Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

http://navweaps.com

Please see previous discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 14#Neutral opinion needed for a website source. An editor in a FAC discussion (here) claims that the reasoning in the prior discussion was faulty; was it? - Dank (push to talk) 11:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This book describes Tony Digiulian (the operator of Navweaps.com) as a "Gun control system expert." Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've compared NavWeaps to dead-tree sources in the past (the site's been around for years) and haven't noted any reliability issues. IMHO, it's accurate, authorative, and high-quality, and shouldn't have any problems at all. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's an example in that same vein: Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906–1921 has a table for gun characteristics in the German navy of the period (see page 140). There are no discrepancies between the book and the relevant Navweaps pages. Parsecboy (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Every page tends to have a list of sources, and as far as I can tell the information therein is represented accurately. Tony DiGiulian as a "Gun control system expert" is a gross exaggeration though. He has, as far as I can see, authored two essays on fire control systems on the page, both WWII-related. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 10:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This page appears to be a self-published source. What indication is there that Tony Digiulian is a "gun control systems expert"? The book provided is an autobiography by D. Gossman, published by iUniverse, a "self-publishing company" (i.e. vanity press), so it's not clear why his opinion would carry any weight. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Just Some Website. Dlabtot (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, a drive-by assessment. A website should be judged just like a book; on its sources. I could care less if it's self-published. What I care about are its sources, if any. If they're reputable, as John Campbell's books and articles on naval weapons are, which navweaps.com references, then it is, Q.E.D. If it lacks sources then all the other criteria can come into play to evaluate its reliability such as self-published, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually we have very specific rules for deciding when a self-published website qualifies as a reliable source, which you can find at WP:SELFPUBLISH. Dlabtot (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, as Dlabtot notes, Wikipedia has specific rules for deciding which self-published sources are reliable, and those rules are quite different from the ones you propose. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to cite the books of John Campbell, you should do so directly. Dlabtot (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's rather hard to do as Campbell's book was published during the Cold War and is unreliable about large caliber Soviet naval weapons. Digiulian translates data from recent books on Soviet naval weapons that I cannot read. The value to Digiulian's site is that it compiles multiple sources, all of which are referenced. And the definition of WP:SPS is sadly lacking in that it ignores sources entirely, presumably relying on the general WP:RS criteria to screen out the crap. I've personally confirmed Navweaps.com meets the normal criteria of WP:RS and WP:V; the fact that WP:SPS is narrowly written and ignores sources doesn't trump the fact that the site meets the overarching requirements to be regarded as a reliable source. In fact, SPS seems to be best suited for website that offer opinions and conclusions rather than sourced facts. Joe Six-pack's opinion on the best brown ale is meaningless unless it turns out that Joe Six-Pack has been a judge at the Great American Beer Festival for the last decade and a half and is a recognized expert in the industry despite never quite finishing that book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've sent Tony an email (we've been in contact before). Let's see what he has to say and if he knows of any books that (a) have cited him and (b) we have missed. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

First, note the 23 books that cite NavWeaps: [1]

Second, I received a reply to my email. He doesn't consider himself to be an expert on the weapons themselves, aside from how they interact with computers, but he has been studying them for 40 years. He started the site because, over that span of time, he has found many works that contained armament errors and/or repeated another author's errors. Also, that time has given him ...

...[an] advantage that this gives me over the casual reader of well-known reference works is that I have the background and knowledge that allows me spot errors, conflicts, omissions or lack of clarity in these sources so as to be able to meld all the available data together in order to present as accurate a datapage as possible to my readers. This is something that makes my datapages much more than just a random collection of facts.

I think that it is perfectly reliable; in writing my articles, I have never found a contradiction that isn't addressed directly (ex for USS Connecticut (BB-18), he explains why Friedman in U.S. Battleships was wrong about the ship's gun caliber). I also tend to agree with Sturm above. As far as I know, WP:SPS was designed to deal with self-pandering "experts" that give opinions on controversial issues (exhibit "A" would probably be global climate change). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

He's probably more right than a lot of stuff we allow, but there are hoops that must be jumped through, and he hasn't done that. You might think accuracy matters, but it doesn't. This guy needs editorial oversight (over him), regardless of its quality, to be a RS. Maybe he has that? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ed, most of the rules like SPS seem to be written for academically contentious topics, like evolution or climate change, where everybody has an opinion and its very rare we'd step outside of peer-reviewed sources. The caliber of a naval weapon is not one of those situations, and I'm not impressed by absolutist positions on what consitutes an expert.

If there's editorial oversight, good, otherwise, we are left with SPS. I would suggest that if we're citing somebody who was compiling information from other sources, we need to look at whether they have a reputation for compiling the information accurately, which is not as high a bar as citing an expert for their own scientific research. I believe the many citations to Navweaps from published books establish that the author has a reputation for accurate information on the subject. Now we could look and see if other sources are available, we could look at Jane's, but I see no reason to forbid Navweaps. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, except for the fact that it has no editorial oversight, is a self-published source, and the author isn't a recognized expert, and therefore fails Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements. If you want to change policy, as you seem to be proposing here, the place to do it is at WP:V. Here we just apply it; we cannot arbitrarily change it, as you propose. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm maintaining that the author is a recognized expert under SPS; one of the books linked above introduced him as an expert on the control systems of naval guns. The editorial decision is over what constitutes an expert, which could run from anybody with a background on the topic up to a professor who's made the subject his life's work. For a subject such as evolution, we'd want the academic who's made it his life's work. On the other hand this is something where 1) facts about the physical dimensions of a cannon are either true or not, and can be checked against primary sources 2) we're citing someone for their compilation of existing sources, not for their own original research, so this isn't an "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" situation. Someone like a naval officer, someone who's designed similar systems, or a professor of military history or relevant engineering disciplines should all qualify as long as they've been cited by RS's on the topic. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As has been already explained, the author was described as an "expert" by D. Gossman, in a self-published book. His accolade also fails our WP:RS requirements. We need reliable sources describing the author as an "expert", not just Some Unknown Guy who Self-Published a Book. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Being called an expert isn't the criteria; WP:SPS says: "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."

Please point to the relevant work by Tony Digiulian that has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. Dlabtot (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

navweaps.com is an essential source for ship articles. Would people please take a minute to actually click on the Google Books link Ed gave above? So many respected, authoritative authors have chosen this website as an authoritative source for their books; read the snippets, please. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We have the sourcing requirements we have because we are trying to write a credible, authoritative encyclopedia. If you think our policies should be changed, the correct place to initiate that effort would be the talk page for those policies. Dlabtot (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that the wording of wp:SPS does not qualify this as a reliable source, not that people doubt the site itself, so lets see what we can do about that. Citing part of the policy: "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." "work" is this case can be seen as a general term for all the information Tony put on navweaps.com. "publish" has multiple definitions and the oxford dictionary([2]) gives among others: "print in a book, newspaper, or journal so as to make generally known". Combining those two, would a reliable source (such as one of the books found in Dank's googlebooks link) using navweaps.com as source for information not also count as a "publication" of Tony's work? And would a book giving a link to navweapons.com in a further reading section not also be seen as making his "work" generally known by printing in a book? Yoenit (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hope this isn't considered canvassing, but I consider Blueboar to be the expert par excellence in SPS issues and I've invited him to weigh in here. I have to admit that I drifted off to sleep somewhere around the 100th wiki-wide argument over the meaning of SPS. It would be a shame if Wikipedia's policies were to forbid the use of an irreplaceable source that's widely acknowledged as accurate in the most reliable sources in the subject matter. - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussion to amend the SPS policy at [3] to cover situation like this where SPS sources use reliable, verifiable sources themsleves.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thak you for the kind words Dank... I am not familiar with the site (or the topic), so I can not address the specifics... but as to policy, the solution to the debate seems to center on the question of whether the "established expert" clause of WP:SPS applies. If so, then the site can be considered reliable. Given what has been said here, I lean towards saying it does (but do not know enough to be definitive). I suggest that this be resolved by a consensus at the relevant project pages... if those who know ships and weaponry etc all agree that the site is reputable, allow it (even if you have to invoke IAR to do so)... if the reaction is negative, then don't use it.

Please remember that all our policies are meant to be flexible. The reason why we say an expert needs to be published is so that we can be comfortable that the person is an expert. But there are other methods of determining that. A broad consensus of knowledgeable editors is one of those other methods. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, as I explained on the WP:V Talk: page, based on both policy and practice, "expert" means "expert according to reliable sources". Not "expert according to often-anonymous Wikipedia editors". One of the main values of policy is to impose the broader Wikipedia consensus on small groups of editors with narrow interests and views, editing on specific pages, who may often "agree" to "local policies" that contradict Wikipedia policies, and, in general, damage the quality of the articles themselves (and the credibility of the project). Jayjg ^(talk) 21:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Navweaps.com is not an "irreplaceable source." After all, it is merely a convenient condensation of information found in printed works. It is, as Dr. Andrew Field (a British naval historian) noted in Warship 2006, a "valuable site", but its lack of inline referencing and apparent reliance on one man must surely be an issue. I know enough knowledgeable editors on Wikipedia who make errors transcribing details out of books and never realise it; one must assume that the same has happened and happens with Mr. di Guilian, and with the details involved with naval wepaons the slightest inaccuracies just aren't acceptable. At any rate, editors would be better off getting a hold of the books which di Guilian tends to cite at the bottom of each gun page. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 10:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Two things, the first is that during my short career in battleship articles every book I have read has been inaccurate on at least two points. As a result I compare every number I find with as many sources as I can find and navweaps.com has not been wrong yet. I therefore disagree with the assumption that the website contains more errors than the sources he uses. Secondly, navweapons.com might not be technically an "irreplaceable source.", but this entire discussion was started because it is the only English source with correct information on Sovjet battleships, as english books about it use incorrect cold war data. Correct Russian sources exist and are used by Tony, but are near impossible for us to look up and verify. Yoenit (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The wonder of multiple references in association with inline referencing is that if the sources disagree you can list them all. As to Russian sources, either you know from OR that DiGuilian is right, or you've read the Russian literature on it, in which case you can use that? or you're assuming that he's right ... --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 11:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you got me there. I was just repeating the comment sturmvogel made earlier in this thread [4]. I don't do anything with russian ships or sources myself, so from me it is just an assumption that Russian sources are correct were American cold war stuff is not, which is not a valid argument. Yoenit (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we are all missing the point here. We need information that we know can meet the criteria for WP:RS and WP:V. Like it or not, navweapons does provide technical information on a scale that you would be hard pressed to find, and as an internet source, everybody with a modem and a computer is in a position to access the site. We must check our figures against other sources, why should this source be any different from our other sources? I fully intend to continue to rely on navweapons regardless of whether this panel rules against the site or not; since the issue seems to be with WP:SPS (no one has yet managed to produce on piece of evidence that the site fails WP:RS or WP:V; the best anyone has come up with so far is human error in translations which are not, strictly speaking, grounds for disqualification of the site) may I suggest that when citing navweapons we adopt a position that a double cite is required to confirm that at least one other source has the same material so as to avoid any issues with SPS in the future. Our navweapons doubters would then have proof the site and a secondary source agree with each other, our navweapons believers would be able to use the site to check figures and confirm information discovered through other means, and wikipedia as a whole would come out ahead by having more citations than necessary for the information present. To me, that's a full victory for all parties involved in this discussion, which goes a long way toward improving moral and productivity on site. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've got no problem with citing two sources, and I appreciate the attempt at fence-mending, Tom. I'll start a thread at WT:SHIPS to see if we can get consensus, and anyone interested in the issue is invited to weigh in. - Dank (push to talk) 20:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

since the issue seems to be with WP:SPS (no one has yet managed to produce on piece of evidence that the site fails WP:RS or WP:V Huh? WP:SPS is part of WP:V! WP:V says:

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.

