website I mentioned is the official U.S Department of State Website - Which issues Travel Warnings and other travel updates. Its definitely a reliable source. http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1139.html#crime.

• May be the article can say something like 'In 2006 Consular Information Sheet for India there was a travel advisory warning about travelling to Andhra Pradesh indirectly refering to Sathya Sai Baba. Now in 2009 Consular Information Sheet for India published by U.S Department of State this travel warning to Andhra Pradesh and all indirect reference to Sathya Sai Baba has been removed'. This way the article can reflect the correction made in the new Consular Sheet. Will this be good enough? Please advice. Radiantenergy (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In this case I'm not sure if the information should be included at all. Though the 2006 source can be considered reliable, the source labels the reports as 'unconfirmed'. Including unconfirmed reports in the lead of a BLP is probably not a good idea. I would suggest that you first delete the information entirely, explain why on the talk page, and then, if there are objections, take it to the BLP noticeboard. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a tough call. On the one hand, a reference in a US state department official document is not as casual as an unconfirmed report in a tabloid. On the other hand the report is unconfirmed and indirect, doesn't mention Sathya Sai Baba by name, and most importantly concerns a BLP. So I would have to come down on the side of exclusion, but the issue may be swayed if other reliable sources took note of, or expanded upon, the state department warning. Aside: the fact that the the warning does not appear in the 2009 report is not of much consequence; we are not a news site and don't have to report only the current warnings (unless the earlier reports were found to be baseless, of course). Abecedare (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

From the transcript of the BBC documentary Secret Swami:

We contacted the US Embassy in Delhi and they confirmed to us for the first time that they’re directly referring to Sai Baba.[7]

We have a reputable news source referencing official and unofficial statements by the US Government. Consular information sheets are not tabloid journalism. Bhimaji (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that source. It is a reliable secondary source for the US embassy warning, and the fact can be included in the article if it is due (which is best decided through discussion on the article talk page). Be sure to phrase the information carefully so that wikipedia does not make any unsupported claims. Note that the BBC documentary aired in 2004, so it predates the 2006 consular sheet discussed above. Abecedare (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Including the information about the 2009 sheet is OR by Synth/Implication if used even remotely to try to prove that SSB was cleared by the US Government. The information in the 2006 sheet is unconfirmed. The BBC documentary is a reliable source of fact, and should be the sole cited reference. Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Symantec KB Article

Is this a reliable article? [8] 68.218.165.238 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The link didn't work for me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't work for me, and an editor tries to use it as a reference, claiming it was repeatedly moved. The editor never converted the external link to the cite web format when it supposedly did work. Valid as a reference? 68.218.165.238 (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If we can't veiw the link, I would have to say it can't be used to back any claims up as we do not even know what is on that page.--gordonrox24 (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

GateWorld

The reliability of the website GateWorld has come up in several GANs, for the legitimate reason that it was created and is still run by a fan since 1998. My explanation for its reliability have always been accepted so far, but a reviewer at Talk:Stargate SG-1/GA1 would prefer a secondary opinion to be sure.

The facts in support of reliability or at least usability on wikipedia are:

• GW has a special relationship with Stargate distributor Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and occasionally offers exclusive news reports. The last time, GW was the third in a group with TV Guide and Entertainment Weekly, to be given an exclusive on the new cast of Stargate Universe.[9][10][11]
• GW site runner Darren Sumner gave a seven-page interview for the 2005 book Approaching the Possible: The World of Stargate SG-1, in which he said (p. 86) "I am working with MGM on their official sites, I am responsible for reviewing and editing every Stargate comic book for continuity with the TV shows, and now I am serving as the news editor for the official Stargate SG-1 magazine. We do six pages of news at the top of every issue that is 'in association with GateWorld.net' - it's a great priviledge." (I can't verify that, as I've never bought SG comic books or official magazines.)
• GW runs dozens of interviews with the cast and crew a year.[12] It was 16 so far this year, and 45 last year.
• The producers repeatedly named the website in DVD audio commentaries, e.g. "Childhood's End", "It's Good To Be King", ...
• Several DVD features were produced in collaboration with GateWorld (I'd have to look which ones)
• Several actors and producers etc. blogged on GW[13]
• Several actors and producers etc. commented on the forum[14]
• Several actors and producers etc. said they get their news from GateWorld or at least check the site regularly: The last time, main actor Michael Shanks said he did so in an interview this month.[15]
• Secondary facts:
  • GW is the biggest and most popular Stargate online community and newssite.
  • Just the newssite part and the interviews are used for the purpose of wikipedia. That excludes editorials, reviews, fan encyclopedia, the forum, and podcasts, or anything you would expect from a pure fansite.
  • The Stargate franchise has been ignored by TV critics nearly unanimously since it hit the TV screen in 1997[16][17] (that doesn't make GW reliable, but at least it illustrates that GW is hardly replaceable)

The facts counting against reliability are:

• It is technically run by a fan.

– sgeureka ^t•c 20:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

None of the factors you list as being in support of reliability are part of our WP:RS guideline as far as I can tell. Dlabtot (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The basic question is if it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I don't know GateWorld, but it seems that may be the case here. Wether it is or is not run by a fan is irrelevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right that the main consideration, besides independence from the subject matter, is a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The only valid way to determine whether such a reputation exists is by looking to other independent, third-party reliable sources. Do they cite the source? That would be an indication of a reputation for reliability. Do they specifically review the source and report that it has such a reputation? Even better.

I don't see anything like that presented here. Dlabtot (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the points Sgeureka brought up -do- count as showing that this is more than a fansite. The points about fact-checking and accuracy are part of the RS guideline ( remember it is only a guideline; WP:V is the policy ), but we don't typically insist on finding articles that review the reputation of a source except in unusual cases. Remember that we're citing it for cast interviews, and the site has a relationship with the studios. If there was any problem with the accuracy of the interviews, that relationship would not last long. Don't overthink what "reputation" means. Just do a proper cite with publisher, city, etc and that should be fine. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the website is promoted by the subject of the article hardly makes it more reliable. That's what we mean by 'independent' when we talk about independent, published reliable sources - not confirmed as reliable by the subject of the article, but actually independent. And we don't need to overthink what 'reputation' means, rather we just look to the plain meaning of the word. What is the reputation of gateworld.net? Obviously, the answer to that question must be found elsewhere than gateworld.net in order to be verifiable. Dlabtot (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Being promoted by the subject of the article takes it beyond simply being a self-published source. I don't think this source is part of a notability debate which is where independence becomes a must in addition to reliability. Reliable sources may be independent secondary sources, but they can also be primary sources related to the subject of the article, primary sources from official or semi-official sources ( public records data, TV listings, etc ), self-published sources by experts in the subject matter, or tertiary sources such as guidebooks. I believe that being endorsed by the studio is one way to attain reputation. A critical evaluation by an independent source is simply another way. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that the question is: "Is gateworld.net a reliable source?" Clearly, we must look to someplace other than gateworld.net to answer this question. Dlabtot (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There are some sources cited in the Gateworld article that speak well of it. The Province [newspaper in Vancouver] called GateWorld "amazingly detailed", we have GateWorld.net is the winner of the 2007 SyFy Genre Awards for "Best Web Site", and from a Stargate prducer's blog I have always been a supporter of Gateworld and consider it the premiere site for Stargate fans online. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Province article does indeed mention gateworld.net, saying: "There are fan websites like the amazingly-detailed Gateworld"[18]. Does the noting of this 'amazingly-detailed' fan website, establish it as having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Since the author does not mention fact-checking or accuracy, and there is no indication that the author investigated the fact-checking and accuracy of the site, the answer is clearly: NO. Dlabtot (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

How about if one of the most prestigious, peer-reviewed academic journals in the world cites them[19]? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's reliable for Stargate news and interviews, beyond a reasonable doubt in my opinion, which is good enough for this type of information. As always, don't use it for controversial BLP info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Quest, if you subscribe to Nature, you might want to cite that in the Gateworld article cause Nature is pretty compelling. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Dlabtot, I understand that "amazingly detailed" is not the same as a point-by-point assessment of accuracy, but you seem to be asking for something that would never be written about this type of source. Could you imagine a serious fact-finding inquiry into the reporting standards of a journal about Star Trek? Some sources are so specialized it's unlikely anybody would worry about their reputation enough to write a critique. Gateworld is used as a source for cast interviews. The only way a source for interviews would not have a reputation for accuracy would be if the interviews were made up or taken far out of context, which is of course impossible because they have a relationship with the studio. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell you, except that I am a native English speaker, and the two words "detailed" and "accurate" don't have the same meaning, similar meanings, or overlapping meanings. They are just two different words for two entirely different concepts, so a statement that a source is "detailed" is in no way a comment for or against its accuracy. In other words, irrelevant to the question of whether it meets the WP:RS guideline. Dlabtot (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, our reliable source guideline says that articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It doesn't say: articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy unless they are on a specialized topic. If a source doesn't live up to the guideline, it doesn't belong in WP, regardless of the topic. Dlabtot (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. While "detailed" does not always mean accurate, they aren't completely unrelated either. Kind of like accuracy and precision in the physical sciences. Now while that one adjective is not a glowing scorecard of a source's accuracy, I would assume that if the newspaper found the site questionable they would have used a different word to describe it, or left it out entirely. Anyhow that point is moot because somebody found an article about GateWorld in Nature (!) which I'm sure has more than one adjective in it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting an exemption from reputation for specialized topics. But you seem to be arguing that instead of inferring reputation from who's on the editorial board, whether they're endorsed by various organizations, or from how a source is cited in other media (which is explicit in the guideline), you seem to demand that each source must have a critique published about it to be considered RS. The problem with that idea is that sources generally get critiqued only if there is some political or academic controversy, and this would limit us to only about 250 or so approved sources when there's probably 25,000 sources out there that are usable by our guidelines. Requiring a critique would exclude not only sources that discuss pop culture, but also academic journals about the properties of plastics, trade journals about locksmithing, or local newspapers. Many of these are RS, and censoring them would create huge gaps in WP's knowledge, but because they don't deal in controversy they are not often critiqued. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

