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

Coanda-1910 sources

There is interminable debate on the sources used since July this year to completely change the introduction of the Coanda-1910 article which generated a cascade of changes all over Wikipedia. There is a lengthy discussion on the talk page especially regarding the sources supporting the current version of the article which are regarded as of less relevance for the current version. This two references are: Gibbs-Smith and Frank H. Winter. From the discussion pages it is demonstrated that Gibbs-Smith changed his initial not very neutral position from '60es later in a boo written in 1980. Frank H. Winter article cite as well is not complete and one of the editors is trying still to find the source for a full view, rendering as well Winter not as the main source for the current form of the article. --Lsorin (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This was raised previously on this noticeboard a bit over a week ago but there was only one response at the time. There was an opinion on Gibbs-Smith given on the Aircraft section of the Aviation Project about a week before. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You are right GraemeLeggett, as you might have noticed I did not know about this mess at the time. Anyway I'm wondering why nobody even commented Bzuk entry. Hopefully you noticed my entries about Gibbs-Smith in the Coanda-1910 talk. Even his own specialist readers were wondering about the reliability of Gibbs-Smith:

1. http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1958/1958-1-%20-%200212.html?search=gibbs-smith
2. http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1969/1969%20-%200084.html?search=gibbs-smith
3. http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1964/1964%20-%202475.html?search=gibbs-smith
4. http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1958/1958%20-%200771.html?search=gibbs-smith
5. http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1968/1968-1%20-%200037.html?search=gibbs-smith
6. http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1964/1964%20-%200206.html?search=gibbs-smith
7. http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1966/1966%20-%200974.html?search=gibbs-smith
8. http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1963/1963%20-%202128.html

--Lsorin (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Those links are to "letters to the editor" in Flight magazine, not the place for evaluation of a source. Link 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have nothing about Coanda, his inventions or his aircraft—they are about the Wrights, or Cody, or Ader, or other early flight pioneers. None of them apply to the subject at hand: the Coandă-1910 and Henri Coandă. Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

To evaluate Gibbs-Smith as a source, you must look at how he was cited in scholarly works, and how he was evaluated in public memorials. At the U.S. National Park Service page on the Wright Brothers National Memorial, eight Gibbs-Smith books are cited, more than any other historian. Searching through Google Scholar, we find that his Aviation book was cited by 66, his A history of flying cited by 34, his The invention of the aeroplane, 1799-1909 cited by 14, his The Aeroplane cited by 16 + 12, his Flight through the Ages cited by 8 + 2, his The Rebirth of European Aviation cited by 5 + 2, his A brief history of flying, from myth to space travel cited by 3 and his The new book of Flight cited by 3. In his obituary, Gibbs-Smith was said by the London Times to be "the recognised authority on the early development of flying in Europe and America". Who are we to challenge this broad acceptance of Gibbs-Smith as an expert in early aviation? Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Gibbs-Smith, part of his last statement (in 1970) [1] said this <<this aircraft stands as the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane.>> This is a change of his early statements in the articles of Flight magazine like <<However, the 'jet' Coanda was certainly remarkable in its way, and deserves a somewhat modest place amongst the ingenious ideas that were unworkable in practice>>. Basically Gibbs-Smith is not just quoting the term 'jet' any longer, but recognize it as a jet-propelled aircraft. Because of this particular fact and the missing expertize of Gibbs-Smith in jet engines it renders any of his accounts completely irrelevant for Coanda-1910! I assume that Gibbs-Smith made the same mistake like the rest of editors in Wikipedia of not reading the definition of jet engine to realize that Conada-1910 fits perfectly as the first jet-propelled aircraft. Binkstenet I'm not contesting Gibbs-Smith position in the aviation historians leader, I'm just contesting his reliability regarding this particular airplane, so please don't twist my words! --Lsorin (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You cannot say that Gibbs-Smith was "mistaken" and has "missing expertise" and also try to use his words to prove a point in your favor. He is either acceptable as a source or not acceptable.