The website creator in question fails this requirement, therefore the site fails WP:V. Period. QED. Don't use this source that fails WP:V in addition to sources that comply with WP:V; instead, just sources that comply with WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

23 books cite NavWeaps, including Warship, a premier publication.[5] How is that not being "published in the relevant field"? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I recommend a cool-down period; people have been talking past each other, and that's not improving. I thought that Tom offered a brilliant compromise, which has already had the effect of getting ship article editors to put a lot of effort into contrasting, comparing, and supporting the reliability of navweaps. Can we come back to this another time when we have better data? - Dank (push to talk) 12:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Dank, we have more than good enough data now, thanks. It still fails WP:SPS. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ed, in order to comply with WP:SPS and be considered an expert, Tony Digiulian must be published by reliable third-party publications. Where has Tony Digiulian been published, outside his website? Have articles written by him been published in a reliable book or journal? Being cited elsewhere is not relevant to this, he must be published. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, you have made it very clear your opinion is that navweaps.org does not meet the criteria for SPS to be a RS. However, do you truly believe the use of this site as a source would be harmful to Wikipedia? Keep in mind the following: The information on this website would allow the creation of dozens high quality naval weapon articles which don't exist yet, expansion of several dozen more and improvements to potentially thousands of ship articles. Yes this information is all taken from books, but some of those are very rare or in foreign languages, why do you think there is so much improvement possible on the subject? In addition the site points out several errors in standard textbooks on the subject, which we would otherwise not be allowed to include because of WP:OR. Yoenit (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not my "opinion" that "navweaps.org does not meet the criteria for SPS to be a RS". It simply does not, as is obvious from the plain wording of WP:SPS. And the question on this board is not whether sources "would be harmful to Wikipedia", but rather whether or not they satisfy WP:V and WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Jayjg. Dlabtot (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, this is absurd. So far, every editor involved with the subject of naval weaponry has agreed that the website in question is expert and reliable enough, so why don't we just go with the obvious IAR conclusion? Policy for policy's sake is going to hurt the encyclopedia if this valuable source is labelled as unreliable by reducing citations to his accurate figures (some of which aren't realistically obtainable elsewhere) to nothing. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If you imagine that Wikipedia's credibility is in any way harmed by the inability of people to use personal websites as sources, there's little more to say. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that being "published" in the policy could include having one's work cited for fact many times. For instance, think of an expert on a particular topic who's consistently interviewed as such by the media. Aren't his opinions being published by the media organization? Isn't he being recognized as an expert? Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You could say that, but it would be neither accurate, nor comply with policy. If you want to propose other ways sources can qualify as "experts", feel free to do so at the relevant policy page. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

When I first saw Navweaps during a GA review, I have to admit I thought it had a touch of the amateurish about it, and lets face it; it does. Clearly the author isn’t an expert on the latest trends of web design, but that isn’t something to hold against him or something to use to argue against his ability to condense information presented in other sources. It can be incredibly difficult to reconcile wp:verify with wp:rs sometimes and this looks like one of those cases, but the fact that the website’s data is directly referenced in so many offline sources satisfies me. It is very verifiable (because other reliable sources use it) and I personally think that makes the site as a whole useable. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It could be possible to do a double cite, if a particular Navweaps article cites only one or two sources. For example (navweaps author, city, URL), citing ( source, publisher, city, date, ISBN ) and ( russian source, city, date, OCLC ). Of course, if some of the MILHIST editors know the author of Navweaps perhaps they could persuade him to join WP. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, it wouldn't, because of the WP:SPS policy, as explained above. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sinodefence.com

Does the Sinodefence.com website meet WP:RS? Mjroots2 (talk) 05:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The website seems genuine and well established, but is not linked to any organization and it remains unclear who is behind it. However, it is used as a source for information on the Chinese military by government reports [6] and scores 188 hits on google scholar, including a large number of academic journals [7], so I think it is reliable. Yoenit (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Dawei Xia: A long-time researcher on the Chinese military and the Asian military balance, he is the editor and founder of SinoDefence.com, an online information source covering the latest developments in Chinese military capabilities. He is also a special correspondent for Jane's Defence Weekly and Jane's Military Vehicles and Logistics." From http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/royalnavy/pen/pen2009.html (and okay, that may itself be an unreliable source, granted). There is only one hit on the name "Dawei Xia" on janes.com, but then I imagine most of Jane's's content is behind a paywall. So while not conclusive evidence it adds a bit of credibility to Sinodefence.com in that the founder is clearly trusted enough to write for a very reliable source on defence issues. Barnabypage (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Just an opinion It appears to be an amateur self-published website although it says This is a commercial website based in the United Kingdom. We do not have any link with the Chinese Government or military authority. but the servers are in the Netherlands. Perhaps the commercial side is a link to selling books on the related subjects. MilborneOne (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless we know that Sinodefence.com is run by the CIA, MI-6 or the Chinese military-industrial complex, we should give them the benefit of the doubt. It looks like a well put together site, run by people who seem to be interested in the Chinese military.

That they sell books should not disqualify them. Many non-profits run an Amazon bookstore to defray some of the costs. Jane’s sells very expensive books and reports.

The selection of the books appears to be balanced (they have everything vaguely connected with the topic.)

The reporting appears balanced also. Check the comments on the “Hot Spots” and you won’t find the shrill demagoguery from other sources.

Where a server is located doesn’t matter. This is Europe, a free market.

Sinodefence.com is not blocked from China. Apparently, the Chinese government has no issues with them.--BsBsBs (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to meet the general requirements for a reliable source: demonstrating a reliable publication process, or having authors whose authority is established. In its favour is the number of independent works which cite it. Perhaps this indicates "a reputation for ... accuracy", one of the qualifiers for reliable third party sources. It's a pity that the website remains silent on its own sources and the process of editorial oversight it uses prior to publication. As a matter of accuracy, the servers geolocate to Greece – the domain registration is handled via privacyproject.org which has an address in the Netherlands. But as Bs³ says, that's not really relevant to its reliability. --RexxS (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

My hunch is that this is the closest thing we have on Chinese military that even approaches RS standards, because PLA is not a transparent organization. Sinodefence just does what everybody else does when analyzing Chinese military, which is gathering open source intelligences off Chinese internet forum and state media and tries to come up with the best guesses. Given that it has been cited by numerous academic sources, Sinodefence is the best guesses you can find on PLA nowadays. Jim101 (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no indication here regarding editorial oversight or a reputation for accuracy. It appears to be Just Another Website. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There are indications. The material on the website has been widely referenced by other academic and military sources. It is hard to find a research paper on PLA modernization program that does not cite weapon information from Sinodefence. I don't understand why all the fuss about internet freedom in China, Chinese agents or how the website should be run. If Sinodefence is considered as a trusted source by the US DOD in its annual evaluation of PLA, why is it not good enough for Wikipedia? Jim101 (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably because WP:RS focuses on the publication process and the reputation of the author, not on the use made of the source elsewhere. Perhaps that's something to take up at WT:RS? --RexxS (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have done so Yoenit (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the opinion of the DOD is relevant here, especially considering their well-known use of disinformation. Dlabtot (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant because it constitute as review of the source in a sense, which that the source is good enough for the use by intelligence and military experts on Chinese military. As for reputation of the author/source, how the source is used and reviewed by others is a strong indication of reputation. Jim101 (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree 100%. The US military has absolutely no credibility whatsoever in this context. Dlabtot (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Then you tell me which organization is more capable than the military that can review the military capability of PLA. Jim101 (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, that's irrelevant. Yes, the military branches of various governments have information-gathering capabilities, but that doesn't mean we look to them for guidance when judging the reliability of sources. We have guidelines and policies for that. Dlabtot (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

But you cannot drop the opinion of the military. With regards to PLA evaluation, their reports are the corner stone in PLA studies. And I believe the goal of those guidelines is to find the best source available for Wikipedia. Jim101 (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you are ignoring my point or if you just missed it, but you certainly haven't addressed it. Military and intelligence organizations can't be trusted to provide accurate information, even when they possess it. Dlabtot (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't care whether you believe the reports are the truth or not, that is besides the point. My point is that their reports are the corner stone in PLA studies due to their expertise. Unless you can provide proof that those DOD reports are falsified, arguing that governments lie is off topic. Jim101 (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't care whether it's the truth either. It's a question of verifiability. Military organizations aren't reliable secondary sources, they are primary sources with a reputation for inaccuracy and they can't therefore be reliable for judging the reliability of other sources. Dlabtot (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That is the catch. There are no secondary source for PLA after 2000. Which is why everybody flocking to the DOD report for information. Jim101 (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information. Dlabtot (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, an actual Argumentum ad Jimbonem. Didn't really believe they existed, but I guess you proved me wrong. Yoenit (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The point is not somehow less salient because it is Jimbo who originally made it. If there isn't reliable sourcing for something, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. The argument that a source that is not RS according to our policies and guidelines is usable "if no better sources exist" is specious. Dlabtot (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, even if we dropped DOD reports, there are still hundreds of other academic research papers on PLA that uses material from Sinodefence. I'm not saying the source is 100% reliable given the entire PLA study is based on guessing game, but it is fundamental enough in PLA study that it cannot just be ignored. Without context of the citation, all I can say is that use this source should be usable with caution unless better source comes by. Jim101 (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC) I'm conceding to the point that Sinodefence is not RS, but I'm very disappointed that in this case it only served to increase systemic bias within the project. Furthermore, I urge everyone to develop a workable citation tracking method on identifying reliable sources, which is a valid method in academic research writing but fails to work here. It is somewhat unsettling to see an established and the only English source within an underrepresented topic fail WP:RS due to red tapes. Jim101 (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Dlabtot: Can you please clarify your position for me? Are you saying that Sinodefence.com is not a reliable source? Or are you making the point that the US military shouldn't be used for judging the reliability of sources? Or both? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Mostly the latter. I haven't done the work myself to justify a definitive opinion on the former question. Dlabtot (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

SinoDefense.com is cited by Reuters[8], Associated Press[9] and The Telegraph.[10] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, Bloomberg[11] and Aljazeera.[12] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Pointless to list sources that cite Sinodefence anymore, since it is just beating a dead horse. As I stated before, finding a research paper on PLA that does not cite Sinodefence for history and information on weapon developed after 1990s is almost impossible. The question is whether this fact alone is good enough to establish "reputation for accuracy"? According to the guideline, this is not good enough. Jim101 (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The sources certainly show that the site is notable enough to cite in an article, with attribution, just as those sources do. Would that same approach suffice for a Wikipedia article? (i.e., as one of those sources does, "According to sinodefence.com, a British-based Web site specializing in Chinese military affairs, ....". First Light (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That depends on the context of how this source is used. If it is used to cite Chinese naval, air, missile force and their equipments, there are sources better than Sinodefence. If it is used to cite Chinese military equipment statistics, then attribution when appropriate. If it is used to cite Chinese modern ground forces and its equipments, then attribution is meaningless because there are no other sources. Jim101 (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Folks, this discussion is getting ridiculous, and it's soon approaching WP:LAME candidate status. Disclaimer: I have no dog in this hunt. I know nothing about the Chinese military. I never edited an article about the Chinese military. Disclosure: I live in Beijing, and I like it. Someone explain this to me: The founder of Sinodefence is a special correspondent of Jane's. The Pentagon sees sinodefence worthy of note, so do Reuters, The Telegraph, Bloomberg, and, if the above is true, just about any research paper on the PLA. However, due to some twisted logic, a Wikipedia article is not allowed to cite sinodefence? It must wait until some scribe at Reuters or Bloomberg picks something from sinodefence, then it becomes anointed and quotable? If these harsh requirements would be applied to all WP articles, then we could close WP. I'm a journalist by training. One thing was drummed into me: Go straight to the source. As it's unlikely that the General Staff of the PLA will give us details (and per the above wicked logic, they would not be a reliable source, after all, all governments lie, they would be a primary source, and asking for the launch codes would amount to the dreaded Original Research) Sinodefence is the best we've got. FYI, someone thinks Sinodefence is the PLA. sinodefence redirects to People's Liberation Army. While hairs were split, nobody bothered to look THAT up. Someone better head right over to People's Liberation Army and delete the following sentence: "SinoDefence.com: Leading online source of information and news on China's military power and defence industry, including weapon systems, organisations, doctrines, etc." Come on guys, don't we have better things to do? Or is this an exercise to take the "leading online source" out of the game, so that all articles on the topic can wallow in supposition and mediocrity? -- BsBsBs (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: I have read WP:RS with great interest. I have learned that the only really reliable sources are academic and peer-reviewed publications, but even those come with warnings. I learned that “Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable. However, it is understood that even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors.” I was about to delete about 90 percent of Wikipedia, when I also learned that this is a guideline only, and that I should apply common sense. I read the last sentence with a great amount of relief, because I dreaded seeing so many good articles go. -- BsBsBs (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we've reached consensus regarding the reliability of this site. My own analysis was inconclusive. It appears to have some reputation for accuracy and fact-checking.