An additional point is that according to our reliable source guideline, we should use sources that are independent from the subject. Much of the discussion here has highlighted quite the opposite: the degree to which this fan website is not independent, but a conduit for PR from the show. Dlabtot (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Tot, our guideline says in the most general terms Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources, emphasis mine. While "third-party" excludes most primary sources, notice they say "primarily" and not "exclusively". That means that while each article must cite at least some secondary sources, there is no requirement that every source be independent from the subject. By your logic, if the studio itself published the cast interviews that would be completely unacceptable, but that's not what the policies, guidelines, or common practice here say. The studio, or a media outlet affiliated with the studio, is an RS for ordinary cast interviews. If the cast had some sort of dispute with the studio I wouldn't expect such an interview to be candid, but for basic information about who played the different roles the source is more than acceptable. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, no. Sources must be independent from the subject, they must be published, and they must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This fan website clearly fails all of those tests. Dlabtot (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no requirement for all sources in an article to be independent from the subject. It's perfectly acceptable to quote General Motors in an article about General Motors. I don't know where you're getting all this from, but if you're giving people advice on RSN you should know it well. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Requiring all sources to be independant is beyond the scope of this noticeboard, and would never gain consensus anyways. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable to quote General Motors in an article about General Motors. - absolutely. Similarly, it may be acceptable to quote gateworld.net in an article about gateworld.net. That what our WP:SELFPUB policy is about. However, would it be acceptable to quote some GM fan's website in an article about GM? Our policies are clear and weigh in specifically on this point. Dlabtot (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS Statements of Opinion

WP:RS Statements of Opinion allows news organization publishing in a "blog" style format to be considered equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. What about a credible published author who publishes a monograph on his own blog site? Example: Witherington, Ben. "The Lazarus Effect," http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/03/lazarus-effect-part-one.html I suggest this contemporary 21st-century format should be allowed as a blog exception in addition to news organizations.Afaprof01 (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There already is a mechanism to allow self-published blogs by recognized experts, if it's for a field they are an expert in. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is it, please?Afaprof01 (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

see WP:SPSMartinlc (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Afaprof01 (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Gang Land News

Gang Land News run by Jerry Capeci is cited quite a bit on organized crimes sites, as seen here (mostly it's still a source for mug shot photos). While Capeci is cited and could be an authority, I'm a little disturbed about using a pay-per-view site like this. At Joseph Sclafani, a WP:BLP, it's the only source, naming a lot of other living people, even if they are all members of organized crime. More concerning, at Gaspare Mutolo, it's used for this NY Daily News piece but I cannot find its existence in either Google News or via my LexisNexis subscription. Really not good. Most of those articles are a pure mess in my opinion anyways, especially the WP:BLPs, since people seem to assume that because they have been called gangsters, anything goes in terms of language and sourcing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the website must still be used as reference, due to lack of any alternative reliable sources on the Mafia articles. If we discontinue using gangland as a reliable source, then a vast amount of info in a lot of articles will have to be removed. This will invariably depreciate the qualities of these articles and reduce them to stubs. So, here is my solution to the problem. Since Capeci also writes for the NY daily news, replace those gangland links with NY daily news links in the case in which the same articles being found there. The remaining inactive links can simply be converted to offline references.Joyson Noel (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like this is a question about convenience links. Most of these articles appear to have been in the Daily News like you say, or in the New York Sun after a little looking around. For a BLP you want to be doing the newpaper citation. The linksearch shows it's only used in a few articles as a document source; almost all the linksearch results are image description pages for mugshots or talk pages. It looks like there's been some edit-warring, and someone may be pushing an overinterpretation of "links to avoid", which I believe only applies to the "external links" section at the bottom of an article. There's nothing that says all sources must be freely available on the web. Another result of the edit-warring is that in some places the specific Gang Land article links have been replaced with links to their main page, which doesn't help anybody with anything. I'd say use the newspaper citation, use links to the Daily News or Sun websites if available, otherwise link to the Gang Land News articles, paywall or no paywall. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction to mine: A Gang Land article link wasn't replaced by a link to its main page. There was a sentence which had links to both and the article link was ( IMO mistakenly ) removed. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Jerry Capeci is a good source on organized crime, in particular about the New York situation. He has been a crime reporter for the NY Daily News and NY Sun for many years, before he started his own website. Gangland News used to be a free site and only recently has been changed into a pay-per-view site. That is why some of the links that were put there in the past when it was still free, link to the main page now. However, I think once you pay per view it should still link to the original free page. I don't know if all Gangland News articles used to be in the above mentioned newspaper, but Capeci on its own is a very reliable source. I agree that most articles on American gangsters are flawed and unreferenced, but that is not the case with articles about Sicilian Mafiosi, which generally are well referenced. I know, because I have been referencing them. - Mafia Expert (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Gangland News is a gossip site for gangsters. It uses a lot of words like "reputed", "reportedly", "alleged" And "according to anonymous sources" As Joyson Noel states there are no "alternative reliable sources on the Mafia articles" This proves that most of the information on Gangland News is simply not noteworthy nor to be used as a reliable source. Persistent Organic Pollutants

Using words like "reputed", "reportedly", "alleged" and even "according to anonymous sources" do not necessarily make a source uncredible. You claim that since there are no alternative sources on the Mafia articles, most of the information by the site automatically becomes un-notable and unreliable. How does that happen? What possible relation exists between the lack of alternative reliable links to the reliability of content provided by ganglandnews? Moreover, how does the research by a notable recognized expert on the field become insignificant, simply because the website became pay-per-view? Please elaborate. Joyson Noel (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to add that Gangland news is not a gossip site or forum, but a credible news source. In fact, Mafioso's and law enforcement themselves use it for reference and daily updates. In one interesting incident, the New York Daily falsely reported that a Mafia Capo Ralph Galione (who was in jail at that time) had become an informant. Shortly after, his mother phoned Jerry Capeci and informed him that this was false and requested him to state that it was false in his website, since she knew that it was frequently visited by law enforcement and mobsters alike. Joyson Noel (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If a source says that something is alleged to have happened, then they are claiming that something was alleged, not that something happened. So obviously the reporting of allegations has nothing to do with whether a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Dlabtot (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And I think for WP:BLP, we really should require more than a single source that alleges things like serious criminal behavior. Just because they have been convicted for one crime doesn't give us free reign. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That is assuming that such alternative sources exist. Ricky. Plus, it's not compulsory that such things be referenced by two sources, albeit recommended. Please correct me if i am wrong. I agree with Mafia Expert that Capeci on his own itself is a very reliable authority. So, i suggest that the solutions i put forward be implemented. Also, none of these mafioso's are habitual offenders. They are career criminals. So obviously all of them without exception have been convicted of more than one crimes. Joyson Noel (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry i did not get you, Dlabtot. Are you stating that the use of words like "reputed", "reportedly", "alleged" and even "according to anonymous sources" diminishes it's reliability or not? Joyson Noel (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't look at the content of a source and judge reliability based on our opinion of the content. Rather, we look to a source's reputation. Dlabtot (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, all right! Thanks for clarifying that. Joyson Noel (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If there isn't a reliable source, I say take it out. For living people, we need a source that's reliable in accordance with policy. Period. Policy is completely different for living people. The fact that you consider them career criminals doesn't mean we can ignore all our policies and just say what we want. You say they have been convicted of more than one crime but all we have for Joseph Sclafani, again a BLP, is a guilty plea for loansharking and extortion, "reportedly" (great). The rest is unsourced or sourced to a paywalled site which nobody can verify now (which is why we generally don't use those as references): bodyguard work, loansharking elsewhere, contract killing, conspiracy to commit murder, everything. I'm debating whether to stub it and make a note at the BLP noticeboard about these articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You guys are missing the point. The articles we are debating, AFAIK, were all published in either the New York Daily News or the New York Sun. If there's any essays that are unique to Gang Land, then we can restart the debate. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If they're all published elsewhere and just convenience links on the gangland news page, the citation is to the original news article, and linking is with care (better to link to the original source if possible). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably the best solution, taking WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT into account, is to do a news cite to the newspaper, then the word "via", and then a cite to Gang Land News. This would provide the best traceability as far as where the source material came from, as well as allowing two convenience links, to the newspaper as well as GLN, paywall or no paywall. Furthermore the GLN cite could contain a wikilink to our article on Capeci so readers understand why GLN is important. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Journal of Mental Health

