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

Alexa rankings

The Global warming pages continue to help keep this board lively. We now have editors edit warring to remove Alexa rankings from articles about environmental blogs. As far as I know, Alexa rankings are currently the industry's standard tool for measuring site traffic. There are criticisms of Alexa, but the Alexa article contains these criticisms, so any readers can simply click over to the Alexa article and decide for themselves. Am I off the mark here in thinking that there is no justification in deleting mention of Alexa from articles on websites as long as the number is attributed to Alexa? Cla68 (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Can i ask why you aren't presenting the objections that have been made on the talk page? Perhaps you may even want to link the discussion - so that uninvolved editors can see that the objection is not about Alexa in general - but Alexa in context? Well - since you didn't - here is the discussion: Talk:DeSmogBlog#Traffic. Cooked down summary (of my argument): Alexa rankings are great for general purpose sites that get a distribution of visitors that is similar to the distribution of the general population - but for specialized or niche sites, the visitor distribution is not such. Therefore the information is basically worthless and in worst case directly misleading. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, Kim, allow the independent editors here to give their opinion. As I pointed out on the talk page, Alexa is referenced over 900 times in Wikipedia, with most of those referencing the Alexa rankings, so this is an important question as it applies to a lot more articles than just DeSmogBlog. Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am allowing them to give their opinions - but you have the responsibility of presenting the case in such a way that people understand what the request is about.... you failed that one, therefore i had to comment. As for your 900 argument - its irrelevant for the case at hand (see talk). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Can i ask why you aren't presenting the objections that have been made on the talk page?

Perhaps because the RS/N is not designed to host disputes as to the propriety of including Alexa sourced data as content in the article but rather whether Alexa as a source is WP:RS for that content. I'd suggest that the appropriate forum for your observations is the article talk page. That being said, any observations you might have as to Alexa WP:RS considerations would be welcome and appropriate here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC) If you truly want independent opinions, why poison the well by leading off with accusations of "edit warring" as you have done here? A dispassionate, neutrally worded request for third-party views would have been far more appropriate. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

From the Alexa site, "Sites with relatively low traffic will not be accurately ranked by Alexa.". So it really is a case by case thing on a scale of 1-100,000+ with 100,000 being complete unreliability and 1 complete reliability. They claim. [1] Weakopedia (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Comparatives, when available, can be a helpful determinant of the relative reliability of statistical data rankings. "Quantcast" provides statistical data as well. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I added the Quantcast number as well. Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record (and from a link in the Alexa article, Compete.com also returns traffic data that appears to somewhat echo both Alexa and Quantcast. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So far, everyone who has commented here is involved in the AGW topic. Weakopedia's comment, however, is helpful and gives me an idea about how to qualify the information in the article. Nevertheless, I still hope some uninvolved editors will comment. Cla68 (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

We now have editors edit warring to remove... gosh, how mysterious - editors edit warring to remove - but no-one edit warring to reinsert? Its another one-sided edit war! William M. Connolley (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, here is my view. On Wikipedia, we try to base articles as much as possible on secondary sources. Alexa ratings are a primary source, and using it directly can violate original research. If there is a reliable secondary source which says site X has Alexa rating Y, then it would be fine to use, otherwise, especially for controversial issues, it should be left out. Crum375 (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect (and though this rather off-topic issue was introduced as an aside by the OP), this is supposed to be a discussion of RS and attendant considerations for the Alexa statistical data. I would suggest that this thread is better suited to Talk:DeSmogBlog#Traffic JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm not sure that I would be considered an "independent" editor, to the extent that matters. I've contributed to talk pages on GW articles occasionally, but never edited the articles. On Alexa: it's a straw poll of sorts, as it counts hits by people who have the Alexa toolbar. Thus it is prone to manipulation on the margins, and is a questionable method of gauging site visits. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, of three independent editors who have commented here, two appear to be against and one suggested using Quantcast in addition to Alexa. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this needs to be looked at from another perspective as well. While Alexa or Quantcast determinations on relative rankings apparently become "less reliable" as traffic decreases, they DO appear to establish the fact of comparatively low internet traffic. That, in and of itself, is a fact that can be both reported and interpreted as the reader of any article might see fit to do. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Cla68 (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Then a second question arises that should be addressable here. Are Alexa and/or Quantcast also WP:RS for a valid factual assertion of relatively lower internet traffic? JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Since this question applies to more than just this article, I'm thinking of posting a wiki-wide RfC on using Alexa and Quantcast as sources for site traffic information in Wikipedia articles. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that is an excellent approach, but PLEASE compose it quite carefully. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll pass it by you before posting it. Cla68 (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting point on use of Alexa as an indication of low traffic. However, I'd be reluctant to perform an independent analysis of whether Alexa indicated that traffic is low, as I'd prefer a third party to do so. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point that warrants noting. IMHO, comments/opinions/assertions posted to RS/N's have considerable more influence and/or worth when the guidance and spirit of WP:VERIFY are applied. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a different point to make. I question whether an Internet search ranking has encyclopedic value at all. I.e., vague claims to being best are not a substitute for having quality content, and Wikipedia is interested in quality content.

I was a webmaster for a major company for years, and yes, I used Alexa to demonstrate to management that our efforts to improve the site were working. We never intended to use Alexa as anything more than a rough estimate of whether we had an effect. We all agreed the Alexa figures were subject to many problems. But when your site is shown to be greatly increasing in popularity relative to competitors ... that was just the double-check to confirm what we already suspected from our own much more careful analysis.

All data has a certain statistical uncertainty. In the case of Alexa, it's huge. Even more, most people don't have the time or patience to analyse how rating sites such as Alexa are particularly weak for their own purposes. Presenting traffice ratings in Wikpedia to innocent readers who do not have even the slightest experience with web analysis is utterly misleading. It is saying, in effect, without any specific supporting evidence that high traffic = truth. This kind of thinking needs to disappear from Wikipedia. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It is saying, in effect, without any specific supporting evidence that high traffic = truth.

No, it is saying that high traffic = high traffic. If a reader chooses to equate "traffic" and "truth", I'd suggest that the problem lies not in the presentation of the data but in the thought process of the reader. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• An observation was made in the article "talk" that Alexa website traffic data is limited to data obtained from users of the "Alexa toolbar". | According to Alexa, that doesn't appear to be the case (emphasis mine)...

How are Alexa's traffic rankings determined?

Alexa's traffic rankings are based on the usage patterns of Alexa Toolbar users and data collected from other, diverse sources over a rolling 3 month period...

JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, apparently that was added a couple of years ago and caused some shifts in rankings. I went to the Alexa article here on Wikipedia and did not find it as helpful as it could be. I was struck by the sourcing of the article, which seemed to mainly come from blogs and from Alexa itself. The consensus of sourcing seems to be that Alexa is an imprecise (at best) method of measuring traffic data. Given that, I would question its encyclopedic value in any article, when used as an original resource. I think that an original, first-hand resource should be used only when precise. When subject to interpretation, I'd prefer using a secondary source to make interpretations. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The consensus of sourcing seems to be that Alexa is an imprecise (at best) method of measuring traffic data.

One of the difficulties I have with these RS/N discussions is that they too often contain statements or assertions which, though perhaps accurate, provide little or no means of verification. Can you provide a link to some specific cite supporting your summary statement that a "consensus of sourcing seems to be that Alexa is an imprecise (at best) method of measuring traffic data."? Frankly, I'm ambivalent as to whether Alexa (or any website purporting to present traffic analysis) is found to be WP:RS in that regard, but I'm not ambivalent about a need to support such a determination in the spirit of WP:V. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I misspoke when I said "consensus" of sourcing, as that overstates the sourcing of the Alexa article. The only web-accessible source in the relevant section of the Alexa article[2], apart from Alexa itself and articles not dealing with the accuracy of Alexa's rankings, was this article in TechCrunch [3] (". . .it shows just how useless Alexa has become as a method for measuring web traffic and reach.") As you can see, that article says that Alexa is not imprecise, but utterly of no value at all. Clearly we need more sources before rendering a decision, and I'm not sure TechCrunch can be considered a reliable source.ScottyBerg (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the link. Having read the article (and the comments), several observations.

The author focuses on Alexa's report that "YouTube.com" had surpassed "Google.com" as representative of "...just how useless Alexa has become as a method for measuring web traffic and reach." However (and as pointed out in a comment critical of the blog post), he neglects to note that the Alexa report (which was generated by the author's own choices) is a comparative of Yahoo.com YouTube.com with Google's US domain only (Google.com), which appears to be a valid comparative.

The post itself is outdated. As noted in a subsequent post, "Alexa Overhauls Ranking System" dated April 16th, 2008, in which the purportedly false Alexa Yahoo/Google YouTube/Google comparative is again cited without explanation, the blog notes (emphasis mine):

Although regularly derided in the past for its often bizarre results (like YouTube having more traffic that Google), Alexa has continued to maintain popularity due to its broad global reach and completely free service provision. Time will tell if Alexa has done enough to appease its strong and vocal critics.

While it appears that the blog itself may be somewhat POV, perhaps reflecting a degree of anti-Alexa/pro Google bias, and although Alexa MIGHT be faulted for its inablility to present a GLOBAL reach comparative of Yahoo.com YouTube.com and Google's multiple domains, the blog cite within Alexa is based on old Alexa data and is, IMHO, essentially worthless itself in a consideration of current Alexa WP:RS for website traffic reporting and, I agree, more contemporary sourcing is warranted to make the case either way. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there doesn't seem to be a lot of independent evaluation of the accuracy of Alexa from reliable third party sources. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thus far in this discussion, nothing has been cited that might support a contention that Alexa traffic statistics (nor those of similar web entities) are not WP:RS for web traffic reporting. In the interim, Alexa continues to be cited regularly (assumedly as a reliable source) on what appear to be reputable websites...

NASDAQ, April 14,2010...

In March, the company announced that it had partnered with NBC Sports to manage NBCSports.com's online store. According to a recent article published by TrafficEstimate.com, NBCSports.com sees an estimated 5.2 million monthly website visits and Alexa, an internet traffic analyzer, estimates that the site NBCSports.com is in the top 500 websites in terms of traffic in the United States.

Information Today, Inc., April 1, 2010...

The changes have helped grow the engine from an Alexa traffic ranking of 150,000 to 10,000 in less than one year.

Technorati.com, March 30, 2010...

Did the site owner start out targeting pet memories? Who knows? But as of now, the top keyword driving traffic to that site, (according to Alexa) is "top ten dog names".

IMHO, pending submission of something that might indicate otherwise, Alexa should be considered as a reliable source for web traffic reporting. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Alexa ratings are given a lot of press, they are used by many large sites, they are quoted by major news services, so I think they can be considered reliable as a rough indicator of relative rankings for large sites, which is what their disclaimers specify is all they can do. Alexa rankings can be useful in the right article, with proper explanation. They can also be used improperly to attribute a fixed value to smaller traffic sites, which they say they cannot do with any accuracy, so as to it's use as a reliable source that varies with the notability of the site in question. That's something to be worked out article per article, it isn't something RS/N should issue a blanket statement about. Weakopedia (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your RS opinion as to Alexa's or any other traffic reporting entity's "rankings". Alexa's caveat inre "low traffic" (above 100,000) websites is clear, unambiguous and, I believe, also acknowledged (in some fashion) by the other services. However, doesn't this logically imply that websites failing to return data sufficient to make reliable "ranking" determinations might be legitimately and reliably characterized (and reported when contextually appropriate and defensible) as "low traffic" or whatever descriptive a respective service chooses to utilize in that regard? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. I guess it all depends on how that information is used within articles. If a website is not notable enough to receive a reasonable Alexa ranking, then is the Alexa ranking enough on it's own to use, or does that add undue weight. Presumably for lower traffic sites there is no human input to their appearing in the Alexa rankings, so the question becomes, are Alexa rankings notable enough, or well enough understood by the general reader, to use in descriptive form within an article. I think then that Alexa rankings can be used even for smaller sites, but care needs to be taken with their use that the descriptive nature of displaying them does not overembelish a site that otherwise lacks notability. Again I think that is an article-per-article decision rather than an overall RS/N responsibility. Weakopedia (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur that the contextual presentation/purpose of incorporating Alexa data (or that of any other similar, reputable service) within an article is a legitimate consideration and one which I previously raised in the "talk" section related to the cite which generated this RS/N. As to this RS/N itself, I believe we are in agreement that Alexa statistics are RS and citable given a supportable, contextual article incorporation. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

A site's traffic rating is not appropriate in any circumstance. JakeInJoisey, briefly rebutting my detailed explanation said, the problem is "thought process of the reader". This is a classic "the reasoning should be self-explanatory" argument applied to anyone who doesn't feel it necessary to explain themselves clearly to readers. The idea of an authoritative encyclopedia is to speak to all readers, not just those who have a degree in statistical analysis. The raw Alexa information is misleading to 99% of Wikipedia readers. And not just that, it's completely unencyclopedic. Why? Because Web ratings change frequently. Maybe a site reached a high watermark rating for a couple months. Is that what *should* be reported in Wiki? Or should be the most recent rating? Or a historical trend? Who is to decide what are the important facts? That it is the "fastest rising"? That it was the fastest rising? All of this is original research, and an opportunity for marketing managers to manipulate Wikipedia in a manner that is most favorable to them. (Or least favorable to their competition.) Unencyclopedic. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The idea of an authoritative encyclopedia is to speak to all readers, not just those who have a degree in statistical analysis. The raw Alexa information is misleading to 99% of Wikipedia readers.

This simply doesn't hold water. Alexa statistics are widely reported without any further qualifying explanation to a prospective reader but are always incorporated within some contextual framework related to their citation...just as they would/should be treated when cited within any Wikipedia article. "99% of Wikipedia readers" are no more susceptible to being "mislead" by the citing of Alexa statistics than are 99% of the audience for the numerous RS articles in which those same Alexa statistics are cited.

However, the purpose of this RS/N is to arrive at some consensus as to whether or not Alexa data is a reliable source for citing web traffic statistics. If it is deemed not to be RS in that regard, then everything else is moot. JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that if Alexa site rankings are not RS for one case, that it should be pruned from all WP articles - especially since, at best, it gives a snapshot of one point in time, and is not even claimed to be accurate otherwise. Collect (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Your points are arguable but premature and irrelevant to this RS/N. Both Alexa and Quantcast are widely cited as reliable sources and, barring some supporting evidence to the contrary, their RS standing for Wikipedia article inclusion, given an appropriate contextual basis, is warranted. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Pray tell -- under what putative case would Alexa be proper "in context"? Would a year old mention about the Drudge Report standings be proper? Other sites giving measures? What would be proper context to have ephemeral measurements from any source given in an article which is intended to be encyclopedic? Collect (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Your question is legitimate but irrelevant to the purpose of this RS/N...is Alexa RS for reporting web traffic statistical data. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Tamilnet (http://www.tamilnet.com)

I was under the impression that this was already agreed on, but some editors disagree, so I'm brining this up again here.

Tamilnet is a website that reports almost exclusively about Sri Lanka and the former Sri Lankan Civil War. It is/was used by many international media organizations as a source for Tamil Tiger perspective of the Sri Lankan Civil War, but always with the "pro-rebel" qualifier (see BBC: "The head of the Tiger's political wing, SP Thamilselvan, told the pro-rebel website Tamilnet", Reuters: "pro-rebel website www.tamilnet.com quoted Tiger military spokesman Rasiah Ilanthiraiyan as saying...", and there are countless other such examples).

WP:SLR is a WikiProject that was established to sort out disagreements related to Sri Lankan issues. The consensus achieved there was that everything cited from Tamilnet should be explicitly attributed as "pro-rebel Tamilnet reported..." (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources)

The question has now come up though, with editor Obi2canibe saying we can use Tamilnet without attribution for "non-controversial" citations. My opinion, given that Tamilnet is questionable source per Wikipedia guidelines, is if a website is known to have publish falsehoods before, it cannot be relied upon as a diect source on Wikipedia. It also opens the door to have the website cited for disputed content which some editors will dub as "non-controversial". I also have not come accross any guidelines on Wikipedia that say questionable sources can be used to cite "non-controversial" topics. (we had a couple of discussion here and here, but couldn't come to an agreement).

This isn't an obscure topic with Tamilnet been the only available source. In fact, the article that caused the disageement has at least one other citation from reliable news organizations that cite the same facts that Tamilnet is used for [4].

I believe User:Blueboar summed it up the best in one of the discussion Obi linked to

"I am going to try to explain this one last time... I don't contest that Tamilnet is biased, or even blaitantly partisan. But being biased or partisan does not automatically exclude a source from being considered reliable. Reliability, as used in Wikipedia, does not equate to "respected" or even "factual"... it is an offshoot of "verifiable". Tamilnet really falls under the heading of "questionable source"... reliable for statements of opinion but not for statements of fact. As long as you give it proper attribution (ie you say: "According to Tamilnet...") it can be considered a reliable source for quoting the statements and opinions of Tamilnet and those it represents."

Since, with every discussion related to Sri Lanka, we see the same old editors with preconceived biases participating (myself included...), outside opinion will be very welcome.

(Note: I will notify User:Obi2canibe and WP:SLR of this discussion.) --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The simple answer is: Tamilnet is an WP:RS that has to be used with the qualification "pro-rebel". This is not just so because we agreed on it, but because it is the way reliable sources, such as BBC, do it.

But since this is the RS noticeboard, I would like to add some background information. Back in January 2007, classification of sources was the first major task that we tackled at WP:SLR, and it was crucial to our success. Before, there had been endless discussions about whether certain sources were RS or not, and the way to cut through that Gordian knot was a compromise: We divided sources into three classes: RS, QS, and unreliable. Originally, it was understood that QS were not as reliable as RS. Tamilnet was just one of the QS; there never was an agreement to classify it as RS. It became RS through an interesting twist of Wikipedia history: The tripartite compromise had worked well for most of 2007, but by autumn of that year, some editors, ignoring our compromise, started deleting QS with the simple argument that they weren't RS. That argument was strong, since it had support from well-respected editors outside of the Sri Lanka conflict. Since much of our content was from QS from both sides, it was threatening to turn into an avalanche of edit wars. To preserve the peace, and to conform with the rest of Wikipedia, I changed QS to become a subclass of RS.[5] This has worked well since, and I ask my fellow editors at RS/N to forgive us this trouble that arose from our specific history. — Sebastian 17:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I consider Tamilnet biased and unreliable. Several articles regarding tamil eelam are almost exclusively backed with tamilnet citations. The entire bias is nicely seen in the referendum lemma. Claims a pro seperate Tamil state in northern lanka of almost 100% and only guessing on the participation figures. Unencyclopedic at best. Chartinael (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of bias are entirely irrelevant, which is why bias is not mentioned in the relevant guideline. "Unencyclopedic" is another word that is meaningless in this context. Dlabtot (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is not an accusation of bias, it is a fact -- have you read the statements above? Tamilnet has been a QS for its bias (Pro-Rebel) reasons. Did you read why it ended up a subcat of RS? I suggest you do. I am not saying to delete passages backed by tn - no way. However, if a more reliable source can be found (that itself does not draw on tn for that matter) it should be given priority. Simple as that. Also, to calculate participation figures on the basis on guess-work is unencyclopedic. Chartinael (talk) 07:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you are new to Wikipedia or maybe not :) but RS does not get into bias as explianed by Dlabtot, CNN has liberal bias according to Conservatives, Fox has Conservative bias according to Liberals. So if you use bias you will exclude all sources. Better attribute and move on Kanatonian (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I am not. Bias is fully fine - however, the bias needs to be noted and it has been noted with TN. That is one of the reasons why it was a QS before becoming subcatted as RS with pro-rebel bias. The sum of all POV bias ends up being halfways objective. Only one POV is subjective and hence not desireable. To consider Tn an objective source is just plain wrong. QS when seen as a source of false information ist only one aspect of a QS, those are the sources which should not be used as they support there POV with objectively false information (plain lies). QS as seen as a biased source is fine as they support there POV with only one side of information, ideally not directly lying - just twisting the truth (halftruths), that is why they ought to be admissable as reliable with a such and such bias. Is it really that difficult to understand? Chartinael (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I for one agree with the attribution requirement and use it wherever it is necessary and will be of importance for the readers to know where the information came from. Other times, just to avoid the controversy, I avoid using it if a reliable alternate source cane be found for similar information. At the end editors have to use common sense. For example Tamilnet has an extensively researched and referenced etymology section which is quiet academic to say the least. Very few people will find fault with using that information. Just look at the etymology of Lanka. Kanatonian (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that editors should judge each article TamilNet individually. Rigidly applying rules for the whole site would mean that we'd never be able to cite its vast, easily accessible news archive on Wikipedia. It has been suggested they "make things up". Would they make up non-controversial facts? It has also been suggested that TamilNet should not be used where other sources are available. But what if the other sources are biased, such as the rabidly pro-government Daily News? Should we cite a neutral article from a Qualified Source or a biased article from a Reliable Source for a non-controversial fact? Editors should be given the freedom to use their own judgment and some common sense.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

When sources disagree, we report the disagreement. That is precisely why questions of 'bias' are irrelevant to determining whether a source is 'reliable' in the WP:RS meaning. The related policy is WP:NPOV. Dlabtot (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not just about sources disagreeing. Tamilnet is well documented to carry false news reports to be pro-LTTE. However these news reports are often our only source of information on the anti-government Tamil POV. So we're sometimes required to mention what they report. That is why, as Sebastian pointed out, every time we use Tamilnet we should explicitly attribute them. Other than that, like I said, how do we judge what's "non-controversial". An item that's non controversial to one editor may be totally controversial to another. Also, citing a website called "brazenly pro-Tigers" for any material would not be the best idea.