Would any other editors like to weigh in here? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It has to be judged on case by case basis due to the complex/semi-secretive nature of PLA studies. The current dispute over this source is at Chengdu J-10, in which there seems to be an agreement that Sinodefence should not be used if a better source is available. Jim101 (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The current sourcing dispute on Chengdu J-10 over Sinodefence has been resolved by replacing the source with Jane's Information Group. So I presume the discussion is resolved here as well? Jim101 (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

B3, in fact, even "academic and peer-reviewed publications" aren't "really reliable". They often contradict each other, so one or other must be wrong, though of course Wikipedia isn't usually in a position to say which is wrong. Peter jackson (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nor should it. See the lead sentence of WP:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, usually, as I said. But occasionally one can find the vast majority agreeing, & in that case policy (WP:DUE) is to ignore outliers. Peter jackson (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can set hard rules about when using Sinodefence is appropriate. If it is the only source available it certainly reliable enough. The site is clearly more solid based than a selfpublishing site. It should never be preferred if someone has gone to the trouble to find out what Jane's says. It would be be worth suggesting that people explicitly flag up that the source is Sinodefence in the text so the reader is warned and is able to make up their own mind as to how much credence to give it.Sinodefence does have one advantage over Jane's. Part of the Chengdu J-10 dispute is the suggestion that Sinodefence is being misquoted - something that is easy to check. If a Pov-warrior wants to be really sneaky they can quote Jane's falsely - which people are less likely to check for themselves. While some sources are clearly off limits deciding when a source is reliable enough has to be done on a page by page basis. The idea that Wikipedia can legislate away pov waring and edit waring with hard rules is an illusionDejvid (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Being "the only source available" does not any way confer, or indicate reliability. In fact it is completely irrelevant to the discussion of reliability. Dlabtot (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. There is a threshold that a source has to meet to be considered at all. But a source that is over the threshold doesn't become 100% reliable - in fact no source is 100% reliable. Other people have given reasons why it meets the minimum threshold and I would agree with them (such as the 188 hits on google scholar -189 when I checked). But it is only a little over the threshold and so should be used with caution. But that's like any source - it just needs to be used with a bit more caution than some others. Lets not consider ourselves that he reliability of sources is ever other than fuzzy.Dejvid (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Judging from your comments on government sources you seem to believe in some 100% pure source of information. Academics - pure seekers after truth? Always? Governments sometimes lie. Sheesh - hold the front page! That doesn't mean that the assessment of government agencies doesn't count for a lot more than a Fred Blogs who lives across the street from me. Are Sinodefence assessments of the kind that can be seriously - yes. Are they the truth? Well, Wikipedia doesn't deal in "the truth" does it.Dejvid (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be a mistake to assert that I believe anything other than those things I have actually stated. I certainly don't hold the bizarre viewpoint you ascribe to me. Dlabtot (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I was responding to this statement of yours: "If it is the only source available it certainly reliable enough." If your point in saying that was not "If it is the only source available it certainly reliable enough", then what was your point in saying that? Dlabtot (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You were asserting that I was saying something I didn't mean and it seems I have gone and done the same for you - this is the Internet - pretty much par for the course. (But what am I supposed to make of "US military has absolutely no credibility whatsoever in this context"?) Anyway I do still suspect that you want sources to be reliable or not where as in fact sources are varying degrees of reliability. Just because we decide a source is reliable enough doesn't mean its perfect. It is pointless too look for perfection - we should be satisfied with good enough and not kid ourselves that we are ever going to doing more than making do with good enough. If you start seeking perfection you risk kidding yourself you've found it.Dejvid (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You said: "If it is the only source available it certainly reliable enough."[13] That's what I responded to. Now you are claiming that I am "asserting that I was saying something I didn't mean". All I did was quote your exact statement and express my profound and complete disagreement with it. I made no assertion. Dlabtot (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Continuing to tell me that I hold viewpoints that I do not in fact hold is extremely rude, Please stop. Dlabtot (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to interpret what you are saying what you are really saying. I'm still uncertain what you are objecting to. I guess you are misunderstanding me by doing the opposite. You have been focusing on one line which was a secondary point and to focus on that misses my point entirely. What I was trying to say was not so much "We have to use this source because it is all that we have." Rather it is "Okay, you folks above have shown it passes muster for Wikipedia but lets be aware that it has weaknesses and whether it is the right source to use has to be on a case by case basis." I probably have suggested that I understand your point of view when I am clearly guessing. I apologize for that but not for the inevitable misunderstanding. When I say I suspect you think x, please try and not take it as an accusation but an opportunity for you to say no, what I think is something quite different. This is the Internet - a very inadequate form of communication. If we were taking face to face we would realize what each other was saying within 5 minutes.Dejvid (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll try a real case scenario, the article PF-98 to frame this debate somewhat....

Currently I can find on other RS to confirm the fact that this weapon exists, this weapon is widely used by PLA, and this weapon is capable of defeating all western main battle tanks. Now in order to make this article more complete, I need the weapon's design history, the weapon's functionality, the weapon's performance statistics, and how this weapon is deployed among PLA infantry units. However, given that this weapon did not see any combat, and not important enough for any other sources to pay attention due to the fact it is just a RPG as oppose to a nuke/plane/ship, there are current no information on this weapon from other RS. Now the question is, can I use Sinodefence, which is a notable weapon database on Chinese weapons, to fill the information gap? Jim101 (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, of course you could, due to notability alone, with in-article attribution (which doesn't belittle the source for the vast majority of readers, by the way). Even without in-article attribution, my view is still yes, but I think that one is still too contentious yet for consensus. First Light (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've been away from this for a few days and this is one of the more bizarre arguments I've seen at RSN. From what I can tell,

• it has some connection to defensetalk.com, which I also can't find much about, but both are well-cited in Google Books and Scholar.
• try Googling the founder's name with Janes, not just within the Janes domain. You will see more citations, including many government reports. The Janes site has almost everything behind a paywall.
• at the very least this is an expert-run SPS, as being published in Janes should qualify.
• for whether it's a true secondary source we'd need more information.
• while it's good to question where a news source that offers information about intelligence topics is coming from, it's inappropriate to make allegations that "it's run by XYZ" agency.
• the thread about DoD "disinformation" was off-base. For instance, it would be appropriate to cite a US military manual that had diagrams on how to recognize other forces' aircraft.
• if this article also ran in Jane's then it's possible to put both cites in the footnote.
• otherwise, it may be appropriate to attribute as "Sinodefence.com reported ABC"

Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not confirmed in this thread that Dawei Xia founded the website. Only rjerrard.co.uk claimed that Dawei Xia founded the website. Unless someone got a copy of Seaforth World Naval Review 2010 to read the fine print, Sinodefence is anonymously published. Jim101 (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the milhist buffs will eventually buy the book, it's about $30USD at Amazon. It's also a new series so it might start showing up in public libraries. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked this over and this is kind of an odd situation. Unless we get something out of the Seaforth book or a specialist publication we haven't seen yet, the site is anonymously run. On the other hand, there are many books, news articles, and other reports that cite Sinodefence for fact.

• Sinodefence is also known as "Chinese Defence Today". Googling those names leads to citations from Bloomberg, Defense Industry Daily, Houston Chronicle, FOX News, UPI, USA Today, and many books and academic papers. There's many reports citing it from the .mil domain, and even this report from the RAND Corporation, A new direction for China's defense industry.[14] If we cite Sinodefence, we'll be in good company.
• On the other hand, it's very difficult to tell who publishes the site, there's no brick-and-mortar contact info, no names of who runs it. Even a Netcraft lookup shows its domain name registered through privacyprotect.org. That's pretty discreet for a news organization.
• There's other sites that report on intelligence and military matters but still have editors and contact info. Stratfor, Intelligence Online, Globalsecurity.org, etc. So this does bother me a little.
• To reconcile this with our policies, we might consider it a situation where even if we can't see the editorial process, their opinion may be notable, which means if we cite it, cite with attribution.
• That's how other RS's handle it. For example, Bloomberg attributes it as "according to a report on Sinodefence.com, a Web site that tracks the PLA"[15], and USA Today as the "website sinodefence.com, which specializes in Chinese military affairs"[16] Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for such through analysis. I guess now it is a matter of NPOV, given that a large number of PLA related articles that lacked coverage in other RS are based purely on Sinodefence. Jim101 (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that nails it too, as much as it can be nailed. First Light (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Boxun.com

Is http://boxun.us/news/publish regarded a reliable source? --BsBsBs (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If our article Boxun.com is accurate, then no, because anyone can submit news reports. There may well be exceptions, e.g. articles signed by named writers. Please post details of any specific case you are concerned about. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 China Labour unrest section "Organization and analysis". Two sources by Boxun. A cursory review of Boxun.com gives me the impression that they are not favorable of China. And some of the news look like they are made up. -- BsBsBs (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not reliable. Points currently sourced to Boxun have probably been made in the mainstream Western press, and an alternative reliable source could perhaps be found. Something that jumped out of the page at me was that there is a direct quotation from a Financial Times journalist, but the footnote takes us to the World Socialist website. This should be sorted out. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Our article on Boxun.com also says "the site has a team of editors to confirm and verify the contents". That sounds like possible RS to me. However it's more likely we'd be citing Boxun as a primary source for something discussed in less specialized media. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

We'd need to know what kind of editorial oversight there is to make the determination. My view is that it is potentially a useful source of information, but probably not citeable in the way we need for our articles, due to its reliance on often anonymous citizen journalists.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

All Boxun sourced material (along with World Socialist cites) have been removed from the article. I view neither as reliable souces. Both don't survive the I know it when I see it test,the Duck test, and the Elephant test -- BsBsBs (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

We're still debating Boxun's editorial and fact-checking process, so I understand if it's not your first choice. The World Socialist Web Site may be acceptable as an advocacy RS, and their opinion may be notable on some topics, though I would like to see if what was cited to WSWS could be found someplace else. What was the last revision of the article to cite them? Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Caesarion section

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Are the following sources reliable? Articles include Son of God and Cleopatra VII.

1. http://www.tyndalehouse.com/egypt/ptolemies/cleopatra_vii.htm
2. http://www.roman-empire.net/articles/article-028.html
3. http://www.tyndalehouse.com/Egypt/ptolemies/ptolemy_xv.htm
4. http://www.livius.org/ps-pz/ptolemies/ptolemy_xv_caesarion.html

• Sources 1 and 3 seem to be from a "Christian community" located at Cambridge University, but I can't find any academic credentials.
• Source 2 is contributed; even if http://www.roman-empire.net were generally a reliable source, there is no evidence that outside contributions are edited.
• Source 4 is self-published ("we prefer to write our articles ourselves", from the FAQ], but might be allowable if Jona Lendering is a recognized expert. I see some evidence of that (his site is referenced by scholarly publications), but little on his credentials or accuracy. (At least one reference in our articles says that his scholarship is questionable, but his references may shed additional light on subjects.) It also doesn't seem to support the claims it's being used to support, but that's a different issue.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a commonly known fact that they (Cleopatra and Marcus) mixed Egyptian deities with Greek and Roman for they to be personifications of the deities. Especially Cleopatra and Caesarion, a love, fertility and virginity goddesses Isis, Hathor, Aphrodite Venus with a son personification of sun (Horus) a child of the virgin goddess.

It was a common practice among the emperors to mix deities, for example Amon-Ra, Or Isis-Ra-El. And it was practiced by the emperors to form trinity's, like Ptah, Amun and Re, and Osiris, Isis and Horus.

Caesarions birth names were "Heir of the God who saves", "Chosen of Ptah", "Carrying out the rule of Ra" or "Sun of Righteousness" and "Living Image of Amun", translations vary, but he was a savior, a chosen one, a son of god, a personification of the sun and a living god.

Should be also taken into account as a source that Julius Caesar placed a golden statue of Cleopatra to the holiest places of Rome next to a Venus goddess, as equivalent, clearly indicating the future status of Cleopatra, as mentioned by ancient historians. Julius Caesar was proclaimed as god by the Roman senate and gens Julia was thought to be descendants of Venus Genetrix, a Roman pantheon goddess.

Cleopatra was on to create a new universal kingdom, first with Julius Caesar later on with Marc Anthony, ranging from Britannia and Germania to North-Africa and from Hispania to Parthia to the borders of India, with a new religion, and all this was called the "new age" or "new era".

WillBildUnion (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Eh, what are you going on about? This the reliable sources noticeboard. We don't care about "common knowledge" or "common practice". Drawing a conclusion from the placement of a statue would be original research and for your last statement you don't even attempt to provide an explanation. Please read wP:V and WP:RS and make sure you understand what we do here. Yoenit (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

In reply to the original poster, I have my doubts about the reliability of any of these sources. Source 1 and 3 have excellent online citations, so it should be easy to link whatever information they support to the primary sources behind it. Source 2 doesn't have inline citations, but still a nice list of references to look for. Source 4 is just some website. Given the amount of material on this and the fact that most of it should be in the public domain by now I am sure better sources are available, look on gutenberg or something. Yoenit (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Oke, lets ignore my previous comment which was a bit harsh and try again, as I see you are obviously a new user and therefore not yet aware of the policies I cited. The idea of wp:verifiability is that anything you write in an article must be backed up by a source. You can't just say something is "common knowledge", you have to show that a historian wrote so, preferably in a book or academic journal. You also can't draw any conclusions, for example from the placement of a statue, as that would be original research. Instead you have to show that a historian already made this conclusion. I am unsure what statements you are trying to back up, but I do know that there are a very large amount of historical books about Cleopatra and any information you might want to write is covered by several of them. If is it not, there is a very large chance the information is false. Yoenit (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I added a book, a biography of Cleopatra by emeritus professor Wolfgang Schuller, an academic research and who also in the book quotes earlier historians, to the Cleopatra page. What I've written about Cleopatra, donations of Alexandria, Caesarion are sourced by the book. But yes I know I can do better with the sourcing and will do that, I just didn't expect to get hounded by useradmins as they repeatedly deleted my edits. I haven't really provided any new information and certainly not original research. I will get the ancient books and source all.WillBildUnion (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect your edits are being deleted in part because some of them are rather badly written and difficult to decipher (sorry!), but mainly because there is a suspicion that you or your sources are promoting a fringe theory that Caesarion and Cleopatra were some sort of prefigurarion of Jesus and Mary. If your edits did not seem to tend thatr way, there probably would be fewer problems. Paul B (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Tyndale House (Cambridge) is an eminently respectable mainstream academic organization of the highest reputation associated with Cambridge University (a number of specialized religious organizations as houses of this sort are associated with Cambridge and Oxford, though not literally part of the University -- in many cases because their religious sponsorship is not Church of England). I would consider this group publishes on the internet to be usable as a RS,. (note that Tyndale House (publisher) is an unrelated conservative US religious publisher, one of good reputation, but not remotely in the same academic league. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Tyndale House linked to in the sources above is not Tyndale House (Cambridge), but the Christian Tyndale House (publisher). Paul B (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid the Tyndale House in those sources clearly is Tyndale House (Cambridge). If you (DGG) say it's reliable, I'll have to withdraw my objection to those sources. The editor is misquoting both references, but that's a separate issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. My mistake. It is a specifically Christian publisher, though. Paul B (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed similar sources here [17]. The Roman-net 'article' was clearly a student essay "submitted to Professor Mumford, NMC 371, University of Toronto, March 27 2002". I am not convinced yet about Tyndale House - who is Chris Bennett? Our article, written apparently by someone with a close connection to it, simply says it is a library. No mention of publishing, and I see no reason to think that this is not in effect a self-published article. Dougweller (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm also dubious about how this Tyndale House is related to the Cambridge site. While tyndalehouse.com does redirect to the college, tyndalehouse.com/egypt/ leads to a description page by Chris Bennett and some FAQs where Mr. Bennett says that he has no qualifications in the area, "except that I'm interested in it, am able to research and to reason for myself, have a reasonable ability to read French, a marginal ability to read German, and can struggle through some Italian and Latin". He also mentions that some of his results contradict published sources. On the other hand, a Chris Bennett has published a scholarly article a similar subject here.--Slp1 (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It was A Nobody (talk · contribs) who added [18] which says ""was planning a war of revenge that was to array all the East against Rome, establish herself as empress of the world at Rome and inaugurate a new universal kingdom." But Syme (whose quote this is) makes it clear that this was just a contemporary belief, and he carries on to suggest that she may have had the much more limited desire "to secure and augment her Ptolemaic kingdom under the protection of Rome". I've deleted my comment suggestingt another editor did this.Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

