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.

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

Is this appropriate given the user's own introduction of the site to Wikipedia to promote their own site, while also having removed reference to other Bible Students sites denouncing them as 'personal webistes'? See also WP:COIN#BibleStudents.net.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

Jeffro... your last comment is something new to the equation... can you give us a dif. where Pastorrussell has removed rival Bible Student website? Blueboar (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The claim made by Jeffro77 is blatently false. He is making an assumption based upon something he sees, and even after having discussed it with him he continues to kick the dead horse. The link removed was not a rival website, it was removed because it was placed for self-promotion. The website in question was listed entirely for self-promotion purposes. There are other important matters involved but which are not necessary to address here. I broke no Wikipedia rule to remove a link placed by someone who was seeking self-promotion. On those occasions when the link was replaced with another of similar name that also does not violate Wikipedia standards or practices as I have nothing whatever to do with the link placed, and goes to prove that I had no intention of removing a "competing" website. How relevant to this conversation is it to mention that both here and by email Jeffro has continued to abuse and libel me? Such things can cloud one's train of thought and motives. We should always assume good motives, but this is getting out of had. His claims are false, and each of the points raised can be documented as fulfilled by me according to Wikipedia standards pure and simple. No other active editor of the Russell article has supported his perspectives. Jeffro77 is evidently not going to be happy until every link to the official website is removed. Hopefully the other editors reviewing this talk can note this and other matters. Thank you kindly for your time. Pastorrussell (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

PastorRussell here claims that he removed reference to the 'rival' site (I did not use the word 'rival') because it had been placed for self-promotion (though no evidence that it was self-promoted has been presented), however if that were the reason, neither should Pastorrussell have replaced the link with a link to his own site. Where the link was replaced with a link other than PastorRussell's site, those articles also had a link added to Pastorrussell's own site, either in the same edit, or in a prior edit by Pastorrussell. It seems that Pastorrussell's specific dislike of biblestudents.net may be because it hosts out-of-copyright materials that are also hosted on his own personal site.[1][2]

I have made no libelous statements about Pastorrussell. If Pastorrussell believes I have made any untrue statements, he is free to present them. I have never e-mailed Pastorrussell at all, regarding this or any other subject.

There has been no verification of Pastorrussell's site as official.

See the section below for the instances where Pastorrussell removed references to biblestudents.net.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is still unresolved, along with elements of the section now at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_33#Charles_Taze_Russell. Of particular concern is Pastorrussell's entirely false claim that I have 'abused' him, and that I have done so by e-mail, which seems to be a claim of attack to deflect from the actual issues raised.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue here as presented on this talk page is merely about listing the website in the external links and in following the "reliable sources" maxim. It is a notable and popular site. It is referenced in reliable third-party sources. Although it is the official website that word is not included in the external link. When in the past the link had been removed it was replaced more than once by other users who have no association with myself. It is the most notable website that actually deals with the person the article is about, whereas at least one of the external links not in question is not. The user Martinlc summed the situation up perfectly. It is an appropriate external link for the reasons given which is all that Wikipedia standards require. Anything else, including personal problems between editors, is entirely irrelevant in this context. Pastorrussell (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The creator of the site saying the site is "notable and popular" is hardly an appropriate basis. I have seen no evidence that creators of other sites in the relevant articles introduced their own website to those articles, and if I learn such to be the case, I will also raise those issues as well. Gordonofcartoon indicated above that the third-party reference to your site does not confirm your site as either official or reliable. My earlier suggestion was that links to the site be removed, and if other users find the site notable they can add reference to the site (excluding original research), without suggestion or coercion by Pastorrussell, and it is unclear why Pastorrussell should have any objection to that course of action, when considering Wikipedia's standards regarding Conflict of Interest. I note that Pastorrussell has now backed away from the previous entirely false claim that I have 'abused' or otherwise contacted him by e-mail. Response from Blueboar (and possibly other editors) is still pending. Elements in the related Conflict of Interest discussion (which has since been archived but is still not completely resolved) are also relevant here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest because I have nothing to do with the links as they currently appear, and have not contacted or influenced anyone who returned the external link. I am not personally backing away from the true claim of libel which will be dealt with personally and outside of Wikipedia, but it is not entirely relevant to the most important current issues, which again are regarding the site being (1) notable, (2) referenced in more than one independent third-party source, and (3) directly related to the individual on whom the article is based. The concern here, and source of my "objection", is that the editor who raised this is twisting every possible argument to remove the link despite the fact Wikipedia standards have been fully satisfied. I don't claim to be perfect in some of the things I've said in the past, but the relevant issues here are regarding notability, third-party referencing, etc... and those have been followed according to Wikipedia rules and that is all that matters here. Pastorrussell (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As 1) there has been no instance of libel at all and 2) I have no knowledge of, or affiliation with, you outside of Wikipedia, I find it laughable that you imagine it "will be dealt with personally and outside of Wikipedia", and can only conclude you imagine this might convince other editors of your veracity. You have also misrepresented my motives here (again), as I have not suggested that your site be eternally banned from Wikipedia, but that you should not have been the person to originally promote it, and that other editors should be given the choice to link to it if it is indeed the notable resource you assert it to be. You are still yet to provide evidence that 1) your site is official, 2) it is considered notable by third-party sources 3) other editors consider it notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

BibleStudents.net

(Copied from WP:COIN#BibleStudents.net per Blueboar's request.) At various times, User:Pastorrussell has selectively removed references to the website, http://www.biblestudents.net. Sometimes the links are deleted[3] [4][5], sometimes they are changed to http://www.biblestudents.com or http://www.biblestudents.org (websites unrelated to BibleStudents.net)[6][7][8][9] , or to pages hosted at pastor-russell.com[10][11][12][13][14]. This concern was raised in 2005 and 2006 but the behaviour continued as recently as August 2008.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Forum International

An editor has objected to the use of Russian sources at the LaRouche articles, in particular the publication "FORUM International"[15]] which is a disputed source at Helga Zepp-LaRouche. It has been suggested that the source is unreliable because it is sponsored by a government agency. My view is that under WP:RS, news media that are government-sponsored are not singled out as being less reliable than privately owned media (which may have reliability problems of their own,) and that no particular nation or language group has a monopoly on reliability. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

My view is as follows: there should be no systematic view that government-sponsored or state-owned news media are either unreliable or less reliable than private media. For instance, the BBC is government owned but is a reliable source. The state owned newsmedia of some countries; however, are less reliable and I suspect that is what the other editor is suspicious of, given this is a Russian government-owned publication. Perhaps a helpful tool could be the Press Freedom Index. Government owned media in countries w.o free media might be subject to greater scrutiny on controversial topics. As an example, one would not use a North Korean government newspaper as a RS -- accept as a source stating the NK government's views. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between something being less reliable than another soruce and it being unreliable. I would agree that government owned and controled media will generally be less reliable than completely free and independent media, but that does not make them unreliable as a class. Now, some specific government run and controled media may actually be so censored and propaganda filled that they do cross the line into "unreliable"... that needs to be determined on a case by case basis. What I am trying to say is that we can not call Forum International unreliable simply because it is Russian government sponsored. We might call it unreliable if it has a poor reputation for accuracy and fact checking. To determine whether it is reliable or not, we have to look at what other sources say about it. So... What do other sources say about Forum International? Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't find an assessment of the magazine using English search engines -- a Russian speaker would have better luck. However, I found the following sites which describe SOPS, the agency which sponsored the issue in question: [16][17]. --Coleacanth (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The organisation seems reputable -- looks like some affiliated individuals have given papers at Harvard etc. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What information do we have this publication is a reliable source? Also, should we make our own summary of the subject's speech, using the publication as a primary source? Aside from the speech itself, the only text in the publication about the subject is some minimal context for the address, (appreantly delivered six years prior to a committee of the Duma).   Will Beback  talk  18:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

He just said why he thinks it is reliable... affiliated individuals have given papers at Harvard. This certainly is a valid indication of reliability. It shows that those involved are respected in their field of study. In the absence of anything else, I think this is enough to nudge it onto the "reliable" side of the equation. Blueboar (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's any indication of reliability of a magazine. "People associated with the sponsor of the magazine have given papers at Harvard?" That does nothing to establish the reliability of the source. I don't see anything about that in WP:V or WP:RS.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that "Forum International" is being used to document only two assertions: first, that Helga Zepp-LaRouche addressed the Russian State Duma hearings in 2001, and second, that a transcript of her speech was published in 2007 in "Forum International." Neither claim is what we would call "exceptional." However, Will Beback has another interest here, which is that he seeks to have the bio of Zepp-LaRouche merged or deleted on grounds of non-notability, and a reference to her in "Forum International" is an obstacle to this claim of non-notability. --Leatherstocking (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

We're here to discuss whether or not "Forum International" is a relaible source. So far I haven't seen anything that establishes it as one. The burden of proof is on the editor wishing to use it. (PS: I've changed the name of the section - we're only discussing one magazine, not all Russian sources. )  Will Beback  talk  20:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A) is Forum International a reliable source for a statement that Helga Zepp-LaRoushe addressed the Duma. I would say it probably is. At least I would need a very compelling reason not to treat it as such. B) is Forum International a reliable source for the fact that something was published in Forum International. The answer to this one is, without hesitation, Yes. Absolutely. Any source is reliable for a statement as to what it contains. Blueboar (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your point B. If I printed a magazine at home, and it contained the text of a purported speech, would it be considered a reliable source for the text on the basis that a source is reliable for its own contents? If so then every piece of paper is a reliable source. Regarding point A, the reliablility of a source has to be established, it isn't the default assumption. I again ask how this is considered a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  21:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

On point B... In this context, yes. For a limited statement to the effect: "The speech was published in Will Beback's magazine" then your magazine would actually be the most reliable source... for that clearly verifies the statement. This is like quoting... it is always better to cite the original (even if in other contexts it would not be reliable) than to rely on a pass-through.

On point A, no... the default assumption (as per WP:Assume good faith is that media sources are reliable. We challenge them as being unreliable when we have reasonable cause.

Re: B. For us to write in an article, "the speech was printed in 'Beback magazine'", then that source should be somehow notable or significant. We would not, for example, write that "the speech was reprinted on an anonymous blog", because no one cares what is written on anonymous blogs. Furher, the proposed material doens't simply metnion the existence of the speech - it summarizes it based on that magazine as a source. So I don't see how point B gets us anywhere.

Re: A. WP:AGF applies to editors, not to sources. (Someone should remind user:Leatherstocking). We do not assume that sources are reliable. The burden of establishing a sources' reliability is on the editor wishing to use it.

Another editor has summed up the situation in response to another inquiry on this page:

• To be a reliable source the source should be proven to be regarded as reliable by a wider community, this can be demonstrated by it being cited by other reliable sources, by clear statements of editorial policy, by contributors being regarded as being reliable and authoritative by other sources. Statements published by such sources should be verifiable. The burden of proof is upon the editor adding information. The site does not seem to be a reliable source, it is not cited by other news sources, for instance. The statements which you make above about the source are not verified. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I that that applies here too.   Will Beback  talk  21:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that SOPS, a prestigious academic research organization, selected Forum International as a venue for publishing transcripts of its symposium in both Russian and English is a testament to its reliability. It makes the magazine, in effect, an academic source, which according to the policy page WP:RS is the preferred kind of source for Wikipedia. --Coleacanth (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Scholarly publications are considered highly reliable due to the peer review process. There's no evidence that there has been any peer review with this publication. The evidence provided makes it appear to be more like a self-published publication, or a programme, rather than a reliable, 3rd-party source. Also, from what I can tell SOPS is a government agency, not an academic institution.   Will Beback  talk  23:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Many academic institutions are government-sponsored, including in the U.S., where there are big state-sponsored universities in every state. SOPS is described as "the oldest state research institution (institute) performing studies in the field of regional economy and policy, territorial socio-economic development of Russia and subjects of the Federation, comprehensive problems of productive resources deployment, economic integration of Russia and its regions with CIS countries and Baltic states." --Coleacanth (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything in there about it being an academic institution. Regardless, the discussion here is primarily about Forum International.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

In the past, you have taken a very liberal, inclusionist stance on sources that others considered borderline, such as a self-published site [18] and a blog at a college paper [19]. Could you explain specifically what it is about "Forum International" that you find so objectionable? --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We're discussing Forum International. If you want to use it as a source then it is your job to show that it meets the standards.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that what has been presented by Bigdaddy1981, Blueboar and Coleacanth is quite sufficient. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What presentations are those? It appears that the most compelling argument is that someone associated with the sponsoring agency has delivered a paper at Harvard University. That says nothing about the reliability of the magainze. I still don't see any actual information about this magazine or how it would qualify as a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  03:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we can satisfy everyone's concerns if we get the help of a Russian speaker. I know that Wikipedia has some sort of translators' group, but I quickly became confused in trying to find the right page. If we could contact a Russian speaker and have him search the Russian-language web, we could resolve this. --Coleacanth (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't speak Russian, but it appears that Forum International is the programme of something called the International Investment Forum, which seems to have met for the past few years in Sochi, a resort town on the Black Sea in Krasnodar Krai, Kuban region. The conference is often billed as "Kuban 2006" or "Sochi 2008" so try Googling "International Investment Forum" Sochi OR Krasnodar OR Krasnodarsk OR Kuban for more info. There are a number of hits in news archive, and the conference appears important. Here's an article from Moscow News. [20] This particular meeting was about the possibility of a rail link under the Bering Strait and what it would mean for eastern Siberia. The programme seems to be reliable on who was at the conference and what their proposals were. But it would be a primary source, so a citation should just stick to the facts and nothing extraordinary. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the source is not being used for "who was at the conference and what their proposals were". It is being used as a source for a speech delivered years earlier at an apparently unrelated hearing held by a committee of the Duma.   Will Beback  talk  01:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

We have another primary source for the text of the speech. "Forum International" is being used only to confirm that the speech was delivered to the Duma. It also establishes that the speech was considered notable enough for inclusion in what is evidently the program for the Sochi/Kuban/SOPS/International Investment Forum conference, which dealt with infrastructure planning, the topic of Mrs. LaRouche's speech. The claims to be sourced to Forum International are not exceptional, the source is adequate, I suggest we close the discussion. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't presened any evidence that the source is reliable.   Will Beback  talk  20:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Will, I'd suggest that you re-read this thread from the beginning. Every other participant has indicated that from what we know about FI's institutional affiliations, it is permissible to use it as a source for the limited purposes that it was used for in the article. Are you just conducting a filibuster? Also, given the positions you have taken in the past on sources that were more congenial to your POV, I think you ought to re-read WP:SAUCE. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand the the assertion of reliability. You are saying that the magazine was sponsored by a state agency for a single issue and so it is a reliable source for something unrelated to that agency? Is that correct?   Will Beback  talk  20:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, then what is the basis for your claim that the source is reliable?   Will Beback  talk  16:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I won't speak for Leatherstocking... but this google scholar search gives me more than a hint that it is reliable. Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps or not, but a Google Scholar search on "prisonplanet.com", an insane conspiracy Web site, reveals 84 citations[21] versus 6,370 for "Forum International". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those searches, but it appears that "forum international" is such a generic term that it appears in the titles of many organizations or journals. I see "Tourism Forum International", a great many for "Ceramic Forum International", quite a few for "Hair Transplant Forum International", "American Venous Forum International Ad Hoc ...", "7th Mechatronics Forum International Conference", "World Social Forum International Council", "SOUTHWEST FOUNDATION FORUM INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM" etc. And then, given the nature of search engines, the two words can appear next to each other in text, such as "Fifth Asian Fisheries Forum: International Conference on...", or "Prince of Wales Business Leaders’ Forum, International Organisation of Employers and ..." So I don't think that the Google search really tells us anything on its own.   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but quite a few of those search hits are citations to the specific Forum International under discussion. So my point stands. Blueboar (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Will... several editors throughout this thread have expressed reasons why they think Forum International is reliable. It is obvious that you disagree. So would you please express why you think it is unreliable? Blueboar (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It is the burden of the editors using the material to establish the reliability of a source. As for responses here, they don't necessarily address the issue at hand. For example, Squidfryerchef suggests that the source may be reliable for the events that the magazine issue covered. But that isn't what the source is being used for. The problem with Google search is that it doesn't actually show the papers, so we don't know if they're citing the source as being reliable, or if they are referring to it as worthless. I've asked the editor who is proposing this to state why he thinks it's reliable, but I haven't yet gotten a straight answer. Let's hear that and then we can evaluate his answer.   Will Beback  talk  04:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't buy hiding behind WP:BURDEN here. furthermore, I think you are misapplying it. That part of WP:V refers to what happens when someone challenges uncited material. It says that the burden is on those who add or want to keep material to provide a source for it. In this case, however, a source has been provided... so WP:BURDEN has been complied with.

When it comes to reliability discussions, both sides of the debate have to be able to express why they hold the opinion they do. Those saying that the source is unreliable need to express a why they think it is unreliable, while those who think it is reliable should express why they think it is reliable. Then a consensus can be reached. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a magazine per se, but a program of an annual conference. According to the page at Larouchepub.com describing the PDF linked above, 4,000 copies were printed up for the conference, and anyone in Russia can request a copy. I don't think we should worry too much about who's cited the program, the conference itself looks important. It looks important enough that we ought to have an article on it; the Russian WP probably does ( don't know what they'd title it but their page on Sochi probably mentions it ) and maybe we could translate it.

But the issue is that this is more of a primary than a secondary source and whether it can be used to describe a speech that happened outside of the conference. While I'd rather see a Russian or international newspaper as a citation for the speech, Forum International might not be too bad as this is a speech delivered to the same goverment that was sponsoring the conference. It's a little like citing a NASA press release for the existence of a speech that was made to Congress.

Another question. I'm assuming this speech was also in EIR. Was there an objection to citing that directly, i.e. was the existence of a speech made to the Duma deemed an extraordinary claim requiring an independent source? Does the publication of the speech in the conference's program, which is space-limited, show notability and at least some fact-checking? Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The evidence presented by Blueboar, Coleacanth and Squidfryerchef is, to my mind, sufficient to establish that "Forum International" is a special-purpose publication that chronicles the proceedings of the International Investment Forum/Kuban/Sochi conferences, as well as related topics of interest (in which category would fall Mrs. LaRouche's speech before the Duma.) These conferences, according to the Moscow News article [22], attract scholars, government officials including ambassadors, and leading businessmen. The fact that a highly reputable agency like SOPS would entrust FI to chronicle the meeting is sufficient to establish reliability. Plus, the source is being used for a very limited purpose, to confirm that the speech before the Duma took place (which we have already from the LaRouche magazine,) and to establish that these circles found her remarks sufficiently noteworthy that they were included in the special issue devoted to a conference which took place some years after the speech was delivered. That's my view. Will, with general support on this board for the use of the source, your refusal to state your objections is bound to arouse suspicions that there is something POINTy going on here. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Leatherstocking gives a very reasonable and cohearant rational for saying that FI is reliable.