My opinion is that we should abide by the agreement achieved at SLR; Tamilnet can be used as a reliable source for both their point of view, and the opinion of the Tamil Tigers, but must always be attributed. They however cannot be used to cite anything else. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 19:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, two sources, to different POV bring both. If only one source, mark it as pro rebel in the tn case and pro whatever in the other. Just don't act as if the sources are neutral, when we know they aren't. Chartinael (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Tamilnet is well documented to carry false news reports." - if that is so, please provide that documentation here. Simply making the assertion carries no weight. Dlabtot (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

They aren't called pro-LTTE by every major media organization for fun (I provided links above), or called "the unofficial mouthpiece of the Tigers in English" for any other reason. Their news reports are blatantly biased, and cannot be used alone to support statements on Wikipedai unless it is their own opinion, in which case I have no problem with them been used with attribution. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 20:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeating your assertion without offering evidence makes it less persuasive, not more so. Please provide the alleged documentation of "false news reports". Dlabtot (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Focusing on one point of what I said while completely ignoring everything else I said clearly shows your POV (I take this back so we're only focusing on Tamilnet here). I'd suggest you see Tamilnet for proof, but since the counter citations are pro-goverment websites, that isn't the best proof. Apart from that, I don't of any neutral report that critiques their accuracy, so ignore that part of what I said as it isn't important (I crossed it out, replaced with the text in italics). Point is, they're called "pro-rebel" by every major news organization out there. If you want to know why, email the BBC, Reuters, AFP, AP or whoever you chose. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 20:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge your inability to provide even a single source in support of your assertion "Tamilnet is well documented to carry false news reports.", which therefore can reasonably be dismissed as either hyperbole or simply overheated rhetoric. Dlabtot (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Good for you. Now that you've established that, do you have anything to say regarding everything else discussed here? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 20:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the discussion, I'm afraid we may have been drawn into a knee-jerk argument that has overtaken the more fundamental agreement. I'm of the mind that tamilnet is a reliable source, undeniably pro-LTTE, that can be cited as such, with attribution. Perhaps you disagree, perhaps not. Dlabtot (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. Tamilnet is pro LTTE, and as such can be used with attribution. I have no problems with that.

Do you have any opinion on the use of Tamilnet without attribution for "non-controversial" facts, as Obi puts it. Personally, I think that's against questionable sources policy, and I don't think we should leave the door open to possible future disagreements on what's controversial and what's not. I think if a source is as unquestionably biased as Tamilnet, it should always be used with attribution on Wikipedia.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I have no opinion without looking at the specifics of what the allegedly non-controversial facts are and what specific citations are being used in what article. Dlabtot (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright then. It's not about can x fact be used in y article. It's can we use Tamilnet as a source in some articles, existing and hypothetical, without attribution. If you have no opinion, that's fine. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

When stating controversal facts it is necessay to attribute but when you are stating mere facts of life why bother ? Kanatonian (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course! In my statement above, I took that for granted, since I'm sure Snowolfd4 would not insist on tagging a Tamilnet reference for a harmless etymological statement as "pro-rebel" - as long as it isn't about a place name, where it may have political ramifications. Likewise, when Asian Tribune, a QS from the other camp, was used as a reference in Anula of Sri Lanka, nobody demanded the "anti-rebel" attribution. As you said above, "At the end editors have to use common sense", and in my experience, WP:SLR members have (at least at the end) always done that. — Sebastian 01:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not reliable. Look what happened when Taprobanus's articles went to FAC. They all got vetoed. The reason the BBC etc attribute everything is because they are involved primary sources in the same manner as attributing an al-Qaeda website or a Chinese govt spokesman saying that the Dalai Lama is a cheat or terrorist, or attributing one politician saying their opponent is involved in fraud. It's because these are primary sources and aren't reliable except to say that it is an involved party's propaganda, and there's no way that anything more than 5% of any article should be a primary-source soapbox; and if their soapbox is notable, BBC would have quoted them anyway. While joke sources can always pass at low level due a majority of ethnic supporters, and nobody uninvolved caring (as well as other random home-made websites on all manner of topics), they never pass at WP:FAC, because even if 100 Tamil Tiger supporters go to FAC and say that TamilNet/Nation/Canadian is reliable, SandyGeorgia and Karanacs will rely on the one source-inspector any day. As for "common sense", Sebastian's idea of common sense is to simply ignore the policies and do whatever he feels like rather than making Wikipedia high quality. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You certainly have to be commended for the many FA you contributed to. But please appreciate that Wikipedia's quality is not just defined by its most glamorous articles, but also by how well we deal with problem areas. Coping with the strains and wounds of a civil war is not easy, and mediating between fiercely opposing camps can also be a worthwhile contribution to the project. — Sebastian 02:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

{ec} I just noticed that you insist on attacking others here. Personal attacks are never right, and there is no need for them here. I ask you to cease and desist. — Sebastian 02:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This is nothing about FA count, or classy articles, good prose etc, nor is it a personal attack. I'm simply pointing out that Taprobanus's FAC wasn't allowed to pass because Tamil Net was in it, and in any case if criticising an article/submitted information is a personal attack then maybe you should ban everyone at FAC then. I'm simply pointing out that a serious quality control mechanism has disapproved of Tamil Tiger websites, something that you do approve of. I'm not interested in your disingenuous behaviour YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to remind editors that the purpose of this noticeboard is to garner input from uninvolved editors on questions of sourcing. The continuation of disputes, and especially, remarks about other editors, are highly unproductive. Dlabtot (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I apologize for contributing to this escalation by ramping up the language. — Sebastian 02:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sebastian, I just wanted to add, that removing an acceptable statement and calling this removed part a personal attack when an uninvolved third party would not see it as such is not in line with any mediating effort. Btw. Even the etymological parts are questinionable, I am sorry. I just haven't gotten around to them. This stuff is all based on politics, not on linguistics. Whose got the older language, whose got the first inscription, who has been their longest. Tamils and Sinhalese have nicely rewritten their histories and base it on mythological facts as to both claim ownership of the island instead of finding and writing a history that lets them both have equal claim and a nice federate republic. Silly. And sad. The country could have been prosperous - if it hadn't been involved in a civil war. Now that the LTTE is done for, they start these referenda to still want a separate state - work for a federation .... that's the reasonable way, but don't expect all tamils wanting to live in the north and don't expect to get 50+% of the coastline for less than 20% population. That will not work. Also there will be always Tamils that will not want to live in the north. So instead of working for a peaceful island in the aftermath of the war, we see another wave of separatist efforts arise. It makes me want to knock some sense into these people. So TN should have the attribution pro-separatist. Chartinael (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Chartinael please read WP:SOAP and then stick to the discussion in here, also User:YellowMonkey can you really point to the link that substantiates your statement, I'm simply pointing out that Taprobanus's FAC wasn't allowed to pass because Tamil Net was in it, if you cant then I expect you to retract it. Is that you who objected to it or some one else ? Anyway what I want to point out, that there is broad agreement that attribution is needed when using Tamilnet across Wikipedia. So we are not discussing that here, what we are discussing here is can we use Tamilnet without attribution when the facts in question are not controversial or political. Can we stick to it ? Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sri_Lankan_Tamil_people/archive1; Yes you backed down after Ealdgyth, who is the head source reviewer, questioned it. Articles where Ealdgyth is unhappy with the sources, don't pass. And another person questioned it, none of them being me, as there's no need for me to butt in when sources of TN level never get let through FAC. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out to me, but I don’t see substantiation to your statement I'm simply pointing out that Taprobanus's FAC wasn't allowed to pass because Tamil Net was in it, Want you say that it is a strecth to make the conclusion that you made about the source and the FAC. No one, including you who has a long history of interaction with me said categorically that Tamilnet is why it failed because the article did not have Tamilnet at that time of failure. There were other issues with the article for not being promoted as FAC and none of the outstanding issues was about Tamilnet as a source. Thank for pointing this out Kanatonian (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This was Sandy's closing comment Closing note, with four editors now asking for a copyedit, work may proceed better off-FAC, so I'm going to close the nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC. There was no outstanding issues with sources. Kanatonian (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the point is why your article failed the FA process. It is that the use of Tamilnet as a source was questioned by neutral editors, who's opinion is that Tamilnet shouldn't be used as a source. Also, as far as I know, nowhere in Wiki policy does it say a questionable source can be used without attribution for non-controversial citations. Given the opinion of neutral editors regarding Tamilnet, and that Tamilnet is clearly a questionable source, I think it's clear that other than it's own opinion (which requires attribution), Tamilnet should not be used to cite any material on Wikipedia.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 17:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying what User:YellowMonkey may have meant although he wrote something completely different, but another neutral editor says Reviewing the discussion, I'm afraid we may have been drawn into a knee-jerk argument that has overtaken the more fundamental agreement. I'm of the mind that tamilnet is a reliable source, undeniably pro-LTTE, that can be cited as such, with attribution. Perhaps you disagree, perhaps not Kanatonian (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

As the editor above you says "Given the opinion of neutral editors regarding Tamilnet, and that Tamilnet is clearly a questionable source, I think it's clear that other than it's own opinion (which requires attribution), Tamilnet should not be used to cite any material on Wikipedia." --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The editor above is yourself Snowolf! As far I can see only one neutral editor (Dlabtot) has taken part in this discussion and they certainly haven't come to the conclusion you attribute to them. All the other commentators are the same old faces, some of whom clearly have several axes to grind when it comes to TamilNet. They have ignored the original question posed about "non-controversial" facts and simply resurrected old arguments.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 16:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know it was me. I was trying to point out that Kanatonian was ignoring what I said above.

I know it's long, but try reading what's been said above before commenting. Neutral editors at the featured article process were opposed to using Tamilnet citations for, as you call it, "non-controversial" facts.

Also, Tamilnet is clearly a questionable source, as defined by Wikipedia, and no where in Wiki policy does it say "questionable sources can be used to cite non-controversial facts". --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 19:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No, they were opposed to using TamilNet on a Featured Article because FA have higher standards than ordinary articles. They also questioned the reliability of UTHR and the Island, both of whom have been labeled Reliable by WP:SLR. TamilNet is a WP:RS. It has only been labeled a Qualified Source (not questionable) by WP:SLR. Just because there is no policy "questionable sources can be used to cite non-controversial facts" doesn't give you the right create a policy of your own. There are many things Wikipedia doesn't have a policy on. That doesn't mean they are all wrong.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Policies that apply to Featured articles are the same as those that apply to every other article on Wikipedia. If Tamilnet is not suitable for featured articles, it's not suitable for regular articles. If you have problems with any other sources create a new discussion about them. This is about Tamilnet and Tamilnet ONLY. Don't try to dilute the discussion.

Are you disputing that Tamilnet is a questionable source, as defined here? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 01:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'm disputing that Tamilnet is a questionable source. I thought we'd established at the beginning of this discussion that TamilNet is WP:RS (as per Sebastian's first comment). It can't be both Reliable and Questionable at the same time. Even if it had been been categorised as Questionable, this says that it shouldn't be used cite contentious claims. But we're not here to discuss contentious claims. We're here to discuss non-controversial facts, for which there are no Wikipedia guidelines.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Marsad document

This document from a human rights organization was brought up for discussion before , its released from a human rights organization, co-authored by Ray Murray, senior lecturer in law at the National University of Ireland, Galway

After the last discussion there has now been some new information revealed, A report by the same authors that contains nearly the identical information has been published in the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, a peer reviewed journal published by Cambridge University Press (abstract here.)

Not only that, but I have also found two different separate sources that say the same thing as that Marsad document, and that is:

Dar, Shimon (1993).Settlements and cult sites on Mount Hermon, Israel: Ituraean culture in the Hellenistic and Roman periods (Illustrated ed.). Tempus Reparatum. p. 168, That the Israeli settlement Neve Ativ is built on top of the former village Jubata ez-Zeit which is the same thing as is written in the Marsad document on p 33.

And also that Israel destroyed the village of Shayta in the seventies and its population was forcibly transferred is in the Marsad document on p 24. This can be found in: Sakr Abu Fakhr, "Voices from the Golan", Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 29, No. 4 (Autumn, 2000), University of California Press, p. 7. which can be accessed through Jstor.

So despite the revelation of this new information, user Pantherskin has repeatedly removed anything written from the Marsad document and claims its not a reliable source despite that I have pointed out these things above to him. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could let us know something about the context of this discussion. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Pantherskin has repeatedly removed info from this document based on that he thinks it is unreliable, I believe it is reliable based on what I have shown above. And now I want to hear other peoples comments about this, is it reliable or not? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the publication in the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law is not 100% identical with the publication of the special interest group Marsad, in particular a long list of allegedly destroyed villages is not included. The Yearbook is obviously a reliable source and should be used, whether Marsad is a reliable source or not is up to discussion. That we can verify tidbits from the Marsad document does not mean that it is reliable, after all even the most unreliable source will usually have a few statements that are true. The problem with Marsad here is that it is an advocacy group, without a reputation for fact-checking and neutrality. The other problem is that the list of allegedly demolished villages is based on an order of the Israel army of villages that were intended to be demolished, but the source presents it as if the order was completely and without any deviations carried out. I am not sure what the non-inclusion of the list in the supposedly peer-reviewed publication implies, but a less than generous interpretation is that the list was not up to the standards of the yearbook. Pantherskin (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The comments above do not properly summarize the issue. The article at stake is Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is essentially about the localities on the Golan Heights that were depopulated in the context of Israel's conquest of the region in 1967. Note that the title does not say "destroyed" but only "depopulated", and it also does not state the precise circumstances of the depopulation (i.e. whether the population ran away or were expelled, during the war or soon afterwards). There is no problem at all identifying the villages still populated by Syrians after the Israeli take-over — there were about half a dozen, listed in many reliable sources. The problem is how to determine the localities populated before the Israeli take-over, since the difference (by the sort of elementary logic allowed by WP:OR) is the list of depopulated localities. Unfortunately we do not have a complete authoritative list in a source that everyone is going to accept. We have reliable reports of the number of villages, and we have maps showing populated localities according to the Syrian census of 1960, corresponding mostly (but not perfectly) with village locations on earlier maps. We also have partial lists of village names like the one mentioned above. Until something better comes up, I think the right approach is to be careful about how the data is described. Regarding destruction of villages, we have reliable sources saying that most of the villages were destroyed and we also have such information about some specific villages. However, Pantherskin has a point in that we do not have a good source for each village in the list to say that it was destroyed (alternatives are that it was settled by Israelis and that it remains standing deserted). The solution to this problem is to be careful in not claiming anything for each village more than is available from a reliable source. It is all in the writing. Zero^talk 10:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, it seems that there are good historical (i.e. peer-reviewed) sources that say that a number of Syrian towns and villages were depopulated or destroyed during the 1967 war. The priority should be to make sure that that is clearly explained in the article with reference to those good sources. As for listing the actual places depopulated or destroyed, this is difficult to research and sources disagree. That is what we should make clear. We should not attempt to present a definitive list. The Murphy article is on the borderline of reliability, since Murphy is a scholar in a reputable university and an expert in international law, but this text is not with an academic publisher. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What sources disagree? all sources say that Israel destroyed all villages except 5. How is the marsad document an unreliable source? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Per Zero, the names of the villages differ in the different sources. I didn't say the Marsad document was unreliable, I said it was on the borderline and gave the reason why. We have high standards for the sourcing of history articles. WikiProject Military History might be able to help. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to hear more comments from people if the marsad document is reliable or not.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Marsad document be indeed reliable because wrote by nutral non government organisation, it certain be more relaible than "jewish virtual library" which already be consider "reliable source" by many editor on Wikipedia. Ani medjool (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

We had this discussion about the Marsad before at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_50#Not_self-published_less_reliable_than_self-published.3F and not surprisingly the consensus of uninvolved editor was that it is not reliable. Of course you can come back again and again to this noticeboard until you get the answer that you would like to hear. Pantherskin (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of opinion pieces from reliable sources for facts in a BLP

An editor has objected to the use of an opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal for facts in a BLP. WP:RS#Statements of opinion seems clear to me that they can be used for facts if attributed: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author."--Drrll (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What part of "not for statements of fact" in the brief part of WP:RS that you quoted seems difficult to understand? You seem to be asking to do the exact opposite of what that part says. Opinion pieces can be used as sources for the claim that the writer holds that opinion, and not for much else. They are not in general fact-checked by their publishers, unlike regular stories. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not asking to do the opposite of what the policy says, I'm asking about using the source for an attributed statement of fact per "if attributed."--Drrll (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the fact and what's the article? It might be okay for something non-contentious like the author's opening statement that "we have two hands", though in practice in those circumstances it's nearly always going to be easy to source the information to a non-opinion source anyway. Barnabypage (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact is the difference in a quote provided by a source (Curt Levey) to the one presented in a news story by Nina Totenberg. The quote was partially construed, but without proper ellipsis, to render a different meaning than was conveyed in the full quote. As far as I know, the only reliable source for this is the opinion piece in the WSJ.--Drrll (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

In which article is the source being used? What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting? Where is the relevant talk page discussion? Dlabtot (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

So I did some sleuthing and discovered: The article is Nina Totenberg. The exact statement the source is supporting is

Totemberg left significant portions of the quote out, including parts from the front, middle and ending, effectively changing the meaning of the quote.

The relevant talkpage discussion is at Talk:Nina_Totenberg#Goodwin_Liu.

The statement being supported by the source is actually not a fact, but an opinion. As such it is ok to use an opinion piece with attribution to support an opinion. Whether the opinion of James Taranto about this quote should be included in this BLP is a topic outside the scope of this noticeboard, although I think the answer is obvious. Dlabtot (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Just because an article is labeled an opinion piece doesn't mean that it is less fact-based than a "regular article". Arguments that a source is "opinion" are a frequent wikilawyering tactic. What matters is the substance and explicitness of the sourcing, not the headline/byline. As far as the WSJ editorial and Dlabtot's research above - if someone cuts out a quote out of context and changes the meaning, that change could easily be considered a fact. In this case I think it's quite dubious that there's any real change in meaning, and I don't see this particular op-ed as having many facts. Any facts that it has are better sourced to the sources that the article provides. II | (t - c) 16:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if it was indisputable that the form of the quote changed the meaning of the original, stating so would be a statement of fact. But, as you point out, that's not the case here. Imho the quote does not change the meaning, at all, nor is it in any way deceptive, etc. Dlabtot (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule, opinion pieces are not considered as reliable as "reporting" and should not be used a source for a fact. As Dlabtot says, they can be used as a source for an opinion, but it needs to be determined whether than opinion has a place in the article --Insider201283 (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Film festival listings for undistributed films.

1. A link to the sources in question: 2009 Bare Bones Film Festival 2009 Queens Int'l Film Festival

2. The article in which it is being used.Chinese room Version: [6]

3. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting:

The 2009 feature film The Chinese Room (IMDb) concerns fictional workers in a Chinese Room-like office. An actual Chinese Room, with an inhabitant passing messages in and out, is visualized by the main character while the thought experiment is described.

4. Links to relevant talk page discussion. Talkpage: [7] [8] [9] Prior RSN discussion: [10] Mediation: [11]

---

This concerns an ongoing dispute about whether to mention the film The Chinese Room (film) in the article Chinese Room.

I have argued that Wikipedia content must be verifiable to reliable sources. The sources in question are the schedules of two film festivals where the film were shown. These schedules were published in advance of the showing of the film and are essentially advertisements for the film and the film festival. As such it is hard for me to see how they could qualify as independent reliable sources.

Independent sources would be newspaper or magazine reviews, news reports, etc. -- not advertisements or schedule listings, imho. If such sources did exist it probably would be entirely appropriate to create a The Chinese Room (film) article and to mention the film in the article about the thought experiment.