I'm trying to find Song, S (2005). "A population based study of CFS experienced in differing patient groups. An effort to replicate Vercoulen et al.'s model of CFS" (pdf). Journal of Mental Health. 14 (3): 277–289. doi:10.1080/09638230500076165. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) on pubmed, but am having no luck. With such an explicit search term, it should be easy. Am I missing something? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the Jorunal is not included in pubmed central and is only available through subscription via Informa. [20] Martinlc (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll put a pointer in at MEDRS to this section and see if anything turns up there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's indexed in EBSCOhost's Academic Search Premier. I have access if you'd like me to shoot you a copy of the article (let me know via Talk or e-mail, please). --ElKevbo (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll ping you, but what I'm most interested in is if it's really reliable, should it be used. What I'd really like is a comment on the journal or article itself saying "this is crap" or "this has been renamed" or "this is revolutionary". It's only been cited twice that I can see, yet it's been used to cite a fairly strong statement on a page linked to the very controversial chronic fatigue syndrome set. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's completely outside of my field so I'm afraid that I can't really help answer those questions. It hasn't been cited by anything else in this particular database but I don't know if that it is at all meaningful as there appear to be many articles in the same boat and without knowing the field intimately it's impossible to make a judgment based on that datum. That the journal is indexed in a few databases - Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, Academic Search Premier, and CINAHL Plus with Full Text - seems to speak favorably for the journal. Academic Search Premier has issues online back to 1992 so it doesn't appear to be a brand new journal although it certainly isn't venerable. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) PubMed is for biomedical journals. A claim about biomedical topics supported by a non-PubMed source is therefore somewhat suspect. The claim in Controversies related to chronic fatigue syndrome #Etiology, diagnosis and treatment is written weirdly, but the cited source is primarily making the claim that CFS can't be explained by psychological mechanisms, and must be biomedical. It is somewhat worrisome that such a claim is in a source that isn't PubMed-indexed, and that raises a red flag. More generally, the containing paragraph is weakly sourced. It cites primary studies, such as the source in question, in an area where there is a plethora of reliable reviews. As per WP:MEDRS, that paragraph should be using those reviews instead. Possible reviews include Griffith & Zarrouf 2008 (PMID 18458765), Afari & Buchwald 2003 (PMID 12562565), Prins et al. 2006 (PMID 16443043), and Cho et al. 2006 (PMID 16612182). The fact that none of these reviews (all easily findable, and many of them freely readable) are used in the article suggests that the article is using weak sources when stronger sources on the same topic are available, which is a worrisome sign. Eubulides (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Publisher is T&F, a respectable but second level academic publisher. The editor in chief and about half the editors come from a single department, often a danger sign, but it's the Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College London, which is rather well known. . However, although indexed by Web of Science, it is not in JCR, and has published an article trying to explain why its important anyway. It is indeed not in Medline, (but it is in Excerpta Medica and PsychInfo). Thus there are some indications that there are problems about it. DGG (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The Long, Long Trail

Hi a question of this online site is it a reliable source ? Chris Baker he author says this about himself - As far as historical things are concerned, I was Chairman of the Western Front Association for two years and a member of the WFA Executive Committee for six; I was also a founder member of the WFA's Heart of England Branch. I am a member of the University of Birmingham Centre for First World War Studies and of the Douglas Haig Fellowship. In December 2007, I proudly graduated with a MA (with Distinction) in British First World War Studies from the University of Birmingham. My dissertation was on the Supreme War Council 1917-1918.

• here is the link [21] --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an idea what possible articles and in what context? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles on World War I, which he seems to have a passion for --Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm thinking the standard would require (1) identification that he's an established expert (not merely his CV but independent third-party confirmation) and (2) his work had been published by reliable third-party publications. Google news doesn't produce anything but there are some cites at Google books and Google scholar. Perhaps focus on those third-party cites first as this at best indicate some reputation for strict factual details, and keep out his opinions if possible? I'm not really sure. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Comics review/news prove notability for said comic?

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kraven's First Hunt
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flashbacks (comics)

In both these AFDs on Spider-Man comics, a user has pulled out reviews and news articles from sites like comicbookresources as to prove the subject's notability. I was wondering if someone well-versed in this area could tell me if these count as reliable sources that alone prove notability. Thanks.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the site, it appears to have a genre-specific focus. I'd call it an RS for comic-book discussions. The issue would remain, however, whether that mention was sufficient coverage, which should be evaluated by looking at the totality of the coverage found. That is, it likely meets WP:V, but WP:N is a separate issue. Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

They're reliable, but you need two of them that cover the topic in significant way to easily pass NOTE. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Huffington Post Again

Could this [22] be a RS for Rick Warren? Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No. I don't see that author as generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely a reliable source with respect to the opinion of Leah McElrath Renna. If there is any argument to the contrary, I'd like to hear it.

Is the opinion of Leah McElrath Renna appropriate for inclusion in the Rick Warren article? That's a different question that is outside the scope of this noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually what I think about adding into Warren's own article is Warren's own words in an interview. See: Talk:Rick_Warren#Civil_Unions. Source: [23]

An editor is claiming that this doesnt reach the treshold of notability. In this context, do this Huffington Post article help? Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Also note that Leah Mcelrath Renna was in Newsweek with respect to Rick Warren. [24] Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It helps, but it's still an editorial decision. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Trying to add a site as a reliable source for music reviews

I keep trying to add Stereo Subversion (http://www.stereosubversion.com) as a reliable source for album reviews, due to the fact that: 1) the site has a staff of writers who are the only people to post content; 2) the site is edited -- all reviews go through editors and are posted BY editors, so nothing gets posted without total approval. But every time I post anything regarding the site, it tends to eventually get deleted, often quite quickly. Can I get a consensus as to whether I've followed the rules? Because it would seem I have, and the quick deletions without explanation have served to confuse, violating the idea of not biting newcomers.

I was told on the WikiChat program to post here. I certainly appreciate responses. (Kroessman (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

Well, they have a 'staff' of 113 editors, none of them with a job description.[25] Google Maps tells me this is where their office is.[26]. Also, I couldn't find any other WP:RS that even mentions this web site. Not reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree... this seems to be little more than a fan site. I does not seem reliable. Blueboar (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary and Fascism

Oxford English Dictionary is a RS, right? A reliable tertiary source and can be used in LEAD's? Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

An editor is Editors are using the OED as a source for stating that Fascism is "right wing" in the lede, despite many cites (a dozen of which he they removed) saying it is not specifically right wing. And he they also removed all cites saying that "keft wing fascism" exists as well. He has They have refused to consider any possibility that the OED is not a proper source here saying "Oxford English Dictionary is not a RS? Dont be ridiculous."

As I understand it, dictionaries are "tertiary sources" and those secondary sources he removed are preferable. Is the OED a "reliable source" for the absolute statement he is using it for? Were all the other twenty sources he has they have removed (all of which were secondary sources) better sources for statements about Fascism? Many thanks! Collect (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make false accusations, I have removed nothing. Feel free to go to edit history. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The OED is a reliable source for definitions of words. It probably doesn't have the nuance needed for an encyclopedic article, so if the other sources were reliable and of high quality, then they should be included in the article as well. Facism is a hard to pin down word and concept, so including multiple views is probably what's best. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: Further discussion can be found here: Talk:Fascism#First_sentence_of_.22Fascism_in_the_political_spectrum.22 and Talk:Fascism#OED Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, talk about RSN stuff goes here. That is why it is here. And I now use plural - though most folks here understand that "editor" may refer to several folks, and I did not assign any particular name to anyone, nor was the issue of singular or plural important to the issue of RS. If I wished to make a statement about a particular editor, I could actually manage to type the name. The issue is not the editor, the issue is whether the OED is RS for the purposes for which it is being used. Thanks for your concern that they would be confused about the issue. Collect (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I am the one who said "Oxford English Dictionary is not a RS? Dont be ridiculous." And I'm the one who added the OED quote. Yet I havent removed anything unlike you claimed. I'm asking you one last time to retract false accusations. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

How can I accuse you of anything when I did not accuse you of anything here? And I carefully use the plural here so saying that I accused you of something makes no sense -- and is graciously irrelevant to the issue of whether the OED is RS for the purposes which are given to it. The issue here is one of RS -- and only that. Collect (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is only one person who is using the OED as a source for stating that Fascism is "right wing" in the lede and who has said "Oxford English Dictionary is not a RS? Dont be ridiculous.". And the accusation is here: "despite many cites (a dozen of which he removed)". Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Might you discuss why you feel the OED is exempt from WP:RS? That is the only issue here. Collect (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It isnt exempt. I was applying WP:RS in my edits. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary is very much a reliable source, and general tertiary sources like dictionaries are appropriate in the lead paragraph. I believe we're trying to give equal billing to too many alternative views in the "political spectrum" section. While there's going to be some that argue that fascism can be on the left or that it doesn't fit a one-dimensional political spectrum at all, for various reasons such as its integration with big business, it is almost always placed on the right. The answer however is not to cite the OED in an already-crowded quote farm, but to move the OED up, perhaps as high as the article lead, and break off some of that quotefarm into a subsection on "alternative views". Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The WP:RS policy does not classify dictionaries as tertiary sources. They are not in fact compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing source. They are secondary sources because they are the results of scholars who research primary sources in order to determine the meanings of words. In fact the Oxford English Dictionary is the most reliable secondary source for the meanings of words in the English language. It is common sense that if one wants to know the meaning of a word that one consults a dictionary. Ironically, the twelve sources presented in the footnotes do not support the interpretation that User:Collect has provided.