[19] states "We also provide mirrored space for significant projects from outside Tyndale House:" and includes the Ptolomy dynastic information as one of the significant projects from outside Tyndale House. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see that. Do we care who Chris Bennett is then? The point being we might want to attribute an opinion to him. Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I would assume Chris Bennett of the Tyndale House Publish mirrors the work of Cambridge university. Perhaps this needs further clarification by the content updater/mirrorer.

I will see what I can do to contact the University of Toronto, perhaps they have update material since the essay to professor by the student. Yes the student paper is "abstraction" but it is coming from scholarly source.

Some of the topics discussed are sourced by Wolfgang Schuller emeritus professor of Konstanzin university, in a biography of Cleopatra (queen of three cultures) ISBN 3498063642.WillBildUnion (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We still cannot use a student paper. We can use attributed quotes from Wolfgang Schuller with page numbers, etc. - we'd need that much detail in this case. I have no idea what you means 'mirrors the work of Cambridge University'. Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, the JSTOR link for Chris Bennett is to the Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt (ARCE) which is ARCE's scholarly publication. So that Chris Bennett will have had academic qualifications (someone with JSTOR access could look it up??), this won't have been a student paper. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC) ETA This is the same Chris Bennett. His genealogy site was originally on geocities, and seems to have been offered mirror space on Tyndale House more recently Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Not so sure about the academic qualifications. I said above Bennett himself says in his FAQs that he has no qualifications in the area.tyndalehouse.com/egypt/. I have checked his paper in JSTOR, for example, and unlike the other papers in the same issue, no academic affiliation is noted. I think Mr. Bennett actually may be an enthusiastic (and successful/respected?) amateur. That's not to say we can't use his work; if he has had his work in peer-reviewed journals he may meet the grade as a expert whose self-published work we can use. --Slp1 (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It certainly matters what Bennett's qualifications are, if we're using him to reference material that contradicts what appears in a demonstrably expert source. If he has other peer-reviewed or published work out there, that's fine, but we should avoid the website if it contradicts what appears in Syme. In reading through the pages, though, I don't see where Bennett asserts that Cleopatra was trying to establish a "new universal kingdom" or that Caesarion was proclaimed "son of god". Am I missing something?--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I happened to stumble across this discussion by accident. I hope I can clarify a couple of the questions that have come up about who I am and what is the nature of my relationship with Tyndale House.

First, I am not a degreed researcher in this area, but the description above that I am a "successful/respected? amateur" is correct. Academically, I have been a Visiting Scholar in the History Department at UCSD for a number of years, which gives me access to research resources. In addition to the JARCE paper mentioned listed above, I have published papers on the Second Intermediate Period in Gottinger Miszellen and Agypten und Levante, and on the Ptolemaic dynasty and Hellenistic chronology in Ancient Society, the Classical Quarterly, the Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bibliotheca Orientalis and Acta Orientalia. Most of these are listed in the Bibliography on my website. Much of the material that is in them also appears on the website in preliminary form. Two of my papers are co-authored with respected scholars in their respective fields. The website is becoming quoted as a authoritative source in scholarly works. See e.g. [[20]]; search under my name.

As for Tyndale House, it is indeed Tyndale House (Cambridge) not Tyndale House (publisher) which hosts my website, albeit on a US server since there were FTP problems with their UK one. The website is hosted there because they offered me the space. They told me that they felt the research was worthy of a permanent home other than Geocities. Neither they nor I have a religious agenda behind the site. The question of my religious views has never come up with them. The website only represents my own views on historical, genealogical and chronological matters, not those of Tyndale House or Cambridge University.

I certainly do not promote or endorse the view that Cleopatra was trying to establish a "new universal kingdom" or that Caesarion was proclaimed "son of god". I cite Syme at a couple of points. He was a fine scholar, but not perfect, and a product of his time. I do not personally regard disagreement with him as grounds for disbarment as a WP source, but my experience is that WP can be a little idiosyncratic in such matters.

Hope this helps --Chris Bennett (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Chris, that certainly helps. The issue has become convoluted. It appears that your site and the other sources were being used to source such things as the idea that Cleopatra was trying to forge a "new universal kingdom". As this directly contradicts what appears in other reliable sources, it's a huge red flag. However, your site says no such thing, you were being misquoted. As such the whole problem really dissolves. A self published source should not be used for extraordinary claims like this, but when they don't make those claims to begin with, it's a totally moot point.

At this stage, I think that on the strength of your (Chris Bennet) other published materials in the field your website is easily within the range of a self published source we can potentially use. And of course your published material is usable. And I think we'll all agree that no source should be used to support claims they don't actually make.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

YouTube

If an article says something to the effect of "Respectable academic X has made statement Y in fancy academic context Z", would a YouTube video of X saying Y in Z qualify as a reliable source? Eugene (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In some circumstances. The problem is a lot of YouTube stuff is effectively a copyvio. However, if he said it on the Foo Show, and YouTube has a legitimate clip, or if he decided to make his own vid arguing his case that dinosaurs are thin at either end, then it would be a RS that he made the statement. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So as long as there's no copyright violation, I'm in the clear? Eugene (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As long as its not a copyvio, and no-one could argue that it's been put together in a computer, it could be reliable evidence that he said it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If someone grabbed a clip from the Foo Show and put it on Youtube, a copyright violation is perpetrated. However, that copyright violation is between the violator and the holder of the copyright. As long as its a true copy, the copyright violation does not denigrate the source. If you make a photocopy of a page of a book ( I know, fair use, maybe ..) you can cite it. -- BsBsBs (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, should perhaps have been clearer. Wikipedia has a general policy of not linking to YouTube, because the clips are usually either a copyvio, or a user upload of uncertain provenance, and so not a reliable source. Editors who wish to use YouTube as a source have to make a good case for it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned specifically with a particular video on YouTube. A pair of authors had a book launch and, at the launch, the authors were introduced by an academic who made some complementary statements concerning one of the authors. The other author involved recorded the event and posted the footage on YouTube in his own channel. So, would that qualify as a RS for the academic's comments? Eugene (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not that YouTube videos are usually copyright violations (and shame on everyone for getting distracted by that red herring). The issue is that YouTube videos are user-generated content so it's very difficult to establish their reliability. In general, we're only safe assuming reliability when the video has been uploaded by the copyright owner because that seems to be a really good reason to believe the video is reliable. It's way too easy to edit videos for us to be edited for us to trust most videos on YouTube. ElKevbo (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If you know the show, you can do a bit of research and find out when the episode of the showed aired. Then, you should use {{cite episode}} to cite it to the show, not to YouTube. However, there are times when a YouTube link could be helpful, or a citation would be allowed, normally when the video is by a YouTube Partner. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a show; it's a recording of a conference. So, good enough? Eugene (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No news coverage of said conference? Conferences are somewhat iffy if they're not televised; I don't know the rules for citing in those cases. Sceptre ^(talk)

Doesn't matter. The essential question remains: Is this a reliable source? Are we reasonably confident that the video is an accurate recording depicting what occurred at the conference? ElKevbo (talk) 04:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

In general, no, youtube is not a reliable source. As one illustration, what if a speaker says "the earth is flat" and a minute later says, "no! I meant, the earth is round"? Someone could upload the video, omitting the correction, then add to an article "person X stated that the earth is flat". That is similar to quote mining, and is why secondary sources are recommended to establish someone's position on an issue. If the statement in the video is so trivial that a good source is not warranted, the statement should not be in the article. If the statement in the video is at all controversial, it needs a better source (and if no such source is available, the issue is probably of low encyclopedic importance). Johnuniq (talk) 05:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It depends. What's the video, and what is it being used to cite? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the video and it would be used to source the statement, "Thus when Onora O'Neil, then the president of the British Academy, introduced Polkinghorne at an event hosted by the Royal Society centering on his book, Questions of Truth, she remarked, 'who better to write on the questions about God, Science and Religion'." I've hesitated to be this specific in the past since I worry that ideology will now cloud the discussion. Eugene (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that would come under 'professional courtesy' rather than 'reliable source' - much like a supportive quote/testimonial on a book cover by an academic colleague. It's not especially meaningful or notable, in other words. If the same statement were made in an academic journal article, it might be different. Just my opinion. First Light (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on this, it doesn't appear to be a copyvio, so it can be linked to. It doesn't sound like an extraordinary statement, and you've used attribution, so I think it's reliable for that statement. I don't know what it is "thus"ing, so there might be WP:WEIGHT issues or something, but it appears reliable for sourcing that statement. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It would have saved everyone a lot of time if you'd just posted those specifics in the first place, as per the instructions at the top of this page. I don't see an RS problem with that cite. Dlabtot (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Depends who uploaded it. If the video was uplaoded, or at least linked to, by a reliable source or the commentator himself, then we can be pretty sure its not a copyvio and it's not fake. If it was just some random video those could be concerns. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Youtube videos are generally not reliable, and should be avoided. They are also, as appears to be the case here, primary sources, which raises a whole set of other issues (e.g. WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE). Jayjg ^(talk) 04:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It's reliable, (despite?) the two comments above that haven't looked into the issue. It may have NOR, UNDUE, or whatever problems. I guess they didn't look at my posts links.

I don't think we can say "Youtube videos are generally not reliable, and should be avoided." There may be 1 billion youtube videos, of which 1 thousand are reliable (or whatever), but there is also probably 1 billion web pages, of which 1 thousand are reliable. I think youtube videos are many more times than normal likely to be reliable, and many more times than normal likely to be a copyvio. It's complicated, and I'm disappointed with all the knee jerk the source receives. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This recently came up at the village pump (again) but the conversation died. So I started the bare bones of an essay by pulling info from guidelines and thoughts from previous discussions there. I have never created an essay on Wikipedia before but the info is currently in my sandbox. If anyone wants to run with it or has any ideas that would be cool. Currently we have a guideline for YouTube in the External links section but it does not apply to inline citations. There is a gap that needs to be filled.Cptnono (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I cannot support something that says that youtube is "typically not appropriate". People like to think of it as a website, but it's more a web publishing format (video). Create a guideline that doesn't default to non-RS, and you'll be moving towards where we should go. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That actually is not a bad call! WP:YOUTUBE (external links) doesn't even go that far so I might have been over generalizing.Cptnono (talk) 08:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Jayig is being rhetorically and provocatively underspecific. YouTube videos have a wide variety of sources: individuals, corporations, PR firms, news organizations, goverments, political organizations, NGOs, etc. WP has policies about those sources already, which should in my opinion be extended to YouTube videos from those sources as subclassed policies; those policies should not treat YouTube as any kind of source, but merely as yet another archive of individual works, many of which are arguably from reliable sources. I had a run-in with an editor over citing an Associated Press YouTube video report http://www.youtube.com/user/AssociatedPress , which was quite silly, because the editor didn't even look at the video's page to vet the source, he just deleted the citation because it was from YouTube. Silliness! It wasn't "from YouTube", it was from The Associated Press. --Lexein (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know the AP had a channel. That actually looks like a very good use of YoutTube. I modified the essay draft I started on if anyone else is interested in filling the gap. I still think it is unclear to an editors hen they should and should not use YouTube.Cptnono (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any good reason for this to be an RS. If it was an official transcript of a conference there would be no issue, and a video is equally as authentic. However, for other reasons, I don't think it is suitable for use in the article. As has been said above, it is a matter of common courtesy for the chair of a panel like this to say nice things about the invited speakers. It is not, therefore, a notable opinion. It fails WP:N and is also WP:SELFPUB, because the statement is really made on behelf of the conference the speaker is representing, as is likely to be self-serving. You wouldn't expect her to say: "To be honest, he was the fourth person we asked and he's not a great speaker, but please give him a chance". --FormerIP (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Serbian sources

In the articles Oralno doba and Marko Živić Show, authored Serbian media sources are being used for citations.

