Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 58

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

→

Archive 65

Sites providing birth info for Alexandra Daddario

Resolved

Is ListOwn a reliable source for the birth info of entertainers? Nightscream (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• I can't imagine it being accepted. They are a classified ad site. That is their function. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What about this site for Alexandra Daddario's birth info? It looks like a fan site, but I wanted to be sure. Nightscream (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Again, I don't think you'll find many people that would consider that a RS. If it were the movie studios site, yes. But that is a fan site. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Try this link: [1]. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

When an editor says a reliable source is wrong

Resolved

There has been a dispute on Union City, New Jersey regarding a local high-rise building called the Thread. A The New York Times article by Antoinette Martin that I cited as one of the sources says that that building is a former embroidery factory. But User:Djflem has asserted that this is not true, that the building is an original building, and that The New York Times is wrong. An anonymous IP editor whose IP is traced to Amsterdam (I don't know if this was also Djflem editing outside of his account) called the source "unreliable". I don't dispute that otherwise reliable sources can make mistakes, but for an editor to remove such info based solely on their assertion seems like OR, just as including such info on personal knowledge would be. What should we do? Nightscream (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

See if you can find more sources to either support or deny the challenged source you have. Try and discuss the issue on the talk page of the article to get a consensus. Removal of information is not OR. SunCreator (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of old maps of the area on the web, maybe you can find one that settles the question. Zero^talk 00:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This would seem to be a question of policy rather than consensus; I wouldn't want people in a consensus discussion to decide based on their persona feelings about the assertion. As for maps, I don't see how this would help. I actually have a number of old maps of the area, but none are going to indicate if a building on a given block was a factory. I've sent emails to the writer of the article and to the building itself to ask them. Hopefully that will do it. Nightscream (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Newspapers are often wrong, including The New York Times. However, we consider newspapers such as The New York Times to be reliable sources, and go by what they say, absent any other reliable sources stating something different. And an editor's personal knowledge carries little weight in such a discussion, and there's no need to e-mail the articles' author etc. Feel free to use the article to support the claim that the building is a former embroidery factory. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have found another New York Times article which describes construction of the building as beginning in 2007. There are also numerous less reliable sources (such as ads for apartments in the building) describing it as new, and nothing else describing it as a former embroidery factory. I think it's fair to conclude that the originally-cited NYT article was in error. See Talk:Union_City,_New_Jersey. Barnabypage (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It may have been in error. It may have meant that the building was constructed where an embroidery factory once stood. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That's quite plausible, I think. Barnabypage (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Fictional character article standards question

I've come across an article about a character from a book (made into movies and plays). The article has zero references (other than a really low quality YouTube video which I've deleted). The entire article (Violet Beauregarde) is clearly original research. I suspect most of the content is verifiable if you read the book, see the movie, etc. In the case of plays, none of the included material is verifiable. My thought would be to shorten the article to basic facts specific to each media (book, movie 1, movie 2) and turn the page into one for disambiguation. However, I'm certain that this case isn't unique and that most big movies/books have articles written about specific characters. I would think that unless a character has been the subject of published secondary material from reliable sources, book/movie characters don't rate their own articles. But that may be just me. So may main question here at AN/I is this: what are are standards for articles about book/movie characters? Rklawton (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The standards for sourcing should be the same as for other articles. I found RS for the character using User:Nicolas1981/Wikipedia Reference Search, a custom search that omits most non RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Works of fiction, including films, are fine primary sources for articles on fictional characters unless original opinions are introduced. (Plays are usually published in print, too, although the texts can be difficult to get hold of.) I agree it's a long article on a minor character, but remember what we're discussing on this page is the reliability of sources - not notability. My personal opinion would be that the article is harmless at worst, useful to some fans at best, but could do with a bit of copy-editing. Barnabypage (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I value your opinion; thank you. Rklawton (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League

{{resolved}} Can I use the website of Anti-Defamation League (www.adl.org) as a reliable source for the claims made in Current Communist antisemitism? I have attributed the claims to ADL, i.e. "according to the Anti-Defamation League ..." --Defender of torch (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Websites of known organizations can certainly be used as cites for official positions and opinions of the organizations. Collect (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --Defender of torch (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This is beyond the scope of this particular noticeboard but you probably also want to cite a third-party reliable source which mentions the ADL's view on this particular topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The ADL is an expert source on antisemitism; there is no need for additional third-party sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish you were around when I tried to make the same argument! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The ADL is a controversial source on antisemitism, especially in all matters involving Israel. It is clearly notable enough to cite, but nearly always that "according to the Anti-Defamation League ..." qualification is required. But you don't need to cite their opinion via a third party, you can cite them directly. Zero^talk 12:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The ADL is an expert source on antisemitism, and has been one for almost a hundred years, and the specific ADL material in the article had nothing to do with what you are talking about. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Bedford School

I have a question about a source of some information on a article about a school. The question revolves around a claim of a case of arson at the school (for the record I am not connected to the school in any way).

Some Background :

The article as I cam across it refereed to a "arson" in 1979 without any ref - there were (and are) photos showing a fire so I first taged then after 2 weeks changed to to fire. An editor Toddy1 came up with two refs 25th Anniversary of Bedford School’s Great Fire, March 2004 and An interview with Mr Simms, who celebrated 50 years with Bedford School this week, November 2009. one which says fire and one that says arson and reverted the article back to arson.

I reverted the article back to fire with this edit stating that : as the refs provided are WP:PRIMARY and one says "fire" and the one that says "arson" does not elaborate on the reason for claiming it was arson

Now an ip editor 20.133.0.13 is claiming that they are not WP:PRIMARY and I miss understand what a WP:PRIMARY source is (see this post to user page) as the passage of time makes this a secondary source.

So to my question :

1. Is anything a organisation says about it's self ever not WP:PRIMARY  ? does the passage of time change it?

2. Is the school website a WP:RS about the fire and calling it arson ? Codf1977 (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

My quick reaction would be to say that the school Website is a RS in saying that there was a fire, but not in terming it arson - distinguishing arson from an accidental fire is not part of the usual expertise of schoolteachers! However, Google throws up lots of other sources for it being arson so I'm sure you can find something better. For example try this one from the local authority, which references a fire service document. Barnabypage (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Think that is the best one - shame it looks like a visit to the record office is needed to find out what is in the clipping and what paper it came from. I do think on balance it was probably arson - will keep looking though for a WP:RS untill then will keep it at just fire Codf1977 (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You deleted arson, demanding a source. I found a source. But you still edit war over it. I do not see how you can stretch the definition of primary source to cover the source.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• The website of the school is a primary source. There's no "stretching" of the definition needed. If that isn't obvious to you, try reading WP:PRIMARY and see if that clears it up for you. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved. [2] is a reliable source for the statement that it was Arson. Hipocrite (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

