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.

Question

Resolved

What is a more reliable source for wikipedia article - TV documentary or Court verdict on the same issue ?

2006 Alaya Rahm's Failed Superior Court LawSuit on Sathya Sai Baba, BBC and Seduced Documentary:

• The Pioneer reported that Alaya Rahm filed a sexual abuse allegation case on Sathya Sai Baba in the 'Superior Court of California' on January 6, 2005 (Case No. 05cc01931). Sathya Sai Baba was accused by Alaya Rahm of sexual abuse from 1995 - 1999.
• The trial was set for April 28, 2006. In the following trial's thorough investigation it was found that Alaya Rahm and his family members had praised Sathya Sai Baba in number of recorded retreats and conferences during the years '1995 - 1999' contradicting Alaya Rahm's sexual abuse claims
• In the trial Alaya Rahm admitted to being a daily user of illegal street drugs and alcohol from 1995 to 2005 when he made those sexual abuse allegations on Sathya Sai Baba in BBC, Seduced documentary interviews and in the Daily Telegraph.
• Alaya Rahm self dismissed the case on April 7th 2006 when witness 'Mr Lewis Kreydick' filed his testimonies. He was the one who brought Alaya Rahm's tickets to India and had also accompanied him to India to visit Sathya Sai Baba. Alaya Rahm had a personal, close and confidential relationship with Kreydick from 1995 to 1997. Alaya Rahm had spoken about his positive experiences with Sathya Sai Baba and no incident about any wrong doings by Sathya Sai Baba.

2006 Superior Court Verdict:

• Alaya Rahm allegation case on Sathya Sai Baba society was dismissed as “with prejudice” and is binding under the international doctrine of res judicata. That means Alaya Rahm cannot fail another lawsuit on Sathya Sai Baba in US or in India. Pretty much the trial found Alaya Rahm guilty of making those false allegations. Sathya Sai Baba name was cleared.
• Court records of Alaya Rahm's self-dismissed law suit: http://www.saisathyasai.com/Rahm-Public-Court-Records/scans-dismissal/
• Daily Pioneer article link: http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html

Earlier 2004 BBC, Seduced documentary and Daily Telegraph based on Alaya Rahm Allegations:

• In June of 2004 7 months before the actual Supreme Court case BBC produced the documentary 'Secret Swami' based on Alaya Rahm allegations. In the documentary BBC strongly accused Sathya Sai Baba of sexual abuse allegations based on Alaya Rahm's claims.
• Alaya Rahms allegations were also published in Britain by (The Daily Telegraph). The BBC documentary was also broadcast in Australia and by the CBC in Canada.
• Based on Alaya Rahm allegations Seduced By Sai Baba, was produced by Denmark's national television and radio broadcaster Danish radio. It was aired in Denmark, Australia and Norway.
• BBC Full Transcript: http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/A-AlayaRahm/secret_swami17_06_04.txt
• BBC Secret Swami links:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/3813469.stm,
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/3791921.stm,

Here's the Problem:

• In wikipedia - Sathya Sai Baba is strongly criticized and accused of Sexual abuse based on the 2004 BBC, CBC, Seduced and Daily Telegraph.
• All these accusations were made based on Alaya Rahm's allegations and interviews to these documentaries.
• The Pioneer also reported that no alleged person has ever filed a police or court case against Sathya Sai Baba in India for alleged improprieties.

Solution

• Shouldn't the Superior Court of California verdict on Alaya Rahm case in 2006 a more reliable source than 2004 BBC, Seduced TV documentaries and Daily Telegraph article?
• Can the criticism and accusations sourced to BBC, CBC, Seduced and Daily telegraph based on Alaya Rahm allegations be removed from the article since Alaya Rahm was found guilty?
• In fairness to Sathya Sai Baba can the article be corrected as per the Superior Court of California verdict?.

Please do reply. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked through the sources deeply enough, but have a few comments and questions:

1. The case you refer to was filed in the Orange county superior court, not the California supreme court. County superior courts are the lowest level trial courts, while the State Supreme Court is the highest (as far as state law goes).
2. The Daily Pioneer article you link to is a opinion column by Sandhya Jain and not a news report. As such, it is a reliable source only for the columnist's views and not for facts.
3. You mention several reputed sources that pre-date the end of the trial: BBC documentary, the Denmark national television documentary (link ?), some Daily Telegraph article (link ?). Are there any third party sources (besides the court document hosted by Sai Baba's website) that post-date the trial ?
4. In particular is there any reliable source that says that "Alaya Rahm was found guilty" ? I find this contention odd because I haven't heard of the plaintiffs being found guilty at trials, but possibly there were counter-suits which you have not mentioned. Can you clarify ?

Finally, note that this board is mainly for determining whether a specified source can be considered reliable for a given statement. Broader and more complicated issues are better handled at the article talk page or through RFC's. Abecedare (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Response from Radiantenergy:

• I corrected the Court Name. A Superior court is not exactly a lower court. The Superior Court of California in Orange County has handled several high profile cases. They have unlimited jurisdiction with regard to civil and criminal legal cases. I don't see why their verdict should be treated lesser than any other court verdict.
• Was there a real case by Alaya Rahm on Sathya Sai Society in the Superior Court of California? Yes.

Proof of the 2006 Alaya Rahm civil case from the Superior Court Of California Website:

• Case No. Case Title Case Type Filing Date Category
• 05CC01931 RAHM VS BABA PROPERTY DAMAGE - OTHER 01/06/2005 CIVIL
• Case Link: https://ocapps.occourts.org/CivilPubv2/DisplayCaseInformation.do?caseNbr=05CC01931&caseYear=&source=case_src_dtl#top_page. Please press 'Accept the Terms' and press the 'Search' button. Then you will see the case.

• Did Alaya Rahm self dismiss the allegation case in the middle of the trial?: Yes

• The trial would have continued if Alaya Rahm did not self dismiss the case himself after the Sathya Sai Society produced a strong case of evidence bringing witness - 'Mr Lewis Kreydick'.

• What was the Verdict on the case: The case was dismissed by the court as “with prejudice”.

• What does that mean: With in legal civil procedure - Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment in a civil case. The dismissal is a judgment against the plaintiff in this case Alaya Rahm "on the merits" of the case, and extinguishes the claim that was being sued over.

• Can Alaya Rahm file another lawsuit in an other court on Sathya Sai Baba in US or in India: No.Under the international doctrine of res judicata he cannot do that.
• Did the trial find any wrong doing by Sathya Sai Baba: No

• Did Sathya Sai Society was asked by the judge to offer any Monetary or other compenstions to Alaya Rahm: No

• The verdict was pretty much in favor of Sathya Sai Baba if otherwise Alaya Rahm would have received monetary compensations from the Sathya Sai Baba Society or the right to refile the case in another court of law.

BBC, Seduced and Daily Telegraph Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba based on Alaya Rahm :

• The Earlier 2004 BBC, Seduced documentaries did not do a thorough research on the allegations. They strongly criticized Sathya Sai baba on 'Sexual abuse allegation charges' based on Alaya Rahm allegations. However the following 2006 'Superior Court California Alaya Rahm trial' did not find any wrong doings by Sathya Sai Baba.
• It is definitely a WP:BLP violation to accuse Sathya Sai Baba of a crime he was never proved to have commited based on TV documentaries.
• The strong criticism and accusations sourced to BBC, CBC, Seduced and Daily telegraph based on Alaya Rahm allegations should be removed from the article to fix the WP:BLP violations.

This is more complicated sourcing issue I don't think it could be resolved in the talk page. That's the reason I am asking help here in the reliable source noticeboard.

Wikipedia lays great emphasis on the Biography of Living Person article. I think this WP:BLP violation in the article has to be corrected.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy, My points numbered 1 and 2 in the earlier posts were just factual comments for your information. Can you address my questions about sources in points 3 and 4 ? Specifically:

• Can you provide links (if available) to the Danish documentary and the Dail Telegraph article ?
• Is there any secondary source (besides the Pioneer opinion column) that post-dates the case ?

Lets try to simply list and analyze the reliability of sources on this board. Abecedare (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with abecedare that this is better taken up on the BLP noticeboard. At a simple level, both sources (BBC as well as the court verdict) can be considered reliable. The BBC source for saying that there are allegations of sexual abuse and the court verdict for saying that, at least in the case of Alaya Rahm, these allegations were found to be untrue. Assuming, of course, that the two sources use more or less the language that I'm using. I think this is more a matter of what it is appropriate to say on a blp. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points:

• The court case was dismissed at Alaya Rahm's request. AFAIK, that mean that no judgment was reached on the veracity of the charges, so it would be wrong to state that the allegations were "found to be not true".
• The case is listed as a "PROPERTY DAMAGE - OTHER" case on the court website and is a civil case; I am not sure whether the alleged sexual abuse was even the (direct) subject in the case.

The above two points demonstrate why it is a bad idea for us to try and interpret primary legal documents (which we haven't even seen!). I would advice against mentioning the case or its dismissal in any article, unless we have a reliable secondary source talking about it. Note that the BBC documentary pre-dates the filing of the lawsuit and I don't think it mentions the case at all (please correct me if I am wrong on the last point; I haven't read through the transcript or watched the documentary).

As far as the BBC documentary goes; it is a reliable source, but how much weight it should be given in an article is best determined at the WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN board. Abecedare (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have provided the actual court documents from Superior Court of California website. I don't see what more evidence I can provide? The problem is during the 2004 BBC documentary Alaya Rahm case was not analyzed in depth. Based on Alaya Rahm's and his family interviews BBC strongly accused Sathya Sai Baba of 'Sexual Abuse allegations'. It even went further questioning the political leaders in India 'Why no action was taken on Sathya Sai Baba'.
• As I mentioned above in the 2006 trial in Superior Court Of California - Alaya Rahm was found to be making those allegations using illegal Drugs and he self-dismissed the case. Sathya Sai Baba was not proved to have commited any wrongdoings in the trial. My point is its seems baised and unfair to continue accusing some one of serious sexual abuse allegations based on an old outdated documentary and inspite of Sathya Sai Baba being cleared by Superior Court of California. In the article there is whole paragraph citing BBC and other TV documentaries allegations based on Alaya Rahm's claims. Can this be removed? Radiantenergy (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the highest standards. A TV documentary on BBC would normally be considered a reliable source, but if subsequent information brought a source into doubt, I think we would disregard the original source. A court trial is a primary source. We as Wikipedia editors are not competent to analyze what a court decision means. Was this court decision covered in any reliable secondary sources? Jehochman ^Talk 20:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Jehochman, The Superior Court of California trial and the verdict was covered in detail by an article in the 'Daily Pioneer' Newspaper. Here is the link to the article from the Daily Pioneer - http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html. I have given more information about this newspaper.
• Daily Pioneer Newspaper: "The Pioneer" - a well established Newspaper. Its been online since 10th May 1999. The daily Pioneer has epaper link: http://epaper.dailypioneer.com/Thepioneer/Pioneer/2009/04/14/index.shtml. The daily Pioneer website has 63,460 page views in the past 3 months. As per the traffic statistics this epaper is linked in 612 websites. Can the Pioneer article be considered as a secondary source to the trial?.
• Other than the original court documents about 'Alaya Rahm's Case' and the daily Pioneer article dealing with the trial there are no other secondary sources.

Court Documents:

Links to Alaya Rahm's case from the Superior Court of California Website:

• https://ocapps.occourts.org/CivilPubv2/DisplayCaseInformation.do?caseNbr=05CC01931&caseYear=&source=case_src_dtl#top_page. Please press 'Accept the Terms' and press the 'Search' button. Then you will see the case.
• Link with the Court records of Alaya Rahm's self-dismissed allegation lawsuit: http://www.saisathyasai.com/Rahm-Public-Court-Records/scans-dismissal/

• Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the daily pioneer source can be assumed to be reporting the facts of the case correctly (not necessarily the hyperbole though) since you also have the court dismissal as a reference. The question is whether the Alaya Rahm accusations were one amongst many in the BBC documentary or were the central to the documentary? If they were central to the documentary, then my blp monitor says that it is better not to use the material at all. If not, then it depends. The issue of centrality would, unfortunately, seem to require a reliable source of its own and, I assume, that this documentary and the Alaya Rahm case are not the only accusations of sexual misconduct on the part of the baba. But, in general, I suggest erring on the side of not including inflammatory material in a blp. (Note: The court case would, IMO, be ok if it's language was very specific, as in the allegations were found to be untrue. I realize on rereading that this is unlikely since the case was withdrawn.)--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that the Pioneer column is a reliable source for anything beyond the facts that a case was filed and a case was dismissed (for which the OC Superior court website suffices anyway). A reading through Sandhya Jain's columns is worthwhile; for example in the latest column US unequal to India, she writes

"Indians will be shocked to know that America’s Black adult citizens don’t have an automatic right to vote, like Whites do. That privilege is granted for 10 years at a time by the reigning American President since John F Kennedy; Mr George W Bush granted the latest extension, and no amendment has been mooted to end this mockery of Black citizenship."

This is an apparent reference to Voting_Rights_Act#Periodic_renewal, but not only is the presentation biased, even the basic facts are wrong!

We should remember that BLP applies not only to the subject of the article but also to other individuals including, Alaya Rahm. I concur that this is a subject better suited for the BLPN board, but at this board we should be clear that the Daily Pioneer column is not a reliable source for anything beyond the columnist's views. Abecedare (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, I hold the opposite view. I think the daily pioneer column is a reasonably reliable source for stating that the case was withdrawn by Rahm but that the columnists views (the hyperbole reference I made somewhere in the mess above or below) is not something that is includable in the article. I'm having second thoughts about the BBC documentary being reliable though. I haven't seen it but documentaries of this sort typically rely on story telling ("In 1972, a young John Doe arrived at the gates of the ashram ......", that sort of thing) and also do a good job of obfuscating on actionable matters ("was this young man's broken dream all in his mind or did something happen at the ashram?"). I seriously doubt that the documentary made outright accusations in the first place. Print sources are usually a better bet. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Other article: I think the other article is referencing the 'Voting Rights Act of 1965'. The Law outlawed the discriminatory voting practices on African Americans in the United States and its provisions prevented limited voting discriminations in the South. Initially there were objection to its renewal by Republicans in 2006. But President George W. Bush signed the 25 year extension on it.

I was surprised when I came across this article about Criticism of the BBC -'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC'. BBC has been criticized for its bias on 'Racism', 'Alleged Anti and Pro Israeli Bias', 'Alleged Anti-American Bias' and other biases. The article also said that In January 2005, the BBC aired the Jerry Springer: The Opera, ultimately resulting in around 55,000 complaints to the BBC from those upset at the opera's alleged blasphemies against the Christian religion. The whole article deals with the complaints about BBC. I agree with RegentsPark. I think Daily Pioneer Sathya Sai Baba article is reliably sourced and can be used as the secondary source for the trial. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Response from Radiantenergy to RegentsPark Question:

Hi RegentsPark. You had asked the following question. The question is whether the Alaya Rahm accusations were one amongst many in the BBC documentary or were the central to the documentary?

