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

journal of forensic nursing

Is this a reliable source? I have seen only 2 articles from this site and both are filled with misquotes and misrepresentation of information despite appearing to be referenced. I followed the references back until I found the original source and it didn't say what was actually quoted, in fact 1 person is referenced despite in fact being against the very position attributed to them and I can find no information about anyone citing articles from this publication. Daffydavid (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

My preliminary thoughts are that it appears to be a peer-reviewed journal from an established publisher of scientific and medical journals, so would expect it to be reliable. I do note however that it publishes papers that discuss controversial topics such as shaken baby syndrome, so further views are needed. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason I have doubts about this Journal is actually related to shaken baby syndrome and an article that is being referenced on the Wikipepia article about SBS. The problem is not a misquote by the Wikipedia author but rather the quoted reference "Mraz" is a hatchet job at best. To illustrate -- Mraz states 903,000 children were victims of SBS. Unfortunately for her if you follow her references back until you find the original author you find out the number refers to the number of children abused, neglected and killed by ALL causes. There are more examples but this is why it seems it is not in fact peer reviewed. Even to the casual bystander 903,000 seems like an outrageous number of children to be killed and thus should have been caught as an error or misrepresentation.Daffydavid (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It is an official journal of the International Association of Forensic Nurses http://www.iafn.org/ The journal or so it says is seeking reviewers http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=1556-3693 so clearly has some sort of peer review process. So it appears to be a reliable source, not agreeing with the content or the assumptions is not the same as being unreliable. MilborneOne (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This journal doesn't seem to have an impact factor listed anyplace, which isn't a good sign. Generally we look at whether a source is reliable for particular information. It certainly doesn't seem like it would be reliable as a source for deaths caused by shaken baby syndrome, given that the author has misrepresented a source. I would think that if there are exceptional claims such as this, they may need to be corroborated by another source. TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Due to this being a pay site I have been unable to review any other articles, but counter to what MilborneOne suggests I am not taking exception to to content or assumptions, but rather erroneous citations. Almost every reference to Miehl http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/515880_2 made by Mraz http://www.slideshare.net/mmvera/the-physical-manifestations-of-shaken-baby-syndrome-journal-of-forensic-nursing has additional information or erroneous information. Sure errors occur, but to add info and then cite an author who didn't write this info is wrong. For the reviewers to not catch erroneous citations of an article available on their own site would seem to indicate that the review process is lacking. Does anyone have any advice on how to verify further if most sites are pay sites? Daffydavid (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's clear that this particular article isn't a reliable source. I don't understand your question about pay sites. TimidGuy (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My question about pay sites is that when I try to verify references I often encounter a site that will only let me view it if I pay. Is this good practice on Wikipedia? If it is good practice,is there a way to verify information without paying?Daffydavid (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:PAYWALL. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In the journal's favor is the fact that it is being published by Wiley-Blackwell one the most respected publisher of academic and scholarly works around. The journal is relatively new (2008) which explains the lack other papers using it as a reference.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'd hate to make that a basis for generalisation on source quality. Wiley-Blackwell will publish anything which meets their internal and market criteria. These may be below the standards of WP:MEDRS. Even OUP publishes books aimed at undergraduates (etc, etc). However, there shouldn't be any bigotry against a journal just because it is new. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Secondary vs. Tertiary Sources

Hi,In section Allegations of Disagreement with Ali of article Fatimah I am running into two not-so-agreeing sources. One is Verena Klemm's Book Chapter titled: "Image Formation of an Islamic Legend: Fà†ima, the Daughter of the Prophet Mu˙ammad" published by Brill in this book. The other source is a tertiary one, i.e. Encyclopedia of Islam.

The Tertiary source emphacises that Ali was rude and harsh (Shiddah and Ghelaz) to his wife during their marriage life without showing support (primary or secondary source). The secondary source however, mentions one occasion in the history where the wife complains about her husband's rudeness (Shiddah) to his father, i.e. Muhammad. Due to which the husband promises not to do anythig that his wife dislikes. The author of the secondary source provides primary sources to this incident.

My question: Can I write just the secondary source and not the tertiary? Considering the following guideline of Wiki: ((Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources.)) [1]

Kazemita1 (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify the problem,

There are two sources. The first one is Encyclopedia of Islam which is one of most reliable sources on Islam related topics. The second one is another secondary academic book. Both sources are reliable but the Encycoedia is peer reviewed by a larger community of scholars.

Encyclopedia of Islam contains some information not shared in the second source (simply not shared but I do not see disagreement between two sources). User Kazemita1 urges me to delete the information from Encyclopedia of Islam) which are not shared. Is he right to delete the material from the tertiary source?--Behzad.Modares (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Our policy on tertiary sources such as encyclopedias says, "Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others." There has been an understanding expressed on this noticeboard that encyclopedia articles signed by known academic experts have more credence than unsigned ones, because much of the time the latter are written by freelancers who don't necessarily know more about the topic than you or I do. I don't think there is any hard and fast rule here; I would typically seek a consensus on the article's Talk page regarding inclusion of the tertiary source. Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No, he's not right, there is no automatic preference of a secondary source over a tertiary. If both sources are higly reputable, the article should in doubt use both sources and report on there differing assessments.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If the secondary source could support the same material and viewpoint as the tertiary source, I would say we should favor the secondary one (ie I think it is OK to replace an acceptable citation to a tertiary source with a better one to a secondary source, when both sources support the same information with similar viewpoints)... but Kmh is absolutely correct when it comes to different sources with different viewpoints or takes on the topic. Blueboar (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Not quite, if we decide to favour any of them over simply listing both, the criteria should be reputation & quality rather than secondary versus tertiary. If the reputation and equality are equal as well then you might favour the secondary source. Though imho in most of these cases there's no real need to replace anything.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

We actually do have a hierarchy, and prefer secondary sources over tertiary sources when both are reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I've seen. The only heirarchy I've seen is preferring sources is in quality such as peer-reviewed articles/newpiece by a news organization known for strong editorial oversight vs. blog posts by expert.陣内_Jinnai 17:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, hence my posting above. The priority of many authors is (and imho should be) on quality/reliability/accuracy and the formal distinction between secondary and tertiary is a marginal issue they often pay little to no attention too. Note that distinguished special subject encylopedias and standardT/notable textbooks are used throughout WP and they are for the most part at least tertiary sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail, Digital Spy, Daily Express, and reliability for Doctor Who

User 88.104.40.103 has raised questions at this AfD on whether certain references are reliable for referencing the article. I, personally, believe they are, since the references are from widely-read newspapers and an entertainment news website. In short, they are this from the Daily Mail, this from the Daily Express, and this from Digital Spy.

Do note that, for these newspapers, since they are based in the UK, the term tabloid means the style of the layout, page size, and how the pages are formated. It does not mean trashy papers that have sensationalist stories, as it means here in the US. See the lede of Tabloid for more info.

Anyways, reliable or not? Silverseren^C 21:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

While 'tabloid' doesn't necessarily mean 'trashy', the Daily Mail is one of the trashiest rags I've ever had the misfortune to share a country with. In the words of Hugh Laurie, "I'm a Daily Mail reader myself – well, I prefer it to a newspaper." That said, I guess we have to accept them as reliable sources for articles, since they go to great lengths to confirm what they print... ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 21:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I could probably call quite a few of reliable US newspapers trashy too, but what stuff a newspaper covers doesn't make it unreliable and, especially when we're talking about TV show reviews, I don't think the info would be wrong. Silverseren^C 21:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wondering what the News of the World phone hacking affair has to do with the reliability of The Daily Mail or the others? Heiro 22:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(Not quite sure either.) Silverseren^C 22:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if they're not sure whether a story they have is true, they're clearly prepared to break the law just to get first-hand verification. You've got to admire such a thorugh approach to journalism. They're absolutely reliable. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 22:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that's News of the World, not any of the ones i'm proposing. And most major newspapers have scandals happen at one time or another. Someone always messes up somewhere and says or does something wrong and it explodes into a big fiasco. It's a lot like Wikipedia, really. But, anyways, what about the ones i'm proposing? Silverseren^C 22:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, they're trashy and sleazy, but of the utmost reliability. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 22:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So to tar these sources as unreliable, you associate them with a competitors misdeeds? This makes them unreliable how?Heiro 22:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Try looking again at what I've written, this time with your reading glasses on, then have another stab at replying. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 22:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I read it when you mentioned the nefarious dealings of another tabloid instead of the ones specifically in question. But you do seem to agree that the 3 sources in question are reliable for the purposes of the article in question. Am I correct in assuming this? I don't know with you half the time, way too many fine line word games and off topic innuendo. Heiro 22:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, no innuendo. I have a huge respect for all trashy tabloid newspapers. They have a widespread cultural effect on society which can only be a good thing. And check this out: in the last decade, the Daily Mail has only paid out just over £300,000 in libel damages, and that coveered five separate cases. Not a bad average for reliability at all! ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 22:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Think they'll be sued for libel in this case or is the article reliable?Heiro 22:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's relatively unlikely that a fictional alien will sue them for libel, particularly given that the aliens in question are forgotten the moment a human looks away from them. But of course, the questions, "Is that source reliable?" and, "Will that source be sued for libel?" are rather different. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 22:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the actual problem is regarding Dr. Who, just use intext attribution if your confidence in the daily mail on the subject is not that high.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell if TreasuryTag is being ironic or not. But to return to the subject. For direct quoting of others and reporting of events I'd consider the DM fairly reliable. But if an article by them hasn't got an author given , I'd suspect it of having been lifted off the internet somewhere rather than actually a result of journalistic effort. (But perhaps my view of the British press is soured by being a Private Eye reader). GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell if TreasuryTag is being ironic or not. It's better that way... [2] ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 13:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail is a "reliable source" under WP policies - recalling "reliable" != "infallible." Their libel record is pretty much similar to other British papers - they all have been sued. And DM has a better than average defence rate. As for "lifting stories", IIRC, the New York Times got caught doing that very thing. Collect (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Standard practice when writing about something from the Mail is to couch it in terms "Mail reported XXX said... is speculated... bla bla." Never use the Sun, etc., though, except e.g. where the Sun's commentary attracts its own outside (reliable) commentary.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a reasonably reliable tabloid newspaper. It's not at the level of a newspaper of record, but it's not complete rubbish. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Book by former Communist