[3] reliable. Hipocrite (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree the National Archives are reliable - however it only says "man guilty of setting fire to Bedford School" - it does not say arson. Codf1977 (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware of what Arson is? Hipocrite (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes intentionally and maliciously setting fire to structures - I don't have any knowledge of this case - but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the crown was unable to prove arson and the person was convicted of a lesser charge. As I have said before I think it probably was arson - but probably does not hack it when it comes to an encyclopaedia. The only thing we know for sure is there was a fire and someone was convicted in relation to that fire, we do not know what he was convicted of. Codf1977 (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We know for sure. There is no doubt in any reasonable person's mind that it is arson. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Moot point (see below) but I am at a loss to see how you can be sure with the sources provided. Codf1977 (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are being unreasonable.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Disputed Source: Dog Whisperer

{{resolved}}

Nutshell: Article in question: Dog Whisperer, citing a Theatre History PHD candidate with no ostensible dog behavior expertise, as published in the journal of the Institute for Critical Animal Studies, the disputed source. See: Steven Best

The reference "Lisa Jackson Schebetta, a Ph.D. candidate in Theatre History, Theory and Criticism at the University of Washington,[24] concluded that the goal of the program is always a product, a dog that behaves according to its owners' desires, however illogical.[25] The dog is filmed performing his problem behavior, a male human voice-over describes the situation briefly, the owners share their exasperation with the film crew, and Millan arrives. He meets the people and shares with them his basic philosophies: ― a dog needs exercise, discipline and love, in that order, and the human has to be the Pack Leader. These mantras are the answer to every dog's problem, regardless of where the dog has come from or his or her current state of agitation. Although there are alternative theories about dog behavior and training, any discussion of these is omitted. Millan then meets the dog, the dog submits to him, and the owners celebrate, often voicing their amazement in referring to the miracle they have witnessed. The formula —problem dog meets Millan, dog submits, and owners are overjoyed — does not waver. Although the footage is clearly edited to construct the predictable story, each episode presents itself as natural and spontaneous.[25]"

The article [Mythologies and Commodifications of Dominion in The Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan] The journal [Journal for Critical Animal Studies] The author [Lisa Jackson-Schebetta]

This was deleted as not meeting wikipedia's definition of a 'reliable source' and its re-instating is being contested. Marj (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As the editor who deleted the section, I made this note in the Edit Summary: "deleted Jackson info: she's a Ph.D. candidate in Theatre History, Theory and Criticism at the University of Washington." The Criticism section of the Dog Whisperer article is full of really good, expert testimony. In our discussion, Marj said she wanted the section to be as scientific as possible. The source of the publication is in question, as is the validity of sourcing criticism of a dog trainer/rehabilition professional... by a theater history student. Which seems... decidedly tenuous. 842U (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It was User:842U's suggestion to raise the issue here, so not sure what the objection is now. All of the "really good, expert testimony" was added by me. This page is about a television program. It is not about Cesar Millan, he has a separate page. Jackson Schebatta is qualified to analyse a television program. She is not a 'student' she is a PhD candidate - but more to the point is that her article was reviewed and assessed before publication. Marj (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems deliberately argumentative, rather than an attempt to resolve the reliability of the source. Where's the blame?? Marj (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is relevant that the article is linked to in PDF format, anyone who wishes to can vet the information for themselves by reading the whole paper. Marj (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The article by Jackson-Schebatta does not appear to be a reliable source for this topic. The author is not qualified as an animal behavior expert, and the journal that published the article seems to be an activist publication that is not peer-reviewed. There is no editorial board, but they do list an "editorial team" that includes no experts in animal behavior or directly related fields. [4]--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The topic is a television program. The page is not on animal behaviour. If the page were about Buffy the Vampire Slayer would the writer need to be an expert on vampires, or on television? Marj (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It absolutely wouldn't hurt though would it. And more importantly, Wikipedia NPOV and COI guidelines would preclude having an animal-liberation-affiliated editor altering an article on a dog show to suggest the show... commodifies domination of dogs. 842U (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The quote is on the program format. Her opinions on animal behaviour, if she has any, are not referenced. Marj (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you (Jack-A-Roe) say that the journal is not peer reviewed? Quote "Upon acceptance for review, the editors will send manuscripts, under a double-peer reviewed process, to no less than two, and generally three reviewers. Reviewers provide their recommendations to the editor, who makes the final decision to accept the manuscript." Marj (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dog Whisperer also references the Huffington Post, USA Today, and the Hollywood Gossip website - and these are accepted as 'reliable sources'. Marj (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

re: Huffington/Hollywood: there would be a different standard for a source reporting a discreet piece of information, e.g., that The Dog Whisperer won a People's Choice Award, and source reporting professional criticism of an entire television show (about dog behavior) — especially when the source does not confine themselves to their area of expertise. In other words, Jackson-Schebatta makes broad criticisms relating not to the show, but to dog behavior. 842U (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see that info about peer-review on that website - would you provide the link for the page where that is listed? Regarding the newspapers used as sources in the article, those are separate questions - they may be reliable or not depending on how they are used. If there is a concern about that, they should be checked. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The advice to contributors is usually the best place to find a journal's policy on reviewing. [Submissions] Marj (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The Institute for Critical Animal Studies (ICAS) is highly biased; it was co-founded by Steven Best, formerly known as the Center on Animal Liberation Affairs (CALA): an animal liberation group. ICAS is affiliated also with libnow.org, their animal liberation activist blog. As such, ICAS as a huge COI commenting on anything animal related; there is no way ICAS as a source could represent NPOV. 842U (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Awards and criticism are biased. Surely you are not suggesting they can be otherwise User:842U? Marj (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems appropriate to use as a criticism in the article, as long as you specify the source ("... journal of animal liberation group ..." or something like that). The fact that a show about animals is criticized by animal rights activists is important, and ICAS and/or CALA seem like a notable animal rights journal and organization respectively from what you've written here and our article. It is an edited journal, which says nothing about neutral, all that means is that it's not just one person ranting, the article is approved by some kind of organization. We can't expect criticism to come from NPOV sources, criticism is inherently POV. However, I think it's getting a bit of undue weight in the article as is; the section on Jackson-Schebatta's criticism is just another criticism, and shouldn't get a separate section. I also think the fact that she's a theatre student isn't important; the fact that her criticism was published in an animal rights magazine seems the important part to me. I'd put it into the criticism section, and shorten it by a third. --GRuban (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasoned opinion. User842U combined two separate references to this article into one section and gave it the heading. It was just another criticism when I added it. Marj (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There may be a use in the article for that source, but it must not have undue weight, and must be presented with attribution to the activist bias of the source. I would add though that for a TV show that is as widely viewed as this one, it seems better sources can be found than an article by a grad student in an obscure agenda-based publication. If that source is used, it should be limited to one sentence, not a full paragraph. It's just someone's opinion, and that person is not an expert on the topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jack-A-Roe that is useful - I think I have now done this. Though there are academic listings of Journal authority and this particular one is not obscure, and no more agenda-based than any publication (you don't start a journal unless you think there is a gap that needs coverage) and the whole point of a refereed journal is that the published article is NOT one person's opinion, but reflects a consensus of a review panel and editorial team. Why I think this paper is important is that it makes the point that this is a television program, filmed and edited to appear natural, but very much a constructed narrative with the necessary happy ending. While there is much authoritative research on dog training methods that critique the methods used by Millan, this is the only peer-reviewed research on the Dog Whisperer television program - which is the subject of this page. Marj (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