For Oralno doba:

1. Press Magazin: "Oralno Doba Uz Anu I Cecu" - Google translation: "Oral and Age with Anu Cecu"
2. Blic (newspaper): "„Oralno doba“ kao kabare" - Google translation: "Oral period as a cabaret"
3. Press Magazin: "Lane skinut sa Foksa!" - Google translation: "LANE removed from the FOX!"
4. Politika: "Lane i prijatelji" - Google translation: "Lane & Friends"

For Marko Živić Show:

1. Blic (newspaper): "Ukinut „Marko Živić šou“" - Google translation: "Terminated Marko Zivic show"
2. Kurir: "UĆUTKAN!: Televizija Foks bez logičnog objašnjenja ukinula šou Marka Živića" - Google translation: "Keep quiet!: Fox Television without logical explanation Marko Zivic show canceled"

While yes, the limitations of Google Translate are to be acknowledged, the content of the citations and the wide use of them in Serbia suggests to me that they are suitable, however I request that a determination be made as to whether or not the Serbian language sources Press Magazin, Blic (newspaper), Kurir, and Politik might be considered reliable enough for citing these articles on Serbian television shows, as English language sources are unavailable. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No opinion yet, but I wonder what we do for foreign language sources? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well... per policy at WP:V#Non-English sources, they are allowed if suitable English language sources are not available... so I suppose I could use google-translate or babelfish and create a summary of the article text for the talk page or ref section... and I'll need to find an example of how it is best done for Wikipedia. But that still begs the question as to whether or not these Serbian media sources are acceptable for sourcing articles on Serbian television shows. I came here to get input that may be relevent for two ongoing AFD's. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen that WP:V thing, and I support non-English sources. But using computer translation is problematic. Would one use it to find the "About" link, and then use it to try and decide if they have editorial oversight? And then judge the quality of that oversight? That's what I try and do for English sources. It sounds really hard.

Two of the sources have wiki pages. They say they are tabloids. Depending on the country this may effect their reliability. I think you may need someone who knows the Serbian media. If this isn't part of a dispute, I would say just use your best judgement. If it is, maybe there's a wikiproject with member who know those sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the articles of which I was concerned have closed as keep... so the issue is somewhat less pressing. And actually, three of the sources have Wikipages... so I'll do some homework on the fourth as the situation of Non-English sources is sure to crop up again somewhere. Heck... maybe I'll be the one to write an article on Press Magazin. Thanks much, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up note: To this same question posed over at Talk:Serbia, User:No such user offered "Those all are daily newspapers; Politika is the most serious, Blic is the most read, while Kurir and Press are yellow tabloids, but good enough for articles on popular culture."[21] He then encouraged better articles about other more notable shows and title.[22] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Google searches to prove wide coverage

An editor at 2010 China Labour unrest tries to make the point that Chinese state media only initially covered the strikes, and is now suppressing coverage. As missing coverage is hard to prove, the claim is unreferenced. The assertion is also not true, so I strike “initially”. To bolster the argument, I source a Google search that looks for “strike” in the Chinese state media outlets "People's Daily", "China Daily" and "Global Times". The results are self-evident. The editor deletes the reference, saying a Google search is not a reference. My position: It is, if wide coverage or notoriety are to be proven. Alternatively, I could cite a long list of articles from state media, but the Google search is more dynamic. Comments? -- BsBsBs (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, search results don't even meet WP:V, let alone WP:RS. The results can change at any point in time, and we don't know that Google is indexing all of, or a representative sample of, state media. If you want to show that state media continued to cover labor issues, then you can have some of the ongoing cites be to Xinhua et al. If someone wants to show that there was a drop-off in coverage, they really need an RS to comment on the drop-off in coverage. Though if that was really the case the article could allude to that if the mix of citations shifted towards Western and dissident/expat sources as the labor issues progressed. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I added a small sample of state media reports. Looks pretty ugly, but rules are rules. And in a few days, I have to do it again. Oh, well. -- BsBsBs (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, what I mean is if someone's alleging that this has been off the state media for months, then you can add a recent cite here or there. Not on a day-by-day basis. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm tired of talking to this user. After trying to engage in some civil discussion, he's demonstrated to me he doesn't understand some basic aspects of Wikipedia policy; although he tends to lecture the rest of us as though he is some sort of editing sage. I'll simply address this issue in particular and let the truth speak for itself. New York Times: "After a brief flurry of coverage in the Chinese news media, coverage of the strikes has been all but silenced by government censors. Labor unrest, however, has not been entirely squelched." Financial Times: "Guangdong newspapers were initially allowed to cover the first strike at Honda. At its height, most of the media camped outside the transmission factory were from local outlets. While their coverage was eventually reined in, it was too late to put the union genie back in bottle." Toronto Star: "While it was fine for Chinese media to report on strikes at large, foreign-owned factories — the government suppressed news about worker actions at other, Chinese-owned and operated plants. It didn’t want the contagion to spread to other pools of cheap labour across China."

Also, China Daily and People's Daily's English sites are hardly representative of what goes on with Chinese media on a day-to-day basis. Many stories published in English never make its way to the Chinese sites. No matter how many references you end up stuffing after that sentence, there are reliable sources that say otherwise. Maybe you will then argue that "Western media" is biased against China? Well, all of this is fully backed up by independent U.S.-based Chinese-language news site Duowei. Need I say more? Colipon+(Talk) 21:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This entire discussion is headed straight for WP:OR-territory. If you want to state something in an article, find a credible source that has already stated it. Sampling news media and drawing conclusions from the amount and type of coverage is definitely original research. ElKevbo (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just so everyone here is aware, the section in question currently reads:

Chinese state media gave the events large amounts of coverage.

I hope that puts things in context. I have tried reverting this user before, but he edit wars. So I've stopped. Hopefully someone else could lend a mediating hand. Colipon+(Talk) 21:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That one is clearly a violation of WP:OR, since there is no source supporting the statement that "'Chinese state media gave the events large amounts of coverage." One high-quality source would do, if it says exactly that. First Light (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

User BsBsBs also contends this revision, even though it is well-sourced to the Guardian, saying that the original People's Daily article must be referenced. Colipon+(Talk) 21:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is one thing I will never understand. If I find seven articles about the strike that appeared last Friday alone in China Daily, then it's original research. If I find a quote in People's Daily that talks about "widely-reported mass labor strikes," then it's ok. -- BsBsBs (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clearly stated at WP:OR: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." First Light (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I know it does. Generally, it is a good concept. Like many good concepts, it has its limits. Let me give you an example. I could state on Wikipedia that Volkswagen is the world's largest auto manufacturer. After all, the Guardian said so: "Volkswagen-Porsche has overtaken Toyota to become the world's largest car manufacturer as the German group benefits from state-backed stimulus packages around the globe." And so said an untold number of media outlets that copied the story.

Guess what: All wrong. The IHS Global Insight research company cited was wrong. Numbers off by several millions. Porsche wasn't a part of Volkswagen in 2009, they still aren't. Now if someone would go to the trouble of reading the 2009 annual reports of Toyota, GM, and Volkswagen, it would become clear that not only was Volkswagen far removed from the number one spot in 2009. They weren't even the world's second largest automaker in 2009, as other supposedly reliable sources consistently claimed. According to WP:OR ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"), combining three sources (gosh, even primary sources) would be a cardinal sin, and VW would still be #1, because sloppy Guardian said so. Thankfully, I have a work-around at my disposition. Now, anybody can quote the truth without violating WP:OR. Many don't have this opportunity.

The reliable sources are getting increasingly unreliable (because the Internet kills magazines, newspapers, and budgets.} One cribs from the other. In my work (I cover the auto industry from China, along with the strikes), I find nearly daily cases of blatant mis-reporting. Run-away Toyotas killed 89 people? Sure, the NHTSA and just about every paper said so. Guess what: They were and are wrong. Anybody could have done this research, using a publicly available database (as long as they don't use WP to publish the obviously synthesized findings.) Now, it's too late, because in the wake of the reports the NHTSA closed major portions of the database.

PS: Thankfully, the editors of Volkswagen, Toyota, and General Motors were in a lenient mood and accepted the prima facie evidence. With a more fundamentalist approach, all three articles would still contain blatant lies. -- BsBsBs (talk) 07:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

First line of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Wiki is not the place to correct mistakes made by Reliable sources, onless you have another reliable source that points it out. Yoenit (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I know. And I'm glad to help out. However, it still strikes me as odd that three annual reports (which must be submitted to the SEC) would not be admitted as a reliable source to correct a blatant lie. Which, by the way, still is on the Guardian, uncorrected. No need to cite the rules, I've read them. Just Sunday musings .... -- BsBsBs (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

BsBsBs, your point seems to be that since normally reliable news sources may be wrong, we can conduct our own research. Well we cannot. When newspapers get it wrong, we look for their corrections, or for other sources that provide more accurate information. TFD (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No, my point is that Wikipedia is the go to source for many people around the globe. A lot of them take the content as gospel. It is sad that truth takes a backseat to notoriety. Maybe that's also the reason why Wikipedia is getting a bad name. In any case, the vaunted rules and regs of WP are inconstantly and selectively enforced. A lot of articles have no sources at all and are unmitigated original research. As long as nobody complains, no problem. Too often, discussions about rules and regs are a proxy war for clashing ideologies. I'm a trained journalist. The first thing that had been drummed into me was: Go straight to the source. Cross check your sources. If something is printed somewhere, check again. These days, it has become far too easy to prove the so-called reliable sources wrong. As far as the supposedly suppressed strike stories in China go: I am in Beijing. I see, hear, read the stories all day. I use them in my work. But according to WP, they don't exist. Sunday musings again. -- BsBsBs (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Our work here is not journalism. A trained journalist is certainly supposed to go to the primary sources. We're not. The difference is that the journalist has been screened by his employer, and is trusted not to jump to conclusions, misinterpret the data, or just go make stuff up. We're not; we're mostly anonymous volunteers. That's why we need to rely on reliable sources, and just say what they say, rather than interpret their findings ourselves. --GRuban (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Search results are not reliable sources and drawing conclusions from them is original research. Dlabtot (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User bsbsbs, if you are concerned about the basics of Wikipedia policy and would like to criticize it, then please go do it at the appropriate venue. This noticeboard is not for that. This noticeboard is for verifying whether or not the Wikipedia community agrees that a source is reliable and can be used to substantiate article content. Now that you've gotten (unanimous) replies from a wide range of users about what the policy is here, I suggest you drop this crusade. Meanwhile, please stop making edits such as this one; more original research, even if it's true. Colipon+(Talk) 16:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Dlabtot is exactly right; "Search results are not reliable sources and drawing conclusions from them is original research". Jayjg ^(talk) 05:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Book by Mercola on historical fact

Is the book published by Dr Joseph Mercola a RS for some historical facts about the approval of aspartame? The text sourced is "However, in 1977 a report by the FDA's Jerome Bressler showed that one study, which had led to the approval of the product, had critical scientific flaws." and the the citation is:<ref name="mercola">{{cite book |title=Sweet deception: why Splenda®, Nutrasweet®, and the FDA may be hazardous to your health |pages=p. 40 |url=http://books.google.com/?id=Kd5BH5NNY_gC&lpg=PA262&dq=bressler%20aspartame&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q=bressler |author=Joseph Mercola |coauthors=Kendra Degen Pearsall |isbn=0785221794 |year=2006 |publisher=Thomas Nelson Inc}}</ref>

Follow this link [23] to read the citation.

Thanks. This is not a question about the general believability of all Mercola's theories. TickleMeister (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not historical fact, it is scientific interpretation. As a WP:FRINGE source it fails to be a reliable source for this kind of information. However, this discussion is doubly pointless, as the same content is now supported by a WP:MEDRS. Verbal chat 11:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Who decided the book was a FRINGE source? Where is your evidence for that? TickleMeister (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you disputing the fringe status of Mercola? In any case it's irrelevant as we now have a RS. Verbal chat 13:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am. He's a conventional MD who supports nutritional approaches to healing. I have not seen him impugned on this noticeboard. So I repeat, what is your evidence? TickleMeister (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Although WP is not a RS, there are plenty of sources here that show why Joseph Mercola is not considered a RS (two FDA warnings, anti science, etc). Verbal chat 14:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

So on the basis of objections by the FDA to the wording of some of his ads, you have decided that he is not a RS for anything? I see, interesting take on issues. Now do you have any evidence he tells lies, i.e. that his statements are not reliable? Any? TickleMeister (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with citing that book, with attribution. Dlabtot (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

On this book, I think it may count as a primary source, a salvo launched in this controversy. It may still be OK to refer to it with attribution, but we should in preference use sources that stand outside the conflict and describe it. Was the book's appearance reported in the mainstream press? Are there reviews? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Judith, it's not the sort of book that gets a review in the NYT. It's written by 2 MDs on a topic of limited interest. Suffice to say it's not been attacked or sued. So that's 2 people who say that the book can be used with attribution. Thank you. Moving data on other topic to new section. TickleMeister (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The book is not a reliable source. If you are looking for "historical facts about the approval of aspartame", try this book, The clinical evaluation of a food additive: assessment of aspartame, CRC Press (1996), a collection of academic articles. TFD (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

But that book is well known as being pro-aspartame. What makes it any better than all the other books on aspartame (and there are a lot, which tells you something right there — ever heard the saying that where's there's smoke there's fire?). Some of the other books are:

1. Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic by H. J. Roberts, MD
2. Aspartame (NutraSweet): Is it Safe? (Nutrasweet : Is It Safe?) by the same author
3. Sweet Poison: How the World's Most Popular Artificial Sweetener is Killing Us--My Story by Janet Starr Hull
4. Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills by Russell L. Blaylock
5. Food Sweeteners-Aspartame and Its Adverse Reactions, Strange Symptoms, Illness Behavior and Controversy by Milladie Lohmann Dillard
6. Deadly Deception: Story of Aspartame : Shocking Expose of the World's Most Controversial Sweetener by Mary Nash Stoddard
7. Bittersweet Aspartame: A Diet Delusion by Barbara A. Mullarkey
8. too many more to list here ....