The two Gibbs-Smith quotes you mention ("Although inevitably earth-bound, this aircraft stands as the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane" and "However, the 'jet' Coanda was certainly remarkable in its way, and deserves a somewhat modest place amongst the ingenious ideas that were unworkable in practice") are not in conflict with each other. Gibbs-Smith calls the aircraft "unworkable" in 1960 and "unsuccessful" in 1970. In 1960 he wrote "it was simply a ducted air fan driven by a petrol engine", in 1970 he wrote "the fan was a simple air-fan driving back the air to form the propulsive 'jet'". In all cases he holds to his well-researched conclusion that it never flew, never was tested at Issy, never crashed and burned, never had fuel injection, never had fuel combustion in the air stream, and was nothing more than a test bed for a clever but failed engine design. In 1960 he wrote "Although ingenious—and certainly the first full-size completed aeroplane designed for reaction propulsion—there is general agreement today, as in the past, that the machine could not possibly have flown: a fan-produced jet of air of such a kind would not have nearly sufficient thrust to propel the aircraft." If an engine which produces a "propulsive 'jet'" (Gibbs-Smith used quotes around "jet") does not actually propel an aircraft in flight, the aircraft cannot be called a jet aircraft. It would be like putting a water jet engine, taken from a speedboat, onto an aircraft to call it a jet aircraft. An engine utterly incapable of doing its job. When Gibbs-Smith says that the Coanda-1910 was "the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane" he is not saying that it was the first jet-propelled aircraft, he is saying that it was the first attempt—a failed attempt. Binksternet (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As you can see in the links above about other work of Gibbs-Smith he was mistaken or even he ignored sometimes clear evidence against his statements, as I explained already in the Coanda-1910 talk page, which for some reason you keep ignoring. Gibbs-Smith was never neutral in his approach regarding the Coanda-1910 and he ignored a lot of sources proving him the other way around ( for instance the thrust of the powerplant from the 1910 leaflet ). As well I explained already in the same talk page, his statement 'full-size completed aeroplane designed for reaction propulsion' is again according to the definition of reaction propulsion for an airbreathing engine which Gibbs-Smith does no deny either, is jet engine. Regarding if the attempt was failed or not is of no relevance for the fact written by Gibbs-Smith that it was a "jet-propelled aeroplane". As he is changing his earlier accounts from a unworkable in '60 to attempt in '70 again it showes that he could not really prove that the airplane did fly or not, exactly like Winter in his 1980 article. According to the Aero-club de France [2] the plane did fly at [3]. So Bisksternet, keep you personal interpretations for yourself and stop ignoring facts, like your idol Gibbs-Smith. --Lsorin (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

A Wikipedia editor saying that Gibbs-Smith was mistaken or that he missed or ignored elements of aviation means nothing to me. He is a reliable source, one of the best available, while we editors are here only to quote such sources. Coanda's Clerget was airbreathing, but his turbine was not. Gibbs-Smith changed not one bit of meaning about Coanda from 1960 to 1970; he only reworded his original sentiment. It's a mistake to read too much into this simple rewording of the same story.

As far as me ignoring something you have been pointing to, if that is the case, which I do not see, then I probably consider it irrelevant.

If there was some indication in your PDF link that the Aeroclub de France considered Coanda's claim to be true, I did not see it. The only instance of 'Coanda' that I found in the link is that he was one of many aviation pioneers who signed a memorial document. Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Is not me as and Wikipedia editor, is his fellow readers saying that he is ignoring facts. ( see all the links above and I can find more of information like that is you want ). About the the turbine read please again the Definition of jet engine section in the talk page. I will add below my comments which you ignored, I suppose because it was irrelevant from your point of view.

----

"Just to explain you a bit more about the turbine and the powerplant Coanda was having. The most classical type of wind turbine existed many centuries ago (see Windmill. Of course the turbine used in the other direction was patented by Dr. Stolze as you said above. Anyway, and this is the tricky part, a normal turbine, even the ones running today in any jet engine in the sky produces a helicoidal vortex according to the Betz' law which was not the case with Coanda's "turbopropulseur". If you read carefully the English patent (same in the French and Swiss one) you will realize that his turbine was not just a simple one as the air jets were straitened at the exit from the turbine. This was never done before and explains as well the his personal statements, about the test of the plane, that lead to the Coanda effect studies. As well he is stating very clearly in the patent: "which can be compared to the constituent elements of a turbine or fan, but differ from the same by the fluid which is compressed in the said propeller, having to transmit its kinetic energy to the apparatus in form of an axial reaction and to escape from the diffusing apparatus."

Another important aspect which does not exist in any previous turbines is the fact that the vacuum created internally is used for enhancing the performance. ( see Contra-rotating propellers). Do you want more technical details? This is why I would be more careful when calling Coanda's powerplant a hair dryer. A hair dryer would not burn up his plane, in the air, even made if is made wood. ;) Coanda's "turbopropulseur" it was never considered a turboprop as in today's terms coined by Sir Frank Whittle and Hans Von Ohain. It is considered correctly as a "termojet". By the way did you know that Coanda made his plane in Gianni Caproni's atelier? And he was a very good friend of Secondo Campini which build this thing? I think you can see the connection alone to the 'termojet'."