Will, any burden that exists for saying FI is reliable has been met. If you disagree, that is fine... but don't hide behind WP:BURDEN any more. It is now up to you to explain any flaws you find with this rational and explain why you think FI is not reliable. Otherwise, let's end this debate. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing the article de novo, I see no evidence that this individual has recieved the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As such, I have redirected it to her obviously notable husband. Hipocrite (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional independent sources have been supplied. I move that we restore "Forum International" as well. --Leatherstocking (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Has anyone noticed that "forum international" is apparently "larouchepub.com." I think there is wide agreement that "larouchepub.com" is not a reliable source for anything except the beliefs of the Larouche movement. It's certainly not a reliable source for anything about the rusian Duma or the like. Hipocrite (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... Given what has been said above about this, I think "larouchepub.com" is mearly a courtesty link. ie they seem to be hosting a document published by someone else. Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh. There's really no way for me to tell that (internet filter blocks as "fringe/extremist" here), but if we're going to cite some magazine article, just linking to a courtesy copy isn't nearly enough. We'd need to get the magazine name and the date it was published, at the very least, so that someone could get it from the library and verify the link. Could we get that info? Hipocrite (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. The PDF file contains the entire magazine issue, not just the relevant article. All page numbers are accounted for, so it is unlikely that there has been any tampering... The publishing information is on the last page. So it is really just a matter of getting someone who understands Russian (which I don't) to format the citation correctly. All the info is there. Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Great! Hipocrite (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite, of course it's a courtesy link. It's a program printed up by the organization that runs the conference, this particular one happens to have a copy hosted by the LaRouche organization because they spoke at the conference. We should be able to do a dead-tree cite as "program of the XYZ conference, Sochi (date/year). I would feel better about getting an OCLC number or other identifier; I didn't notice an ISSN or ISBN on the program. It's likely many of these copies would end up in Russian libraries as well as some worldwide university libraries with Russian Studies departments. Do Russian libraries use OCLC? PS. Why is your firewall blocking political material? That's pretty disturbing. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The firewall blocks sites that whoever runs the internet where I'm currently at thinks are "fringe/extremist." I tend to agree with them that Larouche is both. The morality of internet filters is for a different time/place, but the existance of internet filters is a given, my ability to turn off the internet filter is non-existant, and my Iphone doesn't work without incurring massive fees where I am at the current time. If someone could make the dead-tree cite happen, that would be super. Hipocrite (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Questionable article at List of best-selling music artists coming from Forbes [23]

I realize that Forbes could be viewed as a reliable source; however, in the case of this very article published by them makes its reliability somewhat questionable. The given article by Forbes states that the artist Beyonce has sold 118 million records in her career. The article fails to separate her sales of solo career from the sales she's achieved with Destiny's Child. An editor LAUGH90 (talk · contribs) who just recently made an attempt to support Beyonce's stay within the bracket of 100-199 million on the List of best-selling music artists seems to be having a difficult time believing that the figure includes also the artist's previous participation with the trio Destiny's Child with which they managed to sell over 50 million records world wide. I studied Beyonce's record sales as a solo artist through her Certifications and posted at the talk page of the "List of best-selling music artists" in hopes that it might help LAUGH90 understand my point, but seems like my efforts have gone in vain. What I am asking is, is it possible to simply reject the use of this article in question regardless of the fact that Forbes ordinarily could be regarded as reliable? Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be better to note the discrepancy "Forbes credited her with career sales of 118 million records but it is not clear whether that includes her Destiny's Child sales" (ref).Martinlc (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that's something we could do, but then there are other reliable sources such as The Independent which in this article for example, has claimed in January, 2007 that Beyonce's album sales at the time was 15 million as a solo artists and 40 million with Destiny's Child. This figure, although, a little old, immediately disagrees with the figure that Forbes has in the article in question. --Harout72 (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because an article doesn't break down figures along the lines required by this Wikipedia list doesn't make it unreliable -- it is a profile of Beyonce's entertainment earnings in Forbes magazine after all -- just not very useful. Your own calculations won't hold up against such a clear statement, however, so'd you'd be better off finding a current reliable source that breaks that number down in a way that you can cite. Why not start by contacting the Forbes' reporter and asking for her source? Flowanda | Talk 03:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at this very recent article ("75 million records worldwide as a solo artist and as a member of the trio Destiny's Child") by The New York Times. All prominent news services seem to disagree with 118 million units stated by Forbes. That's not my conclusion.--Harout72 (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The underlying question is: What benefit are these figures to an encyclopedia? Answer what the purpose of the sales figures is, then it will be possible to say whether Forbes is reporting figures that are relevant and reliable to Wikipedia. If Group X sells 10,000,100 albums, and Group Z sells 10,000,000, does that mean Group X is better than Group Z? Exactly what, if anything does it mean? That the marketing department for X is better than Z? That X lives in a country with more record buyers? That X sells its albums at a heavy discount? These hyped sales figures have no encyclopedic meaning, and NONE of them belong in Wikipedia. The problems with the Forbes figures are simply a component of the problem with ALL sales figures. Remove them from Wikipedia, and leave them to fansites and MySpace pages run by marketing departments. Piano non troppo (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree there is little point in arguing for long about such arbitrary criteria. I sugegst that the List adds a definition to say either "artists who have been reported to have sold more than 100 million albums" (ie include Forbes and any other stats anyone comes across) or "artists with certified sales more than 100 million albums" and restrict it to whatever industry sources are considered universally reliable.Martinlc (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources in Montreal article

We have a dispute on the Talk:Montreal page, which centers around which of two references is authoritative. The status quo is that the folllowing lede is stable, and therefore preferable:

Montreal is the second-largest primarily French-speaking city in the world, after Paris.

I proposed the following replacement, due to a more authoritative reference:

Montreal is the third-largest Francophone city in the world, after Paris and Kinshasa.

The Nadeau reference, "The Story of French" is more authoritative on the subject of the French language and its use than is the status quo reference (Participatory Democracy: Prospects for Democratizing Democracy), for the following reasons: (1) the subject at hand is the French language, and its use. The relevant topic is the exclusive subject of the Nadeau reference, and is not the subject of the Roussopolous reference, which is politics. Thus, my proposed reference is directly relevant to the subject at hand, and the existing reference is not. (2) The publisher of "The Story of French" is St. Martin's Press, which is a major, worldwide publisher of non-fiction books; it is an imprint of Macmillin, with 32,000 books to its name, a staff of thousands, covering all areas from non-fiction to academia to general interest; in contrast, Black Rose Books, the publisher of Participatory Democracy is a tiny private printer, which puts out about 10 books a year, all of which are political in nature. Thus, I assert the publisher of The Story of French is far more likely to have a staff capable, experienced, and motivated to check facts, than the publisher of Participatory Democracy, and therefore The Story of French meets the given rule of thumb for an authoritative work regarding the French language and its use, while Participatory Deomcracy does not. Finally, (3) The authors of The Story of French, Nadeau and Barlow have written no fewer than five books about the French language and French culture including LA GRANDE AVENTURE DE LA LANGUE FRANÇAISE : de Charlemagne au Cirque du Soleil, Sixty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong, PAS SI FOUS CES FRANÇAIS!, PLUS ÇA CHANGE: THE STORY OF FRENCH FROM CHARLEMAGNE TO THE CIRQUE DU SOLEIL. In sharp contrast, the Montreal article doesn't even specify who the author is of the cited fact, and only the book editor is given. Thus, the authors of my proposed reference have multiple books to their names on the subject area at hand, while the author of the fact cited in the Montreal article is anonymous, and their experience in the subject at hand is unknown.

I have failed to get counterargument from editors on the Talk:Montreal page, where the level of response is contradiction. What I am looking for is a definitive statement about which of these two references is authoritative. My understanding is that the weaker reference is removed in deference to the authoritative reference. Rerutled (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Collapsed references

Notes

None of the following are relevant to the above "reliable sources" question. Rerutled (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think folks can see for themselves at Talk:Montreal that there certainly has been a bit of counterargument, Rerutled.  ;) The problem isn't between which source is more authoritative, the problem is that we have two separate sources that are defining two separate things (one: "Montreal is the second largest primarily French-speaking city," which is the current stable language; two: "Montreal is the third largest Francophone city," your proposed language). The definition of what constitutes a "primarily French-speaking city" is considerably different from the definition for what is a "Francophone city," as we have discussed on at least two separate occasions in the past at Talk:Montreal. There are reliable sources for each, but consensus in the past has held that the former is more informative and precise, as the latter can be arbitrary and ambiguous. That being said, I look forward to seeing any uninvolved opinions that might crop up here (although I think this isn't really the proper venue). user:J aka justen (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I second J's comment, it's a good summary. I would though appreciate an opinion on my contention that "second largest primarily French-speaking city" is already reliably sourced by means of the Statistics Canada information directly following, 3.6 million people in the CMA, of whom 70% speak French at home. How much sourcing is needed for a plain fact that can be verified by anyone with a calculator? To take two extreme cases, do we need a reference stating that the Pacific is the largest ocean, or that Antarctica is the most-southerly continent? Franamax (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(a) User:J and User:Franmax are bringing discussion which belongs on the Talk:Montreal page here -- and talking about an issue which is not relevant to "Reliable Sources". I've deleted it once, and Franmax reinstates it. Oh, and wiki defines Francophone as "French speaking, usually as a primary language", so their distinction between the two does not exist. Rerutled (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment just to note that Rerutled has in fact twice deleted comments not supporting their position, and more pertinently to note that I've requested an opinion on a different issue as regards sourcing, as outlined in my post above. I'm hoping that an answer will emerge as to how diligently plain (although perhaps obscured by necessity of calculator use for the math-challenged) facts should be sourced. The OP concerns should of course be addressed also. Franamax (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Franmax is misrepresenting. I did not delete these comments because they were not supportive of my position, I deleted them because they are about whether Francophone means "primarily French Speaking" irrelevant to a "reliable sources" discsussion; further, are repeated from a debate which is occcuring on [Talk:Montreal], and burying the "Reliable Sources" discussion which I came here to get, having been sent here by Franmax and J for third party consulation. Rerutled (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is that we have two reliable sources that dissagree over facts. When two or more reliable sources disagree, Wikipedia does not choose which is "correct" or more "authoritive"... it acknowleges that there is a discrepancy and discusses what all the different sources say (see WP:NPOV).

So may I suggest the following as a compromise: "Montreal is either the second or third largest French-speaking city in the world (depending on how one defines "French-speaking")<footnote that discusses the discrepancy and cites both sources>, after Paris." Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd previously suggested a similar mitigating wording. The problem is that this is somewhat unwieldy for the lead section of a prominent article. Thinking about it though, perhaps a solution would be to leave the article text as is and include a footnote on the lines of "Kinshasa and Abidjan are larger cities than Montreal which use French as their official language"? The actual issue addressed by the writers of the article is what language is actually used by the population, as opposed to what language is "officially designated".

I'd still appreciate an opinion here as to whether the "second largest primarily French-speaking city" assertion is in fact supported reliably by the directly following census data. Can we reasonably expect our readership to compare actual numbers if they suspect a claim is untrue, or do we need a citation to (paraphrasing) "four is bigger than two"? Should I open a separate thread for that? Franamax (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is reliably supported... but so is the counter assertion. Unwieldy as it may be, I think some sort of compromise is the only solution. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You agree that it is unwieldy to try to explain the different definitions, but more importantly, it's just not key to the lead. It's detail that should be mentioned later in the article, perhaps along with any number of other "rankings" of the city by population that any particular editor wishes to promote. The lead is about relative emphasis, as can be sourced; Montréal is most widely reported as the second largest primarily-French speaking city. The extent to which Abidjan and Kinshasa are mentioned in the sourcing, in that context, is quite limited. In any event, I think you've answered one of Rerutled's inquiries, in that both sources are indeed reliable and that it is not a matter of which is more "authoritative" (that sure would be an unwieldy precedent to try to deal with!). user:J aka justen (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no I don't agree that it is all that unwieldy... but even if it is, I still think it is the best solution. Blueboar (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well-sourced factual accuracy is relevant everywhere, and avoiding "unwieldiness" is not preferred over factual accuracy. Moreover, I don't recognize any factual difference between "primarly French-Speaking" and "Francophone" as J and Franmax do -- and I don't think anyone reading the article does either; Wiki certainly doesn't either, defining Francophone as "French-speaking, typically of a primary language." Webster defines "Francophone" as "of, having, or belonging to a population using French as its first or sometimes second language". Thus, it is only a few mislead editors, including J and Franmax, who believe it means something different. Thus, the lede as it stands is factualy misleading. If you don't think it's misleading, compare these three lines taken from three articles: Montreal:

Montreal is the second-largest primarily French-speaking city in the world, after Paris.

Kinshasa:

It is often considered the second largest francophone city in the world after Paris[4], though on criteria such as number of native speakers Montreal retains this distinction, as African languages, especially Lingala, are more widely spoken in Kinshasa than French is[citation needed]

noting that someone inserted an unsupported fact. And even Abidjan:

It is the largest city in the nation, and the second largest French speaking city in the world.

(unsourced).

Not all of these can be true. What is needed to adderess this confusion are relaible secondary sources, for citation in each of the articles.

I've contested the source above. J's statement "Montreal is most widely reported as the second largest primariy-French speaking city" is not a good enough source, because it leads to the CIRCULAR problem -- it's been in wiki so long, people adopt it, which is why having an authoritative secondary source -- as I have proposed -- is important. Rerutled (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There's another straw man argument again. Indeed, my statement alone is "not a good enough source"! But that's not what you're arguing against, and you have to know that by now. You're arguing against a reference in a perfectly authoritative, secondary, published work (that does need to have its citation completed, but it includes more than enough information to be verifiable). In this case, your "not a good enough source" argument can come into play, and that's not a good enough argument. It is so incredibly subjective that it's not an accepted argument on Wikipedia (just like "truth" is second to "verifiability"). You should work on a consensus to build language into the body of the article that conveys what you want, or pursue dispute resolution (as you have begun with mediation), but I don't yet see any support here for your proposal to get rid of the "primarily French-speaking" statement from the lead. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

J - Blueboar does support modifying the lede. You are correct that your argument makes no sense to me at all. There is nothing "straw man" about my proposed change. It would only be straw man if -- as you appear to think -- the existing source is authoritative, and it is not. Rerutled (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar supports adding your language to the article in addition (and I believe, secondary to, since it is a caveat) the existing language. He has not yet responded to my point that it should not be in the lead, and rather should be in the body. However, please remember that it is important that you craft your proposal and bring it to the talk page for consensus. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, both of you need to stop puting words in my mouth. I will clarify my view: I'll start by amending my suggested wording:

• "Montreal is either the second or third largest French-speaking city in the world after Paris <footnote>
• Suggested footnote text: "Ranking depends on how one defines the term "French-speaking". Source A defines it as 'blah blah blah' and places Montreal second after Paris (ref). Source B defines it as 'tum-tee-tum' and places Montreal third after Paris and Kinshasa (ref)."

I would also support any other compromise language you might come up with. I do think such a compromise should be put in the lede (where we normally include the passing references to rankings). I don't think we need to go into detail on this in the main text. I think the issue of where and how Montreal is ranked is not worth discussing beyond a footnote. The article should simply acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion on Montreal's rank and move on. Finally, I think this was a really petty thing to argue about and that both of you should take a step back and have a nice cup of tea. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This should probably go back to the talk page, as it is not (and never really was) relevant to this noticeboard. However, I support the existing language in the lead, although your footnote would be acceptable. Any additional rankings should go to Demographics or another relevant section. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I'd really prefer that Rerutled make the effort to make my own username not show up red here, lest I should be tempted to point out where the vast majority of the red-linked Rerutled's edits have been concentrated, nay, SPA'd...

I would prefer to partially adopt Blueboar's suggestion by keeping the "second-largest primarily French-speaking..." wording whilst explicating further within a footnote as to the larger cities with French as the official language. This to me would adequately resolve the competing tensions as regards this article. The genuine intent of the wording in the lead is to convey which urban areas in the world have the most number of native-speakers of French, not which book author went to the best publishing house.

And I would have included in that last quote above the words "[factually true]" except that now I see that Brussels has placed a knight upon the course. The fun continues... Franamax (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

These editors appear to be aligning the citations around the fact they desire to have: "Montreal is the second largest Francophone city"; that's not how citation works. Citation works by finding the most authoritative source(s), and using the facts which happen to be there . The disparaging comment about "which book author went to the best publishing house" is an example of having the priorities backwards. This is why the editors continually come back to what they want in the language, rather than discussing what the most authoritative and reliable source is regarding the relative sizes of Francophone cities in the world. It's a complete reversal of how scholarship works. Rerutled (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC) (Continued). Franamax, a specific question: you say you favor lanauge like that suggested by Blueboar "Montreal is either the second or third largest French-speaking city in the world after Paris <footnote>, but then you revert out such language once it was inserted: Montreal is one of the largest francophone cities in the world, after Paris, France and Kinshasa, Congo <footnote>. What precisely do you find objectionable about the language you reverted from, and what is your preferred language? Rerutled (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well d'uhh, obviously we align the citations to the wording. The whole point of writing an article is to present notable facts that educate the reader. It's a notable fact that Montreal is the "second-largest primarily French-speaking city in the world", so that's what goes in the lede. Why would we select less-notable facts? Should we say "A lot of people drive Toyota's"? Of course not.

My preferred wording is Montreal is the second-largest primarily French-speaking city in the world, after Paris. <ref>[[Kinshasa]] and [[Abidjan]] are larger cities which use French as their official language of government.</ref> That wording properly reflects the consensus previously established at the article and also recognises your desperate crusade to get Kinshasa mentioned. Franamax (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that distinction is that there seem to be about 3-4 editors who believe that Francophone is different from primarily French speaking -- but that is not the common understanding of those two phrases, which are widely consdiered equivalent, and therefore creates at misleading statement in the lede. For example, we define Francophone on its page as French speaking, typically as a primary language. There is therefore no basis to make this distinction. (continued) An example of common usage: In Time magazine's coverage of French President Sarkozy's recent trip to the Congo, they describe the Congo as the world's largest French speaking nation. Your argument is "ah, but it's not primarily French speaking." This is a hair so fine, nobody (except 3-4 editors) sees it, let alone sees how it is being split by the existing language (which you and the 3-4 editors have continually reverted back to, insisting that the split hair -- misleading statement -- should be the exlusive statement in lede). Rerutled (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I hate to sound like a broken record, but guys, this really isn't the place for this part of this discussion. Both sources are reliable, that's about the extent to which this noticeboard is the correct forum. Further discussion should be on the article's talk page. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If I understand J correctly, he is conceding that "The History of French" is a reliable source. Is that correct J? Rerutled (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My comment was entirely referring to the relevance of the forum. I'm not going to respond further here unless there are new concerns regarding the reliability of the sources. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we then look for a source for cities with the largest number of French speakers? Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for sure. We can look at the StatsCan figures already in the article. We can compare them to census figures from anywhere else in the world. Statistics agencies are generally considered reliable, or at least they lie and distort for purposes other than en:wiki editing. Again though, you need careful attention to the basis. This whole kerfuffle arose from a mistaken interpretation in the Lyon article, where basically the population of an entire province was cited from fr:wiki as the "metro population", from which wiki the cite has no basis. (I really should go fix that, but now I'm worried about charges of whatever bias it is that I'm charged with) This led conveniently into a discussion of "I read this book that says..." and "this book is a better book than your book". OK fine, we've established to death that there are comflicting sources, which each have a claim on reliability. Can I introduce a new reliable source on basic math? This seems crazy to me, no-one has yet refuted the precise claim that Montreal is the "second-largest primarily French-speaking city in the world", which is supported by the census data. I genuinely seek clarification here - from all of my research on this, it's a true statement and it's surely not controversial. No-one is claiming that Abidjan or Kinshasa have a smaller population, no-one is claiming that Abidjan and Kinshasa don't use French as the language of government. The fact is sourced and unrefuted: Montreal is the "second-largest primarily French-speaking city in the world". What's the problem? Franamax (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Franamax, the reason there's a problem is because you keep repeating your talking points as if they are not disputed -- or, as I see it, refuted. Specifically:

• (1) using "basic math" is, the way you're doing it, original research, I don't agree at all with your conclusions, in particular because you fail to compare your basic math derived from stats canada with any figures from Kinshasa; your doing so is a synthesis of figures, what is called "original research", which is not used on wiki. This should be addressed by using secondary sources, as required by WP. Secondary sources means, you can cite a statement made elsewhere, in a reliable, verifiable, authoritative source. This is what leads us to the present "reliable sources" discussion, upon which we have not reached consensus.
• (2) You continue to claim that "primarly French-Speaking City in the world" is understood -- if not defined -- by everyone as being different from Francophone which is not true; we define Francophone (FOLLOW THE LINK) as meaning "French speaking, typically as a primary language." (This is relevant because you continue, in order to refute the proposed reference, to insist that the "primarily french speaking" language in the article is recognizably different from the "francophone" word in the citation I proposed; it really is not). And,
• (3) the chapter, in the book "Participatory Democracy" edited by Roussopolous, in Montreal which is cited for your statement is:
  • (a) written by a presently anonymous author (ie. it has not been verified) because it is a chapter in an edited book, and nobody seems to have bothered to look up who authored the cited statement, written in 1971 (and kept in the 2005 version of the book) "Montreal is the second-largest primarily french-speaking city in the world"; thus, the article requires verification. But, even if verified, the article :
  • (b) primarily about politics, which is not the subject at hand, which is French language and culture. And according WP, makes it a less authoritative source than the source I propose: "The History of French", by Nadeau and Barlow -- authors who have 5 books between them on the French language and culture, making it a far more authoritative source than the source you rely upon. This reference has a conflicting statement to that in the article now, saying "Montreal is the third largest Francophone city in the world, after Paris and Kinshasa."