• Alaya Rahm allegations was the central / core theme in the BBC documentory. That's the main part of the problem using the 2004 outdated BBC documentary. I have attached the BBC full transcript below. BBC documentary included interviews with Alaya Rahm and his parents and questions to the Sathya Sai officials - Dr Michael Goldstein and Isaac Tigrett about the Alaya Rahm allegations. It also includes the questions to political leaders like Dr Murli Manohar Joshi and their response to these allegations.
• Here's the full version of the BBC transcript : http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/A-AlayaRahm/secret_swami17_06_04.txt.
• My answer to your next question is that I am only interested in removing the strong BBC and other TV documentaries criticism on Sathya Sai Baba which were based on 'Alaya Rahm allegations'. Leaving it in the article is definitely unfair to Sathya Sai Baba and WP:BLP violation.
• Based on the Superior Court verdict which is more reliable source its better to decide if we can get rid of the outdated BBC and other TV documentary which were solely based on Alaya Rahm allegations.
• I don't see the reason why the same issue has to be taken to another discussion forum in wikipedia. We may go through the same cycle again and again unable to conclude on this issue.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it should be taken to the BLP noticeboard because there is a line being drawn here between when allegations become notable enough to be included in a blp and when they should be excluded. That is a question that is not easy to answer here. My core responses are the same as before. Both the BBC documentary, as well as the court case are reliable provided they make clear statements. The daily pioneer article is likely reliable for asserting that the case was withdrawn, especially considering that you have the judgement as a source as well. So, what we have are allegations that have not been proved. Whether these allegations cross the notability threshold is probably better addressed on the BLP noticeboard where you'll get a much better idea of where the line should be drawn. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the combination of one older BBC video, plus other maybe marginally reliable sources that dispute or update it, brings into play the core BLP guideline of "We must get the article right". This isn't about reliable sources as much as it is about BLP, which holds the trump card ("getting it right"). For that reason, I don't think the material should be covered in the article at all, since there is so much to question about it. For that reason also, I think that a primary source can be used to show that a BLP article isn't getting it right (as much as I am normally opposed to primary sources). Priyanath ^talk 21:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

To Clarify: The BBC video as a source, by itself, clearly doesn't "get the article right". I don't think it belongs in the article. However, if the BBC video as a source remains, then the other two sources must also be allowed in order to fulfill WP:BLP. Priyanath ^talk 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What is a more reliable source for wikipedia article - TV documentary or Court verdict on the same issue ? -- we don't weigh sources against each other. Rather, when reliable sources conflict, we report the conflict, according to our WP:NPOV policy. Dlabtot (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not trying to weigh sources against each other rather the above discussion is about fixing WP:BLP issues in the article. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I would refer you to: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I originally posted the question. Many very experienced wikipedians shared their perspective in the above discussion. I don't see the need any more to take it to WP:BLP noticeboard. We can mark this discussion as resolved. Radiantenergy (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Honduran media

Can any Honduran media be considered reliable sources, given that there has been something that has internationally been described as a coup d'état, and international reliable sources have reported suppression of free press in Honduras after the events? Or is it reasonable to assume that only the sources favorable to the new government have been allowed to continue publishing, thus leaving no local reliable sources for what concerns the government-related events? --LjL (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any reliable Honduran media sources right now, due to the 2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis#Media_war. See also:

• In Honduras, One-Sided News of Crisis: Critics Cite Slanted Local Coverage, Limits on Pro-Zelaya Outlets, Washington Post.
• Honduras Targets Protesters With Emergency Decree: Media in Country Also Feel Pressure, Washington Post.
• Honduran army smothers media after coup, Reuters.
• Honduras new government is censoring journalists, The Miami Herald.
• Journalists briefly detained by troops in Honduras, Associated Press

-- Rico 19:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• It can be considered as a reliable source as far as reporting what the Honduran press is saying, but not as far as a reliable source as to fact. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought, yes... basically it is to say that everything should be treated as opinion pieces even when they're technically not, isn't it? --LjL (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• As long as you used a nuanced approach, I don't see why you cannot use Honduran newsmedia as a source. They aren't all being censored...generalizing from the few to all is not wise. There are vast differences between, for example, La Prensa, and La Tribuna, and what they choose to report. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use them, only that you should take anything that either writes with a grain of salt and look for outside corroboration. Rsheptak (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You do realize I was mostly asking for third opinions here, I wasn't really intending to bring the discussion among partecipants to Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis here... --LjL (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I don't see why you cannot use Honduran newsmedia as a source."

If, "you should take anything that either writes with a grain of salt," they are not reliable sources. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources states, "Reliable sources are needed to substantiate material within articles".

Most, if not all, of the news media here are unabashedly partisan, Honduran journalists say, with newspapers and broadcast outlets allied with political parties and local power brokers.

In Honduras, One-Sided News of Crisis: Critics Cite Slanted Local Coverage, Limits on Pro-Zelaya Outlets, Washington Post

-- Rico 20:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(Placeholder: My own comment removed per ANI) --LjL (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Link to the whole ANI. -- Rico 22:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this part of that tired debate about whether the coup was really and truly a coup? Is there any material reason why it would not be considered a coup? Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is. If you look into the sequence of events that preceded the forced departure of Zelaya, he was attempting to change the constitution of Honduras by referendum, which is explicitly forbidden by the constitution. He was rebuked by the Congress and the Supreme Court, so he attempted to use the military to circumvent their authority. The military sent him packing. So, it could be argued that the would-be coup-maker was Zelaya himself. At any rate, this is a complex diplomatic affair, and Wikipedia should not go blundering into the middle of it by annointing one side of the dispute as "the good guys" and proclaiming opposing press to be unreliable. --Coleacanth (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's part of that, but it's also broader than that. I do ask people to forget about "that question" for a moment, and, at least here, just concentrate on determining whether local Honduran sources can be considered reliable, given the state of things (suppression of free press etc.), or not. --LjL (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Is gateworld.net a reliable source

Is http://www.gateworld.net/ a reliable source? I think gateworld.net is not a reliable source as it is a fansite. Gateworld.net is being used as a source in the Stargate, Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis and Stargate Universe articles. Powergate92Talk 05:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Its come up before here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Define "fansite". Gateworld may have been started by a fan but it's definitely grown beyond what you'd normally consider a fansite. They have a relationship with the studio, they interview cast, theyve been spoken well of by the media, they've even been cited in a Nature article. The only issue is that they are specialized to one particular TV show; if there was no Stargate there would be no Gateworld. So I wouldn't use it to settle questions of notability but it should be fine for cast interviews. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Dlabtot (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The editors of Nature allow it for facts about Stargate. Why should our standards be more restrictive than Nature's? At any rate, they have a staff[1], and obviously something like a cast interview is going to be written by staff. If they have a forum section where fans can write what they wish, that's a different story. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

One cite by one journal hardly establishes a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is no. The longer answer is that I think it would be acceptable source for interviews. As Peregrine Fisher points out, this has come up before.[2] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

External wikis

External wikis [tend not to be/are pretty much never] reliable sources, right? In particular, I'm looking at this one. Someone added it as a source, and although the information isn't bad, I don't know if it can be kept. Thoughts? BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 16:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's still a wiki. I think it could be a good external link, but not a source.

I'd suggest keeping the material it is sourcing, but marking it as unreferenced, and then putting a note into the article's talk page.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's pretty much what I figured. Gratzias! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 19:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind most wikis don't meet our rules on external links either, and I'd suspect this particular one doesn't. DreamGuy (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources for WW2 losses in Asia

A dispute is developing at Talk:World War II casualties#Werner Gruhl over the choice of sources to be used for the civilian casualtites due to wartime famine in Indonesia, India and French Indochina.

User:23prootie has used the following source:

Werner Gruhl, author of Imperial Japan's World War Two 1931-1945, who is former chief of NASA's Cost and Economic Analysis Branch with a lifetime interest in the study of the First and Second World Wars. He is an active member of the UN Association.[3]

I believe that we should use this source:

John W. Dower War Without Mercy 1986 ISBN 0-394-75172-8

John W. Dower has impeccable academic credentials as a scholar on the WW2 in the Far East.[4]

Werner Gruhl is a not a recognized scholar in the field. I believe we should only post Werner Gruhl's figures in the footnotes as a note showing other opinions on the subject.

I need your guidance in this matter, please advise as to the use of sources--Woogie10w

I have to agree with Woogie10w, who has an excellent record as a fair minded and even handed editor.

While Gruhl is a respectable scholar, he does not have the unparalleled stature of Dower and IMO should be used only as supporting material.

All of us have biases, but 23prootie has a track record in pushing a Filipino nationalist/"Third Worldist" agenda, in a non-NPOV fashion, and he has been blocked from editing at least twice, because of this agenda. Grant | Talk 10:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

How reliable is a reliable source?

Resolved

 – no question

The Newcastle United website might be taken as a reliable source for things NUFC. The BBC might also be taken (pace accusations of political bias in some quarters) as a reliable source for something as trivial as a football strip. So how about these two reports about the new, and somewhat controversial, yellow-striped NUFC away strip:

• Crowds down for NUFC away strip: only three people were waiting outside the shop at St James' Park as the latest away strip went on sale. BBC

• Yellow Fever Hits Toon: A queue of eager Geordies stretched along Strawberry Place... NUFC

You pays your money, and you takes your choice! It just goes to show that accurate citation depends on actually reading the source cited, and that the sources we cite aren't necessarily NPOV. Tonywalton ^Talk 14:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. What's the question? Irbisgreif (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No question, just a comment that, as I said, what may possibly be thought of a priori as a "reliable source" sometimes isn't. Sorry if I've confused you. Tonywalton ^Talk 16:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

Is Roderick Stackelberg,[5] professor emeritus and editor of The Routledge Companion to Nazi Germany a reliable source for opinions on Fascism? This is a subject of dispute at Talk:Fascism#Professor Stackelberg. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is a reliable source on Nazi fascism. Editors not happy with the material been supported with this source should find equally reliable sources that either criticize this source or counter the info put forward by it.--LexCorp (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from an involved editor: although what The Four Deuces says is true, I think it would be slightly more accurate to say that the dispute is whether Stackelberg is appropriate as a reliable source indicating the mainstream view of fascism, specifically with respect to its position in the political spectrum and whether it is considered "left-wing" or "right-wing". The objection, by User:Vision_Thing is that Stackelberg's view is "ludicrous and out of the mainstream". This objection appears, to me, to be primarily based on the editor's own analysis of Stackelberg's view and its relation to the topic. However, Vision Thing has also asserted that the number of Google Scholars citations of the work in question is too low for the source to be considered reliable or mainstream. From what I can see, the work has been cited 14 times since its publication in 1999. I personally have no idea as to what would be an appropriate way of measuring this result. Factchecker atyourservice (talk)

Don't tell me people are still debating this issue? I thought it was settled that the mainstream view (as expressed by multiple reliable sources) was that Facism is seen as being right wing... but that a sizeable minority (especially among accademic political scientists) defines it as being left wing. BOTH views can and should be discussed in the article. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Factchecker, the issue is merely whether Stackelberg can be quoted as a reliable source to explain the opinion that fascism is right-wing, not as a source that this is the mainstream view. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And the answer to that is, yes. Blueboar (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. Perhaps I was too focused on VT's assertions that Stackelberg's view differs from the mainstream view. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a question of whether "Hitler's Germany" is a reliable source. It is a reliable source for Stackelberg's opinion without a question. Issue is whether Stackelberg's opinion on why fascism is seen "extreme right-wing" reflects mainstream view and does it merit an inclusion in the section. -- Vision Thing -- 21:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing, the issue is merely whether Stackelberg can be quoted as a reliable source to explain the opinion that fascism is right-wing, not as a source that this is the mainstream view. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Stackelberg makes quite clear that he refers to contemporaneous views. "Is a statement about contemporaneous views valid to make a general assertion about current views?" is the proper question. The question posited above is a straw man argument here. I suggested that his full quote be placed in the article so that readers can determine for themselves what he meant. Collect (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The above statement by Collect is flat-out false, and I find this troubling because we already discussed this exact issue, this exact author, this exact quote, just a few hours ago, and his attention was specifically directed to the following text:

• "It is helpful to conceptualize fascism as an extreme right-wing movement not only because it was dedicated to the destruction of Marxism and communism (after all, two movements of the extreme left, Chinese Maoism and Soviet Communism, could also be violently opposed to each other), but because of its fundamental opposition to the value of equality."

Stackelberg is clearly making a general statement about fascism, unlike the entirely separate statement that fascism was seen as extreme-right by its contemporaries. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your assumption of good faith concerning how I would phrase the issue. And it would help others if you included the full quote to show how clearly my position is relevant. Thanks!! Collect (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Collect asked Is a statement about contemporaneous views valid to make a general assertion about current views? That is totally irrelevant to the discussion. No one has made that argument and it is not contained in the proposed text. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Who wrote "I added in a paragraph explaining why Stackelberg considered fascism to be right-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)"? in Talk:Fascism. Collect (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate. I am finding it difficult to follow your reasoning. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Collect, it is not a violation of AGF to point out that you have made a false statement on a noticeboard; nor is it a violation of AGF to point out that you already knew that statement was false when you made it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the key to this dispute is figuring out how this quote is being used in the article... so it would be helpful to see some context... Would someone please post a diff so that we can see the exact statement that the quote is being used to support, and in which section of the article that statement appears (or in which section do you want it to appear, if it is not at this time included)? Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It is part of the section Fascism#Position in the political spectrum that lists the various views. Stackelberg is presented as representative of the view that fascism is right-wing. The specific text that is disputed:

'According to Roderick Stackelberg, fascism was seen by its contemporaries as right-wing, and was supported by traditional right-wing elites in its rise to power. He considered fascism "extreme right-wing" because of its opposition to communism and equality. Stackelberg stated that fascists blamed liberals for advancing socialism, and that fascists shared with traditional conservatives attachment to authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, and respect for social rank and marital virtues.[6]

You can see here[7] where the paragraph was.

The Four Deuces (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In the context of this section, this is absoulutely reliable. We have an attributed comment by a noted expert as to his views. The context does not claim that his views are or are not mainstream, mearly that he considers Facism to be right wing for given reasons. I see no reason to disallow it. Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have two objections to your view. 1) Roderick Stackelberg is not a noted expert on fascism. His book deals with one form of fascism - Nazism (some other scholars don't even recognize it as a form of fascism) and he is rarely cited. 2) If criterion for inclusion is just that someone is a "noted expert" section in question will get bloated fast. Currently there are more noted experts whose views are either not included in the section or are just mentioned briefly. -- Vision Thing -- 18:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Blueboar. The text is well-sourced from a reliable source, seems a good summary of a detailed discussion of the subject in this other book of his.[8] Stackelberg has made his career studying and publishing on this period of history; [9] and unless there are massive critiques of his work out there, then this is clearly reliable.--Slp1 (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll just add that the book has been reviewed, very positively in multiple scholarly journals. Here are some with links online, but there are others.[10][11][12][13].--Slp1 (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The related debate is ongoing, so I would like to request that this thread remain open for the time being. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Steiner Education

This source on education, has a general Background section, and is a report commissioned on Steiner school education in England. Can a citation from the background section be used to uphold a generic statement in an article? For example, the 1.2 Background section states "Education in Steiner schools is based on Rudolf Steiner's educational philosophy". Can this be used as a reference to support the statement in Waldorf_education#Pedagogy_and_theory_of_child_development that The structure of the education follows Steiner's pedagogical model of child development? Those supporting the reference maintain that the statement is general in nature. Those opposing the reference maintain that the statement does not form part of the report results and the scope of the report, being England only, means it would be WP:OR to use the reference to support a generic statement. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The argument that it is not part of the report results and the scope of the report is a strange one. Background information is as legit as the rest of the report. Why would the author felt it necessary to include it if this is not so. It even appears in the executive summary and the paragraph is referred to (although it may be the quotation that is been referred)

Woods, P. A. and Woods, G. J. (2002) Policy on School Diversity: Taking an Existential Turn in the Pursuit of Valued Learning?, British Journal of Educational Studies, 50(2):254-278.