However I am tired of 842U's dirty tricks - like removing comments that they have made from discussion forums to change the character of the discussion and remove incriminating statements. Their history shows that they were indefinately blocked from Wikipedia and later given a second chance, and as recently as last month were in conflict with another editor for deleting sections of the Smile Train page "without discussion or consensus" Check my history. Since I began serious editing last December all I have done is raise two pages to Good Article standard. This time the bad guys win. This is my last edit. Marj (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.palestinehistory.com

There is a Wikipedia editor who has repeatedly used the neutral voice of the encyclopedia to quote a legal opinion about the powers of the Palestinian Authority from this website.[5] The site contains very outdated information. For example it says that Yasser Arafat (now deceased) is still the head of the Palestinian Authority. The Internet Archive indicates that the page was last updated in June of 2007 [6]

It appears to be a self-published website that is the work of a single editor/creator, Esam Shashaa. Other than the text of a 1988 PLO declaration, none of the material contains inline citations, footnotes, or evidence that it is based upon other published sources. There does not appear to be any editorial oversight, and Mr. Shashaa is not a generally recognized expert on political science, history, or international law.

He says that he has a degree in "Business Administration and Accounts" and "I thank you for taking the time to browse my site and find out more about the History of Palestine, as well as the site's author and creator."[7]

harlan (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• This does not appear to be a reliable source. If you have evidence of an editor inserting links to it, who has a provable connection to the site, please note it at WP:ANI as link spamming. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't suspect that this is a case of link spamming, just the selection of an outdated and unreliable source as the basis for a number of reverts. I pointed out that this online source is a self-published work of its editor/creator, Esam Shashaa, because Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources suggests that anyone can create a website and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. Mr. Shashaa does not appear to be a recognized expert or claim to be one. WP:IRS says these types of sources are largely not acceptable. harlan (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Random web pages are not reliable sources unless some case for reliability can be made. This one seems to have no information to enable such a case, so it should be treated as not reliable. Zero^talk 10:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Context of NSF statement about belief in ghosts

Announcing an RfC at Talk:Ghost#RfC:_Context_of_NSF_statement_about_belief_in_ghosts. The questions being discussed are:

1. Whether the National Science Foundation is a reliable source for stating that "belief in ghosts and spirits" are "pseudoscientific beliefs".

2. Whether their expressions can be considered to represent the current scientific consensus (in the USA) on that subject.

See you there! -- Brangifer (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Bedford School redux

• The question: Is the 1979 fire at the Bedford school appropriatly described as arson.
• The arson sources:
  • http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=004-fs&cid=2-5-24#2-5-24 - "Report of trial of man guilty of setting fire to Bedford School [see FS D/PC 23]*."
  • http://www.bedfordschool.org.uk/default.asp?page=1098&news=254 "The result of an arson attack..."
• The not-arson sources:
  • http://www.bedfordschool.org.uk/default.asp?news=1172 "The great hall caught fire" does not use the word arson.

Please review the sources, or find more. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The National Archives entry is presumably prepared by a professional archivist and can be trusted to reflect accurately the contents of the report. Likewise the essay on the Bedfordshire County Council site which refers back to the same primary Fire Service source but again uses the word "arson" in commentary (i.e. it is another professional observation that the primary source, thus far inaccessible to us, describes arson).

I think these would trump the school's own Website if there was disagreement among them (historical myths do grow up in institutions, after all...) but in any case I don't really see that such a disagreement exists. One of the school pages says "arson", the other says "caught fire", which I suppose is a superset of "arson" anyway; it certainly doesn't preclude the possibility.

The only doubt I would have is whether the specific word "arson" is necessarily accurate. There is a precise definition (see [[8]]) and without the trial record we don't know if the man was actually found guilty of arson or of some other offence which involved setting fire to the structure.

So it seems to me that the easiest route forward is to use a construction such as The Great Hall was destroyed in 1979 after a man set fire to it. Barnabypage (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have found a article called "The problems that can follow commercial fires at schools" 10 August 1989 from the "Post Magazine", an weekly insurance industry magazine. It talks about the fire and the capture of the arsonist. It says "In March 1979 a fire destroyed the main building of Bedford School. This building had existed for over 87 years and its destruction was regarded as entirely accidental until the chance overhearing of a conversation in a local public house led to the arrest (and later conviction) of the thief/arsonist who, incidentally, had started at least 10 other fires in the Bedford area." If you send me an email I can forward the article to people so you can verify it and use it as a ref..--Slp1 (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. It's a well-regarded magazine, too, so definitely a reliable source. Barnabypage (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up - no need for a copy - just revert to a version with arson in and ref the publication Codf1977 (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

And p 89 of this book, "Blaze: the forensics of fire" published by St. Martin's Press, in 2000 and viewable on Amazon,[9] also states it was arson. "Arson is also connected with other crimes as an attempt to destroy evidence or disguise a murder as an accident. In 1979 Bedford School was badly damaged by fire when burglars set light to the late Victorian Great Hall in an attempt to cover their tracks." BTW, though we've found other more independent sources, I think the school's history as published on their website is a perfectly acceptable and reliable source for describing their own history, per WP:SELFPUB, and thus for describing this as arson. --Slp1 (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the school website can just be assumed to be a reliable source for describing their own history Codf1977 (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree... calling it arson is well established by multiple reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nash Information Services

This group does not appear notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, yet is is linked in something perhaps close to 700 articles [10] Is that an issue? MM207.69.139.150 (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see it as a problem. It appears that Nash Information Services is best known for publishing The Numbers (website), which has had an article of its own at various times in the past, although it has been deleted each time. Still, I don't think there is any rule that being non-notable makes a source unreliable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

How are we to gage the reliability of a source if there are no third parties that talk about the source? MM207.69.139.150 (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Bruce Nash, the editor of The Numbers, is sometimes quoted as a source in articles about the movie business that are printed in reliable sources, such as the San Francisco Chronicle, The Times, Esquire, and the Sydney Morning Herald. There may not be enough information in these articles to write a full article about his website, but apparently these reliable sources believe that Nash knows what he is talking about with regard to box office issues. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe this is the proper forum for this discussion. the community has already discussed and decided upon this exact topic twice on the Articles for deletion page which discussed the information you are bringing up here.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

sorry about that, I misread this entire discussion. Since I am now officially the Jerk on this thread I will keep my opinions to myself and just let you know to disregard what I wrote.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Habrahabr.ru

It this a reliable source for IT articles? As far as I can tell it's a blog hosting service with some digg-like and slashdot-like elements, i.e. the ability to vote on stories and accumulate karma. It's a bit different than slashdot, because blogs are individual, e.g. [11]. As far as I can tell, the individual blogs all are WP:SPS, and the editorial oversight is rather hard to ascertain because it comes from anonymized votes. So, the blogs hosted there need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis: if the author a blog hosted there is a well-known authority that has published in that field elsewhere, then it's a reliable source, otherwise I think not. (FYI: AfDs where it was invoked: Evilwm, Kohana (web framework)Wmii, but for the latter two there are other sources.) Thoughts? Pcap ping 06:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say no as there is no way to really check on most blogs if a person is who they say they are. At least with self-published authors you have a clear reference and if they are favorably cited in enough WP:RS material you can build a case for them being considered experts in a topic but that is hard enough.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's simple. HH.ru have personal and themed blogs. Created article belongs to personal blog. After it get some karma points(summ of all plus and minus votes), author can move article to themed blog(such as i_am_clever or kohanaphp). It means what article is reliable. Also, for old articles, you can see a summ of all votes. In [[12]] - +24, which means what it is undoubtedly reliable. My personal meaning: 5<x<15 - normal article, 16<x<30 - reliable article, 31<x<50 - very very good aticle, 51<x - awesome article. 80.70.236.61 (talk)