To insist an off-topic book about left-wing politics by an anonymous (or rather, unknown and unverified) author is what wiki should rely upon for its facts because "it's a stable lede that others have agreed upon" is deny the primacy of authoritative, on-topic resource. Rerutled (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The allegedly "off-topic," "left-wing," "anonyomous," and old reference still is supported by the actual population figures Franamax mentions above. We cannot cite original research, but it can help us determine whether the actual source is still accurate (although verifiability is our chief concern, I think accuracy is also a very important responsibility). Anyone can argue one source or another, but the estimated number of primarily French-speaking people in Montréal still comes second only to Paris. I don't expect that statistic will change anytime soon, but until I see reliable sourcing otherwise, I'm going to continue to support the current source and lead. That being said, I think I've said just about everything I can say about this matter, so I'm going to let any remaining interested parties take it from here. user:J aka justen (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As said many times above, what J continues to ask for, and Franamax thinks he is providing, is original research -- to rely on original research to make decisions about article content is a violation of WP:NOR. I have provided (top of this section), instead, a secondary source, instantly verifiable, and which is authoritative -- it is this secondary source that J and Franamax continue to revert away from. Rerutled (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

wp:nor proscribes publishing original research via Wikipedia; wp:nor does not proscribe using original research to help ascertain the accuracy of new claims. Independently confirming the accuracy of newly introduced facts, citations, and sources can be aided by original research. You can't turn around and publish that original research on Wikipedia, but it certainly can help in raising concerns or objections to potentially questionable sourcing. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

J, by writing here that you perform original research which you do not cite in an article, you indicate that you fail to understand the purpose and importance of citation. The purpose and importance of citation is to make transparent and verifiable the facts upon which a statement is made in an article. When you go off to do your own uncitable original research -- which you state here, you do -- you are denying transparency and verifiability, and including facts which are not transparent or verifiable. If you are indeed going this for the Montreal article, you are violating [[WP::NOR]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rerutled (talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 June 2009

Sorry, I'm going to have to repeat that I don't believe you understand the intent of wp:nor. An editor doing research to ascertain the accuracy of a verifiable citation is not diminishing the transparency of the actual citation. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Basic math and original research? I don't know what the math in question was ( this whole debate should really be taken to a specialty Wikiproject ), but for instance taking a source that says the city of Montreal has one million people and another source that says 70% of Montreal residents speak French as their primary language to say Montreal has 700,000 French speakers is not original research. Because that figure doesn't contain any judgement or estimate unique to the Wikipedia. On the other hand, if you take a source that says Montreal has a million people and another source that says 65% of Quebec speaks French to get 650,000, then that is original research because that figure includes a guess about the proportion of Francophones in Montreal. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Bentham Open

I'm currently engaged in a struggle to get some information included in a 9/11 conspiracy theories article. The information is a paper published in Bentham Open university press. Here is the paper:

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Personally, I think this is a reliable source, but this has been disputed on the evidence that the peer review process of the Bentham Open has been put into question. Those who dispute its reliablity cite these pages:

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

Is this a reliable source or not? Autonova (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If that article is the only source then I suspect that the article may be straying into WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. The best test for an academic RS is that it is referred to by other acad4emic papers. The test for a conspiracy theories article should be whether you have RSs for the theories (at the time) rather than whether those theories were later shown to be plausible or not. Martinlc (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As it's an academic paper published in a journal that is widely listed as an academic journal, the article can be used. However, for those claims of the article that are extraordinary, the claim should be attributed to the authors of the paper, and appropriate context should be given. For claims that are disputed by other sources, the views should be presented according to WP:DUE, and the appropriate weight depends on the nature of the respective article.  Cs32en  13:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not meet the qualifications of WP:RS. The Chief Editor of the journal resigned in protest as a result of this very article saying that she never authorized its publication, did not consider it worthy of publication in the journal and that its publication may have been politically motivated; other editors have also resigned from the journal as a result. [28]. Bentham Open publications has been accused by academics of 'spamming' researchers with offers to publish or edit the journal, even where those researchers have no background in the field of study.[29][30]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I surfed around a bit: Unfortunately it does indeed appear that everything published by Bentham Open must be treated as self-published. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The paper has been cited by the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System. Does this change things? Could we cite it from this source?

[31] 213.40.129.53 (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of reliable sources that report on the existence and the content of the paper. So we wouldn't need the entry in the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System as some form of secondary source. We are sourcing all kinds of information about the existence of various reliable and unreliable stuff from reliable secondary sources, and we should, of course, use these secondary sources in the same way in this case.  Cs32en  18:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If there are third-party RSs citing this paper, then that would be good evidence - please list some. It would be ebst if they were independent scientific publications.Martinlc (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The following information could, in my view, be included in the article:

  Cs32en  22:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's acceptable without adding in one form or another that this paper cannot be regarded as peer-reviewed. Because that's what most readers will think when they read such a passage. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

In principle, I wouldn't object to adding information on the controversy regarding the peer-review process at the journal. The Jyllands Posten article says that it's a peer-reviewed journal, and there is no reliable source, to my knowledge, that says that it's not peer-reviewed. Which kind of information do you think would be appropriate to add on the journal? Would it be better to give just the title of the article, but not the name of the journal?  Cs32en  23:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Those sources User:Autonova pointed out as citations/points for/of dispute are not sources at all. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note that user TheFourFreedoms has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet.[32] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought. It seems hypocritical to dispute the reliability of an academic source by citing forum posts and emails. 213.40.98.154 (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is suggesting using these as sources for an article. These are only being used to determine it's reputation for accuracy and fact-checking which is poor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All of those were published before the scandal broke and the chief editor resigned. Please remember that a reliable source is one that has earned a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. The fact that academics don't want to do be associated with Bentham Open is an indication of its poor reputation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It could just be indicative of the paper's wildly controversial claim. 213.40.111.193 (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Those four references are meaningless, if editors are using those to prove some sort of a point, it might be indicative, in some way. As for resignation, imo, it states more about academic freedom, than about the reliability of the source. It's just an opinion though. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

AQFK, the only available reliable source we have on the question of peer-review is the one that was published on April 4th, which says that the journal is peer-reviewed. What effects the resignation of the editor in chief may or may not have on the question of whether the paper is to be considered peer-reviewed or not is entirely original research at this point.  Cs32en  18:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, nobody is suggesting that we include this information in any Wikipedia article. Instead, we're using this as information to detsermine if this article meets WP:RS. Looking up a source's reputation and seeing what other sources say about it is a routine part of the reliable sources noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether the paper's been rigorously reviewed or not, it did make the ( Danish ) news, and should be discussed as a facet of the 9/11 conspiracy theories related to thermite. World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories may be a more appropriate article to place it. Just don't overemphasize the term "peer reviewed" because that's under debate. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this noticeboard is to determine whether a source meets the standards of WP:RS. Whether something should be included in an article is an editorial decision and outside the scope of this noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

True, but many sources are RS for some facts but not others, and many of the debates here stem from undue weight or not putting citations in their proper context. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could create a WP:UNDUE noticeboard but that's probably covered under the WP:NPOVN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• As I said over at the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, best to lay the whole controversy out in the article, including the fact that the editor-in-chief resigned in protest and said the paper wasn't properly reviewed. Incidentally, someone published a computer-generated junk program in Bentham Open recently. II | (t - c) 17:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• For scholarly sources, one paper in one journal is not a reliable source. Per WP:RS - "The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in such indexes should be used with caution. Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available." Hipocrite (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

ex-cult.org

I would be grateful if two or three editors could quickly comment on the suitability of ex-cult.org] as a WP:Reliable source. I would like to show consensus on its suitability or otherwise. It's included in Friends of the Western Buddhist Order at this diff if you need some context. Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Since it has a strong disclaimer on its front page, it is effectively acting as host to WP:SPS articles by individuals, without checking or peer review. So not RS.Martinlc (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

But it also hosts an important RS source, a 1997 article by the Guardian newspaper. And there is also a significant amount of self-published material from the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (ie the Order writing about itself), both in the main article and also in the external links, which is not RS, if the same criterion is applied.EmmDee (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that such soruces shoudln't be used either way. If The Guardian artcile can be shown to be an accurat version, cite it as The Guardian with a convenience link to FWBO Files.Martinlc (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't do "convenience links" to copyvios. Ever. DreamGuy (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

David Duke - Finders-Keepers - Is a primary source required?

It is factual that David Duke published the book, Finders-Keepers, under the pseudonym, Dorothy Vanderbilt. But it can't be substantiated that the book, Finder's Keepers, contained advice on "vaginal contraction exercises, fellatio and anal sex." Why? Because the book is unavailable and the secondary sources cited do not actually cite the primary source, Finder's Keepers. If someone can link to the book, Finders-Keepers, the matter can be resolved. Until then, it's hearsay and does not belong on Wikipedia.

Even though David Duke is widely despised, Wikipedia ought to maintain its standards and require that extreme claims be backed by primary sources, especially when the secondary sources don't cite the primary source!

Shady References:

1. The 1992 article, "The Picayune Catches Up With David Duke", does not cite a primary source, it defers only to this mysterious book having received front-page play in the Shreveport Journal on August 21, 1990. The article does not provide any reference but claims the book deals with "Vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex."[33]

2. The book, Troubled Memory, by Lawrence N. Powell, plays on the phrase with "vaginal contraction exercises, fellatio and anal sex". But Powell does not cite the book Finder's Keepers nor any page number. Powell's claim is totally unsubstantiated. Check Powell's book, page 448, here:[34]

3. The ADL article discusses Duke's pseudonym but cites nothing for the book's sexual content.[35]

--Bureaucracy (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, "Shady Reference #2", Troubled Memory, is published by the University of North Carolina Press. The book is thoroughly footnoted, though the notes for page 448 are not available on Google.   Will Beback  talk  02:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You have made an error. The book Troubled Memory is available in its entirety.[36] The book, Troubled Memory, does not cite the primary source, Finder's Keepers, yet it characterizes the book with, "vaginal contraction exercises, fellatio and anal sex." That's shady scholarship. Again, I care not for publishing prestige, especially when negligence is involved.

--Bureaucracy (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A primary source would not only not be required, it would be discouraged in this instance. If notable/reputable pubs write about it, it's notable. IronDuke 03:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not "available in its entirety". It is availible in limited preview. However, there is no point in "footnoting" a summary of the contents of a book, since it by definition epitomises the whole text. There's nothing 'shady' about that at all. Paul B (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying Wikipedia defers to notable/reputable publishing houses as the authority on the content of a book, and not the actual book itself? --Bureaucracy (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No. We are saying that the best way for us, the anonymous editors behind wikipedia, to judge if a neutral encyclopedia would mention this detail is to see if someone else mentioned it first. In very narrow cases are we to use primary sources, mainly situations where detail gleaned from primary sources offers necessary context for the subject as a whole and it would be silly to demand secondary sourcing. I don't think this is one of those cases. Protonk (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, asking for proof is silly. So far, Wikipedia is relying on three sources which fail to backup a serious charge.

What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. — Hillel--Bureaucracy (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wait, what? Are you saying that the three sources cited are insufficient to make the claims made in the article? If that is the case, it can be discussed on the article talk page--that isn't specifically an issue for this noticeboard. If you are arguing that access to the primary source is require for editors to verify a claim made by an otherwise reliable secondary source, I would disagree with you most of the time. For some extreme claims or claims where there is doubt as to the reliability of the secondary source (doubt from a source besides a single wp editor), then we can talk about comparing claims about the text to the text itself. But there is a difference between removing material on the claims that it is hearsay (a legal term of art which has no real meaning in wikipedia) and comparing claims in secondary sources which are explicitly falsified by the primary text. Protonk (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I see that Troubled Memory has won a couple of awards:

• Winner of the 2000 Lillian Smith Book Award, Southern Regional Council
• Winner of the 2000 Kemper and Leila Williams Prize in Louisiana History, Louisiana Historical Association
• A 2000 Booklist Holocaust Literature Best of the Year Selection

Per the publisher's website.[37]   Will Beback  talk  05:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, Yes. The wiki sources do not substantiate that Duke's book offers advice on "vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex." The Wiki page cites authors, Lawrence Powell and Jeanne W. Amend - but these authors failed to consult Duke's book, Finder's Keepers, because it's out of print and not available online. Powell's bibliography doesn't even list the book, because he couldn't find it, yet he characterized it without having read it. Here's the claim with no footnote, it's in the first paragraph[38]

BTW....I was directed here from the talk page by User:   Will Beback  talk  02:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC) who seems to want to defer rather than fact check. --Bureaucracy (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I think that we can roughly say that the Powell book is reliable (assuming that list of rewards is accurate and given our policy on reliable sources). We are down to the assertion that Powell didn't read the book in question. I don't think we can make that accusation without some evidence. the omission of the book in the bibliography may be telling or it may be benign. I don't think that the books being out of print is sufficient to support your accusation, especially because one of the principal subjects of the book is Duke. Protonk (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Powell's book is published by a university press, has won awards, and Powell is a Professor at Tulane specializing in this and related topics[39]. Of course this book is a reliable source. And, but that's by he way, has anybody tried getting a copy of Finder's Keepers via a good academic library with competent staff? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be appropriate to contact Powell. Troubled Memory was published only nine-years ago, and it is possible that he still has his copy of Finders Keepers, or a partial copy. If (possibly a big if) he was concerned enough about this doubt to take action to clarify the matter, he could make small amounts of Finders Keepers available online without breach of copywrite.Ordinary Person (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, good lord. There are literally a half dozen other book sources noting the same connection. I don't think this can be attributed to Powell, Tyler and the ADL making up the claim. Protonk (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, I agree, there are half a dozen sources characterizing the book as giving sexual advice. There seems to be two competing descriptions, one is dating advise for women and the other is "vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex." Not one of these sources cites the book itself, not even a footnote in these scholarly works.

Perhaps these scholars are chasing each others' tail. Perhaps they know they won't be held accountable because it's David Duke. Or, perhaps Duke did indeed published a pornographic book.

I'm with Ordinary Person. Should I contact Powell or is that the responsibility of the Administrators?--Bureaucracy (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• • At this point I'm not going to entertain the notion that all of these books have fabricated the same claim. There is a more likely but still incredible claim to be made that someone like Tyler fabricated the passage and later scholars just repeated the falsehood. That, to me, is only compelling in the presence of positive evidence. Is there some reliable source that makes the claim that Duke did not author the book? That the book did not contain those passages? This kind of this is a content decision and so should be made on the article talk page but my read is that we can't in good conscience throw out ~9 sources because we don't see confirmatory primary documents. If you want to email Powell and ask him, please do so. Protonk (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Also, this is not to say that I think the sentence belongs in the article. It's unconnected to the rest of the paragraph and seems designed to show how lewd Duke was while writing under a pseudonym. I know that both Finders-Keepers and African Atto were written in persona, arguably one that Duke projected upon the intended audience. The article should use sources supporting a claim like that to contextualize the segment. But until that happens we might consider just cutting the sentence. Protonk (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Protonk. I suppose it is not impossible that these sources have all relied on a set of false sources, but I think that should be enough weight for now. (To my mind, suggesting that Duke wrote such a book only enhances his reputation by implying that at one time he wrote something potentially helpful.) Still, it would be nice if someone can lay their hands on a copy of Finders Keepers, so that a couple of confirming quotes can be placed in the article. I'm emailing Powell anyway: you never know your luck. Ordinary Person (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Treat it as true, until something contradicts it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many cases in which secondary sources discuss primary sources that are not readily available. The primary source may be a rare manuscript or a long out of print book which exists in only a few copies. We have to trust the secondary sources according to their reliability, not according to the degree of access we have to the primary sources. Whether or not the sentence belongs in the article is not a matter for this noticeboard. Paul B (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I did contact Professor Powell, explained the circumstances, and he gave a very helpful reply:

I did look at the book, and should have cited it. During Duke's meteoric rise in Louisiana politics in the late 1980s and early '90s, the PAC we set up to expose him came into possession of Finders-Keepers, courtesy of independent journalist Patsy Sims. She had interviewed Duke extensively for her book, The Klan (NY: Dorset Press, 1978). On p. 212, she discusses Duke's clumsy efforts to enlist her help in placing his sex manual with her literary agent. She also talked with klansmen who had been alienated by Duke's over-the-top narcissism . When Sims sent us her personal copy of Finders-Keepers, we made copies for distribution to the media, and deposited one photocopy with the Amistad Research Center at Tulane University. It is in its "Louisiana Coalition Against Racism and Nazism" collection. (For what it's worth, Patsy Sims can be reached at Goucher College in Baltimore, where she heads the MFA Program in Non-Fiction.)

I visited the collection today and photocopied pertinent pages of Finders-Keepers. Arlington Press (a neo-nazi house, if memory serves) released it in 1976. Duke wrote it under the pseudonym James Konrad and Dorothy Vanderbilt. I'm more than happy to send you Chapter Ten: "Toward a More Fulfilling Sex-Life."

Meanwhile, here are a few representative quotations that clinch the argument:

p. 115-- "One simple exercise you can do (and you can do it any time of the day--driving to work, sitting at your desk, or watching TV--and nobody will know you are doing it) involves merely contracting the vaginal muscles. It is not difficult to learn. Get in a sitting position, and imagine you are urinating (sounds gross, doesn't it?). Now use the same muscles you would use to stop the urination. Do you feel the muscles tighten?....Another exercise you can do involves the vibrator."

pp. 117-8-- "In fellating your lover, you can assume any position that is comfortable and in close proximity to his penis, In your normal foreplay of kissing this area, kiss him up and down the shaft of the penis and lubricate it quite well with your tongue."

p. 119-- "A very sensitive and erogenous area to both yourself and your lover is the anus....Some women occasionally place (carefully) one of their fingers in it during intercourse when body position makes it possible Most men really enjoy such activity on your part during lovemaking....Many couples today see nothing wrong with limited anal sex."

I think this nails it.
Ordinary Person (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ordinary Person, nice one. I think Duke's pages needs a new section: Pornographer. Can you forward me the photocopies or post them? I'd like to see.... since Powell went to the trouble of copying them.--Bureaucracy (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I was curious to see whether all BLP articles are handled in a similar manner, so I went to W.H. Auden. Auden wrote plenty of porn, but his bio handles the issue in a way that is delicate in the extreme. I don't anticipate that this will be the case with David Duke. --4.233.125.91 (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I will put them up somewhere when I get them, but in my own opinion, sex advice of this kind is not pornographic.Ordinary Person (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies: I foolishly neglected to send Professor Powell my mailing address. That's the cause of the delay. I have now sent it to him. Ordinary Person (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've received, scanned and uploaded the documents to Freespace.com.au. They are in multipage PDF format.

http://www.freespace.com.au/filehosting/71253 Finders Keepers by Vanderbilt and Konrad (selected pages): download

http://www.freespace.com.au/filehosting/879592 The Klan by Patsy Sims (selected pages): download

Ordinary Person (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"This" doesn't "nail" anything. There is a fundamental conflict as the origin of this book is subject to extreme bias. The only copy known to be in existence was supposedly sent from Patsy Sims to "Ordinary Person" [40]. Her personal belief system is diametrically opposite to the system which David Duke holds. Given this account, the only way we will know definitively whether or not this book was written wholly or in part by David Duke is to obtain an affidavit from Arlington Press documenting the real identity of "James Konrad" and "Dorothy Vanderbilt". Without unequivocal proof, such as the type for which I am calling, anyone could take the same measures documented above and fabricate a supposed author. Obtain official documentation or leave this "fact" out. --Dmess0r (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an absurd standard, and it would qualify as unacceptable original research even if we got such an affidavit. We have multiple reliable sources say that Duke is the author, one of which quotes him on it directly. Patsy Sims, according to an official biography, "is the recipient of National Endowment for the Arts creative writing fellowship, two Associated Press awards for investigative reporting, and an Academy Award nomination for the documentary, 'The Klan: A Legacy of Hate.'"[41] Her book was published by the University Press of Kentucky. There is no basis for saying that it is not a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

How is it absurd? The claim in question is of highly controversial nature due to its subject matter and the utmost scrutiny should be taken to ensure accuracy. If a legally binding document acceptable in a U.S. court of law, such as an affidavit, is unacceptable research material, how can you justify the acceptability of any other document? Contesting the acceptability of a legally binding document is quite the opposite of absurd. The publishing of a book does not implicitly indicate the reliability of the content, and quoting information gathered by person A from person B concerning some event, condition, or thing of which person A had no direct experience ("he said she said"), is hearsay. There are plenty of non-fiction books which represent opinion as fact. Source material is only as accurate as its respective source material. The content must be verifiable by anyone, not just a few. I've also contacted the Arlington Press with an inquiry as to the validity of the book and if so, to the original author(s).--Dmess0r (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

According to whom is this controversial? Has Duke ever issue a statement denying the authorship? Has he sued those who've asserted it? I don't see any sources offer a contradictory explanation. We have at least two university press books which make this assertion, one of which quotes the subject directly. There really aren't any better sources than that. But if more are needed we have Newsweek,[42] a highly reliable news magazine, plus yet another university press book.[43] To top it off, a highly unreliable site, Stormfront, has a poster saying that Duke admitted to him writing a chapter of the book.[44] If you're expecting us to accept your private correspondence with a publisher as a reliable source then you don't understand WP:V.   Will Beback  talk  23:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Alleging composition of sexual nature by someone other than yourself is controversial in virtually every community with a few statistically insignificant exceptions. His comment in the Newsweek source, albeit it non-cited and without date, plainly says: "Duke says he wrote only one innocuous chapter on diet and exercise." The JHU press book also does not cite the source of Finders-Keepers, ISBN or who published it, which leaves it questionable as well. Lastly message-boards where people are quite concerned about identity is the last place one should look for verifiable material. Finally, I am not asking anyone to accept any private correspondence with a publisher or anyone else, I am attempting to have the publisher produce documentation which may be directly verifiable by parties other than myself.--Dmess0r (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The answer is to attribute the information to the sources. It is indisputable that the assertion has been made. "According to scholars and journalists, Duke collaborated on a book....", or we can even list the sources. And, if we have a reliable source for Duke's comment that he only wrote one chapter on diet, then we can add that too.   Will Beback  talk  01:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that attribution is reasonable for whichever chapters are pertinent and verifiable. To simply state that David went under a pseudonym, or was responsible for the publication of the book would be stretching the facts. I will check back with Patsy Sims and Arlington as I've not heard word back from them. I will touch base with them again tomorrow to make some headway.--Dmess0r (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The only copy known to be in existence was supposedly sent from Patsy Sims to "Ordinary Person". To clear that up somewhat: The copies were sent to me by Professor Lawrence N. Powell, of the Tulane University's History department. Ordinary Person (talk) 05:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC) To clarify even further: the italicised text above is the contents of Professor Powell's email to me. The italicised text is not my words.Ordinary Person (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Replying to Dmess0r: by attributing the assertion, we would not be simply stating that Duke wrote the book. Instead, we'd be saying that Sims says that Duke wrote the book. It is 100% verifiable that Sims, et al, have made statements to that effect.   Will Beback  talk  06:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would note in opassing that Powell's characterisation of it as a '"sexual self-help book"' (Powell's quotation marks) 'crammed with helpful advice about vaginal contraction exercises, oral and anal sex and adultery' is misleading - these are mentioned, but there's a lot of genral advice about diet, health, fashion and relationships ; and Ordinary Person's view that this text is pornography is arguable. It sounds like the sort of advice any frank women's magazine of the time would include. Martinlc (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

and Ordinary Person's view that this text is pornography is arguable.. I never offered that view. I offered the opposite view. Ordinary Person (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I meant Bureacracy Martinlc (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Cracked.com

Is it reliable? Specifically this for their opinion on dumb D&D monsters. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a forum to me, so no. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Cracked is a humor website. Even when it is dealing in more-or-less factual information (in this case, information about fictional species in a role-playing game), there is a high level of sarcasm involved. I wouldn't use it as a reliable source even for a pop culture subject such as this one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a good question and one that I've wondered myself. They have professional writers with a professional editorial policy so on those grounds, I would tend to think that it's a reliable source. However, as Metropolitan90 points out, they are a humor publication. Some of the things they write might be satire and therefore difficult to ascertain what they really mean. This particular article does not seem to be a forum posting. But it's really an opinion piece about what Cracked thinks are the dumb D&D monsters. I personally don't know much about D&D, so I cannot comment on this in any real detail. But I would say this article is reliable for Cracked's the author's opinion. In general, however, I would say that use should use Cracked with caution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The articles dispense with accuracy if it improves the humor, so the site is in no way, shape or form reliable for any purpose... the only thing they would be reliable for is that someone at the site wrote words saying something (not that they even necessarily believe what they wrote, because, again, it's for humor sake), and that's not notable. "One of the writers at Cracked made fun of a D&D monster" is not encyclopedic, it's trivial. DreamGuy (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, no evidence of "professional writers" or of a "professional editorial policy", unless you count this as one. This is the editor's page, this is that of the author of the article cited by Peregrine Fisher - . Please read WP:RS to get an idea of what is reliable. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed... while it is RS... but the fact that Cracked made fun of D&D is not encyclopedic. see WP:Triva.