I haven't read the whole thing but the sense I get from 2.2 Background on Steiner Education is that it is a general statement for all the schools including those in the UK. The following section is 2.3 Steiner Schools in England which presumably will cross over from the more generic section to the particular one for England thus implying that the preceding section was generic in nature after all. Is this interpretation WP:SYN?. Maybe. The opposite case is to assume that the statement is not generic which is WP:SYN as well. As the statement doesn't explicitly state that it is not generic why would we assume otherwise. To conclude, I think the reference supports the edit and the arguments against it are without merit. It would be interesting if possible to follow the reference and see if a better support is established by it.--LexCorp (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. If you haven't already, could you take a look at the article in question and see if in your opinion the reference is appropriate for the statements? I doubt if the report researched Steiner education outside of England, and it is for that reason that I asked the question. --HighKing (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Dry Ice four sources

Please check these sources for reliability--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

1. http://www.airgas.com/content/details.aspx?id=7000000000103
2. http://www.personal.psu.edu/dsg11/labmanual/DNA_manipulations/Comp_bact_by_RF1_RF2.htm
3. http://www.uigi.com/carbondioxide.html
4. http://www.continentalcarbonic.com/dryice/

1. Fails. The information on this page is intended as promotional and should definitely not be relied on.
2. Fails. These are lab notes, not published research.
3. Pass (Depending on context - it may be "dumbed down" and therefore not 100% scientifically accurate) The information is presented as facts by a reputable company.
4. Pass (Again, depending on context - it may be "dumbed down" and therefore not 100% scientifically accurate)

--HighKing (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

IMDB, again

I apologize for dredging this up again, but after I removed material from the Aaron Johnson (actor) article that was sourced to imdb, indicating that imdb is not a reliable source, an editor who insists on including it is arguing that there is no consensus on this point. I responded by pointing to this Noticeboard, and the various discussions on imdb, which indicate otherwise, including this first page of search results, which features 20 discussions on it, 15 of which include posts by editors who indicate it is clearly unreliable. The other five or so include some ambiguity or dissent. I think it clearly qualifies as a "consensus", but User:Lx 121 insists that it is not. I also pointed to this guideline (a link to which I also found here on the RSN), but he claims that's for notability, not verifiability, which I think is hair-splitting, since the spirit of that guideline is that imdb is simply not reliable. So I ask: Don't all these discussions constitute a consensus for the purpose of removing it per WP:V/WP:RS? Doesn't that guideline reasonably apply to verifiability? Nightscream (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the source be used for? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I know ALOT of users will jump on me for saying this but here I go anyways... is the info from imdb TRUE. If so then wp:ignore all rules and its fine. IF the info is false and/or damaging to the article then fine remove it. IF the info is correct what is the harm in keeping it? We really need to stop this "its not a reliable source" crap, if the info is correct then it becomes a reliable source FOR THAT INFORMATION, the policies and guidelines specifically state that a source is not ALWAYS reliable or ALWAYS unreliable, but instead a source must be reliable for the particular piece of information you are using. A Fundamentalist magazine MIGHT be a reliable source for certain information (probably religious) but probably not when it comes to hard science like evolution or the Big Bang Theory. Likewise Discover or Popular Science will be reliable for science but probably not reliable regarding the Catholic Church.Camelbinky (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it actually is reliable for a lot of stuff. Not user comments, trivia, mini bio, and some of the other random user generated stuff. I think the main problem, is we aren't sure which parts are provided by media companies and entered by paid staff, and which parts are purely user generated. I don't think anyones figured which parts are which, anyways. As Camelbinky points out, a lot of people like to jump on imdb, because they would prefer that it not be a reliable source. People would jump at the chance to add a bunch of reliable info about pop culture from an easy to use source like imdb, and some people don't think that's encyclopedic. I'm sure we'll hear some stern "no"s in a bit. I wish instead we would figure out which parts are reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this group of comments has someone who breaks it down nicely. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No jumping here (chuckle). But until such future time (if ever) that consensus recognizes (at least certain parts of) IMDb, its best to simply use it as a tool to do further research. The discussions at WP:Citing IMDB tried to deal with this, but were unsuccessful. Basically some parts are reliable and other parts are not. Because they do not have transparancy, do not reveal the names of their staff members, nor disclose their vetting processes, the entire site is seen in doubt. It is best that one tells an editor wishing to use it as a source, that he perform searches to confirm the informations in other locations and use themn as a cite instead. Saves a lot of argument. Send the editor to Google News. He'll find plenty on this actor. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If imdb were to be determined reliable for something, cast lists, MPAA ratings, whatever. Almost every movie and tv episode ever would then pass the part of WP:V (not WP:NOTE) that says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I think that may be one reason people don't want it to be reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of "want". It simply doesn't meet the definition of WP:RS. BTW, there are guidelines to establish the notability of films WP:NOTFILM. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

IMDB, is also cited by a ton of reliable sources.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] etc. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC) And some RSs saying IMDB is reliable.[22][23][24][25] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible we've taken our sourcing standards just a little too far? Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, if part of the concern is that deeming IMDB an RS would cause almost every film ever made to be notable, that just isn't so. IMDB is a tertiary source, like an almanac, and a trivial mention in a database-type source wouldn't meet the general notability guideline. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't effect notability (much), but it does two things that would be nice for inclusionists. It takes care of that part of WP:V (a policy) vs. NOTE being just (cough) a guideline. And it adds one easily found ref for all the films and tv eps, and in film and tv ep AfDs, ref counting (right or wrong) is a key component. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybody who thinks IMDB is a reliable source for biographical information should take a look at this page [26], which, coincidentally, I checked out just a few hours ago. Don't see any problems? Look closely at those marriage dates. I think IMDB is reliable enough for TV and movie credits for mainstream performers, but the biographical sections are not reliable (in part because they're too often sourced from Wikipedia), in part because there's too much credit-faking for minor/extra roles for people with thin credentials, porn performers claiming to have uncredited roles in well-enough-known films, etc. Birthdates and birthnames also pose questions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source. Using it to get credit lists rather than grab the DVD is acceptable, but that does not make it a reliable source that should be cited (and such credits should always be double checked). IMDB is rife with errors and is user edied. Some like to say that IMDB checks edits, but in reality, any edit is accepted so long as it looks reasonable enough. Look at their trivia sections for any film. Often false, or unverifiable, but allowed to be added anyway. They do not vest their content, and it is not a reliable source. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

For Collectonian and others I am going to repeat this AGAIN- per Wikipedia policy and guidelines there is no such thing as sources simply being RELIABLE or NOT RELIABLE. PLEASE refrain from such comments that make it seem a clear-cut all-or-nothing strict classification. And also remember these things you state are YOUR opinions, please frame your comments as such. IMDB may be a reliable soure or not a reliable source on a case by case basis since it does not, as far as I can see, violate any particular policy on what types of things can or cannot be used as sources (such as the current ban on blogs). Which if it is ever found to be doing so (because I can be wrong) then that would not have anything to do with it being reliable, that would simply mean it violates a different aspect of our "rules" on what is permissable and it has nothing to do with being reliable. I know of many blogs written by professionals that arent permissable but are very reliable. I could go to many articles and find mistakes in a publication that is used as a source, but having a mistake somewhere in a book does not mean you throw out any use of a different part of the book. You dont throw out the baby with the bathwater.Camelbinky (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That only pertains in very select instances. IMDB may be considered reliable for the article Internet Movie Data Base, but that's it. That's what that means generally. For a very close comparison, Anime News Network's encyclopedia was recently delisted as a reliable source (though their news and reviews still are) for the exact same reasons that IMDB info is; there are a lot of inaccuracies, it's hard to tell what level of scrutiny is needed before info is added/corrected, etc.

The only thing that might be reliable are their news feeds which its better to just go and cite the original source.陣内_Jinnai 02:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have to go through this again? IMDB accepts user-submitted content that is not reviewed by an editorial staff. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry AQFK, but that is flatly incorrect, as approximately 70% of their staff is dedicated to vetting user submissions. Yes, IMDB allows Joe Sixpack to submit information. But it also allows industry professionals to submit information. They also have their own staff that add informations. However, all such credible informations ARE vetted by staff before they are published... and NO, I am not taliking about user's comments or actor's bios. Any flat assertion that IMDB does not have editorial oversite is simply incorrect.[27][28] It is their not giving full disclosure of their processes that darkens them in the eyes of many Wikipedians. We all agree that IMDB bios are not reliable and urge editors to simply do their own search for other sources to confirm whatever they find in IMDB and then provide those other sources as the cite. And absolutely no one is promoting IMDB as a source for notability. Personally, I believe New York Times and Washington Post have a far greater error rate than IMDB... but that is not the answer to the question being asked far above. It is that IMDB does not disclose that is the problem. And in previous discussions, no one ever answered my question as to what error rate is allowed before a source is deemed unreliable. If IMDB says anything other than what is found in the film credits, WGA, or MPAA, an editor should simply say to themselves "Hmmm, let's see if I can source that elsewhere", do so, and avoid the wikidrama.

MichaelQSchmidt, no, it's not flatly incorrect and your selective quote is highly misleading. It does not say 70% of the content is reviewed by staff. Instead, it says 70% of its staff reviews content - which is an extremely meaningless statistic without knowing how big their staff is in comparison to the "massive" amounts of user-submitted content they get. Further, if you keep reading, even IMDB admits they are not reliable: However keep in mind that our service is provided for the information of users only. It is not provided with the intention that users rely upon the information for any purposes. 13:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

But the point is moot, as this entire discussion has taking a wrong turn. Please look at the original question above. That is all to which we need provide a decent answer, not debate IMDB all over again. So to User: Nightscream, simply instruct User:Lx 121 to source his informations from this Google News search and let's stop this argument that has no end. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Peregrine, the info for which User:Lx 121 wanted to use it was for biographical data (date of birth and place of birth, specifically), the exact sort of thing for which people consistently say it's not reliable. You point out others who cite it. But couldn't this be because imdb doesn't have Wikipedia's reputation for lack of reliability, and so, people are just not aware of it? I mean, prior to being told here that it wasn't reliable, I myself used it, because I was under the impression that it was. Yeah, Roger Ebert, references it, but he never notes whether the info in question is sourced or not, and even Jimmy Wales himself said WP shouldn't be used in this way. The marriage dates on the page Hullaballoo Wolfowitz linked to underscores perfectly how bio info like dates is not reliable. Camelbinky, you ask what the harm is in using it if the info is true. My point is that we don't know if it's true, precisely because it's unreliable. A Quest For Knowledge, I brought this up again for reasons explained in the first post in this section: When I removed material from an article because it was sourced to imdb, another editor insisted that there was no consensus on this point, even after I pointed to numerous discussions in which most of the editors stated it was unreliable. Michael, thank you. It appears that imdb is widely considered unreliable for biographical info, if not for screen credit info. Nightscream (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

IMDB is not and has never been a reliable source and cannot be used as such. A couple of disgruntled editors (one I recognize as a extremely dedicated AFD patroller who seemingly votes to keep every article up for deletion with any flimsy source he can grasp at to try to justify it, who therefore would love to add IMDB fluff to his arsenal) don't get to just ignore the longstanding consensus that's very clear on this point. 16:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I stand by, and state again, the fact that Wikipedia does clearly states that a source must be reliable on the particular fact it is quoting, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DEFINITELY STATE A SOURCE IS RELIABLE IN ALL INSTANCES! If the NY Times says a building was built in a certain year and that is wrong we dont then say- its a reliable source the info stays! and we dont say- its now an unreliable source throw out anything in it! Stop saying something is reliable or unreliable in all instances. I dont care if you say I'm wrong. You are wrong, I'm right. If there is something in IMDB that is true and then there is no problem with using it a citation. Truth trumps everything. Bite it.Camelbinky (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• While I do think that IMDb is reliable for some purposes, from Wikipedia:Citing IMDb it appears that we could not even get a consensus as to whether there should be a guideline about that, much less what that guideline should be. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's reliable for cast list information. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Just like any WP:RS, particular citations have to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Dlabtot (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

But, to repeat what I've said in prior discussions, although imdb can be considered generally reliable, as an enterprise that endeavors to list ALL films, rather than just notable films, appearance in imdb can in no way be considered as an indication of notability. Dlabtot (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think most of the participants of this discussion are aware of the rough consensus from the last few times IMdb has come up: information from there is reliable so long as it isn't in the 'user-generate' and non-vetted section. So dates, cast, crew, etc. are ok. Forum posts, trivia, etc. are not. Also, as Dlabtot points out, IMdb is effectively a directory, so the presence of absence of a film or person on IMdb is not a sign of notability. As for the true vs. reliable discussion above, that's a false dichotomy. If you know information provided in a source is false, don't leave it in the article. If you 'know' something to be true but don't have a source (and there isn't a source stating the opposite to be true), then consider not including the information unless it is something obvious. Don't leave knowingly false information in an article because you lack a source but don't insert something in an article just because "you know it is true". Protonk (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to dispute this given that anyone can submit information (not just experts) and that their review of the information is not of quality level. Other sources with similar makeup and arguably higher levels of oversight have been deemed for that content non-reliable. And yes, IMDB cannot be used in any way to show notability.陣内_Jinnai 21:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My easy response is that people will use imdb whatever our decision here is. I think that we would rather they footnote and source particular claims so we have some trail (and not one that ends with 'because some wikipedia editor said so'). I find, at least anecdotally, that imdb is reliable (a family of movie buffs has yet to find more than a few eggregious errors and my dad has surfed this site since its inception) and I feel that as a directory service they perform more due diligence than most. I agree that it is low on the continuum of reliability, but it should meet our threshold. Protonk (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

People lose sight of one thing: if information can only be found on IMDB, there's a real problem. People are using IMDB as a crutch: it's easier to find something there than to actually look for it. Very little of the information sourced to IMDB is exclusive to IMDB. If some piece of information can only be found there, it probably isn't important enough to mention in an article. IMDB is like Wikipedia: a great place to get an idea of what you are looking for, but not reliable enough to quote.—Kww(talk) 02:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kww...something I'm not always known for. IMDb can be used as a launching pad - going there to check who may be the producer so you have a name, but then you should go and look elsewhere.陣内_Jinnai 04:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Our film and tv pages are using a ton of info that came from imdb, without attribution. I guess we're pretending that we're closely examining the credits, when if anyone is closely examining the credits, it's the people at imdb. We should be upfront about this. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Beast as a source

Is the Daily Beast a reliable source? It describes itself as "a speedy, smart edit of the web from the merciless point of view of what interests the editors. The Daily Beast is the omnivorous friend who hears about the best stuff and forwards it to you with a twist. It allows you to lead the conversation, rather than simply follow it." [29] To me, that sounds more like a cross between a group blog and Metafilter than a newspaper.

Specifically, I have in mind a blog post on the Daily Beast as a source for BLP (I don't think it's reliable), but searching the archives, I see that we have apparently never discussed this source here. Perhaps we should. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it may be reliable, as always depending on what you want to say. It's run by Tina Brown, who has run some of the most reliable sources, like The New Yorker. There's definitely someone with money behind it who can be sued: IAC/InterActiveCorp. It's one of these common new media type orgs that is run like a newspaper, but tries to look like a blog because they think it's hip. BLP stuff is always problematic, though. What exactly do you want to use it for? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to use it at all. ;) It was proposed by another editor to use this blog post at the Beast as a source for the claim that Sarah Palin "can earn as much as $5,000,000 in the coming year from speaking engagements." I truly doubt that the Beast generally, or this source particularly, is a sufficiently reliable source for such claims. WP:BLP warns that "[m]aterial about living persons must be sourced very carefully," that "poorly sourced" material should be removed (presumably contemplating the latter as a remedy for the former), and that blogs must never be used for BLPs. The source just given may qualify for the newspaper exception to BLP's blog rule if the Beast is a newspaper for purposes of the rule. So far as I can see, though, the Beast looks more like the "Huffington Post" -- a group blog / content aggregator popular on the left -- than a real media outfit.