Also could we all please assume good faith. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It does not really matter whether we label the OED as Primary, Secondary, Tertiary or Sesqui-Centeniary... what matters is that the OED is Authoritive when it comes to the English language. I can not think of a more reliable source when it comes to defining words. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

While that is true, the placement of fascism in the political spectrum is not an English language issue, and I would assign no dictionary any authority there. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition of fascism in English is an English language issue. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, this has nothing to do with the definition of the word, but rather with the history of human civilization. Secondly, the definition in English is not likely to differ from that in other languages. If it did, I would be greatly concerned. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

So if the definition in English is not likely to differ from that in other languages, then we can use sources which provides definition of english words, such as OED. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You can, but only for definitions. If a dictionary would say something like 'usually found on the extreme right' you cannot use that. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, definitions of word are suitable for LEADs, you dont make sense. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

To explain: dictionaries primarily contain definitions, for which they are authoritive, but may add background material for which they are not. In good dictionaries it is clear which is which, but not all dictionaries are good. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

All right. I hope your not disputing that OED is a good dictionary. The matter at hand is this: adding "The principles and organization of Fascists. Also, loosely, any form of right-wing authoritarianism." into the LEAD of Fascism Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that this is also being discussed in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and at village pump [27] Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have access to the OED; its smaller online version doesn't seem very good. But no matter, that's just my personal impression. I would not present the second part without other sources as its weight and context are completely unclear. The first part is uninformative (and let's hope it's not circular...). Kind regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not find credible the idea that someone could in good faith suggest that the OED is not a reliable source for the definition of words. Dlabtot (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

OED is a reliable source. However, whether some source should be used in the introduction is a matter of consensus. From what I can tell, Wikipedia articles usually don't use OED for defining words. -- Vision Thing -- 18:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually dictionaries can be problematic when they are defining words used by professionals, etc. Take the word 'archaeology' - Chambers 21st Century Dictionary defines it as "the excavation and subsequent study of the physical remains of earlier civilizations!. No archaeologist would accept that as a definition. Ignoring the fact that you can do archaeology without excavating (eg field walking where you walk through a landscape looking for artefacts on the surface), archaeology covers all periods of human existence up to today, ie both before and after 'earlier civilizations'. And that isn't the only dictionary that defines archaeology as only dealing with things that happened 'a long time ago'. There's been a similar argument I believe at Patriarchy. So no, I would not automatically accept the OED as a reliable source for the definition of words, odd as that might seem. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

True... not all dictionaries have the same reputation for reliability as the OED (which, by the way, defines Archaeology as: 1) Ancient history generally; systematic discription or study of antiquities 2)The scientific study of the remains and monuments of the prehistoric period.) Blueboar (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It does? Well, that's wrong, no archaeologist would say 'Ancient history generally' study of antiquities, prehistoric period, etc. Archaeology is the study of material culture - no particular period. That's worse than I expected and I certainly wouldn't accept that in the lead of our Archaeology article, which says it is "the science that studies human cultures through the recovery, documentation, analysis, and interpretation of material remains and environmental data, including architecture, artifacts, features, biofacts, and landscapes". Quite a different definition and much more accurate. So in this case, the OED is just plain wrong and misleading. Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, looking over all the points made:

• OED is generally considered a reliable source on the definitions, usage, and etymology of words. There may be better sources for highly technical vocabulary, and a dictionary can't cover every possible shade of meaning of a word, but it is a good source on how a word is used by most people. Questioning OED as an RS is a red flag that there may instead be some editorial problem with the article.
• OED is a tertiary source. Reference books generally are. Now, as WP is made up of people from many different disciplines, there will be conficting definitions for P/S/T sources, such as is it more important to classify a source by what it is ( reference book ) or to classify it by where it falls in the food chain ( does it summarize primary or secondary sources ). But lots of tertiary sources are based on primary sources; maps are one example.
• We can debate that in some senses OED is a secondary source for etymology, but we are using it here as a tertiary source. One that's summarizing likely thousands of works that use the term "fascism" and what they mean by that.
• Didn't either RS or PSTS at one time list types of books that were normally considered tertiary sources? I could have sworn there was once a list of examples such as "dictionaries, atlases, gazetteers, undergraduate textbooks, and other encyclopedias". As PSTS is ( for some reason ) part of NOR, and there's been a lot of drama on NOR over the past three years, I wouldnt be surprised if that list got lost on the cutting room floor.
• Being a tertiary source does not make it non-RS. We shouldn't base too much of an article on tertiary sources ( IMO, especially other encyclopedias that we are in competion with ), but it is appropriate to quote a dictionary in the lead paragraph if an article needs a birds-eye view of the scope of the topic.
• There's an underlying problem that we're trying to add the OED to what's already a quote farm of different definitions of fascism.
• There is an undue weight problem caused by a misinterpretation of something that says secondary sources are preferred over tertiary. They are, but for research. For weight, I'd give more weight to the tertiary soruces because they are summarizing many, many secondary sources.
• A second underlying problem is that we are giving too much weight to alternative views that fascism does not fall on the right side of the political spectrum. By almost any definition, such as nationalism, it does. There will be some scholars that insist the revolutionary aspects of fascism place it on the left, and there may be different definitions for the political spectrum used in Continental Europe, but some of these should be in a secton titled "alternative views". Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a point can be made for fascism not belonging to any specific place in the political spectrum. It is a type of government, after all (as any Civilization player knows). I had a look in the most trusted Dutch dictionary, and that has no mention of any relation to the political right side (nor to the left side). Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OED is an historical dictionary, and lists both current and obsolete meanings. As dictionaries go, I don't consider it an authority on American colloquial usage, but it certainly is for general use in English-language publishing. If one wants a definition of a term like this, I can;'t imagine what would be a better source for most purposes. Whether to consider it a secondary or tertiary sources is really quibbling. DGG (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

See my comments above about its defintion of archaeology. Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries arrive at definitions by looking at how words are actually used. With all due respect, I will continue to consider the OED more authoritative than you, despite your disagreement with their definition of this particular word. Dlabtot (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

They also list archiac definitions. Determining that a definition currently applies is a WP:SYNTHESIS conclusion based upon decisions made about the original source. For any controversial claims you would need a less ambiguous source. DreamGuy (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And of course the OED is more authoritative than I am. That doesn't mean it can be used as a source for the definition of archaeology. That should come from archaeological textbooks/dictionaries. Dougweller (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with this in this specific case and also as applied to other specialist topics. "Evolution" has a variety of meanings, but out evolution article rightly focuses only on the specialist one. The more broadly focused a source tries to be the less reliable it is for specific fields of knowledge. DreamGuy (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I read in a reliable source (which I might even be able to find if it seems important) that sample surveys of actual English usage corpora find 10-25% of words are either not in standard dictionaries or obviously used in senses not given in them. Peter jackson (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Aspartame controversy#Air Force alert needs verifiable & reliable source

I have concerns about the way a source is being used. The way it is being used is consistent with the way it has been used in internet conspiracy theories regarding the supposed myriad dangers of aspartame, but I believe it grossly misrepresents the nature of the original source. I would appreciate more eyes on the matter. This is a medical and scientific matter, so to some degree WP:MEDRS would apply to any interpretation of the scientific matters discussed in the source. The original source seems to bear evidence of being influenced by the fringe conspiracy theories, while fortunately noting the mainstream POV from governmental and medical sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about this particular source, but I would understand a recommendation of not to use aspartame at high altitudes or (from personal experience) whenever blood circulation is an issue. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is an article about an aspartame controversy, so some of these opinions are going to be important here. People are going to hear stories like this on the internet, and theyre going to come to Wikipedia to see what the whole story is. We should quote the "heads-up" warning, but we should emphasize that this was something from the past, i.e. "the Air Force Safety Center -once- warned about a -potential- problem...". The "once" wording allows us to show that the warning is not current, while not requiring us to source a retraction. The other qualifiers show that this was an informal safety tip instead of an official announcement, and that this was only a potential problem. At any rate, Flying Safety is RS so we shouldnt have people censoring it entirely. The problem was never the article tiself, but the way it was summarized tilted too far to the anti-aspartame camp.

We can add a block quote to the footnote quoting about how the USAF felt there was not sufficient evidence to prohibit the use of aspartame ( quote is on the article talk page ). If the USAF magazine was quoted selectively by those opposed to aspartame, it would be proper for us to quote an opponent, as long as it's WP:V even if non-MEDRS, to point out the differences, as the controversy is notable. Also it looks like Eubilides on the talk page found a MEDRS study on anecdotal reports on aspartame and pilots, so it looks like we may have three sources to quote and explain the matter to our readers. Just quote carefully and stay away from undue weight and you'll do fine. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Elite Forces UK

Can I ask for a review of Elite forces UK used as a reference for The Increment please. I have concerns in the articles at the moment over single sourcing, circular reporting and speculation being reported as authoritative. Other sources used that bear similar concerns are The Ops Room and a report by something called AFI Research, that appears to be a group of private individuals conducting open source investigation. The only contact is a supanet (domestic UK ISP) email address.

The diff where the dubious material starts being inserted is here

ETA - AFI Research appears to be Allan Turnbull, same principles - civilian, no credible experience and open source research.