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Vecrumba

Lia Looveer

Are these sources reliable:

• War Criminals Welcome: Australia, a sanctuary for fugitive war criminals since 1945 (2001), by Mark Aarons, published by Black Inc.. Aarons is an Australian journalist, having worked for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. His articles have appeared in The Australian and the Wall Street Journal.[3] From 1969 to 1978 he was a member of the Communist Party of Australia and his father was a leading Australian Communist.
• Australian Cold Warrior: The Anti-Communism of W. C. Wentworth (2010), doctoral thesis of Lachlan Clohesy at Victoria University, Australia.[4] The 356 page thesis cites Aarons' book eleven times in footnotes.

According to the administrator, Fred Bauder. use of these sources is in violation of Section 8 of Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors warned, "making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies". According to some editors, Aarons' book is unreliable because he was once a Communist and Clohesy's doctoral thesis is unreliable because he used Aarons' book as a source.

TFD (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are links to a Google scholar search for Mark Aarons, which returns 220 hits[5] and to a Google books search which returns 3,140 hits.[6] While the number of hits does not signify acceptance, readers may look at the cites to determine the degree of acceptance of Aarons' writing. TFD (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

To address the question of Mark Aarons's work and related work as not reliable sources, the problem is not they are not scholarly, or accurate, but that there is an obvious conflict of interest. A book by a scion of a family prominent in the Australian Communist Party about emigre politics has such a strong appearance of bias due to conflict of interest that regardless of its intrinsic qualities it can not be accepted as a reliable source, especially not by emigres; which is why bringing it up as a source in the context of an Estonian freedom fighter is so explosive. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That's nonsense. It's not covered by WP:RS and actually violates both common sense and WP:NOTCENSORED. We don't omit reliably sourced facts because someone does not like them, or because someone doesn't like the source. What about sources by "scions of families prominent in capitalist societies"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the fact here according to you Stephan Schulz? Is the fact that Mark Aarons has labelled Lia Looveer with "nazi collaborator" tag; or is the fact Looveer was a nazi collaborator since Aarons had said so? If you could be more clear on the facts you're talking about only then it would be possible to say what exactly is nonsense here.--99.20.143.253 (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The argument has been made that books by former Western intelligence agents regarding the Soviet Union suffer from conflict of interest; and I think there is something to that argument, as there would be to the argument that self-serving information from any source is suspect, an auto-biography being the most obvious example. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Aarons' books may be unreliable (I don't know them), but argument as "the author is unreliable because he was once a communist" are usually nonsense and a classical "kill the messenger" pattern. An author's world view or ideology may or may not influence the reliability of his works, what matters for WP however is, if they are indeed accurate/reliable or not. I. e. our judgement is based on the quality & reputation of the author's work not his world view. So what is needed here are, some reviews of his books and an assessment of his work by (external) 3rd parties.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the repeated use of the book by User:The Four Deuces and the associated doctoral dissertation to associate members of the ethnic peoples of the Soviet Union with the activities of Nazi collaborators; this is a violation of the arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Vecrumba which bans User:The Four Deuces indefinitely from editing material that relates to minority peoples of the Soviet Union. I think the book, and the derivative doctoral dissertation may have some value with respect to the subjects researched. This request is forum shopping with respect to the arbitration enforcement decision and, in fact, forms part of the basis for the decision made. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Black Inc. is a commercial academic publisher catering to higher levels of the commercial trade market. Black Inc. and Black Inc. Agenda have published high quality reliable scholarly sources though, most notably Manne (ed.) Whitewash: On Keith Windschuttle’s Fabrication of Aboriginal History. Aarons is a journalist, however, so this isn't a scholarly source. Given that study of the Australian far right is a limited field (or perhaps this is ingenious, rather, given that the study of the Australian far right has focused on its parliamentary wings...) I can't think of a scholarly source regarding Australia's preference for harbouring former war criminals with right wing leanings.
• Lachlan Clohesy (2010) Australian Cold Warrior: The Anti-Communism of W. C. Wentworth (doctoral thesis) Victoria University, Australia is a reliable source, and to my mind scholarly and a HQRS. Doctoral Theses in the Australian humanities are scholarly master works: they demonstrate full entry into the scholarly community. As long as Clohesy's opinion of Aaron's historical judgements is that Aaron's was correct, this does provide (in my opinion) a hqrs and scholarly source. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The idea of labeling sources in the black-and-white fashion as "reliable" or "unreliable" is wrong. Are they reliable to justify what? Yes, they are reliable to source a personal opinion of a PhD student. No, they are not reliable to make "generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies". And they are not reliable to make any serious accusations about living persons on-wiki, at least until the materials were published in multiple secondary RS. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well reliability (and repudiability) is always context depended, i.e. it depends on what is supposed to be sourced and in which situation. And the requirements on the degree of reliability might change as well. In some cases a single formally "reliable" source might be good enough in other cases several sources not just being formally reliable but rather being prestigious academic peer reviewed publications might be required. That all depends on whether content is universally agreed upon, hotly contested or potentially libelous.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• If someone could provide the statement the texts are intended to support it would help, "Foo Bar was a forest fighter and Australian authors and scholars claim he was a Nazi collaborator" is different to "Scholarly and journalistic sources claim that the Australian government preferentially admitted Nazi collaborators as refugees from the Baltic countries after WWII" is different to "People X were Nazi collaborators." Fifelfoo (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Way these sources are being used is "Scholarly and journalistic sources claim Foo was a Nazi collaborator; Scholarly and journalistic sources state Foo was a member of the same Ethnic Council as Bar; therefore Bar must have supported Foo and thus harbored Nazi sympathies". That's the problem here. --Martin (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Firstly, I advise TFD to interpret the GScholar results more carefully: among those 220 hits are the article about the effect of leucine repeats in some protein on the onset and development of diabetes, about fluid dynamics, and many equally unrelated articles.
Secondly, I have to concede that the list provided by TFD really contains several scholarly articles (e.g. Holocaust and Genocide Studies 17.3 (2003) 505-508, The Journal of American History, Vol. 89, No. 2, History and September 11: A Special Issue (Sep., 2002), pp. 703-705, etc) that cite Aarons' books. Therefore, there is no reason to declare that this source is unreliable. This does not automatically mean that it is mainstream, however, this question belongs to another noticeboard.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• I consider both sources are reliable per our standards. But, what's more, calling a PhD thesis "derivative" of a book because the book appears in its reference list ("11 times" in 350+pages!) is completely uncalled for. Scientific works cite all kinds of sources, reliable or not, for various purposes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

IMO, the gist of the matter is that Aaron who for many years was both a card-carrying member of the communist party and its activist, is evidently a political opponent of Looveer, who was a member of the Liberal Party of Australia. We should be very careful not to give too much weight on political outsider's opinions on the mainstream, which the Liberal Party undoubtedly is. The title of the book - War Criminals Welcome: Australia, a sanctuary for fugitive war criminals since 1945 - is also self-revealing as to the line of argument furthered by the author. Would anyone believe Australia was a safe haven for Nazis or that most of the Eastern European emigrés were closeted Nazis (the latter point being apparently advanced by some editors here)? I don't think so. We can use the book, but not for controversial statements. For that, the author would be just too partisan. Also, it seems Looveer is just mentioned passing by there, so I really doubt if this book has anything to offer for that matter. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Fifelfoo, the doctoral thesis would be a reliable source, and Aaron's book may be reliable for some things, but it not a good source. The political orientation of the author isn't really relevant. In regard to "Scholarly and journalistic sources claim Foo was a Nazi collaborator; Scholarly and journalistic sources state Foo was a member of the same Ethnic Council as Bar; therefore Bar must have supported Foo and thus harbored Nazi sympathies", that's classic SYNTH if the sources do not themselves make the connection. Since there are reliable academic sources that cite Aaron's book, we should rely on what those articles say. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the specific sources, but our policy about Ph.D. theses says they're normally considered reliable sources. How much weight, if any, to give to the thesis in this context, isn't something I've considered at all.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Miacek and his crime-fighting dog. Cannot agree. The reliable sources are "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and political beliefs of their authors are completely irrelevant. In any event, you cannot draw such conclusions by yourself; you need reliable sources that say so. With regard to mainstream vs outsider's opinion, this question belongs to another noticeboard.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• According to our guidelines [7], "journals not included in a citation index ... should be used with caution", "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable", "When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised". Well, a PhD thesis is a primary source which is simply not published in any journals and therefore not included in citation indexes. In addition, it is hardly peer reviewed. The people who usually read a PhD thesis are only a scientific adviser, a couple of reviewers found by the student, and (maybe) a few members of committee. Most important results from a PhD thesis must be already published in journals or other good RS (that's why one does not need PhD theses for sourcing). If they were not published in scientific journals, the thesis would be impossible to defend in any good academic institution, at least in natural sciences. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not so. Indeed, when I handed in my PhD, I still had to apply for permission to pre-publish some of the results in conference and journal articles. This has been changing for a while, but it's by no means universal that PhD results are published before the thesis. PhD theses from reputable universities are reviewed by the dissertation committee. This is not perfect, but it's about the same size as the typical pool of reviewers for a journal paper. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I am very surprised. Yes, it was the most important requirement in the USSR, at least if the thesis was to be defended in a good scientific institution, with exception of "top secret" theses. Yes, it is the key requirement in US university where I work right now. No one can defend scientific results that are not publishable in journals. If the original scientific results can not published in peer reviewed journals, such results are considered bullshit. The review in journals means something because reviewers are appointed by an independent 3rd party: an editor of the journal. No so during defending PhD theses. The outside reviewers (if any) are de facto selected by a scientific advisor of the student or/and by the student, and the members of dissertation committee usually do not have time to read the thesis, although they suppose to.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You made a jump there from published to publishable. Of course the key new results of a good PhD thesis should be publishable. But the expectation reflected 15 years ago was that the PhD thesis was the first publication of these results. Moreover, not everything in a thesis will be publishable - a significant part is the introduction and summary of existing work. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