----

Why would Coanda be listed as a pioneer? Pioneering what? As you could see the at this link this is endorsed by the Aero Club de France.--Lsorin (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

German Wikipedia article

I note that the story told in the German Wikipedia is very different from the story in our article. It seems to be in part based on this source, and in part unsourced. Hans Adler 14:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. The English Wikipedia is messed up since July with some unreliable sources ( Gibbs-Smith and Winter). I noticed this very late, that is why the English version is in a continuous editing/locking/escalation and because I'm not an administrator and I have very little Wikipedia editing experience, I don't know how to get it fixed or at least get the attention of some neutral administrator. I proposed several neutral introductions, rejected or ignored always by the other side.

--Lsorin (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This is primarily a content dispute, and for that administrators have no special rights. See WP:DR for a description of our dispute resolution processes for content disputes. Ultimately they are all about presenting rational arguments and then getting more and more other edits to look at the facts until there is a clear consensus. Personally I have no opinion at this stage as to who is right. Hans Adler 15:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The current version is wrong compared to other versions in German encyclopedia or other encyclopedias as you already noticed. That is why I'm trying to get the introduction changed, so that a consensus build up can be restarted without being ignored by the other side like in the first try.--Lsorin (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The German version is the way it is because nobody over there has bothered to look up Frank H. Winter or Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith. We here at English Wikipedia have absolutely no reason to defer to the same article in another language. Our English version looks at far more reliable sources than the German one. Binksternet (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The German version is correct because is based on correct sources, not unreliable sources like Winter and Gibbs-Smith listed right now in the WP:RSN.--Lsorin (talk) 06:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Gibbs-Smith was considered a "lion" by fellow aviation historians. A very notable personage. Winter is currently an aviation historian emeritus at NASM. No need to keep banging on them to try and diminish their status. They are perfectly reliable sources, and the German article does not reference them. As well, the German-speaking editors do not use the issue dated 10 December 1910 (pages 900–901) of Flug- und Motor-Technik, the official journal of the Österreichische Flugtechnische Verein. If they had used that article, they would have sketches and a description which show the Coanda engine to be entirely without fuel injection and combustion in the air stream. Instead, they trust www.luftfahrtmuseum.com which states "All information provided on these pages are given without any guarantee." They also use www.allstar.fiu.edu which gets its information from post-1954 sources, and shows no evidence of comparing what was reported and written in 1910 with what Coanda in his later years said happened back then. Somebody in Austria or Germany ought to hunt down a copy of 10 December 1910 Flug- und Motor-Technik and scan it for us. It sure is not available at my local university. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

About Gibbs-Smith: notable - yes, reliable for Coanda 1910 airplane - doubtful. That is why is listed here (WP:RSN) and analyzed in the talk talk page.

Regarding the LuftfahrtMuseum you are again trying to tell that the historians from that museum, together with the ones from several museums in Romania and France are not exactly doing their jobs and they are not supporting a fellow "lion" and very notable personage.--Lsorin (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You are the only one here who has expressed doubt regarding Gibbs-Smith's reliability on the subject of early aviation. The Coanda-1910 is an early airplane that Gibbs-Smith singled out in particular, to concentrate his investigation energies on and root out the truth. If he chose to write about it, he is considered reliable on the subject.

Yes, I think that museums are not doing their jobs; museums choosing not to research 1910–1911 documents along the lines of 10 December 1910 Flug- und Motor-Technik. Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that I'm the only one which expressed doubts regarding Gibbs-Smith's reliability on the subject of early aviation: Pleas read the starting of this whole section again.

I think that is why you personally don't visit museums, because you personally believe they are not doing their jobs. I proposed at some point that I will buy you personally a ticket, to visit at least the museums in Paris and Bucharest. Now I understand fully why you did ignore my proposal.--Lsorin (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to repeat a series of URLs already present in this discussion topic. All those URLs go to "letters to the editor" where some aviation people are jousting with Gibbs-Smith because he is such a prominent target. None of the correspondence has anything to do with Coanda, so it is useless for us here. Binksternet (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I totally disagree! This is why this section was created in the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard at your own proposal: "No kidding, man, if you don't like Gibbs-Smith or Winter, take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Simply stating that these experts are not reliable is not going to work. Binksternet (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)". Gibbs-Smith might be relevant in your personal library, but is not relevant for Coanda-1910.--Lsorin (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Claiming a gullible reprint like http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/itf/c1910.htm as a reliable source is ridiculous and in the same breath claiming that Gibbs-Smith isn't reliable is even more so. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Trying to get structure into this discussion

This is an extremely unstructured discussion. It is supposed to be about the relative reliability of certain sources, but I have no idea which sources to compare at this point. Also, the point of this noticeboard is that neutral editors look at the facts and then provide their opinion. Not only have no facts been provided (instead we have only heard about opinions here), but when I made a short factual comment it was immediately jumped upon as if I had taken a side. This kind of behaviour discourages dispute resolution and must stop.