Thanks

ALR (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have extreme concerns about the sourcing on that article. The Chris Ryan book is a work of fiction, the "Spooks: Behind the Scenes" book is a book about the making of fictional TV show Spooks featuring interviews with the cast and writers. While it is possible, albeit unlikely, it may mention the "Increment" it would not be an authoritative source. These only seem to source the horrendous "Popular Culture" section though, but their presence in a section titled "Sources" at the bottom is misleading. The Daily Telegraph article is not 13 February 2008 but 17 February 2008 (as it is reporting what he said at a very high profile inquest, it's a certainty it was reported as soon as it happened). Some of what was said was half-confirmed a week later by the head of MI6, without using the term "increment" though. The Guardian aticle cited can be seen here and while mentioning the "increment" it does not really source the sentence in the article that it is cited for. As for the site being asked about, it is doing nothing except publishing unattributed rumours and is next to useless as a source. What really needs to be done, short of deletion, is someone needs to track down the actual published sources, such as Tomlinson's book mentioned in the Guardian article or "How to Make War" by James Dunnigan mentioned in the Asia Times article. None of this use of questionable websites or second hand reporting, see what the original sources say. O Fenian (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction - AFI Research is Richard M. Bennett - a journalist with over 40 years' experience. He acts as a consultant to www.secret-bases.co.uk and that is the only reason the "afi-research.htm" page is there on my site. You can use it to get in touch with Richard and his team of international researchers whom I'm sure will explain things to you all.

Alan Turnbull

www.secret-bases.co.uk

Thanks for the confirmation, as far as I'm concerned that doesn't indicate authoritative with respect to the topic. Open Source research on potentially sensitive topics can lead to a number of wild goose chases.

ALR (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected the article to Richard Tomlinson, since his allegations seem the only real source for this topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Software review sites

Hi - I brought to AfD an article about a piece of free software, and the author has produced a list of software review sites as evidence that the subject has received substantial independent coverage. I'm quite prepared to be convinced that it has, but I'm not sure about some of these sites. At least one is a blog without editorial oversight, and I'm assuming that our WP:SPS guidelines rule these out. But what kind of traits should I be looking at when assessing the rest for reliability? Is there a point at which providing download links for the software under review crosses over into promotional territory? I'm not familiar with the area, and would very much appreciate more opinions. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Blurbs from download sites are usually not independant. You'd have to find out more about what an editor review from freedownlaodcent.com means, but it doesn't look like that site is a reliable source. 3D2F.com doesn't have anything that makes it look reliable that I can see at a quick glance, either. For sites that arent automatically reliable, you have to see if the writer is an expert on the subject. Basically, do they write for reliable sources on the same subject as well. For the softpedia one, for instance, you'd have to check if Codrut Nistor is an expert who's a professor or writes for PC mags or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there is anything about a download link disqualifying a review site as promotional. Links to freeware/shareware/evaluation versions are pretty much par for the course. I can't vouch for all those links as RS but the Softpedia one looks good. I believe the Softpedia review could be considered "published" so there won't be a need to invoke SPS and check if the author is a recognized expert. Whether these sources are strong enough to show notability is an editorial decision the people in the AFD will have to reach. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

On ghosts at Fort Mifflin

A section has been readded several times over several months on ghosts at Fort Mifflin. The Fort is a national landmark near Philadelphia. The rational for including the material is that it appears in the sources:

• Wetterning, Joseph http://www.moorestownghostresearch.com/Cases/FortMifflin/FortMifflin.html
• Selletti, SFO, Anthony L., Fort Mifflin : A Paranormal History, A. L. Selletti Press, Chester, PA, 19013, October 2008, ISBN 978-0-615-22847-1, 248-pages

I don't see anything in the website to suggest that it is a reliable source, and it certainly uses a lot of weasel words in making its completely bizarre claims. The book is obviously self-published. Please leave comments here or at Talk:Fort Mifflin.

Smallbones (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Similar material, similar complaints about Clifton Hall, Nottingham which includes the sources http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/devil-worship-Clifton-Hall/article-344872-detail/article.html in which there is nothing in the article about the building (only in the reader comments below), and http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Clifton-Hall-Creepy/article-345680-detail/article.html in which the strongest claim is that

BANK worker Tracey Collins was a pupil at Clifton Hall in the 1970s when it was a girls' grammar school and recalls numerous tales of ghostly goings-on.

"I never saw anything myself but everybody used to talk about it," she said.

See Talk:Clifton Hall, Nottingham for details. Smallbones (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Under WP:FRINGE such claims would need to be Notable and backed by RS.Martinlc (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Clifton Hall. First of all, let's make it clear that the article covers the matter neutrally, and does not make assertions as to the veracity of the claims of hauntings. Secondly, "Clifton Hall: So Creepy". ThisisNottingham.co.uk. 23 September 2008. http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Clifton-Hall-Creepy/article-345680-detail/article.html. Retrieved on 23 September 2008 is used to establish that the hall has a reputation for being haunted at least since it was a school. How does it fail as a reliable source? There is something wrong with "Was there devil worship at Clifton Hall?". ThisisNottingham.co.uk. 23 September 2008. http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/devil-worship-Clifton-Hall/article-344872-detail/article.html. Retrieved on 23 September 2008 as it no longer links to the correct article. The url has not been changed, but for some reason it links to an article on football; unfortunately the wayback machine doesn't have an old version of the page. Despite the sensationalist title of the article, it was in fact used to back up a statement to the effect that there have been no "hauntings" since the Rashids left. Martinlc, I agree with you that fringe theories etc must be scrupulously sourced, and I believe the Clifton Hall article is. Moreover, the case of Clifton Hall is notable as it received national news coverage (eg: the BBC, The Telegraph, The Independent). Nev1 (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And it's pretty clear that a book written by someone named Selletti and published by a press named after the author is sel-published and not a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not automatic. Has the author published elsewhere, too, or are these publications cited in reliable sources? What is the quality of the research? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It may not technically be automatic, but for all practical purposes here it is. DreamGuy (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear - there are some reliable sources on Clifton Hall - the local BBC, Telegraph and Independent. I had left those in, summarized them, and trimmed the rest. I think three good sources on one event is fine, but any part of the article that relies on "I never saw anything myself but everybody used to talk about it," is akin to rumor mongering and has to go. Fort Mifflin was worse, and I like the way it's been trimmed to a couple of lines. Smallbones (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence "A representative of Bridge Gate Security, which is now looking after Clifton Hall, said "we have had guys on several shifts and haven't had any scary feedback from them"" as the source the information was taken from has changed. The only other complaint you've mentioned here that is related to the reliability of sources is whether ThisisNottingham.co.uk is suitable to establish that the hall had a reputation for being haunted prior to 2008. I believe the answer is yes: it's a newspaper article and the editor felt it was worth noting that pupils at the school used to think the hall. It's not a particularly controversial statement as many old houses have a reputation for having some resident spook. Importantly, the statement adds context to the article.

The Fort Mifflin article in its current state is indeed superior to the previous version. Nev1 (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the entry to reflect the fact that the Fort Mifflin official website supports (to some extent) the paranormal angle; a secondary if not reliable source. Martinlc (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

examiner.com = paid blogging, no editorial oversight

Excuse me if this has been discussed previously, but I tried to do a search in the archives and all I got was any variation on the word "examine" (examining, examined, etc.) in previous discussions here, which, as you can well imagine, was extensive.

I've been seeing a few articles lately linking to pages on examiner.com as if they were published stories from the San Francisco Examiner or some other paper in that chain. Editors here should be aware that most of these links that I've found are actually to blog pages by people completely unaffiliated with the paper other than they passed a very brief initial test to set up a blog there. Content in these articles is posted by bloggers with no editorial oversight (they can write about any topic they like as long as there is at least an attempt to tie it to the topic area they were assigned to blog about) and they share in the ad revenue hits to those pages generate. It's similar in concept to Associated Content or Suite101. Based upon its set up and similarities to other prohibited sites it's pretty clear that these blogs fail WP:RS standards quite dramatically. Unfortunately it appears that examiner.com is blurring the lines between actual news articles from the parent media corporation, so I don't know if there's some easy way to differentiate the two. DreamGuy (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't address your concerns but to search the archives for examiner.com, use quotes (i.e. "examiner.com"). I didn't find anything, but I thought this tip might be useful in the future. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that... so it wasn't discussed previously. All the more reason then for people to be aware of this. DreamGuy (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Please posts links, diffs, and other specifics, so that we may actually examine what you are talking about. Dlabtot (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In case it was unclear, I was not asking a question hoping for random users to come clarify for me (though the above search tip is useful), I was using the noticeboard to post a notice about a source that quite dramatically fails our standards for reliability. DreamGuy (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought they were an online newspaper or something. Could you provide links that describe their relationship with their writers? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually personally know one of the local bloggers, who complained to me about other bloggers' work there being full of errors and that it was obvious no editor had ever looked at them, and also saw the kinds of things being posted as sources to Wikipedia, so that's where I got the info. It's pretty obvious if you look into it at all. But for links on the web giving more info to support these conclusions:

• Examiner FAQs from examiner.com, showing that they recruit locals based upon certain topic areas a bit vague on the details and written to promote themselves, but it's clear these are not employees of any newspaper (and if you pop over to a list of them, you'll see a huge mass of them on specific little topics just in a local area)
• "Bloggers wanted for Examiner (Fort Worth metro)" info from Craigslist "writing gigs" post -- note "Pay is up to you and your ability to self-promote your material and increase page views"
• "Writer Admits She Spun Crazy-Ass Nonsense For Examiner.com -- And Didn't Get Caught Until Lawyers' Letters Showed Up" sfweekly.com with examples of just how the process works in practice... no editorial oversight whatsoever, no reliability, and basically spamming links