An "expectation that the PhD thesis was the first publication of these results" 15 years ago... I have never heard about this. Of course that might be logical if a PhD work was considered something that tells only about student's qualifications, rather than on his ability to do independent research. But it was not really the case even in USSR 30 years ago... Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I forget to tell that members of dissertation committee are usually not experts on the subject of a PhD thesis. That is why they require main results of the dissertation to be reviewed by experts, which happens during publication in scientific journals.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Whereas the members of dissertation committees as a rule do not work in exactly the same area, they are highly reputable scientists who are quite able to understand the essence of the thesis and to analyse it in a broader context. Approval of the thesis by them, as well as positive reviews on the thesis is an equivalent to successful passing of the peer-reviewing procedure, which it is more than sufficient to claim that PhD thesis has been vetted by scientific community. PhD theses are as reliable as the articles in peer-reviewed journals.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, they understand what the thesis was about. But they can not judge if it was anything new in the field, and if the methodology was flawless. Or at least this is so in natural sciences. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Scholarship: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community...." TFD (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw it and therefore made link to precisely this text (see above). This is wrong guideline that needs to be changed for the reasons explained above. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Your examples do not come from the publishing culture (Australia) nor the discipline (history) of the thesis discussed above. You might want to rethink applying science publishing metaphors to the humanities. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Nothing is wrong with these guidelines.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this needs to be debated at the policy talk page at some point. I am not telling that PhD theses can not at all be used. Indeed, I am not familiar with situation in Humanities in Australia. Perhaps one can defend a PhD thesis in Australia on results that were not published in normal scientific literature. I do not know.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The defence of a PhD thesis as such is not related to any prior publication, but many departments/universities simply expect or require their PhD candidates to publish parts of their dissertation. Such requirements can of course be seen as an additional quality insurance and provide an increased reliability. However there are also many departments/universities, which do not have such a requirement (even in the natural sciences). In such cases the lack of a journal publication does not necessarily mean, that the content of the PhD is "bullshit", it may just means that the topic/content may be of lesser interest to journals or that PhD candidate was simply not living the "publish or perish"-rationale to the lst bit (it happens).

I agree that such PhD thesis' probably should be considered less reliable than those partially published in peer reviwed journals, however imho they are still useful/acceptable as sources for largely uncontroversial content. For controversial or hotly contested content, the requirements for "reliable" sources may go up anyhow, possibly being restricted to peer reviewed top rated journals only. But we need to make a distinction between sourcing strongly contested or controversial content and (the bulk of) uncontroversial content. I think you still can argue that such PhDs are in average more reliable and better fact checked/researched than newspapers, general interest journals or self published sources by notable experts, which we consider "reliable" sources as well.

Also to my experience in the humanities it is also common that a thesis might not be published in parts in a peer reviewed journal, but rather as a whole as a book with some acadamic publisher.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I am just curious, which exactly departments/universities in the US do not require publications from people who receive PhD degrees in natural sciences? (I would certainly prefer a self-published source by a notable expert, or a publication in newspaper by a reputable journalist, rather than a PhD thesis by a person no one knows about, especially if the author was unable to publish his results elsewhere for whatever reason). Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Again unpublished in a peer reviewed journal does not equate unable to publish.

As far as a concrete example is concerned, I didn't have the US in mind in particular. However you can take a look at the following survey of PhD programs for mechanical engineering (mostly in the US): [8]. From 64 surveyed PhD programs only 12 formally require a publication as part of the PhD.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• "I am not familiar with situation in Humanities in Australia. Perhaps one can defend a PhD thesis in Australia on results that were not published in normal scientific literature." You're obviously heavily unfamiliar with humanities publishing in general. Humanities authors rarely if ever publish in the "scientific literature" because humanities is a domain separate from science. Humanities has its own normal humanities literature. Humanities has its own normal publishing culture. These differ very very strongly from what you propose is normal in the sciences. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

How come? I have seen a lot of publications on History subjects in ISI citation index database, just like articles on natural sciences subjects. This is "scientific literature", is not it? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think at this point we need to distinguish between various forms of "sciences". There is science as in natural sciences, science as in engineering or technical science, science as in medical science as in as in social, political economic sciences,..., or science as in any academic scholarly (university) work. All of them have somewhat different methodologies and publishing cultures. In addition you have differences between different national cultures and differences between various universities within a nation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Humanities methodologies and publishing expectations vary considerably from scientific ones. There is no concept of regression or statistical proof (the key differentiation between humanities and social sciences). The core methodologies in the humanities are interpretive and discursive, and the primary object of analysis is "texts" in the sense of semantically encoded data. A journal article in the humanities is expected to be 5,000 to 12,000 words in most places representing about a year of full-time research exertion. These are produced overwhelmingly by single individual research teams. Meta-analysis and "proof" reviews occur as long ranging debates. The period of "currency" of research in the humanities is between 60 and 150 years. The standard form of publication in the humanities is the sole authored monograph or chapter in edited collection. While ISI and other indexing services dedicated to the sciences may index humanities journals, this does not mean that "significance" is visible through citation counts or h-indicies. Impact factors in the humanities are measured in a similar manner to normal proof in the humanities: through discursive analysis of texts. The concept of a "controversy" matters more in the humanities than in the sciences, with debates occurring on a particular topic when a major work of new interpretation appears (ie: the Goldhagen debates, the Windshuttle debates). Additionally, humanities go through 40 year cycles of new research methods causing deep ranging field reassessment, for example "post-modernism" or "the linguistic turn" over the last 40 years, prior to that structuralism, prior New Criticism, etc. Or British Literary history => history from below => social history => cultural history. In addition, the concept of a "significant research finding" varies considerably. Most if not all PhD theses are expected to produce a significant finding, a finding which stands alone. PhD theses are regularly if not exclusively assessed by external markers who are field specialists; who have on-point methodological speciality. Humanities differ from sciences in: the object of inquiry, the basic method of research, the manner of reporting findings, what findings are considered significant, and the method of meta-analysis to confirm which findings are of universal importance. One aspect of the humanities research culture is that PhD theses are considered masterworks, and are assessed as the first research output. In the past most humanities PhDs resulted in a sole authored monograph which was the hardly emended thesis. Since 1980, due to publishing constraints, this has changed such that theses are generally not published in toto in the humanities as monographs. In addition, some humanities theses have always been considered as incompatible with the monograph format as they engage in work considered only of interest to other scholars, rather than a mass audience. These works have never been converted into monographs at any proportion (think of a historiography thesis which does not produce a "scandalous" finding). Some areas, like Germany, mandate a "publication" to allow for thesis availablity: thus VdM publishers. However, in the United States, UK and Australiasia open access digital repositories are the norm to make theses available. This mirrors the traditional role of the University Archive in holding theses. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, your points are taken, except that many areas of humanities, like sociology, psychology and even linguistics are using statistical analysis of data. Of course some of that was debated before. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Sociology is normally considered a "social science" as is psychology, though some times psychologic is considered a "science" at the "softer" end of the scale. Linguistics is normally considered a humanity, but as you note, is highly reliant on formal or statistical proofs (as, for that matter, is analytical philosophy). Maths is occasionally considered a humanity, and is definitely reliant on formal and statistical proofs. While Humanities blend into social sciences (much history makes qualitative, if not statistical, assessments; much sociology is discursive) there is still a strong attractor concept of the humanities as a discursively proven field whose object of study is texts. Thanks again! Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Atlanta Progressive News info on 9/11 government conspiracy theories

Is this site reliable for adding the information it contains to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article? It looks kinda like a blog, but I wanted to be sure. Nightscream (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. No indication of who writes it, what their sources are, or what editorial oversight there is. Only a reliable source for its own opinions, which show little evidence of notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Per Andy - doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Is a Forbes invited contributor a reliable source for whether the War on Terror may be over etc

Is http://blogs.forbes.com/kenrapoza/2011/05/01/under-obama-no-more-osama-and-with-him-goes-the-war-on-terrorism/ by http://blogs.forbes.com/people/kenrapoza/ a reliable source for asking whether the War on Terror and Osama bin Laden articles can be improved on their talk pages? I wasn't even adding anything to the article and I got reverted. If that's not a reliable source, then what is? 173.8.151.126 (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the source is reliable or not, your soapboxing on the talk page was off-topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe it was soapboxing. What is it biased towards? 173.8.151.126 (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It was biased towards discussing subjects other than the article for which this was the talk page. Since you were not attempting to 'add anything to the article', your comments were off-topic. (For what it's worth, the question you asked is a valid one, but not there). AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

To the point, I think the contributor's view could be cited in appropriate articles, but whether the war on terror is or is nearly over is something which people are not going to agree upon and I would not expect to see a declaration of non-war from any official source.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Leroy Mendonca article incorrect

I don't know why you people insist Leroy was Filipino. We are his family and he is 100% Portuguese. Documents are published by people not by our family. Please correct your article it is incorrect. You can speak with my wife and get the truth. Please stop, it does no one any good printing false hoods. Let him rest, he has given enough.