I am willing to look at facts and do my own research about them. I am not willing to wade through pages and pages of fruitless discussion just to find out what the uncontroversial facts are that people are interpreting differently – i.e. just to get to the point where my work as a neutral party is supposed to start.

It appears that we have a dispute between two parties, currently represented here by Lsorin and Binksternet. One party wants the article to say that the Coandă-1910 was in some sense the first jet plane. The other party wants to say that this is a misconception that was caused by unrealistic claims which Coandă made many years later. To get some structure into this thread I am creating two subsections and would ask you to just add a list of references, possibly with a short literal quotation of up to three sentences, but with no personal opinions or arguments of yours added. I am asking you not only to offer the best sources supporting your own opinion, but also to say which of the opposing sources you consider relatively most reliable. See WP:Writing for the opponent for the background of this request. Hans Adler 08:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Best sources according to Lsorin

The 3 highest-quality sources supporting the Coandă jet plane claim:

1. Jet Engine definition in Encyclopedia Britannica
2. Henri Coanda Papers [Stine, 1920-1961 (bulk 1950s)] at Smithsonian Institution Research Information System
3. Academia Republicii Populare Romîne. Institutul de mecanică aplicată., & "Traian Vuia.". (1956). Revue roumaine des sciences techniques: Série de mécanique appliquée. Bucharest: Académie de la République Populaire Roumaine, Institut de mécanique appliquée.

The 3 highest-quality sources opposing the claim:

1. none
2. none
3. none

According to the proposal WP:ENEMY I have to write from Binksternet point of view. All the changes Binksternet is proposing are based on two accounts as stated in his disagreement to my request: Disagree. To be called "jet propelled", an aircraft would have to be propelled by a jet. Frank Winter in 1980 and Charles Gibbs-Smith in 1960 conclude separately that the aircraft never flew, and never was tested at Issy. Binksternet (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC) This two sources are listed above in this noticeboard.

• Gibbs-Smith is changing his statement later in 1970 [4] said this <<Another unsuccessful, but prophetic, machine was the Coanda biplane ... Although inevitably earth-bound, this aircraft stands as the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane.>>. As well the neutrality of Gibbs-Smith accounts from 1960, especially the one used by Binksternet are extensively discussed in the consensus section.
• Winter's incomplete account is actually twisted used by Binksternet as explained in talk section. Basically Winter's conclusion <<If it never flew, Coanda did at least build, so far as we know, the first full-scale reactive-propelled machine.>> it is not against the largely accepted form "first jet-propelled aircraft" as I proposed in the talk page. --Lsorin (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Best sources according to Binksternet

The 3 highest-quality sources opposing the Coandă jet plane claim:

1. Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith was an aviation historian with the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Science Museum (London) from 1932 to the 1970s, knighted for his expertise in aviation history. The Smithsonian Institution appointed him as the first Lindbergh Professor of Aerospace History at the National Air and Space Museum. The Royal Aeronautical Society recognized his work with the award of an Honorary Companionship. Gibbs-Smith included in some of his aviation history books short passages against Coanda's version of events in 1910, one published in 1960: The aeroplane: an historical survey of its origins and development: "There has recently arisen some controversy about this machine, designed by the Rumanian-born and French-domiciled Henri Coanda, which was exhibited at the Paris salon in October of 1910. Until recently it has been accepted as an all-wood sesquiplane, with cantilever wings, powered by a 50-h.p. Clerget engine driving a 'turbo-propulseur' in the form of a large but simple ducted air fan. ... Although ingenious—and certainly the first full-size completed aeroplane designed for reaction propulsion—there is general agreement today, as in the past, that the machine could not possibly have flown: a fan-produced jet of air of such a kind would not have nearly sufficient thrust to propel the aircraft."
2. In 1970, Gibbs-Smith continued his denial of Coanda's version of the aircraft having flown: "Another unsuccessful, but prophetic, machine was the Coanda biplane..." "The first jet aeroplane to fly, the Heinkel He 178: 1939." "the first jet aeroplane was designed in France, but not built (de Louvrié, 1865)..."
3. Frank H. Winter has been a historian at the National Air and Space Museum for thirty years. Winter published in 1980 a very thorough analysis of Coanda's claims, published in the Royal Aeronautical Society's The Aeronautical Journal: "Ducted Fan or the World's First Jet Plane? The Coanda claim re-examined". There is a copy of this article at my local university library, and I intend to check it out soon. Until then, snippets are viewable online: "...may be added the Frenchman Charles de Louvrié, who, in 1863–1865, designed his Aéronave propelled by the burning of 'a hydrocarbon, or better, vaporised petroleum oil' ejected through two rear jet pipes. If it never flew, Coanda did at least build, so far as we know, the first full-scale reactive-propelled machine. But even here Coanda's priority may be questioned."