So the question to Four Dueces is ... do you agree that the Mercola book can be used, with attribution (i.e. qualifying everything sourced from the book with text that makes it clear who is saying it)? TickleMeister (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course it can be used if attributed mark nutley (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The way the academic process works, academics publish papers, and later academics conduct further studies and write about them. They also write what the various levels of support for different views are. You can take an article from The clinical evaluation for example and conduct a search on Google scholar.[24] The first hit is a 2002 review of the literature that says, "it is clear that aspartame is safe".[25] The fifth source from 2007 says, "Aspartame has a biological effect even at the recommended daily maximum dosage".[26] However we do not know what level of support this paper has received and really need expert help on that. The problem with Mercola is that his views have never undergone critical analysis and therefore there is no way to assess their credibility. We may conclude that as of 2002 the scientific consensus was that aspartame was safe. We need to conduct research to see if that opinion is still held today. TFD (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, TFD, you have not answered the question I posed to you. While your views on aspartame and the various studies are engrossing in themselves, I am more interested your views on using the Mercola book with attribution. Thanks. TickleMeister (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, I thought you were concerned about how the article should report the safety of aspartame and how it was approved, and I pointed you to sources. Mercola's book unfortunatedly is not reliable. See: Fringe theories#Mention in other articles: "Fringe theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." In other words, it has no place in the article. TFD (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, but how did you arrive at your conclusion that Mercola and his co-author, both MDs, are peddling "fringe" theories? Where is the evidence? Thanks. TickleMeister (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well first of all they are not M.D.s: Mercola is a "Doctor of Osteopathy" (DO) and Persall is a "Naturopathic Medical Doctor" (NMD). Neither have any qualifications in pharmacology and their book was published by Thomas Nelson, which is "the world's largest Christian publisher", not an academic publisher. In fact they have not submitted their views to mainstream academic scrutiny. The FDA ordered Mercola to stop making illegal claims for products sold through his Web site, and you can read more about him on Quackwatch.[27] What do you think fringe means? TFD (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, Quackwatch ... I remember having a long email argument with the psychiatrist, Barrett I think his name was, who ran that site, back in the 90s. He used to have a whole lot of pages about how Chronic fatigue syndrome, which I had, was a bogus diagnosis. Sadly for him, I was right, and it's now recognized as a medical condition. Moral of the story is that nobody is always right, and abiding strictly by conventional medicine in all cases can sometimes lead you astray. TickleMeister (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sticking to my view expressed above: that the book is a primary source. We're not necessarily looking for scientific sources in this article, but we are looking for accounts of the controversy that aren't written by the protagonists. An overview in a science journal, for example, or a feature article in a leading publication for the food industry. If there aren't enough sources to explain how the controversy unfolded, then this article should be merged into aspartame. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, we're not looking to Mercola for science, but for a corroborative account of the history of the approval of the drug. We already have quite a good source for that. TickleMeister (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's Stephen Barrett. Whatever you may think of him, is there anything incorrect in the page I linked to? TFD (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, he's still the owner is he? Must be long in the tooth now ... was retired in the 90s, AFAIK. I'm not sure if the data he has there is correct. I do know Mercola hits back pretty effectively at mercolaquack.com. Maybe you should read it? Broadening the mind, and all that. TickleMeister (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Quackwatch states that, "Many of [Mercola's] articles... clash with those of leading medical and public health organizations. For example, he opposes immunization and fluoridation, [and] claims that amalgam fillings are toxic...." Is that true? TFD (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No idea. Are all those issues completely cut and dried in the scientific literature? But anyway, what has that got to do with his documenting of events in the past, as an additional source (we have a good one already btw)? I think you're going off on a tangent now, so I'm bowing out. TickleMeister (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Use the book, and attribute clear opinions to the person expressing them, just like any other article. There is no point of view (such as WP:SPOV) which has special precedence because people WP:KNOW something is "fringe." Collect (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The book is clearly reliable only as an indication of Mercola's opinion. Whether that opinion is notable is a separate issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No. The book can be used narrowly to cite Mercola's opinion or his place in the history of the controversy, but the history itself should be sourced to sources independent of the controversy. If a particular fact should be mentioned, a proper source should be easy to find. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

They Call Us Indians

Plastic Shaman heavily relies on the following source: Armbuster, J.; Beacham, D.; et al. (2005) They Call Us Indians. Göteborg, Sweden. The World in Our Hands ISBN 9789163155185. A search on the ISBN [[28]] shows up a completely different book. A search on the title and authors names in google books shows no result. One of the only references I found to it here [[29]] seem to indicate that it is self-published. Is there any reason to accept it as a reliable source? especially where it is being used to make broad general statements about the New Age vs. Indigenous Peoples in the "terminology section", which I would expect to have cited to someone from a more central Cultural Studies position. Thanks for any views or more information about the book and it's reliability. Davémon (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have looked on Amazon and Abe and can not find it I did find a readers digest book called The World in Our Hands ISBN 9780276423826. So i would be very unsure of this source. It also appears as a source here New Age Frauds and Plastic Shamans. Slatersteven (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The correct spelling of the first author appears to be Armbruster. I found this web page which reports that the book contains nine of her poems and an unspecified number of haiku. That doesn't make it sound like a scholarly reference on cultural studies. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Found this [[30]]. Ambruster is not the author, the ISBM is wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I found this, a first-person account (in Swedish) of self-publishing the book. It lists it as ISBN 91-631-5517-6 (Swedish) and ISBN 91-631-5518-4 (English); however, the English ISBN appears to be wrong. According to Worldcat (with the Swedish ISBN) there are only two libraries in the world that hold this book. It seems clear from all this that it exists but that it is problematic with respect to WP:V and in addition that as a self-published source it does not pass WP:RS. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this can legitimately be used. It appears from the various references to it on webpages that it is a collection of essays and poems by eleven authors, including Armbruster and Jacobs. It's possible that some specific contributors may be established experts in their field, but that would have to be determined independently. As the book is currently cited, there isn't even any indication which of the many authors are being quoted. Paul B (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears from this that some of the essayists may be notable [31]. Paul B (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting! Unfortunately I can't find any mention at the National Geographic sites of the book or it's authors so its hard to validate the claim that the NG mentioned the book. I also did a Google search for the two authors mentioned and ended up in something of a quagmire. "Al Carroll" brought up a heck of a lot of internet-rage (see [32] for one rather heavy-handed example from many), but it's more than likely him to cite for the anti-new-age stance. "Steve Russell" according to a blog [[33]] blocked some US laws by publishing a piece criticising the Legislature with a large amount of profanity (warning, link contains many swear-words [[34]]). Reliable publications establishing the expert nature or notability of the individual authors seems lacking. Any further opinions? Davémon (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

General comment, no relation to the book at hand: "Self published" appears to be a popular hammer used to slam a source. We need to exercise caution, and we will need to exercise more. The following is based on more than 30 years in the business:

1.) It may come as a shock that many established publishing houses engage in "vanity printing" - for a price. That price is getting lower as established publishing houses get in trouble. However, it has been going on for a long time. Decades ago, I started writing books as a ghostwriter for famous industry figures. Their books were published with very reputable publishing houses. They went on sale. But large numbers were bought by the company. Unless you know about it, you'll never know.

2.) It seems like ebooks might finally be here. This significantly lowers the monetary threshold for publishing, but does not necessarily lower their quality. Expect increasing numbers of "self published" books.

3.) The trust in the "editorial oversight" of major publishing houses and media outlets is touching, but often undeserved. The lack of a published "editorial oversight" policy doesn't mean that there is none. Likewise, the existence of a published "editorial oversight" policy doesn't mean that it is observed. -- BsBsBs (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How does this help address the topic at hand? Paul B (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A potentially valid discussion, but one surely for a different place. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll repost it if you tell me where. -- BsBsBs (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources is for discussing the guidelines themselves. Paul B (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

WebMD

On the pages concerning aspartame, editor Verbal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) objects to the WebMD site's reporting of the funding for a study that exonerates the chemical of all blame [35]. According to Verbal, WebMD is not RS for wikipedia, even though our wikipedia article calls it "the leading health portal in the United States". Can anyone comment please? TickleMeister (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't confuse issues - and WP isn't an RS either ;) Verbal chat

No confusion here. Just asking two questions in one section. I'm sure the people here can cope with the ambiguity. TickleMeister (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The material attached to this source was not supported by the source, so this is again an irrelevance. Verbal chat 14:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

How so? The statement was that a study was industry funded, and the source confirmed it. TickleMeister (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• So the question remains, is this health portal, WebMD, supposedly the largest on the internet and the most frequently used in the USA, a RS or not? Comments please. TickleMeister (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Signed news report, looks reliable for reporting an aspect of the controversy. Would be interested to read other views. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

WebMD is a respected online resource. It is an accredited member of several organizations concerned with the quality of health-related information and its articles are clearly identified as to authorship, quality reviewer(s), and date. It's a reliable source. --Orlady (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is a RS news organisation. It did not support the innuendo and implied criticism that it was being used to support. The article was balanced, whereas teh presentation being given removed the context. It is a content issue. Verbal chat 07:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well thank heavens for your agreement that it is RS, after saying it wasn't umpteen times. Let's move on then ... TickleMeister (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't an RS for what you were trying to attach it to, because it didn't support the implication. Verbal chat 21:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if it was a mis-use of a Reliable Source, it doesn't mean the source itself is no longer a RS. It would mean that the source just didn't prove the statement, for which there is a tag: {{Failed verification}}. First Light (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The {{rs}} or {{fv}} tags were not used, the material was just removed because it fails WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. This whole section is a misunderstanding which was explained already. Verbal chat 07:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The source, a reliable one as everyone agrees here now, was used to specify that the study was funded by industry (which it was). Here it is again [[36] This has absolutely nothing to do with NPOV or FRINGE. TickleMeister (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Please link to a diff of the statement that source is supporting. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The article certainly seems to support that the study was funded by a "major maker of Aspartame", and that according to Michael F. Jacobson, PhD, executive director of the consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), "I think this review is totally unreliable. If you allow me to pick the jury, I'll tell you the result. This is a committee made up of people incapable of finding that a commercial product poses a risk." That opinion should be attributed, if it is included. First Light (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz, the diff is here. Only look at the first red text (the rest of the diff is not material to this). TickleMeister (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The source is clearly reliable for referencing that statement. -Atmoz (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Cutting Edge: Victorian Woodworkers Association Newsletter

(Edited for brevity and relisted, as no conclusive comments were provided at the recent prior listing)

Is this source, at page 6 therein and titled Arbor Sculpture: If you like I'll Grow You a Mirror, reliable for use to support these 5 statements cited in Tree shaping, currently at citation [38]?

• "Richard Reames is an American arborsculptor[38] based in Williams, Oregon, where he manages a nursery, botanical garden, and design studio collectively named Arborsmith Studios.[38]"

• (In 1995, he wrote and published his first book, How to Grow a Chair: The Art of Tree Trunk Topiary. In it, he coined the word arborsculpture.[11]) "Since then, this word has been used around the world to refer to the craft in general,[38] to the works of various live woody plant artisans, and to the artisans themselves, including Christopher Cattle,[38]]..."

• "Dr. Christopher Cattle is a retired furniture design professor from England.[38]"

• "According to Cattle, he developed an idea to train and graft trees to grow into shapes, which came to him in the late 1970s, in response to questions from students asking how to build furniture using less energy.[52][53][38]"

This source is also one of many cited as uses of the terms arborsculpture/arborsculptor as generic terms for the craft and the craftspersons who practice it. Is it also one reliable source for establishing that generic usage?