I think you may be confusing "reliability" with "popularity". It seems the voting system you describe is for determining the latter, not the former. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems the reliability criterion are not correct for open source software, If you were IT-specialist you understand that in opensource world notability equals popularity in blogs, forums, howtos and distros, see discussion about Dwm. Are you programmer? If no, it is quite sad that incompetent people judge opensourse enthusiast and, e.g., scienologists, in the same manner. Why there is no special rules for FOSS, based on the same idea that Wikipedia based on? And I see that you do not understand it. Do you prefer read commerce articles in magazines feeding from Microsoft? What else do you need to understand notability=popularity? Did you follow presented link? Habrahabr and linux.org are the great tool to measure popularity=notability of FOSS project. I would like to know what are the possible way to write special notability criterion for FOSS, cause now it is not right at all, and the last deletion "discussions" shows it. Mclaudt (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability does not equate to popularity, because we define notability a certain way for our uses. So only if the blog is by " a well-known authority that has published in that field elsewhere" should it be used. Calling people incompetent (especially when they are simply telling you what oure guidelines are) is a personal attack, please don't do it again. Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

In this working paper and later a book (The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy), Walt and Mearsheimer are critical of what they see as the extension of the "Israel lobby" dominating public discourse. In regards to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy they claim "Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel and claims that it provides a 'balanced and realistic' perspective on Middle East issues, this is not the case... Its board of advisers...includes no one who might be thought of as favoring the perspective of any country or group in the 'Near East.' Many of its personnel are genuine scholars or experienced former officials, but they are hardly neutral observers on most Middle East issues and there is little diversity of views within WINEP’s ranks."

I believe that the authors' critical opinion can be cited as just that--and for a long time this has been in the criticism section of the WINEP article. In searching around other articles that cite it it is always cited as the authors' viewpoints (Max Boot, Saban Center) and placed in the criticism or dispute section. An editor now seems to believe it is okay to include the authors' viewpoint as a part of the article's neutral text, even though the article has a criticism section. --Shamir1 (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Walt and Mearsheimer's report should only be cited for Walt and Mearsheimer's opinion; it's a notable minority view, but definitely not reliable for neutral factual sourcing due to the controversies over its accuracy. THF (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I suspected. --Shamir1 (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the book is currently being cited in the body of the article as Walt & Mearsheimer's opinion, just as THF suggests. The full excerpt from the current article is:

However, John Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago political science professor, and Stephen Walt, academic dean at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, describe it as "part of the core" of the Israel lobby in the United States. Discussing the group in their book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, Mearsheimer and Walt write: "Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel and claims that it provides a 'balanced and realistic' perspective on Middle East issues, this is not the case. In fact, WINEP is funded and run by individuals who are deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda... Many of its personnel are genuine scholars or experienced former officials, but they are hardly neutral observers on most Middle East issues and there is little diversity of views within WINEP’s ranks."

It is in no way being described as a neutral fact - only their opinion.← George ^talk 06:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The text as quoted by George looks to me like a perfectly ordinary report of an opinion. If it is an accurate and balanced account of that opinion, I don't see the problem. Zero^talk 12:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross of the San Francisco Chronicle

Would Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross be considered reliable Sources? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/matierandross/index Both are columnists for the San Francisco Chronicle, which in and of itself is certainly a reliable mainstream American newspaper. Both are certainly subject to editorial review by the editors at the San Francisco Chronicle. This being the case, can we disregard them as "gossip bloggers" and treat them as unreliable sources, or since they are subject to editorial review and published by a mainstream newspaper, would they be reliable sources? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Would anything change regarding their reliability if the entire editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle published an opinion piece verifying the original story a couple of days later? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Meets RS. Whether it's the best source for a particular article is up for discussion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

They would generally be considered to be reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

NB that this relates to the outing of Vaughn Walker. For what it's worth, the discussion in the legal web of the story has not been "Is it true?" but "Given that it's true, what are the implications?" I know other reporters who were aware of the issue and decided not to run the story. THF (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Linux.org.ru

Another Russian IT site invoked in AfDs (e.g. Dwm). If the unsourced Wikipedia article about it is to be believed, it operates just like slashdot, i.e. accepts user submitted stories with some moderation. Reliable source? Pcap ping 06:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• From my point of view linux.org.ru is russian variant of slashdot. So we should treat its reliability on the same basis as we do with slashdot. 77.35.27.153 (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• This site is the best way to measure notability of some opensource software. It unofficially represents Linux community in Russia, and despite its content is user-generated, it can be used to estimate notability of software. The problem of inconsistency application of WP:N for Free and OpenSource Software is one of the most important in Wikipedia. Please read Notability of free open source software. There is a strange tendency of deleting FOSS articles from Wikipedia, despite it is based on the same ideas that FOSS does. So in the trend of rethinking notability criterion for FOSS and improving it by some special guidelines, this site is great measure tool, dealing with popularity(=notability for FOSS). Links here: [13], [14]. Mclaudt (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.thekingshighway.ca

Before we begin, yes I know it is a self-published website, and that nothing on the website itself establishes notability. Cameron Bevers, the writer, is a regional planner for the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. However, he is certainly considered an expert on the topic, as the city of Toronto archives uses this website as the source for its description of the Highway 401 archive category. I can't link directly to the archives but if someone wants to see it before commenting.

I'm fairly certain I could find a recent newspaper article from a major newspaper that discusses him as well if the archives is not enough. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of other sources using this website as a source? Where does the city of Toronto archives use this, for example? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

On the online toronto archives, many pictures have been digitized. Amongst these are pictures along the highway, and construction pics. When you go into a picture, they are organized by categories, such as "Highway 401" or "Road construction". When you click the 401 category, it brings up a synopsis of the history available from thekingshighway.ca (I'd provide a link to this, but it expires quickly. If you want a screenshot or step by step directions to get to it, I can do that).