Alternatively, it may suffice for the Beast to be a reliable source generally. But is it? We haven't discussed the matter here before. While I'm interested in answering the immediate question, the broader question is worth pondering also. WP:V tells us that "[q]uestionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight"; by contrast, WP:RS tells us that "[r]eliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Which of these descriptions does the Beast more closely resemble?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it for that. That's too controversial. I'd wait until two really good sources pick that one up. The author is a real reporter who works for New York Magazine, though, so I still think Daily Beast is reliable in general. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the Daily Beast as a reliable source in general, the article in question was a speculative opinion piece that's really not suitable as Wikipedia source whether published in the Daily Beast, the Daily News. or the Daily Bugle. It might be citable as one item in range of opinions, but cited on its own is just given undue weight. An opinion piece written by a high-level authority (eg, Paul Krugman on economics) may deserve a standalone cite, but still should identify the authority in the article text. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As others have stated; the Daily Beast meets RS, but speculative opinion peices are speculative opinion pieces regardless of where they occur. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

For my money, KC is right. The daily beast has editors, names authors and takes responsibility for content, so it meets the spirit of RS, but their job is not to do journalism. Rather they are largely an opinion piece aggregator. This is something we have to tussle with more and more, as online (And print) journalism moves away from hard reporting toward a mix of opinion and fact. I would rather we source items in BLPs to it as little as possible. Protonk (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

religioustolerance. org revisited

Yes, I know this has been discussed before, specifically here. I have however recently found J. Gordon Melton or James R. Lewis (I think the former, sorry, but it was a few days ago) listing the website as a source in one of the reference books they write. On that basis, I have to assume that it is a reliable source, considering at least one of the most reliable sources on NRMs uses it as a source. I realize that there would be problems in determining which articles could link to the webpage, but I do think that, in at least a few, we would be better off being able to use it. Any opinions? John Carter (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

While I think a university press-published book is generally preferable to the Religioustolerance.org site, the site has gathered acclaim from a number of reputable scholars. It is quite often used as a source in scholarly writings; university students are taught to use it. RS; but perhaps best used with attribution. JN466 03:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, this site has not been considered an RS before. The lead researcher is a retired electrical engineer, another researcher is an urban planner, a third is a IT manager, and a fourth is a waitress. "None of us has any formal education in theology." Many primary or questionable sources may be used by scholars who are qualified to pick and choose in ways that we aren't. As far as I can tell, the site is only linked from two Wikipedia articles, both concerning nudism.[30]   Will Beback  talk  04:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I am of the feeling that RT may be considered self-published. Irbisgreif (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Our article on the site lists academic sources endorsing it; the endorsement of someone like David G. Bromley in a university textbook on this topic area carries a lot of weight, IMO. Some of these sources were also detailed in the previous discussion that John Carter linked to. As a source, it's not top drawer, but among websites on this topic area it is clearly among the best. The main author has one or two academic publishing credits to his name as well.

I'd say it's about as reputable as a good sceptics site. There's worse websites we link to. --JN466 09:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If we consider endorsements as part of the criteria for evaluating sources then criticisms should be considered as well. Taken as a whole, the site appears similar to a group blog written people with no expertise in the field. Saying that it is the best of its type is faint praise. If we were to accept this then it'd really open up a much wider field fo sources than we currently use. Sourcing religion articles to a waitress? Is that really the best we can do? The actual usage of the site as a source on Wikipedia shows the community's judgment. It is apparently considered reliable on the topic of nudism.   Will Beback  talk  10:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Your idea of expertise seems to be way off base if you think this site has none. The actual usage of the site doesn't show whetehr it is considered reliable since there was a coordinated campaign by POV pushers to remove it. Before it was removed it was extensively used, so your argument collapses. DreamGuy (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The researchers on the site admit that none of them have any formal educaiton in the topic. They have expertise inthe same way as any of us have espertise, or thousands of bloggers have expertise in feilds where they've never had formal educaiton bu write extensively anyway. Who are these "POV pushers" who acted in a "coordinated campaign"? Could that "campaign" have been a result of discussion here that decided we should use a waitress and an electrical engineer as sources for articles on religious movements?   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Will, will you admit any argument based on the fact that the site is used as a source by reliable sources, and that university students in these fields are directed by their professors to use it for research? --JN466 10:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

They have expertise for having extensively researched it and w*having been recognized as experts* on it. The argument that someone has to have formal training on a topic to be a reliable source on it might hold for topics like particle physics or something along those lines, but it's a ridiculous stance for a lot of fields, especially this one. Thousands of bloggers write about lots of things, but that doesn't mean anyone with a website is just a blogger. DreamGuy (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This site has ALWAYS been a reliable source, and has always been extremely well respected by other reliable sources. The only reason it ever became controversial and people denied that it was a reliable source was some very vocal editors who seemed to be largely objecting because of having a POV different from the site and wanting to remove it and those views. If anyone was ever under the delusion that the site was not reliable, we should make it very clear that that's not the case. DreamGuy (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Always? Then why isn't it used as a source for any significant articles?   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As already explained, because you and some other POV pushers took it out of a ton of articles where it had been used because you just don't like the site. That's like if you went around and reverted every edit Jimbo made and then tried to explain why you did so by saying "All of his edits were crap edits, obviously. After all, if they were any good why then did they get reverted?" It's a complete nonsense argument and frankly just shows why your opinion shouldn't be taken seriously. DreamGuy (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

For reference, the site is currently linked to from 341 articles. --JN466 10:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - when I checked I only found two.   Will Beback  talk  19:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Not RS, just a self-published website. Dlabtot (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a self-published website, so all restrictions that apply to WP:SPS (notably controversial material on BLPs) would apply. But Robinson is an acknowledged expert. JN466 10:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Every site in the world is a self-published website. That in and of itself is not a reason to call it not reliable. The main author is a recognized expert, so it is a reliable source. DreamGuy (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
      • If Robinson is an a recognized expert then his writings would be acceptable. Non-experts are not included just because they post to the same website.   Will Beback  talk  19:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Given the widespread citing of the site for fact by academic and mainstream news authors, as documented for review by editors below, and also its prominent inclusion as a recommended external site in several articles on the Encyclopaedia Britannica website, shall we agree a finding that any articles on the site authored or co-authored by Robinson meet WP:RS? JN466 21:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. [emphasis in original]
          • According to WP:SPS, if Robinson is a notable and acknowledged expert who has been published previously in reliable third-party sources then his statements on that topic may be used as a reliable source even when self-published, so long as they do not concern living people. Which reliable, third party publications has he written for?   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
            • He's the author of chapters in –
              1. Lewis, James R. (2001). Satanism Today: An Encyclopedia Of Religion, Folklore and Popular Culture. ABC-Clio ISBN 1-57607-292-4.
              2. Cowan, Douglas E.; Hadden, Jeffrey K. (2000). Religion on the Internet: research prospects and promises. ISBN 0-7623-0535-5.
              3. Lewis, James R. (1998). The encyclopedia of cults, sects, and new religions. ISBN 9781573922227.
            • Add to that the fact that even Encyclopaedia Britannica link to his writings, as do hundreds of scholars and journalists. --JN466 00:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
              • I don't think the EB links count for much, but the books listed above appear sufficient to establish Robinson as a published expert. Use of his articles on a self-published site would still be subject to WP:BLP where applicable.   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
                • Absolutely. The BLP-SPS restriction applies. Can we mark this resolved? JN466 00:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • It's resolved to my satisfaction.   Will Beback  talk  02:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• WP:RS#Usage by other sources explicitly gives "widespread and consistent" use, particularly "widespread citation without comment for facts", as the standard for strong evidence of reliability. How "widespread" is citation of religioustolerance.org, and is it widespreadly treated as implicitly 'if religioustolerance.org says it then it must be true'? I'm sure any number of academics cite any number of WP:SPSes -- occasionally inadvisedly so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks; that is the relevant criterion. The site is widely quoted for fact. Google books returns 600 matches; do look at them. They are citations for facts, inclusions in academic bibliographies, etc. More than 1000 google scholar hits. --JN466 11:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • To give some examples, here is an Oxford University Press publication quoting it for fact – [31], here is the Skeptic's Dictionary quoting it – [32] – and it is included in the "External Web sites" section of several articles on britannica.com, i.e. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/704347/New-Age-movement http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/196711/euthanasia http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/704601/ECKANKAR http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/523208/Santeria JN466 12:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • So far as I can tell, the main reason for its initial removal was concerns about it being spammed as an external link. If we try to help ensure that the link isn't added to too many articles, I think that there shouldn't be any problems listing it as a source on those occasions when it is directly used as such. John Carter (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Download pages as source for notability?

The Icon editor article has list of icon editing software at the bottom of the article. Several of the programs mentioned strike me as non-notable, but another editor is justifying their notability and inclusion with weak sources including download pages, saying these sources are reliable and meet Wikipedia standards. I strongly disagree but discussion isn't going anywhere, so assistance is needed. Some guy (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A quick look makes me thing these are primary source materials... which, while they can be used in articles (in a limited way)... do not establish notability. If I have missed something, let me know. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:NOTLINK apply here? I would feel comfortable deleting the whole bunch, with a pointer to a DMOZ or similar. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, WP:NOTLINK does not apply here, since it does not help to answer the question. Please stay on-topic.

Under what guidelines are "download pages" not "reliable sources"? --Hm2k (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved this discussion down to the bottom as it was not getting any attention. Please note that due to page merge the discussion has moved to Talk:Computer icon#Icon editor software As I have repeatedly explained, download pages do not meet "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". They do not provide credibility or notability.

Can we please get more feedback on this? Look at this page [33] it's a download page in German with nothing more than the blurb about software features - completely invalid. This [34] is a tutorial that uses one of the softwares - does that make it notable? Why is this arbitrary tutorial a source of notability? Same here [35]. This download page [36] has a very brief editorial; does that indicate notability? This page [37] strikes me as worthless, it's just a blurb about "we added this program to our downloads".

We need more feedback. Thanks. Some guy (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Your question was whether download pages are notable or not. Now you're providing specific links and giving your opinion as to whether they are classified as notability or not. They are valid references that are reliable sources which support the entries making them notable. None of this answers the question. But then we already know the answer, which is yes, they can be. So if you have an issue with specific links on the article why not use the talk on the article to discuss them? --Hm2k (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Who is "we" that already knows anything? I am asking questions about whether the sources you have cited are reliable. I do not believe they are. This seems like the appropriate place to get answers since it's the reliable sources noticeboard. Some guy (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the heading, not all the links I've provided are in question, only the ones you are classifying as "download pages". Yet not only did you delete the whole section in the article on more than one occasion because with the edit summary saying "download page is not a source", but you are now questioning ALL the links i've used as references, some of which ARE NOT "download pages". I also refer back to my original point which is "the fact that it's a download page has nothing to do with it", this removing content for that reason is NOT a valid reason. Why don't you stick to the original question rather than bringing up other issues? We don't need to discuss them here, they are irrelevant. --Hm2k (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering "download pages" are essentially just like any other page found on the internet, I can't see any reason why they couldn't be considered as reliable sources. Whether the "download pages" I have used are reliable resources or not is another question entirely, which isn't what you've asked here... --Hm2k (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop these rediculous word games. The issue at hand is whether the sources you have used are reliable sources that can be used as sources. The fact that they are "just like any other page" makes it very strongly likely that they are not usable as sources, as the vast majority of the internet is not considered reliable source. Some guy (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Any page on the internet can be used as a reference if it qualifies as a reliable source. The links I've used qualify, regardless of whether they are "download pages" or not. Also whether they qualify or not is not what's in question here. I suggest you revert back to Talk:Computer icon‎ or raise a new, more concise question. As this discussion is clearly going nowhere and nobody wants to comment on it. --Hm2k (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In what universe are download pages reliable sources? Not on Wikipedia, anyway, which is the important thing. DreamGuy (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

They are reliable sources so long as they qualify with Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines, which these do. So, in this universe, they can be. I don't see any guideline that suggests otherwise. Do you? --Hm2k (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Download pages are self-published in the vast majority of cases. Anybody can post an app on Softpedia or a shareware repository and get it listed since they don't check if the app has any value. However, this source combined with that one makes the app notable in my opinion. Laurent (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Vast majority of cases", is often but not always. I agree. You also agree that the references I have used are suitable for notability. I think this answers the question. Download pages can be used as a reference for notability but should be supported with another reliable source. --Hm2k (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As said above, download pages do not qualify as a reliable source as to the notability of a software product. @Laurent1979, I disagree that combining references makes for a reliable reference. A simpler way is to simply remove any product reference without it's own article using the hard-to-argue-with logic that if it were notable, it would have an article (which would use references to establish notability). --HighKing (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of this is down to an ignorant generalisation of "download pages", some sites can qualify as reliable sources. Not every entry on Wikipedia requires an article, just references for notability is often sufficient until it can be expanded into an article of it's own. --Hm2k (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So if people disagree with you and say that they aren't valid sources, those people are "ignorant"? That's offensive. I don't see that Laurent has "agreed" that all of your sources are suitable.

Laurent, how does that winfuture page qualify as a source? It's a download page. The information on the page is the product description/features blurb created by the company that produced the software. Some guy (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand German but, since it's in the News section, I was under the impression that it was a review and not just a download page? Otherwise, perhaps this article written by ZDNet (and not by the developer) would be enough to establish notability? Laurent (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, try http://translate.google.com for rough page translation. Here's the winfuture [38] and the ZDNet [39] . I think the first one is clearly not a source, I'm not totally sure about the second one. Thoughts from others? Some guy (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Obviously not. Besides, the entire section is inappropriate - WP:NOT. Dlabtot (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This does not answer the question. Under what guidelines are ALL "download pages" considered "obviously not" reliable sources? --Hm2k (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

They don't in any respect meet any of the criteria for reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's up to whoever thinks they are reliable sources to justify them. Under what conditions would a download page be a reliable source? Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, I'd be happy to justify any specific source. However, as we appear to be generalising ALL "download pages" here, I'll ask the following question: What makes a download site any different from a news organisation's website that publishes press releases and DMOZ that publishes user entries? Both are accepted as reliable sources here on Wikipedia. Should download sites be considered any different? If so why? --Hm2k (talk) 10:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Do download sites exercise editorial control and publish researched information from credible writers? The problem is that they don't. So the rule of thumb here is that yes, "All" download listing sites are not regarded as reliable sources. If you believe you have found an exception, by all means argue the merits of the different download site. --HighKing (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We can't and shouldn't make any generalization regarding download websites. Some are reliable, some are not - it depends on the source, who wrote the review and who is the publisher. This is a reliable source but this is not even though both are download pages. Laurent (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This is not reliable, from the same download site. If there's a review of a product from a reliable (named) author, or where editorial control has been exercised by a reliable organization, then the review would be deemed reliable, regardless of whether it is published on a download site or not. Since most download sites fail on this point, I'd maintain that the rule of thumb is that All download sites fail, and exceptions are looked at on a case by case basis. --HighKing (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That's why I wrote that it depends on who wrote the review. In your example, the "review" is unreliable because it's only a publisher's description, in the example I mentioned, it is reliable because it's an actual review written by the CNET staff. You may be right though when you say that most download sites fail, but we still need to look at the sources on a case by case basis. Laurent (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I created this thread to address source issues at the Icon editor Computer icon page. If we are generalizing, that's fine, but the original page/problem isn't forgotten. The reason is that a download page is does not exist to provide news or information, it exists as a way to deliver a product to a consumer, usually with a little advertising blurb written by the publisher and possibly accompanied by a "look we added something to our catalog" blurb or a review. It strikes me as exactly the same as picking up a random appliance at your local hardware store and deciding it's notable because the store carries it, it appeared in an advertisement, and an employee said he tried it once and it seems to work pretty well. I would guess that more people use a given DeWalt drill than Icon Sushi, but you're not gonna find an article about that drill. Some guy (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Your question is generalised and not specific or concise. If it's specific to an article, perhaps you should discuss it on the article, if it's specific to a particular source, you should question that source. Some download sites exercise editorial control and publish researched information from credible writers. You CANNOT generalise ALL download pages. Neither can you use your shopping experience to decide what should or shouldn't appear on Wikipedia. --Hm2k (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You keep playing these word games. I was very specific and concise towards the beginning of the discussion. Look at my paragraph that starts "I moved this discussion down to the bottom as it was not getting any attention". I specifically addressed my concerns with the reliability of many of the sources and asked for feedback on them. You are ignoring the fact that people are telling you the specific sources you have used in the article are not valid; these are not mere generalizations. Reviews are not necessarily "research information from credible writers". The winfuture page has absolutely no credibly researched information brought forth through editorial control from credible writers. It has a product blurb written by the software's developers/publishers. You have to specifically explain why the sources you have used in the article are valid and should be kept - the burden of proof is on you, but you seem to be deflecting. Some guy (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If it was just the winfuture page you had an issue with, why didn't you just remove that one source and dispute that? Instead, you decided to dispute the whole thing even to the point of removing the entire section a few times, not only that, but you're also disputing an entire source type. Perhaps now you've seen the error of your ways normal programming may resume. Why not return to the article and dispute the single source you have an issue with, rather than this ridiculous dispute over nothing specific. --Hm2k (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: Don't waste your time, I'm already discussing the specifics here. Discussion here is over. --Hm2k (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we are allowed to continue the discussion here, even if you don't want us to. Just FYI. Dlabtot (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Please note the revelant text has been moved to List of icon software. Which strikes me as a candidate for deletion, since it's nothing more than a list that seems to me to be in direct violation of WP:NOTDIR.