Are these film festival listings reliable sources in this context? Dlabtot (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

A related question concerns whether the film could be considered a primary source about itself. That question is, when is a film 'published'? When the director says it is finished? When it has its "world premiere"? (Would it be necessary for that world premiere to be reported in reliable sources?) Or when it gets a distribution deal? IOW, are undistributed films 'published'? To my mind, a film that has not found a distributor is much like a manuscript that has not found a publisher. Dlabtot (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine an unreleased film or one which was effectively impossible to get hold of - for example, a film which was released a hundred years ago, and of which just one print now exists, in private hands - would fail WP:VERIFY. Obviously there would be no problems referring to other, reliable sources describing such films.

To leave the angels dancing on the head of their pin unmolested for a moment, and to get back to the original point...

In the case in question, well, I can't make up my mind. As you say they are effectively advertisements for the screening; on the other hand, their creators have no plausible incentive to make up a movie that doesn't exist or to grotesquely misrepresent it. I'd be inclined to stretch the rules a bit and admit them as sources for some very basic facts, if it's important that the film be mentioned in the article.

You could look for other sources too. Something like the director's own blog - if one exists - would surely be an acceptable source for non-contentious issues such as the plot of the film, per WP:SELFPUB. There is an official Website for the film (www.thechineseroom.com) but it gives very little detail.

Also, although this is not quite a response to what you asked, let me add that I would be very cautious about using those programmes as sources for the fact that the film was shown at the festivals. Film festivals are notorious for last-minute programme changes, cancellations etc. Barnabypage (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB states: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves". This is an article about the Chinese Room thought experiment, not an article about The Chinese Room (film). Dlabtot (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Especially implies not only. Barnabypage (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's one of those cases where you have to consider how our various policies and guidelines work together. Self-published sources can be ok in articles about themselves, but for there to be such an article, there must exist independent reliable sources to establish notability. Otherwise we'd be full of unremarkable, unnotable material simply because it was self-published. But when talking about an article about a different subject, the question of undue weight arises when mentioning a topic not notable in itself. If a subject is notable enough to have its own article, mentioning it in another article is not as problematic in terms of WP:UNDUE. Here we have a subject - a film - that pretty clearly is not notable enough for an article. So the idea of using itself as a source for a mention in some other article becomes extremely problematic. Not necessarily disallowed, but the burden is definitely on those who want to use such a source to justify its use. Dlabtot (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

D1abtot - per my last comment here, the use of self-published sources is not restricted to articles on those sources.

You're right that there is a caution against undue weight. The brief mention proposed on the Chinese room article doesn't seem to me to constitute undue weight. It hardly dominates the article, it won't confuse any reader who wants to learn about the philosophical concept - and it may even prompt more contributions of examples where the Chinese Room idea has been manifested beyond academic circles.

On notability - the guidelines on notability are very clear that notability in the Wikipedian sense relates to whether an article should exist (WP:NNC, not to whether something should be mentioned in an article on another topic. (For example, the parents of famous people are usually not notable in themselves; yet it would be ludicrous to forbid mention of them in the articles relating to the famous individuals.)

It is also well-established that notability and reliability are not the same thing. See endless discussions passim. Barnabypage (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point at this edit and the replies following it. Is there any reason to think that Blueboar's opinion is significantly off the mark?

"unreleased": Commercially available at the film's homepage and Amazon. I own a copy, and since the film is released under a CC 3.0 by-nc license, I'll gladly make copies available to anyone interested. Paradoctor (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

well, if it is on Amazon, it's being distributed, although not in the sense I meant, so that part of the discussion is a bit off-topic, I guess. Sorry I brought it up, although I do think it is an interesting question. (Although I did get a chuckle out of "This product is manufactured on demand when ordered from Amazon.com.") Dlabtot (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC) And, sure, after all this talk, I'd be interested in viewing the film. Dlabtot (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• It would be extremely helpful if someone could try addressing the actual question here, which is: Are these film festival listings reliable sources in this context? Dlabtot (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are primary sources and reliable for the facts that a film festival was promoted and that such a film was scheduled to be in it. They can't be used to demonstrate notability, but can be used for basic facts about the film. The question is then whether a brief mention about the film belongs in an article about the philosophical concept. It would help if a secondary source showed that the film was important to the topic, but is by no means required. I could go either way; the paragraph is a bit of a tangent in the article but there's no compelling reason to remove it. I would suggest that the mention of the film be turned into a hatnote that redirects to Queens International Film Festival, or a link referencing the film be added to an External Links section. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not an article about a film festival. The references aren't being cited for "the facts that a film festival was promoted and that such a film was scheduled to be in it". Dlabtot (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Colgan Air Flight 3407

An editor, EditorASC is objecting to any inclusion/mention of a PBS Frontline episode, Flying Cheap, that focuses on the Colgan Air Flight 3407 crash. EditorASC objects to the content on the basis that Frontline is inherently biased/POV and not a reliable source. In earlier versions of the article section, the editor added his own counter-point facts or comments to some of the Frontline section to counterbalance his perception of bias or incorrect information. He then removed the section with this edit. This editor is knowledgeable about airline safety issues, and has a site dedicated to airline safety. It's also fair to assume that he takes a very conservative view of what should be allowed in articles related to airline crashes. Is Frontline a reliable source in this context?Mattnad (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I would think the series as a whole is a reliable source, and to exclude this particular documentary there would need to be some special reason why this one was, exceptionally, not reliable. Barnabypage (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Frontline is clearly WP:RS. Objections to sources because they are 'biased' or 'POV' are without weight. In fact, our core WP:NPOV policy relies on the fact that contentious issues will have conflicting sources expressing different viewpoints and biases. Dlabtot (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Mattnad has conveniently left out the reason why I decided to remove the controversial Frontline section: Because it violated the rules of what is allowed to be in aviation accident articles. That section ended up as a massive violation of the rules for allowable content in aviation accident articles, found at [[12]].

To wit:

• Speculation in the article should be avoided and only information from official investigation bodies, operators and airports should be included.

• Care should be taken in information from experts and professional bodies with due regard to a neutral point-of-view.

• With due regard to a neutral point-of-view the article should not include comments by persons or bodies designed to blame or distance those persons or bodies from actions taken.

That is why I finally reversed myself (I initially tried to accommodate editor Mattnad, but he kept trying to add more of the conflicting opinions from that highly biased POV program, that favored his particular bias, while removing the edits I made which were intended to provide balance, so as to achieve a neutral point of view). I finally decided I made a mistake in trying to accommodate him, because that ended up turning a one-sentence comment about the existence of that program (in the list of reactions to that accident) into a major section all of its own, which did nothing but debate the controversial views and comments in that program, most of which were unsubstantiated. That was a clear-cut violation of the rules above, which limit the allowable content of aviation accident articles, so I quite properly removed that section, even though I was partly to blame for its being there in the first place.

As to a reliable source, that particular Frontline Program amounts to little more than an agenda editorial program, whereby the producers carefully selected out comments which were likely to advance the POV of those producers, while leaving out those that would contradict its agenda. That makes that program a highly biased editorial piece, not a news piece. That was precisely the complaint from Colgan Air:

"Specifically, the PBS "Frontline" program Tuesday night, February 10, was particularly disturbing and represented a microcosm of the situation we faced from the very start. Rushed to completion in time to air on the anniversary of this tragic accident and taped prior to hearing the NTSB's report, the producers showed no regard for the hard work by the NTSB and our team in the investigation. Instead, they presented their own opinions that were selectively supported by one-sided allegations from former, disgruntled employees and former government employees with significant self-interest. This type of journalism, as with many accounts like it during the year-long investigation, disrespects the memory of those lost in the accident as well as all of you whose daily professionalism gives aviation a safety record unparalleled in the transportation industry.

"If you have not seen this program, we would urge you to do so. We believe it is important for you to see for yourself the challenges we face from those who would use our tragedy for their own agendas. The Frontline segment "Flying Cheap," was a collection of half-truths, innuendo,and unsubstantiated opinions that portrayed Colgan and our regional industry in the poorest possible way. Although the creators of the program were careful to fabricate their story with no factual naccuracies, the errors by omission were significant, and the lack of full disclosure in stories like this creates an incomplete and inaccurate picture of an industry whose regulation is indeed effective and where safety - from the smallest regional to the largest major carrier - is absolutely paramount."

The FP made a monumental effort to try and "prove" that "outsourcing" acts in derogation of airline safety. And, how did they "prove" that? Not by citing any objective scientific studies, or NTSB stats. Because there are none. Nope, instead, they loaded the program with a lot of unsubstantiated opinion, from those who have a vested interest in making such arguments. The president of ALPA, for instance, which has long opposed "outsourcing" of "its" jobs, to other airlines. Who would expect otherwise from a labor union president? Of course ALPA has always tried to portray "outsourcing" as a SAFETY issue, because if they simply told the public the truth---that ALPA wants a total monopoly on labor for all pilot jobs---they would be dismissed outright. When I put in the disputed FP section that the ALPA Prez did not supply any statistic evidence to support his claim (that was true), editor Mattnad removed that. When I put in that NTSB stats showed the accident year of 2009 to be one of the safer years, editor Mattnad removed that too.

And, Mary Schiavo, who was an inspector general of the FAA, and wrote a book "Flying Blind, Flying Safe," which was filled with all kinds of factual errors. One example, of her many horrible errors in that book:

Referring to wind shear, "It is also a mystery--no one really understands how it affects plane performance." (p. 288) In fact, wind shear was continually studied since the 1975 Eastern B-727-225 accident at JFK (which Schiavo refers to as an L-1011 on page 265).

I had been thru several years of ground school and simulator sessions on how to recognize and avoid wind shear and how to fly out of it, if it wasn't avoidable, by the time she wrote that. There are so many other, utterly stupid errors in her book, that I rate it on par with the Rodney Stich books.

In addition, Schiavo is an attorney for plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Colgan. Editor Mattnad didn't want that revealed, by way of balance after quoting her in the FP section of the Colgan 3407 article. He also didn't want to accurately quote some of the parties, so he manufactured his own quote and put it in CEO Bethune's mouth.

Each time I tried to correct those errors and provide balance, the section on Frontline grew larger and larger, while editor Mattnad continued to delete anything that would provide balance to the highly biased and self-interested statements from the FP that supported editor Mattnad's apparent bias.

We don't recognize pilot forums, like PPRune and such, as WP:RS, for the reason that those tend to be highly biased sources which often have political axes to grind. This particular Frontline Program is filled with the same kind of unsubstantiated, self-interested forms of "evidence" as the pilot forums are. That is why that particular Frontline Program should not be used as a source, especially since that program seems to parrot the ALPA party line about outsourcing being a threat to airline safety. ALPA has NEVER been able to support that contention with solid, objective statistical studies, so they just pontificate, as a substitute. The fact remains, that although outsourcing (Major airlines contracting with feeder airlines) took off right after the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act was passed, the safety stats have continued to get better and better as the years go by. But, editor Mattnad doesn't want ALPA's unsubstantiated claims to be balanced with such stats from NTSB and/or FAA. He only seems to want to quote the ALPA party line. Which causes me to suspect unrevealed COI.

That Fronline Program does not meet WP:RS and should not be used to try and distort or countermand the Probable and Contributory findings of the NTSB. The rules of content, for aviation accident articles forbids that. EditorASC (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"That Fronline Program does not meet WP:RS" -- in what way? Keeping in mind that questions of 'bias', 'POV', or the 'agenda' of the producers are entirely irrelevant? Dlabtot (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The Frontline episode did not distort any official findings. It went beyond them to consider contributing factors that led up to the pilot error. I will agree that they did not depend exclusively on statistics but did supply some. Did the cherry pick? Almost certainly but that it itself does not disqualify ANY MENTION of the episode and it's point of view. In wikipedia, we don't exclude content we don't agree with even if we have reason to think they are incorrect per WP:NPOV. So let's keep the focusing on what constitutes a reliable source (and not this editor's objections to the content of that source). This editor equates Frontline, an award winning journalistic program (a reliable source) with Pilot Forums (which are not) based on his objections to the content.

As for the personal attacks, claiming COI, well I can only say that this editor has more than amply demonstrated his position in his diatribe above (pot calling the kettle black). I would ask him to explain why he is so angry with unions? I am not affiliated with any union and have no personal connection with any union person and have no connection to the airline industry except as a passenger (I'm Elite on Contintal and like them very much).Mattnad (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is my take. That a source is "biased" is no reason for exclusion, in general. We do try to limit advocacy sites to describe themselves only, but otherwise we assume all sources are biased in some way. In this case, however, it seems to me the main problem with this TV source is WP:UNDUE. An aviation accident article should focus primarily on the accident itself and related events. In the "aftermath" of larger accidents there are often long-lasting political and legal consequences, sometimes very contentious, which include huge amounts of detail. I believe that including excessive details in the aftermath part of an article would violate UNDUE, and would make the article less readable. If there are sufficient issues to start a new sub-article, this should be considered, but never as a WP:POVFORK. Such sub-articles could then be linked and included summary-style in the main article. But in general, the "Aftermath" section of an aviation accident article should not be longer than the other main sections. Crum375 (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Secondary source contradicted by primary source

There's an outgoing edit war on the article Network TwentyOne regarding a court case in the UK. The issue is that a secondary source (a newspaper article) makes certain claims about the nature of the case, however the actual primary source court judgement is contrary to those claims. There are no other secondary sources known. See Talk:Network TwentyOne for details. How should this be handled? --Insider201283 (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Do not substitute your judgement for that of secondary sources, especially with respect to complicated issues like court cases. I will evaluate further and comment again shortly. Hipocrite (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand the word "distributor" in the secondary source. A distributor is a company that distributes the products of another company. It is not necessarily owned by the company who makes the products it distrubtes. You can both distribute something and "not [be] owned by [the company who makes the product you distribute] or by any of its shareholders or officers. Hipocrite (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean? Network 21 does not distribute Amway products.--Insider201283 (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What leads you to believe that, exactly? Even if you were right, that in no way impeaches the source, which is only used to say "In 2007 the UK government attempted to ban the organisation and Amway," which appears to be accurate. Hipocrite (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not entirely accurate either. BERR can't "ban" companies per se. As the judgement says, what they petitioned to do was wind up the companies, there's nothing stopping them reopening the next day and indeed nothing stopping the "organisation" continuing to exist in the UK, supplied from abroad, which is exactly what happened. This is where the problem is - IMO the case deserves mentioning, but the only source we have is a wholly inaccurate one. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If a company is forced to wind up, it no longer exists in the UK, and as such, is functionally banned. While another, identical orginization could attempt to reopen, that would be a new company. Again, you are misinterpreting primary sources and now engaging in your own research as to what things mean. In summary, it's time to lose gracefully. Hipocrite (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The company, yes, but the term "Network TwentyOne" refers to more than just the company(s) per se. However, that can be fixed by rewording. Please explains how I'm misinterpreting the primary source, which I have read completely numerous times. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You agree that you are intepreting the primary source, then? Hipocrite (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't play word games. The primary source clearly states the case was not about business support materials, the muskegon chronicle says it was. No "interpretation" is needed for that much past interpreting "1" and "One" as refering to the same thing. Why did you ask if there was a COI? --Insider201283 (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. You say the source says one thing. I say it says something else. It appears that you believe I am misinterpreting the source. Doesn't that mean that you are necessarily interpreting it - regardless of how obvious or correct you are? I asked about the COI because if you did have a COI, you should refrain from editing the article, and instead edit the talk page, per WP:COI, and I assumed that if you had a COI, you were unaware of this. Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

So you ask every editor if they have a COI then? I don't understand what you mean by "it says something else". Which part? Perhaps best to answer at the "back on point" below. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The word "tool" which you attribute to [13] does not appear in the article. Hipocrite (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was meant as a jargon "quote" not a cite "quote". "Tools" is a common used term in the area for "motivational materials etc", which is mentioned in the Muskegon article, and which the court judgement says the case was not about. With regard N21 distributing Amway products, I know it because I've been studying the topic for a decade, but the court judgement says as much - Amway does not share in any of the risks or rewards of Britt and Network 21. By definition if you are distributing a companies products, that company shares in, at least, the rewards of your success. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting primary sources - in summary, you are wrong. Do you have a financial conflict of interest, here? IE, are you paid directly or indirectly by any of the parties? Hipocrite (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Of for crying out loud. Why do I have to constantly put up with this #"¤!¤!?? Ever heard of WP:AGF? No I am not paid by any of the parties. The primary source is clear, how do you think I'm misinterpreting it?--Insider201283(talk) 15:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If I were to fail to assume good faith, I would not have asked you if you had a COI, I rather would have just said that you appear to have a COI. I take you at your word that you don't. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to interpret primary sources and make judgements about whether secondary sources are 'wrong'. That is original research. But the alleged 'primary source' isn't acceptable even if there were no OR issue. The New York Times, Muskegon Chronicle, etc. are reliable sources. Documents hosted on http://www.amwaywiki.com/ are not. Dlabtot (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Amway wiki is a convenience link for the source, not the source. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not usable as a convenience link or for any other purpose. Dlabtot (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Dla. Hipocrite (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your concern is here since it's not being used as a source. The only link was in Talk. The source is the court judgement, which is available from the UK government. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Hypocrite too. Also agree about the COI claim, couldnt be more obvious. Financeguy222 (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

FG222 is the other editor involved in this dispute. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

We're aware of that. Hipocrite (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

<-My points still haven't been addressed. The Muskegon Chronicle states N21 is a "high level Amway Distributor", all other sources and the primary source itself says it is not. The Muskegon Chronicle states the case was about "motivational materials" etc, the case judgement itself says it was not. This clearly points to the reliability of the source. The Muskegon Chronicle article itself states the complaint was sealed. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Your point has been addressed. It's original research based on an unreliable hosting of a primary source. Dlabtot (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Dlabtot, please stop stating falsehoods. The source is not Amway Wiki, the source is the court judgement, a copy of which I have, and which I obtained from the UK Companies court. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't like the answer you've gotten here. But the reality is that your 'source' is unusable and your argument is original research. Insulting me won't change that. Dlabtot (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't insult you, you stated something false. Furthermore, you kow appear to be stating that a court judgement is an unusable source regarding what a case was about. You yourself have stated court judgements are primary sources and can be used where appropriate [14] as have many other editors [15] Primary sources are clearly allowable as sources for factual claims about themselves.[16] --Insider201283 (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, primary sources can be used, in extremely limited circumstances. Those limited circumstances do not include conducting original research in an attempt to show that a secondary source is 'wrong'. Dlabtot (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

So reading multiple sources, and doing no synthesis or interpretation, is now considered "original research"? It's basic WP philosophy that no source is automatically considered reliable, it has to be taken in conjunction with other materials. Taking the position that evaluating a sources reliability is WP:OR is a fundamental change in approach. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

So reading multiple sources, and doing no synthesis or interpretation, is now considered "original research"? NO. But your argument is original research. And wrong. Dlabtot (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