• " Other names for tree shaping include:

arborsculpture[38][43][45][7][8][61][62][10][63][64][41][65][66][67][44]"

Pertinent discussion on the talk page is: Talk:Tree Shaping#Cutting Edge: VWA Newsletter, where one user felt that it was not a reliable source. Duff (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a newsletter, and there does seem to be an editor of some sort. I couldn't figure out who the author is. I would say it's not reliable for WP:BLP info or other controversial info, but it might be OK for basic woodworking info. It would be good to know the author, and whether they've been published elsewhere, or if they're an expert in the field. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you can safely source the first statement to [37]. Reames own site is probably the best source for bio information, including that he runs the nursery etc. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The quote from Cattle can also be sourced to Cattle's own website [38]. This is a reliable source of information on things said by Cattle - the newsletter is clearly just paraphrasing (a little) from the grown-furniture website.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

However, nowhere on Cattle's website does he describe what he does as arborisculpture, nor does he describe himself as an arborisculptor, so I'd be wary of using the newsletter as a source - since other sources seem to contradict it. Hope this helps. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Hindu

The famous Indian Newspaper The Hindu (see The_Hindu) is called non reliable by anonymous IP in this discussion: [39]. It is clear for anyone that TheHindu is a reliable source, but the IP war-edit on some articles where I mention a controversy reported in this journal (and others). The IP calls TheHindu:"The al-Qaeda monthly", "toilet paper news sources", "pure junk", "stinking pile of goat-feces" etc.

I'm getting tired of these IPs (probably sockpuppets of indef banned user Hkelkar) who have made some articles blocked by war-editing.

Thanks

- TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 17:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's reliable, just liberal-secular in outlook, and therefore impalatable to the Hindutva crowd. Paul B (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

However how is this source being used? I see no references to The Hindu in the disputed text. [40]. Paul B (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not yet, the articles 2008 Mumbai attacks and Hemant Karkare have been blocked because of these IPs. Please have look also there. The discussion on the Hindu appeared there when I was searching for references about the controversy. I would like to include them but every article about it is nearly blocked as these IP act together to evade 3RR. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 18:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see this assessment by User:Jayjg. This is bogus fringe nonsense and antisemitic conspiracy theory mongering. Not a single western news source has bothered to cover the unsubstantiated allegation made by "TheHindu" that some secret cabal of Hindus and Jews was behind the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Please also see WP:REDFLAG, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR etc. Furthermore, "just liberal-secular in outlook" newspapers don't promote anti-Jewish racism like "TheHindu" does.117.194.198.217 (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Twohorned is using a bogus unreliable source called "Who Killed Karkare?" by SM musharif that claims that the RSS is in cahoots with international Jewish bankers and is currently engaged in a conspiracy with Israel in order to perpetrate "global terrorism". this basically echoes Pakistani Islamists like Zaid Hamid who makes the exact same claims, and is even denounced by the Pakistani press for promoting hatred. The reliability of this source is questioned in detail at User_talk:Jayjg#Hemant_Karkare_and_anti-Israel_Conspiracy_Theories117.194.198.217 (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I can see is cited to the The Hindu. So what text from The Hindu are we supposed to be discussing? We are not supposed to be discussing the plausibility of a conspiracy theory as such. Paul B (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"TheHindu" is a feint by TwoHorned. He wants to cite 'Who killed Karkare" by SM Musharif, which is not a Reliable Source. It's anti-Jewish drivel. The Hindu merely repeats the allegation made by Musharif that Hindus and Jews are controlling banks and conspired to engage in 9/11 and 26/11 (he accuses Israel and India of jointly performing both acts)117.194.198.217 (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess the solution is that you stop making pointless abusive remarks about The Hindu, and TwoHorned asks about the the reliability of actual sources being used, or takes this to the Fringe theories board. Paul B (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Let us be clear here. The Times reporting that Ginger Activists claim David Cameron is a closet gingerist can only be a reliable source for the statement "Ginger Activists claim the UK Prime Minister has an anti-ginger bias". It cannot be a reliable source for the statement "The UK Prime Minister has been shown to have gingerist tendencies." Show us the source that you want to use, and the text you want to source to it, and we can give an opinion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

OK: I was editing some articles related to Hemant Karkare and 2008 Mumbai attacks, mentionning the well-known controversy about his death that is developping in India. The above IP, 117.194.198.217 with another sockpuppet 59.160.210.68 then began editwarring by blanking the controversy saying it was irrelevant. I just mentionned the fact that TheHindu was mentionning it again, and then went here for reliability of the source. Now that the source is relaible, which is quite obvious, I will put it in the artivles when they are unblocked. By the way, any sysop to have an eye on these IPS ? The clearly evade 3RR (and are probably sockpuppets of banned user Hkelkar), thanks. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 22:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a link to The Hindu article(s)? Is it by a columnist or is it a news article? Is it being supported by other mainstream news sources? And what statement exactly are you trying to source to The Hindu article? First Light (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

He's trying to source this claim (made by an Islamist anti-Hindu/antisemitic book that he also cites):

“ These controversies are found in a 2009 book written by S.M. Mushrif, former IG of Maharashtra and collaborator to Karkare: Who killed Karkare ? and are reinforced by the opening of official investigations in 2010.These controversies take place in India in a general setting, where doubts raise about the incentives behind the exploitation of "communal riots" between hindus and muslims, as there is suspiscion that these riots may find their roots (as well as financial support) in political extremism and agenda coming from outside India. These interrogations raise the suspiscion of active israeli extremism and intelligence backing up some of the triggering of communal riots in India. ”

[41]

This sort of 9/11 truther-type nonsense is what he wants into a wikipedia article stated as fact, sourced from a highly dubious book with no peer-review or any independent fact checking (see [A new book curiously titled Who Killed Karkare? says a nationwide network of Hindutva terror that has its tentacles spread up to Nepal and Israel is out to destroy the India most Indians have known for ages and to remould it into some kind of Afghanistan under the Taliban. here] for more on the book).

Some particular attention to this charming quote from this piece:

“ A new book curiously titled Who Killed Karkare? says a nationwide network of Hindutva terror that has its tentacles spread up to Nepal and Israel is out to destroy the India most Indians have known for ages and to remould it into some kind of Afghanistan under the Taliban. ”

[42].

Furthermore, this dude alleges that Israeli Mossad is working in cahoots with Indian nationalist organizations to perpetrate terrorist attacks. Is any of this nonsense being promoted by TwoHorned even worth wasting the time of serious editors?117.194.198.217 (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, then this would seem to be less about WP:RS, and more about giving Undue Weight to what appears at first glance to be a conspiracy theory. The mere fact that a RS (The Hindu) mentions the book doesn't make the book a reliable source. A notable conspiracy theory, ... maybe. First Light (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds about right to me. Peter jackson (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League has even written a piece condemning this conspiracy theory[43]. That should also be mentioned. TwoHorned won't do this, of course.117.194.198.217 (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Based purely on what is written in this section (without checking anything), I have to say that 117.194.198.21 is making a lot of sense. In the wonderful 21st Century, one can find a book to promote any crackpot idea, and before asserting the aliens did it we should digest WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. Johnuniq (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

@First Light: there are a lot of such articles, both in the Hindu and elsewhere; for instance: [44] - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 08:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

TwoHorned has expressed the intent to continue edit-warring once the article is unprotected[45].59.160.210.68 (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Just regular sourcing as per WP:RS, nothing more, as TheHindu mentions it: [46] (among many others). - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 09:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Johnuniq, and with 117.194.198.21. I've still seen no serious reliably sourced evidence that "the aliens" (I mean the "jewish bankers") did it, or that any serious source has given the theory credibility. Wikipedia shouldn't be the forum for promoting yet another Jewish World Dominion conspiracy. First Light (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to work out what all the hidden agendas may be here, but The Hindu seems to be reporting on conflict between (to put it crudely) pro-Hindu and pro-Muslim politicians in India. Any anti-Semitic conspiracy theory about Mossad or the Jewish Masterplan for World Domination seems utterly marginal to this. It's mainly about some politicians trying to deflect blame from Muslims by suggesting that Karkare was somehow assassinated or deliberately lured to his death because he was allegedly investigating Hindu political crimes. This was suggested by A R Antulay, leading to a lot of outrage from the pro-Hindu lot that Antulay was trying to blame Hindus for the actions of Muslim terrorists. It looks like standard ethnic politics: lots of grandstanding and blame-mongering to play to the prejudices of different groups of voters. The controversy may be notable in the context of Muslim/Hindu/Secular political infighting in India, but any stuff about Jews behind the scenes is nowhere to be seen in the maintream reporting. Paul B (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Am from India, and a regular reader of the Hindu and their magazine Frontline. The Hindu group of publications are pro-leftists(communists) and most of their articles are pro china and anti India. I do not know with regard to which context you are debating, but understood, whther Hindu is reliable source or not. Communists and the Hindutva parties like BJP are arch rivals, and The Hindu, and Frontline, is mostly made of anti India, anti BJP articles. They came up with a article of bashing the Tibetans and India, and supporting china some 7 years back. Get hold of some articles from Frontline, so people could make judgement on their own. 27.57.5.2 (talk)

Well, this is the problem isn't it?: the preposterous notion that The Hindu, the mainstream Indian newspaer, is "anti India" or "communist". Any reasonably even-handed liberal view is seen by the Hindutvadis as rabid India-hating ultra-leftism. Both sides end up with such extremist positions that there is no room for a reliable middle ground. There is a real controversy about communalist conflict here. It may be worth a sentence or two in the relevant article. If there are enough "true believers", these implausible conspiracy theories may be worth an extra article along the lines of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and Moon landing conspiracy theories. That's fine. Maybe even the secret role of those Mossad master-manipulators could be mentioned if it's notable within the conspiracy theory. At the moment these theories are at the familar level. We've heard this stuff as far back as the 70s: the so-called IRA bomings in the 70s were actually the responsibility of the British govt, which killed its own people in order to blame the IRA; the American government was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing to blame the Militias; the Israelis did 9/11 ... etc etc. Paul B (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it is not 'preposterous' or a 'notion', it is an established fact, that The Hindu is pro-leftist. As told above, you can read all the articles(old and new) of frontline in their website. Compare them with other main stream Indian magazines.

Read this http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070305054023AA1GxZJ Fyodor7 (talk)

G. Edward Griffin's "The Creature from Jekyll Island" book

I'm soliciting input on the book, The Creature from Jekyll Island. The primary question here is whether it can serve as a reliable source from which to insert economic criticisms into an article. Specifically, the book is currently being used to characterize "the banking system" (through it's criticisms of banks such as the Bank of England). The article currently holds this assertion:

G. Edward Griffin has written that a fractional-reserve based banking system is inherently destructive and inevitably generates debasement of the currency, extreme inequality or periodic crises; ^{Griffin, G. Edward. The Creature from Jekyll Island, Fourth edition, Chapter 9, "The Secret Science", pp. 171-184. American Media, 2002. ISBN 978-0-912986-39-5}

More generally, it might good to ask a second question. Can this book can serve as a reliable source broadly ... whether it is likely useful for supporting any characterizations that have relevance to parties outside of the author himself?

A previous AfD may hold some helpful insight here, as well. Not to overly bias the discussion, but here's one discussion of the book's content -- [47] BigK HeX (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The book is plainly a reliable source for what G Edward Griffin thinks of the banking system, and therefor could be used to source the quote in question. As to whether it is true that a fractional reserve based etc... one would wish to see a lot more sources supporting this view (The Economist, the Financial Times, other academic sources) otherwise I suspect its inclusion could fall foul of WP:WEIGHT.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely, the book is OK for supporting assertions relevant only to Griffin himself, such as "Griffin likes blue." The usage in question here makes characterizations that involve more than Griffin himself; an assertion about banking has been inserted into the article on the strength of this reference alone. If Griffin is not qualified as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, then having the banking assertion supported by this ref would seem to violate WP:V; specifically, policy instructs that a questionable source can only be used "so long as it does not involve claims about third parties". The citation of Griffin's work here involves sections of his book that makes contentious claims against the Bank of England (among others). BigK HeX (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I think it's weight rather than reliability here. The book is a reliable source as to Griffin's view "according to Griffin, the current banking system sucks". The question is whether Griffin's view is supported by other sources. The territory being entered is such that there are a number of opinions, and no replicable lab experiments to prove which ones are wrong. Any article discussing the merits of the current banking crisis must therefore rely on presenting a number of viewpoints - Griffin's should certainly not be the only one unless the article is about him, and if he is in a minority of one, and not referred to (even disparagingly) by any other source, then he should be in a minority of none. On the other hand, if several sources support his view, then he should be given more prominence. Also I think the third party rule is primarily for BLPs - not the Bank of England. BTW, I don't think the non-MOS wikilinks are helping, as they are making assumptions about what the man means, and piping the links in the way it has been done is not the correct way to do it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