Geographic.org

We have hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles solely based on geographic.org [9], an ad-filled database of geographic names, supposedly coming from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. While this is a government institution, the database in itself is highly unreliable (for at least the US, Belgium and Aghanistan, I haven't checked their entries for every country). I have listed some examples at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dara-I-Pech.

The question is whether I am correct to believe that given the number of obvious errors, we shouldn't consider geographic.org as a reliable source. Fram (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

To add another example: Khvoshi. I can't find a single reliable source for this location which isn't based on the same database. I can find sources for Khoshi, also known as Khushi, which seems to be an administrative center of Khoshi District, and which is located in Bala Deh. I presume Khvoshi is an error, and this is supposed to be Khoshi/Khushi. 13:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a more directed question—with a more actionable answer—would be, "is geographic.org sufficiently reliable to be the sole source for the existence and location of populated places?" If I'm not mistaken, the issue arises with respect to stub articles about populated places, where no other references are cited at all (not merely no other place data is cited, but no other reference is cited even with respect to the existence or type of the place).

It would be helpful for editors wishing to formulate opinions to have a brief summary of evidence for the ways in which the source suspect, or reasons to believe the source is reliable. ^Bongo_matic 13:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Allright. The reason I think the source is suspect is because, when checking some entries, I couldn't verify them. This could be explained away for e.g. Afghanistan with a lack of online sources, and transcription problems. However, when I did the same for the US, I noted that it clearly contains glaring errors, like the populated place "A Sherton", which is an error for Asherton, Texas[10]. Or Mayes Addition Colonia, a populated place in Rancho Alegre, Texas next to Hawks Addition Colonia. These may be historical place names, but they can't be very old, considering that we have Airport Addition Colonia as well, and many other similar neames. The sad thing is that the only "Additional Colonia" I cound find reliable sources for, was Sparks Additional Colonia, which is not included in geographic.org. Fram (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick interjection. Based on the edit summaries here, terms are being confused... "primary" does not = "unreliable". Some primary sources can be extremely reliable, and some secondary sources can be completely unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No one discussed this distinction, as far as I am aware, and I don't think it is relevant here. Fram (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Fram states: the database in itself is highly unreliable yet other than antedotal onesy-twosy examples, there is no criteria or statistical evidence that supports that. Geographic.org claims 8 million + geographic names. What % of those must be in error for it to be highly unreliable? And indeed, what % of the total data is in error? And how are those errors being validated, against what other Reliable source. I can say for sure that GNIS and UKGeonames contain some % of errors. Whether or not we should be sourcing articles from Geographic.org is a good question, but lets establish some realistic and verifiable criteria for highly unreliable before we jump too far. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

there are, even in very well mapped countries, many geographic names which may or may not represent a distinct place, as compared to an isolated house (frequent on UK Ordnance Survey Maps) or an indistinct district, as I've encountered many times in the US. There are additionally many example all over the world of settlements, some of even with populations of hundreds of thousands, which have exactly the same name, and are located in different provinces or districts, or US states. As an additional difficulty, there are many instances where the same name is used for a settlement, and also the district containing it--New York and New Jersey have particularly confusing systems, so I assume that parts of the world I know less well, such as Afghanistan and Nepal, may be similarly complex. The solution is to give what information there is, and attribute it to what sources there are. No source is completely reliable for all purposes. Typographical and transcription errors occur in all. A reasonable degree of accuracy is all that can be expected in the world. The principle at Wikipedia is that our multiple contributors will fill in the gaps and resolved the difficulties. If we wait until they are resolved, we will have very little content in most subjects. I would not necessarily reject in most subjects a source with even 10% errors, if it was the best available. In my own subject, the very best sources have between 1 and 5% errors. The ones that are compilations from many sources (such as WorldCat) have relatively higher rates of inconsistency, but they also have multiple components to cross-check. DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, I don't think anyone here has made arguments on either side that touch on primary/secondary/tertiary issues.

Mike Cline / Fram, I agree with Mike that there is no evidence that the database is "highly unreliable"—rather, there are some entries that have been shown to be highly suspect.

DGG, what threshold of error is acceptable for topics where it is possible that no other sources will exist to verify the information? Is this the same threshold as for topics that are likely to be easy to find multiple sources on? Does it matter that here, it is is quite difficult to attribute lack of other sources to (variously) incorrect versus obscure information? ^Bongo_matic 22:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

While "highly unreliable" may be too strong, the percentage of problems I have found by spotchecking is too high to be acceptable to me. Fram (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me rephrase the question: if I would use geographic.org to create articles on all populated places in the US listed in that database that don't yet have an article, would you consider that acceptable? If not, why not? Fram (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Fram, absolutely acceptable (although doing so would be pointy if the sole purpose was to expose errors in the source). Given the existence of multiple reliable sources related to geographic names, geo-locations, elevations, et. al., any error that geographic.org data might contain would be easily rectified by data from another source. Especially considering the online mapping we have today, geo-locations are extraordinarily easy to validate. Geographic.org may not be a perfect (error-free) source for geographic data, but neither is GNIS or PCGN (UK). That said, a great many NY Times articles contain factual and other errors when viewed in the light of history and new evidence, but does that make it an unreliable source? No. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The comparison with the NYT is not instructive. NYT is a publication with robust, if imperfect, editorial oversight. geographic.org cannot be said to be subject to editorial oversight at all, so (now I will raise the issue touched on by Blueboar) it's not clear that it even falls within the bounds of a secondary source. ^Bongo_matic 22:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A small random sample

I just did a random sample of various places in different countries where I've spent some time (sorry if that looks like OR; but personal experience is an extra datapoint to add to what atlases say &c).

1. Mkuze: First search result on Geographic.org places it over 1000km away (and in a different country) from the correct location which is attested by multiple atlases &c. Careful reading through search results with the help of a different - reliable - source will get the "real" mkuze but with a variant spelling and a mere 100km from the correct location.
2. Woluwe-Saint-Lambert: This is a district of Brussels. You'd expect a national intelligence agency to have a rudimentary understanding of the city where NATO is based. Geographic.org gives a coordinate in a different district of Brussels.
3. Lytham St Annes: Geographic doesn't know it exists, although it does have reasonable coordinates for "Lytham" and "Saint Annes".
4. Coeur d'Alene: Geographic seems to get this one right.
5. Kornelimünster: Geographic is almost right on this one (compared to Google Maps) - the coordinates are for a field a mile from the town centre. Presumably this is a rounding artefact; if Geographic don't actually have data accurate to a millionth of a degree, the extra digits they present are somewhat misleading.
6. Lacanau: Same as Kornelimünster.
7. Bobo-Dioulasso: Same as Kornelimünster.
8. Dakhla: Same as Kornelimünster (it's a coastal town; Geographic gives coordinates for a location which Google Maps reckons is 10km offshore, and I'm inclined to trust Google Maps in this case)
9. Sabratah: Looks reasonably accurate.

So, I would not trust it as a source of geographic information any more than I would trust, say, fallingrain. bobrayner (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've seen a lot of quirks in transcriptions of placenames from non-English languages &c, as well as the fact that Geographic seems to have a lot of entries for things which aren't actually settlements, per se. Therefore, if Geographic alone says that a settlement exists, I simply wouldn't trust it as a sole source- because there is a significant probability that it's not actually a settlement, or that the name on Geographic is just a variant of some other name which is better evidenced elsewhere (and may already have a wikipedia article &c). Based on my first example, if you took Geograph seriously as a source you could create twenty new articles for places that look a bit like "Mkuze", "Mkhuzi", "Mkuzi-Suid" (a random bit of uninhabited land an hour's drive to the south), &c plus the mysterious "Mkuze Estate" which is - in reality - a random point within a differently-named nature reserve... bobrayner (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Poll

Should articles be created using only geosource.orggeographic.org without additional editorial input including searches for other sources?