How is my argument original research? The article states some things about a court case. The court judgement states differently. This pertains to the reliability of the source. WP:V clearly states Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations. We have one single source for the material, and it is clearly not reliable. How does this not qualify as "poorly sourced"? On what basis does WP:V not apply? By the way, I'd also note that my primary issue with this is ultimately one of WP:BALANCE. We have one poor source for a claim about a case that was dismissed. I think we can probably come up with some acceptable text for the body of the article about the case, but does it really qualify for the lead? Indeed, is it notable enough at all? --Insider201283 (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As has already been explained to you, it is original research to interpret primary sources and use them to make judgements about whether secondary sources are 'wrong'. I have no intention in repeating myself to you further. You may have the last word. Dlabtot (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You can "explain" this point until the end of the universe. I have zero disagreement with what you have just said. The problem is - so what? What's the relevance to this discussion? There is no interpretation going on. Have you actually read the sources? --Insider201283 (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I am reading the source now, and agree with Dlabtot. The judgment says, as you correctly quote, that Amway didn't own or "share in the risks and rewards" of N21. Fine. That doesn't contradict the statement that N21 was a distributor. Your statement "Network 21 does not distribute Amway products" would, but I can't see that in the judgment. As Dlabtot says, a distributor is not necessarily a subsidiary. In fact, point 2 says that IBOs are independent sellers of Amway products, and point 50 says Network 21 was formed by senior Amway IBOs, so your statement is treading quite close to contradicting the judgment itself.("When I wear my red hat, I'm merely a guy who formed N21, and only when I wear my blue hat am I a distributor...") That wouldn't be sufficient for us to call N21 a distributor, of course, but partly supports, and certainly doesn't contradict, the Chronicle's statement. --GRuban (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Under that line of thinking, Apple makes movies because Pixar was owned by Steve Jobs. The claim N21 is not an Amway distributor is not reliant on the court case - multitude of the other sources say the same thing. It's not simply a matter of changing hats - Network 21 is a significant company in it's own right with hundreds of employees, the vast majority of whom (including most executives) are not Amway distributors. I'm not quite sure how you can interpret the judges statement and the journalists statement as not contradictory. If you distribute products for a company, and you are successful, that company is clearly going to share in the rewards of your success. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Where possible, primary sources and secondary sources (this would also hold for two primary sources, or two secondary sources) should be interpreted in a manner that give credence to both sources. Secondary sources sometimes add a gloss of interpretation that a primary source may not have, and -- for example -- in a highly technical area may add to understanding in a way that the primary source alone does not add. It may also put the primary source in context. That said, where it is a matter of fact and there is a clear conflict, the primary source is the better indicia of the fact as to what the primary source says. See this for some thoughts on using primary evidence. As to the specifics of this case, I would suggest you either go to the wp:law wikiproject (where a number of UK attorneys hang out; UK attorneys can be expected to do a better job at construing UK law than Wikipedia editors generally), or contact user:ironholds, whose opinion I trust on matters of UK law.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• • rubs eyes blearily* if somebody is willing to explain to me the law in dispute, I'm quite happy to give a limited and completely unofficial opinion based on my own knowledge and the mass of company/financial law textbooks I use as a footstool. Ironholds (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ironholds. There's no real law in dispute per se, it's whether what a judge says a case is about in the case judgment trumps what a media article claims was in a sealed complaint. The situation is this - the DTI petitoned to wind up Amway (UK) Limited and two companies (Britt WorldWide and Network 21 Support Systems UK Ltd)that supplied support and training materials to Amway distributors (UK Companies court. Cases 2651,262,2653 of 2007)[17], alleging "objectional practices". The case against Amway, and it's eventual dismissal) was widely reported. The Muskegon Chronicle article is the only one that reports the cases against Britt and Network 21 and has at least two significant errors - (1) it claims BWW and N21 are "high level Amway distributors". They are not, as other sources used in the article explain, and the judge confirms, noting that Amway "does not share in any of the risks or rewards of Britt and Network 21" - clearly impossible if they are your distributors. Britt and Network 21 were founded by people who were Amway distributors, which is where the confusion arises. (2) the article also claims the complaint was about problems with distributors making money from selling these materials rather than from marketing Amway products. The court judgement explicitly states the case was not about that at all. Interestingly, as the article notes, the complaint was sealed, so the journalist was clearly getting his information from a "source" rather than first hand, likely one with an agenda. Now, on top of that, the fact the cases against Britt and N21 were dropped is not reported in any media. I did however obtain a copy of the dismissal against N21, [18]. So, we are left with one secondary source that does not reliably describe the case, and no secondary sources regarding the case being dismissed against Network 21. This has left some editors wanting to include all the allegations made in the secondary source (The Muskegon Chronicle) in the article (and lead) but not allow even reporting of the fact the case was dismissed as all we have is the primary sources, and PDF copies of them are hosted on site space (www.amwaywiki.com) that in itself is not WP:RS (and which, full disclaimer, I admin). My own feeling is that allegations from a court case that was dismissed and not reported anywhere but in one (foreign) press article probably shouldn't be included in an article at all. They would certainly not be allowed if it was an article on a living person (under WP:BLP) rather than an active company. Under WP:V poorly sourced claims about active companies should not be included, and IMO the inaccuracies qualify the Muskegon Chronicle article as a poor source. However some people have passionate views about all things related to multilevel marketing companies like Amway and will fight tooth and nail to include anything critical, so in the interest of consensus I think it's OK to include if its balanced and includes the rather pertinent fact the case was dismissed. As it happens I know from talking to parties involved that the case against Network 21 didn't even make it to hearings. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

We use secondary sources in preference to primary ones. Now, sometimes good secondary sources may be mistaken. If for example a historian's book said that WW2 ended 1954 rather than 1945 it's obviously a misprint and should be ignored. But that can only be done when it is clear that the secondary source is mistaken. This case does not sound very clear. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That's been said by a couple of people and, with respect, I simply don't get that response. How is it not clear? The article says "the case is about this". The case judgement says "the case is not about this". I don't see how you can get any clearer than that? --Insider201283 (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Deciding what a case is about involves a degree of judgement. So we need a source such as a newspaper, because we cannot make such a judgement ourselves. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm not suggesting making the judgement ourselves. The judge, Justice Norris, in the published judgement, explicitly stated the case was not about the Business Support Materials. Here is the quote again -

"Nor has this case been (as it might have been) about the volume of BSM produced by Amway or by the organisations (like Britt and Network 21)"(BERR vs Amway UK (para 50)[19]

This flatly contradicts what the Muskegon Chronicle said. No interpretation is necessary. No judgement of what the case was about by us is necessary. The Muskegon Chronicle said "the case is about A". The judge in the case, writing in the judgement, explicitly stated "the case is NOT about A". How is this not clear? --Insider201283 (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You're trying to using the statement in the judgment that Amway didn't own or "share in the risks and rewards" of N21 to mean "Network 21 does not distribute Amway products". They're not equivalent. That's what's not clear. That's what the interpretation is. N21 can distribute Amway products without being owned by Amway. We're not saying they do or don't, that's not for us to decide, but a newspaper is, and we need a pretty clear statement to the contrary to say they're wrong; clearer than this.--GRuban (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well that's not the main point under discussion, it's just a pointer towards the unreliability of the source. The Muskegon Chronicle article is not being used to make that claim, and neither is the court judgement being made to claim the opposite. If you read the article under discussion, and the variety of secondary sources used, that issue is not under dispute. The fact Muskegon Chronicle has it wrong is a just a pointer to unreliability. The key point is that the editor FinanceGuy222 wants serious allegations against a company included in the article, based on one unreliable source and contradicted, with no need of interpretation, by an official primary source, and does not want the fact the allegations were dismissed, based on the primary source of a court dismissal statement, included. If this were a BLP issue it wouldn't even be under discussion, frankly I'm surprised it's even controversial.--Insider201283 (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A general note, since I am not familiar with the specifics here. A primary source can be used to add details or amplify a secondary source, though very carefully, so as not to introduce a new point of view. But a primary source should never be used to contradict or refute a secondary source, since that would create a new interpretation of the primary source, which would constitute original research. In other words, use primary sources (carefully) to add "color", not to create new ideas or new positions about a topic, which are not already described in reliable secondary sources. Crum375 (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this clear. The argument is that an article by a journalist for a local newspaper in Muskegon, Michigan (pop 40,000), is considered to be a notable and reliable source on a court case in the United Kingdom, involving a UK company, that was so notable it was not mentioned by any other RS, and where the court documents themselves flatly contradict what the journalist says. This is wikilawyering to the extreme. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You raise a question in this noticeboard in order to get views from uninvolved editors. And when uninvolved editors respond you accuse us of wikilawyering. Nice. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not mean it as an insult, my apologies if it was taken as such. But, how am I supposed to respond? Don't you think it's a bit absurd that a journalist in a small town in the US is considered a more reliable source on a court case in the UK than sitting Judge of the case itself? Don't you think, interpretation of Wikipedia policies aside, it's outright wrong that serious allegations can be made against a company in Wikipedia, but the fact the allegations were dismissed cannot be mentioned because because the whole case was so unnotable that nobody bothered to cover it? Isn't there something wrong with this picture? --Insider201283 (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Crumb375 wrote "but a primary source should never be used to contradict or refute a secondary source, since that would create a new interpretation of the primary source." Nonsense. Some primary sources make simple factual statements that require no interpretation, and such statements can be used to contradict or refute any misquote or misrepresentation in a secondary source. Note that court decisions, particularly of lower courts, often do require interpretation by secondary sources, especially in view of the possibility of being overturned by a higher court. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, note that I did not say (or imply) that a relevant reliable primary source (which directly addresses the topic) needs to be excluded as a source. But interpreting it to say that it contradicts the available secondary sources would be original research. What we can do, in cases where the contradiction is clear-cut and requires no expert knowledge (e.g. a date of some event), is to include the apparent discrepancy in a footnote. But the secondary sources hold sway in the main text in cases of conflict. Crum375 (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, finally a word of sense in this discussion. As an addendum, the case did got to appeal and was not overturned --Insider201283 (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Jc3s5h - in this case, the secondary source writes "x is a distributor of y." The primary source writes "x does not share in any of the risks or rewards of y." Do you feel that the primary source as a simple fact contradicts the secondary source? Do you feel this way given that other editors have clearly expressed that their understanding of the primary and secondary sources is that there is no contradiction? Hipocrite (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you are obfuscating, that is not the main point under discussion. The Muskegon Chronicle article is being used as a source to claim there was a court case where allegations were made against Network 21 with regards profiting and marketing the sale of motivational materials (BSM). The Judge, in the official court judgement, explictly states the case was not about that. Now that I think about it, in this situation the judgment is being used as a secondary source, not a primary source. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Legal documents, such as court findings, are generally primary sources, since any time the authors of a document are involved in the process they describe, it is primary. You need a secondary source, such as a news article, to interpret them. To say that a judge said X or Y based on a legal document would violate WP:NOR, since the judge also said A, B and C, and WP editors are not allowed to either pick and choose pieces or to otherwise interpret them, from inside primary sources. Bottom line: for legal issues, a reliable secondary source, uninvolved with the case, such as a news article or a scholarly publication, must be used as the main source. Crum375 (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Eh? Of course we pick and choose from sources all the time. Otherwise we would have to include the whole of every source in every article, which would be absurd. Barnabypage (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) I disagree with Crum375. If a secondary source directly contradicts a primary source in a manner not subject to interpretation, and the primary source is more reliable than the secondary source, the best course of action may be to only cite the primary source with respect to the fact in question, unless the secondary source provides additional information that is intertwined with the contradictory information, in which case both should be mentioned.

The idea that a firm was a distributor and the idea that a firm did not share in the risks and rewards of another firm are not contradictory. Also, an allegation could be made in a court case, and the final decision by the judge or court of appeals might determine that the allegation was immaterial, so I see no inherent contradiction between the court case and the newspaper article.

Crumb375's statement that "WP editors are not allowed to either pick and choose pieces" is tantamount to saying Wikipedia is not allowed to be an encyclopedia. No doubt Crumb375 will deny this, but he/she really wants to completely eliminate primary sources from Wikipedia. I will not believe the denial that no doubt will follow. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

ok, first of all let's forget the "firm is or is not a distributor" part, it's really not that relevant as no one is trying to make that claim in the article, ie nobody is actually disputing that the firm is NOT a distributor, whatever the Muskegon Chronicle says. Having thought about this more and read some of the archives, there is a point of view that court documents can be both primary sources and secondary sources, depending on what you want to use it for. In this case, it's "what is the case about" - ie what's the complaint. A judge talking about what a case is (or is not) about should probably be considered a secondary source by an expert in the topic - by definition a 3rd party expert - and published by a reliable source (Her Majesty's Goverment). As such in this instance it's not really a primary source at all. The primary source would be the complaint, not the judgement. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Agree completely w/Jc3s5h. Per discussion here.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent commentary there Eppefleche. In the case of judicial hearings, a judges reporting on evidence would in fact be a secondary source. The judges decision would be a primary source - and clearly the most reliable and verifiable source for that decision. One concern I have is so much of this discussion occurs with regards to BLP - where getting it wrong may affect one person, but when it's with regards companies - where getting it wrong may affects thousands of people (or in the case of a company like Amway, millions) - there's no clear guidelines and pretty much "anything goes". There is no sensible reason for this. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"FinanceGuy222 wants serious allegations against a company included in the article, based on one unreliable source and contradicted, with no need of interpretation, by an official primary source, and does not want the fact the allegations were dismissed, based on the primary source of a court dismissal statement" For those who don't know, the Muskegon source Insider is now trying to rid from the article, is one he originally posted as a reliable source in defence of the recent AfD for the article.

I'm not at all against stating the specific allegations were dismissed, I'm for it, as long as they are properly sourced.

With the "distributor" phrase in question being applied to N21 in regards to Amway, seemingly for the purpose of discrediting a source for use of the term, WP states a distributor is "An organization or set of organizations (go-betweens) involved in the process of making a product or service available for use or consumption by a consumer or business user. The other three parts of the marketing mix are product, pricing, and promotion." N21 is an organisation involved in the promotion of, and making the service of Amway available, clearly a "distributor". Why is that in question? Financeguy222 (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

FG222, you are being entirely disingenuous. You have multiple times removed the statement, and source, that the case was dismissed while leaving in the allegations. If you are "for it", then why have you continued to do this, and refused to even discuss the matter in Talk? The most recent time you left the reference in the article body, but deleted it from the lead, leaving people who browse quickly with an entirely false notion. Right now all we have is one minor news reference about the case, and the court document it was dismissed. I've deleted the sentences under discussion unless we can come to agreement or more sources. Please raise it further in the article Talk pages. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Seth Roberts

Would a review of a book by Seth Roberts which he posted on his blog be reliable for an article? He is a Professor of Psychology at Tsinghua University and is an author as well. As he is a notable person, and a professor would he fall under wp:prof? mark nutley (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Per the instructions at the tip top, you should provide:

1. A link to the source in question.
2. The article in which it is being used.
3. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting.
4. Links to relevant talk page discussion.

I'll do it, though.

1. Source in question: [20]
2. Article in which it is being used: The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion
3. The exact statement in the article: [21]
4. Links to relevant talk page discussion: Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion#rv_why

Hope that helps! PS - not reliable, because blogs are not reliable sources. If the blog was reliable, it's not a notable opinion. Hipocrite (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ya it`s on his blog, but as he is a professor he falls under wp:prof right? So self published is ok mark nutley (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have over-extended your guidelines. WP:PROF deals with when a professor is notable enough to have an article on themselves. WP:SPS is the document you want - "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Hipocrite (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Self published works like blogs are acceptable sources if they are by an established expert on the topic of the article. Is Seth Roberts an acknowledge expert on the book The Hockey Stick Illusion? Does he have WP:RS published work about it? If not then the blog is not usable. As Hipocrite points out, if his opinion was considered notable, a RS source would have noted it.--Insider201283 (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sort of agree with Insider. Demanding he be an already published expert about the specific book is a bit strict, but he should be an expert on the subject of the book in some way. As the book is about climate change, and Roberts is accredited as a psychologist, that's a bit of a stretch. Not RS, unless he has meteorology degrees we don't know about. --GRuban (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but the reason I'm being strict because it otherwise turns wikipedia into a repository of book reviews for anyone who cares to have an opinion. If he was a published climate scientist then his comments about something said in the book might be relevant and allowable, but his opinion of the book? Not notable unless an RS asked him for it. When you start allowing blogs as sources with a less strict version of "expert" you get in a world of trouble deciding what "expertise" is relevant to the article. Climate scientist? Mathematics? Statistics? Politics? Public Relations? History of Science? Enviromentalism? The book covers all these kinds of topics - should we allow the blog post of anyone who is an "expert" in any of those fields to be an RS? Clearly not a path we want to follow. They need to be an acknowledged expert on the topic of the article - full stop. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "expert" on a book as such. What would that be? Knowledge of its publishing history, editing, author's motivations etc? Expertise is on an academic topic. Experts get to review books because they are about their topic of expertise. If the book is about that topic then an accredited expert's blog may be quoted. Yes, in some cases there may be dispute about what academic topic is most relevant to a particular book, but that's a problem that can only be addressed in specificities, not generalities. In this case the book is clearly about climate science, but whatever more specific expertises may be relevant, its very hard to see that psychology would be one of them. SPS exceptions surely can't apply here. Paul B (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

We're all in agreement on the specific case, not usable - however for the general situation of a book, an "expert" would be someone who has published on the book. There are plenty of academic articles and books about specific books. If you want some expert commentary on say, The Bhagavad Gita, you find someone who has studied and published on that book, not someone who has studied and published on say, The Bible. Just because they may both be experts on the general subject of "religion" doesn't make them experts on that specific book. The reason for this is to prevent us having to judge what subjects a book is about and who are or are not experts on that subject(s). Instead, a 3rd Party RS source does it for us by acknowledging the expertise. --Insider201283 (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is pretty cut-and-dried. The Hockey Stick Illusion is a book about the climate change debate. Seth Roberts is not "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" so his self-published review is not WP:RS. Dlabtot (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

FAIR (again); article that has already led to one defamation lawsuit being used as a reference

Hello. Fellow editor Annoynmous is seeking to use an article that appeared in FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) as an RS for highly critical contentious facts. The "facts" relate to both what a living person (Steven Emerson) has supposedly done and said, and what others supposedly said about Emerson.

The article in question is the only one that John F. Sugg wrote for FAIR. That suggests that his "opinion", which is also in the article, is not necessarily that of FAIR. Sugg's full-time job was as a senior editor for an alternative newspaper now named Creative Loafing, in Tampa Bay.

The proposed use is in the first 5 paras here. (See the left column). George has since tried to address the most immediate problem by changing some contentious critical claims to unsourced claims. But I think unsourced claims also have to be deleted since this is a BLP.

My understanding from this prior discussion and this one is that FAIR would not be an RS for such contentious "facts". Especially with regard to a living person. See WP:GRAPEVINE, which instructs us to: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is ... poorly sourced." But as Annoy is insistent on putting it in the BLP, I thought I would bring the question here as to whether the article is an RS for those purposes.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

And, as is discussed below, Sugg writings have already led to one defamation lawsuit by Emerson. It would seem poor risk-sensitivity to use Sugg's article as a source here at all.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you list the specific facts it's being cited for? While those paragraphs are very poorly written, they seem to be statements of Sugg's opinion for the most part. ← George ^talk 09:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Sugg states his own opinion briefly. He accuses Emerson of: "exaggerating the threats posed by Islamists", a willingness "to push an extremely thin story—with potentially explosive consequences," and "mistakes and distortions." I do not think Sugg is notable enough for his harshly contentious opinion to be reflected in a BLP. And as it is his only piece for FAIR, it would not appear to be "FAIR's opinion".

Specific "facts" asserted by Sugg, according to those 5 paras, are:

1. That Emerson was involved in an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India.
2. That Emerson claimed that the Yugoslavians were behind the first bombing of the World Trade Center in New York.
3. That Emerson stated that TWA Flight 800 was brought down by a bomb.
4. That the Columbia Journalism Review alleged that passages in Emerson's book The Fall of Pan Am 103, "bear a striking resemblance, in both substance and style" to reports in the Syracuse Post-Standard.
5. That a New York Times review (5/19/91) of Emerson's 1991 book Terrorist that "chided that it was 'marred by factual errors…and by a pervasive anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias,'" and said that "his 1994 PBS video, Jihad in America was faulted for bigotry and misrepresentations".
6. That "veteran reporter Robert Friedman accused Emerson of 'creating mass hysteria against American Arabs'" in a 1995 article.
7. That Emerson said the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 showed "a Middle Eastern trait" because it "was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible." [FYI – something along the lines of this final point was said by Emerson I believe, and there should be RSs to reflect it rather than this]

--Epeefleche (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm also unsure about Sugg's notability, and more research would have to be done on that. And I wouldn't cite his article as FAIR's opinion, unless he was an editor there, or the publication expressed that view. In general, I would treat this source like an op-ed – cite it for statements of opinion, but not for facts. However, an accusation is not a statement of fact, and accusing someone of saying something doesn't make it a fact. We can verify that Sugg accused Emerson of saying certain things, so write that, not that Emerson necessarily said them (e.g., Sugg accused Emerson of saying X, not Emerson said X).

It would be better to cite the original sources, where possible, both for Emerson's own statements, as well as those of the other people Sugg listed as accusing Emerson of saying certain things. These sort of indirect third person accusations get quite tedious (e.g., Sugg wrote that Friedman accused Emerson of X) ← George ^talk 11:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sugg didn't state those above-listed items as his opinion. He said they were "facts" (not, "in my opinion E said x"). So, even if he were notable (and writing for a non-RS alternative weekly paper doesn't make someone notable), I don't think we could cite his statements of fact. His statements of opinion were those reflected above in the para beginning "Sure". I agree w/you that if those third-party RS statements (such as the NYT) exist, they would be fine to quote.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes he states his opinion by citing facts. He cites articles where Emerson made statements that he regards as foolish. I don't understand why because he's apart of an alternative newspaper that doesn't make him a reliable source.

It should be noted that Epeefleche regards a book by Sean hannity as a reliable source for senate testimony.annoynmous 12:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the only supposed "facts" he cites are his paraphrasing of articles written by others, articles that are mostly not-verifiable in that I cannot find them on the net. (maybe someone else can) We don't know if he is accurately reflecting his source or not. Things extraneous to this discussion, ie Epeefleche's views on other things, are not relevant to this discussion. Please stay focused. Stellarkid (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

How is that not relevant. The fact is that instead of finding the actual senate testimony epeefleche chose to reference a book by a radio talk show host.