I am disputing all of the sources. If I say "the download pages", that's because it's easier than constantly listing each page individually any time I mention them. If I use a specific page as an example, that doesn't mean it's the only page I have issue with.

Would anyone care to comment on the validity as sources of the tutorials that mention the software? Some guy (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, this is ridiculous now. You're not even staying on-topic any more and simply proposing any reason you can to remove the references. I see no point in discussing this any further here. If you like we can follow WP:DR and request an WP:RFC. I see no other way to resolve this. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to discuss it here, you don't have to. But if you want to contribute to the consensus-building process, it probably would be a good idea to participate. Dlabtot (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that, but this is not a consensus-building process. That's what WP:RFC is for. This is just useless discussion with no possible resolution and a complete waste of time. --Hm2k (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It is frustrating when the consensus is clearly against you, isn't it? I can relate. Dlabtot (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No real consensus can be made from this. An RFC should be started with a concise and neutral request with a simple support/oppose style question to avoid this pointless rambling. --Hm2k (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a consensus from this, but I don't want to speak for anyone. Any more comments? Some guy (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sys-Con

User:Beefyt recently went through numerous computer articles and removed all references to SYS-CON, terming it as "spam". I reverted these removals and questioned him as to why he had done this as SYS-CON is a national publisher of numerous trade magazines. He feels that "the content appearing on SYS-CON is copied from other websites without approval of the authors and is packaged with ads". SYS-CON has won numerous publication awards, and I find it hard to believe this would happen if their site is a giant copyright infringement. I've personally used SYS-CON as a source primarily to allow for easier access to articles from their printed publication as, unlike most media, they don't hide their articles behind pay walls. SYS-CON is recognized by the computer industry as a reliable publisher of trade journals and it seems to meet all the WP:RS criteria, so I do not see how this can possibly be "spam" that should be removed. From further discussion at User talk:Beefyt#Sys-Con, Beefyt feels SYS-CON is no longer reliable based on a complaint regarding the site Ulitzer, which scrapes blog postings and is run by SYS-CON. This very recent issue does not, to me, make every previous article they have ever published suddenly null and void.[40]. Other media outlets have messed up before, but we don't stop considering them reliable. Thoughts? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

SYS-CON has fabricated reporters: [41] --beefyt (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A few "articles" attributed to this non-existent author: [42] [43] [44] --beefyt (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, that blog post is still from the same rather ticked off person, and all appears to be issues around the Ulitzer issue. I still do not feel that this negates Sys-Con's decades of reliability, makes it "spam", nor should preclude the use of its printed sources. It should also be noted that other than Aralbalkan's blog and the one Register article, no major news service appears to have actually reported on this story at all. Nothing but other bloggers repeating Aralbalkan's posts. As a side note, I have left notes at the various computer related WikiProjects alerting them to this discussion as it could potentially affect hundreds of computer-related articles.-- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Another blog posts: [45]. The response of SYS-CON has been amazingly childish and must negate any credibility they had: [46]. --beefyt (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

All blog posts...not reliable sources, and one who states he is a friend of Aralbalkan. I also saw other blog posts from the supposedly wronged individuals...who note that they had, in fact, published the articles with Sys-Con years ago and that Utilizer was just recycling their old content. Has any actual reliable source covered this story and discredited Sys-Con, even though it happened months ago? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What publication awards has SYS-CON won? If they are so reputable, why don't we have a SYS-CON article? Judging form the Pamela Jones article, it seems to me that the WP consensus is that SYS-CON is dubious at best. --beefyt (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The lack of an article doesn't make them non-reliable. And honestly, who knows why we don't have one beyond no one bothered making one? There are a lot of articles that don't exist on notable areas. A partial list is on the sys-con site and easily verifiable[47]. The PRSA, here: [48] Evans, alas, locks their older reports so registration required. And sorry, please show actual Wikipedia consensus showing that Sys-con is dubious? An article about a writer does not show consensus about a possible source. *sigh* Their ColdFusion Developer's Journal is edited by Simon Horwith, one of the top names in the CF industry and expert in the field. Nevermind the endorsements from the various topical areas - Linux, Java, ColdFusion, etc. No media outlet is perfect. Why do you suddenly feel Sys-con should be deemed completely unreliable on the basis of this one incident, which is still supported only by blog posts? The New York Times had a reporter plagiarizing articles and making up others...do you also want to remove this paper from every article as no longer being reliable? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, I expect the sources used to impeach one source's reliability be greater than or equal to the alleged reliability of the source being impeached. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

While I don't think we should blanket purge SYS-CON citations, I believe it is quite appropriate to raise the issue of their reliability as a source. WP:RS advises, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Currently, the top story of the Java Developers Journal (a SYS-CON magazine) is this charming piece, where "Wikipedia Moderators Make Hitler Look Like a Hobbyist". — Matt Crypto 07:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If sys-con is decided not to be realible apart from affecting a lot of computing articles there a bigger potential peopel then could challange the creditability of other realible sources on the same grounds. Without seeing the exact content that is getting challange i wont make a opinion on it. But based on the creditable of the site i say it more realible than unrealible, if what being challange is a forum or blog posting then i say then yes it unralible for than but for journals etc i can nto see how it unrealible. Again iw ll give more opinion wheni know what is being challange.--Andy (talk - contrib) 09:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The removals were wholescale across some 30 articles or so. You'd have to look at Special:Contributions/Beefyt to see. It came to my attention when the links were removed from CFUnited, which were just links to the online versions of the printed trade publications. From the discussions, I felt like Beefyt was shooting from the hip rather than acting from consensus and as someone knowledgeable about the computer and web application development industry.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In light of the points you have made, Collectonian, I apologize for the edits I made removing SYS-CON references. I should have sought approval or consensus before acting so boldly. Obviously I stopped removing referencing SYS-CON references once you messaged me. I'm glad you were able to revert my edits (hopefully?) easily. Please don't let my misguided actions affect the outcome of this discussion. --beefyt (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I was able to revert all but one or two where you put in new sources. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed about 5 or 6 random removals esiocpally ones in my fields like IBM and servers. All one i reviewed are of Articles/Journals that has been posted and are very creditable even by the companies they ar eon. If there is particular one that are questionable could these be raised indivual by the beefy? as i like to review them serpertle before giving a overal decision, but just now my opinions are still swayed to it is realible, but i wont make a rash opnion on it until i know excately what is getting question, if there is a few one that are unrealible due ot being a blog or forum post i say remove them but at the moment i fail to see that sys-con is unrealible in general it is a very creditable place and certainly do not copy, if they did and wher enot creditable i pretty sure my degree thesis would be not stand great but senior lecturer all recommend the site for information for sources :)--Andy (talk - contrib) 18:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ted Patrick

to be

Resolved

as part of mediation --JN466 19:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A recent arbcom remedy requires editors working on articles related to Prem Rawat to

"always use the best and most reputable sources. A neutral point of view cannot be synthesised merely by presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarised source."

One source presently used in one of the affected articles that I am concerned about is

• Patrick, Ted with Tom Dulack, Let Our Children Go!: By the man who rescues brainwashed American youth from sinister 'religious' cults (1976) E.P. Dutton & Company, ISBN 0-525-14450-1

The author, Ted Patrick, is a colourful character (jail time in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Colorado, with a warrant out for his arrest in Massachusetts, according to a 1979 Washington Post article) who in the 1970s and 80s used to make a living by forcibly abducting cult members and other minors and adults, restraining and physically abusing them until they abandoned -- or resumed -- a lifestyle or religious allegiance specified by family members who hired him. Apart from members of the Unification Church, the Children of God, the Divine Light Mission etc., Patrick apparently abducted e.g. two young Greek-American women who wanted to choose their husbands themselves and an Amish woman who had joined a more modern Amish splinter group against her husband’s wishes, who wanted her to rejoin the more conservative group, as reported in the LA Times: "This man was legally married to her," Patrick said. "He had a right to take her and talk to her. He had a right to get his family. He knew she was in imminent danger." Patrick said Elma Miller was abducted because she had joined a liberal Amish sect whose charismatic leader is considering allowing his followers to have phones and electricity.

The anti-cult movement disowned Patrick and his methods two decades ago, as they proved to be indefensible from a civil rights point of view; his kidnappings eventually landed him in jail. Some other sources on Patrick: [49][50]

I guess Patrick is an interesting character in a way. But given that this is a book written 33 years ago by a man who left high school aged 15, who has so many criminal convictions, who represents an extreme, and now totally outdated and discredited approach to cults and new religious movements, I find it hard to believe that this is one of those "best and most reputable sources" arbcom had in mind for us to use. I can't think of a source that might be more polarised than Patrick. Am I wrong?

Patrick is presently used in Teachings of Prem Rawat as a source for the statement that ex-students of Rawat’s, after being deprogrammed by Patrick, said that Rawat's meditations had "diminished their ability to think."

A number of people here may remember User:Jossi, a long-time student of Rawat; whatever faults Jossi may have, I don't think his ability to think, after decades of practicing Rawat's methods, was ever in doubt. Anyway, if you think Patrick is one of the best and most reputable encyclopedic sources we have on Rawat's teachings, please explain why. If you think he isn't, please help me out by saying so here. Thanks. JN466 05:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, you are in mediation about Prem Rawat. This appears to be an end-run around that process. I don't think this is helpful. Let's add this to the lsit of sources to talk about in that process. Furthermore, the ArbCom deos not set policy or rule on content, so quoting their finding isn't really relevant.   Will Beback  talk  05:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You are aware, aren't you, that I specifically asked the mediators about using RS/N before I made this post, and was told there was no problem? And I am amazed to see you say that we can pick and choose which arbcom remedies are relevant, and which ones are not. JN466 05:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why did you add it to the list of items to mediate, and then come here instead? Are you intending to get a finding here that will serve as the basis for an edit? You've committed to not make edits to itmes added to the mediaiton list, so this request just doens't make sense. I request that you withdraw it and bring it back when the time comes, if need be.   Will Beback  talk  05:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I stated that the privelige of mediation does not prevent users from using pages such as RSN. This is not to be confused with a recommendation to use RSN in this instance, as I think us mediators can handle this matter better than people at RSN could. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

One does not exclude the other. I am just interested in some feedback from the community about using someone like Patrick as a source. Call it a reality check. To me, it is absolutely barmy. JN466 06:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

So this request will have no bearing on anything until some point down the road when we consuder this in mediation. Meantime, you're basicially driving the agenda and making the rest of us drop the start of mediation and deal with this issue that's now at the end of the list. Maybe we should just drop the mediaiton if we're going to make end-runs around it.   Will Beback  talk  06:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? You're going to hold up Jossi as an argument? If we award Jossi's thinking to Prem Rawat, do we also award his lifetime ban for thinking he could game the system and violate the rules to Prem Rawat too? Or is that somehow different... you're right, that's barmy. --Maelefique ^(talk) 07:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a curt reminder that conduct and discussions here fall outside of the privelige of mediation, and thus, bad conduct, can and probably will be sanctioned. Be careful what you say before you say it. Just a reminder to you all. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 07:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

isurvived.org

I just stumbled upon this shocking hate piece: [51] (I refer to the virulent personal attack on dr Paulsson). Yet the site seems to be cited and linked to quite on Wiki. Is it reliable? That particular hate piece makes me want to report it to our blacklisted sites... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Not RS. Appears to be a website self-published by Kalman K. Brattman. Dlabtot (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Lasting Tribute

Lasting Tribute is a commercially run website in the UK which provides tributes and memorials. It is run by Northcliffe Media, owners of British newspapers such as the Daily Mail and various regional publications. I personally think the website is of questionable taste because its primary purpose seems to be to sell memorial gifts - essentially gloss reprints of the content of each memorial together with pendants, ornaments etc. I have already reported it on the spam noticeboard due to the pattern by which a large number of links were added by a small number of users. Any comments you care to make on Wikiproject:Spam would be welcome.