• No, for reasons articulated above. ^Bongo_matic 22:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• No (assuming you mean geographic.org - or are they related?). This is because we don't have sufficient confidence that any given entry in the database is accurate and unique; too much potential to create duplicate articles for spelling variants, or for other secondary landmarks near the "real" landmark, &c (and an entry in this database is not a very good assurance of notability). bobrayner (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• No, it can obviously be used as a starting point for a personal list of potentially missing articles, but needs checking with other, more reliable sources before an article is created. Fram (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • As another, blatant example of an earlier run of geographic.org articles: Bona see Buna. This article is comparable to the venerable Dord... Fram (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    • That's really quite impressive. We can't rely on such sources for new articles; this is a project to build an encyclopædia, not a race to create as many placeholders as possible, expecting somebody else to come along later and remove all the mistakes. bobrayner (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

inform-fiction.org

Is www.inform-fiction.org a reliable source for the contents of Z-machine? It seems to be a personal website with contributed content. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything that establishes WP:NOTABILITY. There's not a single third-party source. I agree that an article shouldn't be based solely on this website. TimidGuy (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Democracy Now

This morning, the lead on Democracy now was that the United States had "assassinated" Osama Bin Laden.

The manhunt for Osama Bin Laden is over. Nearly 10 years after the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, U.S. forces are said to have assassinated the Saudi-born founder of Al Qaeda on Sunday inside Pakistan. President Obama addressed the news late on Sunday night.Headlines May 2, 2011 Democracy Now

This sort of flat statement when later in interviews it is obvious she has no such information is unacceptable. This is typical of the way Democracy Now will twist news to suit their political agenda. The situation is complicated by the fact that occasionally Democracy Now breaks important stories. My suggestion is generally treat Democracy Now as a biased source; that is. if it is used it should be balanced by a mainstream account. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

News aggregator. To the extent that they carry out investigative journalism they can be treated as a mainstream news source. Here they are obviously picking up a story from the wires, so we would obviously prefer either to go directly to AP or Reuters, or to use the BBC etc. Bias isn't really the issue. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, being on the square in Egypt was definitely good. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Clear case where the actual source should be used. And yet another example where Wikipedia needs a substantial enforcement of NPOV. Collect (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain the problem to me? Is something wrong with the word "assassinate"? Hans Adler 18:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if it does not happen to be the correct word to describe the action being talked about. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is it not? Because the US government is using a different word and the American media are all following it? Let's look at our article assassination:

An assassination is "to murder (a usually prominent person) by a sudden and/or secret attack, often for political reasons." An additional definition is "the act of deliberately killing someone especially a public figure, usually for hire or for political reasons."'

Assassinations may be prompted by religious, ideological, political, or military motives.

That article's section Asassination#Targeted killing tells me that there is an internal political debate in the US about the legality or otherwise of "targeted killings". Well, Der Spiegel already has the first article quoting professor of international law de:Claus Kreß with statements that allow the conclusion that the killings (more people than just Bin Laden were killed) were in fact illegal as they did not happen in a war context. (So far only in German. [11]) Hans Adler 19:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating as this debate would be, I have to decline to take part. For the purposes of Wikipedia, the "correct" word has to be that used by a reliable source. Anything else would be original research or synthesis. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, from former West German Defence Minister, then Federal Chancellor Helmut Schmidt: "On the one hand it is unambiguously an infraction against effective international law. On the other hand, given the unrest in the Arabic world, the act can lead to effects that cannot be appreciated at the moment." [12]

You are using circular logic. If all reliable sources that use a word that you would like to censor are automatically not reliable, then of course no reliable sources use the word. Hans Adler 19:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post titles:

PM [= Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu] congratulates Obama for bin Laden assassination. [13]

He's got a political agenda; that's his job; Democracy Now poses as a news organization; it is their job too, as the voice of the radical left but not as a reliable news organization. Neither has accurate information regarding the actual circumstances of Osama bin Laden's death. Perhaps he was ordered to surrender and only shot when HE opened fire; perhaps not; we may never know. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a reliable source because it uses the wrong word? Hans Adler 19:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have made no comment on the reliability of any source using this word. I have no desire to censor the word -- but I do want to see it verified by attribution to a reliable source. Your comment on circular logic is thus incorrect. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

My comment was more adressed to editors in this thread in general, as I seem to see a distinct American, nationalist, bias. Hans Adler 19:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Haaretz titles:

Pakistan and U.S. coordinated bin Laden assassination, says envoy [14]

Hans Adler 19:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I am sure that Jerusalem Post is a reliable source for the assertion "Binyamin Netanyahu described the killing of Bin Laden as an assassination". But unless Mr Netanyahu was privy to the circumstances of the killing, then it is at least questionable whether his opinion is a reliable source for the statement "Bin Laden was assassinated". Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

One doesn't have to be privy to the precise circumstances of the killing to assess whether the US were in a state of war with, um, with whom anyway? And one doesn't have to be privy to the precise circumstances of the killing to see that this wasn't a proper execution of a verdict of any legitimate court, nor an act of immediate self-defence. Scholars of international law and other experts have everything they need to assess this case, and some have already come to the conclusion that it was an illegal act. (Personally I am not too unhappy about it, but that's a completely separate question.) Hans Adler 19:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Now it's reaching American news blogs such as that of MSNBC: "Was it right to kill bin Laden? Amid the celebrations over the death of al-Qaida's leader, Art Caplan weighs in on the ethics of assassination " [15] (Of course that's just commentary so far.) Hans Adler 19:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) So reliable sources are reporting disputes over whether to use the word? Even more reason to avoid attempting to resolve the word usage issue here or indeed anywhere else on WP, and confine ourselves to assessing the reliability of sources (at this board) and going through the other normal editing procedures elsewhere. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"To the extent that they carry out investigative journalism they can be treated as a mainstream news source."

I wouldn't put it like that. They are all highly opinionated to an extreme. If they pick something up off a wire service then we should find the wire service.

In this case, I'd say we need another source to use the word "assassinated" unless we directly quote Democracy Now! to let readers know that this was their own reaction to the story.

I do think their interviews are reliable insofar as they're accurately quoting notable people. I'm sure I've used them that way myself. But I would never cite their positions as being facts.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That point isn't relevant to this discussion anyway. It was related to the initial post about DN in general. If they break a new story, based on their own investigations, they may be reliable. For this there are better sources. The news of the killing came not really from the wires but from the White House. Most of press reported it in exactly the same way. Haaretz and JP are newspapers of record, so their use of the "a" word is prima facie notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the official U.S. story:

Mr. Brennan said that the raid was intended to capture Bin Laden, though those who planned it assumed he would resist. “If we had the opportunity to take him alive, we would have done that,” he said.[16]

User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out just above, this is the Reliable Sources noticeboard, not the Did-the-US-do-the-right-thing-killing-Bin-Laden noticeboard. Whether you, I, Hans or Mr Brennan think this was assassination, justifiable homicide or premeditated champerty is simply irrelevant. What reliable sources independent of the subject say is the only thing that counts.

Now, what source did you want to discuss the reliability of? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This whole discussion dances around the issue of the word "assassination". It's a perfectly neutral word with a precise definition, and therefore shouldn't be considered as loaded language, which appears to be the insinuation here simply because an allegedly biased source used it.

If Wikipedia always has to use the exact words that sources use, then we'd get dangerously close to copyright violations. Fortunately, Wikipedia does not have to use the exact words that sources use, unless we are quoting the sources. It is not original research to use words that summarize or provide a neutral overview of an event, as long as the words are used properly. That's what "compelling prose" is, people.

If a biased source happens to use the word, that fact alone doesn't mean the word is biased. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC) The ref in Haaretz cited a little above is certainly usable. It furthermore that news source does not represent anti-US bias . I suspect in the next few hours we'll get quite a number of additional mainstream sources using that word. In terms of implications, whether the word is pejorative depends on who is getting assassinated. Sources normally refer to " the assassination plot against Hitler" without implying the least disapproval. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The term "targeted assassinations" is part of the lingo of counter-terrorism. See for example human rights expert Michael Ignatieff's comment, ""To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war."[17] TFD (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No doubt. Now, what source did you want to discuss the reliability of? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

@Fred Bauder: Actually what's the issue here "Democracy Now" as a source or the usage of term "assassination" ?

• Obviously at least several "reliable", "reputable" or "mainstream" sources outside the US use the term assassinatiom and so do some notable (legal) experts. So you can hardly blame Democracy Now for putting a particular twist on it, it is fairly within in the range of global reporting even though it might be an outlier within the US media. Hence I see no real argument against Democracy Now.
• Now as far as the term "assassination" is concerned. In doubt it doesn't really matter whether a WP editor thinks those "reliable", "reputable" or "mainstream" media use the term "assassination" correctly or not and whether they have enough information to determine if the usage of that term is appropriate, but we simply summarize/report what those media outlets write. Arguing about the true meaning and correct usage of the term assassination is more or less a "verifibality but truth"-scenario (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). "Assassination" might not be true, but it is definitely verifiable and as long as neither WP editors nor an overwhelming majority of reputable/reliable sources can agree on the truth, verifiability is all we get.