He is also practically the subject of a Toronto Star article on cottage country highway traffic,[15] (The article essentially "stars" him) as well as a brief mention in an article in the Hamilton Spectator.[16] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Where are the online Toronto archives? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you step-by-step instructions to get to the description of Highway 401:

First, go to this page, and click on "Search the Archives' Database". This will open up a new window. In this new window, search for Highway 401. The first result should be "File 1 - Oblique aerial photograph showing Labatt's Brewery at Highway 401 and Islington Ave. - October 19, 1970". Click on it, and it opens in the right frame. Click on Subseries 5; Etobicoke Clerk's Dept. aerial photographs, and another new window will open. In this window, you should see Highway 401. Click it, and a new window will open with the description from Cameron Bevers website. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Does the City of Toronto website use Bevers' site for other material? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that I can find, unfortunately, but they don't have a Highway 404 or Highway 400 (the other two highways within Toronto) category as they do a Highway 401. Just the one instance that I can find, as well as those two newspaper articles. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you want to use the website as a source for? --Insider201283 (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Mostly as a secondary source to back up primary statistics (items which can be verified by going to the subject yourself and measuring, for example, or items which are verifiable through Google satellite/street maps), and to fill in the occasional missing piece of history. I just don't want to be hassled when one of my 45 references is to a self-published source at WP:FAC... Though it would be nice to use it as a source in general for histories and routing, as the Ontario Ministry of Transportation kind of gave away its archives to its employees 10 years ago, and keeps sparse current records. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The mentions in a couple of newspapers aren't a strong indication of reliability, and the single use on a specific municipal website isn't strong either. I wish I could say it was reliable, but so far it's pretty weak. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget though that that municipal reference is from the 4th largest city in North America, through which the highway that his website is used as a reference for travels. I believe it qualifies as an established professional (both articles mention him being a highway historian) who is covered in third party publications. There certainly isn't anything out there that hampers the reliability of the site. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that a city that large would have many websites, though, maintained by many different individuals, departments, etc. This isn't a ringing endorsement by "the 4th largest city in North America", this is a single use on a specific website. And regarding the newspaper articles, one is from a relatively small newspaper that briefly mentions him, while the other is from a short article in an admittedly high circulation newspaper. I think that if you tried to create an article on Cameron Bevers it would quickly be deleted by AfD. I wish it were otherwise, as he seems to have an interesting website that he obviously does his best to maintain accurately, but he's still effectively a WP:SPS, and there's no real indication he's an "expert" in the Wikipedia sense (an academic who has published on the subject in various reliable sources). Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think being a planner for the province where the highway is, is enough expertise for basic facts. This isn't an academic topic, and we shouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot with academic standards. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You can think whatever you like, but the source fails WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A government highway planner writing about a highway certainly meets SPS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A "a regional planner for the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario" does not qualify as "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." And, no, being cited once on a municipal website does not count as "being published". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, yea... Thats what this board is for, sources that don't meet the generalized criteria of WP:RS to be discussed to see if consensus overrides the criteria. Also, the Hamilton Spectator is on par with the Toronto Star (it's the leading paper in Hamilton, which at 850000 people isn't just a dot on the map). Also keep in mind its being mentioned by the Toronto Archives, which is a government run ministry that deals with historical facts (as Cameron Bevers site does), not the personal blog of the mayors assistant. He is a regional planner for Central Ontario (established expert) who has been published in multiple reputable sources with regards to his expertise. It's not just a mention in an editorial in the Scarborough mirror, its an article devoted to him in the most published newspaper in the country. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Hamilton Spectator has a circulation of 105,000. If it were an American newspaper, that would put it 78th on the List of newspapers in the United States by circulation - just behind the The Providence Journal, and just ahead of The Toledo Blade. Being cited once on one of a number of municipal website does not qualify as "being published", and being a regional planner for the Ministry of Transportation does not qualify one as "an established expert". Being a medical doctor does not make someone an "established expert" on, for example, various diseases, drugs, etc. Working in a government transportation office doesn't make someone an expert on the history of highways. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, are you suggesting that a doctor, who is trusted to make life and death decisions every day, cannot be cited on the subject of medicine, while a grad student who happened to publish in a couple of academic journals could? Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Hamilton Spectator is published by the same media company as the Toronto Star, and both say he is a highway historian. Also, to compare to America with Canada doesn't make sense, as America has 10 times the population of Canada. Likewise comparing medicine, which is a rigorous and strict science with above average sourcing requirements, to history, which is the opposite. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree the Hamilton Spectator is undoubtedly a reliable source, but its article doesn't identify Bevers himself as an expert - and as his own Website acknowledges he only graduated in a field of transportation studies last year. Having said that, to echo Squidfryerchef, if the facts are basic and non-contentious, he'll probably do. Where he wouldn't suffice as a RS is, for example, in providing interpretation of the history of highway development in Ontario. Barnabypage (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable as a secondary source summarizing the history when I use reliable primary sources to cover all the detailed facts that someone would actually challenge? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the ideal way for you to proceed would be to - by all means - use Bevers as a basis for research, but then find more authoritative sources for each assertion. If they are useful points and not controversial, but you can't find a source, it does (IMHO) no harm to put them in the article with a "citation needed" tag - another editor may come along who does have access to/knowledge of a good source. Barnabypage (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line is this; he is a WP:SPS. Even if The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal described him as a "highway historian", it still wouldn't satisfy the requirements of WP:SPS, specifically that he is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The wording is explicit for a reason. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

We really have to get on that WP:SPS section and add something that professional as well as academic qualifications can qualify someone to be cited on their area of expertise. But in this particular case, there are elements of a primary source here as well. The author's job is to plan highways in the same jurisdiction where the road being cited is. It's his job to know the facts about that road. It's a little like saying that in an article about a skyscraper, we can't cite the architect who designed it because he didn't publish in any academic journals about skyscrapers, he only built one. His web page being linked to by other government agencies may only weakly count towards being "published", but it does make the web site take on the color of a semi-official source, as well as authenticating who is behind the web site. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to cite that, when first attributing something to the author, you can work in one of the pages that say who he is. i.e. "Mr So-and-So, a regional planner for XYZ( cite Toronto Star, Hamilton Spectator, City of Toronto) says LMN(cite selfpub)" Or, if these are only inline cites for facts and figures, you can work those pages who confirm who he is into the first footnote. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

John Birch Society

Are the following reliable sources for the statement in the John Birch Society (JBS) article that it "has been described as far right":

Danielson, Chris (Feb 2009). ""Lily White and Hard Right": The Mississippi Republican Party and Black Voting, 1965-1980". The Journal of Southern History (Athens) 75 (1): 83.[17]

Lee, Martha F (Fall 2005). "NESTA WEBSTER: The Voice of Conspiracy". Journal of Women's History (Baltimore) 17 (3): 81.[18]

My objections to these sources are that 1) they are being used as primary sources for the conclusion that the JBS has been described as far right and 2) the articles are not about the JBS or the far right and therefore not relevant to the topic. It is not as if there is a lack of relevant sources for this article.

The Four Deuces (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is being discussed at great length in talk:John Birch Society. The Four Deuces omitted the third source being used:

• Oshinsky, David (January 27, 2008). "In the Heart of the Heart of Conspiracy". New York Times Book Review: p. 23.