With specific regard to it being a reliable source, it is very like a wiki. Anyone can start a memorial to a person on the site. Anyone can add information to that memorial. It does not publish sources for any of the information on the site. I do not believe therefore that it is a reliable source, but would be interested to see what others think. --Simple Bob (talk) 07:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If it can be edited by anyone, and there is no editorial control, then it isn't reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's completely unreliable as a source and also in violation of our WP:EL rules, and it's not anything that serves an encyclopedic purpose in the first place. We shouldn't link to it at all, as a source or just an external link. DreamGuy (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea of the site is a nice one to be honest - it might help provide closure, etc for relatives of the deceased. However, as it is basically a WIKI and can be edited by anyone, it cannot be considered a reliable source - no more than WIKI IS :). Also, it may indeed be in breach of WP:EL although i am no expert in this.The7thdr (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I'm glad you concur. It would be helpful if you could comment on the topic of whether it is spam i.e. whether it violates WP:EL, because at some point I'd like to have at it and remove the huge number of links to this site. Here is the spam noticeboard entry. --Simple Bob (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Behind the Name

Does anyone find Behind the Name to be a reliable source? It's used extensively throughout Wikipedia in large part due to its usage at Template:Infobox family name. However, simply being credited to a Mike Campbell, that doesn't seem anywhere near adequate. If it is reliable, then its usage will surely help solve the arguments plaguing Category talk:Surnames and the like. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

it's an ok source, mostly. It is fair to use it as "better than nothing", but of course if a claim is challenged, you need to start looking for better sources. --dab (𒁳) 10:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know we went from reliable sources to "better than nothing." There are articles out there with reliable sources as to how popular certain names are. I don't think this random website deserves this kind of exposure. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any reason to think it's reliable. DreamGuy (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No, not RS. Just some random website. Dlabtot (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Even better, you can add in whatever information you want yourself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we positive that isn't moderated? ( link leads to a login page, don't know what's on the other side ). There must be some reason why we don't see silly name origins added to the site. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Moderation doesn't fix the problem unless the moderator has some expertise in the moderating, which, again, has not been shown. DreamGuy (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Or, if the site has a good reputation, which being mentioned in books as a good place to look up the history of surnames would count towards. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If that turns out to be an issue, it would still be usable as an EL. Just like EL allows links to other wikis provided they have a history of stability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think it'd meet WP:EL standards either, based upon the discussions on the EL page's talk page in the past. DreamGuy (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't monitor WT:EL, but it's clearly within the bounds of EL. It has more stability and reputation than, for instance a lot of the fan wikis ( Star Wars, Transformers ) which are definitely an appropriate use of EL. If BTN was just a personal fansite that would be one thing, but it's a much more comprehensive reference than that. I've had it bookmarked, alongside dictionaries, as a reference for about eight years. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The site has been around for years and may have acquired a reputation. A quick Google Books search shows some books recommending it for genealogical and classroom use, so once could make a case from that. But other sources are available. One is Dictionary of American Family Names from Oxford University Press, another is Ancestry.com's surname pages, which has excerpts from that dictionary plus U.S. Census and other statistics. It's hard to navigate there from the main page, but here is their entry for "Smith". Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Still, I really don't think it's so great a source that it should use on the main template as a source for the popularity of certain names (especially when it has such a huge systemic bias problem). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The popularity information looked a little odd at first, but it comes from the U.S. Census ( and similar for other countries ). i.e. when you look up Smith it comes up as the top-ranked surname in the U.S., England-Wales, and Scotland. ( The figure 1 out of 100 for Scotland vs. one out of many thousands for the U.S. has something to do with how extensive the data sets used were. Perhaps for Scotland they only have a top-100 list. ) If you click on the "Most Common Surnames" page and choose a country the figures for Smith are confirmed from the U.S. Census.

So it's not bad to use BTN as a templated EL for popularity, though other sites may provide more comprehensive statistics. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Masis"

A rather excitable fellow at Mount Ararat is insisting in no uncertain terms that the Armenian name Masis for Turkey's highest peak "predates" the name Ararat now mostly associated with it. His source which allegedly CLEARLY says that the designation of the mountain as "Masis" predates its designation as "Ararat" very UNambiguously has the following to say on the point:

"Nonetheless, one tradition identifies the particular mountain as Mount Massis"

Really, just that. The "one tradition" in question is the History of Armenia dated to ca. the 8th century. Anno Domini. The claim made is thus that the application of Ararat to the peak (not just the plateau) post-dates the 8th century. I don't know if this is true, I think it's unlikely, but I would be happy with sources that actually say so.

The best bit then comes when after I patiently explained the matter to the irascible Armenian, I am rewarded for my pains with the allegation that I have been editing without discussion. So, I think my patience has been stretched beyond what can be expected of a bona fide Wikipedian. Perhaps somebody would like to take over? --dab (𒁳) 10:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

the situation has much improved. You are still welcome to chime in, of course. --dab (𒁳) 13:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Elcorreo.eu.org

Is the following website a reliable source: http://www.elcorreo.eu.org/esp/article.php3?id_article=3426

It's in Spanish, but it seems reliable. It even has a bibliography...

"Bibliografía :

a) Pinochet en Piccadilly. Andy Beckett.

b) 1891.Chilenos contra Chilenos en Caldera. Ed. Portada.

c) Chile : Política Exterior para la Democracia. Varios autores.

d) Gobierno Chileno y Salitre Inglés 1886 1896. Balmaceda y North. Harold Blakemore.

e) Diego Portales.Benjamín Vicuna Mackenna.

f) Política y Estrategia en la Guerra de Chile. Edgardo Mercado Jarrín.

g) Historia de la República del Perú. Jorge Basadre.

h) De la Guerra. Karl Von Clausewitz

i) Guerra del Pacífico. Augusto Pinochet U. Historia Diplomática de Chile (1541- 1938).Mario Barros Van B."

--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly to be used with care. You should cite the source in the article, and if possible check with the listed sources, I think. El Correo de la Diaspora Argentine has a mission statement [52] but no indication of editorial overview, staff, etc. Can you find statements by other RS citing El Correo and attesting its reliability? I reformatted to improve the readability of your question. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I did some more checking and found out that the information was actually from this website: Liberacion Newspaper (From Sweden)

This is their information statement: [53]

After reading this, I still think it's a reliable source. What do you think?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The author of the article is Armando Parodi Buendía, he is also cited here. Not really the fellows I like. --Keysanger (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because he is cited there, it doesn't mean Mr. Buendia is a non-reliable source. Anybody can cite Mr. Buendia. You can't determine a source's reliability by who cites it.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

China Youth On Line

China Youth Daily's online version has posted an interview with controversial American politician and self-styled economist Lyndon LaRouche. "现行的世界金融体系已经无可救药———专访美国著名经济学家林登·拉鲁什"[54] Some editors would like to use the biographical sketch that precedes the interview as a source for a variety of assertions about LaRouche. (No one is seeking to use the actual interview as a source - just the biographical sketch.) I have two concerns. One is that we are relying on a Google translation of the interview.[55] The second is that the biographical sketch appears to repeat claims LaRouche makes about himself, which leads me to believe that it may have simply been copied from a LaRouche press release or official biography rather than representing actual reprting by the source. While this publication has a large circulation (they claim 1 million copies are distributed daily), it is far away from the centers of LaRouche's activities and I don't think this is the best source for the notability of his views. Using a Chinese source for an American politician seems like a stretch. Other thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  01:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese media have taken a very active interest in LaRouche for some time. One noteworthy case is this interview in multiple installments that appeared four years ago in the China Peoples' Daily. Therefore I don't see anything strange about press coverage of LaRouche in China, or Russia, or any of the other locations that have been brought up for dispute. It should also be noted that Will has been quite enthusiastic about using British and Australian sources which are highly critical of LaRouche. Instead of questioning the motives of the China Youth Daily, we should simply discuss whether it is a reliable source. The translation question is a separate issue which would be best solved by soliciting the help of a Chinese speaker. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "enthusiasitic" about any source, and please don't make personal remarks. Translation is an important issue until we get a reliable translation. But the more important issue is whether a biographical sketch in these circumstances is a suitable source for the purposes it's being used.   Will Beback  talk  01:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I occasionally watch CCTV9. "A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?" That's not the way I would characterize Chinese state media. Dlabtot (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not such a simple matter as "Chinese state media." China Youth Daily is known both for high standards of journalism,[56] but also taking a rather defiant attitude toward state authorities, as in the case of the "Freezing Point" incident[57] and the Lu Yuegang letter[58] of 2004.--Coleacanth (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

One would have thought that if LaRouche is such a well known person - and these facts about his biography are so well known then the editors in question should find not only have little difficulty in finding English language sources to cite but multiple such sources.

You would think so, wouldn't you? LaRouche's main profession is that of economist, and while you can find extensive coverage of his economic theories and forecasts in South America, China, Russia, Europe, and elsewhere, it is conspicuously absent from English language sources. --Coleacanth (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and unless one believes in conspiracy theories - and I am sure there are no WIKI editors typing here today, tinfoil hat in place - it suggests that to include it unreliable. By the way, I am - in "Europe" and until today, had not even heard of the person. However, if the details suggested can be found in the British press for example - then there would be no difficulty finding them :-)

Sorry, no, but try the Italian or Danish press. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My Italian is appalling. However, the Danish press often also print English additions - as indeed do the German and Italian quality press on occasion. Perhaps this is the solution? The7thdr (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

From the link provided by Coleacanth:

• China Youth Daily has been publishing since 1951. Distributed nationwide, it has always had a large reader base because universities and high schools were forced to subscribe. ... China Youth Daily is controlled by the Central Committee of the Communist Youth League. [59]

So it does appear to be an organ of the Communist Youth League of China, which is a part of the Communist Party of China. Is this a source that we tend to respect for their adherence to accuracy? Leatherstocking asks us to ignore the possible motives a Chinese Communist newspaper would have for writing a puff piece on LaRouche (while attacking the motives of editors here). But LaRouche's movement has been very supportive of the Chinese government,[60] especially in defending it against the accusations of the theft of nuclear weapons technology contained in the "Cox Report".[61] Regarding Coleacanth's suggestion that LaRouche's economic theories and forecasts have received "extensive coverage" on four continents but not in the U.S., I think that is unproven. Passing references, perhaps, but not extensive coverage. In fact, his numerous predictions have been reported in the U.S. press over the years. All through the '70s papers reported how he and his followers were predicting imminent nuclear holocaust, and in the 1980s they reported the predictions of epidemics that would destroy civilization and for decades they've reported the predictions of impending economic depressions that will be worse than anything since the 14th century. In 1992, for example, the press reported his statement that the U.S. economy was in the midst of such a depression. There has been plenty of coverage of LaRouche's economic, political, and scientific forecasts in the U.S. press.   Will Beback  talk  21:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Red-baiting, or any other sort of ideological litmus test, is inappropriate here. It opens the door to any number of debates, such as whether the American press, which dutifully repeated the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" hoax, can be considered reliable sources. Let me correct what I said about coverage of LaRouche's economic ideas in other press: there have been references to specific proposals, but this is the first coverage I have seen that gives an in-depth explanation of his more general theories, which is important because the article in question is Views of Lyndon LaRouche, where such coverage is highly appropriate. Will has argued that such coverage should be eliminated from the article for lack of sources, and here we have a significant source. --Coleacanth (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That's just rhetoric. It isn't "red baiting" to point out that the Chinese state media and especially the Communist Party news sources are not know for neutral, reliable reporting. It's a problem common to authoritation governments of various politicla tendencies. Their circulation figures are less impressive once we learn that schools and colleges are forced to subscribe to it, and it reminds us that this is a product of an regime run by a single party. The Chinese ruling party can't be unhappy with the LaRouche movement's depiction of the Tibet situation as a power-play by Britain to destabilize China.[62][63][64][65] According to LaRouche, "Nobody can honestly deny the Dalai Lama's Nazi connections..."[66] So building up LaRouche builds up a major supporter in the U.S.   Will Beback  talk  08:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

However, it looks like the Chinese are promoting LaRouche's views on economics, not his views on Tibet. And using your reasoning, all the negative coverage of LaRouche in the American press becomes suspect because LaRouche opposed the Iraq War and other aspects of American foreign policy. Before pointing the accusing finger at the Chinese press, we would do well do examine our own.[67][68][69] --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• CRITICS OF THE Iraq war are outraged over the revelation that the U.S. military has been paying millions of dollars to plant pro-American, Pentagon-written propaganda articles in Iraqi newspapers and to buy off Iraqi journalists with monthly stipends.

OK, so we won't use any Iraqi newspapers as sources. This appears to be a red herring.   Will Beback  talk  16:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• This whole sub-thread is entirely off-topic. We don't judge sources based on what they say - that would require us to be arbiters of Truth™ - nor are circulation figures in any way relevant; we judge them based on their reputation in other RS. Dlabtot (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand this discussion. if the information is "correct" then it will be cited many sources surely? It is after all very general. If it is not cited in English anywhere then it must cast doubt upon its reliability - or at least accuracy. The7thdr (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Would WP:NONENG be of value here? The7thdr (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available.

There are literally hundreds of newspaper articles in English about Lyndon LaRouche from publications across the political spectrum from at least four countries. To the best of my knowledge, none of them have considered LaRouche's economic theories or forecasts to be important enough to devote more than a few sentences to them. There are many books that have a chpater or so on LaRouche, but like the newspapers they devote very little space to describing his economic views. I'm not aware of any book on economics in English that devotes any space at all to him or his theories. So I do't think it's a matter of there being a lack of "English equivalents". This is a case where a state-owned publication is giving accolades to a friend of the regime.   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Wikipedia's structure doesn't allow us to grade reliable sources on their quality. Either a source is reliable, and can be used, or it isn't. This Chinese newspaper is a reliable source and can be used. It's up to the reader to decide for themselves its credibility, which they are able to do because the source of the information is right there in the article. I support China Youth On Line as a reliable source in this situation. Cla68 (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This Chinese newspaper is a reliable source and can be used - why? what leads you to believe that it has a reputation for fact-checking and reliability? Dlabtot (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How do we know that for most publications out there? Newspapers and publishing companies get taken to court for libel all the time, sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. Remember, our pillar is verifiability, not truth. Determining the sure truth, because we're only allowed to use secondary sources, is beyond our ability. We set a reasonable standard for reliable sources, ensuring that the information is verifiable, and then leave it up to the reader to decide how true it is, based on their own judgment of the sources used. A major newspaper, whether from a democratic or totalitarian society, is a reliable source. The millions of people in China (and many outside of China) get their news from their China's newspapers. Those newspapers meet our standard of reliable source. If you want to make sure that the reader knows where this information is coming from, simply state in the text, "The China Youth On Line states that as a youth LaRouche was involved with..." (or whatever it's saying about his bio). Cla68 (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you believe it has a reputation for fact-checking and reliability based on no evidence whatsoever? We do actually have a reliable source guideline that we use to inform our judgements. It doesn't list being 'a major newspaper' as a valid criteria for judging reliability. Dlabtot (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Cla68, I believe you are very mistaken when you write that a source is either reliable or not. Sources vary in reliability from one to another, and also depeding on context:

• In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is. WP:V
• How reliable a source is depends on context. WP:RS
• Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above).WP:BLP