OK, I was thinking of the print publication which I thought had a professional staff, but maybe not. I don't have an issue in front of me. Please disregard my previous comments. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The print publication hasn't been around for a while, and when it was it was spoof content only, no articles about nonfictional topics. A friend I know who has had stuffed published at the new Cracked website says the editors are not the same as the editors of either version of the print magazine (bought the trademark for the new site?). No fact checking involved in any of the humor pieces, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

www.kirjasto.sci.fi

This site is used as a reference in over 300 Wikipedia articles. It has a separate page for each of many authors with biographies written by a librarian in Finland. I don't like that there are Amazon.com links on every single page. I have found many mistakes on every article I have looked at so far. It seems to me to be self published only on this webpage and not spell checked or edited.

Here is an interesting one about Jack London's elf-designed ketch:

• In 1907 London and Charmian started aboard the Snark, the author's elf-designed ketch, a sailing trip around the world. On the voyage he began to write Martin Eden. After hardships - his captain was incompetent, the ketch was inefficient - they abrupted the journey in Australia.

On the topic of elves, here are some excerpts from the JRR Tolkien article:

• The Hobbit takes the reader to a long journey from the safety of the Hill, where the Bagginses live, to look for their stolen treasure. The story introduces Gandalf, a wandering wizard, Bilbo, a brave hobit[sic], Gollum, a small slimy creature, who likes goblin meat and throttled them behind, and other characters whom Tolkien developed further in The Lord of the Rings.

• In a letter to the Observer, he said that "my bobbit... was not furry, except about the feet.

So far there has been some discussion of this website at Philip K. Dick. Here is an excerpt from http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/pkdick.htm.

• Dick died of a stroke on March 2, 1982, just a few months before the film Blade Runner, based on his DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP (1968), was released. The blockbuster film Total Recal [sic] from 1990 was based on the story 'We Can Remember It for You Wholesale' and also led to a cable TV series. In the story many humans have left the planet. Rick Deckard hunts androids who have been imported to the planet from Mars. His chief wish to be able to afford to purchase and care for an artificial sheep.

At the end of this paragraph the writer seems to be talking about Total Recall but is actually discussing DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP or attempting feeble humor, I'm not sure. Thanks,-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been referring to this site for years and it can serve as a useful starting point for finding good sources on the listed authors, since it provides a bibliography and "further reading" information for each. However, the website itself is self-published by an hobbyist and is not a reliable source for wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the front page of the site, you'll see that the site is copyrighted by "Kuusankosken kaupunginkirjasto, Finland", this translates from Finnish as "Kuusankoski City Library, Finland". The person who writes the author essays is Petri Liukkonen, who is, according to this article, the director of the library. In other words, the site is not "self-published", it's the work of an information professional with, presumably, access to whatever work of reference he needs to use. The site was awarded the Finnish Writers Association Prize in April 2008.

User:Crunchy Numbers is aware of all this, because I told him so on Talk:Philip K. Dick, here, but CN seems to have a burr in his saddle about this site. He first started deleting it saying that it was "spam" ([45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]) and even reported it to WP:Spam ([51]), claiming that it was spam "hiding" as a reference. When nothing came of that, and various people pointed out that it wasn't spam, and was "hidden" in references because... it was being cited as a reference, CN dropped his spam claim, and took up this "not a reliable source" claim. (And then started following me around, undoing my edits without any particular reason - [52], [53] and [54] - which is only relevant because it indicates that there seems to be some kind of ulterior motivation behind CN's actions.)

The kirjasto site is neither spam, nor self-published nor, as one of CN's edits has it "just someones webpage", it's part of a project to create a "calendar" of author essays, written by a professional, published by a library. That the professional and the library are in Finland doesn't make them any less reliable.

(Incidentally, despite his knowledge that I was interested in this site, and had previously defended it, CN neglected to inform me that he was posting this comment here. I guess I will have to stay on my toes to see where Crunch Numbers forum-shops this to next, and what new justification he comes up with for eliminating this worthwhile website from Wikipedia.) Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd also point out that highlighting a few trivial errors (the ones concerning The Hobbitt were both typos for goodness sake!) hardly makes a source unreliable. No source, not even the best and most reliable one, is always right, or is immune from human error, typographical or otherwise. For kirjasto to be deemed "unreliable" in that manner would require a whole heck of a lot more mistaken information than Crunchy Numbers has been able to show. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am still not convinced that the website is a reliable source. Being a "information professional with, presumably, access to whatever work of reference he needs to use" does not make one a citable literary critic. The author is a director of a municipality library in Kuusankoski a town of around 20,000 persons. He does not have any record of having published any peer reviewed article or book on the subject. His writings do not seem to have any editorial oversight or review (which is what makes it self-published). I have yet to see his reviews being cited by any scholar, or reliable source.

I have had the website bookmarked for 7-8 years and consulted it regularly (especially in the pre-wikipedia days); I admire Petri's work as a hobbyist just as I admire the film reviews at this website. If anything, I am biased in favor of www.kirjasto.sci.fi, but I cannot see how it meets the WP:RS standards. Abecedare (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Some random comments:

• The typos and minor errors in the website's content are not a determinative factor in my analysis of its reliability. Rather, we need to evaluate it's reputation for fact checking and accuracy (and this is distinct from both correctness and popularity).
• I don't regard the website as spam, and my guess is that many different editors have added it is an external link or reference in good faith. I really doubt that there is any concerted effort to add it to wikipedia to increase the website's page hits.
• The webite may be a valid external link, especially in less developed wikipedia article, since it does provide a decent write-up and a very useful bibliography. See WP:ELMAYBE ("Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.")

Abecedare (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out your experience with the webpage. You made a good point. The fact that it has been around 7-8 years shows it isn't a fly by night spammer site and it has its own following.

I have no problem with a webpage in Finland or any other country other than it looked suspicious that it was in English and not Finnish. But that is probably more a sign of the times since English has become so dominant in Europe. Maybe the author is using this to improve his English. This brings me to the one thing I disagree with that you said. The excerpt I pasted above shows much more than a minor error on the article for Philip K. Dick. He talks about the film Total Recall but is actually talking about Blade Runner. "His chief wish to be able to afford to purchase and care for an artificial sheep." Even if it had been in context this is a ridiculous thing to say and makes a mockery of the story. For a Monty Python skit it would make sense. Also, typos in names and quotes are more serious than in other places. A typo in an average word is easy to spot or spell check but in someone's name it can easily be copied and spread by unknowing readers. A typo in a quote makes it look like the person being quoted made the mistake. Quotes and names should have been copied letter by letter so typos should be very rare. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this.-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the site has existed since at least 1999 and in the pre-wikipedia days it was perhaps the single best source for author bios on the web. Many wikipedia articles in fact are likely to have started as paraphrase and summary of the Petri's writings: for example this is his write up on Andre Malraux that he wrote in 1999 and this is how our article on Andre Malraux started in 2002. So while I think we shouldn't use it as a reliable source anymore it would be wrong to label it spam or dismiss it as an effort by Petri to improve his English. We may have outgrown our roots, but we should now not be disrespectful or patronizing towards such sources.

Also we need to replace the website with better alternate sources, not blindly remove the reference link without having rewritten the material we got from the website; the latter will be plagiarism in that we'll be using the material without giving appropriate credit to the source we got it from. Abecedare (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The copywrite info at the bottom of http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/malraux.htm says "May be used for non-commercial purposes. The author must be mentioned. The text may not be altered in any way (e.g. by translation). Click on the logo above for information." Everything in this article has been changed yet the material was copied so the copywrite has been violated. The plagiarism article seems to imply that this is a blatant violation. If text was copied from kirjasto it should have been in a block quote form that would not get edited even to fix mistakes.-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If the material was paraphrased then it is not a copyright issue since facts per se cannot be copyrighted; if short extracts of the article are directly quoted with proper attribution then that falls under fair use and again copyright is not an issue (despite what the license may literally say). If large amount of text is cut-n-pasted from the website without quotation marks or is not properly attribution, then it is blatant copyvio.

Plagiarism policy is even stricter than copyright and says that we should not incorporate (even non-copyrighted) material without giving dues credit to the source; that is the reason IMO we should not remove the source without either removing the related material (if we think it is factually incorrect), or replacing it with a better source (if we think the material is fine but the source is non-ideal). I have posted a query at [Plagiarism talk page] related to the issue. Abecedare (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the talk page at the article about Plagiarism is the right place to have a discussion. That talk page is for improving that article. What about [Copyright problems]? It says "This page is for listing and discussing possible copyright problems involving text on Wikipedia, including pages which are suspected to be copyright violations."-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, CN, there are plenty of other noticeboards you can try, you just need to use some imagination. Maybe the Finnish librarian is making it all up? Try posting at the Fringe theories noticeboard. Wait! The Finnish librarian is still alive, doesn't that mean that the Biographies of living persons noticeboard is yet another safe harbor.

Well, you get the idea. Keep plugging away until you find a way to blast that nasty old Finnish librarian back to the Flintstones. Sic semper tyrannis! Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If Abecedare or someone else wishes to post this to an appropriate discussion board then that is great. I don't plan to. Keep this professional. I don't consider the librarian a tyrant. I have no interest in blasting anyone. Your harassment has crossed the line this time to a personal attack. -Crunchy Numbers (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, you started by deleting refs that used the site saying that they were "hidden spam", and when you were shot down on that you took up the argument that it was not a reliable source. I don't know what's motivating you, but it's sure as hell not "professionalism" or anything like it. This is quite simple, if you keep on this mistaken quest of your to persecute kirjasto, a perfectly innocent and helpful little webite, I'm keep on your back, countering your confabulations with facts. That's not a threat, personal or otherwise, it's just an attempt to keep things on the staight and narrow. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This reminds me of difficulties I had in the past with interpreting the reliability of the U.S. National Park Service's National Register Information System (NRIS) and its system of webpages on U.S. National Historic Landmarks. These are both comprehensive and wonderful for wikipedia, especially as they are public domain sources, but they are both also contain numerous errors. These include data entry typos in names of places, county or street location description errors, and some errors of omission or incorrect inclusion in the database. The satisfactory-for-me resolution was to start documenting the errors systematically (at wp:NRIS info issues and wp:NHL info issues), to invite other wikipedia editors to note apparent errors in those sources, and to begin a systematic process of reporting errors to the National Park Service for them to correct. Which they are doing. In this process, it seemed obviously important to be polite and respectful to them, and they have been very cooperative and appreciative enough. They are certainly well aware of the now-huge wikipedia coverage of NRHP places (almost all 84,000 now covered in detailed list-tables indexed here), and some staff are wikipedia fans. So, for this Finnish site, how about contacting Petri to inform him of some apparent typos to correct? Also, the facts that the website has been open to the public for so many years and that it is apparently so salient, suggests to me that its information has already been pored over and probably already has been corrected in many places where initially there were minor errors. I expect it is far more reliable than many academic articles published in peer-reviewed publications that have had few eyeballs ever scanning their content, and have no process whatsoever for noting and posting error corrections. doncram (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the The Jamaica Observer a reliable source?

Or is it a tabloid? Pyrrhus16 10:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• What fact is it being used to cite, and in which Wikipedia article? (Also, being a tabloid and being a reliable source are separate issues -- it's not an either/or situation.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm working on this in my sandbox, and a few of the artists I could add are cited in the above paper. Would it be acceptable to use as a source in that type of future article? Pyrrhus16 15:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• A few quotes about singers who appreciate Michael Jackson's work. Hardly controversial and doesn't scream BLP vio. I see no problem :) — R² 18:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Cheers. :) Pyrrhus16 15:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

South Park Stuff.com

Is this site reliable enough to support this edit, or is it just a forum/blog? Nightscream (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? Nightscream (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it looks like a fansite. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

David Knijnenburg

We need a third party decision regarding the above article. An editor is adding sources that I believe are unreliable, so therefore the addition is invalid. It refers to allegations that he auditioned for the role of Doctor Who and the sources provided are:

• USA Today
• Sylvestermcoy.com

However, both sources are quoting this Australian newspaper that seemed to be involved in an act of speculation based entirely upon original Research [55].

Could a more expereinced editor please take a look at these sources and advise on their validity, thank you. magnius (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If an otherwise reliable source prints a rumor that doesn't make the rumor itself reliable, just the fact that a rumor was going around. The easy way around that is to say that "such-n-such a source reported unconfirmed rumors that such and such happened" versus "such and such happened". In general any controversial claims should be sourced to a source in the text of the article itself so we acurately say someone said something not that it is true. DreamGuy (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The disputed text reads: "He was one of dozens of names mentioned during the media speculation over the casting of the eleventh Doctor Who after David Tennant announced his resignation." The sources are the proof of the statement. It is not actually a question of whether the original source is reliable or not. 11:46, 16 June 2009

I would agree that the sources do reliably support that particular statement. DreamGuy (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Bridget Marquardt

An anonymous IP keeps removing the following sentence from the Bridget Marquardt article:

According to the book Bunny Tales, by former Hefner girlfriend Izabella St. James, Marquardt worked as a dancer at Spearmint Rhino before becoming one of Hefner's girlfriends.

The IP claims that "St. James' book was an AUTOBIOGRAPHY not a biography. No other source confirming or denying the information about Bridget. No reference to the book. What's written on paper doesn't make it accurate or true. Just ask James Frey." and that "A one sided autobiography that presented the story as a rumor and not a fact is not a reliable source." The book was not self-published, and it seems to have gone through a publishing process. The book seems to be reliable for the topic at hand, but that's just my opinion. So is it acceptable to use for this article? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's reliable to the extent that it supports that St. James made the claim, not that it actually happened. All too many people don't get the difference. As long as it's written in the article that St. James made the claim, it's fine. If it tries to say it did happen that's too much. We can reliably say that someone made a claim, not that the claim is accurate. DreamGuy (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. I've restored the version that reflects that. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

FWBO-Files

Does this[56] site constitute a reliable source? Specifically for the page on the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order It is most certainly not neutral, and paranoid in style, yet it has been argued it is suitable for the FWBO article. Can a third party check this please? Thank you.--ObscureFruits (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the source, this website seems to be self-published. Per WP:SPS, self-published sources "are largely not acceptable". As the publisher of this website in particular chooses to remain anonymous, there is no way to confirm that he is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

In summary, my answer is "no", fwbo-files.com does not constitute a reliable source for the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou Levine. Editing it now.--ObscureFruits (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There is the website [57] and there is the document The FWBO Files [58] and [59]. Two different things. The website is published by Verdex, a former FWBO member in Germany, and he writes a little bit about himself here[60] and also provides an email. So not anonymous, though not RS either, but his website does include some RS material, such as the 1997 Guardian article [61], possibly a letter [62] from from psychiatrist Dr Betty Tylden [63] possibly a 2002 letter to the Times [64] and possibly other RS material.

The anonymous document 'The FWBO Files' is available on two websites (links above) and is not RS, but I believe it is referenced in a number of academic books and is also discussed at some length in John Crook's article [65]. So I think the FWBO article should at least mention the existence of this document, and preferably the existence of some responses to it, including the FWBO's own response.

Certainly IMO the 1997 Guardian article is RS, even though it is hosted on two non-RS websites [66] and [67]. So it is not black and white as regards RS or not. My view is that it is appropriate to provide an external link to at least one of the two non-RS websites which host the Guardian article, partly because a link to the Guardian article (in the main text) is inevitably also a link to one of the hosting websites, and partly because there are also a number of external links to FWBO sources, which are non-RS themselves (because they are self-published, not 3rd party sources). I feel there is a danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater if the principle of RS is applied too rigidly. However strictly it is applied, it should be applied equitably to all non-RS sources, not just to those which criticise the FWBO. EmmDee (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an anonymous attack website - not even a blog - transparently operated for the purpose of promoting hatred of members of a buddhist group. The site boasts on its front page that it defames. If the information has any verifiable value, then it would be obtainable from reliable sources and could therefore be properly referenced. The integrity of Wikipedia depends, among other things, on it not being misused to further campaigns of abuse or harassment. Bluehotel (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In the case of the 1997 Guardian article, citing it from the FWBO-Files feels a bit like plucking fruit from a poisonous tree - the tree is not RS and it therefore seems to taint the Guardian news article hosted on the site. What would be better is to search the Guardian's online archives (it goes back to 1984!) or some other RS news archive service and cite the article from there. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I take your point about plucking fruit from a poisonous tree, but might I suggest an alternative simile; that the FWBO-Files.com and the ex-cult.org/fwbo sites are smallholdings growing a variety of produce, only some of which is RS. I agree that it would be better if the 1997 Guardian article was available on the Guardian's own website, but AFAICS it isn't. It may be available from some other RS news archive, I don't know. The article does exist, I have seen a copy, and it is referenced in a number of RS's. EmmDee (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Levine regarding the "poisoned tree" although it may contain reliable sources, they should be found on other, more trustworthy/neutral sites, and then referenced from there.--ObscureFruits (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also in my opinion, Verdex is anonymous, we do not know anything provable about them, and do not have a real name. Also the "FWBO-Files" themselves are hosted on, as it has been decided, two unreliable websites. The document itself is Original Research, potentially unverifiable (though it does have sources and also homophobic to a degree (it implies Homosexuality is worse than Heterosexuality, or at least claims Buddhism is against homosexuality by default and that the FWBO are not "correct" Buddhists because of this.)) Also these sites [68][69] [70] [71] refute this claim (First I pulled from google) --ObscureFruits (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The document 'The FWBO Files' is Original Research and is not RS and AFAICS it is not quoted from anywhere in the article, though the existence of the document is mentioned. However, I am a bit suprised you consider 'The FWBO Files' homophobic and that it implies Homosexuality is worse than Heterosexuality etc. It criticises Sangharakshita for wearing the robes of a celibate monk while engaging in sex with his students, and criticises S and some senior order members for allegedly presurising their students into sex as a 'medium of spiritual friendship' etc. It would be the same if it had been heterosexual sex. These allegations also appeared in the Guardian article (which predates the Files) eg:'Now the British-based cult is engulfed in allegations that it manipulated vulnerable young men into becoming homosexual' (header paragraph) and: 'Even more disturbing, the cases of three vulnerable young men have emerged which detail sexual manipulation and oppressive authoritarian cult behaviour which, in the case of one man, has been cited as a significant factor leading to his suicide.' (3rd paragraph in main text) [72] EmmDee (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not overtly homophobic, but the tone of the section implies heavily something is wrong with homosexuality[73]--ObscureFruits (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It just goes to show how much the world has changed in the last 12 years. The Guardian would no more today say that someone had been manipulated "into becoming homosexual" than it would say someone had been manipulated into becoming an elephant. It's hardly surprising that an anonymous attack site, plainly operated by or in cahoots with the person who made these "allegations" to the Guardian in 1997, and who I believe is now an editor at Wikipedia, wants to highlight such notions, but the Guardian is a recognised source, and anonymous attack sites are not. Bluehotel (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The site should never be used. The occasional RS on the site appear to all be copyvios. DreamGuy (talk)

Seems pretty much decided then, thank you everyone --ObscureFruits (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Citing sexuality

I question whether this reference is sufficient for citing homosexuality. From this article draft, by the way. Shouldn't there be additional references for this type of information? لennavecia 19:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO, no it isn't enough. People speak for their own sexuality, and if this guy hasn't verifiably spoken for his, it isn't for a local newspaper to take that decision for him. If that's the best reference, I would say that his sexuality is irrelevant. Bluehotel (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I more or less agree. However, with the source given above and another one I found, it seems that claims for homosexuality may be correct. ^LeaveSleaves 19:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I really dislike the shotgun use of multiple secondary sources that "kinda sorta" substantiate a particular statement. The first source which Jennavecia provides, in my view, is not appropriate; it appears to be an editorial (I could be wrong), and it's not clear it was published in print (which would imply to me it went through the sort of editorial process that WP:RS likes). The backup source LeaveSleaves gives is a bit better in my view, though its identification of the subject as homosexual is syntactically ambiguous (maybe only in a context-free situation) and definitely a minor detail of the article (more potential for a mistake to slip through). Also, its being an online and likely politically-biased source serves to bring its credibility into question.