DreamGuy (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Fascism

An article by Bill White (neo-nazi) about neo-fascism originally published in Pravda Online was included in an anthology of writings about neo-fascism, Fascism: Post-war fascisms (2004) edited by Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman.[28]. Does this make it a reliable secondary source because "A book edited and assembled by historians is a valid secondary source." or should it be considered only as a primary source for neo-fascism? See: Talk:Fascism#OED. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

An odd misstatement of the issue at hand. One editor asserted that the OED is a secondary source and should be used to define Fascism as being "right wing." An earlier sentence, with 12 cites (not just the one being mentioned here) stated that, basically, historians differ on the position of fascism in the political spectrum. The issue now is that one editor says a source whoch quotes Mussolini can not be used because Mussolini was a "primary source" (of all things). The cite here questioned, which actually is an article within a book on fascism edited by noted historians, was written while Bill White was a Communist, of all things. Thus the issue at RSN now. Thanks! Collect (talk)

It is incorrect to state that "Bill White was a Communist" both from the WP article and from reading his article, but in any case is irrelevant to his article's use as a secondary source. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Try NPA. The fact is that Bill white was working for Pravda and was a Communist. "White says that in 1997-8 he became briefly involved with the Revolutionary Communist Party's (RCP) Refuse and Resist and Coalition against Police Brutality, as well as the International Socialist Organization (ISO).[1]" seems rather to say as much. In 2000 he briefly supported Perot, but there is no indication he ever dropped his faith in communism while he was an employee of Pravda Online. SPL does not link him personally to anything "right wing" until after he left PO. So saying he was a communist at the time is supported by SPL. Seems enough for me. And since I read the articles and cites I give, I fear your comments are not precisely helpful in this discussion. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

And please indicate when you emend your post - someone might not realize you added to it after my reply. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not as experienced as you are in this and do not know how this should be done - please post a message on my talk page explaining how to indicate emends (a term with which I am unfamiliar) and I shall do this in future. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to change your position on something, usually people use "strikeout" on the deleted text, and a note clearly identifying the added text. Fixing typos is not generally important unless a "sic patroller" comments. Spelling perfection in a post is rather unimportant. And be sure to sign the change so that people know when it was done. Alternatively, just reply with your new opinion and don't touch the old post. That way, there is no chance of confusion about when the post was made. Hope this helps! And since this is a matter of continuing interest, I posted here. Collect (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

ARAcontent

I came upon several articles by these people recently and have become suspicious that they may be PR in disguise. Take a look at this one, for instance. There were several articles by this group, and they didn't strike me as particularly critical. They also were contradictory to some more routine newspaper publications. Anybody familiar with them? Have they been discussed before? (For more on them, see [29]) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a PR firm, and not really in much disguise. Here's a press release they put on a blog for press releases. Their website http://www.aranetonline.com/ lets clients "Access reports to measure your results". And everything I've seen written by them on a quick glance through maybe 15 articles elsewhere all have a promotional/advertising tone instead of balanced and informative. As press releases of course they wouldn't be reliable sources for much of anything, and I'd be hard pressed to even come up with a hypothetical example of what they could be used as reliable sources for. DreamGuy (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I thought they smelled fishy. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

IBDB

Perhaps this has been brought up before, but the archive search didn't turn up anything: is the Internet Broadway Database a reliable source, particularly for BLP information (DOBs, etc)? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Per this, they appear to collect primary sources, and not accept direct user contributions like IMDB. I'd say they'd be ok for non-controversial BLP data like DOBs unless proven otherwise. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this source reliable for album sales

Does anyone know anything about the reliability of this? Im not sure if the web site complies with WP:RS. — R² 10:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It might be reliable for some things, but I see no reason to think it'd be acceptable for reliable info about album sales. Whereever they get their numbers from would make more sense to use directly as a source instead of through them, because they'd have no inside track on these details except the same way anyone else would look that info up. DreamGuy (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, is anyone else in agreement with this? Any other input? — R² 22:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Claim that an authorised biography can't be used as being authorised, it violates SPS

Over at Talk:Bilderberg Group (the last two sections) an editor is arguing that an authorised biography is self-published (the publisher is Harrap) more or less by defintion. He's twice tagged the article and I and another editor removed the tag (the first time he didn't say what was self-published). Interestingly enough, he's found an article -- see the bottom section on sources -- that I think we might be able to use even though it is self-published to reflect what the author, who more or less founded the Bilderberg Group, said -- any comments on that also? There seems to be an agenda here to make this group seem even more mysterious than it is and to state that it's purpose is unknown. Dougweller (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not SPS in the sense of the policy: it has been prepared and checked by several people and can reasonably be taken as evidence of factual statements. It may not be neutral, but that's another issue.Martinlc (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Confusion seems rampant on that talk page. Even Blueboar is claiming that an autobiography published by a reputable publisher is an 'SPS' [30]. Let's keep this clear. The concept of an SPS refers only to the mechanism of publication, not to any genre of writing. Paul B (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with autobiographies in general is that the author has a vested interest in putting a personalized mark on his or her role in this, that, or the other historical issue. The reader is not necessarily getting an objective assessment of any particular situation. True: Wikipedia guidelines outlined in WP:SPS "only" deal with the editorial mechanism, not the genre. Should it be that way? To be perfectly honest, I'm not so certain: the guidelines -- sooner or later -- need to caution editors on what "reliable" means in terms of "facts" versus "attributed opinion" found in autobiographies. It couldn't hurt to clarify it, at least. But that's for a separate noticeboard in the eventual chance the guidelines are revised. J Readings (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not with the obvious fact that an autobiography is a biassed version of events, it's just that it's not an SPS. We have to avoid confusing wholly separate issues. Paul B (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a big diference between an autobiography (witten by the subject himself) and an authorized biography (written by someone else, but with the approval and cooperation of the subject). The first might be considered an SPS, the second is generally not (the exception being if the subject paid for publication). Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You're not "hearing" what is being said. The first is not an SPS unless it happens to be published by the author. That and only that is what defines an SPS. The difference between an autobiography and an authorised biograpny is an entirely different matter. It goes to reliability, but not to SPS. An authorised biography can just as easily be SPS as an autobiography. Paul B (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither authorized biographies, nor autobiographies are, in general, self-published (although they, of course, can be). I agree that autobiographies should be handled with care especially when dealing with disputed or disputable historical events; however mixing terminology and calling them SPS doesn't help the issue. There is already enough confusion in the area, lets not add to it. Abecedare (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the WP:SPS section does conflait self-publication and self-authorship to some degree. Much of the reasoning behind the limitations we set out at WP:SPS has more to do with self-authorship than self-publication. Both can be problematical, but for differing reasons. Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't see what aspect of WP:SPS deals with "self-authorship" ? Isn't everything self-authored anyway ? As far as I see, SPS deals only with the mode of publication, i.e., whether there was any editorial oversight and/or if any reputed organization has staked at least part of its reputation on the writing being "true".

No one is arguing that autobiographies cannot be problematic, but I don't see how we can (in general) regard them as self-published or apply WP:SPS. In particular, SPS unambiguously forbids use of self-published sources in BLPs. Certainly that is not true for autobiographies! Abecedare (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS does not "unambiguously forbid" the use of self-published sources in BLPs... it says "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons" (italics mine). In other words, you can use a self-published source to support a statement as to what a person says about himself/herself. Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right about the exact wording of SPS; I paraphrased sloppily. Of course, autobiographies can be used even more freely, although with proper attribution and care that needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis. (See this earlier question about using Walter Cronkite's memoir as a source).

But as to the larger point: Blueboar, I have read your opinion on this noticeboard to 100s of queries and I can't recall any prior instance where I have significantly disagreed with your view. That is perhaps the only reason why I am seeking a clear consensus in this case; I don't want "autobiographies can be regarded as self-published sources" to become the new, and incorrect, conventional wisdom on this board; a position that is really indefensible both off or on-wiki. I hope I have made my reasoning clear as to why autobiography ≠ SPS. Do you still disagree with that ? Abecedare (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between authoring a work and publishing a work. An autobiography that is published by the author is self-published. If it's published by a third party of some type, then it's not self-published. Autobiographies are by definition POV however, so care I think needs to be used using them as sources for facts, especially with regard anything other than about the author themselves. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Autobiographies are considered to be different from self-published sources here. See Wikipedia:Blp#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source ". . . subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published."John Z (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note that, in this case, we're dealing with authorized autobiography. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(I don't think we should ever accept unauthorized autobiographies as sources. The authors would have reliability issues.)   Will Beback  talk  09:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... what is unauthorized autobiography? too much acid? Police coercion? NVO (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Eh, authorized, in publishing sense (and with regards to this particular autobiography), would mean that the subject of biography did not wrote it himself, third party did it, while subject has read and gave consent to its contents. To keep the discussion pinpointed (we can work on improvement of policies elsewhere), do you think we should accept autobiographies outside the scope of biographical articles? That is, can this particular book serve as sole reference for the purpose/agenda of Bilderberg Group, if further details are needed, please see article in question. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, best cited as "one of the founders described the group as .... " Martinlc (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

and add what? The fact that his founding statements are not his and they cannot be verified by a single independent source? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It is an RS for what Bernhard is on record as believing to be true (in 1962) about the group's foundation. He may have been mistaken or deliberately incorrect, but we would need an alternative RS to suggest that.Martinlc (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll call it a wrap up. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Vator.tv

Is this a reliable source? Seems like little more than a collection of self-published promotional material. NoCal100 (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not. It looks like Twitter for businesses with added video (talks about getting people to follow you). The front page clearly says "The place for emerging companies to showcase and market themselves, and share their news", so yes, self-published. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Official Wiki.