So there is neither a case against Democracy Now nor against the usage of the term "assassination". What you can do however, if you personally feel that either (Democracy Now or the term "assassination") is controversial, is to insist on intext attribution, to include differing verifiable descriptions from other reliable sources or simply to come up with a replacement term that deems acceptable to the other involved editors.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be the wrong forum. The issue is the neutrality of the description rather that the reliablitiy of the source. Reliability would be questioning whether or not Bin Laden had been killed. Note too that DN is just using assassinated as a synonymn for deliberate killing. Whether or not our use of that term is appropriate has nothing to do with the reliablity of the DN article. TFD (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is over whether Democracy Now is a biased source should be used at all. Amy Goodman is an expert propagandist; no one needs to put words in her mouth. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If the question was whether from the mere fact that Democracy Now used the term assassination it follows that they are a biased source (a question that is not entirely on-topic for this noticeboard, but also not entirely off-topic), then I think it's pretty clear by now that the answer is No. Hans Adler 18:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Fred, why do you expect a definitive guideline on DN on the basis of one word, when that's not the usual practice of this board? We said at the beginning that DN is not an ideal source for this story. I'm sure that other cases will come up again and then we people will comment in context. Agree with Hans except that biased is hardly relevant. The Daily Telegraph is biased but still RS for many things. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

@Fred Bauder: There is nothing wrong with sources "being biased" or "having an opinion" or an "ideological or political leaning". Sources are not required to be neutral, but WP articles are, which is big difference! As far as sources are concerned "being biased" only matters if that leads to (heavily) inaccurate or misleading reporting/descriptions and then the issue is not the bias as such but that the source is unreliable due to being inaccurate/misleading/mistating facts. So far I haven't heard an single convincing reason, why Democracy Now cannot be used as a source. That you think Democracy Now is "biased" is certainly none (even if it were true). I'm not quite sure what kind propagandist Amy Goodman is supposed to be and for what and why exactly that would be an issue. As far as her accuracy is concerned I think in comparison to some other media like Fox, Wahington Times or the Weekly Standard being (formally) allowed for sourcing she and Democracy Now do fairly well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In order to use this example as a reason why DM is not reliable, rather than that it uses language which, like many reliable sources, may not meet WP requirements for neutrality, Fred Bauder would have to show that other media did not report that Bin Laden had been killed, and that DM routinely reports events that did not happen. Even then, we would need a reliable source that says they routinely publish false news. TFD (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not a question of neutrality; she had no source at all. Well, I guess neutrality is involved; what she made up was not neutral. So long as anyone thinks material from Democracy Now can be considered a reliable source for any purpose I'll keep looking for more examples. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Again there is no requirement for sources being "neutral", but only for WP articles. If you have information that her news/information it is unreliable, it is high time to provide some evidence, otherwise this duscission can be considered closed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a requirement that a source be reliable, which Democracy Now fails, but so did the official White House spokesman.[18], "Osama bin Laden was not carrying a weapon when he was killed by American troops in a fortified house in Pakistan, the White House said Tuesday, as it revised its initial account of the nighttime raid." Both are revealed as unreliable sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

And the job of both is to report faithfully whatever information they receive, which is likely what happened. If the initial information was flawed, then so is the reporting. This doesn't mean these sources made up information, it doesn't reflect on their reliability, it's more of a GIGO problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Book review

This book review, available at a number of websites including Palestine Chronicle and Atlantic Free Press, was used in the article Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle. Editors have challenged the source as "unreliable". Is this an acceptable source for an attributed statement on the author's views of the quality of the book? nableezy - 20:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be OK. Minor review, don't over-emphasise, keep on including a variety of reviews from different sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on why you think it's OK? The publication "more often than not, had no specific address" and runs on a annual budget of $30,000 [19]. It's also self admittedly highly partisan. The author of the review's credentials appear to be "Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist of opinion pieces and book reviews for The Palestine Chronicle. Miles' work is also presented globally through other alternative websites and news publications" [20]. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The publication is highly partisan, with a clear political agenda. I would be very leery of using something like this. Moreover, the reviewer seems to be non-notable, so more reason to look for higher quality sources. Rym torch (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair assessment. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, and the argument that a reviewer is non-notable is a red herring. Notability does not determine content of articles (see WP:NNC). Many sources are partisan, many more have a "clear political agenda" (even if that were true). That does not disqualify them from use as reliable sources. Sources are not required to be "neutral", articles are. Sources are not required to be "notable", articles are. These are irrelevant arguments as they do not address the requirements for reliability. Palestine Chronicle has an editorial board and fact checking. It is, according to WP:RS, a usable source. Inline attribution would be acceptable, but to argue for the removal of a source based on it being "partisan" or "non-notable" is an argument that is not in keeping with the actual guideline. nableezy - 03:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

what is the evidemce that it performs fact checking? Rym torch (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

in fact, if you check their "disclaimer" page, they explicitly DENY any fact checking: "The Palestine Chronicle makes no representation concerning and does not guarantee the source, originality, accuracy of any of the material herin". This is a junk source that should not be used. Rym torch (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Had not seen that. I suppose it would be out for factual material. But that was not why it was in, it is there for an attributed view from the author. nableezy - 04:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

so when you said it performs fact checking, what where you basing it on?Rym torch (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Using these criteria, Israel National News is a reliable source. Would you agree? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

For an attributed opinion for the views of the settlers, sure. nableezy - 12:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points I think worth making. Firstly, the source is only being used for an opinion, not for facts. Secondly, while this clearly appears to be an advocacy site, Israeli advocacy sites like CAMERA, StandWithUs, NGOWatch and others are commonly used as sources on I-P pages. Is there some reason why these sources should be acceptable and a Palestinian-advocacy site should not? Gatoclass (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Right. Of course it's reliable for the opinion it presents, and even if one dislikes that opinion an unbiased reading of the review will convince all but the most extreme among us that it's well researched. How much weight to give to it is a different question altogether; one that belongs on the NPOV noticeboard rather than here. But I think it'd be a hard sell to propose that it's wrong to allow voices from the other side of a conflict to be heard about a book that so actively champions and advocates for the one side.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Per other statements above, this is no good for facts but for an attributed comment on a book, it's a question of weight rather than reliability. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The remaining question would be, given that the source is not reliable and the author not a recognized expert on the topic, why would one want to quote the opinion of Jim Miles in a Wikipedia article? But that would likely be more of a WP:UNDUE issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So it looks like several of you wouldn't accept as reliable any source that says it "does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information displayed, uploaded, or distributed through" the source or that says "we make no warranties or representations as to the accuracy of the Content and assume no liability or responsibility for any error or omission in the Content" or that it "expressly disclaims all warranties of fitness for a particular purpose, accuracy, completeness or non-infringement"?

Let me encourage you to consider who is making these direct disclaimers of factual accuracy before you answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the disclaimers in the NYT, LAT and Sunday Times are for legal purposes - their purpose is to limit the rights of those who may want to sue the publishers. The disclaimers have nothing to do with whether those well regarded publications have an editorial board or do fact-checking. The same principle of course applies to the Palestine Chronicle - the fact that the Palestine Chronicle has a legal disclaimer page has nothing to do with whether it has an editorial board or does fact-checking. It is a classic red herring. KeptSouth (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

instructables.com

Someone has been repeatedly adding links to the site instructables.com (which has its own article here) to Faraday effect and other articles. The link-adding accounts are currently blocked and Faraday effect is temporarily semi-protected.

Instructables consists of purely user-generated/uploaded content. As such, it doesn't qualify as a reliable source for use as a reference, but I wanted to gauge the community's thoughts on its use as an external link.

My inclination is to remove such links due to the first two WP:EL criteria of links to be avoided, as well as WP:NOTHOWTO. Thoughts? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the first two items of WP:ELNO? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant.

I'm somewhat amused that the user who was blocked for spamming these links has posted an unblock request for the explicit purpose of continuing to add them. He clearly believes they are a valuable addition, although I and others who have reverted him do not. No doubt when the block expires, we'll see more. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This board is really more about reliable sources, but those links don't seem particularly encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse my lapse in thinking. Sorry, I meant to post this at WP:ELN, not WP:RSN. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

School publications

I know that published sources don't have to be easily verifiable, but what if they aren't verifiable at all? Say someone cites to a 30-year-old school newspaper or yearbook (in the editor's possession), but there's no way to obtain copies from the school. Is the source reliable? Is there some way to make the source verifiable, although I can't think of any way to do that without implicating copyright concerns. The edit in question is here. (I reverted the edit, but not just because of the source issue.)--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• If the School is a University, the University may have an obligation under records laws, and either have its own Archivist, or deposit its archives. Ephemeral and official publications are a "high priority" for organisational archives. If the document was published, it may have been collected by the national, provincial or local copyright deposit library. You may also try asking a local or academic library for an ILL / document supply request for the edition in question, or for assistance in locating where a physical or microfilm copy is held. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a high school.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A high school newspaper or yearbook wouldn't meet the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

With the exception of signed articles which are attributed to a known person, material relating to anticipated graduating class (as such information is unlikely to be otherwise in any non-yearbook source other than self-published ones) etc. Not generally usable for "facts" and nonusable for opinions. Collect (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You might find Wikipedia:Published helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Cambio

In recent edits an IP editor added an entry and supported it with the following reference. Is cambio.com a reliable source? IMHO, it appears to fall under WP:SPS, however I am seeking additional opinions prior to dismissing it as such.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a contest described on the site as follows: "Cambio and AT&T present On the Spot, the largest global online and interactive talent search to form the next Supergroup." Given the backers, it is probably notable and I suppose it would be reliable for assertions that particular people participated, advanced to the next level, etc. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Taíno people existance in modern day.