I'm not saying those are necessarily good reasons to oppose those particular sources, but I do see them as concerns from an WP:RS perspective. And from a WP:WEIGHT perspective, if the subject's sexual orientation is of particular significance, it should not be a difficult matter to find a reliable source which states it and everyone can agree on. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Per the BLP policy that WP:LGBT upholds, a RS must confirm, but not speculate using clues, that a living celebrity is gay or has romantic/sexual history with the same sex. The subject does not necessarily need to confirm this, but if the subject directly refutes it, that must also be included (see Little Richard). I would try to get a better source for this. Is it an editorial? I thought so at first, but it may be a story. Can you email the writer to ask him how he knows this? Ask him for a RS that says the same, preferably from another publication? --Moni3 (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

reliable sources for music sales and chart positions

hi there, two points i'd like to raise. 1) i have been working on adding sales and certifications to the lady gaga articles and after searching the net i have found numerous websites with such information. most of them being blogs which i know are definitely not allowed to be used on wiki. but i recently came across this site http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/music/popmusic/Lady+Gaga+Paparazzi+Video+Exclusive-8460.html and tried adding its info to an article and was told was not reliable. i was pointed to this noticeboard to get some more opinions so here i am. any help or advice, or even better sites than are def reliable in everyones eyes would be very helpful :) 2) there are dozens of articles on wikipedia that use the website http://zobbel.de/cluk/CLUK2009.HTM to provide uk chart positions from 100-200 because these positions are usually only available to subscribers to a web magazine. however when trying to use it for the lady gaga articles it was reverted every time and told its rubbish. so how come its reliable for other articles but not for lady gaga? so again any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. thanks!! Mister sparky (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I contend that www.femalefirst.co.uk does not meet the requirements of WP:RS, particularly when it comes to record sales. It just shouldn't appear on article, especially GA's. — R² 13:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, a Google News search shows many other sources citing FemaleFirst. There's a lot of "according to FemaleFirst" or "femalefirst.co.uk reported", from media outlets such as New York Magazine, the Times of India, Press Trust of India, the Hindu, Metro Canada, Javno.hr, TheInsider.com, Digital Spy, MTV.com. Being cited by other media is one indication of reliability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A lot of reliable sources also say "according to The Sun", which happens to be the worst tabloid in human existence.

Not quite- there's the Daily Star!Martinlc (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

One topic publishing house acceptable as RS?

Here is the main talk topic on this particular RS issue - Talk:Christian_Conventions#Is www.workersect.org a self-published site? The web site is called Research Information Services [74] and publishes and sells a variety of books by different authors [75] about the group Christian Conventions. I won't offer my own opinion here but would like some direction on whether this site or its publications should be cited in the article Christian Conventions. If the answer is yes, would you place any limits on its use? Thanks.RSuser (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, consider anything from this site self-published. This does not mean that we can not use it, but it does mean that there are limitations in how we use it and for what types of statements. See WP:SPS for more information. Blueboar (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The etst isn't the range of subjects, it's the level of editorial scrutiny: if the publisher just prints the author's work without any checking, it counts as WP:SPS but if it is vetted by an editirial board then it isn't.Martinlc (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

When there is no connection between the author and the publishing house this is true... but SPS also applies when there is a close connection between the author and the publisher, such as both being tied to the same fringe group. In these circumstances we have to consider both to be "self-publishing" on behalf of the fringe group, no matter what sort of editorial "vetting" or scrutiny the publisher might give the work. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm the person who used these in citations, I have the books at hand. There does seem to be some editorial process and variety of input, at least in the works being cited in the article. One of the publications cited contains a foreword by a respected academic (past chancellor of the U of Hawaii Manoa, and president of the Hawaii Loa/Hawaii Pacific U.), the other contains a foreword by the publisher. Both are footnoted, indexed and contain extensive appendices. Although parts of both do delve into refutation and polemics, they don't seem to be just thrown together rants, and do contain information apart from getting into such issues. The Wiki article concerns a religious group about which there is a limited amount of information available, not exactly a tempting plum for publication, just as for many subjects related to religion that end up with tiny publishers. The lack of materials is compounded by the group not having any publicly available written statement of faith, or other material which reflects its views or history. I personally think it is a stretch to label the 2 cited books as SPS, particularly when lack of citation has been frequently used to blank or nominate for deletion information in this and related articles in the past. • Astynax ^talk 19:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much. That is really helpful, esp the principle of "level of editorial scrutiny".
As to how an SPS is used? The policy allows specific exceptions. If those specific exceptions, namely SPS by established expert or SPS is the topic itself, do not fit, does that mean NO use of the SPS is allowed? RSuser (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

the test...is the level of editorial scrutiny. Any suggestions on how to prove this one way or the other?

there is a close connection between the author and the publisher, such as both being tied to the same fringe group. I'm sure Blueboar will now explain how to determine whether publisher and author belong to a fringe group. For your info, this is also a matter of some subtlety: see WP:FTN. I'll note that the Journal of Parapsychology would certainly pass anyone's level of editorial scrutiny smell test, as they peer-review articles via friends and foes of parapsychology. However both being tied to the same fringe group? Parapsychologists publishing in a parapsychology journal. Well? are they fringey? And who decides? Thanks. --nemonoman (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think whether it's a 'fringe group', per se, enters into the evaluation of editorial scrutiny. To determine level of editorial scrutiny you'd want to see an arm's length relationship between publisher and author. I could think of various ways to test that. For example, does the publisher have full time editors who work independently of the author, does the publisher employ legal staff to vet for libel, does the publisher publish a range of views on topic or variety of topics, and so on and so forth. Am I on the right track? RSuser (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think all 'blueboar' is saying is that if the publisher and author are in a 'fringe group' then no level of editorial scrutiny is enough. Anyway, I don't believe the publisher in question is a 'fringe group' so we're back to looking at editorial scrutiny.RSuser (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the comment about SPS pertained to the web sites, not the books. We could use an opinion on the books mentioned by astynax, yes, no, or don't know. Here are the links to the publishers' pages on these books. [76] [77] RSuser (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The arm's length test is also a little doubtful. How arm's length was the relationship between William F Buckley and the National Review? I guess the desirable test for me is editorial accuracy and fact-checking. I'm a former technical editor back from the Bronze age when people cared about this stuff. I have had two books published by a major New York publishing house, and frankly any editing, proofreading, or fact-checking that got done was done by me and me alone. Nobody seems to give a damn. Arm's length would have been a step up. I could have called the light darkness and the darkness light, and St Martins would have pushed it out the door without a word. My personal experience with recent publishing colors my opinions on this matter. --nemonoman (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

One topic publishers - random break

The lack of materials is compounded by the group not having any publicly available written statement of faith, or other material which reflects its views or history.

Unfortunately this is not really an excuse to cite dodgy references, but...

The Wiki article concerns a religious group about which there is a limited amount of information available, not exactly a tempting plum for publication, just as for many subjects related to religion that end up with tiny publishers.

I think this is a very good point in defence of this set of resources. In other words, although the publisher is limited to a single topic, this should not count against its perceived integrity in this case. I would be interested to see more comment from editors who've not been involved with the wiki article in question. Donama (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

When I used "Fringe group", that was simply an example. Let me rephrase... there are 3 types of self-publication that we must consider ... 1) the traditional self-publication, when a publishing house is paid by author to publish his or her work... 2) the modern self-publication, where the publisher is the author (most websites fall under this type)... and 3) When the publisher has a direct connection to the author, be it of a political, religious, social or other nature. For example, a religious sect may publish books about the sect which are authored by one of its members. Everything, from the writing to the printing the book (or hosting the website) is done "in house". That would clearly be SPS. However, I do admit that in many cases there isn't such a clear tie as in my example. Sometimes you have to dig a bit to find the tie. And sometimes the tie isn't really there at all, but may seem to be. In such cases, it is usually best to treat the source as if it were Self-published. Remember, we can use Self-published sources, we just have limitations on how and when we use them. Blueboar (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this description would fit university presses, foundation presses, and a number of other respected publishers.

Is a Hoover Institute white paper an SPS? From your description, I should say yes. Is the Chicago Manual of Style, published by the U. of Chicago, written by in-house staff? How about the Random House Dictionary: as you say "the publisher has a direct connection to the author" and Everything, from the writing to the printing the book (or hosting the website) is done "in house".

As to other publishers: do you really mean for an editor dig a bit to find the tie? What method would you suggest here? What would be a reliable source to describe the tie that would clearly delineate a publication as SPS? Do you REALLY mean to say: And sometimes the tie isn't really there at all, but may seem to be. In such cases, it is usually best to treat the source as if it were Self-published. What exactly is your criteria for "SEEMING" to have a tie?

Editor 1: I've looked into it, and this publisher appears to have no tie to the author.

Editor 2: Agreed. So since the tie isn't really there at all, we best treat this source as Self-published.

Editor 1: Thank God for your rational analysis!

Honestly, have you deliberated on the words you've written here, or are you improvising? Your responses sound pleasant enough, but practically they provide for a whole world of doubtful action if anyone should attempt to implement them. You have broadened the scope of SPS to cover a huge swath, and provided a rationale that seems prone to personal interpretations and original research for any but the most well-documented mainstream topics. --nemonoman (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a very good point in defence of this set of resources. In other words, although the publisher is limited to a single topic, this should not count against its perceived integrity in this case. (Donoma)

I disagree strongly. Integrity is integrity. If the editorial scrutiny is lacking, then the source is worthless and its better to write with no source at all. It makes things worse in fact because it now appears that the article has been cited and source checked when it's the furthest thing from it. I'd prefer editors on this topic to write and not cite at all, than to cite poor quality sources. RSuser (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I have suggested in the past that we leave uncited material in the article, as long as the material is NPOV and non-controversial. We may not want to do that, but it's preferable to a poor citation which the writer says, "see, it is cited".RSuser (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that there are a few reliable sources that would create a good, concise article on the subject, IMO. RSuser (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Could I add an extended thought or two on this? I'm doing this because I sense you're not grasping 'blueboar's concept. I can relate to the idea of 'editorial scrutiny' through my experience in academic writing. Forgive me if I sound patronizing. The best sources you can find are -arguably- peer-reviewed academic journals where the ideas have been tested without partiality to a particular point of view. Next down are published books, periodicals from reputable publishers. The arm's length test means that ostensibly the material has been published with greater regard for accuracy and truth than for pushing the writer's viewpoint. If that arm's length relationship is missing, then we're into the realm of advocacy. This means that hypotheses are proposed without considering all sides of the argument. If you allow these kinds of hypotheses into articles as 'fact', you're polluting wiki.RSuser (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Further, allowing SPS sources in will create edit wars and endless discussions. I can see it happening now with the Christian Conventions article. RIS is an anti- Christian Convention advocacy group, and citing from their web site and SPS books is going to take much time to vet and weed out. We who are in the group can see the bias immediately. It's going to take time to explain the kind and source of bias to other editors such as nemoman. Do you have time for this? I've taken just the first paragraph as an example, and we have several thousand words of Talk!! Better to not let the cat into the pantry in the first place. RSuser (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You have gotten off the topic you introduced - One topic publishing house acceptable as RS? and are now arguing on this page the same arguments you have been making for some time on the Christian Conventions talk page. It appears you are shopping for an advocate to agree with you. I will answer the concerns you raise on the Christian Conventions talk page. Please allow these good editors to address the question of reliable sources and your specific question. --nemonoman (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No. This is a direct response to Donama's idea (and yours previously stated) that in the absence of reliable sources we should allow ones that are not reliable. In fact, we have been arguing this endlessly in the CC article. Let's get some input from some editors who have broader experience. Frankly I'm tired of having to argue wiki policies based on your and my personal interpretations of them. So let's do it here.RSuser (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User RSuser has asked me to answer his "logic" here rather than on the CC talk page where it belongs. Here goes.

He writes: The arm's length test means that ostensibly the material has been published with greater regard for accuracy and truth than for pushing the writer's viewpoint.

Wherever did he get the idea that a publisher was going to assert a regard for accuracy and truth? The bias of publishers is so well-known that Jay Leno makes jokes about it and 8 million people laugh.

He writes: If that arm's length relationship is missing, then we're into the realm of advocacy. This means that hypotheses are proposed without considering all sides of the argument.

Wherever did he get the idea that reliable sources are free of advocacy, or that they consider all sides of an argument? What in the world? Name 10 publishers that achieve this lofty ideal.

He writes: We who are in the group can see the bias immediately. I'd prefer editors on this topic to write and not cite at all, than to cite poor quality sources. It's going to take time to explain the kind and source of bias to other editors such as nemoman. In fact, I have suggested in the past that we leave uncited material in the article, as long as the material is NPOV and non-controversial.

So long, apparently is it is HIS uncited material or material HE believes to be NPOV and noncontroversial.

In other words -- once again: Members may decide these things better than non-members. Members may define bias. Members may define POV and NPOV. Members may create uncited "facts" if they are "non-controversial". Citations and references? Who needs them? Scholarship be damned. Research be damned.

And I have a hypothetical question for RSuser: How am I to know that you are in the group. How do I know that your determinations are correct. What Reliable Source are you prepared to present as a credential of your bona fides that you are in the group and may therefore decide what counts as NPOV and non-controversial and not therefore needs no further citation?

This is just nuts. --nemonoman (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never written anything for the article. I'd like to see a much smaller article. I've been concerned with both pro- and anti- POV edits. My comment above is not to be taken as advocating "members only" input. A pro- reader sees the anti- bias, and an anti-reader sees the pro- bias. If anything my bugbear is that the writing from all sides has never been anywhere near an academic or NPOV level. It would take a lot of work to show the anti-POV edits in the article at this point, and I'd rather just remove the badly sourced stuff than argue everything out. Many of the edits are in an ideological context that is not well understood outside the pro- and anti- movement crowd. The non-trinitarianism debate is a good example of how difficult and how long it takes to work out these issues. In many cases editors are trying to do academic work that academics haven't done yet, so I think the best is to leave it aside. Don't say anything.RSuser (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As for me being in the group or not, who cares. As I said I have no wish to add anything myself to this particular article.RSuser (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing cited material is just as unreasonable as adding uncited material. Or as reasonable. Without reasonable references that back up your assertions, adding material pr removing material or demanding the removal or insertion of such material are all equally nonproductive.

Having to waste my valuable time on these demands, based solely on your assertion that something is wrong or POV or biased or whatever -- or on the assertions of others who claim membership in the group -- which membership, by the way is not proved -- has been a tremendous waste of my time. There is simply no satisfying or accomodating you or others who want the article to read differently. You make no attempt to find reference in support for your demands. You just demand. If you don't get your way, you claim that referenced material is incorrect. If you can't prove it's incorrect, you shop around for others to support your views. You have become troublesome. --nemonoman (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Things certainly cannot be a free-for-all, but it seems to me that restrictions and burden on editors on the level being hinted at in places here would be devastating. Many WP articles cite material from single-topic publishing houses. - even articles which have achieved FA status (see George Fox, among many, many others). Surely no one really wants to take this to its conclusion and go through Wikipedia ripping out references on that basis. • Astynax ^talk 02:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me try again... I agree that we should not automatically call every publication from every single-topic publishing house a self-published source... however, because a great many self-published sources (especially those pushing minority and fringe views) are published by single-topic publishing houses, I think a yellow flag of caution should be raised when we come upon something published by one. In other words, when we come upon a source published by a single-topic house, we should not rush call a source "self-published" purely because of who published it. Instead we should take the attitude that it might be self-published. We need to look deaper and see if there is anything "fishy" going on. Final determination will greatly depend on what degree of "fishiness" is discovered, and how badly it smells. A lot will depend on the specific source, the specific author, the specific publishing house, and how all these things are, or are not, connected. Reliability is not always a black and white clear cut issue. Blueboar (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Caution's good. And there can be gray areas, the perception of which can be colored by individual editor's perspectives - there are many subjects where this is particularly apt to occur. I think I may be seeing where you may be pointing. If I can again use the George Fox article as an illustration to see if I'm getting it:

The Fox article is almost entirely based upon sources published by Society of Friends-related small, single-topic publishers. Apart from the fact that they are single-topic, the publishers are very much pro-Fox. Most of the best materials on Fox have been published by Quaker authors and publishers.

That should raise the yellow flag you indicated (I agree). Though bias can always be assumed, that does not of itself mean that sources do not contain objective and even necessary information, or that they are not RS. Article's editors can cite from those sources, but it would mean being careful as to what information was gleaned (separating opinion from facts, and even providing backup sources where possible). Watch out for publishers pushing fringe theories (“Fox was an alien from Zelgon, who implanted nanochips into Charles II's head, thus turning the British Royal family into a race of zombies”). And if there is a better source that supports the article, use it. If that's where you are going, then I think editors can work with that. • Astynax ^talk 07:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It comes back to whether the publisher has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy WP:RS. If third-party authoritative sources are happy to cite the publisher's material as fact then it's an RS; if no thrid party soruces ever cite them, or cite them only in an arm's length way, then not an RS. The bias of the source need not affect its reliability for matters of fact.Martinlc (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There is simply no satisfying or accomodating you or others who want the article to read differently. I have tried to make exactly four edits to the article which are documented and defended in the Talk section First Paragraph. I agreed to hold off on these edits pending the resolution of this discussion. I don't see how that merits being called 'troublesome'. As it stands we once had an article with a dozen collaborators that has been replaced wholesale by a single writer using primarly one self-published source, RIS, and its original research. Check the article and see if this is not so. RSuser (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We need to look deaper [sic] and see if there is anything "fishy" going on. Are you suggesting that we need to have an open discussion about RIS on the Christian Convention talk page? I personally would rather not do that. Do the articles on Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, et al allow citations from their anti- and attack sites? I was hoping editors could look at the RIS materials and offer an opinion as to whether RIS is a self-published source and whether it should be used. Perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of this page. In the absence of an outright ruling, clearer guidance is requested. Here is a quote from nemoman which he placed on the CC Talk page. Here's the New Nemo: You don't like something that has a reference or citation? Find a better one. End of story. That unfortunately is what we have to deal with. According to him the quality of the source is not an issue. If we are to take the principle that we source using a "best available" approach as Donama and Nemoman are advocating ... well, let's say it's not what I'm used to.RSuser (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Do the articles on Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, et al allow citations from their anti- and attack sites?... Um... yes, actually, they do. Or at least they should. Inclusion of the Anti POV helps keep the article Neutral. But that is a different debate. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The [George] Fox article is almost entirely based upon sources published by Society of Friends-related small, single-topic publishers. The George Fox article appears to be based on his journals (primary source) and publications of the Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press and a few other legitimate publishers.RSuser (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

if no thrid party soruces ever cite them, or cite them only in an arm's length way, then not an RS. To my knowledge there are no third party sources that cite RIS. I stand corrected though. Clarification request - by third party, do you mean third party reliable sources? Because the various 'attack' web sites do quote and even plagiarize each other.RSuser (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Another summary. I have gotten people upset because I do want to outright blank or remove unsourced or badly sourced material. I want to remove it based on the quality of the source. I don't want to argue whether the statement is right or wrong, because that comes down to he said-she said. Without quality sources, argumentation is futile. I do not want to do research based on primary sources to reach a conclusion (as per antiTrinitarianism discussion). If a respected authority has done all the legwork and can be cited I'm fine with that. Further, I know of only three reliable sources that can be used for summary hypotheses of this nature, Melton, Jaenen and Jaenen in the Canadian Encyclopedia. I'm also not against simple narrative or statement of facts based on primary sources or no sources. But as soon as we get into areas of ideology IMO we need airtight reliable sources. That's my position; if I am not in line with wiki policies, just tell me and I will back off. (I don't mean you nemoman). RSuser (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Since RSuser has suggested that I am misrepresenting him, and further has requested that I address this concern on this page rather than the CC talk page where I believe the information belongs, I do respond:

...an article with a dozen collaborators that has been replaced wholesale by a single writer using primarly one self-published source, RIS, and its original research. Check the article and see if this is not so.

I have checked the article, which now contains 74 footnotes referencing 24 sources of which two (2) are publications of RIS, the publisher that RSuser is worked up about (which by the way is NOT a 'self-published source' as he asserts).