And those are just three of 44 sources that call the group "far right". See ]]. We're already bending considerably by not simply saying that the JBS is far right and by simply saying that it has been described that way instead.   Will Beback  talk  23:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that an editor is using a laundry list of adjectives for the JBS, each of which is "sourced" but which concatenated would be the equivalent of having a sentence "Hitler is claimed to have been 'insane,' a 'nut case' an 'extremist', a 'killer'" and so on ... Once you establish that critics frequently call it "far right" that is sufficient. Adding more stuff does not improve the article, and actually harms any image of articles as being written for reference. The tendency for citation overkill (Ossa on Pelion) is quite regrettable indeed. Collect (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

With 44 sources perhaps we should alter the article. With that much unanimity between sources from all over the political spectrum we can flatly declare the JBS to be "far right" rather than just saying it's described that way.   Will Beback  talk  23:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Let us leave all that discussion to the talk page and let other editors reply to the question posted. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the preponderance of reliable sources describing the John Birch Society as "far right", there is no issue with Wikipedia describing it that way too. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue goes beyond one adjectival phrase - the issue is one of a laundry list of such phrases in the article, concatenated in a single sentence. Collect (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not really a reliable sources issue. Do you have any comments about the sources, either the two listed here or the 44 listed on the talk page?   Will Beback  talk  11:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a strong potential for cherry-picking here. There's tens of thousands of writings about the JBS out there, and whether a few op-ed pieces use a certain label doesn't mean a whole lot. Far-right isn't the most accurate label we could use; some authors use the term "hard right" to avoid lumping political groups that might be slightly to the right of Reagan with radical groups. Other adjectives that come to mind would be "anticommunist" or "ultraconservative".

The part of the article in question is basically an attempt to put the criticism section in the lead paragraph. For the lead paragraph, we should be using only the most general and top tier of sources, such as a book about conservative politics in the US that comes from an academic press. I could also go for tertiary sources such as dictionaries or political science textbooks.

Some of the other adjectives used in that part of the lead are distortions, such as "radical right" and "extremist". This group certainly doesn't advocate radical change or political extremism, and the sources are cherry-picked from old newspaper articles that don't discuss the JBS in depth. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a potential for cherry-picking, but that hasn't been demonstrated. The newspaper sources are mostly quite recent and include very few op-ed pieces. Most are straight reporting. Also included are articles from scholarly journals, regarded as among the best sources for topics like this. I don't see a signifcant diffrence between "far right" and "ultraconservative", but both terms have been used commonly for th JBS and both are included in the article. If someone has a good source for the difference between them we could include that. OTOH, if there are sources saying they are the same thing then we can probably drop the less -used term. But basically, if we have over three dozen reliable sources saying "X is Y" then our article should probably say "X is Y", unless there are equally good sources that dispute it. Otherwise we're replacing the mainstream views of reliable sources with our own judgements, which we all know is a form of orignal research.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This conversation is getting off topic and fails to discuss whether the two sources, which are from articles in academic journals, are reliable sources for the an article about the John Birch Society (JBS). They are in fact the only academic sources presented that describe the JBS as far right. My objection is that the articles are not about the JBS or the far right and the JBS is not described as far right in academic articles about the JBS or about the far right. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My problem is more with characterizations like "radical right" or "extremist" being in the lead, when there's nothing radical about the JBS and there's nothing extremist about being opposed to communism. "Far right" isn't terrible, but it shouldn't be the leading adjective. You can find plenty of other sources that use terms like "anticommunist", which is pretty much the whole raison d'etre of the organization. The problem with "far right" is that to some people it includes extreme groups who use violence, and some authors use the term "hard right" to distinguish from the "extreme right". While nobody doubts that the sources cited meet the minimum standards for RS, we should have a higher standard for the lead. If 10,000 articles were written about JBS over the years, and if only 30 use a certain adjective, that's not too compelling. We have to abide by WP:NPOV and not put the criticism section in the lead. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

TV schedule

Hi,

I need input on whatever the TV schedules posted in this forum thread can be counted as Reliable to assert the X series broadcast on Y network/TV channel. Note that this thread is hosted in the official TV network forum and there is to my knowledge no other place to find broadcast information in the whole official website.

Thanks --KrebMarkt 08:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Bulletin/Message boards are not reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I wanted a refined assessment not a mantra recitation. Cordially. --KrebMarkt 17:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you prove who posted the schedule? Is it by a spokesperson of the station? It's very strange that a TV network's website wouldn't contain a printed schedule. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, taken at face value, the posting appears to be from the Executive Producer and Production Assistant. If true, this would qualify as WP:SPS, correct? As for it being strange, if this is a Japanese program broadcasting in a Spanish-language nation, this might be the only source in English (of course, that's pure speculation on my part.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm in conflict with editors from Philippine wanting adamantly to add broadcast information. Because i'm clearly not neutral, i was dropping here the less crappy reference i was provided for evaluation. You can read the Ip tantrum here.

My personal opinion on this one: It cannot constitute a RS because it's most likely TV schedules posted by a benevolent user with the tacit approval of the TV Network forum moderators. The information is certainly trustworthy and accurate but a step short to our standard for a Reliable Source. Checking this "Production Assistant" forum post history reveals a behavior closer to an user with privileged information access rather than a real TV network staff member.

Now if someone more neutral than me can give another opinion based on arguments that would be better than what i say versus what they say in such dispute. Thanks --KrebMarkt 19:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a refined assessment: WP:SPS. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

KrebMarkt seats on the dusty roadside and laughs out of bitterness until its hurts. Thanks nevertheless. --KrebMarkt 07:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It would help if you linked to the specific article where this is an issue. A lot depends on context. Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

See Aria (manga) just the infobox information on network broadcast. Thanks you much for you time. --KrebMarkt 20:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If the user isn't a spokesperson of the TV station or equivalent, then the forum posts wouldn't meet the formal sourcing requirements. Now, I understand that people are watching this on TV and nobody doubts the truth of what's being sourced. If the regular editors of the page can agree to WP:IAR on the source that's one option. Another would be to see if there aren't any newspaper TV schedules which can be cited instead. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Peer reviewed secondary 2008 and 2009 sources for cold fusion

Are the sources here:

1. Biberian, J.-P.; Armamet, N. (2008) "An update on condensed matter nuclear science (cold fusion)" Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie. Volume: 33, Issue: 1-2, Pages: 45-51.

2. Sheldon, E. (2008) "An overview of almost 20 years' research on cold fusion. A review of 'The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations about Cold Fusion.'" Contemporary Physics. Volume: 49, Issue: 5, Pages: 375-378.

and here: (includes discussion of peer review from book's forward)

3. Marwan, Jan and Krivit, Steven B., eds., Low energy nuclear reactions sourcebook (American Chemical Society/Oxford University Press, 2008; ISBN 978-0-8412-6966-8)

and here: (includes discussion of peer review)

4. Krivit, S.B, “Cold Fusion: History,” Encyclopedia of Electrochemical Power Sources, Vol 2, Juergen Garche, Chris Dyer, Patrick Moseley, Zempachi Ogumi, David Rand and Bruno Scrosati, eds, Amsterdam: Elsevier; Nov. 2009. p. 271–276, ISBN 9780444520937

5. Krivit, S.B, “Cold Fusion - Precursor to Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions,” Encyclopedia of Electrochemical Power Sources, Vol 2, Juergen Garche, Chris Dyer, Patrick Moseley, Zempachi Ogumi, David Rand and Bruno Scrosati, eds, Amsterdam: Elsevier; Nov. 2009. p. 255–270, ISBN 9780444520937

all reliable, peer reviewed, WP:SECONDARY sources for improving the cold fusion article? If not, which are and which are not reliable, and why? 99.191.75.124 (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Except for the first one (with which I am unfamiliar), in general these publications and publishers are considered reliable. So obviously something else is going on here. Is it the way that they are being used that is being challenged rather than their base reliability? Did you include Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_35 as part of the discussion, so that interested editors could obtain copies? Since, except for the first one, these are not (currently) readily available to most of us, exact evaluation is not possible without asking the author for copies. Elsevier has been known to publish volumes of less than reliable conference proceedings for monetary gain. --Bejnar (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Contributing reporters authors or not

For the New York Times article Paterson Weighs Race as Top Aide Quits in Protest, it states at the top "By DANNY HAKIM and JEREMY W. PETERS", but it also states at the bottom "David Kocieniewski, William K. Rashbaum and Karen Zraick contributed reporting from New York.".