Hello,

I listed this a while back and didn't get any answers so I am back with it again. I am currently writing an article on a video game. Would the official Wiki be a good reference? The Wiki was written by users, checked over by the game developers, and has been locked so nobody other then staff can edit it. Your input is appreciated!--gordonrox24 (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The control the developers have over it makes it essentially self-published by them, so it would be a WP:PRIMARY source of limited use but not completely forbidden. DreamGuy (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It has a WP:NPOV issue but the developers say it is factually correct. Could it not be used in describing functions/features of the game?--gordonrox24 (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The acceptable uses of primary sources can be found at WP:PRIMARY: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." So descriptions on noncontroversial functions/features would be fine. DreamGuy (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should consider it self published as it was written in it's entirety by users of the game. It is only locked now to keep it's factual accuracy. The only real problem now is deciding which facts are uncontroversial.--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Other people wrote it but it was published and under editorial control of the company itself. That's clearly self-published. If you got tons of people to write about you and then you printed a book with the parts you like, that'd be self-published too. Same thing. DreamGuy (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Press Release

Are press releases from a U.S. State goverment, for example this, considered reliable? Showtime2009 (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't see anything being any more reliable.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, (almost) certainly. I say, "almost" only because sometimes even government communiques have obvious typos, errors etc, which need to be dealt referring to other sources, and using common sense. Can you provide more context about the particular dispute ? Abecedare (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Aren't they primary sources? Peter jackson (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Reliable ones. They should be used cautiously to avoid OR by Synth. Hipocrite (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that primary sources are sources, not for the truth of what they say, only for the fact that they said it. Peter jackson (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This looks like self-published, editor claims it's scholarly

Please see [31] where I reverted two links as not academic sources for an article on a Haplogroup. All I can find about this Rodney Jowett is at [32] and [33] -- I don't think these links belong in any DNA article myself. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be scholarly, but the only way we verify that is having it published in reliable sources. I'm sure you already know and were just asking to get confirmation, but that doesn't apply here because it's just a personal page. I've removed those sources myself. DreamGuy (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Source on Hinduism in the Encyclopædia Britannica article

A self-published critique of the EB's coverage of Hinduism written by an electrical engineer has been used as a reference in this article (see diff). This letter has been referred to by at least one website here but I'm sceptical as to if this satisfied WP:SPS. Opinions? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, here is a link to a Pdf of this source. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hinduism Today Magazine is published by Himalayana Academy, which was set up by Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami to publish his own books and writings. As such, it should primarily be used only to source the views of Subramuniyaswami and his followers. Note also that the Hinduism Today website invites individuals and organizations to "submit Hindu-related news and announcements for distribution by HPI. News is our major thrust--the more current and global, the better. When sending news to HPI, please provide the source and text of the original item ..."

The letter by Amit Raj Dhawan is a self-published source and since there is no indication that he is an expert on the subject, we cannot use it as a source on wikipedia. If and when the issue gains coverage in mainstream press, we can reevaluate if it is worthy of inclusion. Abecedare (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Childrens' Book as Source on L. Ron Hubbard Article

Thomas Streissguth's childrens' book 'Charismatic Cult Leaders' is quoted in the L. Ron Hubbard article as source for the statement '...Hubbard once checked himself into a psychiatric hospital.' I've never seen this data before in any reliable source. 'Charismatic Cult leaders' is published by Oliver Press in their Profiles series, which is for grades 5 and up, the book has no bibliography: http://www.oliverpress.com/pages/pr.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=w5J0SjdaoTEC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=Streissguth%2BL.+Ron+Hubbard&source=bl&ots=i086vQJSeP&sig=6MubUpdcYGOt4KgCpHQ7bFCOEqY&hl=en&ei=6cQkSuTyH430tAP36d2fBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA67,M1

OK to remove this dubious info and source? S. M. Sullivan (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it was a reliable source but the specific info you cite looks like a WP:REDFLAG - a "surprising or apparently important claim not covered by mainstream sources" - since no other biography of Hubbard that I know of makes this claim. On that basis, I'd suggest removing the claim and citation. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

SMS, I think you might have a misconception about books like the Profiles series. Books written for "grades 5 and up" only means the language has been simplified -- it does not mean they are unreliable. Books written in simple English can certainly be reliable when sourced. (That's the entire concept behind Simple English Wikipedia). Your link also shows the book does have a bibliography section on pages 153-156 -- as do all the Oliver Press books (see your first link) -- and the first source listed in Charismatic Cult Leaders is John Atack's book. However, I would prefer to see the original sources cited -- and if claims are not supported by any of those original sourced materials - then they should be removed or altered. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The book seems to be based on two sources: Jon Atack, as you say, and Bare-faced Messiah by Russell Miller. My neighbour happens to own both. Having looked at them, I would say that the book does not accurately represent what its sources say: They agree that Hubbard claimed psychiatric problems (consistent with the placement in the Profile book, but inconsistent with the placement in our article, they date it 1947), but they also agree that the context is simulation in order to extort money from the Veterans Administration. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for digging around and finding those sources. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) Simplified works (biographies written for children) may well not be RS - the concept of RS is that material must be a secondary source -- that is, it must have a source itself, and which validates the claims. Once a book has one "fiction" in it, it ceases to be reliable, and, in this case, since no apparent source cited in the book backs the claim, it must be regarded as unsourced. Collect (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the claim here is unsourced -- because the book has apparently altered the meaning of the original sources listed in its bibliography, as demonstrated by Hans. The point I was making is that one should not assume a book is unreliable only because it is written in simplified English. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The claim that Hubbard sought psychiatric help can be independently verified by a Globe and Mail article, which references the original court evidence where Hubbard's letter surfaced. See John Marshall (26 January 1980). "Cult founder avoids press, most followers but court files shed light on a tangled past". The Globe and Mail. p. 4. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |copyright= ignored (help): "My last physician informed me it might be very helpful if I were to be examined and perhaps treated psychiatrically or even by a psychiatric analyst.". This letter is also referenced by Russell Miller's Bare-Faced Messiah in chapter 8, page 137. In addition, the letter is also referenced by Tom Voltz's Scientology und (k)ein Ende, on page 63. And finally, Stewart Lamont's Religion Inc. says on page 131: In 1947 Hubbard applied for psychiatric treatment himself, a fact which may come as a surprise to those who see him as the scourge of psychiatry. ←Spidern→ 15:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Pastor Russell website

http://Pastor-russell.com is a self-published website operated by User:Pastorrussell, who contributes to articles about Charles Taze Russell (a 19th-20th century religious minister), Bible Students (the religious group he started), and related articles. The editor who operates the site was the first editor to insert links to their site in Wikipedia articles. I recommended to:

• not link directly to its main page - Wikipedia should not be used for self-promotion of an editor's website. Articles should only link directly to hosted primary source materials that are exact (un-annotated) reproductions.
• not to cite it as an authoritative source - As a personal website, particularly one produced by a Wikipedia editor editing articles about the same topic, the site does not meet Wikipedia criteria as a reliable source. Other than reproduced materials from Russell's era, which are available from various sites, new information, interpretation or opinions constitute original research. The site therefore doesn't have any special authority for the purposes of Wikipedia citations.
• not call the website "official" - The site's operator claims the site is official in some informal sense, but with no support of that claim.
• not claim copyright of the hosted materials - The hosted materials are mostly from pre-1930 and the copyright of almost all has expired.

See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Charles Taze Russell --Jeffro77 (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The website is not a self-published source, but is the official website supported by several entities directly connected to this man, including his only surviving relative. Most (but not all) of the links were initially placed by me back in 2004, but when removed were added again by other individuals without my prompting. I'm requesting of other editors to please advise how to confirm the official status of the website. There are some disturbing issues surrounding user Jeffro77's bringing this matter up despite a past consensus among editors, and that none others have considered it a problem after that. Thank you. Pastorrussell (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your website does not contain any sort of "About us" statement that indicates that it is anything but a self-published source (note: self-published, as Wikipedia uses the term, is not limited to individuals. Even the "official websites" of organizations can be self-published). This does not mean that your website can not be used as a source, but it does limit how we can use it. See WP:SPS for the details as to what those limitations are. Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is about its status as a Reliable Source. There is a limit to how far we should take the evidence of a website about itself on trust, since their content may be misleading (or indeed completely fictitious). If the website has been endorsed by other bodies, the existence of references in their publications or on their official websites would be much better evidence than what the site says; similarly, any reference to it in established academic literature would help. Unless such evidence is available, there is a limit to how much weight can be given to it as a source. Finally please WP:AGF assume good faith about other editors.(same time as Blueboar)Martinlc (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that really depends on the exact statement that the site is being used for. There are few sources that are completely reliable or completely unreliable. However, I do agree that the site should not be used for anything controvercial. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a little more information will aid in the discussion. The article in question deals with the life of Charles Taze Russell, an early 20th century pastor, and also documents the schism and results of it which developed after his death. There were two groups which are represented: the Bible Students and the Jehovah's Witnesses. The Jehovah's Witnesses organization has an official website at watchtower.org, which is listed first in the referenced links because they are currently the larger of the two groups. The second is pastor-russell.com which is the official Russell website, but also the primary website representative of the Bible Students, the other group. Bible Students are different from the Jehovah's Witnesses however in that they follow a congregational style of church government, meaning that each congregation makes its own decision on internal matters and there is no central organization or headquarters therefore no possibility for an official "Bible Student's" website. But there is one that is the most widely endorsed by all groups and most congregations of Bible Students, as well as being supported by his only surviving relative and that is pastor-russell.com. (the website, incidentally, is being rebuilt at this moment). This was the first to put online numerous documents relating to the schism, as well as unbiased information about the life, writings, beliefs and activities of Pastor Russell. This was in 1996. Since that time others have either taken the documents, and even entire sections, and placed them on their websites without any citation, but in some cases certain documents which were obtainable by others elsewhere were scanned by them and put on a website. There are no other websites by the Bible Students with such wide overarching support, and therefore none others able to represent the entirety of the Bible Students. It is the closest that one will ever get to the idea of an official website of the Bible Students group due to the form of church government used. I do not know the definition Wikipedia uses for "notable" website. It is the most prominent Bible Student and most prominent Pastor Russell website. The article is about Russell, and there is only one website that represents him, and is supported by the only living relative, which is the website in question. The Jehovah's Witnesses website doesn't even mention him. There are other important matters, but am not sure what else needs to be known. Thanks. Pastorrussell (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If all of this is true, then the site would be an organizational (but still self-published) website, and could be used for statements about what the Bible Students say about themselves (as per WP:SPS). The problem is that there is nothing on your website that indicates that it is the "offical website" of the Bible Students. It does not have an "about us" page... it does not give contact information for Bible Students groups (such as a mailing address or a telephone number) in fact the only contact info is an email address to "webmaster" (whom I presume is you). In other words, it seems to be nothing more than a personal webpage.