1. The full citation of the source in question: [5] Documenting the Myth of the Taino Extinction, by Lynne Guitar. Archive copy at the Wayback Machine.

2. A link to the source in question. For example [www.webpage.com] http://replay.web.archive.org/20030204061221/http://www.kacike.org/Editors.html

3. The article in which it is being used. Taíno people at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%C3%ADno_people

4. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting. "It is argued that there was substantial mestizaje (racial and cultural mixing) as well as several Indian pueblos that survived into the 19th century in Cuba. The Spaniards who first arrived in the Bahamas, Cuba, and Hispaniola in 1492, and later in Puerto Rico, did not bring women. They took Taíno women for their wives, which resulted in mestizo children.[5]"

5. Links to relevant talk page discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Erichb1 Clearly this is a self serving article that is referenced in support of the above statement. It is not peer reviewed, nor is there any supporting documentation to prove the statement. There is a clear conflict of interest here as the website has been set up exclusively to promote the idea that Taíno people still exist today so as to try and establish some basis for taking back land in these areas. If you look at the wayback link showing the editorial board, you will see that Lynne Guitar is the editor: http://replay.web.archive.org/20030204061221/http://www.kacike.org/Editors.html

As a result this reference should hardly be allowed to be used for something as fundamental as establishing whether or not the Taíno people exist in modern day culture. As a result I don't feel that this reference should be allowed to be used to support this contention. I feel that if you examine WP:SPS and WP:SOURCES, this reference falls under the "Self-published and questionable sources" area. As a result is violates nearly every point that should be considered to determine when Self-published and questionable sources can be used.

We need unbiased, peer reviewed references in this article if it is ever going to get the respect it deserves. I was advised to seek out the advice from this area, so I am doing so.

-Erichb1

In trying to find Dr. Guitar's article, I noticed the link in our article to the Wayback Machine text is a 404, something which needs to be fixed for the reference to remain. The link you have given above does not go to the article, but to the editorial page of "Journal of Caribbean Amerindian History and Anthropology", which seems to have a respectable editorial board and describes itself as "An electronic peer reviewed journal published by the Caribbean Amerindian Centrelink." The fact that Dr. Lynne Guitar is herself an assistant editor of the journal does not call its reliability into question. I found a bio for Dr. Guitar here which says, "Dr. Lynne Guitar earned the Ph.D. at Vanderbilt University in December 1998. At the time of her award she was ABD at that institution and a Fulbright Fellow in the Dominican Republic, where she elected to reside permanently. Today she teaches history at El Colegio Americano de Santo Domingo and is co-administrator for Student and Researcher Services."

This is a "weight vs. admissibility" argument of the type that pops up here frequently. You are arguing that the source should not be used at all, when a better focus might be how much weight to give it and whether it needs to be attributed or can be relied on for an assertion in Wikipedia's voice. If you can bring other references showing it is a minority view, under WP:UNDUE it might be appropriate to revise the article so its in a format "according to Dr. Lynne Guitar...However, other historians believe..." Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

www.transformation.co.uk

• Hi is this a wikipedia reliable source, it is currently the main support for a lot of content in the Stephanie Booth blp.- http://www.transformation.co.uk/en/transgender-resources/true-life-stories/127-the-story-of-stephanie-anne-lloyd?start=13 - Current project wide usage of the external is only on this one article - see here - This question is in response to a BLPN report here. Off2riorob (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Off the top of my head: I could see maybe using a personal website for basic facts about the subject herself, as long as there aren't any extraordinary claims. But it seems inappropriate that the article draws so heavily from this source. If there aren't third-party sources for a lot of this material, then it seems like it could be trimmed. TimidGuy (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Its a shopping site which describes itself as follows: "Established in 1984, Transformation supplies everything for transvestites & crossdressers including realistic false breasts and oestrogen (estrogen) female hormone products for men,transvestites and transexuals that want to grow their own breasts." It seems to contain some interviews or profiles of members of its target demographic, but with no indication that it has professional standards of editing, I would say not a reliable source. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

SPS for infor about its founder at best. Collect (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes I missed that she is the founder of the website that does mean that at best is is a WP:SPS about the subject. Thanks to all for the comments. Off2riorob (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Portuguese American Historical & Research Foundation, Inc.

Is this website a reliable source? It is connected to a non-profit organization. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see the top of this page: reliable for what statements in which articles? (it is unlikely to be so—there is no editorial oversight). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me expand upon my question. One are the list of individuals in the linked page accurate, specifically the Military list. Two, can other information from this organization be considered accurate. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The Long War Journal

Could we have a take on The Long War Journal? It is used a reference in Death of Osama bin Laden, and I haven't encountered it before - not sure if it is ok as RS. Thanks Tvoz/talk 23:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a publication of a neocon think-tank, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Newt Gingrich and Steve Forbes are on the board. There has been a lot of discussion here about the relative reliability of different think-tanks, which range from very good on certain issues, to always unbelievable. I would say at best it should be quoted with attribution. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Attribute the statement. The political leanings of the editorial board should be a non-factor, as we should be striving to edit with a neutral POV; and whether the reference is a RS should be our primary concern. That being said we should avoid giving undue weight to any one POV, and competing POVs should be given due weight and balance in articles. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll take a look at how it was worded in the text and see about adding attribution. Tvoz/talk 09:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliable article versus reliable publication

I'm here to ask for some help, please, in understanding and applying the guidelines in the context of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination). One of the sources offered in support of notability is a review of the product that appeared in Spectrum, a publication of the IEEE. We all seem to agree that this publication is generally of high quality and highly respected, so this is not in question.

But I'm troubled by the actual content of the article. I think it's advertising being passed off as a legitimate review. Characteristic of purely promotional writing, it fails to identify even a single shortcoming or any possible way in which the product might be improved or any purpose for which it wouldn't be absolutely fabulous. My concern grew when I downloaded the product and instantly confirmed that the review contains a testably false claim that the product is a complete C shell. (Yes, I understand it would be impermissible WP:OR to try to insert this into an article. But right now, I'm just interested in understanding the reliability of the sources.)

What I don't know is whether this is "fair" argument to make, both because (a) some may consider it WP:OR even if I only did it to verify a source and only discuss it in the AfD and (b) I don't know if we are allowed to consider article content in this way. I cannot find any clear direction in the guidelines. If a reliable publication publishes an article, is that article ipso facto a reliable independent source just so long as we can't prove a WP:PRIMARY connection? (Others seem to think so and maybe they're right.) Or is fair to say, wait a sec, if looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, maybe it is a duck, that actual content matters? I honestly don't know and would look forward to comments, please. Msnicki (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus here that we look at the particulars rather than saying a specific publication or journal or newspaper can always be used as a reliable source. TimidGuy (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's (just) possible that Spectrum would count as "media of limited interest and circulation" in terms of WP:CORP#Primary criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe there is a reason that wiki don't allow WP:OR because the result can be misleading, biased and contract with each other if everybody start to write wiki article based on their own WP:OR. There are more experiences from WP:OR by different users as listed here. But none of them in the above link can be used in wiki. There is nowhere existing such a false claim that "the product is a complete C shell" and I have already explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination). Chuser (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources for the age of Mancala

I have had a Mancala edit reversed by an IP in Germany claiming that the sources I have used are controversial without starting a talk thread. I was trying to source the age of Mancala and the sources I find give the date as between 7000-5000 B.C.

The sources that I used were

• Neolithic Game Board from Ain Ghazal Jordon, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Gary O. Rollefson, 1992, [21]
• Game History, Content, Practice and Law, Sydney University Press, Brian Fitzgerald, Sal Humphreys, John Banks, Nicolas Suzor, 2007 [22]
• Board games reconsidered: Mancala in the Balkans, Etnoantropološki problemi Vesna Bikic, Jasna Vukovic, 2010, [23]

These are not the only academic sources making this claim and I in no way misrepresented the sources in the edit.

A source is given in the revert claiming to be the currently accepted view which would be cited as

• Mancala in Roman Asia Minor, Board Game Studies, Ulrich Schadler, 1994, [24]

I don't believe that this source in any way contradicts the findings of the 3 publications I give above. It restates a source from 1979 to give the potential age of Mancala as 3000 years, since this source predates some key archaeological finds and is not a major work this clearly is superseded. It also doesn't make any definitive statements about the origins of Mancala.

The 2010 source even cites this paper before making the claim (paraphrase): "The age of Mancala is generally accepted as being from the Neolithic period"

The mechanics of the game and similarity to farming make this date highly probable, but as the claims of the age are related to researchers interpretation of archaeological finds, I thought I should get some more feedback before proceeding. Tetron76 (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This is another "weight" vs. "admissibility" controversy. On the theory that the old and new articles are all reliable sources with contradictory conclusions, the right approach would likely be to cite them all. Something like "The age of Mancala has been said to range from...." or the point counterpoint structure of: "According to some sources....However, others say...." Claiming a a reliable source is "superseded" is a tough row to hoe here, as it requires something of an act of synthesis on our part. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually a very limited or rather indirect version of synthesis might be possible here, though it is fine line to walk. Essentially it is up to WP authors to judge the degree of reliability of the individual source and to select the "best" ones and summarize them accordingly. Not any source that is formally reliable/reputable carries automatically the same degree of reliability/reputability as another and WP authors may sort out sources they consider as inferior/outdated/less accurate. This up to the discretion of the WP authors and usually unproblematic as long as it doesn't get abused to (intentionally) misrepresent content or unless it gets (reasonably) contested by other authors. In the latter case in doubt all sources need to be described and cited.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Do any of the later sources explicitly address the 1979 interpretation and say why they think it's now wrong? bobrayner (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:Mancala#Age_of_mancala seems relevant. Hans Adler 22:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

electronic Singapore press sources

I would like to get a verdict on http://temasekreview.com, http://theonlinecitizen.com and http://veryfinecommentary.tk and http://campus-observer.org/ in so far as they comment on Singapore electoral and political issues that would otherwise not get covered in the state press in the Straits Times due to pro-government censorship. I view these as sources I can use to cite Opposition-leaning views, and all these sources have an editorial board, and they often have an alternative, dissentive take on people and events already mentioned in the state press, that already echo the majority opinion of online users, but with interpretations or facts that would otherwise be overlooked or censored in the state press.