A note on the wikilinks .... unfortunately, they are that way as an artifact of how this situation came to be. The entire article was once a soapbox. That particular paragraph once had only a vague mass attribution as in, "Some critics say that banking sucks". I deleted the paragraph for lack of sourcing, but it has since been reinstated and sourced now to Griffin. BigK HeX (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As for WP:POORSRC not applying to assertions against the Bank of England, it seems to me that the policy is written in order to make a very concerted effort to limit use of questionable sources to statements relevant only to an author himself. If it did turn out that the instructions on 3rd parties at questionable source were debatable, then the list at WP:REDFLAG explicitly includes conspiracy theories in the political realm. In any case, thanks for the valuable input. BigK HeX (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Although the credentials aren't great, this book is one of the more notable and oft-cited criticisms of the Federal Reserve, and should be mentioned in articles which are dedicated to such things such as Criticism of the Federal Reserve. I wouldn't say that it should be mentioned in the Federal Reserve article itself, however. II | (t - c) 03:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that Griffin could certainly be mentioned as author of this book and a critic of some prominence. It seems his arguments are less noteworthy, given the AfD on the book, and the possible WP:REDFLAG issues. So, I'm far less certain that this book qualifies as a reliable enough source to support criticisms (of the type that the book describes) to be inserted into a Wikipedia article. Could you clarify your opinion on that aspect, just so I'm sure? BigK HeX (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the book is a reliable source for what Griffin himself believes. However, I'm not convinced that it's one of the 'more notable and oft-cited' criticisms of the Federal Reserve. Given his rather 'fringe' views, I'ld oppose including this in the Federal Reserve article; and I'ld support mention in articles apart from the article on G. Edward Griffin himself, only if some other reliable third party sources also discuss his views. LK (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

So, bit FRINGE-y, definitely potential WEIGHT issues, but should appear somewhere in Criticism of current banking practices, The crash of 2009 type articles, as his views are often cited in this field, even if they do not have mainstream support. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with LK, that there has to be a prominent reliable source already in use for a criticism, before Griffin can be used. If reliability becomes a lesser factor, then invoking a phrase like "Griffin believes" could become a convenient coatrack from which any assertion can be hung, no matter how extraordinary or fringe-y or conspiratorial. BigK HeX (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have not read Griffin's book and if I read it I could change my mind, but The Creature seems to be practically the modern father of the conspiracy theory movement, which comprises of a substantial portion of the criticism of central banking. A search on Google Books for "The Creature of Jekyll Island" turns up 712 results. A similar Google Scholar search turns up 72 results, but still, I think any internet denizen should know that this book is commonly-cited. If it was entirely excluded everywhere, not only would we be doing our readers a disservice, but I think we'd be committing an error of omission by not giving readers the full story in the Criticism of the Federal Reserve. Readers should be allowed to get a comprehensive view of a subject. Further, we then open ourselves up to constant battles. I do think it should be contrasted with a critical review if/when it is included, and perhaps only mentioned through a third-party. I don't think the inclusion should be substantial. II | (t - c) 18:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

www.hockey-reference.com

I was directed here by editors at WT:HOCKEY (this was the discussion). www.hockey-reference.com is a website that's used in many hockey FLs and other hockey articles. I used it for my FLC, List of Washington Capitals seasons, where I was told that it might not be a reliable source. Per discussion at WT:HOCKEY, I decided to check with all of you to see what you could come up with. Thanks for the help. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 03:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, a few quick finds:

• website is part of Sports-Reference.com, a network of sites maintaining statistics for several sports.
• Company behind Sport-Reference.com seems to be run by people who taught mathematics or statistics at Universities
• Site is created by Justin Kubatko, who has at least one academic publication about sport statistics [48] and taught statistics at The Ohio State University and the University of New Mexico

It seems to be a reliable source. I am unsure whether it should be seen as a Self published source, but even so Justin Kubatko has published before in the relevant field and I think it is safe to say teaching statistics at a university (provided it is true!) makes you an expert. Yoenit (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! You just saved me from replacing references for about eight lists, much obliged. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 22:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources about communism

Can someone tell me if the following are suitable as sources for use in Mass killings under Communist regimes

• The Black Book of Communism published by, Harvard University Press
• Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation

I ask as some edits using these sources have been reverted out with the edit summary, rv poorly sourced and disagrees with reliable sources mark nutley (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to this edit? It seems there are more than those two sources involved. Dlabtot (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes i am, but it is not the edit i am interested in, it is these two sources. I am asking as it would be nice to know before using them for editing, thanks mark nutley (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just referring to the appropriateness of these two sources in general, and remembering that the whole article was up for AfD as synthesis. Black Book can be regarded as scholarly but look out for opposing scholarly views. Victimes of Communism Memorial Foundation - no. This is a history article, so use only historians writing about their area of expertise. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This is akin to every single political article on WP -- the Black Book is RS for opinions, as all political articles are founded in opinion. For statements of fact, I have seen no one show that facts are mis-stated in it. It is no less RS than other such sources. The non-profit foundation is RS also for opinions about communism. It amuses me to see some say that books which agree with what they WP:KNOW are RS, while any which disagree are, perforce, not RS <g>. Collect (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As a point of fact there are historians and scholars of various kinds who are expected to operate, as much as possible, outside of political interests while researching "political" subjects. These researchers are not only good for their opinions. That is a gross misunderstanding of reliability. In fact any subject matter can be political, but we don't claim that all scholarship is. I'm afraid the real problem tends to be people trying to level the playing field between their clearly politically motivated sources and more neutral scholarship. I have no comments on the black book specifically but the non-profit being mentioned is very clearly not a reliable neutral source on this subject.Griswaldo (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

WP uses WP:RS and WP:V as policy. Not what an editors "knows" about "clearly politically motivated sources." We are not supposed to do anything other than report what readers can find in sources -- if we decide we "know" more than the sources, then we are in gross violation of the foundations of WP. Nor, by the way, does any WP policy require that sources have no POV - only that all POVs be presented to form a net NPOV. Collect (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That's funny because I never said that we rely on what editors know about such sources. We are supposed to report what readers can find in reliable sources, and some sources are more reliable than others. For instance, sources authored by experts that have gone through peer review or academic publishing and have been well recieved in the field. What I object to, Collect, is the statement you made about all political articles being founded on opinion and the insinuation that all sources on political subjects are just opinions of the same ilk. That notion is simply false, on its face. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

My advice was based entirely on WP:RSEX#History: "Briefly: published scholarly sources from academic presses should be used". Would you care to reformulate your insinuation that it was based on my own opinions? I do not see any basis in policy or guidelines for your assertion that "all political articles are founded in opinion". Itsmejudith (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Black Book, although containing articles by scholars is not itself a reliable source, although individual articles may be provided they have been published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Most of them have not and the book has been criticized for its lack of scholarship and polemical as opposed to neutral writing. The main accusation is that it is in the tradition of the French far right, that excuses French collaboration during the Second World War and trivializes the Holocaust by identifying Communism as the greater enemy. The Vicims foundation actually takes its information from the Black Book. TFD (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Collect, by your logic, we would not be able to apply NPOV, because we would be forbidden from "knowing" that a source had a particular POV. Clearly, identifying POV is a matter of judgement for editors, and we are expected to employ our own common sense and knowledge. --FormerIP (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comment makes no sense that I can discern. Dlabtot (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, to put it another way, Collect appears to believe that it is not appropriate for editors to make judgements about the political bias of sources. But it is. The whole business of editing WP is about judgement, filtering and discrimination. --FormerIP (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Your assertions about what other editors believe are really completely irrelevant. Editors speak for themselves and we judge them by their own words and actions. Dlabtot (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

All sources have a bias. That doesn't mean that they're not reliable. I can't speak for Collect, but no, it is not appropriate for editors to make judgments about the political bias of sources. We simply repeat the bias of reliable sources. If the bias of reliable sources differ, then we assign weight to each POV in accordance to the proportion that reliable sources give each POV. See WP:WEIGHT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

How can you apply WP:WEIGHT without making a judgement? The fallacy here is "we just say what the sources say". We don't. We say what some of the sources say, and we make a judgement about how much weight to give to them. --FormerIP (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources that defend support of Hitler and the holocaust during the Second World War require recognition in mainstream peer-reviewed literature before they are acceptable as "reliable sources". TFD (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Black Book of Communism is clearly a reliable source. Anybody who challenges it multiple times, even after it has been discussed here multiple times, should take a wikibreak. As Wikipedia:RSEX#History advises websites from non-professional historians should be used with caution. But given that the Victims of Communism organization was set up by the US government its hard to say they have a non-mainstream view. They have a POV and I believe it should be heard as one of several. BTW Wikipedia:RSEX#History gives advice in an essay and is not policy, so it should also be used with caution. Smallbones (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Smallbones, while it is a popular book for the far right, because it excuses fascist collaboraters and trivializes the holocaust, it is not part of accepted academic literature about communism. TFD (talk) 01

42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

On the BB's talk page [49] you can find the quotes from all reviews on the Black Book I was able to find in jstor.org. After reading these reviews I understood the following:

1. The BB is not a book, but a collection of poorly connected chapters written by different scholars who express quite different opinions on the subject.
2. The quality and reliability of these chapters is quite different, for instance the Werth's chapter on the USSR is generally good, whereas some other chapters are insatisfactory. For instance, according to BB, all victims of Vietnam war are considered as victims of Communism, that is a complete nonsense.
3. The most cited, and, simultaneously, the most controversial part of the BB is the introduction written by Courtois. Some BB authors, e.g. Werth, disagree with many introduction's theses.
4. The BB authors had some agenda, so, although some of its chapters can be considered more or less neutral, the book as whole is not fully neutral academic book.

My summary is that the question was incorrectly stated. We cannot talk about reliability of the BB as whole, because it is highly inhomogeneous. Some its statements are correct, many others are politically motivated or simply wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

To TFD. The BB was written by leftists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: "But given that the Victims of Communism organization was set up by the US government its hard to say they have a non-mainstream view." An organisation founded by some government most likely reflects the point of view of this government, so, unless the content of this web site have been vetted by a scientific community (which is very unlikely) it should be treated with same cautions as other private or governmental web sites.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Autobiography of Malcolm X

After 6 years of being correctly identified in the article, User:Malik Shabazz, (WP:COI), has decided to change the book's authorship, as he prefers Malcolm X to be listed as the author, rather than Alex Haley. I corrected the article, a second time, and inserted a reference, which Malik Shabazz promptly removed.Mk5384 (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is here, since it's not a question of WP:RS. In any event, I showed Mk5384 two editions of the book (actually three, because Amazon has photos of two editions) that show the book's authorship "with the assistance of Alex Haley".[50][51] That an article has been wrong for six years doesn't turn a mistake into a fact. And I'm very curious what my conflict of interest is here. That I admire Malcolm X? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Then where should it be? You admit, yourself, in the article that Alex Haley wrote the book. Where it says "with the assistance of Alex Haley", it certainly doesn't say, "by Malcolm X". I also admire Malcolm X. But I don't take it to the ridiculous level of pretending he wrote something that he didn't write.Mk5384 (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion might be more appropriate. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point in asking for a 3rd opinion of a fact that is explicitly clear. And like I said; that's one of the problems here. Because you're an admin, I'm supposed to ask for a "3rd opinion" about a fact that was never in dispute, and you just decided to change because you like it better that way.Mk5384 (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This does indeed not belong on the RS noticeboard. A better place would the articles talkpage and a Request for comments. That being said I do have an opinion on the matter, though I never heard about the book before. Apparently the bookjacket says Malcom X wrote the book, which seems no more than logical it being his autobiography and everything. If he did not write that the book, than a Reliable source stating that very fact should be presented. In that case the discrepancy should be mentioned in the article. Yoenit (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for a 3rd opinion, as suggested. However, I'm concerned that it will be filled with comments like the one above. Those unfamiliar with the subject may, quite naturally, assume that, as it is an autobiography, it only makes sense that Malcolm X wrote it. As far as a reliable source, I did provide it. Malik Shabazz promptly removed it.Mk5384 (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's generally accepted that Haley wrote the book. What the original edition said is marketing. We need academic sources. Paul B (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

After filing at Wikipedia:Third opinion, it was immediately removed. So it doesn't belong here. It doesn't belong at 3rd opinion. It comes down to what I originally said. As the person who wants Malcolm X listed as the author is an administrator, he gets what he wants, without regard as to the truth. What a joke.Mk5384 (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

My view carries no more weight than yours, except that mine is supported by the title page of the book itself. I'm still waiting, though, for you to show me another Wikipedia article about an autobiography that attributes authorship to the ghostwriter, as opposed to the putative "author". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The title page is irrelevant. I think the debate about relibility does legitimately belong on this page. This is a question of what academic sources say about authorhip. There are many comparable examples, from books said to have been written by Aristotle through to "autobiographies" of air-headed celebrities obviously written by ghost authors. As long as we have clear RS consensus about who the author is we can go with that. Paul B (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

From the articles talkpage:

"Here's a scholarly source: [52]

Malcolm X, with the assistance of Alex Haley... Malcolm X told the story of his life to Alex Haley in a series of interviews that took place over a period of nearly two years. Malcolm read the text of the Autobiography, approving and correcting the chapters as Haley wrote them, although he did not live to see the last revisions made in the manuscript. Evidence both internal and external to the Autobiography suggests that Haley kept to the agreement he made with Malcom -- to include nothing Malcolm had not said and to say everything Malcolm wanted included.

That pretty much settles it, in my opinion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)"

I gotta agree with him, this seems like pretty clear that Haley functioned as a ghostwriter, which are normally not credited as the primary author. Yoenit (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is helpful but Paul McCartney wrote Yesterday (song) but Lennon-McCartney are credited as co-authors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)