The fact of matter is that Sugg cites articles with quotes made by emerson and gives his interpretation of it. FAIR is clearily defined as a liberal gorup in the article and everything is stated as Suggs opinion.

I should also add the Stellarkid recently added an article ny Robert Spencer that criticizes Sugg and there literally isn't one source to back anything up. Spencer goes for almost 3 paragraphs without one source to back anything up and stellarkid views this as a legitimate source. I'm willing to except that FAIR is a partisan source, but at least in there articles there are sources listed. annoynmous 16:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as we don't have qualms re using FAIR/Suggs to tell us what is in a NYTimes book review, we can use a FrontPageMag/Robert Spencer article to tell us what they think is in it. Neither one is the original RS, but since the tertiary source(s) disagree, I can't see anything wrong with using it. Take out the FAIR/Suggs reference and I will happily remove the FPM/Spencer reference. Stellarkid (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is that Sugg and FAIR are not RSs, especially as to highly contentious "facts" in a BLP.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sugg and FAIR are two different things, and as I said earlier, I would treat this particular source like an op-ed. Per WP:RS, "some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution". I'll try to pop over to the article and clear these paragraphs up a bit. ← George ^talk 21:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The inflammatory weight of the remarks Sugg makes seems to me to outweigh what his credibility allows. These are harsh claims he is making and if they can't be verified or echoed by other sources I would stay away from citing his article at all. Ink Falls 22:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with George, FAIR and editorials are good as compliments to provide alternative viewpoints to events already covered by more mainstream, non-partisan sources. Soxwon (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Complements perhaps, if we have the more mainstream sources as well. Stellarkid (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Right. Except there is no FAIR opinion piece here. And there is no editorial here. And there is no op-ed here. What we have here is an article, w/various assertions of fact. FAIR, as discussed at the prior discussions, is not an RS for those assertions of fact. The limited amount of "opinion" here is not the opinion of FAIR, but rather the opinion of a 1-article-for-FAIR-ever writer who seems to be non-notable, and who worked for a non-notable alternative weekly. Thomas Friedman, he ain't. And he is disparaging a living person–we are obliged to only use the highest quality sources for that. He certainly isn't in that category. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I take your point. So the whole kit and kaboodle of the Sugg article should be dumped, with only original RS sources used?--Stellarkid (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep. As Ink Falls says above.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a tangled web. Contrary to George, I feel that FAIR should to some degree be considered to back Sugg, his piece is the kind of media criticism they publish, and it could be considered as FAIR's view of Emerson. Most of what is used from Sugg is his quotes of other sources, and of course should be cited to originals if possible. I have little doubt they are authentic and have cited a couple to other sources or originals. The NYT book review is hard to track down, but I used Emerson's letter in reply to source some of what was used from it. But one other source reprinting pieces critical of Emerson is this, which notes that Emerson sued Sugg for defamation in 1999, but withdrew the suit in 2003, see also [22]. The suit shows Sugg is notable with respect to Emerson and should be used for context for Sugg's criticism.John Z (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

#7 appears in "After bombings, America faces up to prejudice" Charles M. Sennott, 21 June 1995, The Boston Globe. Zero^talk 08:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• @John – FAIR's view would be reflected in a FAIR editorial. Or by a senior FAIR employee, who can speak for FAIR. This is an article, not an editorial or an op-ed. And it is by someone who wrote only one article for FAIR, and does not seem to have worked for them. I don't think it can be considered FAIR's opinion.

This is also a BLP, so as mentioned it needs the highest-level sourcing for this sort of harsh criticism. I see you supplied an RS source for one phrase, and apparently as I expected there is a non-Sugg source for #7. Those (and any more that can be supported by RSs) are of course fine.

As to John's suggestion that Sugg is notable because he was sued by E for defamation ... and we should therefore quote or use as a reference on Wikipedia language from the article very author who has produced writings that led to the defamation suit by E? I don't see it. It's just the opposite–this (thanks for pointing it out) shows the danger of reflecting on Wikipedia language from an author who Emerson has already sued once for defamation.

I urge someone to delete all such Sugg language that is not RS-supported at this point, given this new information. This would accord with the direction in WP:RS that "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space."--Epeefleche (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well you seem to forget the relevant fact that the lawsuit was dropped. Nothing that Sugg wrote was proved to be defamatory so this line of reasoning fails. annoynmous 11:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

@Annoy--Untrue. We know that Emerson brought a lawsuit swearing that Sugg defamed him in his writings. People drop lawsuits for various reasons. Including the sense that the harm will not be repeated by the defendant. Here, we are again spreading language from the author of articles that the subject of a BLP sued over.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That FAIR printed it as an article, rather than an editorial shows that they are to that extent standing behind Sugg's veracity, even more than if they had printed it as an op-ed. Our choice of treating controversial items from anything in FAIR as opinion rather than fact, especially in a BLP, is something different, but has the same result (as if it had been a FAIR op-ed) of identifying Sugg's article with liberal / left / progressive / FAIR-like opinion. The lawsuit seems to have been over things Sugg wrote earlier at the Weekly Planet, not FAIR, specifically over the provenance of a document Emerson showed to reporters and to Emerson's claims of a death threat from militant Islamic fundamentalists and a consequent FBI witness protection offer. Of course the fact that there has been litigation indicates we should tread very carefully, but we can certainly state that there has been a suit, and if written very carefully, we might quote Sugg's opinion from FAIR to show readers what else these two have been fighting about. Again, since most of our article's Sugg material is just him quoting other people, the sensible thing is to just track down the originals, and avoid headaches, which people have been doing. That Sugg later repeated them then causes no further reliability or BLP problem, but may not be noteworthy enough for mention.John Z (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

@John: 1) For reasons stated by various people, I think consensus is clear that we can't use the Sugg article as an RS for "facts" (though Annoy still maintains we can). 2) I disagree w/John on this point–the Sugg article IMHO can't be said to reflect FAIR's opinion, for the reasons stated above. It's certainly not a FAIR editorial. Nor is it a FAIR op-ed. And WP:RS on op-eds is clear that it is focusing on op-eds in "mainstream" RSs, which is not the case here. And this is a BLP, making the reason to not quote a non-notable trashing even more evident. And the two have been involved in litigation over defamation; the reason to not quote it could scarcely be less clear. 3) We could say there had been a suit, if it were notable, but it's not clear to me that it is, and that should not be used as reason to put the camel's nose under the tent, which would appear to be the goal. 4) I agree that we can use original RS material. All of the non-RS Sugg material should be deleted immediately, however, per the above-cited guidances, and the fact that Emerson has already brought one multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit w/regard to writings by Sugg. No need to raise the risk that Wikipedia could be subjected to defamation claims by E; our guidance makes clear that our goal is to avoid such claims, by deleting such material from BLPs.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reasons above from anyone for dissociating Sugg from FAIR in a highly unusual way. Printing something as a news article indicates more support than an op-ed, not less. Disregarding other things like the suit, Sugg's reputation, etc. the standard thing would be to take Sugg's and FAIR's reliability as equivalent. For the moment, "according to FAIR/Sugg" in-text attribution may be enough, I agree that Sugg and FAIR are not enough for unattributed controversial statements. Much of this debate is futile, as we just need cite Sugg's original sources. The person who put the camel's nose under the tent about the suit, who made Sugg's critique notable with respect to him, was Emerson. The suit seems clearly notable, getting about 30 gnews hits, seems to have made page 1 of the Village Voice here.John Z (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again the lawsuit was dropped and no defamation was ever proved. Both sides give different reasons for why it was dropped, but the fact is it was dropped. Epeefleche can create all the subterfuge he wants, but the fact is that what Sugg wrote is still legitimate criticism of Emerson. John Z has added several links that confirm several things mentioned in the FAIR article. I see no consensus that we can't use Sugg for facts. annoynmous 21:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

<- The Sugg article appears to have been used as a source in these 2 cases.

• "Emerson campaigns against what he sees as radical Islam and was initially funded by the right-wing media tycoon Richard Mellon Scaife (Sugg 1999)"
• "Along the way, critics charged, Emerson had sounded many false alarms, made numerous errors of fact, bandied accusations about rather freely, and ceased to be regarded as credible by much of the mainstream media (see Sugg 1999)." The journal article is here behind a paywall.

I don't know if that makes any difference regarding the Sugg article or whether these sources have already been found.Sean.hoyland – talk 21:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The assertions that Sugg makes about Emerson seem to qualify as "exceptional claims", and they therefore require exceptional sources, per WP:REDFLAG. This article, written by a little-known journalist in a semi-reliable source, may not be sufficiently strong for these assertion. Since he seems to cite many of his print sources, we should be able to track them back and use those original sources. It's much better to use the CJR's criticism of Emerson rather than Sugg's view of the CJR's criticism, for example.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is agreed that FAIR (and Sugg) can only be used in a contentious matter, especially a BLP, for their views, ascribed to them. Most of the matters sourced to him have now been re-referenced to more usable sources. At present there are only two statements. One is Emerson's remark about theOklahoma City bombing,--that he made the remark is not really in dispute, and other sources can be found for this. That leaves just one: that he " accused Emerson of focusing on 'unrelenting attack against Arabs and Muslims,' and wrote that Emerson's 'lengthy list of mistakes and distortions... mar his credentials as an expert on terrorism.' " I do not regard that as an exceptional claim, but the mainstream view—I think it a succinct statement of the general opinion. I see no reason why it can not be used as an opinion, which it clearly is. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• FYI: As related problems with the article have continued today (edit-warring/campaigning/vote-stacking), I've raised all of the problems at an AN/I here. If people think it best to roll up this conversation into that one, that's fine with me.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be said that Sugg is arguable the most prominent critic of Emerson. Whenever anyone mentions criticism of Emerson they usually reference Suggs articles. If your going to have a criticism section for Emerson you really can't not inculde Sugg. annoynmous 01:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are you having a criticism section? Isn't it our policy that criticism should not be isolated in a section, but integrated into the text?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to weigh in with one remark. "No defamation was ever proved" is so very very far from what I consider to be a valid argument in support of considering something a WP:RS that I'm shocked to even see it written in a discussion in Wikipedia. That is an argument with absolutely no merit whatsoever. Whether there do exist or could exist some valid reason to think that Sugg's trashing of Emerson is noteworthy, I do not know. But given the provenance and the lawsuit, I'd treat it very very carefully. I would suggest that everything claimed will need to have an independent reliable source, and if we can find those, then there's not really any reason to mention Sugg's piece at all. As was noted up above, he isn't Thomas Friedman or anything – so his scathing criticism isn't even arguably noteworthy in and of itself. (I should note that even if Thomas Friedman himself tore into someone, that would not automatically mean that it is noteworthy.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the fact is that no defamation was ever proved. Whether or not Sugg is RS is different matter, but epeefleche is making the argument that Sugg should be completely dismissed because Emerson filed a lawsuit against him, even though he withdrew it. Sugg's criticism is valid as long as it is stated as his opinion and the organization he wrote for FAIR is indentified as a partisan source. All that was done.

I should point out that epeefleche is insisting that a book by Sean Hannity is a valid source for senate testimony.

Previously in the article he had also listed this as a source.

The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing, Jayna Davis, Thomas Nelson Inc, 2005,

Say what you will about FAIR, there far more reliable than Sean Hannity and a book that says there was a middle eastern connection to 9–11. annoynmous 03:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are you even arguing about this now, annoynmous? Jimbo did what Jimbo does best: Cut through the absurd bureaucracy brought about by circuitous and non-sensical arguments thrown up in an attempt to justify a poor edit, and instead uses a heaping helping of WP:CommonSense. Given Sugg’s *novel* claims and the fact that there was a defamation lawsuit over them, Sugg alone can not be considered as a free-standing WP:Reliable source when it comes to a BLP on Wikipedia. It’s not complex. Greg L (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm arguing this because the fact is the defamation suit was dropped by Emerson. No amount of talk is going to change that fact. This is excluding the fact that Jimbo had nothing to do with this case before epeefleche contacted. Even an editor on the incident noticeboard called this innapropriate:

Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo would be the correct essay to refer to. You are correct, contacting Jimbo is trying to short-circuit the discussion and is largely frowned upon. There are only specific instances where it is appropriate to contact Jimbo, usually in terms of something that he would actually be involved in. SilverserenC 05:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Further more I would like to point out that Epeefleche has interpreted comments on this page to give him permission to remove FAIR from just about every article on wikipedia. Just look at the recent edits he's made. I know that wasn't agreed to in any consensus. This controversy was specifically to do with the Steve Emerson article. annoynmous 06:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• As the essay that Silverseren directs us to (Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo) says: "[W]hen Jimbo does respond he rarely takes sides, unless it is a completely egregious and unescapably important issue that must be responded to." Which I gather it is. Given Jimbo's comments on his talk page and above, and his deletion of offending material at the article itself.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, what's going on with Epeefleche? He seems to be on a rampage, removing any mention of FAIR from many articles. I haven't yet gone through the above discussion, but what he is doing looks harmful to wikipedia at first blush. What I am seeing is not removing cases where FAIR is being used as a source, but simply removing cases where it is mentioned that FAIR criticized someone. Surely such criticism is (in at least some instances) notable and reasonable to include in articles. Any ideas? --CAVincent (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, this overzealous and not a good idea. If Jimbo meant "I hereby banish FAIR to the outer darkness, begone!" I think he would have said that. And places where a source is mentioned in the text are less problematic than ones where it is used without comment as a source.John Z (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some kinda punishement for this. I mean a mass deletion of an organization from wikipedia seems ery vandal like. He surely wasn't given permission to do anything like that. annoynmous 07:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletions of FAIR contentious BLP edits and fact statements, and their restoration just now by Annoy

Annoy appears unwilling to respect the above comments, and related statements by Jimbo on his talk page to me that Annoy is aware of ("I didn't see anything you wrote on this that I disagree with at all. The source is not good enough."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:05 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4), to the effect that FAIR: 1) should not be used as an RS for contentious statements in BLPs, and 2) should not be used as an RS for facts. I've deleted some of those, w/an edit summary pointing here. Annoy reverted my deletions.

In doing so, Annoy just now inserted highly contentious statements in BLPs, as here, for which FAIR is the only source:

1. "Operation Inform the Soldiers," ... prompted ... Michael Reagan to comment that Dice should be found and killed for treason. Reagan said ... "How about you take Mark Dice out and put him in the middle of a firing range. Tie him to a post, don't blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice."
2. "Reagan ... said ... "We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them.... I'll pay for the bullets."
3. Man who attempted to assassinate Clinton "claimed to be incited by ultraconservative talk show host Chuck Baker"
4. Imus "described media critic Howard Kurtz as "that boner-nosed . . . beanie-wearing little Jew boy"
5. "Grant has repeatedly advocated "eugenics" by promoting ... temporary sterilizations for women of childbearing age who wish to receive welfare payments.... FAIR also quotes Grant as saying ... that the U.S. has "millions of sub-humanoids, savages, who really would feel more at home careening along the sands of the Kalahari or the dry deserts of eastern Kenya — people who, for whatever reason, have not become civilized."
6. "McLarty was connected to a failed thrift that made $300 million in questionable loans, including $5.6 million to Bentsen's son that was never paid back"
7. "North has been banned from Costa Rica for drug running"
8. "Buchanan wrote that women are: "Simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism."
9. "Frommer had left his show ... vowing never to work at a station that employed Bob Grant"

And inserted FAIR statements of fact, as here: [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]. Some of those edits obviously fit into both categories. Per the above, the reversions/insertions were improper.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This was in regard to one specific article, not every single article on wikipedia that mentions FAIR. In my opinion this is borderline vandalsim. annoynmous 07:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think considering that Jimbo's input is being regarded as quite important by Epeefleche, perhaps it would be wise to ask Jimbo for a clarification on the slightly ambiguous phrase "I didn't see anything you wrote on this that I disagree with at all. The source is not good enough". I think perhaps it should be asked of him whether "not good enough" refers to "not good enough for this material/article", or "not good enough for Wikipedia as a whole" (i.e. a blanket opinion that it does not constitute an RS). Regardless of Jimbo's opinion, of course, it's also important to determine whether this discussion offers a consensus for the edits he has performed. Just an uninvolved editor's opinion, anyway. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 07:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I never suggested it should be deleted in all cases. Just that it should not be used for contentious statements about BLPs (e.g., as in the above Michael Reagan said Mark Dice should be killed – which Annoy just restored), or as an RS for facts.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It's important to note that this discussion was not in regards into whether FAIR was a notable source. It was more about whether the author of the piece John Sugg was notable enough to inculde in this article. That's different from FAIR in general as a RS. Also each of the articles epeeflech edited had it's own context and who is he to say that the supposed "criteria" Jimbo gave him applies to each of those articles. That's a matter that should be discussed on the talk pages of each individual article. At least I thought that's how wikipedia worked.

I also must say I continue to believe there should be some penalty for this in regards to epeefleche. It seems like outrageous behavior to me. annoynmous 08:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(after ec, in response to Epeefleche) What I'm saying is, Jimbo should be asked for a clarification of whether his "not good enough" was specific to that article/the material it was being used as a source for or whether it was a more general statement that it's not an RS. I also think that consensus should be sought here for the edits you'd like to make, or an agreement from other editors involved in this discussion that the consensus is in favour of your edits. However, I also feel that in the meantime, annonynmous should self-revert his reverts of your removals (my, that's a mouthful :)), as for BLPs I feel it's always better to have contentious statements under discussion temporarily out of an article than to have them temporarily in. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 08:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why Should I do that. At best epeefleche had permission to edit one article, not 20. Other editors above like John Z and CAvincent disagree with epeefleches rationale for what he was allowed to do. annoynmous 08:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Dreaded Walrus, not sure I agree with the suggestion that Epeefleche's removals should stand while this is under discussion. I'm not going to take the time to review all his removals, but from checking a few it looks like some would be valid if it is decided that FAIR is not a RS for BLPs but his brush was so broad that some of the material he removed would still be fine even if that were the consensus. Here is an example from the George Will article, which is on my watchlist and is what brought me here. If his removals are reverted back to, expect some regular editors of these articles to again insert the material in cases where it is reasonable. I considered going through all of Epeefleche's removals myself to try to decide which were valid, but since I don't know about many of these individuals, I'm disinclined to try. --CAVincent (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

CAV--My intent was only to delete entries that were contentious as to BLPs, or presented facts. If by accident I deleted anything not in one of those categories, I'm happy to be reverted. Your example above, it strikes me, falls into both categories, however. As it contains the assertion that Will commented on the presidential race while his wife was a senior staffer for the Dole presidential campaign, and also that Will commented on a Dole speech, with FAIR asserting that he failed to disclose that his wife had helped write it.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You're reading way too much into Jimbo's comments, and jumping to conclusions about what he said. Jimbo was commenting on the Sugg piece published by FAIR, in the context of the lawsuit by Emerson against Sugg, and in the context of Sugg's own notability – not every single article ever published by FAIR. Other articles by other authors, also published by FAIR, should be discussed individually on these noticeboards if you're seeking a judgement on whether or not they're reliable for what they're being cited for. ← George ^talk 09:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be said that Epeefleche didn't just remove FAIR as a source. He removed any mention of them. The article on Bill O'Reilly had a mention of FAIR as an organization that has criticized O'Reilly. That was it and epeefleche removed them. annoynmous 09:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

He's done it again, he just removed FAIR from articles on Don Imus and Pat Buchanan. I swear if any other editor just massively deleted a particular group from over 30 articles he would get some kinda ban. annoynmous 10:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm leaving this diff (regarding Annoy just now re-inserting Sugg/FAIR into the Emerson article) as an FYI, since while it relates to the above I assume that AN/I is the correct place to seek action on it.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You were never given permission to completely remove Sugg. All that was said that claims with no citation should be removed. Suggs general opinion is allowed. Even when Jimbo personally edited the article he didn't completely remove Sugg. annoynmous 11:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Jimbo's above comment with regard to using FAIR in the Emerson article was clear. It is at odds with your assertion: "I would suggest that everything claimed will need to have an independent reliable source, and if we can find those, then there's not really any reason to mention Sugg's piece at all."--Epeefleche (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because a defamation lawsuit was dropped without a decision doesn’t prove the source is reliable. To my knowledge, there has never been a lawsuit against the Weekly World News whereby they conceded for the record that they fabricate stories; they typically had “settlements” wherein the lawsuits were dropped. Sugg quacks and waddles like a duck… so he’s a duck. Sugg is clearly not a reliable source and has no standing being used as a Wikipedia citation any more than other flakes with wild conspiracy notions (like how the U.S. government was actually responsible for flying those planes into the towers and for dropping them the rest of the way with explosives pre-planted in them). It is not Wikipedia’s role to give equal weight to every conspiracy contrarian who crawls out from under a rock attempting to pitch a book or a half hour on Larry King. If a wikipedian wants to get something into Wikipedia—where there is an assumption by our readership that the material has been given an encyclopedic treatment and the information has been properly vetted—then the editor needs to look towards sources that are well recognized as being reliable ones. Greg L (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This is your opinion of Sugg, not fact. Sugg is allowed to have his opinion of emerson expressed. No evidence has been shown that Sugg fabricated any story or mislead his audience.