I will note that RSuser has changed tactics here, getting away from the question "One topic publishing house acceptable as RS?" and now requesting views on whether an "anti-" publisher's works may be cited in Wikipedia. And when he gets an opinion that publications cited by others pass the "fishiness" test, he now demands to know if he can dispute the validity of THOSE doing the citing as well.

I think the simplest approach here would be to say: RSuser, you are RIGHT. Wikipedia will never accept as reliable published by RIS -- or by any other group that you consider to be 'anti-'.

RSuser, being a member of this group, clearly knows best. If he says it's not reliable because it's 'anti-', I think think the best thing to do is to agree, as there appears to be no way to end this other than to simply accede to his opinions and demands. --nemonoman (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Why I say that there is no accomodating this user.

"The bias of the source need not affect its reliability for matters of fact." -- Martinlc (talk) 6:11 am, Today (UTC-4)

"I do want to outright blank or remove unsourced or badly sourced material. I want to remove it based on the quality of the source. I don't want to argue whether the statement is right or wrong." RSuser (talk) 10:39 am, Today (UTC−4)

And based on my experience, this argument will continue unless and until RSuser gets what he wants. I recommend full compliance with his approach as soon as possible, and a revision of guidelines to give top priority to an editor's opinion of a fact (rather than the fact's accuracy).--nemonoman (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. That's twice now that you claim I go off topic when rebutting an assertion made by YOU. Anyway first of all, you seem not to understand the difference between "the quality of the source" and "the bias of the source". I've never said we should reject RIS because of their bias. They are amateur researchers, IMO. It's the quality I'm concerned about. Second, I've only ever asked about whether RIS is an acceptable source to wikipedia. I have made little or no case that it should or should not be. I certainly have my opinion, but I hold that in abeyance, because I'd like to know what more experienced editors think. If we allow amateur, unacademic research to be cited, then so be it.RSuser (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
As far as the article being sourced from RIS, I think you'll find that many of the primary sources used have been compiled and are referenced from the RIS site. How many of the references are SPS sold or printed by RIS or primary sources that are stored on the RIS site? Anyone can go and look at the CC article and test my assertion but perhaps I went too far. I'm just using RIS as a test case. There are plenty of other attack/ anti- sites and if this one is rejected I assume the others would be also since the quality and lack of academic research is similar. But I'm not trying to prejudice the case - I'm pretty sure that in spite of whatever aspersions I come up with, they can make up their own mind. I'd just like editors to go and look, read some on the site, and tell me what they think based on their experience.RSuser (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, nemoman, what is YOUR assessment of the quality of RIS as a source? I don't know if you've ever said either.RSuser (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And I am not hard to accomodate. I ask only for answers, I really don't care what the answer is. Tell me what the answer is and I will adjust my behaviour accordingly. If RIS and similar sources are acceptable, then I will no longer attempt to blank badly sourced points. If they are not acceptable, then I will. RSuser (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I checked and of the 74 cites, 28 are to Fortt or Daniel, the two books directly printed by RIS and mentioned above. Most of the remaining quotes are primary sources.RSuser (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a hard one. The "church" itself has no organizational structure, so the publisher is more or less by definition "independent" of that non-existent structure. Being the official "spokespeople" for the body would make it acceptable as an SPS, but it probably doesn't qualify as such. The question then becomes is the publisher reliable in its own right. Generally, if the source is relied on by others, it is, basically, reliable. As the subject being written about is one that isn't written about very often, though, it's hard to find any other sources which have used it, and it's also somewhat hard to find other works which even cover the subject so that they would have a reason to use such sources. The site doesn't seem to have tried to gloss over the group's negative aspects, including links to pieces regarding sexual abuse in the group, etc., so my guess would be that it probably qualifies as a marginally reliable source. Information sourced from other publishers, who are better known and/or have a broader reputation, might well be better, and should be used if available, but I would think this publisher would be an acceptable source for significant, not apparently controversial material about the group if other better sources aren't available. Having said that, I'd welcome input from others as well. John Carter (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The site doesn't seem to have tried to gloss over the group's negative aspects, including links to pieces regarding sexual abuse in the group, etc., so my guess would be that it probably qualifies as a marginally reliable source. Actually they are trying to expose as much negative material about the group as possible. If you look at the title screen (main link above) their avowed purpose is to lead people away from the teachings of the group, and back to the Word of God. Just thought I would clarify that one point, don't know if it makes a difference. A good example of the writing style is here: [78]. The Doctrine section near the bottom of the page is indicative. Draw your own conclusions. RSuser (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the lack of author name or corporate information makes it a WP:SPS of unknown reliability: it could be complete fiction. If there was an About us section for RIS and some hint about their expertise in the area it would be a start, but as it is even simple data like death dates for individuals may be incorrect.Martinlc (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Do the articles on Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, et al allow citations from their anti- and attack sites?... Um... yes, actually, they do. Or at least they should. Inclusion of the Anti POV helps keep the article Neutral. But that is a different debate. That is something I did not think of. I mean, I can see writing a section on JW & Blood Transfusions and including views from an anti- site. But would you cite their writing about JW founders based on their own research with uncredentialed and unidentified researchers? Would you take unequivocally their version of JW doctrine based on what they heard spoken at the Kingdom Hall? I can see that the bias of the site is quite irrelevant. I'm using anti- JW as an example because I suspect the credentials on such sites are similar, and there would be topical parallels. I'm probing because there might be experience that could be drawn on.RSuser (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

RSuser asked for my opinion about RIS. I have none. As to the INFORMATION that has been quoted in RIS-published references and citations, I DO have an opinion. Those statements appear correct and correctly referenced, and are not influenced excessively by bias or POV -- at least that's how it seems to this observer. I'll state that I have no dog in this fight one way or the other, except that because I haven't landed on RSuser's side, he appears to think I'm "anti-". In case you're wondering, RSuser, I had never heard of this group before, but aside from one or members I've run into since, I mostly appreciate and like it. I'm not about to profess, but I have no bones to pick.

That said, I think we need to return once more to RSuser's statement: I want to remove it based on the quality of the source. I don't want to argue whether the statement is right or wrong.

Here's the crux of his issue. Actually validating the facts is a real pain in the ass. Can't we just say that RIS, and any other publisher RSuser doesn't like is biased and suspect, and that information from such an identified biased source, no matter how accurate, should be removed? And also any information that might be based on, or even influenced by, such sources?

This is a great way to slice through all that scholarship crap that really slows things down. It's a wholesale way to delete numerous documented facts that are not compatible with RSuser's personal view.

RSuser has provided personal examples of his preference for his opinions over even the most easily verifiable facts. Everything he says that appears incorrect is a slight error, to be forgiven. But even documented facts must be excised if he says so.

Anyway, as I said before, the best approach here is to establish RSuser's approach as the New Wiki Guideline. When a member of a group doubts the authenticity of source, it must be regarded as unreliable, regardless of its accuracy, and all sources related to or influenced by a that source may be excised without comment.

My thanks to RSuser for setting the record straight. --nemonoman (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Martinlc wrote: I think the lack of author name or corporate information makes it a WP:SPS of unknown reliability: it could be complete fiction,

I hold in my hand a wonderful book called "Sexual Life in Ancient India" which I used in researching my book on Indian eunuchs. A 1930 English Translation of a scholarly german work. My volume is a reprint, clearly from old plates, republished in the late 1980s by "Dorset PRess" which on careful inspection one finds is a division of Barnes and Noble.

Now if you google Dorset Press, you will find no information about it at all. Further it's pretty clear that nobody -- not Dorset, not B&N, not anybody, vetted or reviewed the info in this book. They just slammed through the photolithographers and out the door.

Yet this book IS a very edifying source book on this unusual topic. I've had to share it with a number of Oriental scholars, all of whom appreciated its information, not one of whom doubted its authenticity or accuracy (I asked). But you can't find good publisher information on it.

So is this another SPS? Is masthead information from google searches to be our determinant of reliablity?

I will be very glad when we adopt the suggestions of RSuser, so that such questions become at last inconsequential. When we do, at last!, simply calling a publisher unreliable is all that will be required -- no concern for actual facts involved. --nemonoman (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As to the INFORMATION that has been quoted in RIS-published references and citations, I DO have an opinion. Those statements appear correct and correctly referenced, and are not influenced excessively by bias or POV -- at least that's how it seems to this observer.

What does "appear correct" mean? How did you determine that the statements on RIS or from RIS "appear correct"? Is the appearance of correctness how we determine what's a reliable source? I'm still left wondering how you made that determination. RSuser (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I can also turn your question around and ask, "Can someone use a source just because they SAY it is reliable?". I mean you say it is, and I say it is not. You just want to be able to declare out of thin air that this is a reliable source, and add your opinions to the article on that basis. RSuser (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the rest, again you incorrectly capture what I've been saying so if you don't mind I'll let that pass.RSuser (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, you do have a dog in this, as witnessed by the tacit alliance you formed with the article writer on your talk page. You told him to stay out of this argument so that you could go to bat for him, correct? That would seem to indicate your mind was already made up long before. I have no problem with the alliance, but don't imply that your mind is open about this matter.RSuser (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Did I SAY this??? Those statements appear correct and correctly referenced, and are not influenced excessively by bias or POV' YIKES!! God, what WAS i thinking???? What I meant to say was: How can a simple statement about the simple definition of a simple term be correct -- IF IT APPEARS IN A BOOK PUBLISHED BY RIS!!!???!!? My background, experience, intelligence, scholarship are USELESS NOW. I have been coerced by a one-topic publisher!!! Those RIS BASTARDS! Let's quick get rid of these referenced materials! The members know best!!! That's what I meant to say. Sorry. --nemonoman (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As I thought. You have no idea how to tell if a source is reliable or not, which is why we're here. I might have thought you'd comment on the level of editorial scrutiny at RIS but that would be too much to expect. RSuser (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My point is that unless we can say who RIS are, where they got their information, and what they did to check its authenticity, the 'information' they provide cannot be an RS, unless we can find other RSs who have cited it. Nemonoman's example of the Indian eunuch book has got a named auther, a named publisher, a known publishing history, a named translator, and will have been cited by others, which isn't the same thing. In the absence of any information about RIS, we cannot tell how reliable their material is. But (to clarify) this doubt is not ebcause they are a 'single topic publisher'. If it is genuinely the case that there are no references other than RIS for this group, (in , for example, a history or encyclopedia of religious movements), it is doubtful that they are Notable.Martinlc (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Martinlc, but I think you came in a little late. The materials being cited here are from BOOKS published by RIS, not from the website itself. Books can be bought on Amazon etc., are not ibooks but actual books, the books have introductions by scholars, the books have footnotes, notes, and references, etc., and authors named and I suppose contactable for further verification. I would agree that citing some random page off the RIS website would be dubious indeed. But again, we're talking about BOOK CITATIONS here. See the article for examples, with actual page numbers, etc. And as RSuser has pointed out, these books HAVE been cited by OTHER sources -- which to his mind places THOSE sources under suspicion as well. What RSuser is saying that because some aspects of RIS may be less than OK RS, does that not throw ALL materials related to RIS under suspicion. And also any source that has cited RIS. Etc. And the sooner we agree with him, the better.--nemonoman (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am in no hurry, as I've indicated before. First, there are a few published reliable sources on the group, the Canadian Encyclopedia, the American Encyclopedia of Religion (Melton), and a chapter in a book by historian Cornelius Jaenen. There are many primary sources dating prior to 1910 but very few since. The various SPS sources have been set up by the anti-cult movement and also by various ex-members with varying degrees of editorial integrity. RIS is actually not all that bad, their critique is mostly a polemic based on religious argument and on doctrinal matters they appear overly eager to distance the group from mainstream Christianity. But on simple factual matters they seem pretty good. Another site, Telling the Truth, by Cherie Kropp, has acquired a good reputation among ex-members and some members. (Only a very few members participate actively on these sites). From those two, there are a dozen or so more sites in descending levels of quality and venom. All I've said is that these sites participate together. A number of them are registered to the same server. I would think the circularity of the sites neither adds or takes away from their editorial integrity. There is only one academic who has done any work in the field, Cornelius Jaenen. He is a member of the group and routinely discredited by the anti- sites and by the author of the present article doesn't seem to like him much either. Here is a brief CV: [79]. IMO, his work should take priority over these SPS sites when there's a dispute. Is that correct?RSuser (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

RSuser writes: You have no idea how to tell if a source is reliable or not, which is why we're here.. You're the one questioning the source. What suggests to you that a SINGLE FACT REFERENCED FROM AN RIS BOOK in incorrect? RSuser writes: I know of only three reliable sources that can be used for summary hypotheses of this nature, Melton, Jaenen and Jaenen in the Canadian Encyclopedia. As you asked of me, I now ask of you -- tell me how you came to KNOW the level of 'editorial scrutiny' that makes these the three and only three reliable sources. Also explain if you will how actual source documents written by the early workers may not be considered reliable sources. Three and only three reliable sources...Nice. They'd love this in Iran, and the sooner we adopt these principles, the sooner everyone will be happy. --nemonoman (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe someone else could answer this? Why the American Encyclopedia of Religion by Melton or a book called 'The Apostles' Doctrine and Fellowship' by this writer [80] is considered a more reliable source than the RIS site? RSuser (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in hearing the answer to this too, and perhaps RSuser can provide us with some insight into HIS reasoning. The book is actually titled Encyclopedia of American Religions ISBN 0787663840 for those interested. What interersts me is that it is published by Gacl. Gacl publishes a number of scholarly works, see here. However: no website. No googlable information. No information about who they are, where they are from, what motivates their editorial scrutiny, etc. In fact, as a former college textbook editor and former university press editor, I can state without much doubt that many of their books have extremely limited commercial value, if any, and the impression one gets of their backlist is that Gacl may be a respectable vanity press for academics. So RSuser, tell us why this is a Reliable Source? Or you can follow MY logic which is this: Content is King. --nemonoman (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Gale Publishing is a publisher with a reputation for factchecking and accuracy, and produces a great volume of books which are including in my local libraries' reference collections, which indicates their reputation. The author of the book, J. Gordon Melton, is one of the most highly regarded experts on the subject of religion in America alive today. I would have to say that Melton's work is among the most reliable sourcing out there, and is, in fact, among those I most frequently use myself. John Carter (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks John, that is good to know. See my response to your point on the founder question. I will also obtain my own copy. Under $10 on abebooks!RSuser (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

One topic publishers - Random Break 2

As to Jaenen's The Apostles' Doctrine and FellowshipISBN 1-894508-48-3, there are several items worth noting. First unlike the many books that Jaenen actually lists on his college website, this particular volume is conspicuously missing. Next the book appears to be available ONLY from its publisher Legas. The Legas website is very forthcoming about the Legas management team, a couple of Italian academics. They have a nice page "for authors" that says effectively -- "Don't call us, we'll call you." If you take a look at their catalogue, you'll see that this publisher offers -- well I suppose the nice word would be a pastiche. From The Adventurers of Crystal Lake

Life on Crystal Lake is great fun for all until the terrible Smog Dragon appears on its shores...Goose Steven, Dog Miranda and Trout Gordon decide to fight back. They enlist the help of their friend Rainbow Captain and his companion Big White Cloud...

To La femme errante

Referring to Western reality and its ideology the authors of this book discuss the problems inevitably imposed by globalization today. This extreme form of capitalism onsists [sic] in total commodification, including commodification of all communicative relations; its desperate task is to reproduce itself, this same reproduction system. [Note: How's THAT for editorial scrutiny?? No, no, I onsist!]

...It becomes clear that this is another academic vanity press. Or perhaps RSuser can provide us with an insight into THIS publisher's rigorous editorial scrutiny and fact checking, it's determination to remain free of bias, etc., etc., etc.

ANYWAY, it turns out that Jaenen, who RSuser insists is the only one of 2 authors who make the Reliable Sources Cut, wrote a three-part volume of 556 pages including front-matter and index. Part 1: the early church. Part 2: the next 10 centuries. Part 3, however...:

"... documents attempts within the mainstream and also in heretical movements, from at least the fourth century to the present, to retain, reconstitute, or restore the original Christian model.

Within less than 200 pages, in the midst of a 17-century overview of heretical and mainstream movements, apparently, the Christian Convention gets a mention. So that's supposed to be go-to Reliable Source, to the exclusion of others actually written about the subject. Again I ask...Huh? --nemonoman (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Earlier, my colleague RSuser said to me: You have no idea how to tell if a source is reliable or not, which is why we're here.... I agree that he has put the question. And in fact I do. My idea on how to tell is the same as the ideas repeatedly expressed by the editors above.

Yet still we have to be confronted with more and more complaints, doubtful reasons, and most recently the RSuser List of Approved and Reliable Sources. Based on his examples however I'm hard pressed to say why his Go-to Reliable Sources are any more reliable than the ones he has earlier disparaged so vociferously.

And I further ask: When will RSuser begin to acknowledge that his topic question has indeed been answered -- not once, but many times above, and always with the same simple answer. When will he begin to ACCEPT the answer he has been given, and not bounce back with yet more creative reasons why the answer should be different. When? --nemonoman (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

On further review, I do understand why RSuser has picked these sources, or at Jaenen. Jaenen is a member of RSusers church, the Christian Convention in fact, he is cited as one of the church historians. As a member, he is more reliable, apparently. The Melton encyclopedia appears to have been cobbled together from contributions from various authors, and I don't doubt that RSuser knows or suspects that the article on his church was written by Jaenen or another member.

So it all comes down to this in the end: Members only. --nemonoman (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It'd be nice to live in an egalitarian world where every source can be trusted equally. Sorry, I will trust the work of a credentialed historian at a leading Canadian university published by an actual publisher over a no name web site whose avowed goal is to lead people out of our movement back to their version of the Bible.RSuser (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The last comment 'members only' is uncalled for. There is no members' input in the article. I ask only that the non-members' writing be fair. If we allow in the misinformation from these anti- web sites, I will give up on the article and you can have your way - a one author article as you see fit.RSuser (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have asked -- BEGGED -- REPEATEDLY for even ONE instance OF an the article referencing misinformation from these anti- web sites. Just ONE instance. Do you ever plan to do provide one?

Talk:Christian_Conventions#First_Paragraph Discussion of content issues in the first paragraph of the article.RSuser (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You have repeatedly misled this noticeboard with misdirection and innuendo. You showed the board a webpage from a website as proof of SPS -- when in fact what the article is ACTUALLY citing is BOOKS with clearly indications of scholarly credentials.

I provided a link to the books in the opening line, and discussed the books. However, we are discussing the publisher and the same publisher provides the web site and the books. Both are relevant.RSuser (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You suggested that the article in question was written by only one author citing only works from one doubtful SPS. This also misled the board, who may not have time to investigate and prove the error of your spurious claim. The article has many authors, including me. It has 24 references, of which only 2 come from your suspect source. It has 48 footnotes that come from various other sources.

That is entirely incorrect. The original article is completely gone. A new article was provided wholesale by astynax a few months ago. Since that time there have been other edits. My exact count on quotes is above. Perhaps you read it?RSuser (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You have further muddied the waters by suggesting that other "Anti Websites", likely SPSs, are being cited as references. Again there is no basis for this charge which is designed, in my opinion, only to inflame and misdirect.

If you read above, you can see my evaluation on RIS. Their goal, very clearly, is to discredit the movement and lead members out of the movement back to the Bible. They are an 'anti-movement' web site like all the others. Some of these web site have a degree of integrity, even though against the movement. Just saying it is 'anti-' is not necessarily an issue. RSuser (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would you do these things? Why would you burden editors who have better things to do. You may have provided an answer on your talk page:

If I disagree with something or think it is wrong, the first thing I will question is the quality of the source. Why? Because it saves a lot of wrangling. If the source is SPS, or there is no source, I can insist the point be withdrawn.

It's an interesting stratagem: Don't bother with the accuracy of the reference, just question the quality of the source.

Regarding this last sentence. I believe this is called the RS Noticeboard and it's purpose is to determine just that question.RSuser (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe you have lost any credibility, and I suggest that the honorable thing for you to do would be to drop this spurious effort to win points by arguing law instead facts. I thought you had good intent when you posted here. I believe now that you only wished to find a devious way to argue against facts you did not like, not sources after all. This despite the specific instruction above:This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.

That's doubly ironic. First, you ask me why I have not brought content into the discussion, and now you accuse me of it. Second, you're the one blowing up all this smoke, and I'm just trying to defend myself. Then you accuse me of wasting people's time. Does anyone else think I am wasting their time? If that reflects a consensus of opinion, other editors can let me know and I won't darken wiki's door any longer. RSuser (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe you should apologize to the editors of this noticeboard for your misuse of their time.--nemonoman (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh-kay. See previous comment.RSuser (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Also YOU are the one who has unilaterally declared that works by only two authors are reliable, and one is a historian for the group of which you are a member.

That is correct. I have found only three reliable 'secondary' sources, and they are by two authors. Most of the things I say are indeed "unilateral declarations" as opposed to mere opinion. RSuser (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally you made the comment: "If a member disputes what is said or how it is said means that you should seriously consider deleting the point. "So I might be forgiven for suggesting that you are erecting a 'members only' sign atop this article.--nemonoman (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The context of my comment is when wikipedia transgresses into purely ideology and religious belief discussions. Non-falsifiable, untestable premises. That is quite clear if you read the entire dialogue with astynax. In any case, this seems to be more irrelevant smoke from you. I would suggest that you resist copying and pasting comments from one part of wiki to another as you do, because I'm getting tired of cleaning up the trail.RSuser (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll be cutting and pasting THIS new one, believe me: Most of the things I say are indeed "unilateral declarations" as opposed to mere opinion. RSuser (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC). You are a piece of work.