As for notability... The core concept for notability is that the subject is discussed by reliable third party sources that are independent of the subject. So if your site is the best we can do for Pastor Russell... perhaps he isn't notable by our standards. Neither your site, nor those of the Jehovah's Witnesses are independant of the subject. Blueboar (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a "links" page which gave all of the contact information, links to other websites, and "about us" details, but it was taken down as the website is being rebuilt. Russell is one of the most significant religious figures of the 20th century. The Jehovah's Witnesses are the largest religious group who are loosely connected to him, but their website does not even mention his name. Pastorrussell (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Totally invalid as a source. Have not evaluated as an external link. Hipocrite (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Russell is absolutely notable as founder of a significant sect. Collect (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect, the discussion is about the site run by User:Pastorrussell, not about the notability of Charles Taze Russell.

As long as there is

• 1) no "about" page which establishes the site's connection to a notable, reputable organization
• 2) no evidence that the site has been referenced by reliable sources then we should not use the site as a source in my opinion. Offliner (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I referred to an earlier statement "So if your site is the best we can do for Pastor Russell... perhaps he isn't notable by our standards." which appeared to raise an issue about Russell's notability. Collect (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please define "reliable sources". The official website is referenced in the new book Introducing American Religions by Charles Lippy, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Tennessee in Chattanooga. It is quite possible it is referenced in other works as well. Over the past eight years with the site under its current name (pastor-russell.com) we have been contacted by numerous individuals of note, including researchers, authors, professors, students, book publishers, a couple of journalists, one group doing a documentary on Jehovah's Witnesses, and two Hollywood celebrities (Nimoy and Asner). So, I do not know of every place it could potentially be listed. But Professor Lippy's book is one that I know for certain. Pastorrussell (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If the professor thinks the site is reliable enough to be referenced in the book (this should be verified), then I think we can use it as a source. At least in a limited fashion. Offliner (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment via WP:COIN, where I suggested bringing the question here: Offliner sums up the problems.

1) If you look at official websites - for instance, Church of Scotland, Dalai Lama, Arthur Conan Doyle - you generally see an assertion of exactly who is asserting, and on what grounds, the site is "official". Pastor-russell.com has no such attribution.

2) The reliable sources problem. I've previously explained to Pastorrussell the central criterion of WP:RS: "reliable, third-party, published sources". For the secondary material at Pastor-russell.com, there's no attribution of authorship, no indication of editorial process, and as an affiliated source, it sure isn't third-party.

this should be verified

Certainly - and being mentioned in a book doesn't automatically mean it's a reliable source beyond (say) reliability about what the site maintainers believe. Reliability on historical/biographical matters is a bigger picture, of which "official" sources are only a part. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The "about us" page along with its links was taken down a couple of months ago because the site is being redsigned/rebuilt. It is a simple matter to put it back up. In looking at references to Lippy on Wikipedia his other works are cited/referenced in numerous articles. He would certainly be a reliable third-party source. If the website is not considered reliable upon the grounds listed then neither would several of the other referenced links in the said article. The consensus reached was that the word "official" be removed from the citation on Wikipedia and only be listed as "a pastor russell website". The article is about Pastor Russell, not Bible Students or Jehovah's Witnesses. The Jehovah's Witnesses don't even mention him on their website. The Pastor Russell website in question was the first one online in 1996, is supported by the only remaining relative, and is referenced in third-party sources. This isn't about self-promotion. It's a matter of neutrality, fairness, and proper representation. If the link is removed there are no other links that have anything to do with Pastor Russell at all and if any others were put there the same issue would come up. How would that be consistent with the fact the article is about him? Pastorrussell (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Outdent

I think where we are is (to restate Jeffro77's recommendations)

• not link directly to its main page - an EL seems appropriate
• not to cite it as an authoritative source - until the secondary material (ie the web pages text) is given some form of authorship (name, date, references) and has been cited in RS (the Lippy ref may help with the second part, but the first is still needed), and the website porvides some infromation about its editorial processes
• not call the website "official" - until the website contains a page explaining its rationale for claiming to be official (and possibly not even then - still open)
• not claim copyright of the hosted materials - this isn't directly relevant; all material said to be primary should have a clear statement of provenance, authorship, and rights status.Martinlc (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Is a resource still acceptable if it contains sentences taken verbatim from WP itself?

For details, see Talk:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and Talk:Międzymorze. The source is here [34]; it lists its publication date as 2008, but an editor has identified several sentences as first appearing in WP during 2005. Its publishers look reliable otherwise. Novickas (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If they are using poached wikipedia content they have a demonstrably poor editorial policy - they are engaging in (pick a few) Plagurism, Copyright Violation and just plain Using Bad Sources. What unique information comes from this source that can't be found elsewhere? Hipocrite (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with the poor editorial policy comment, such sources are not engaged in copyright violation (Wikipedia releases it's content under GFDL). We do caution against using sources that cite to Wikipedia (see: WP:CIRCULAR). If the pdf in question lists citations, then I would advise reading those and citing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's only true if they attribute If they violate the GFDL license, they violate the copyright of our contributors. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Since I felt the reference, having copied from WP, was questionable, I reverted a bot's restoration of ref info; that edit was reverted with the edit summary "you are damaging a reference, please be careful" [35]. That's why I brought it up here. Novickas (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that a source takes something from WP doesn't mean it doesn't have a proper fact-checking procedure. After all, some statements on WP are factually correct. Peter jackson (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It is also possible that the wikipedia entry was written by the author of the paper after submitting it for publication but prrior to its appearnace in print. There is no reason to doubt that the source is an RS as academically edited and published by an established institution, even if if were shown that some parts of the content were not very well researched.Martinlc (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Eurovision articles

The (to me) readily apparent blog sites {http://www.esctoday.com/} and {http://www.oikotimes.com/} are used extensively as sources for Norway in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 and Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008, and for that reason I quick failed them at WP:GAN. This has been challenged. Comments welcome. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the false classification as blogs. I ask others to weigh in on whether they are reliable sources or not. Both have editorial boards, multiple authors/employees, field reporters, time stamps, etc; they are full service news organizations, not someone writing about his favorite song contest. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

From oikitimes.com[36]: Are you fanatical about the Eurovision Song Contest? Do you enjoy following the news from the World of Eurovision all throughout the year? Would you like to join a team dedicated to the Eurovision all year round?

If yes, then you could be just who we’re looking for. We are looking for enthusiastic volunteers to help oikotimes.com continue to be one of the leading sources of Eurovision news. We are one of the only websites that keeps visitors updated about Eurovision stats past and present throughout the whole of the year, and can offer a unique opportunity to highly-motivated fans to be more closely involved with the contest on one of the World’s biggest Eurovision news websites.

If you’re interested in working with us please don’t hesitate in completing a form by clicking the link above. Good English is required, and other languages are an advantage- but don’t be afraid to get in contact with us even if you’re not very confident with your language. Unfortunately we cannot pay any of our volunteers, however we can help with accreditations for events.

So if you think you can help us with national finals, general news, events for past Eurovision stars, the Dance Contest, or multimedia and graphics, we’d love to hear from you!

Also from about us on that site[37]: We are not a fan club, we are not trying to be the best in the web. We are some friends from Greece and around the world who want to have a webpage (without any restrictions among us) which will include news, rumours and many collaboration projects with other major or not websites.

I can't find any editorial policy or information about esctoday apart from exhorations to join and donate. No editorial policy statement, no listing of editorial team or indication of their notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

[38] for ESCToday and [39] (to a lesser extent) for Oikotimes. I think it's worthy of mention that both of these sites have a great reputation and involvement in the contest. Not only do they report the news (Oikotimes has a section for rumors separate from the news), but they routinely take part in high level communication with the national broadcasters, with both even sharing a seat on the nine member jury to choose the Greek entry in the 2006 Contest for example [40]. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)