The point I was making is that citing the lawsuit as a reason to dismiss Sugg altogether is faulty. If Emerson had proven that Sugg defamed him that would be a different story, but he didn't. It's like saying that we should dismiss a New York Times writer because Emerson sued him. annoynmous 23:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I just read this subsection for the first time. It appears Epeefleche had good reasons for certain edits, Annoynmous didn't like those edits, JimboWales got involved and essentially upbraided Annoynmous quite convincingly and essentially agreed with Epeefleche's actions in a certain matter, then Annoynmous and others made like what JimboWales said was of little consequence and Epeefleche was a bad guy for contacting JimboWales, and Epeefleche should be stopped. Anyway, that is essentially the message I got from reading the above. I thought you all might like to know how others may be viewing what's going on here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This is completely false. The only thing Jimbo ever gave permission for was that sources that had no links should be removed. As several editors have stated above Jimbo never gave epeefleche permission to delete Sugg altogether and he certainly never gave permission to remove FAIR from over 30 articles.

I'm going to ask this again, is somone going to discipline epeefleche in anyway, or is he going to get away with going on a massive delete campaign? annoynmous 23:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not, that is the message I got from reading all that. Further, I used "in a certain matter" to indicate a limit, a restriction, so I suppose I agree with you, but you responded to something I did not say or do. Be that as it may, there you go again. I'm sure happy I'm not subjected to your crusades. I give epeefleche credit for continuing to politely explain why his edits are wiki-compliant. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

How has epeefleche been polite? Instead of trying to discuss on the talk page he complained to everyone he could to get me banned for something. When all that failed he contacted Jimbo. I noted the irony that I had been accused of canvassing when epeefleceh contacted Jimbo who have never been involved in the dispute until now. The conversation was nowhere near as desperate as too need Jimbo's involvment.

Even an editor on the incidents noticeboard scolded epeefleche for constanstly complaining on every noticeboard he could. I have to say I'm still shocked that an editor can get away with massively deleting material from over 30 article and not get so much as a warning. annoynmous 01:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Quoting you: I'm still shocked that an editor can get away with massively deleting material from over 30 article and not get so much as a warning. Well, because Epeefleche pointed out to the community how Sugg is an unreliable source. He then got a big WP:BOLD and deleted material sourced only to Sugg. Jimbo backed one of those edits that Epeefleche was being editwarred on and even jumped in and made the edit himself that was being editwarred over. You’re not happy with any of this; you think Sugg is a swell and reliable source, the edits based on him are encyclopedic and good and should be put back, and that Epeefleche should be sanctioned by the community for having bad editing judgement and having morning breath. Got it. You have your opinion. Please note that much of the community and the highly influential founder of Wikipedia has their opinion and disagrees with you. The consensus seems to be clear here. Greg L (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see how an appeal to Jimbo can ever be 'canvassing' or 'forum-shopping' in this important instance, as is implied, unlike the other examples of the different noticeboards posted to. Of course, Jimbo's view is not binding because it does not necessarily represent consensus, but it is a strong indicator of whether material of this type is appropriate for WP. IMHO, stuff like that remaining on WP creates risk for WP (and the editor who placed it there, and any editors fighting to keep it there), and the appeal served to short-cut the discussion. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Well said. I agree. Greg L (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So mass deleting FAIR from over 30 articles is just "morning breadth". Where did Jimbo ever give permission for this to epeefleche. I know Greg L wants to make out that he speaks for everyone on this page, but CAvincent, John Z and George agree his behavior was wrong. I continue to insist that there should be some penalty for this.

Epeefleche says that Jimbo gave him permission to remove sugg. He was mentioning that in the context of the lawsuit, which I pointed out above was dismissed. Jimbo specifically said:

Whether there do exist or could exist some valid reason to think that Sugg's trashing of Emerson is noteworthy, I do not know. But given the provenance and the lawsuit, I'd treat it very very carefully.

My point is that Jimbo is wrong to say that based on the lawsuit Sugg should be dismissed when in fact the suit was dropped. Now if emerson had been succesful in his suit than a case could be made that sugg shouldn't be included, but since nothing was ever definitively proven in a court of law than I don't see any reason why his opinion can't be included.

It should be noted that when Jimbo edited the article himself he did not remove sugg. He said that it should only be removed after the original sources were found.

On canvassing, my frustration with the matter comes from the fact that what I did wasn't canvassing. I only left messages talk pages of people who had a history with the article. I didn't just send them out at random. I ackowledge that contacting jimbo is allowed in certain circumstances, I Just feel that epeefleche was operating under hypocritical reasoning. Instead waiting for this discussion to reach a final conclusion he decided he didn't have the patience for that and went to the top. annoynmous 09:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP is clear - poorly sourced contentious material must be removed from BLPs. Editorials can never be used for contentious claims of fact (such as what a person said). And your messages specifically said that someone must have a "penalty" which does not seem to come close to a neutral post at that point. Lastly, Jimbo speaking ex cathedra has the power to do so. If you wish to open an RFC/U on him, I suggest you do it. Collect (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Which part of BLP indicates that "Editorials can never be used for contentious claims of fact (such as what a person said)." ? The reason I ask is that I see editorials/opinion pieces (in respectable sources) used like this quite often making claims about what someone has said (e.g. 'according to <unnamed person/coworker etc> X said...') and all sorts of other claims about a living person's opinions/bias etc etc. I'm never quite sure what to do about it. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Despite the usual disclaimers, I believe editorials do represent the views of the journal. However, stuff which is unattributed and clearly not the journal's opinion (e.g. comments like '<unnamed person/coworker etc> said Ohconfucius is a faggot...', or even tamer comments like '<unnamed person/coworker etc> said Sean.hoyland smokes [something he said he does not smoke]') ought almost certainly be deleted, and without hesitation. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Editorials are statements of opinion - and hence material from editorials must be ascribed as the opinion of the writer. See [35]. Frequently "quotes" in editorials turn out to be substantially incorrect. Including the "quotes" that Palin believes dinosaurs are "Jesus ponies" and the like. That is why editorials are not considered valid sources for claims of fact. Thanks. Collect (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is little to be gained by continuing to argue with annoynmous. His own user page suggests he is immune to social pressure. It states as follows:

I chose annoynmous because I'm persistent and I don't just back away because people want me too. I think a lot of people at wikipedia give up on the talk pages when they shouldn't because they get intimidated by other editors. I refuse to be intimidated.

Sugg is an unreliable source simply because his allegations are consistently preposterous when compared to the totality of evidence from reliable sources. Among Sugg’s other nonsense that don’t appear in reliable sources are…

1. That Emerson was involved in an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India.
2. That Emerson claimed that the Yugoslavians were behind the first bombing of the World Trade Center in New York.

Well… how silly of U.S. for thinking it was Osama bin Laden young men with Middle East connections (Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj) behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, not Yugoslavians. And to think that Pakistan would consult with a red-headed American journalist (someone who makes a living by revealing information) as they plot thermonuclear war with their nuclear-armed arch-enemy neighbor is asinine. After reading utter rubbish like this, a claim that Bush Jr., during a G-8 conference, crawled under a conference table, inserted matches into the shoes of Germany’s chancellor, and lit them in order to give her the “hot-foot” gag would look plausible.

Faced with evidence of Sugg’s galactic-grade unreliability (fantasy fiction), having anything on Wikipedia (not just biographies of living persons) cited to him needs to be stripped from Wikipedia unless it corroborated by at least two other citations to sources that have a long-standing record of being reliable.

As for annoynmous, our continuing to argue here with him in vain attempts to get him to concede to anything seems, according to his own user page, an exercise in futility. For the rest of us to engage annoynmous in the face of abundantly clear evidence that he will never agree with those who take him to task is, in my opinion, tantamount to insanity. Why? I believe ‘insanity’ has amongst its many indicators “repeating a behavior that consistently fails with the expectation that doing it again will somehow result in a different outcome.”

It seems that the only effective way to deal with annoynmous is to leave it to the community at the ANI against him. Whether annoynmous “accepts” criticism or not from the community will be irrelevant there. Wikipedia is not to be used as the playground of those who would POV-push by cluttering it with rubbish cited to absurdly non-reliable sources. If such editors won’t get with the game plan, they can simply be given a time out in the corner. Greg L (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems that Greg L has proved once again that he knows nothing about nothing. He apparently loves character assassination more than facts. He clearily ignores the fact that with the exception of Jimbo, a majority of editors on this page agree that Sugg should be allowed as long as only his opinion is stated and statements of fact are omitted. Heres a statement by editor DGG from the very committe he mentioned above:

I do not take it as the conclusion of the RSN discussion that the FAIR source cannot be used. Although it was initially used inappropriately to source a great number of controversial factual statements, for every one of which better sources have now been substituted , it can still be used to give the opinion of the author. Removing it from this article is unnecessary, and legal proceedings being taken elsewhere are irrelevant--even if it is eventually held that Sugg libeled the subject, that very fact will be relevant. Removing it from other articles is POINTYy. It has been challenged at RSN several times in different contexts, and always upheld as a usable source for opinion, ebven in BLPs.

Also for you information steve emerson did say the Yugoslavians were behind the the 1993 WTC attack. He also said that TWA was brought down by a bomb. Even the Robert Spencer piece in Frontpage defending Emerson admits he said this, but he gives the lame excuse that other reporters said the same thing and Emerson was just as stupid as they were. The fact of matter is that Suggs article exposed Emerson for the fraud he is and when Emerson tried to sue he ultimately failed to prove any defamation and then dropped the suit.

Greg L apparently operates under the same rationale that epeefleche does of "I don't like you, your not allowing my bias to reign on wikipedia, how can I get you banned".

Also if were gonna talk about editors using dubious sources, you need look no further than Epeefleche. He thinks a book by Sean Hannity is a good source for Senate Testimony. He also thought this was a reliable source for the article:

^ "The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing, Jayna Davis, Thomas Nelson Inc, 2005,

I've asked Epeefleche dozens of times why he added this source, but he's never answered. This is the editor Greg L is going out of his way to defend. An editor who thought an ambiguous statement on a talk page by Jimbo gave him permission to go on a massive deletion campaign.

The funny thing is that if you looked at the talk page of the article you would know I've recently decided to give up editing the article. I frankly don't need this nonsense in my life. It leaves you in a depressed state. In fact originally I declined to edit the article altogether until I stupidly took the bait from a suggestion by stellarkid that it would be okay to edit the article.

I must say that I find Greg L's tone and attitude greatly insulting. Surely some of you on this page, even those who think I'm wrong on the general dispute, must agree that this is very rude behavior.annoynmous 17:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I also don't apologize for my user page comments. It's an attitute cultivated spefically to deal with editors like Greg L who think they own wikipedia. annoynmous 17:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I misinterpreted the #2 Sugg quote as referring to the second WTC attack. I’ve struck and corrected my post, which still shows that Sugg is an idiot. As for your refusal to apologize, no problem; Wikipedia, has mechanisms like the AN/I for dealing with intransigent editors. You might well be correct that Sugg is spot-on accurate in all his novel claims. What you don’t seem to appreciate is that the rest of the community, upon Epeefleche having pointed this out, seems to have had an epiphany here and there is a developing consensus opposite your views. The AN/I against you will bear this out one way or another. If the verdict of the community is contrary to your wishes, then as they say in the military: “So sad – too bad;” you’ll simply have to stop with your POV-pushing or be blocked or banned. Again, it’s not about you being right or wrong, it’s about whether your conduct conforms with our guidelines as viewed per the community consensus. And none of your above rant changes the point of my above post: arguing with you here is utterly pointless as you seem to me to be clearly immune to social pressure; that’s what AN/Is are for. Greg L (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine, you haven't contributed anything worthwhile to this discussion anyway. All you've done is hurl insults and whined about why I don't except a consensus that only exists in your head. I count at least 3 editors who agree with me, and even more who think epeefleche's deletions of FAIR from over 30 articles was wrong.

I must say I'm restraining myself from the urge to use some strong language against Greg L, but I believe in civility. I must say that no other editor on this page has used the insulting tone Greg L has. Even Jimbo, who's reasoning I disagree with, has stated his objections in a kind and courteous manner.

Someone needs to tell Greg L that you can't ban someone for responding on a talk page. So no matter how annoyed he get's he's gonna have to put up with me. annoynmous 18:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• No, you are incorrect. I am not in the least bit annoyed with you. I am merely pointing out that further debating you here is utterly pointless and won’t change your mind. Goodbye; I will no further waste my time dealing with you. Nor will I bother weighing in on the AN/I against you; I’ll leave that task to others. If the community tires of your defiance and perceives the need to protect itself from you in what is a collaborative writing enviroment, then it has mechanisms to ensure that no one has “to put up with” you, as you say. Good luck and happy editing. Greg L (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I'd love to say I'll miss your company, but I've heard lying makes you age faster. If you had spent more time actually contributing to this discussion, maybe we wouldn't have gotten sidetracked on this petty tangent. I for one would love to see Greg L's complaint to the AR committe, "the editor wouldn't stop responding to me on the talk page".

To the other editors I'm sorry for the flippant tone, but I find Greg L's antics slightly amusing. annoynmous 18:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, yes, you can be banned for responding on a talk page, if your comments are either repetitive or uncivil, or violate WP:BLP, or for any of a number of other reasons. I don't know whether your edits have risen (fallen?) to that level. I don't think you want me to check. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I haven't done either of those, so I don't see how that's relevant. I recognize the uncivil prevision, but what prevision is there that says you can't be repetitive. I don't think I have been, but even if I was I don't see how you can ban someone for that. I'm allowed to respond to arguments against me and there's no rule that says I have accept people who say "just shut up and stop talking". annoynmous 19:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Look on a serious note, I'm not trying to be a pest, I just get angry at editors like Greg L who operate with this smug attitude as if they own the discussion and I'm suppossed to obey like a good little dog. Although I disagree with some of the other editors, I have no personal beef with them and value there contributions. As I said above I've made a descision to stop editing the article in question altogether. It's just that I find Greg L's comments hurtful and insulting and I don't think I ever said anything on this page to warrant them. annoynmous 19:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I would highly suggest that Greg L strike several of his own comments above that are violations of WP:BLP, including: "Sugg… has no standing being used as a Wikipedia citation any more than other flakes with wild conspiracy notions," "Sugg’s galactic-grade unreliability (fantasy fiction)," and "Sugg is an idiot." We get it, you don't Sugg, but you still aren't allowed to violate BLP when discussing him. ← George ^talk 19:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

George, I am rather amused at editors who employ the “I made it blue so it must be true” stunt. Just linking to WP:BLP and alleging my statements here are in violation of WP:BLP does not make it so. My style tends towards actually quoting relevant passages. The relevant passage is Where BLP does and does not apply, which states as follows:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, poorly sourced, or not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot; consider using off-wiki communication instead. The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion.

The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to What Wikipedia is not, though minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying personal information on their userpages; for more information, see here. Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of No personal attacks.

The meaning is clear there. The last sentence speaks straight to issue at hand. Even on one’s own usertalk pages, one can’t make false allegations about living people. User talk pages are not to be used as blogs to besmirch someone’s reputation. However, this is a Reliable Sources Noticeboard where we are discussing the reliability of a source. It would be utterly impossible to have full, fair, vigorous debate about the reliability of using Sugg as a citation source in our articles if wikipedians were not free to opine that the author’s work are worthless pieces of fiction and similar such talk.

I find your comment to be an attempt to use wikilawyering arguments to presume to tell me what I may truly think and how I may express my thoughts here, in a venue where policy issues on reliable sources is being debated. I’ll thank you not to presume so much. Perhaps you might like it if I limit my real opinion of Suggs to such wikidrivel as “I find Sugg’s writings to lack a certain degree of ‘truthiness’ ” but such muzzling is simply a retarded notion, otherwise no real work could be done in shaping Wikipedia’s guidelines or in determining whether certain sources are truly reliable, or in determining whether an editor is correct in citing a certain source. Sugg may not write material that is a metric ton of weapons-grade bullonium and be free of legitimate and frank criticism of its quality here in these venues. I will, however, be sure to take care to not mention what I really think about Sugg and his work on my own talk and user pages.

If you feel my comments here unnecessarily slander Sugg (I find he does a good job doing that all by himself), just go find some uninvolved Admin to protect Sugg’s reputation by refactoring my above comments. Such Admin can then leave a notice on my talk page that my opinions stated here about him and his pure fiction (which resulted in a lawsuit) “rises to the level of defamation”, that Wikipedia does not protect such speech even here at this venue where vigorous debate in search of the truth is central to the venue’s purpose, and to remind me to speak more *nicely* about Sugg and his fine works here in the future. Greg L (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I will, however, be more than pleased to add a few “IMHO”s to some of my statements if that makes it clearer that I am not saying that Sugg’s work flat sucks as a matter of indisputable fact because he masquerades fantasy as being the truth in order to make a buck, but that I am simply opining that <stumble all over myself to appear as inoffensive as possible>“In my so-very humble opinion, I find that Sugg’s work flat sucks because it masquerades fantasy as being the truth in order to make a buck and hasn’t any role in being used in citations of fact here on Wikipedia—IMHO.”</stumble all over myself to appear as inoffensive as possible> Greg L (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Rather than derail this thread, I've moved the issue over to AN/I. ← George ^talk 21:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no harm if you “derail this thread” since no one is getting anything done here anyway except a bunch of “nyaah” and “neener neeners” that accomplish nothing. Wikidrama moves on to the next curtain call. Greg L (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In closing

Thanks to all for participating in this discussion. I believe we've now addressed the issue posed at the opening of this string.

Jimbo provided clear and direct input above. He wrote:

'No defamation was ever proved' is so very very far from what I consider to be a valid argument in support of considering something a WP:RS that I'm shocked to even see it written in a discussion in Wikipedia. That is an argument with absolutely no merit whatsoever. Whether there do exist or could exist some valid reason to think that Sugg's trashing of Emerson is noteworthy, I do not know. But given the provenance and the lawsuit, I'd treat it very very carefully. I would suggest that everything claimed will need to have an independent reliable source, and if we can find those, then there's not really any reason to mention Sugg's piece at all. As was noted up above, he isn't Thomas Friedman or anything – so his scathing criticism isn't even arguably noteworthy in and of itself. ...--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)".

The Emerson article now matches Jimbo's view of what it should look like ideally. A number of the Sugg statements were replaced with references to RSs, and the Emerson article now does not rely on/reflect the FAIR/Sugg article.

I understand that Annoy disagrees with Jimbo, and believes Jimbo is wrong, as Annoy has made clear above. Various other issues were raised that were not pertinent to this RS/N, which I'll not summarize. But curious readers can read them above.

A second RS/BLP policy issue that grew out of this one remains, however. That of whether it is proper to delete—from Wikipedia articles—text and refs that rely on FAIR: a) to make or support a contentious statement in a BLP, or b) to assert a fact. I've opened that issue up as a new post, reflecting my thoughts, some of which are already expressed above, here. That way interested editors can discuss the policy issue there, unencumbered by this string.

The related AN/I, regarding Annoy's editing, is taking place here.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Acharya S

There is an ongoing discussion at BLP/N that involves the reliability of a particular book. Admin User:Jclemens has suggested that a source by a major publisher is presumed reliable unless "impeached" here. The original talk page discussion is here and the discussion at BLP/N here.

• The book in question is The Masks of Christ by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince.
• The issue is the whether Wikipedia should publish the subjects first name which she has never released publicly.
• The book is published by Touchstone, a Simon & Schuster imprint.