That was sarcasm. Hoo boy.

I again ask you to stop bothering the members of this noticeboard with a discussion that rightly belongs on the article's talk page. Maybe you don't feel an apology is necessary. OK. But as long as you are ignoring this principle: This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content., moving this discussion to its proper venue would be a kindness and courtesy these editors deserve. --nemonoman (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Move what you want, wherever you want. I really could care less at this point. RSuser (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

'Ill be cutting and pasting THIS new one'

I'll bet you will.RSuser (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification and apologies for a misleading statement

In my comments above I make a number of statements about Melton's encyclopedia, and a number of sarcastic remarks about its publisher Gacl. I've been informed that I was in error. GALE not Gacl, is the primary publisher of this work. Gale is a well-known academic publisher with a reputation for legitimacy. I apologize that my comments may therefore have misled others as I myself was misled.

When I looked up Melton on Amazon, I apparently found the one instance Melton's publisher was listed as gaCL, not galE. To compound this error, when I googled galC, a number of academic books and encyclopedias listed as published by galC.

See google for Gacl publisher here. The fourth item on the page is this which lists a number of academic texts. So I believed that gaCL was a legitimate publisher's name.

galC, as you might imagine does NOT have a home page, etc., etc. So I NOW see that galE, not gaCL is the publisher, and this removes any rationale for my comments.

My comments in the RS dialogue throughout were trying to see why a publisher with a single-minded list, however, would be considered a Non-RS, based on that criteria alone. To be told that a book from RIS, for example, should not be considered reliable BECAUSE CONTACT INFORMATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE ON ITS WEBSITE seemed to me to be a VERY doubtful reason indeed to make such a declaration. I've seen Melton around in various libraries, and it's clearly a big honking piece of scholarship. A consideration of its reliability should NOT be based, in my view, in whether or not the publisher has a website consistent with the expectations of certain editors. The CONTENT must be a primary factor, if indeed not the ONLY factor. My comments saying that the publisher had no website, and therefore Melton must considered as suspect as RIS were based on my Google errors. But the BACKGROUND of those comments -- that a publisher's website should not trump content: I believe that in that regard my logic stands.

Please note that Amazon lists 2 other publishers for the cited Melton encyclopedia, in addition to Gale and Gacl -- McGrath Publishing (google shows a newspaper group in Kansas) and Triumph Books (google shows a Chicago sports publisher). Also, amazon lists Melton as the author of Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology and The Vampire Book: Encyclopedia of the Undead. So raising the issue of Publisher Credibility for an RS, or other views that an author might hold as a criteria for RS, seems to me a questionable enterprise.

But I screwed up, and I wish to make amends by clarifying and apologizing here. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wordpress

This is on Chuck Grassley page As of December 17, 2008, all three ministries have been placed on a list of potentially risky organizations for monetary donations. it uses this from WordPress.com. Is this reliable? Showtime2009 (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No., that is a self-published blog. It might be possible to use the MinistryWatch website as a Primary Source, although so9me third-party evidence that Ministry Watch is a respected infromation source.Martinlc (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, no matter what the significance of that statement or of MinistryWatch itself, the wordpress blog is simply unreliable, especially considering the Grassley article is a BLP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Photographs

Can a photograph be considered a reliable source of information. For example, can the file:Packwood post mill.jpg be used to claim that the windmill was in fact, a post mill? There is no {{cite postcard}} to use in this situation. Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Note image has been identified as Shrewley, Warks and can now be found at Commons:File:Shrewley Post Mill.jpg. Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, no... a photograph should never be considered a "source" (either reliable or unreliable). To my mind a source should be in written or spoken form. Photographs and other images should be viewed as illustrations that are used in articles to illustrate what is stated by reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If a textbook discusses a speech/visit by a president and has a picture of him in the said act, can we use the photo to say that he wore a blue shirt etc? I think yes, in these black and white cases, or to say that this painting has two people in it etc,.... although if a photo itself was used to "classify" a picture as modern/romanticist/impressionist etc, no, nor would the raw script of a music composition be sufficient to determine baroque etc. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet a picture paints a thousand words. For comparison, it wasn't a smock mill or a tower mill, which are the other two main types of windmill. There are occasions when a photograph does provide evidence which isn't available in written form. This is one of them. Mjroots (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Using a photograph as a piece of evidence is original research and not allowed on wikipedia. However there may be a way out here since this is a postcard and not a stand-alone photograph. Can you tell us what the description (usually found on the reverse side) on the postcard says about the structure ? Also, do you know who published the postcard ? If it is some reputable organization, like the National Geographic Society, it could qualify as a reliable source. Abecedare (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The postcard is a real photo postcard published by Collectorcard, Croydon CR0 1HW (Pamlin Prints). It is identified by the reference number C6113. Card was produced c1979 and is identified as Packwood, Warwicks. It was one of a series of Collector Windmills postcards, all reproductions of old photographs, some dated, some undated. Mjroots (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, for that information. I don't know anything about that publisher - but given our generally lax rules about image sourcing, I think the information you provide should be sufficient to say that this is a "Windmill in Packwood, Warwicks"; although we still don't have a reliable source saying that it is a post mill. Is the latter a point of dispute ? Abecedare (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion also at Talk:List of windmills in Warwickshire. The point of dispute here seems to be what constitutes original research. As stated above, there are three main types of windmills, post mill, smock mill and tower mill. Is stating that in this case the mill was a post mill original research, or is it interpretation of the image presented? Mjroots (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A picture can be used as a source without it being original research. But we have to be careful that we only make descriptive claims and not interpretations. If whatever it is about a windmill that makes it a post mill is explicit in the photograph then it's not OR. If there's more than one way to interpret it, that concludes in it being other than a post mill, then it's OR. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! What makes it a post mill is the main post that the mill stands on, and is turned around to face the wind. This is visible in the photograph. Therefore using the picture to back up the fact that the mill was a post mill in this case is not OR. Mjroots (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I still have hesitiations with calling any picture a source for information... however, I do agree that it isn't OR to say that a particular windmill seen in a picture is a post mill. The identification of a post mill as such seems to be basic stuff (ie it is an identification that any amature with a rudementary knowledge of windmill types should be able to make). I would classify such identification as "common knowledge" that does not need to be sourced. In other words, describing this windmill as a post mill is a descriptive comment easily verifiable by looking at the picture and is not OR. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper suspects

Back in 2003 it was apparently ok to use Jack_the_Ripper,_Light-Hearted_Friend and the book it is based on as a basis to list Lewis Carroll as a "suspect." Another editor agrees it is "ludicrous" but avers consensus (back in 2007?) was to keep him in the list. The question is, is a book which was deliberately speculative a "reliable source" by current WP standards? Is the source sufficiently reliable to place Lewis Carroll in the list of suspects in the Jack the Ripper article? Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The article title in question was shortened from earlier versions about "named as suspects" or "possible suspects". In this instance it's a list of noteworthy people who have been mentioned in multiple reliable sources (our standards there have generally been at least one book primarily dedicated to that person as a suspect or extensive listing in multiple important books is required to be mentioned specifically -- there are about 200+ people who have been named total, most just are not notable). This listing is not saying the person was a *police suspect* or even a *good suspect* but well known in the field of Ripperology as having been named as a suspect, right or wrong, and mentioned as such. The list of reliable sources saying that an author devoted a whole book from a mainstream publisher to claiming Lewis Carroll was a suspect is a mile long, and there was also extensive global news coverage when the book was released. Collect apparently wants the name removed because he finds it personally ludicrous: well, lot's of people do, but it's NOTABLY ludicrous, and that's what the mentions say. DreamGuy (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And naming a person as a "suspect" when the accusation is "notably ludicrous" is not a valid list by WP standards. WP is not a collection of lists of ludicrous value. I can find a slew of sources saying that a book was written about the "Priory of Sion" but that does not mean that Sion belongs in a list of real priories. Collect (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The article title is not List of ''real'' Jack the Ripper suspects by your definition of real. He was really suspected. So much so a book was written solely about that topic published by a reputable press and gained widespread press coverage. Frankly, any coverage of Ripper suspects that excludes ridiculous ones would give an inaccurate picture of how wild and wooly authors on the topic are. Most experts think Bigfoot is ridiculous, but there's an article on him. We mention the crazy ideas that got widespread attention but don't give them undue weight and represent the expert view. Same thing on this article. DreamGuy (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're overstretching. The article begins, "the identity of the killer has been hotly debated, and over one hundred Jack the Ripper suspects have been proposed. Though many theories have been advanced, experts find none widely persuasive, and some can hardly be taken seriously at all." It's clearly set out that the aim of the article is to discuss all the varied theories, even those not taken seriously. Other sections clearly discuss fictional works which use historic persons as the culprit. The content of the section on Carroll is just a similar set of bald statements: "The book was written. It contained this. No-one took it seriously." It isn't being used to support any fringe theory or outrageous claims, and it fits in with the other content. If necessary the opening could be made plainer by adding to the opening statement, "...over one hundred Jack the Ripper suspects have been proposed in works of both fiction and non-fiction." DrKiernan (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with everything except that last line. There are actually some 200 or more suspects named just in nonfiction, if you add fiction it shoots up drastically, with suspects like "Dracula," "alien called Redjac that later was on the starship Enterprise" and etc. This article was originally titled "List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects", which I think is more accurate but others felt was too long and unnecessary. The sorting of how can be considered a legitimate suspect is highly POV and extremely controversial, as I know you are aware but others here may not. I think the splitting of the sections into "police suspects" "other contemporary suspects" and "by later authors" helps sort that end out. DreamGuy (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Illegible references in Chinese typeface?

An editor has been adding Chinese references to the List of vegetarians article. There are many foreign language references on there such as Portuguese, Dutch, German etc and since they share the English typeface they can still be verified and translated. The Chinese language doesn't use the same typeface and just comes out as gibberish. I removed them because I think that on the English language Wikipedia the references should at least be readable which is the case even if they are in German but this is not the case with Chinese. This is the English Wikipedia after all, so I think references should at least use the English typeface so that someone who is versed in German or whatever will at least be able to translate them without having to install other typefaces on their computer. Foreign languages are verifiable through translation, other typefaces makes them non-verifiable IMO. I would welcome some input on this - do Chinese typefaces (with no Englush translation provided) make references non-verifiable? Am I correct to remove the references along with the text they support? Betty Logan (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No. If Chinese characters come out readable or not depends on the set-up and capabilities of your web-browser. The page in question looks fine in Safari on my Mac - not that I can read it, but it looks like fine Chinese to me. In principle, sources in Chinese are just as welcome as sources in German or any other non-English language, i.e. they are acceptable, but we prefer English sources where available in the same quality. Of course, any source must meet the general requirements from WP:RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think it depends on the context. A Chinese reference is OK for the length of a bridge in Bengbu and not OK for the length of a bridge in Liverpool. Ignoring the question of sense or nonsense of a list of vegetarians, your revert [81] (or at least the reason you gave) wasn't OK because the Chinese source was used to back up a statement about a Chinese person. The best sources for such a statement will be in Chinese, and the editors most interested in checking the statement will understand Chinese.

By the way, your assertion that "English computers" can't display Chinese characters is wrong. The only reason your computer doesn't display them (if it's reasonably new, say less than 5 years old) is that you haven't installed a Chinese font. Chinese fonts are not installed by default because they need a lot of space and most people don't need them. Of course even if you had Chinese fonts installed it wouldn't help you to understand Chinese. But this is not really relevant. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Since this is the English language Wikipedia am I obliged to install technology that isn't there by default? If I could read the Chinese font then it would greatly help me to understand the Chinese in the same way I can understand French or German because I can at least see the letters displayed. How is something verifiable if it doesn't display right in most English speaking coutries? Betty Logan (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Just like wikipedia is not responsible for flying you to London or to Rome so that you can personally verify content sourced to rare published books that the only copies are in the British Museum or the Papal Library, we are not responsible for you to have a browser that can verify the Chinese characters. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A font is not some special technology. You probably have many different fonts for the Latin alphabet on your computer; if you use Microsoft Word you are perhaps familiar with choosing "Arial", or sometimes other fonts that look more interesting. Any "letters" on a Chinese page are normally displayed even without installing a special font. What you would need a font for is the Chinese characters – and I doubt that they will be of any use for you if you can't read Chinese. You will not even be able to verify that an English name appears in a Chinese text if it has been transcribed from English to Chinese in the normal way (just like we transcribe Chinese names into the Latin alphabet). Simply removing information because you can't read the language of the source, as you have done, is not acceptable. The reason why I haven't reverted you is that in my opinion the list needs to be deleted or severely reduced in scope anyway. See also WP:BIAS. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada

Is the Electronic Intifada a reliable source? I don't see why it is not, but user:ShamWow has removed it from Haneen Zoubi's article as not reliable, citing here.--TM 16:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If it is a reliable source, it will regularly be cited by other reliable sources. Per WP:RS "For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it." Do other, obviously reliable, sources cite Electronic Intifada? Hipocrite (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's been asked here before and found reliable. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

From its mission statement there is a clear activist bias. I don't think it remotely compares to a scholarly reference in a journal or a academic textbook YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't need every reference to come from academia. We cite sources with a political point of view all the time. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Omar Sharif

Sharif's autobiography states: "My birthplace was Alexandria." This encyclopedia (preview through Google books) states that Sharif was "Greek-born". Encyclopedias are reliable sources, but what should be done in this case? I'm in contact with the author of the encyclopedia article about this discrepancy, but is the encyclopedia a reliable source in this context? Sancho 16:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that the two statements are contradictary, One refers to the place of birth while the other seems to refers to ethnicity and parentage. I don't know much about Sharif other than his movies... but is it possible that his family was part of the greek community in Alexandria. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah... Looking at our article, Sharif himself has stated that his parentes were Egyptian Christians (Copts?) and not Greek. In cases like this (where there are conflicting sources as to ethnicity), we should defer to how the subject self-identifies. Blueboar (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a contradiction. He said "birthplace was Alexandria", while the Encyclopedia of 20th century African history says "Greek-born". These are in direct contradiction in my reading. But I take your point still stands? Defer to how the subject self-identifies? Sancho 18:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think you miss my first point ... having one source say "born in Alexandira" and another other say "Greek-born" is not necessarily a contradition, as Alexandria is a place and Greek is an ethnicity. "Greek-born" does not necessarily mean born in Greece, it can mean "of Greek heritage". To give a different example, suppose a couple from the US moves to Berlin, Germany because of work requirements, and while there give birth to a child. There is no conflict between saying the child was born in Berlin and the child was American-born. In fact, it would be correct to say the child was "American-born in Berlin".

That said... yes, my point still stands. If there is any question over ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation, or some other form of categorization, we should always defer to how the subject self-identifies. Blueboar (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be many other reliable sources confirming the Alexandria birthplace[82][83], and no other support for Greece as his birthplace. I think the preponderance of the evidence (as well as the subject's own statement per Blueboar) is that he was born in Alex. However, just to confuse things further, see this book which discusses Sharif's possible rewriting of his history, on another though related matter.[84]--Slp1 (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Using second hand reporting when we can't find the original report?

Hi all,

In the 2009_Iranian_election_protests#Militia_violence section, a user named User:Jalapenos do exist has insisted on an inclusion that I find problematic. His latest revision is this edit [85]. The problematic sentence in this revision is this:

Voice of America reported that the government recruited up to 5,000 fighters from the Lebanese Hezbollah militia to clash with protesters.

What he is doing is saying that the publication Voice of America has reported something, but he is then citing a German language article on Der Speigel. No one can find the original Voice of America article and this claim is not backed up by any other RS reporting that we have found so far, even though it supposedly happened 3 days ago and there is tons of reports coming out of Iran.

There are two Hezbollah organizations which I think is the confusing that is occurring. There is a Hezbollah that is native to Iran and is involved in the protests -- see Ansar-e_Hezbollah#2009_Coup_Protests -- and then there is a better known Lebanese Hezbollah that if you exclude this second hand citation, doesn't appear to be involved. I think the German reporter in question must have confused the two thinking there was only one Hezbollah, although since we can't find the original, this is hard to prove either way.

So overall, I think that including this information does a disservice to Wikipedia readers because we are making a claim that we haven't been able to properly verify. Instead of getting into a revert war with User:Jalapenos do exist, I figured it might be best to get some independent input on this question. --John Bahrain (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

At best, the article should say "According to an article appearing in Der Speigel, the Voice of America reported that the government recruited up to 5,000 fighters from the Lebanese Hezbollah militia to clash with protesters". This makes it clear that this is second hand reporting. However, I do agree that if no one can find the actual VOA report, then it should probably removed as being an erronious report. Blueboar (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The Twelve Tribes (New religious movement)

Just putting this out there, and hoping some more experienced heads can give it a look... This is the article for a controversial eligious movement based in the US but with communities around the world; article contains liberal citations from official website, and most edits with dissenting information are reverted by users who are also members of the community. I have little experience with editing Wikipedia and I'm hoping someone with an idea of what they're doing can intervene. Thanks - jaybird 71.169.155.237 (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

citing the groups Self-published website falls under WP:SPS... appropriate in this instance. The deleting of "dissenting information" is more an issue for WP:NPOV and possibly WP:FRINGE. In note that this has been forwarded to the Fringe noticeboard. Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Newsmeat.com

Is this source reliable?. — R² 02:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Not seeing other reputable sources agreeing it's reliable, etc. etc. And the information is arguably not notable even if a reliable source could be found. DreamGuy (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably is reliable, but in most cases it may cause BLP issues. It appears to be a site based on public records of political contributions. I have no reason to believe this isn't reliable, but are we going to look up every BLP to see which campaigns they donated to? Didn't we have a guideline on "obscure public information" or did that not go anywhere? So anyway I'd say reliable, but leave it out for BLP reasons. If a secondary source brings up someone's political donations as newsworthy then it may be appropriate. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much. For whatever reason, it seems best to leave this piece of info out. — R² 00:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Newsmeat is used everywhere on wikipedia. It would seem that the fervor around Prince involves the fact that he donated to a Republican. If he donated to a Democrat, no problem. Don't believe me? Hit the search button and look for Newsmeat. There are quite a few articles that link to it so, for now, I'm undoing your edits. Golden Husky (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This is blatantly inappropriate behavior. Just because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, that does not mean we have to use it on the Prince article. — Please comment R² 02:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't have anything to do with that. This is simply a source and additional section, it's not like i'm starting a whole new article. Who's rights am I infringing upon by pointing out his political donation, which is a common addition to an article? Golden Husky (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• While I question the relevance of inserting a reference to a single political contribution into a BLP article, I would note that substantially the same information found on Newsmeat can also be found at the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org web site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama's speech at Cairo University, 2009

A lot of vicious personal attacks, POV pushes, and edit warring have been made about this article, but I'd like to set this all aside and get some outside help about the core part of this dispute- which is about classifying sources.

At issue is whether or not the articles cited in Barack_Obama's_speech_at_Cairo_University,_2009#Post-speech classify as reliable non-primary sources. A related but seperate issue is whether or not the opinions of Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies,[86] Charles Krauthammer,[87] Christopher Hitchens, [88] and Martin Peretz[89]. The Squicks (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Viriditas and Talk:Barack_Obama's_speech_at_Cairo_University,_2009#Recent_additions_to_post-speech_section for background. The Squicks (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the Institute for Policy Studies but they appear to be an advocacy group. The last 3 sources appear to be opinion pieces which mean they are only reliable for their own opinion. Whether their opinion is important enough to be included in the article is editorial decision. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas is also claiming that Anderson Cooper 360 and News Hour with Jim Lehrer are not reliable sources. See the tags added at Barack_Obama's_speech_at_Cairo_University,_2009#Post-speech and Talk:Barack_Obama's_speech_at_Cairo_University,_2009#Recent_additions_to_post-speech_section. The Squicks (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If it is indeed just an 'editorial decision', what do you think should occur if there is a dispute between a majority and a minority of editors about that? The Squicks (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at a concrete example. Source, inside a literal quotation from Foukara:

But you get people in places like Afghanistan or Pakistan, for example, who say, "OK, he's come to us with his message of peace, but there are U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and there are civilians being killed there by American forces."

Our article:

Foukara also said, "he's come to us with his message of peace, but there are U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and there are civilians being killed there by American forces".

I am surprised this was merely tagged with "this primary source citation needs verification", given that it's a plain misrepresentation of the source. Introduced, by the way, by The Squicks. [90] Hans Adler 20:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

How is that a misrepresentation? Are you kidding? The Squicks (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Foukara was talking about what the hypothetical Muslim man on the street would say and he expressed agreement with such a hypothetical man. What the article does is typical quoting.