So there is certainly a sliding scale of reliability. In the context of an American politician, a Chinese Communist Party publicaiton is not a mainstream newspaper, and may even count as a fringe view.   Will Beback  talk  00:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In China a newspaper such as this is a mainstream publication. I can't read Chinese very well (Japanese and Chinese share many similar kanji), but I sometimes look through Chinese newspapers that I encounter here in Japan. It's obvious that they contain some propaganda, but they also contain real news, especially about stuff that is going on in China, which is why I look at them. If the Communist newspaper information is contradicted by other sources, simply give both in the article, "The Chinese Communist Youth Daily says that LaRouche did... but the NYTimes says that there is no record that he ever did anything like that." or something like that. That will allow the reader to make up their own mind as to what is true or not. If LaRouche, for whatever reason, gets more favorable press in China, then that's good for us becaue it helps give us a broader perspective on LaRouche's influence on our global society. Cla68 (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This and xinhua are reliable. If they're contradicited, include both. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What basis do you have for saying it is reliable, and how does Cla68 know that this is a mainstream newspaper in China?   Will Beback  talk  05:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all this is really necessary -- the CYD is not actually being used as a source for LaRouche's ideas, which are abundantly available in primary sources. It is being used to confirm the notability of LaRouche's ideas on economics, and ironically enough, I believe that Will's protests that the government of China is making an intervention to boost LaRouche's economic theories is itself a demonstration of their notability. Will had proposed that text in the Views of Lyndon LaRouche article on LaRouche's economic theories be deleted for lack of secondary sources. I think that the China Youth Daily is more than sufficient for the purposes of establishing the notability required to retain that material. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Until we know what the articles say about the theories, we can't tell if they are just mentioning them or are actually discussing them. After all, the article isn't about them, they're just included in the short biographical sketch at the beginning.   Will Beback  talk  05:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Leatherstocking that this source helps confirm the notability of LaRouche's platform. By the way, if you need someone who can understand written Chinese to confirm what the article says, post a request here and/or here. Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We have an entire article devoted to the LaRouche platform. If we can ever find a reliable translation of this article, we can see what they say, It probably isn't much, since it's so short. Also, I have a question for you above - how do you know this is a mainstream paper in China?   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the Asia Leadership Fellow Program[70] "Media summary- China," Three most influential media from their type were selected: China Central Television(TV), People’s Daily Online (network), China Youth Daily (newspaper), and the period of focus was from Oct. 2002 to Mar. 2003... China Youth Daily (CYD) is one of the most influential newspapers in contemporary China with a circulation of 800,000 (readership, which is much more, is not officially recorded). A market research report by China Statistical Bureau ranks CYD in third place on the reading rate among the national daily papers. I think this qualifies it as "mainstream." I have placed notices on the bulliten boards that Cla68 provided, asking Chinese speakers to check the accurary of the LaRouche PAC translation of the the China Youth Daily article (translation is here.) --Coleacanth (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I made a full translation of the source here, will update later on the rest of the article finished. Jim101 (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The English source is roughly accurate, aside from few word choices between my translation and the on on the web. (You say strong point, I say market, but its all about everyone sell China stuff, etc.) Jim101 (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's 'mainstream' but where in our policies or guidelines does it say that being 'mainstream' is part of the criteria for reliable sources? A mainstream newspaper that has a reputation for inaccuracy is not a reliable source. 'Mainstreamness' is totally irrelevant. Dlabtot (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the factual accuracy of this source, my experiences with mainland Chinese media is that in ths case it had no reason to lie. It appears that LaRouche is well liked in China, and lying about him is completely pointless if I'm the Communist censor. The only fishy part about that source is how the Communist gloating over on how LaRouche says what China did in its economy is right, but since the source is used on Lyndon LaRouche, not on Chinese economy, I don't see conflict of interests or NPOV problems here. Jim101 (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As for the current dispute, I suggest use this arbitration case as a reference on how to treat mainland Chinese sources. Jim101 (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Jim, thanks for putting in that work on the translation. And thanks to Coleacanth for finding that market research report. While the China Youth Daily editor admits that he sometimes has to follow the state line, the report writers seem to vouch for the paper being an important newspaper in China. I suppose even propaganda from a major country represents a significant point of view, even if we treat it as a primary source. Dlabtot is concerned that we are not in a position to judge whether the paper has a reputation for reliability, which is different from being popularity or even mainstream. Jim101 suggests that the paper doesn't have a conflict of interest writing about LaRouche, but he is a loud defender in the U.S. of some of the government's most unpopular policies , so the government has at least an indirect motive for writing positive articles about him. Cla68 indicated above that he thought it would be OK to use if fully attributed with any relevant conflict explained. To resolve this question, I suggest that we use the source with care and attribution, employing Jim's translation.   Will Beback  talk  05:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Branding the press of another country as "propaganda" is inappropriate. I have no doubt that the American press are considered propaganda in other parts of the world, and that you would object if Wikipedia adopted that attitude. --Coleacanth (talk) 06:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"Propaganda" has a specific meaning. If you're interested in why the China Youth Daily is part of the propaganda system of China, read Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China Central Committee which discusses the department that determines the content of the China Youth Daily and every other newspaper printed in China. There are many admirable qualities to the Chinese government, I'm sure, but a free press is not one of them.   Will Beback  talk  06:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And as I mentioned before, the same arguments can be made against the U.S. media. See Propaganda model. --Coleacanth (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The same arguments could be made, but only by deliberately conflating systemic bias with direct government censorship. Dlabtot (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

One more note on Chinese sources...if the article is written in Chinese, the censors believes that only Chinese will read it, and no foreigners will read it — the reverse can be said for English articles written by Chinese media. You can see this in places such as Xinhua news reports, where the same news story has completely different contents between translations. What this means is that this article was for Chinese citizens only. Within China and from the Chinese and the Communist's point of view, it does not matter which side LaRouche is rooting for in the US or the world as long as he is white, famous and not a killer/rapist. That is my arguement for no conflict of interests for the Chinese censor. Jim101 (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

China's media is reliable like other countries media. Named writers, with editorial oversight, and giant corporations behind them; done. Lots of RSs are biased (FOX news, etc.) and we can't pick and choose. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked you before, but you didn't respond: How do you know they are reliable? In the U.S., if a publication is erroneous it is likely to be lampooned by other media, and subject to libel suits. What happens when a Chinese Communist Party newspaper writes an inaccurate story? At the risk of proving Godwin's Law, do we consider the state media of Nazi Germany to have been a reliable source for any and all topics? Or do we pick and choose?   Will Beback  talk  07:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I cant believe what I read "China's media is reliable like other countries media"...um, ok, since when? We have routinely talked about on here, and with exception of the few rightwing nuts, have always agreed that FOX news was NOT reliable by itself if not backed by other actually reliable sources, especially relating to politics. Same goes for China's media, and in China's media its not "giant corporations behind them", well kinda the problem is that they are backed by the LARGEST of the giant corporations in China, the Chinese government itself! Any country without freedom of the press and an independant media does not get its media the benefit of the doubt and declared reliable. Comparing Chinese media to Fox is correct, they both arent reliable. So Peregrine Fisher you were half correct in your post, but yes we can pick and choose, that's kinda the purpose of the consensus based discussion on this noticeboard. When China allows me to Google info on the Tiananmen Massacre when I'm in their country then we can allow their media some good-faith. When a country that has two cartoon cop-like characters pop up when you are surfing the internet with names that pretty much translate into the English slang of "po-po" (for police) that "remind" you of what you can and cant surf and censor you and watch what you do, we have a responsibility not to trust their state-run and state-censored "media" outlets. As Will Beback pointed out, what's next, Hitler Youth press releases taken at face value? We always on Wikipedia pick and choose what is acceptable. There arent just big categories and that as long as you fit in a category with a source that is reliable the you are reliable too.Camelbinky (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting off topic here, this is not a place to debate truthiness of sources or waging counter-propaganda war against China. Wikipedia is suppose to be apolitical. Debating the source's reliability should not involve the evilness of Communism or truthfulness of certain organizations. All sources in the entire world have major factual and bias problems if put in the wrong context.

Let's look at this problem point by point:

• It is reasonable to assume the this source represent the opinion of most people in China.
• Lyndon LaRouche hasn't condemn this source — meaning LaRouche confirmed that this is an exclusive interviews, and he believe it have no major factual problems. His followers has already picked up this piece to endorse their own views.

So this source means that it is a major viewpoint of the Chinese people about LaRouche that is endorsed by both LaRouche and his followers. Thus if this piece is used in this context, then it is a reliable source. Jim101 (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that is totally contrary to our policies and guidelines. Sources aren't judged to be reliable based on the viewpoints they express. Sources are judged to be reliable if they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Dlabtot (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Chinese state-run media has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? No. Yes we decide if sources are reliable based on viewpoints because if they have viewpoints they arent being unbiased. We dont let in Fox News commentaries like Glenn Beck and CNN commentaries from Lou Dobbs, we dont let in soft news as sources for news like The Daily Show. This has nothing to do with counter propaganda. The entire purpose of judging a source reliable or not IS based on the source's "truthfullness", if a source is recognized internationally as untrustworthy, biased, and propaganda then it is not reliable. The US media has its faults, but it isnt owned by the state and its faults are individual to each independant media outlet, even Fox news is not owned by the state. Fox news is not a reliable source. Why should Chinese state media be reliable? If Chinese media is propaganda, and it is, then it is not reliable. This is not the place to try and be politically correct and think you are being sensitive in international affairs. It is simply not reliable. Where do you get off saying "it is reasonable to assume the source represents the opinion of most people in China"? Did you do a poll? And if so, who cares? Even if the majority of the people on the entire planet agree with something that doesnt make a source reliable. This is no different than a source from Nazi Germany, which we would not accept as reliable. That's all, there is no other discussion needed. Stop trying to change the subject to seem like those who oppose you are simply anti-communists. You are throwing out a "red herring" ironically. It's not reliable. So stop, you arent being sensitive, your being ridiculous. BTW, I'm actually a big supporter of Communism, what China has is not communism.Camelbinky (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh...someone who is overly senstive accuse me of being senitive.

• On truth, please read Wikipedia:Truth.
• My point is to take this topic away from talking about politics because it is all smokes and mirrors, and here you are dragging the topic right back into that direction. Do I care about how red China is? No I do not. All I care about whether this source is used properly.
• "It is reasonable to assume the source represents the opinion of most people in China"? Dude, those newspapers/media control people's opinion in China, do I need to do a poll?
• Did you even read my point about context? If this source is used to show "major viewpoint of the Chinese people about LaRouche that is endorsed by both LaRouche and his followers", then it is reliable.

Since the biggest problem with this source is its connection with the Communist party, may I remind people that everything published in China will pass through a censor process with the Communist party. Do we need to ban everything published in China on Wikipedia because Communist party is all propaganda with poor reputation on fact checking? Not counting elinimate much of WikiProject China, this kind of black-and-white solution does not help to build Wikipedia. That is why I emphasize in this case it is better to cite this source in the correct context rather than censor it out. Jim101 (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to handle this is to view the China Youth Daily website as a reliable source for their opinion, which is going to be consistent with the Chinese Communist Party view of the subject. NPOV says we should include all significant points of view, and this probably qualifies. However we can avoid treating it as a source for facts by fully attributing assertions sourced from it. Something like, "According to the Communist Youth League of China's newspaper, the China Youth Daily, LaRouche supports the American style capitalist economy." Would that be acceptable to everyone?   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Dlabtot (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not acceptable. We have three editors here who actually have some first-hand familiarity with the Asian press, Peregrine Fisher, Cla68 and Jim101, and they all confirm that the China Youth Daily has a good reputation. The elaborate statement about it being "the Communist Youth League of China's newspaper" is intended to disparage its reliability. We don't say "[[Katherine Graham]'s Washington Post" or Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal," although perhaps we could per Propaganda model. But there is no reason to suggest to the reader that this is a less reliable source than American publications. Bear in mind, as Leatherstocking points out, that we aren't even using it as a source for text, just notability. If we use it as a source for text, "according to the China Youth Daily" would be fine. --Coleacanth (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Technically I did not say Communist Youth League of China's newspaper has good reputation (in fact, it is horrible when talking about politically sensitive issues). But when apply the common sense test...if Lyndon LaRouche did not cry bloody murder about this newspaper damaging his reputation, with his followers using this piece like crazy, what are the chances that it is not reliable? Jim101 (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with it being used as a source talking about what it asserts. You cant use it as a source asserting a definitive fact (unless you back it up with a reliable source that concurs). Jim101 is correct about its reputation on politically sensitive issues. And yes, I have first-hand familiarity with the Asian press too btw, so how is Peregrine Fisher, Cla68, and Jim101's opinions have more weight than mine when I say NO IT DOES NOT HAVE A RELIABLE REPUTATION. Perhaps you didnt understand me when I mentioned how the internet looks and works in China, or you thought I was blowing it out my ass. I'm sorry, did I waste that money in college taking courses regarding China when I was getting my bachelor's in Political Science minor in History, and that semester abroad in China, and then now getting my masters and focusing on comparative politics so others could claim to know more than me? If I weigh in on a subject, its because I know about it, I dont weigh into topics I dont know about. So if I'm commenting, assume I know what I'm talking about instead of saying others are experts and I need to defer to them.Camelbinky (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

otis study

There is something of a "heated" debate taking place on the Transcendental Meditation talk page. In essence - for twas i - I added the following study often found in acadmic textbooks, research papers and journals:

In a randomized study done at Stanford Research Institute, every 20th member of all 40,000 individuals on the Students International Meditation Society's (TM's parent organization at that time) mailing list were mailed a survey. Of the 1,900 people surveyed, 47 percent responded. The survey included both a self-concept word list (the Descriptive Personality List) and a checklist of physical and behavioral symptoms (the Physical and Behavioral Inventory) The results found that while those dropping out from TM experienced fewer complaints then the experienced meditiatiors, there was a positive correlation between the number of adverse effects and the length of time in TM. Adverse effects by long-term TM practitioners included: antisocial behavior, 13.5%; anxiety, 9.0%; confusion, 7.2%; depression, 8.1%; emotional stability, 4.5%; frustration, 9.0%; physical and mental tension, 8.1%; procrastination, 7.2%; restlessness, 9.0%; suspiciousness, 6.3%; tolerance of others, 4.5%; and withdrawal, 7.2%.

I am now under some demand to remove it as it is not considered "reliable" (There is also discussion about much other research and it's validity/presentation also) .I personally feel - and I might of course be very incorrect - that many editors of this page have a conflict of interest and are desperate to remove any criticism of the TM or its associated products.

I would appreciat any impartial editors reviewing this discussion and this source - and the others if possible and give their opinion. If I am wrong - and it would not be the first time - I would like to correct any error I have made. This especially so as i am keen to move on and complete some additions to Mozart, early Piano Concerto pages :) The7thdr (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd add to this that one of the involved editors who is insisting that reference to this study be removed has a very definite COI, and has been told by Admins, both on the COI Noticeboard and on her talk page that she must comply with the COI guidelines on the TM-related articles. Fladrif (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

In the wikipedia page for The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iipm), user Makrand Joshi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Makrandjoshi) has included a completely new section based on a source called Career 360 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iipm#cite_note-Careers360_story_about_IIPM-8).

After elongated discussions on the discussions page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management#Blog_and_JAM) I have said the above mentioned Careers 360 link is not reliable due to the following reasons: 1. Career 360 is a website that has been launched only two to three months back. 2. The number of journalists in that web site is only one (therefore, the number of people who might have verified the details is less). 3. The publisher of the site is a person called Maheshwar Peri (http://www.careers360.in/pages/contact-us.html) who is well known as being a (former) publisher with a leading magazine called Outlook in India. But in India, the term 'publisher' is meant for the person who invests in the magazine, not the one who reports as a journalist. 4. the legal link in the website (http://www.careers360.in/pages/disclaimer.html) says that the website is owned by M/s Pathfinder Publishing Private Limited. It also mentions that "PPPL does not endorse or subscribe to the suggestions, advice and views of the authors of the content." It means that the owners do not subscribe to their own website's contents. 5. The website is a beta version (though I don't think this point is strong enough on its own).