Some Arguments

• The disputed material has been on Wikipedia unsourced on and off for five years, sometimes for months at a time. So there is the distinct possibility of a feedback loop. This is difficult to prove conclusively, but the book shows no evidence that the authors have researched the name independently. In my opinion, they got the information from Wikipedia. They give no source for the material.
• Per WP:RS - "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts...", and that the authors of a source can affect its reliability:

• The book is in the Holy Blood, Holy Grail genre.
• Skeptical Inquirer (and [36][37] - same author) has described their work as "pseudohistory", "forays into nonsense" and "ridiculous sources".
• Their work was used as a major source for Dan Browns The Da Vinci Code. From Wikipedia: "Picknett and Prince likely took [Holy Blood, Holy Grail] at face value and fully accepted their claims that the Priory of Sion was a real, medieval, secret society, while there is substantial evidence that the Priory of Sion is a late-20th-century hoax." [38]
• CNN said their work "makes 'X-Files' look like 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'" and their "conclusions are based on the flimsiest of premises which are supported by the slimmest of indirect and circumstantial evidence or, just as often, by the assertion that the lack of evidence justifies their conclusions."
• Wikipedia puts their book The Templar Revelation in the "pseudohistory" category.
• The authors claim that the Shroud of Turin is a self-portrait of Leonardo Da Vinci and that space aliens built the pyramids.
• User:Charles Matthews points out that in this genre, the "mainstream publisher" brand falls down on quality of editorial scrutiny and assurance.

Please keep in mind that WP:BLP urges us to take greater care about proper sourcing. The question is whether this book is a reliable source for biographical information on the subject. I would appreciate input from the community to help get this resolved. ^^James^^ (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the authors and have one book by them. They are indeed fringe writers and I would not rely on them for anything unreferenced (except for an insight into fringe thinking), and anything referenced I would not rely on unless I checked the reference. It's the authors that matter more than the publisher in this case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think James's research is an excellent job of "impeaching" the source. Not RS. --GRuban (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless one can show that the authors used WP, the presumption is that they did not do so. "In my opinion" falls into the WP:Josh Billings category at best. Thus we are left with the presumption that a book which would normally be RS by virtue of being from a major publisher is RS here. Collect (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC) The problem with this sort of analysis is twofold:

1) None of the criticisms above are directed at the book in question, but at other works by the authors.

2) None of the criticisms leveled at the authors dispute their ability or veracity at current, pedestrian fact-checking. The only fact cited to that book in the article is that Acharya S's real first name is "Dorothy"--hardly a contentious tidbit dispensed by lluminati. Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

accademics

Does this prove notability, is it RS that a given professor is notable? http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=%22r+snodgrass%22&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1&as_subj=eng&as_sdts=5&hl=en. This is in relation to [[39]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much, yup, as per the discussion in the AfD --Insider201283 (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Lost literature of socialism

Is the book The lost literature of socialism by George Watson[40], a bibliographer and literary historian, a reliable source for Mass killings under Communist regimes. The book was not published by the academic press, although it was negatively reviewed in The Review of English Studies.[41] In the book he argues that conservatism and socialism are basically the same and that Friedrich Engels was the ideological predecessor of Hitler and the Holocaust, finding evidence in a "lost" article written by Engels in 1849. TFD (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

On the face of it yes - Lutterworth is a very respectable publisher and the author is a distinguished academic. You might need to dig into him a bit further to be sure that this is within his usual sphere of expertise, though, given that it's a pretty dramatic claim. Barnabypage (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a great documentary on the killings: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1305871 , although probably not suitable as a WP:RS Darkstar1st (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Scholarly, but don't forget it's a literary history, so may not be suitable for conclusions of fact. And it probably represents a minority scholarly view on several questions. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Tristram Hunt's recent book on Engels mentioned the same 1849 article with a different conclusion. Here's Hunt's book reviewed in the New Statesman [42]. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Watson's interpretation is presented in the article as just that: his interpretation. I agree it would be wrong to present his conclusions as fact. I also agree that his view is not the majority view and should not be accorded too much weight in the article. Discussion is ongoing at the article's talk page on how to best do this. TFD is misunderstanding the title of Watson's book when he says it was a "lost" article ("lost" is meant figuratively, as in generally ignored). He posted a notice about this book here several months ago without getting the result he wanted.[43] AmateurEditor (talk) 05:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Watson is a Fellow of St. Johns College, Cambridge. He often writes about the relation of literature and politics - it's well within his usual sphere of expertise. Lutterworth is a very respectable publisher. His conclusions are not that different from other respectable scholars in the field see, e.g.. The point in the article that the quote is aimed at is about ideology, not about whether Communist regimes actually committed mass-killings (nobody seriously claims that they didn't). Hunt (and the review) trot out much the same material as Watson does. Hunt does not deny that Engels wrote these things, but only says that it is not important because Engels changed his mind later. Smallbones (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Has he published any of the theories expressed in this book in the academic press? If so, could you list them so that we can determine the level of acceptance this "scholarship" has received. Also, could you please note his qualifications if any in genocide studies. TFD (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

a search in Google scholar for ' "George Watson" Cambridge ' gives 1960 results - not all his articles of course, but many, many are. You'll find he works in literature and Politics. I hope you are not trying to say that because he did not focus his career on genocide studies, that he can't be a reliable source on anything related to genocide. If we put those kind of hair-splitting restrictions on academic sources, then there would be no end to subject-splitting in these discussions, e.g. somebody who dedicated his career to genocide studies couldn't be cited because he didn't focus on the ideology of genocide, or because he didn't focus on the ideology of Communist genocides, or on the ideology of Chinese Communist Genocides. That of course would be pure nonsense - let's not go there. Smallbones (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You are evading the question. He has not published his theories on this topic because (1) he is not an expert on the subject, (2) no academic publisher would carry his "theories" and (3) publication of these theories in the academic press would be damaging to his reputation as a literary historian. Of course lots of academics have political views and write polemical works. The US president e.g. was a law professor but that does not mean that all his opinions on every subject bear the same weight as those of academic writers. TFD (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Just how is he protecting his reputation by publishing for a wider audience? He isn't using a pseudonym and his book was in fact peer reviewed. No one is suggesting giving him high weight in the article. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you please read the article Peer review. If you understood the peer review process then you would be able to address the issues raised here. Books are not peer reviewed. Articles are peer reviewed before they are published. Books published by the academic press are expected to have the same standards as peer-reviewed articles. Obviously this book does not and Watson did not use his normal publisher, the Oxford University Press. You might compare him to an astronomer who believes in astrology. The astronomer may write peer-reviewed articles about astronomy and popular books about astrology but he would damage his reputation were he to publish an article about astrology in an astronomy journal. In fact, the journal would probably reject the article. It would be disingenuous for us to put information from his astrology writings into an astronomy article based on his reputation as an astronomer. TFD (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Peer review takes a variety of forms. You are correct that it sometimes means refereed work, but post-publication review of a book in an academic journal by a peer academic is also peer review. But you are wrong on several points here. First, that publication by an academic press is necessary to be a reliable source. It is not.[44] Second, that Oxford University Press is his normal publisher. You can see the publishers for his books at his Amazon.com page here and there have been several, but Lutterworth is most common. For example, his book "The English Ideology: Studies in the Language of Victorian Politics" was also published by Lutterworth Press; his "Politics and Literature in Modern Britain" was published by Macmillan. Third, that there was an effort by Watson to avoid academic scrutiny of this work. The acknowledgments page (page 4) reveals that, on the contrary, he published several sections of the book in journals and was invited to give a presentation to a University about one chapter prior to the book's publication.[45] Additionally, Grant's review and Walicki's citation demonstrate that this is nowhere near a case of an astronomer publishing astrology on the side (especially since Walicki essentially agreed with his most controversial claim). AmateurEditor (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

For the purposes of reliable sources, peer-review means publication in a peer-reviewed journal and not that someone wrote a book review, especially when the book review is hostile. While other sources may be reliable it makes no sense to use popular writing when high quality sources exist. If you beleive that sections of this book were published in academic journals, could you please say what they were, and I would have no objection in including them. TFD (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Saying that a source is not the highest quality is not reason for rejecting it, although if there is a higher quality source on Watson's view than Watson's own book, I can't imagine what it is (your talk page idea that only sources which refer to Watson second-hand should be used to describe him is not better). If you mean that Watson's book should be excluded from the article altogether, that's simply not Wikipedia RS policy and thus not a decision that would be made on the reliable sources noticeboard. It would be made by consensus on the article's talk page, where no such consensus exists. The consensus that does exist is to keep Watson's weight in the article to the minimum consistent with both clarity and neutrality, the exact form of which discussion there has been trying to determine. AmateurEditor (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

We should not sneak fringe theories into articles with arguments like "x" is an expert on bibliography therefore lets give him equal attention with experts on genocide. My suggestion was to report his views as they are reported in reliable sources, viz., writings in academic publications. Fringe theories, such as the Moon landing hoax and 9/11 conspiracy theories are treated this way, and there is no reason to make an exception in this case. TFD (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You have iterated your position. Often. The fact remains that it is RS by WP guidelines. Collect (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Being the subject of a review post-publication is most certainly not equivalent to "peer review." However, books can be peer-reviewed in the traditional sense. In fact, that is what distinguishes university presses from other publishers (aside from their university association, of course). --ElKevbo (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Official Websites and Blogs

Are official Website and Blogs classified as a reliable source? I am an editor on G.E.M. and I have noticed that the official Website (from Record Label) and Blogs (direct link from official Record Label: Facebook and Xanga) have been classified as unreliable or should be used as trivia citations. So are they reliable or not? Chingster (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No simple answer. Official websites closely associated with the subject are primary sources and can be used for information that is not contentious or "unduly self serving" or that does not disparage anyone else. Ideally they should be used to support information that has already been provided by secondary sources. An article should not be written entirely or mostly from such primary sources. Most blogs are completely unacceptable, but to my understanding, if they are clearly official organs of (in this case) the record label, they might be seen as part of their website, and qualify as primary sources. Rumiton (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Using traffic cameras / live traffic information as a source for congested areas

I was wondering if live traffic cameras are acceptable to back up a sentence along the lines of "The DVP is congested from A to B at X time of day", since a user can check the camera between point A and B at that time of the day and see it congested 7 days a week?

http://www.toronto.ca/trafficimages/rtis.htm - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Being on the net doesn't turn personal observation into a source. You need to find a published source that actually states that it is regularly congested. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what I figured as well, but I thought I'd see what others thought. It's not hard to find numerous sources saying it is perpetually congested, but very few indicate where or when in particular. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/David E.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Also what happens if I look and its not congested (for example the roads closed for maintnenace)?Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ermysted's_Grammar_School#School_Council

I'm having a difficult time explaining why Facebook groups aren't reliable sources. Could someone help? Aditya Ex Machina 09:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Puggal.com

Is news.puggal.com sufficiently reliable to verify a person's death? After some anon IPs added some unsourced information, I added this citation on Owsley (musician), as I have not had success at finding something more obviously reliable. Puggal gives the impression that there is some editorial oversight. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm torn on this, Paul. But I lean slightly towards thinking, as the guidance says somewhere (more or less), that if the person is notable, and the claim is significant, one would think that a clear RS would be reporting it. What's your view?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Other sources are now reporting it, so I'll leave it in. Thanks Epeefleche. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

David Lynch Foundation

The David Lynch Foundation For Consciousness-Based Education and World Peace was created by film director David Lynch to raise money for scholarships to pay the cost of training schoolchildren in the Transcendental Meditation technique. Lynch is a prominent advocate of the practice. The foundation also creates videos and hosts them on a website called DLF.TV, an "Online TV Channel that celebrates consciousness, creativity and bliss".[46] A page on that site[47] has been added as a source to a BLP, Ali Stephens. Stephens is not an employee of the foundation or of DLF.TV. I've asked the editor who added it for evidence that this is a reliable source but he's replied that it's used sparingly and that the assertions it supports aren't controversial. Talk:Ali Stephens#Sources. Is a profile on this site a reliable source for a BLP?   Will Beback  talk  19:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it is.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a video interview. That's pretty reliable for non controversial info, per WP:IAR if nothing else. Here are two other, more reliable, sources that clearly say she meditates.Teen Vogue New York Magazine--GRuban (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks,GRuban. You probably noticed there is also a written article below the video on the DLF.TV page. At present, the DLF.TV source is used to support the following three sentences in the article:

• 1) Stephens says she practices Transcendental Meditation and supports the programs of the David Lynch Foundation.[5]
• 2) In addition to meditation, Stephens is also interested in environmentalism and works with the non-profit group Oceana to preserve the world's oceans.[5][1][6
• 3) Stephens has walked the runway for many designers including Balenciaga, Dries van Noten, Givenchy, Chanel, Kenzo, Nina Ricci, Miu Miu, and Louis Vuitton. She has appeared in ads for Prada, Chloé, Missoni, Lacoste, Chanel mascara, Georges Rech, Gap, Uniglo, Bergdorf Goodman, Neiman Marcus, Alexander Mcqueen, Karen Millen, Calvin Klein, and appeared in editorials for Numéro, The New York Times, Harper's Bazar, Allure, V Magazine, French Elle, and American, French, Japanese, Italian, Chinese, and British Vogue.[5][3] [1]

As you can see sentences #2 and #3 have multiple sources ie. New York magazine etc., so the DLF.TV source is there in a supportive role. Sentence #1 is supported solely by the DLF.TV article and video sources. However, as pointed out by GRuban above, NewYork magazine does say that one of the subject's interests is meditation. I have no objection to modifying text to more accurately represent a sources but I don’t see the need for a carte blanche characterization of this source as unreliable. While I admit DLF.TV is not the same as the New York Times I don't feel it should be wholly discounted in its source value and that it is OK to use to support non-contentious text in this BLP. What do others think?-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The video interview is a self-proving primary source. My concern is with the printed profile.   Will Beback  talk  16:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Military Service Publications

In my collection of documents relating from service in the British Army I have a briefing on the Law of Armed Conflict that explains the difference between Rules of Engagement and LOAC. I've looked and never found comparable material openly published. Its an unclassified briefing but not generally available in the public domain. Can I cite this as a reliable source? Justin talk 13:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you done a search for it in the british libiary catalogue?©Geni 13:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It would have to be available somewhere to the public to meet WP:V. You could check whether any libraries, including government or repository libraries, have the document. I'm not too familiar with how Britain treats government documents, but if this was a US question I would say if the document was available online or in libraries it would count, if it could be ordered out of a catalog from the government it would count, if it could be ordered from third-party organizations that republish government documents it would count. But if it was an internal publication that was merely not classified, or required a special request such as FOIA to obtain, then no it wouldn't be WP:V. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the document. In this case I would say it might not have been availible to the public (most army issue documents are for issue to serving solders only, actualy the only ones I have seen were at the time of issue FYEO)). After a long while they may get reprinted (such as some WW2 era manuals). Also the proposer says that it was not avilible to the public, so unless the PRO have made it availible in some form (and I doubt it) I doubt it will be verifiable to the general public.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If it is available to the public, in any library, then it would be verifiable, and I'd expect how to find it to appear in the reference. If it is not available to the public, it is not verifiable and must not be used. I've used letters from archives, and of course stated exactly where I got them, with a file number if available.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Watching a program and using that as a citation

Following the 2007 SuccessTech Academy shooting in Cleveland, Ohio, on his radio show Gibson commented "I knew the shooter was white. I knew he would have shot himself. Hip-hoppers don't do that. They shoot and move on to shoot again. And I could tell right away because he killed himself. Hip hoppers shooters don't do that. They shoot and move on."

[The John Gibson Show, October 10, 2007The John Gibson Show, October 10, 2007]

and is it fine to use you tube videos like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ8sFzuWouo&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykos.com%2Fstoryonly%2F2008%2F1%2F25%2F163014%2F652&feature=player_embedded to support content in a BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I am unclear what you are asking. People reads books and use them for citations. Would you please restate/clarify your concern? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Books are good sources and researchable. TV programs are not, I am asking if I watch a TV program and I think that is interesting I will add some of that to the wikipedia, is my reporting of my viewing a wikipedia reliable source, and if so would I have to attribute myself as the source of the report, as in-the primary source in the TV show that I watch and it is being reported by me, I am in that case the reporter should I add my name to the citation-publisher=The TV show|works=Off2riorob. ? Off2riorob (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you can link to the youtube video because unless it's posted by Gibson or his show, its a copyvio. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thats what I was led to believe, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Depends on how long the clip is for it to be a legal copyvio problem and secondly you dont need a link to source something. As long it happened you can source the show itself without linking. If for whatever reason you want to link it check places similar to HULU and such to see if there's any place that legally keeps archives of his show. It is verifiable because someone can always contact the producers and ask for a written transcript of the show. Verifiable does not mean it is able to be verified by EVERYONE and right away from their own computer, it just means SOMEONE could if they wanted to do the work verifying it.Camelbinky (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this your personal position? If it is policy could you link me to it please. Content in BLP articles should I read be sourced to the highest quality of sourcing, there is a clear copyright issue there. The uploader is not official, it is just that the copyright has not been enforced. If you were to do this, would you name the uploader, as in who do you attribute it to, for example= ((publisher=Youtube/via uploader mickytheblue-original copyright-Fox News)) ? Off2riorob (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That an online resource is not needed is clear in WP:V, specifically WP:SOURCEACCESS. The statement about copyright not applying if the clip is short enough seems dubious. Taemyr (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Many programs have transcripts of shows available. If that is the case, a transcript can be cited in an article, even if it is an offlie (paper only) resource. Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Investigation show reliable and notable

Is an investigation/documentary show based on the subject and was broadcast across the globe reliable and notable? It was broadcast on NTV (Russia)

You can see a preview of it at Official network site, click 'Архив' then page 2, then click '«Супер Новые Русские»' to watch preview of episode at top of screen.

Or you can watch the entire thing on youtube - part 1 + part 2

Iksanov Maxim Tahirovich. (2009-10-15) (in Russian). From Russia with Love. [Television documentary]. Russia: NTV (Russia).

I included quotes and everything, full details at Talk:Marina_Orlova#addition.--Sinistrial (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Munich Re publication a reliable source? Warning: LaRouche also discussed :-)

Fast context: Talk:Zbigniew_Jaworowski#Jaworowski_and_21st_century

It is a book published by the Munich Re, about climate change - and specifically an essay in it authored by Stefan Rahmstorf

• Rahmstorf, Stefan (2004), "The climate sceptics", in Schüttle, Klaus (ed.), Weather catastrophes and climate change – Is there still hope for us?, Munich: Munich Re, pp. 76–83, ISBN 3-937624-80-3 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

There is a flyer to see the chapter/contents which can be found here[48]

The context for the question is the following paragraph that has been in our article (BLP) on Zbigniew Jaworowski since the articles inception:

Jaworowski published several papers (Jaworowski, 2007; Jaworowski, 1999; Jaworowski, 1997) in 21st Century Science and Technology, a non-refereed magazine published by Lyndon LaRouche.

Originally this was referenced to the publications themselves - since the connection between "21st ..." and LaRouche is well-known (and on their site). The rationale for the description is (i guess) to make clear that 21st Century Science and Technology is not a regular publication, and not a scientific one. This was contested by a couple of editors who wanted a reference for it. So I linked 4 of Jaworowski's publications in the magazine[49]. That was contested again, now as a synthesis (ie. connection between 21st+LaRouche and possibly Jaworowski) - so i looked for such a reference - of which there were quite a lot, but to a large degree in blogs and other self-published sources. So i looked further and found a few:

• Something by Alexander Cockburn [50] - i'm dubious about this
• A mention by Eric Berger[51](climate scientist) - but in the comments section, not very useful
• And finally the Munich Re reference mentioned above.

This was reverted again... This time with claims of self-publication, unreliable sources and BLP violations.

The section in question here is a Q&A part of the Rahmstorf essay:

Often cited in recent sceptics’ publications as a scientific publication is an article which appeared in 21st Century Science in late 2003, written by the self-appointed climate researcher Zbigniew Jaworowski under the headline The Ice Age Is Coming! Solar Cycles, Not CO2 Determine Climate.

Comment: This article by the Polish nuclear researcher is written for laypersons. Along with sceptics’ standard arguments, he asserts, among other things, that the warmest temperatures in the 20th century were reached around 1940, that a cooling of the climate has already commenced, and that a new cold phase will reach its climax in 20 years’ time. The periodical 21st Century Science belongs to the organisation of American multimillionaire and conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche. According to its own advertising, this organisation also flatly rejects the theory of relativity, quantum theory, and other achievements of modern science.

Which ought to cover the SYN claim. Since we have all three connected here. I'm going to follow this up on WP:BLP/N depending on the results of this - since there is also a claim of BLP violation here. So don't consider this a final answer where you will be put in front of an angry BLP-peloton afterwards for a stance on whether this is a reliable source or not :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I am involved in this debate and disagree with kim. Associating a BLP with a figure as controversial as LaRouche requires rock solid sourcing. Initially, the Munich Re reference was not supplied (it was originally sourced to a blog), but even with this new source, the claim is controversial enough that a single essay from a partisan author and published by Munich Re (which as far as I can tell is an insurance corporation which publishes content relating to risk assessment, certainly not an independent entity) is far from sufficient to include this fact in the article.