Introduced, by the way, by The Squicks. I see that you refuse to stop assuming bad faith. Please stop. The Squicks (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

To address the various issues above:

1. All the sources listed in the original question are reliable sources for the opinion of the authoring individual/organization.
2. Typically encyclopedia's avoid non-scholarly (and especially partisan) opinions, but whether to include these opinions in this particular article is an editorial judgment to be decided through discussion on the article talk page. A point to be considered is whether these opinions are themselves notable, i.e., whether other news sources cited them. If a consensus cannot be reached on the talk page, try an RFC or use one of the other dispute resolution processes.
3. Hans Adler is correct that the quote from the article misrepresents the source and needs to be removed or rephrased. To understand why it is a representation, consider me writing an article which says:

   Twentienth century Luddites continue to say, "Gravity is a myth"

   Paraphrasing that as:

   Abecedare says that, "Gravity is a myth"

   would be blatantly false assignation of the opinion. Abecedare (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, but I'm also more than willing to compromise on the wording. Would Foukara also said that Pakistanis and Afghanis may think "he's come to us with his message of peace, but there are U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and there are civilians being killed there by American forces" in response. make more sense? The Squicks (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The exact phrasing is best decided on the article talk page where factors like dueness of the source and opinion can be considered. I was just affirming that the phrasing quoted by Hans Adler was indeed misrepresenting the source. Abecedare (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas also stated that Anderson Cooper 360 and News Hour with Jim Lehrer are not reliable sources since they are "primary sources". This to me seems wrong, they look like secondary sources to me. The Squicks (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the format of AC360, but I can comment on Newshour. The question of whether it is a primary source, depends on the particular news segment format:

• The initial straight news roundup (usually by Lehrer) is certainly a reliable secondary source.
• In some segments the program has a neutral expert recounting and analyzing some news, example Jan Crawford Greenburg on Supreme court cases. These are secondary analytic pieces, generally usable on wikipedia (although, of course, more scholarly or detailed sources may be preferable).
• Certain segments are set up as debates between proponents/partisans on different sides of an issue. These are equivalent to opinion pieces in newspapers and should be used only if the opinion is notable and due. Ditto for the "essayist" pieces.
• Interviews with persons involved in an issue, should be regarded as primary sources (which can be used, but require care).

Hope I have addressed your query. Of course it is always better if you can specify the exact source you wish to use and what you want to use it for, since then we can evaluate the specific circumstances. Keep in mind that editors responding at RSN are usually not familiar with all the preceding article history and talk page discussion - that's part of the advantage of the board! Abecedare (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The exact sources being disputed are this from PBS and this from CNN. Viriditas claims that (a)both are primary sources and (b)Wikipedia rules prevent all primary sources from being cited. The Squicks (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas disputes the sections=

Some Muslim commentators had a more negative response. Rami Khouri, the editor of The Daily Star and director of the Issam Fares Institute at the American University of Beirut, argued that Obama gave "a lot of good, positive vibes" but, ultimately, it "was only rhetoric". He referred to what he saw as the hypocrisy of Obama praising human rights after meeting with Egyptian and Saudi leaders who have suppressed those same rights. He stated that the Muslim world is still waiting for Obama's words to "translate" into real policy. Al Jazeera bureau chief Abderrahim Foukara made similar remarks, saying that "he talked about Palestinians killing Israelis, but he didn't talk a lot about Israelis killing Palestinians, especially in the context of the latest Israeli war on Gaza". Foukara also said, "he's come to us with his message of peace, but there are U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and there are civilians being killed there by American forces".

Christiane Amanpour of CNN has also described the Muslim world's general reaction as very favorable and supportive.

The fact that Obama never mentioned the word "terrorism" or "terror" was positively interpreted by many in the Muslim street, given that many of them see a 'war on terror' interchangeably as a 'war on Islam'. American conservatives also picked up on this and argued that it weakened Obama's overall message.

CNN pundit David Gergen argued that while, in his view, Obama has wrongly apologized for American actions before, he did not do so here and conservative criticisms are unfounded.

Viriditas claims that both 360 and the News Hour cannot be cited since, in his view, all primary sources cannot ever be cited and both of the sources count as primary.

Both you and A Quest For Knowledge have stated that it is in fact acceptable to cite non-primary sources and that there is no blanket prohibition of them. But the issue of whether or not 360 and the News Hour count as primary is something that I would like further comment on. The Squicks (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting my position. You interpreted a television transcript to say what you wanted it to say, which is considered a primary source. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Your position was (unless you've changed it) that no thing that is from a primary source can be added. This position is contrary, as it has been stated again and again, from Wikipedia guidelines which do allow primary sources. The Squicks (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said anything of the kind or maintained any such position. I use primary sources all the time, supported by and backed up with secondary sources, and I have discussed the use of primary sources in many places over the years, so your statement is patently false. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That is why we use use secondary sources. You need to stop editing against Wikipedia best practices and start using neutral, reliable secondary sources.

Your words, claiming that primary sources cannot be used. As has been stated here repeatedly, using primary sources on their own is fine. It is an editorial decision. There is no rule preventing their use. The Squicks (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've said no such thing. As I have previously informed you, Wikipedia is a tertiary source that is built on reliable secondary sources. Primary sources may be used, but only carefully, and whenever possible or necessary, with the support of secondary sources. That's what the quote you took out of context is saying. Again, I've discussed this in many places over the years, and I make use of primary sources quite a bit. But we don't use them the way you are using them, which is to pick and choose material, interpret it to fit an agenda, and fail to use secondary sources that describe, highlight, or note the importance of the material. For example, you've been cherry picking television transcripts to add material to the Obama speech article. But what secondary sources exist showing that these transcripts are notable, important, or relevant? You see the pattern? By picking and choosing primary sources, Op-Ed pieces, punditry, polemics, and editorialists, you continue to bypass the sourcing policies that allow us to fact-check material for accuracy, authoritativeness, and relevance simply by choosing the best sources that describe the topic. Instead, you are attempting to frame the topic on your own, without using the mechanisms in place to insure neutrality and accuracy. This is a very common mistake, by once you learn how to use the sources correctly, you are supposed to stop making the same mistake. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

But we don't use them the way you are using them, which is to pick and choose material, interpret it to fit an agenda, and fail to use secondary sources that describe, highlight, or note the importance of the material.

As is stated in this noticeboard, what I provided in the two links were secondary sources, not primary ones.

As is stated in this noticeboard, primary sources can be used in the way that they were used- attributing the claims of notable commenters on a subject. And I did not add those sources in the first place.

you've been cherry picking television transcripts to add material to the Obama speech article

I am very, very tired of your stupid claims that I only edited the article to puff it with anti-Obama material. This is a lie, and you know that it is a lie. I added both anti and pro material.

Your argument boils down to: The Squicks is a piece of "garbage"; he is a POV pusher who hates Obama. Even though it is okay to cite primary sources in general, it is bad when he does it because he is "garbage". The Squicks (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, what you haven't yet figured out is that you can make similar criticisms about Obama's speech using reliable secondary sources. You don't have to resort to interpreting primary sources or using partisan material. I'm not sure why you don't understand this fact or refuse to, but there it is. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not put what I wanted it to say into anything. On the contrary, you have gone out of your way to remove anything that is anti-speech from the article and to preserve anything that is pro-speech. The Squicks (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Which explains why I removed an inappropriate use of sources from both the pro and the con positions. Not. Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You claimed that my purpose there "was not to improve the article but to pave the way for POV pushing" against Obama. Which explains why I added sources from both the pro and the con positions. Not. The Squicks (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the hallmarks of POV pushers is introducing Op-Ed pieces, and relying on pundits, polemicists, and editorialists, as well as misusing primary sources and interpreting them without secondary source support. Have you done any of these things? Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the hallmarks of POV pushers is making personal attacks such as calling people "garbage", "insanity", and "a fricking nutcase". Have you done any of these things? The Squicks (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to also point out, again, that primary sources can be used on Wikipedia despite your commentary. The Squicks (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources cannot be used the way you are using them. Do you understand? Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

(deindent after ec) Thanks for the links, Squicks. Having read those transcripts, I would say that those are right at the border of analysis and opinion (I don't think the primary/secondary distinction is really relevant in these two case). The persons involved are not blatantly partisan figures, but they do seem to be chosen to represent different POVs and are stating their view of the speech, rather than purely objective facts. That does not mean though, that there is a blanket prohibition against such sources - rather we need be make sure the opinions are noteworthy and properly attributed.

In fact, I think the fundamental problem you are running into is not with WP:RS or even WP:PSTS, but dueness and appropriate paraphrasing. In particular, it is not clear why the opinion of Rami Khouri, Abderrahim Foukara, Amanpour and David gergen (whose association with the GWB admistration is not even mentioned!) are important voices for an encyclopedic (as opposed to news) article. Also, saying that the "many of them [Muslim street] see a 'war on terror' interchangeably as a 'war on Islam' " in wikipedia's voice is certainly incorrect. I would suggest that you discuss on the talk page to find, (1) the best (scholarly and noteworthy) sources to cite the Muslim world's reaction to the Obama speech, (2) how to properly phrase the agreed upon sources and what weight to assign to them. Note: the second paragraph of my comment is general editorial advice, and not really a purely RSN issue. Hope it helps though. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. If this is a weighting issue rather than a reliablity one, than the discussion can take place in other channels such as RFC and so on. Thank you for your advice. The Squicks (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A book by the Social Enterprise Knowledge Network?

Would this be considered a WP:reliable source for a new article on The Oaxaca Community Foundation? It's a book by the "Social Enterprise Knowledge Network" specifically about the organization. (The text isn't available online, though I know that's not a criteria for a RS).

My friend from the organization has made a draft at User:Laurenoaxaca/foundation. My feeling is that if the above source is a reliable source, then a much shorter version of the article would be appropriate for Wikipedia, and she can place a longer version can on relevant wikis with different criteria, like Appropedia:).

Thanks. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

NYTs Green Inc. Blog

Wondering if the New York Times Green Inc. Blog is a reliable source? See [91] -- Johnfos (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The main problem with blogs is they tend to be anonymous or written by people without any particular credentials... but in this case the guy seems to have some experience. He appears to be writing in a blog-ish style though, a bit more speculative than you'd find in a conventional newspaper article... I think you'd be okay if you write, "Journalist James Kanter argues that..." rather than just writing about his arguments as accepted facts, if you follow me. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

is deadspin.com a reliable source?

See this edit. I accept that it's a good faith attempt to an attempt to find a reference I requested earlier... but I'm still not sure if it's acceptable. Even if the source is reliable, does it justify that category? --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

See the "siting sexuality" section above for requirememnts of a source to demonstrate sexuality. In this case if the info is not in the article with reliable sources where the person him- or herself admits it backing it up, then it should not be a category. DreamGuy (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't listen to the podcast (the article is a summary of the podcast) but it sounds like she's wondering if she's facing homophobia, not that she's actually saying she identifies as LGBT. --Chiliad22 (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Are oikotimes.com and esctoday.com reliable sources?

The sites {http://www.oikotimes.com/} and {http://www.esctoday.com/} are extensively used for citations on articles about the Eurovision Song Contests, sometimes being the sole source. These sites appear to be blogs / fan sites, containing un-referenced reports, with no indication of reliability, editorial policy or referencing as reliable by other sources. I have judged them as unreliable, would appreciate other comments. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you already ask this? It just scrolled into the most recent archive, #36. At any rate, it appears the sites do have an editorial staff, the main issue was that some articles were citing those two sources almost exclusively and dozens of times in the same article. I suggested a greater diversity of sources be used. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I did ask this before but your's was the only answer. Thee is no evidence of an editorial staff, just appeals to volunteer to be an editor and requests for donations. Hence my asking again. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary is/is not a Reliable Source.

Resolved

 – Neither UrbanDictionary.com nor its published derivative works are a Reliable Source according to the website owner/book "author's" own remarks in which he clearly states:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Is the Urban Dictionary a Reliable Source? The Urban Dictionary's primary definition for itself reads:

1. A place formerly used to find out about slang, and now a place that teens with no life use as a burn book to whine about celebrities, their friends, etc., let out their sexual frustrations, show off their racist/sexist/homophobic/anti-(insert religion here) opinions, troll, and babble about things they know nothing about.

Urbandictionary.com isn't a burn book or a webjournal site.

2. An online slang dictionary in which approximately 80% of all words and definitions are sexually related.

"Hey, what in the hell is an Alaskan Firedragon?"

"Dunno, try looking it up at UrbanDictionary.com"

3 Only the coolest semi-fake dictionary ever made... updated by random ppl who usually have a sick mind and quick wit.

Urban Dictionary is a great website if you're bored out of your mind. Or if you just want to see some hilarious material made by ::random ppl who usually have a sick mind and quick wit.

4. The result of millions of teenagers who have too much free time, and have been pre-disposed to the influences of a media run by arrogant megalomaniacs who put more thought into selling impracticle products than making relevent influential television. Thus resulting in the spread of ignorance through the internet comunity via rascism, conformity, mis-information, and the pinnacle of a society ironically corrupted by those who claim to be trying to save the last milligrams of purity and innoscense left in this nuclear prozac nation...

if you found that definition difficult to understand, try using a real dictionary to look up those real words, that people in the real world really use...

21. The largest collection of misleading information I have ever seen on the internet.

"You must have read that in the Urban Dictionary"

It would seem to have no place whatsoever as the basis for any encyclopedic entry. I can see no possible argument for relying upon it to support any serious entry into Wikipedia. There is however a single editor who is pushing it and its derived works of republished compilations as being on equal reliable footing as The Times. Are we to seriously consider anonymous postings on a comedy website as being qualified for citation?99.142.2.89 (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not at the same level of reliability as The Times. There are a few places where it may be useful, such as articles related to the Urban Dictionary itself or external links in articles on jargon terms. Maybe when used very lightly, for instance to support a statement like "popular definitions vary widely". But that's about it; you wouldn't say the definition of XYZ is W because so-and-so on Urban Dictionary says so. PS. can you condense that question? We've all seen that website before. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the content that was inserted. It say's exactly that. "... you wouldn't say the definition of XYZ is W because so-and-so on Urban Dictionary says so." It has no place being cited as a Reliable Source in support of an article. I accept that the existence of the Urban "dictionary" comedy website can be referred to, but that is an entirely different than than relying upon it's anonymous and amorphous entries.

-

The definition quoted in the Wiki article above currently has 3 "votes" for and 1 against, so I'm not even sure it has even been "elected" the definition yet. Humor, original turnings of a phrase, wit, etc may be found there - Reliable Source citations are not. 99.142.2.89 (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No. A source is reliable when we can be reasonably sure who wrote it and what their qualifications are. Urban dictionary is anonymous and not edited in any reliable way. The one exception would be the books they've put out, which I believe are edited. But the actual website's definitions are not any better a source than some random Wiki page. --Chiliad22 (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The books are "edited" in so far as they are compilations of the anonymous website entries. They are merely selections, there are no claims made as to the veracity of the content.99.142.2.89 (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the title at Amazon[93], it lists neither editor nor author, it simply credits the owner of the website as "Compiler".99.142.2.89 (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There has never been any contoversy over whether the Urban Dictionary website is a reliable source: It isn't. Archives of this board mae that prett clear as well. There's no need to rehash the same arguments. If you see any article (except perhaps the UD article with noncontroversial info about itself) you should remove it on sight. DreamGuy (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The books might be. My understanding is that in order for something to get in one of the books it needs to have a lot of support. There's no way that the website is in general a reliable source. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the "author's" own take[94] on his book and the website from which it is derived:

99.142.2.89 (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I myself find it so very refreshing when a brand new user is able to quickly learn to navigate their way around Wikipedia, even though they are just a SPA. No one - I repeat, no one - is suggesting that the quote from UD is a source of remarkable provenance. Despite the mischaracterization of the site as a humor cite, like Funny or Die or some such thing, UD has managed to put some books out. I checked, grief porn is in the published book. We tend to give more weight to published sources like books and other print sources; we do this because, unlike websites, where content is fleeting and without any provenance, we have a static quality for both residing in a published book. Therefore, it >poof!< becomes reliably-sourced. Remove the derisive characterization of the website, and this is the crux of th problem: we cannot cite UD (but can include the reference as an external source), but we can - without any qualms - include a citation from a book. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You state above, "I checked, grief porn is in the published book." . The only entry for "grief porn"[95] at the UD has three votes indicating that it is either obscure or new. The entry is clearly dated Feb 12, 2009, as ALL entries are according to the website owner, "Everything is marked with the date it was written,[96]". Your clear and unequivocal assertion of absolute and unimpeachable fact concerning the entry being in the book published prior to that date is false. 99.142.2.89 (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hold the accusations. How about "What you said seems to me to be wrong. Could you explain?" Keep it friendly. --Chriswaterguy talk 16:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've softened my prose and read your linked policy page with interest; especially the proscription against "Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page to mislead one or more editors". 99.142.2.89 (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents is that it's not a WP:RS. That said, Urban Dictionary, is famous in this field (the definition of words) and its viewpoint's are possibly important enough to clarify the meaning of a word. I'm not sure there's anything wrong with the following...

...which is completely different from...

Whether inclusion of such a definition is encyclopedic or not is a different question. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's unreliable so it's inclusion cannot "clarify" the definition of a word using any encyclopedic standards. Neither of your options is allowed by WP:RS rules. WP:Undue also applies (what do we care what some user-generated joke sight thinks?). DreamGuy (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Is a TV show a reliable source for its own plot summary and characters section

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Trust Is All You Need

My and Roux think a TV show can not be used as a reliable source for its own plot summary and characters section as that would a form of original research but Trust Is All You Need thinks a TV show can be used as a reliable source for its own plot summary and characters section. So is a TV show a reliable source or is it a form of original research? Powergate92Talk 17:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not quite, I said should not'; I imagine sometimes it is unavoidable. We should rely on secondary sources for plots else we are watching the show and deciding what s important, the very definition of OR. //roux   17:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Its not only me, see the majority of TV show, Film articles, literature articles or other articles that contains a plot section, they do not reference the plot section!. See the majority of the FA and GA articles, they all share on commonality, they don't reference the plot section. See Lost (FA), Stargate (GA), Star Wars (GA), Doctor Who (FA), The Wire (FA) and Carnivàle (FA) among other FA and GA content we have on wikipedia. This is not only a commonality in films and TV shows, but also literature among others. I think we should follow the majority of our best content and the best are FA and FL's, none of them reference plot section because the series is a reference for itself. This is has become common, look through the different FA, FL and GA's and you'll see the majority don't reference the plot section.

Its a good reason why we don't reference a plot section in a film or a tv show, we don't need to use the Cite episode template to say that we got the source for the plot from the episode itself. It goes against what Wikipedia:Ignore all rules policy stands for, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

See Wikipedia:Plot summaries#How to cite, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/How_to_write_an_episode_article#Plot_section and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is a TV show a reliable source for its own plot summary and characters section. These are three of plenty of other guidelines that agree with me. --TIAYN (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Plot summaries is a Wikipedia essay, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/How_to_write_an_episode_article is the style guidelines for WikiProject Television and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is a TV show a reliable source for its own plot summary and characters section is a link to this discussion. So that is 1 Wikipedia essay, 1 WikiProject style guideline and 1 link to this discussion not three of plenty of other guidelines that agree with you. Powergate92Talk 18:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, ment this link: Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources which states that "motion pictures [...] and television programs" can reference itself. Yes i know they are essays and style guidelines, but its proof, proof that the majority don't include references to plot sections and that the episodes, films, literature works among others can reference itselfm the wikipedia policy even sais it. --TIAYN (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There are many poorly cited articles on Wikipedia. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Precisely; that there are other poorly cited articles is no excuse for you to do so, TIAYN. //roux   18:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Trust Is All You Need do not edit others users comments without their permission as you did with my comment in this edit per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments. Powergate92Talk 18:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, tried to fix my own mistake with my own comment just above your one, sorry..... sorry it won't happen again. --TIAYN (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You may cite a TV episode itself as a primary source in an article, for basic facts about who the characters are, what happens in the plot, etc, though you need at least some secondary sources in the article to establish notability. Most secondary sources, ie articles written by critics, are actually rather poor references for basic plot information, so we need both the secondary and primary sources. Deciding what is important however is not original research. There's a lot of misconceptions about original research floating around on talk pages, but original research simply means that WP should not contain facts that are citable only to Wikipedia. It doesn't have anything to do with how the article is organized, etc, those are editorial decisions. Citing the episode to say "Mr. X did action Y at place Z" in the plot is not original research. If editors go further and add their own speculation on Mr. X's motives that is original research. It looks like another part of the question is about whether inline cites are required. For very general summaries like in our article on "Lost" above I agree we don't need inline cites. If it's for something more specific then we can use a citation template. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A wikipedia policy sais you can cite a plot summary with the article itself, thats not saying the article is not referenced. The article is the reference. I agree with Squidfryerchef above me, see Gregory House (GA), Cameron Mitchell (GA), Jack O'Neill and James Wilson (GA) among others. These articles uses a combination between webpage references (and books) and episode references. They do this for a reason, not many or very few reliable sources write a detailed biography for a fictional character in a fictional universe, this is were the show comes in, we can reference the characters biography with the episodes themself. --TIAYN (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's a 10,000-foot view like in the article on Lost ( a six-line synopsis of an entire television season, which is expanded in subarticles for each season ), then it makes sense not to do inline references. If it's anything more complicated than that, i.e. keeping track of a character's arc in the Sopranos series, we should either say, this happened in episode XYZ or use the citation template. Just keep in mind WP:PLOTS to avoid excessive detail. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)