I need your help in advising me whether the one link, on the basis of which one whole section has come up, is correct or not. Thanks, Wifione (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably you need to look at about us page, and this says that the magazine is a venture from Outlook Group--a very respectable news magazine and a WP:RS. As far as the argument, "The number of journalists in that web site is only one" goes, I dont think Wikipedia has any guidelines to this. Similarly with the legal disclaimer, all the magazines have such legal statements. The link is a WP:RS, anyway I would like to hear from others also. --Nvineeth (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nvineeth :) Thanks for the comments. i checked the link you provided . it surely does not mention that the magazine is an outlook group publication. it only mentions that the owner is also the publisher of outlook. that is a point i have already mentioned above. Also, I do remember seeing the line in one of the wikipedia policy guidelines which said that the more the number of people who were involved in researching some topic, the more reliable it is. that is why I put the point that there is only one journalist mentioned. I am not able to recall the page where I read this policy. I can try and find out although I am not in the know of many pages out here. finally the legal disclaimer is important because reputed news magazines do not have a disclaimer which says that the magazine's owners do not guarantee the authenticity of the information. But I may be wrong. cheers Wifione (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Wifione who posted the complaint above, has been exhibiting behavior very similar to User:Mrinal_Pandey, a sockmaster banned some months ago. Very non-specific and generic complaints, running away when any specifics are demanded, and a continuous effort to whitewash the IIPM page to remove any information that is uncomplimentary or negative. Typical Pr-department stunts. And now, after 4 weeks of not responding to any queries on the talk pages, this user is going around indulging in Wikipedia:Forum_shop. I still maintain my suspicions that this user is a sockpuppet of User:Mrinal_Pandey based on this behavior. Makrandjoshi (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

dear makrand joshi. i request you to be again civil, calm and responsible in your writing. if you realise, i had logged in after a month only to my wikipedia profile and that is why it took me so long to respond. many people do have lives and do take personal vacations where they prefer not to check wiki forums on a daily basis. but you have to appreciate the fact that the moment i logged on after a month, you had my discussions put up on the relevant forum. therefore your continuing accusations of me being a sock puppet despite 'administrators finding your accusations not correct' is in bad faith. instead of doing removing tags without accepting there is a dispute on the forum, i would respect your comments on why should your career360 tag not be removed as it does not stand up for fact. please add your information that will lead to developing the article rather than being accusatory. i will support you to a large extent in improving the article. i write this because you removed a clear reference to iipm being a society (which had a valid citation) and to the topic national economic planning (which also had a valid citation). please add to the encyclopaedic knowledge. i will be with you 'whenever i log on'. cheers Wifione (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

i also notice that you, makrand joshi, are more or less a single purpose account only since you set up your account. i will support you in case you wish to go beyond editing the page in question as other editors might believe you have other motives to edit this page. cheers Wifione (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Wireless Fidelity Class One 11:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Lapot (custom)

Most of the evidence for this article seems to be related to one book and movie, and I'm not certain on reliability for these sources. Anyone else care to take a look? Irbisgreif (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Update - this article is now expanded and sourced with a book, film and book reviews, and several academic journals. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, far better now, thanks to User:Jezhotwells. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinion needed about using the Maryland Municipal League website as a source

I am not sure whether or not I should use the Maryland Municipal League website as a source. It appears to be neutral, and to add anything to the site one must apply to the webmaster for an account and only for an individual municipality. I just don't see where they are getting their information. Any opinions on reliability? LA (T) @ 19:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sofia Rotaru

Resolved

 – no RS question

the reliable source noticeboard is for discussing sourcing issues, not for content disputes

On Sofia Rotaru, an editor has been adding the following text: "In 2008, she declared revenue significantly higher than 500 million hryvnia (about $100 million)." The source given is http://www.dengi.ua/news/39082.html, which when put through Google Translate, says: “ People's Artist of Ukraine Sofia Rotaru declared the highest revenue for 2008, said deputy chairman of the State Tax Administration of Ukraine Sergiy healer at a press briefing on Friday. In doing so, he did not specify the amount of declared, but added that "the most revenue significantly exceeds 500 million (hryvnia) (about $ 100 million)." ” Another editor found the statement given by the chairman, which is at http://www.ukranews.com/eng/article/137362.html. On there, it says: “ Lekar noted that Sofia Rotaru, for example, reported the highest income of all celebrities. As Ukrainian News earlier reported, the State Tax Administration registered three persons with income exceeding UAH 1 billion in 2005. More than 20 persons reported income of over UAH 500 million for 2005, more than 100 reported income of around UAH 100 million and 1.299 reported income of around UAH 1 million. ” So is it acceptable for that original text to be inserted? Another editor is opposed to the text, since it is reportedly misinterpreting the chairman's statements. I'm opposed to the text because it starts going down a slippery slope to synthesis when comparing against other stars. The other opposing editor and myself have agreed that "In 2008, Rotaru reported the highest income of all celebrities in the Ukraine." would be an acceptable solution. But is the original text allowed? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC) I am the 'another editor' referred to in the question and I second HelloAnnyong's opposition to the reliability of the source as it makes a methodical error of mixing up "the highest income" with "the highest income of all celebrities". Set against the background of musical artist incomes, it produces an absurd result of Sofia Rotaru being the highest earning musician in the world, earning 2.5 times more than Madonna. This would discredit the whole article as Alla Pugacheva, Filipp Kirkorov and Maksim Galkin which have similar popularity in the same (post-Soviet) market as Rotaru, earned no more than 7 million dollars that year. No source dicusses Rotaru's alleged income in the context of what artists of the world and Russia actually make, which renders the claim of 100 million dollars highly inappropriate to reality. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC) - even this is another lie of user Erikupoeg, as he himself has filled a good portion of the deleted talk page of List of highest earnings of musicians in 2008, namely regarding the article of aif.ru or kp.ru where the revenues of Sofia Rotaru were namely given in comparison to revenues of mentioned by Erikupoeg pop stars I would like to clarify, many quite respectable sources, including one of the largest news agencies in the world cite the following quotes: Here is the simple rough translation by http://translate.google.com of 1) RIA Novosti http://rian.com.ua/economy/20080718/77966106.html "...People's Artist of Ukraine Sofia Rotaru declared the highest revenue for the year 2008, said deputy chairman of the State Tax Administration of Ukraine Sergiy healer at a press briefing on Friday. In doing so, he did not specify the amount of declared, but added that "the most revenue significantly exceeds 500 million (hryvnia) (about 100 million dollars)...." 2) Kommersant http://kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=915810 "...The singer Sofia Rotaru declared the highest incomes in the Ukraine in 2007, said deputy chairman of the State Tax Administration of Ukraine Sergiy healer. He did not specify the amount of declared, but noted that revenue People's Artist of Ukraine "is much higher than 500 million hryvnia (about $ 100 million)...."--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC) User:Erikupoeg has brought, along with personal insults and attacks in my regard, any imaginable would be "argument" to exclude this information and has actually stated on the talk page "any argument is good to exclude this info", including lying while providing deliberately false translations... As of today, User:Erikupoeg has provided no source whatsoever which would even closely question the officially declared revenues of Sofia Rotaru, aside his personal opinion...--Rubikonchik (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC) User:Erikupoeg is correct, however, in that the claims being put together in that way are synthesis. Irbisgreif (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Is this decision a joke? In what User:Erikupoeg is correct??? In that he is lying? And all the more surprising is "the claims being put together in that way are synthesis" - what does this refer to, can you provide a diff/link/citation/quote? For your information, there is no "claim" per se and synthesis at all either. There are complete citations and respectable sources--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Telos publishing

Matthias Küntzel, Colin Meade (2007). Telos Press Publishing (ed.). Jihad and Jew-hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11. p. 26. ISBN 0914386360. Back in 1932 Antun Saadeh had founded the Syrian People's Party which asserted the superiority of Syrians over other peoples and followed Nazi models even in its outward expressions, a swastika-like flag, the open-handed salute, etc. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |translation= ignored (help)

The book above was tagged with {{verify credibility}}, is Telos publishing a reliable source for books about Middle East fascism? And the author Matthias Küntzel? (this for the article Syrian Social Nationalist Party) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably, yes. Irbisgreif (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The book is not reliable by its nature and unsubstantiated assertions. Why do you think we don't cram the Adolf Hitler article full of the opinions of Hitler's many admirers. (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Telos is a reliable publishing house. Küntzel is a respected scholar. So it does qualify as a reliable source. If there is a question of bias, the way to deal with it is through Attribution... to say something like: "According to Matthias Küntzel ... <cite to Küntzel>" this lets the reader know that the view point expressed is that of one scholar and not necessarily accepted fact. Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"Telos is a reliable publishing house. Küntzel is a respected scholar"

• According to who..?

Attribution isn't a licence for undue weight or questionable sources (those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight), nor a substitute for balanced and impartial content. Taking exclusively the opinions of people who conjecture Nazi and Fascist associations - including known polemicists, and piling them into the article en masse, void of attribution and represented as factual statements, is an outrageous smear campaign. (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of Mises.org articles in BLPs

Hi, I posted at the WP:BLP noticeboard asking for guidance on the inclusion of critiques from Mises.org in the article on Paul Krugman. It was suggested that I ask here about whether Mises.org is considered a reliable source, especially as pertains to biograpies of living persons. I'm grateful for any guidance on this matter. Thanks, LK (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Mises.org is pretty much a blog. Could you plase give the link to the specific page that is being cited?   Will Beback  talk  11:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Will Beback, Mises.org has a blog at blog.mises.org. But the site itself is not a blog. The articles I wrote, which are the ones in question, were "daily articles" which are submitted well in advance of posting, discussed over by editor and author, and carefully edited. They are not posted at will by bloggers. The daily articles have included entire chapters of economic treatises. --Lilburne2 (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be concerned about this. The Ludwig von Mises Institute is not an academic institution, but a strongly opinionated think tank. Individual authors there may be acceptable under the WP:SPS expert exception, but I don't see the institute itself as a WP:RS, especially not for a WP:BLP article. They may be a notable voice for critical opinion ("The LvM-Institute, a free market think tank, has criticized..."). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

These articles for the Mises Institute ([71], [72]) have been proposed for inclusion in the article. Thanks, LK (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Both written anonymously (or pseudonymously). Not acceptable, I'd say. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Definitely not for the reasons given above. All we know of the author is his blog [73], and even if we knew more, using mises.org for a BLP is different from using from using it in an article not a BLP. Basically this is an anonymous attack. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Stephen Schulz and Dougweller, Regarding my pen name, Lilburne is my name in regards to my writing career. I have written four articles under that name, and I will continue to write under that name. The only "identity" that is relevant to my writing is my other writing, and perhaps my profession, which I disclose in my author bio. I don't see why any more information would be needed, when other authors who use the name that also happens to be on their driver's license aren't required to disclose personal information. Does Wikipedia have a policy against pen names? Would Cato's Letters or Mark Twain not have been cited by Wikipedia? --Lilburne2 (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The author has showed up here [74] to discuss it. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Mises.org fails to meet any of the criteria to be considered a reliable source except for an article about the Mises Institute or its writers. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

---

TFD,

The Mises Institute holds an annual weeklong intensive series of seminars called Mises University that is attended by economics grad students from around the world. It publishes the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, which is a refereed scholarly journal. Its adjunct scholars include several full professors from top universities around the world. The site offers almost every key work of Carl Menger (a main figure in the "Marginal Revolution" of economics), Ludwig von Mises, Nobel-Prize winner F.A. Hayek, great French economist Frederic Bastiat and others in HTML, PDF, and/or audiobook. They publish a huge number of important, but otherwise lost books, and offer them at a steep discount. From resources from their site, I've learned about Menger's utility theory, Marx's value theory, Mises's epistemology, Bohm-Bawerk's capital theory, Ricardo's trade cycle theory, Keynes's monetary theory, the history of colonial America, the economic thought of the 14th century scholastics, the currency/banking schools controversy surrounding the Bank of England, the entire financial history of the United States, and much, much more.

Censoring the Mises Institute on Wikipedia as utterly and completely as you would have it (only referenced regarding itself and its writers) would be a disgusting act of intellectual thuggery.

I ask you to reconsider. --Lilburne2 (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

TFD, I also notice, directly below this entry, that while you would almost completely block the Mises Institute as a reliable source, you deem the progressive talk show "Democracy Now!" as unquestionably RS. Are you really going to be that baldly partisan? --Lilburne2 (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• This easily falls under a big NO for a BLP, as the source is really just a blog. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Valid only for opinions ascribed as opinion to their authors. Collect (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Democracy Now!

Whar are editors' views on the reliability of this news item:

• http://i2.democracynow.org/2009/7/13/obama_calls_for_probe_into_2001

It's from Democracy Now!, and features host Amy Goodman, New York Times journalist James Risen and a spokesperson for Physicians for Human Rights. The linked page includes the full transcript of the show (you have to scroll down past the box to see it).

RS or not? To be used for an overhaul of Dasht-i-Leili massacre, along with a bunch of other sources. --JN466 17:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, DemocracyNow! is unquestionably RS. Dlabtot (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agree. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Antivirus comparatives

Is this site reliable? It's a non-profit company. However, no authors are provided in the reports they produce. TechOutsider ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You have to explain how you plan the use the site and provide more information about it. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I plan to pull the #s from their comparatives and provide them in the article. It says to be non-profit, independent, and vendors may request testing of their products. TechOutsider ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, which article? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I see a lot of mentions of them on the websites of anti-virus software companies, but not in independent reliable sources. Till they acquire a reputation that can be verified in independent sources, I'd say no. Dlabtot (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Manual calculation of geographic area

I hope this is the correct noticeboard. Geographic area can be easily calculated from official maps with the help of dedicated computer programmes or even simple graphic software. Can I insert the area of, for instance, Lichtenberg, and state "manual calculation" in the Edit Summary? Is that a reliable source? Pixie (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest WP:NOR/N. Dlabtot (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you should do this. If you do the calculation yourself based on a map, it would be very hard for others to verify your result. Also, there is a good change that your result will be wrong (for example, because you're using a bad projection). Surely you can find explicit area data somewhere instead? Offliner (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

To test the validity of my results, I'm calculating several known areas from the same map. If I'm getting results that perfectly fit established data, I can definitely assume that map and calculation are accurate. Correct? Of course finding a data source is preferable, but not always possible. Pixie (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's probably fine. However, it should not override better info. Does the CIA world fact book not have anything? Irbisgreif (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thinking this over a bit more, I definitely object to this. It is original research in any case. Since you are using specific tools, it is not an uncontroversial common sense derivation from well-known facts, and the result are too hard for others to verify. If there is no source available which states the data explicitly, then that data has no place in Wikipedia. Offliner (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

First off- the area of a locality, whether published somewhere or not has its place in Wikipedia and is notable. Second- a calculation as long as the program you are using is from a reputable and reliable source is fine. Third- it is probably not in the CIA World Factbook because its not a country or colony. Fourth and most importantly- for something to be "verifiable" that does not mean EVERYONE can verify it by themselves. We've been through this many many times on the original research noticeboard. As long as SOMEONE can, if they wanted to, verify it then it is fine. Doesnt mean that you, from your computer chair, in 2 mins must be able to verify the claim. Not everyone will be able to verify everything on Wikipedia themselves. If we held to that standard then we must not allow NRHP documents because some computers have trouble downloading/displaying the info (such as mine), I have to have another editor email me the docs on a one-by-one basis as I need them for various articles. Verifiability in this particular case about a computer program means, if another editor gets that published program that is available to the public (free or has to be bought, doesnt matter) and the editor uses it they get the same number you get. That is all verifiability means. It is not OR, it is verifiable.Camelbinky (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree. The act of calculating the area data from a map using a special program is original research. By your logic I could draw any conclusion from available published data (a new scientific theory, for example) and insert it in WP as long as someone can verify my claim by conducting the same measurements or experiments as I did. Verifiability means that the readers must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. The results of these measurements have not been, thus it doesn't pass the criteria of inclusion. Offliner (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, and have to admit it has shaken my confidence in my own opinion. But ultimately I am sticking to my original points and opinions. User:TheFeds is one we may want to contact, as he has had experience on similar issues and he is fair.Camelbinky (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't consider it OR to make a notable derivation from an equation. For example, taking the equations for the motion of the moon (say, in a sky simulating program) and pointing out when the next eclipse is. The RS would be the program, if it's reliable. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

David Ray Griffin

I've edited the flight 77 page citing previously reliable sources:

1) Goldberg et al. (Title: Pentagon 9/11) for the crash section

2) David Ray Griffin (Title: The New Pearl Harbor Revisited) for the conspiracy section

Yet "VegitaU" reverted my edits saying:

David Ray Griffin is a noted conspiracy theorist and his fringe views are not citable as reliable sources.

---

However, this is patently untrue because DRG is cited in the main 9/11 Conspiracy Theories page.

He also reverted my edits citing Goldberg apparently unwittingly, though his book is cited on Flight 77 page numerous times.

I wrote this on VegitaU's talk page and undid his revert, but this was immediately undid by "A Quest For Knowledge" who said:

Removed 9/11 "truther" spam

---

He did not even read my response on Vegita's talk page or he would know I also cited Goldberg.

Is the use of DRG as a source "spam" on the main article as well?