It has the appearance of cherry-picking a minor detail that is unflattering, digging up a source which mentions it, and using that as justification for adding completely non-notable critical material into a scientist's BLP. There is no way that Jaworowski's association with LaRouche is significant enough for LaRouche to be mentioned in his bio. It's a BLP violation first, and questionable sourcing, second. ATren (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Salvia divinorum and online polls - reliable, notable?

The following issue also crosses into undue weight territory, but this seems like the best place to start the discussion. In the Salvia divinorum article, editors are in disagreement over the inclusion of self-selecting polls by local news operations (Indianapolis news station, Bangor (Maine) Daily News, Miami Herald). I'm involved in the discussion, so I'm presumably not presenting this completely impartially.

1. Are those news sources reliable sources for conducting and reporting their own polls? The WP article did qualify one of the poll results by including the disclaimer that it was "not a scientific survey and should not be used as a gauge of public opinion. It reflects only the opinions of bangordailynews.com readers who've chosen to participate".

2. Are the "opinions of bangordailynews.com readers who've chosen to participate" (and other self-selecting surveys) notable for an encyclopedia article, even with the explanation/disclaimer? The discussion is happening at Talk:Salvia divinorum#Online polls?. Thanks, First Light (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

FAIR; RS for contentious BLP edits and statements of fact?

In this RS/N conversation I made the points that per policy, FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting): 1) should not be used as an RS for contentious statements in BLPs; and 2) should not be used as an RS for facts.

As editor Annoynmous is aware, Jimbo commented: "I didn't see anything you wrote on this that I disagree with at all. The source is not good enough."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:05 pm, 1 May 2010, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

FAIR highly contentious statements in BLPs

Following Jimbo's comment, I deleted some highly contentious statements in BLPs for which FAIR was the only source, such as the ones below. Annoy reverted me. Re-introducing the highly contentious statements into the BLPs.

1. "Operation Inform the Soldiers," ... prompted ... Michael Reagan to comment that Dice should be found and killed for treason. Reagan said ... "How about you take Mark Dice out and put him in the middle of a firing range. Tie him to a post, don't blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice."
2. "Reagan ... said ... "We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them.... I'll pay for the bullets."
3. Man who attempted to assassinate Clinton "claimed to be incited by ultraconservative talk show host Chuck Baker"
4. Imus "described media critic Howard Kurtz as "that boner-nosed . . . beanie-wearing little Jew boy"
5. "Grant has repeatedly advocated "eugenics" by promoting ... temporary sterilizations for women of childbearing age who wish to receive welfare payments.... FAIR also quotes Grant as saying ... that the U.S. has "millions of sub-humanoids, savages, who really would feel more at home careening along the sands of the Kalahari or the dry deserts of eastern Kenya — people who, for whatever reason, have not become civilized."
6. "McLarty was connected to a failed thrift that made $300 million in questionable loans, including $5.6 million to Bentsen's son that was never paid back"
7. "North has been banned from Costa Rica for drug running"
8. "Buchanan wrote that women are: "Simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism."
9. "Frommer had left his show ... vowing never to work at a station that employed Bob Grant"

Pertinent policies are as follows:

WP:GRAPEVINE instructs us to: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is ... poorly sourced."

WP:RS says: "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove ... poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person".

WP:BLP; Reliable Sources says: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source.... This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is ... poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article."

FAIR not an RS for statements of fact

On the understanding that FAIR is not an RS for statements of fact, I deleted a number of such entries from various articles. Annoy reverted me. Inserting FAIR statements of fact, as here: [52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63].

Some of those edits obviously fit into both the BLP/contentious and fact categories. I believe the reversions/insertions were improper. I do not believe FAIR can be used as an RS for facts at all, including non-contentious facts. This is especially true in BLPs. And with regard to apparently important claims that are not covered by mainstream sources.

Pertinent policies are as follows:

WP:BLP; Questionable sources and external links says: "Material available solely in questionable sources should not be used anywhere in the article, including in "Further reading" or "External links" sections."

WP:BLP; Public Figures says: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article.... If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."

WP:REDFLAG says: "Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: ... apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; ... reports of a statement by someone that seems ... embarrassing, controversial ... Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included."

Opinion

I think that as a general matter, all agree it is acceptable to use FAIR for its opinion (where that is all that is given). As in "FAIR does not like X's book". See also this prior discussion and this one.

Mixed – opinion plus

Sometimes, an opinion is mixed with assertions of fact and/or a contentious statement. Where it is both opinion and either fact and/or opinion, it's not OK to use it, IMHO.

So, it would not be OK to reflect FAIR saying: "Our opinion is that Person X's racism is bad", where there is not RS support for the fact that Person X is racist.

Or "Our opinion is that the fact that Y did such-and-such is bad," where there is no RS support for the fact that Y did such-and-such.

The reason is that the harms that we are seeking to avoid (including harm to the individual, and potential lawsuits against Wikipedia) are more significant than the benefits of reflecting the opinion. Furthermore, it is a "camel's nose" problem.

I would be interested in the thoughts of others. The related AN/I, regarding Annoy's editing, is taking place here.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC) There are two things here: FAIR in relation to one BLP that is contentious at the moment, and FAIR in general. I'm only going to comment on FAIR in general, as Jimbo seems to have weighed in on the question of the particular BLP. FAIR, it seems to me, does two things. The first is to collate things that have already appeared in the media. If we can see that FAIR is doing that, we can trace the sourcing back, and there is unlikely to be a problem. The second thing it does is undertake original investigative journalism. This leads to more complex cases for us. Our main question must be "does FAIR have a reputation for good-quality, fact-checked investigative journalism?" I do not know at present and suggest that people should present evidence here of commentary about FAIR's reputation in this. Not, please, anything that only relates to FAIR's political position. I think we know that the political position is squarely within what is called "liberal" in the US. They will always be contentious, otherwise what is their point in existing, but they're not extremist (at least not to my reading but then I'm in the UK). Itsmejudith (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Holy Torah - The Blueprint of the Universe site

An IP is consistently adding material toGog and Magog from this article [64] a website which says "The purpose of this website is to provide substantial evidence that the Holy Torah was given to us by G-d, and that no other "holy" texts come even close to it." The exact source is on a page which says "In this area users can post different discussion topics". I have no reason to suspect that the IP (well, IPs, probably the same editor) are not just newbies, but it would help if I could point to a discussion here - or have it explained to me that I'm wrong if that's the case, but this looks pretty cut and dried. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm at 2 reverts there so I can't remove this (which I would have done with a pointer to here). Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Even for a religious website it is very poor quality. Zero^talk 12:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Court document as source for fact a case was dismissed

Simple question. Is this UK Companies court document, received via email from The Treasury Solicitors office[65], a reliable source for the statement "the case was dismissed" in reference to the case it refers to? --Insider201283 (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you own amwaywiki.com, the source you link to? Hipocrite (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I linked to a document, not a website. Do you believe the document is a forgery? --Insider201283 (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that. You do own the website that hosts the document, right? Hipocrite (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It could only be acceptable if http://www.amwaywiki.com is a reliable source, but as an open wiki it is absolutely not a reliable source. I could make a "document" like that with Photoshop in 10 minutes. Moreover, a wikipedia editor who receives a document by private email cannot use it on wikipedia on account of the ban on original research. You need to find a newspaper article or official (eg UK govt) website with equivalent information. Zero^talk 13:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, what is so complicated about this? AmwayWiki is not the source under discussion. The source is a UK government document. A copy of it is available via that link. Secondly, since the document required NO interpretation, then NO original research is occurring. I do not appreciate being accused of forging government documents. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No one has accused you of forging anything. Your document, however, is not reliably sourced. Hipocrite (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes you have. I received a copy of the source document from the UK government and uploaded it on that Wiki. You are claiming it may not be accurate - that is directly accusing me of having forged it, as has Cameron below. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not true. We've merely stated that your personal email communications and uploads to amwaywiki.com are not reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

We have to be careful with documents that are hosted on wikis or the like, I was recently involved with an article where it relied heavily on sources that, on the face of it, reliable but were actually photo-shopped and altered. Can you point towards the original document on an official site? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Cameron, as I stated I sourced that source from the UK government. If it has been photoshopped, then I did it, and I do not appreciate it the accusation --Insider201283 (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't appreciate what people tell you over and over, why do you keep asking? Hipocrite (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Since there is apparently confusion over what a Wikipedia source is, I'll rephrase the question -

Is a document published by the UK Government dismissing a case a reliable source for the the statement "the case was dismissed"?

--Insider201283 (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if it was published. How does one go about verifying the existance of the document? Hipocrite (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Same way you verify the existence of a book or newspaper or anything else that isn't online. You go to the publisher or an archiver (like a library) and ask to see it. Just because something is not online does not mean it is not a source. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is the archive of this document located, and how do we acquire the document? There are wikipedians througout the kingdom, so I'm certain we can have somone go grab a copy. Hipocrite (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've already told you where I got it. NOTE TO OTHER EDITORS: Hipocrite is one of the editors I am in dispute with. They want reported allegations from a court case published in Wikipedia, based on one news report from a small town newspaper in another country altogether, and contradicted by the actual court documents, but they do not want the fact it was dismissed in the article. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(undent) You said "email the UK." We're in a dispute because you previously asked for help from this exact board about using sources, and I found that you were using sources poorly, and tried to fix your article. Hipocrite (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You did no such thing, you removed sourced claims, claiming the sources were unreliable. You are falsely claiming the source is AmwayWiki, when it is not. The source is a UK government publication. I uploaded a copy there for convenient access, and you are saying it might be forged - ie directly accusing me of a serious crime. As best I can tell the document is covered by Crown Copyright, otherwise I'd uploaded it to media commons and you could no longer use the bogus obfuscation about amwaywiki. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Insider201283, I understand your frustration but you can't use an unpublished document that you obtained by yourself. Those are the rules, please read WP:OR and WP:V. And publishing it yourself doesn't count, see WP:SELF. There have been many cases like this in Wikipedia over the years. It doesn't have anything to do with trust, it just the way the rules are. Zero^talk 14:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Zero0000 - on what basis are you claiming the document is unpublished? AFAIK all UK court judgements are published. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me. Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Wikipedia requires that all sources be verifiable, by which we mean that they need to be published by a reliable source, so any reader can go to a public library and check the contents for himself, if they are not published online. If a reader needs to submit a special request to some government agency to obtain a copy, this would not be a "published" document, but one that is supplied on request. In such cases we should rely on a secondary source (such as a newspaper article or a legal gazette) which reports on the topic. Crum375 (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea if you have to submit a special request or not. I would assume it's available in UK government archives, I simply asked for a copy. The UK government is clearly a reliable source, and the document is clearly verifiable. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It was previously requested that you inform us as to how, exactly, you asked for a copy. You said it would be too hard to search through your old emails to find out how you asked for a copy. Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the first line of this section, I told you where I got it from. I do not have the original email sent, no, it was a year and two computers ago.--Insider201283 (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, I believe out-of-the ordinary methods of obtaining documents require extensive directions within the citation of how to the document, i.e., "send email to lordhighbaliff@YYYY.gov.invalid requesting document XXXX."

I also believe using a court record to support the claim that a case was dismissed is unwise, because sometimes cases are dismissed in a way that they cannot be reopened, but in other situations a variation of the case is reopened in a matter of minutes or days. In general, Wikipedia editors are not qualified to determine whether the case can be reopened or not. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if true, that does not change the fact of whether a case was dismissed or not. Ideally of course we just need to know where the UK publishes their decisions or makes them available. The document has a reference number, I assume that's what's used for finding it. Just because we don't know the "ordinary" method for retrieving a source does not make the source invalid. When I was a university researcher, my method of obtaining most sources was to email the interlibrary loans librarian and ask them for a copy. Does that make a journal article they emailed me a copy of suddenly an unreliable source? Of course not. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

According to http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/chancery.htm -

Judgments from the Civil and Criminal Divisions of the Court of Appeal, and from the Administrative Court, selected by the judge concerned, are available for free on the Bailii (British and Irish Legal Information Institute) database. If a High Court judgment is not available on BAILII , contact the court direct for a copy.

From what I can find it's not on the online database, so therefore contact the court directly for a copy. WP:V states The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources --Insider201283 (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Court documents like this are primary sources that are published (ie made available to the public) by the court. Anyone may request a copy to verify what they say... they thus pass our test for primary source reliability, and we can cite the decision. That said... what is less clear is whether we may include a courtesy link to the pdf file copy at amwaywiki. The key is determining whether we trust the host site to give us a true and exact copy of the original decision. In this case I don't. Thus, I would say that you may cite the original decision... but you should not include a link to the pdf file copy as part of the citation. Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that was exactly the way I had originally included it in the article. I provided a link in talk to the copy I had uploaded to amwaywiki. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The very limited ways in which primary sources can be used do not include interpretation of the type you have engaged in. Dlabtot (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. The document says "IT IS ORDERED THAT the said Petition be dismissed". I wrote in the article "the case was dismissed". Which part of that exactly was it you considered to be disallowed "interpretation"? --Insider201283 (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• amwaywiki.com is unusable on WP for any purpose Dlabtot (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not in dispute, and AFAIK it's not being used anywhere, so what's your point? --Insider201283 (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the published source that you are referring to? Who published the alleged source on what date? Dlabtot (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear: obtaining a document from a court and interpreting that document is original research. You need to find a published source. Dlabtot (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, interpreting the document would likely be OR. Obtaining a source and reporting what it says is not - it's the basis of wikipedia. Unless you're defining "reading" as "interpreting", which could be argued, and in which case we can shut this site down. :-) The document is In the Matter of Network Twentyone Support Systems Ltd and In the Matter of The Insolvency Act 1986, Petition 2653 of 2007, Ref: LT6/23859A/ARl4E, published by The High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Companies Court, April 3, 2009.--Insider201283 (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The document in question is a publicly available official court document, and is thus reliable.

That said, it is a primary source. And, as with all primary sources, interpreting, analyzing, or drawing conclusions from the document would indeed be OR... however a purely descriptive statement (such as "the petition was dismissed on 3 April, 2009") would not be OR. That is a fact stated in the document itself. Blueboar (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

one thing to check... I am not familiar with UK legal terminology so I am not sure if the "Petition" equates to what we in the US call the "Case" (as in: "Case dismissed") or whether it equates to a "motion" (as in: "Motion denied"). You should probably double check to see exactly what was being dismissed. Blueboar (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

a formal letter to a court of law requesting a particular legal action[66] A person or body petitions a court for a certain action, the court hears the position, and the petition is dismissed or accepted. A petition is similar to a "complaint". Dismissing the petition is the same as dismissing the complaint or case. The article would be better served using the word "petition" I think. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification. And I agree... use "Petition" in the article. Blueboar (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of images/videos to determine if a member is in a band?

Over on How To Destroy Angels (band), I've been having a disagreement with another editor about whether or not Atticus Ross is in the band. Every article I can find says that the band is just Trent Reznor and his wife. But another editor has been including Atticus Ross, stating that he's in one video on the band's official website and he appears in a promotional image. As far as I know, videos posted on Vimeo and images aren't reliable sources. Can anyone make a judgment on whether or not he should be included? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

For clarification: He was the first band member to be shown at all and the promo image for the band clearly shows him standing by lead singer Mariqueen Reznor. Pitchfork gave no evidence for Trent even being in the band (although it's an accepted fact among the NIN fanbase), they are using as much guesswork as anyone else. Sheepdean (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The latest information, from this article, says "As previously reported, How to Destroy Angels is Reznor's collaboration with his wife, former West Indian Girl frontwoman Mariqueen Maandig.". — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And yet they post an image of Atticus Ross. Pitchfork is not infalliable, surely a band's own promotional info is the purest source? Sheepdean (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And in a petty thing - her name isn't even Mariqueen Maandig anymore, she took her husband's name at marriage, which perhaps comments on PF's journalistic abilities? Sheepdean (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Every single article, including those not published by Pitchfork, show her as Mariqueen Maandig. Just because she took her husband's last name does not mean that she gets credited as such. While Britney Spears was married to Kevin Federline, we didn't go through all her albums and change them to say "Britney Federline". — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Blabbermouth has posted that the project does in fact include Atticus Ross. [67] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.109.78 (talk • contribs) 19:40, May 4, 2010

That site seems like a blog to me, which means it's not acceptable as a reliable source. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Blabbermouth is a news site and is acceptable as a citable resource [68] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.109.78 (talk • contribs) 19:55, May 4, 2010

Having a Wiki article makes the site notable, not reliable as a source. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Blabbermouth is directly cited three times on the main Nine Inch Nails article (which was approved as a featured article under Wiki standards), and is cited countless times on many other articles on Wikipedia. Blabbermouth is a reliable news site that often posts exclusive news and information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.109.78 (talk • contribs) 20:21, May 4, 2010

Deepak Chopra

Deepak Chopra is a noted physician, guru, author, and lecturer. He first came to prominence as the top assistant to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the creator of Transcendental Meditation, though the two later had a falling out and Chopra went his own way. Following the Maharihi's death two years ago, Chopra wrote a recollection of his former master. He published it in his own blog[69] and on the Huffington Post.[70] It includes events and conversations that haven't been reported elsewhere. In particular, it recounts an occasion when the Maharishi became severely ill, possibly due to poisoning, and his family in India chose to keep it secret from most western followers. There is now a controversy on talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi#Huffington Post about the usability of this source. I am not aware of any official response to Chopra's article from the movement, so the only controversy seems to be in the mind of one editor. My view is that Chopra is a notable, reliable source for his own personal experiences with the Maharishi, and that the material in the article is clearly attributed to him. (See Maharishi Mahesh Yogi#Years in Vlodrop (1991-2008)). I believe he would be an adequate source even if his recollection was only published on his blog, but the fact that it was also on the Huffington Post tends to add more weight to its reliability. Am I correct?   Will Beback  talk  16:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: There is a letter that was posted in response to Chopra's article, purportedly written by a senior Indian official of the movement, that denies some details of Chopra's account but not the essential facts of the illness. [71]   Will Beback  talk  16:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think that Chopra's account of the Maharishi will be of wide interest. It's only his memory, and it seems though their relationship was up and down, so attribute it. Either Huffington Post or his own writings are appropriate sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It may be of interest, but it's still a self-published source (The HuffPost source is also a blog, and HuffPost blogs have a poor reputation for fact checking!), so under WP:SPS the question is whether Chopra could be regarded as an "expert" on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and has any RS published sources on him. A quick google suggests he does[72], so SPS sources would be OK both for info and his opinion, though obviously care should be taken for the former.--Insider201283 (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits on Shanghai and Beijing articles

Hi, your help is needed on the Shanghai article. User:BsBsBs removed several sourced statements [73] regarding Shanghai's population statistics in the lead introduction but insist on keeping a statement ("After Chongqing and Beijing, Shanghai is the third largest of the four direct-controlled municipalities of the People's Republic of China") in which he did not find a reference for, but insist "it doesn't need a reference, it is evident to anyone who knows math". And this has led to edit conflict on the article. See the Talk:Shanghai#Population. Likewise in the Beijing article, the user insist on keeping a statement in the lead and in the demographic section in which wasn't referenced [74]. Your input and help is needed at these two articles. Thanks!--TheLeopard (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems BsBsBs did end up finding references, however the references the user found [75] are only individual municipal populations statistics, but not an actual reference that support the statement "Shanghai is the third largest of the four direct-controlled municipalities of the People's Republic of China".--TheLeopard (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A source is needed to support the Shanghai claim. A list of municipalities and their populations would suffice. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Apple TV and discussion about Digital Monitor Power Management

In the Apple TV article there is a disagreement on whether this edit [76] can be supported by the sources provided by the editor. The editor, AshtonBenson wants to include content that says that it has been widely reported that the Apple TV lacks support for Digital Monitor Power Management. He provides 5 sources to support this section (which is not in the article right now):

• A plethora of comments on the official support forums hosted, moderated, and supervised by Apple computer,
• An identity-authenticated product review by someone who is an Amazon "top 100 reviewer"
• An Apple Support document that makes mention of support for Digital Power Management
• Evidence that both Apple TV and the EPA omit the Apple TV from all listings of of Energy Star compliant devices (from which any reasonable person would conclude that the device is not Energy Star compliant)
• An Apple TV manual that, unlike other Apple manuals, does not indicate Energy Star compliance.

The discussion can be found here Talk:Apple_TV#AshtonBenson_and_Apple_discussion_forums and Talk:Apple_TV#Power_Management_Limitations. Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Mattnad, you have misrepresented me. I have edited your quotation of my comments to accurately reflect my true statements. If you want me to participate in this discussion, you must not misrepresent my statements. AshtonBenson (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)