Where they are used for example include Singapore general election, 2011, Nicole Seah and Tin Pei Ling. Thanks Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Image of Wikipedia in series' opening

The show Weeds has every episode a different opening screen (or at least for the latter seasons), one of these happens to be a screenshot of the Wikipedia article Hearfourmewesique is insistent that this is thus a reliable source, and takes the text, which has never been properly sourced and even has the {{Citation needed}} tag in the image, as fact. Using the {{Cite episode}}-template to cite this, and naming WP:FILMPLOT (should probably be WP:TVPLOT in this case) as permission for this, which I believe only applies to plot information. The image is identical to (minus the article title) a previous revision of Wikipedia from about 2 months before the episode was broadcast on July 20, 2009. It's a screenshot of one of 9 versions between May 16, 2009 and May 20, 2009. This is basically WP:CIRCULAR or otherwise just a dubious reference, based on the assumption the content of this image is an official statement. Or am I mistaken? More info/discussion at the series' talk page, which already got quite lengthy and already resulted in a 3 day ban for edit warring. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be personal interpretation to say that it's an official statement, really. It could just as easily be interpreted as an artistic statement about Wikipedia. At best, though, even if it is an official statement, they are admitted that their source for their statement is Wikipedia, and we're not a reliable source by any means. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've commented there, I'll agree here. How can a screenshot of an outdated Wikipedia page be used as a reliable source? If that's the case, then we are saying the producers of the show are endorsing every single thing on that page. That seems to be a fairly large assumption. Dayewalker (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The only thing the screen shot is reliable for is a very basic descriptive statement... saying that a version of the article was shown in the opening scene of an episode. Neither the screen shot, nor the fact that it appeared in the episode is in any way an endorsement of the information that was in the article at the time it was filmed. Blueboar (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that we, as Wikipedians, are allowed to deduct is that "the words appeared on a TV series, therefore serve as a direct source unless can be proven otherwise". Their source is their own editing team, choosing to put that particular text that pertains to their own creation, in their own creation. The source is not Wikipedia. It happens to be a Wikipedia page, but they put it there on their own – this is, therefore, their own statement. Unless, of course, someone can come up with a reasonable proof that the makers of the series were "too high to notice" (an actual quote of one of the opposing voices on the talk page, just to display the amount of adequacy here) or otherwise oppose to the statement, we cannot make these kind of almost libelous assumptions, especially when they go against common sense. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No... we are not allowed to make any deductions. We can say "Episode X opened with a shot of what appears to be the Wikipedia article on the TV show Weeds"... that does not require deduction and is purely descriptive. But that is as far as we can go. We can not draw any conclusions based on that shot. Doing so is OR. Blueboar (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can even say that. Neither Wikipedia's name nor its logo nor anything that can be iconified (officially or unofficially) with Wikipedia beyond the page's style appears on the page. As such it could be any wiki, including one designed specifically for the show. It might not even be a wiki at all; just a good job at photoshopping.陣内_Jinnai 22:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Xeworlebi, can you help me out here with a simple summary (or a diff or three) that shows exactly which sentence this image is supposed to support? If it's something like "a modified screenshot from Wikipedia was shown in one episode", then it's probably okay. If it's something like "the meaning of the title is...", then it's not. (I just reverted that, BTW: http://forums.jokersupdates.com/ubbthreads is not a reliable source for any purpose more significant than "somebody posted something on the Internet"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is "The show's title, according to Kohan, refers "to a lot of things", including marijuana and widow's weeds; however, it mainly alludes to "hardy plants struggling to survive."", this is the latest revertal/addition of that sentence, but if you take a look at the article history, 6 of the seven last edits by Hearfourmewesique were adding it some form or another, with the episode as source, the forum as source or both. The image used as the reference displays the following text: "The title is a play on words, referring to both the slang term for marijuana, and widow's weeds." The forum was another source Hearfourmewesique introduced to support this, which also met with opposition at the talk page, but Hearfourmewesique believes this to be a good source because "One has be a real nutcase to go through the trouble to fake an interview...". _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 04:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This is still a project to build an encyclopedia. If you have described the situation correctly, the editor should be blocked indefinitely if he or she does not desist immediately, as this is clearly either a case of WP:POINT or of severe WP:COMPETENCE problems. The slogan that everybody can edit Wikipedia has some obvious small print that is too often ignored. Hans Adler 22:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sign in a museum

The image is of a sign describing the remains of an ancient mosaic in an archeological site/museum in Aegina, Greece. (I took the photo.) The sign says: "Mosaic floor of a Jewish synagogue. The mosaic decorated the floor of the Jewish synagogue of Aegina. Discovered in 1829 to the East of the "secret harbour" in the midst of an important quarter of the ancient city, the building has been excavated only in parts because of its modern superstructures. During the investigations remains of an older predecessor have been identified (hatched walls). Through the entrance in the West and an antechamber people reached the main hall which measured 13.50 to 7.60 m. To the East - oriented towards the city of Jerusalem - a raised apsis was annexed in which the shrine for the Torah was stored. Between apsis and main hall stood the reading-desk (white recess in the eastern mosaic-frame). For the purpose of preservation the mosaic has been removed from its original context to the actual position. It displays the typical decoration-patterns of mosaic-floors of the 4th century AD consisting of artistic geometric designs in a rich scale of colours. At the west side near the entrance two donation inscriptions are visible. They refer to the erection of the synagogue using revenues of the community and donations of its members when Theodoros was head of the synagogue for four years. The completion of the synagogue and the bedding of the mosaic took place when his homonymous son held the same position. The Jewish community of Aegina has been established probably when Jews and other refugees resorted to the island in the course of the Barbarian invasions into Greece at the end of the second and during the third century AD. The abandonment of the synagogue is testified by several Christian graves in the foundation walls of the building (dotted rectangles). The mosaic has been created between 300 and 350 AD."

My question is, Can my image be considered an RS for editing the Aegina article to say, for example, that Jews are believed to have settled in Aegina late in the second century and in the third century when the Barbarians invaded Greece? Also, what format would the ref take in such a case?—Biosketch (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

An interesting question. I'd think that the image cannot really be considered as a reliable source, given that we can't actually confirm where it was taken, and that it hasn't been photoshopped (not that I'm suggesting it has, needless to say). This raises the question as to whether the sign itself is a reliable source. It is verifiable in that presumably anyone else can check it if they visit the site, and unless there are good grounds to doubt the academic credentials of the museum, It would seem to qualify as a 'source'. I don't think it would qualified as 'peer reviewed' though, so I'd be wary of using it as a sole source for anything controversial. As for exactly how one would cite a sign in a museum, I've no idea.

Sadly, I think that the best solution might be to try to find another more conventional source that says the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Both the original sign and the photograph of it are acceptable. Use {{cite sign}} if the article uses the most common family of citation templates.

Per Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature, we do not require editors to provide a published reliable source that they aren't lying about the contents of the images they upload. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Going to be annoying, and point out that the image itself is a violation of the signwriter's copyright and needs to be deleted; Greece has no freedom of panorama. – iridescent 20:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

...deleted from commons but it could still be used here with a decent fair use rationale, no ? Sean.hoyland - talk 20:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can cite your picture of the sign ... But there is nothing wrong with citing the sign itself. The sign is verifiable by anyone by simply going to the location and reading it. Blueboar (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't need to have a copy of the image for you to cite the sign; we only need a copy if you want to include the image directly in the article, as part of the article's contents. (In fact, we'd normally send copies of sources over to Wikisource.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

West Ridge Academy

On the West Ridge Academy page, an editor is removing [25] the information "The Utah Boys Ranch was founded by Lowell L. Bennion and a group of his associates in 1964." That information was sourced to this newspaper article [26], which the editor claims is taken directly from Wikipedia. As you can see from the talk page, the editor shows that the sentence appeared previously on Wikipedia, and draws the conclusion that the article must have come from the WP page. More eyes and opinions would be appreciated. Dayewalker (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to add a few more relevant details to this request: the exact sentence "The Utah Boys Ranch was founded by Lowell L. Bennion and a group of his associates in 1964." was added to the original Wikipedia article in 2009. It appeared, verbatim, in a newspaper article written in 2010 (referenced above). It appears no other place prior to 2009, other than on a blog (where it seems the sentence originated). Every other primary source about Lowell Bennion, such as his biography and the other sources about his life, completely contradict the claim that he had anything to do with the Utah Boys Ranch / West Ridge Academy. See the talk page for more the sources. --EarlySquid (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)