Should David Kocieniewski, William K. Rashbaum and Karen Zraick be considered authors as well?Smallman12q (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• If you are referring to how the article's citation should appear, I would say no. It is not unusual for major newspaper stories to incorporate reporting from other reporters in addition to the main writers of the article. Presumably the New York Times has some kind of system to determine which of the reporters gets their byline at the top of the article and which ones get relegated to the "contributed reporting" line at the end. I don't believe the addition of the "contributed reporting" people is needed for bibliographic/citation purposes. On the other hand, if there is a specific issue with regard to the reliability of the "contributing reporters", since this is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard -- example: if Jayson Blair were one of the contributing reporters -- then that should be taken into account and such an article should be avoided for use as a source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That's more of a MOS question than a RS question, but my inclination is no: no reason our footnoting needs to be more complete than the Chicago Manual of Style. THF (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm writing a bot to help fix up the citations, so would it be better if contributing reporters were included...or would that go against the MOS.Smallman12q (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, there isn't any need to include them. Please leave them out. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

thedailybeast.com

I know that, as far as reliability goes, we no longer simply say "No blogs"... recognizing that there is a huge difference between joe blow's personal blog and a professional (or even semi-professional) news blog... and that we essentially judge reliability based on whether the blog has a reputation for good journalism. With that in mind, I just need to know... what is the reputation of thedailybeast.com? Thanks Blueboar (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, our article about it, The Daily Beast, says it's run by some fairly respected people, formerly of the New Yorker and Wall Street Journal, and contributed to by Tony Blair and Condoleeza Rice. The Guardian says: [19] "It is positioned somewhere in the middle of the Drudge Report and the HuffingtonPost, both in terms of content and political placement." That seems to be a reasonable guideline. If you look at our discussions about the HuffingtonPost, such as Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_16#Huffington_Post; Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_51#Media_Matters_for_America.2C_Huffington_Post.2C_and_NewsHounds; Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_17#Is_the_Huffington_Post_a_reliable_source.3F, there has been a bit on each side, but consensus seems to be that, we should separate out the editorials and opinion columns from the reporting pieces, and don't use for highly controversial information about living people without other backup. Though I would imagine that depends on the specific author. What is the specific piece of information needed to be cited to The Daily Beast? --GRuban (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's non-controversial... used in the article on survivalist James Wesley Rawles to support the statement that he sometimes publishes as "James Wesley, Rawles" (with the comma) ... (here is the diff.) Personally, I don't think that is something that really needs a citation (you can verify it by looking at the front cover of one of his books)... but since another editor questioned it, I thought I would ask here. Blueboar (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to refine the question, I am asking how to apply the heightened scrutiny obligation that exists under WP:BLP, which says "Be very firm about the use of high quality references." Asking, where is the line between "very firm" and "high quality" drawn between ordinary articles and BLP articles? SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, a comma. I think that interview with the author himself easily qualifies. As for the "line between very firm and high quality" I can only refer you to How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? and Wikipedia:BUREAUCRACY. Even if we did ever narrow down that line precisely here, for the comma question, it would be meaningless for the next question that came up. The point of WP:BLP is that we don't want to carelessly harm our subjects. We need to focus on that, not the fine points of how we phrase our rules. This interview makes it pretty clear Rawles (Wesley, Rawles) has no fear of his comma, and even a certain pride, so, the, comma, is, in. --GRuban (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Got it, I think. What you are saying is that editors can extend judgment as to both the quality of the source and the degree of contention of what is being said. And, less contention requires less quality. I think I am misunderstood by you here, because in this case on the talk page at that aritlce I wasn't asking for the removal of the "comma" statement, but rather asking if anyone knew of a higher quality source to improve the references. And, you realize the perhaps unintentional consequence of this policy is that for BLP articles favorable statements have a lower standard of sourcing than non-favorable statements. I had misunderstood that we were to strive for a general higher quality of sourcing for all statements in BLP articles. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Beast is certainly not a "blog", as it has editors and so forth. While it wouldn't be my first choice for a biography, something as minor as a comma, and coming from an interview, is hardly controversial. And as the "about the author" page for the book on Amazon uses the comma too, it seems to be correct information. If we really want to, we could do an additional primary-source cite to the Amazon review, and then cite Beast as a secondary source that discusses his preference for the comma. But I think Beast is fine the way it's being used currently. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not a blog. Dlabtot (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

filmreference.com

Despite the fact that we've discussed this site on these pages multiple times as being non-reliable, there are well over 1,000 articles using it as a source. On top of that, someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Resources keeps adding it back as a valid source. The info on that page says sites cannot be added to that page without a discussion on the talk page concluding them to be reliable, yet when it is removed it keeps getting putting back without any discussion.

I am putting this back here for another discussion, one which I hope will sort this out once and for all. If it's not reliable as we have been saying all along it needs to be enforced, perhaps with either the spam filter or some other method to get rid of it for good. DreamGuy (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that no topic will ever be sorted out once and for all. Dlabtot (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

mako.org.au

Is the website mako.org.au ever a reliable source? It is a kind of public list of convicted (or not) criminals (" 98+% of offenders listed in the MAKO/Files Online and MAKO/Files Online- (WTC) have been convicted by a court of law."), without any kind of official backing, reputation for fact-checking, ... As this is used for extremely sensitive information (identifying paedophiles, murderers, ...), I don't believe that this source is good enough. It is currently used on 36 pages.[20] Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 12:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of entries I looked at appeared to be reprints of reliable news sources, but the rest does not seem suitable for biographies. Kevin (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Youtube links used as reference

The subject of the appropriateness of using youtube videos comes up often, however there seems to be no bright line as to whether they shold be used or not. In the case of Patrick Wolff three youtube links depicting a chess match have been repeatedly (three times) added to the article despite the request to discuss why they are necessary and if they meet the narrow instances where youtube links can or should be used as a reliable source. Is this a case where the links should be used? Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 14:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought they are really not to be inserted as inline links, personally I remove them on sight. If the only support there is for a comment is a video link that anyone can upload, perhaps the comment is not worth inserting. If it is from the subjects official site or a closely related issue then I sometimes move them to the external link section. Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait, Off2riorob, of course they can be reliable sources. There are official YouTube channels for some major news networks, and their items are reliable sources. Then there are some cases where an original movie can be an appropriate source, but indeed, the rest should go at first sight.

Ponyo, you might want to be a bit more specific. Are these video's reliably showing what is asserted, or not? I see there is a 'first' reference there, could the other three be supporting the first one? (I must say, it seems excessive, 4 references .. and if it is just showing the match, then one might want to check if the video is not in violation of copyright before considering if we should be here). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

<edit conflict>The videos are not linked to an official youtube news channel and have no known copyright status. The reference for the chess game results was added by an uninvolved editor after I removed the youtube links. The youtube links were subsequesntly added back in to the article. As there is an alternative source for the info, and the copyright status for the videos is unknown, I see no reason why they should be included - especially if the editor repeatedly inserting the links will not discuss it on the article talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 15:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In this specific case, however, the video of the chess mach was not posted to an official media channel. It is annonomously posted to the public channels by someone posting as "duckgeezer". We have no way to know if the video has been edited or manipulated, and so can not rely on it. We also need to consider WP:COPYRIGHT... in the case of an official media channel, the poster owns the copyright to the video, and so can legally release it on YouTube... that is not always the case on the public channels. To use "duckgeezer"'s video, we would need to establish that he holds the copyright to this video. If he does not, then he violates the law by posting it to YouTube, and we violate the law by linking to it. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

First, we need to establish if the video is even relevant to the article. What are the videos supposed to be showing that adds to the article? Second, we have to establish that the uploader is the copyright holder, because we don't link to copyright violations. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree but relevancy is not really the issue here as in this case the referenced material was totally relevant. In the case of copyright holder this reference did a major fail and cannot be a allowed. At least when I provided a youtube link in the Land of Confusion article I made sure within all reason that it was provided by the copyright holder before ever using it (see the Talk:Land_of_Confusion on this). We really need a better youtube policy as based on shown in User talk:TheEditor22 another editor got banned for using sock puppetry to keep what was a RS that a another editor who if it is the same Insider I am dealing with has a long history of COI issues regarding certain articles kept removing (which if I am understanding WP:IGNORE and WP:IAR? correctly was in a gray area).--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Virtually every YouTube link I have seen has fallen into one of three categories: a copyright violation; linkspam; original research - this case met the third criterion. "X was covered by Y, ref YouTube of X playign Y" is original research. If it's not covered in reliable independent secondary sources then it's not worth including, end of. No further policy is required specifically for YouTube, though it would make everybody's life a great deal easier if it were blacklisted and links allowed only via the whitelist. Guy (Help!) 17:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Here are several youtube links that would NOT have any of issues you raise: CBS News, FOX News, ABC News, and The White House. These are all reliable sources so you can NOT blacklist Youtube entirely and there are are other organizations that use Youtube (the James Randi Educational Foundation) that would qualify for other articles. If used carefully I don't see any real reason to try and blacklist Youtube.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

College newspapers

What are peoples thoughts on the reliability of The Daily Collegian and Collegiate Times, used in Michael Peter Woroniecki. I haven't read every article yet, but I'm thinking that they are possibly acceptable for reporting events that occurred on campus, but not external events. I'm trying to clean up a major NPOV issue, and this guidance would be useful before I start. Kevin (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

College newspapers do have editorial oversight, though the amount and quality of such oversight will vary wildly depending on the paper. I'd say they're fine for non-controversial claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much what I thought. I don't think there is a single non-controversial aspect to Woroniecki, so I'm going to have to find better ones. Kevin (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The "oversight" is generally limited, especially for articles which have notorious "facts" in them - the editors are generally more anxious for a "good read" than for absolute objectivity. Caveat lector. Collect (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Can consensus reached here be ignored by experts in a subject

There is a discussion above -- Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Journal of Genetic Genealogy where an editor has said "As Andrew says, any consensus reached here can and will be ignored by editors familiar with the material". I have always understood that talk page consensus cannot trump policy, and I assume that means that talk page consensus can't overrule consensus here. Note I'm not saying there is a consensus here, this is just a question of principal for me at the moment, although I think the point at issue is also an important point of princple. Dougweller (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've read the discussion above. It sounds like a terminal case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. A topic ban on WP:AN seems in order. 85.204.164.26 (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Doug, you should know that consensus here is not something that can be enforced. This is not an arbitration pannel. Yes, you are likely to get well informed opinions on how the RS guideline and other polices should be interpreted and applied to a partiular source in a particular article, but that is it. This notice board does not "Trump" anything. What "trumps" local consenus is the guideline itself. Blueboar (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

One would hope that all editors take what is said here into consideration. Of course with strongly held beliefs regarding a single issue often a WP:RFC is a helpful next step.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll need to reword the question. If there is a clear consensus here, yet on the talk page of an article the editors there decide to ignore it, surely the next thing to do (in a hypothetical case, not the one above) is indeed to go elsewhere, possibly ANI? I know this is not an arbitration panel, but ArbCom doesn't normally deal with issues like this. How often are RfCs used to enforce policy/guidelines as opposed to simple content issues? If discussions here can simply be ignored we're just talking to ourselves. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Doug, I realize that this is probably just a theoretical discussion but I do think it reflects upon the real case at hand, or may be seen to (as shown by the IP reaction above!). The quote you cite by Din is being taken out of context. There was in fact no real consensus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never said there was. I don't see one either. I'm interested here in the hypothetical, because it's a problem that exists elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This RfC [21] did manage to settle a many year dispute and avoided going to ARB. I will say that simple issues can hopefully be dealt with here but that for more intractable cases we are just talking to ourselves and going through the motions, proving that all measures have been attempted, before parties move to ANI / RFC / ARB.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

When editors ignore a clear consensus at RS/N, the next step is typically AN/I. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I would think that what happens more typically in cases like the one under discussion is that because the discussion itself has been so ill-informed, deliberately confused by an interested party, filled with personal attacks, vague accusations and emotive language; and consensus was so "called" quickly in an artificial way, that if anyone ever tried to use the ruling in the dozens of involved articles, there is the option of simply having a better discussion. The above case is part of one long personal attack in sheep's clothing. On his talk page User:Dbachmann explained to me, sympathetically with rudra, that rudra is worried about the use that people with "Aryan" theories about India use genetics articles, and that is on a mission to do something about that. I have asked him to explain how this fits with Wikipedia policy, and indeed which theories he thinks are dangerous, but I got no answer. As can be seen by looking at the discussion spread deliberately all over Wikipedia, Rudra does not want clear discussion with other editors he wants to over-rule and go in with "emergency powers". That's why he is here, and that is why he asked Dbachmann to block me for disagreeing with him and that is why his talkpage contributions on R1a are pure trolling and personal attack.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your post is one long personal attack having nothing whatsoever to do with the assessments made here. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I realize that this is a theoretical discussion, but nonetheless, it is expressly linked to an example case involving me, and specifically it is citing an incident out of context. Not only do I feel it is important to avoid misunderstandings, sorry, but also I tend to think that in order to discuss theoretical cases it is interesting to consider why real life cases might not be what they look like. On the other hand, going through a case history which can be cross checked is not personal attack. For what personal attack means see [[22]]. Here is a textbook example of personal attack according to the definition.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)