The 3 highest-quality sources supporting the claim:

1. Stine, G. Harry (August/September 1989). "The Rises and Falls of Henri-Marie Coanda", Air & Space Smithsonian, volume 12. Stine worked alongside Coanda at Huyck Corporation from 1961 to 1965, and helped him make new versions of early engine sketches, the 1965 versions showing the 1910 engine with fuel injection and combustion in the airstream. "The [Coanda] effect was first observed in 1910 by Henri-Marie Coanda, in connection with exhaust flow from an experimental jet engine".
2. Brady, Tim (2000). The American aviation experience: a history. Brady is the Dean of the College of Aviation at the Daytona Beach Campus of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. "The development of the jet is, broadly, the story of three men: Henri Coanda, Sir Frank Whittle, and Pabst von O'Hain... Fuel was injected into the vent and ignited. On a trial run when Coanda ignited the fuel, the aircraft rapidly gained speed, lifted off the ground, and flew for about a thousand feet before crashing into a wall."
3. Royal Air Force Flying Review, November 1956. Cited by Gibbs-Smith as championing Coanda's version. Gibbs-Smith hints that the "important source quoted" was Coanda himself. The article is so far undiscussed on Wikipedia, as it is not online, and nobody has looked it up in library archives. Binksternet (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Please put any additional discussion ihere, so that the lists stay clean and speak for themselves. Thank you. Hans Adler 08:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It's easy enough to find more material. Any discussion of this will name-check Coanda and his sometime roommate, Campini, since both tried out the same idea. Adding compressor to the search will exclude anything that doesn't provide at least some small degree of detail. This is what that search comes up with on Google Books. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You'll get the same with "Coanda Campini jet engine" combination. Anyway the editors must keep in mind that only English book references are obtained like this. There are several other relevant references in other languages and other forms.--Lsorin (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Google books does handle other languages eg search for Coanda in French though googlebooks cataloguing is problematic. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the search GraemeLeggett. I will add 1910 to your search to get more relevance to this particular topic "Coanda 1910"--Lsorin (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Encyclopedia Britannica: Britannica says about the jet engine that "The first to incorporate a turbine design was conceived as early as 1921, and the essentials of the modern turbojet were contained in a patent in 1930 by Frank Whittle in England." The article does not mention Coanda at all, or any 1910 engine designs. I cannot in good faith represent this source as one of the best ones supporting Coanda's claim. Binksternet (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet, I did not add the Encyclopedia Britannica for the entry you listed. Please leave the readers to have they on opinion regarding the definition of the Jet Engine as I listed above "jet engine,any of a class of internal-combustion engines that propel aircraft by means of the rearward discharge of a jet of fluid".--Lsorin (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No, of course you did not wish to highlight the sentence I highlighted; it does not help your argument. The part you wished to show as one of the best three pro-Coanda references requires the reader to perform a synthesis, connecting Coanda's 1910 aircraft with the general description of engines which "propel aircraft by means of the rearward discharge of a jet of fluid". The encyclopedia does not say that Coanda was first in this regard, and does not mention him at all. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica is not a history book. So the rest of the article is irrelevant. As I already stated above the reader must read the definition of the jet engine and not your manipulated text.--Lsorin (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that we cannot list Britannica as a source because it goes against the guideline at WP:SYNTH where Wikipedia policy is explained: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." No mention of Coanda, not useful as a source in the article. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not know about this rule in Wikipedia and I don't follow exactly your logic with A and B. I will leave this for Hans Alder to decide. The logic I used, is based of Boyne's account in the introduction of A Concise History of Jet Propulsion at the end of this article.--Lsorin (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources opposing Coanda's claim

Why did Winter call it a "machine" and not the first aircraft? Reason: nobody reported it tested or flown in 1910 or afterward. Winter lays out several points along the timeline of important jet aircraft development, starting with a design in 1865 by a Frenchman, a model in the 1920s and a flying aircraft in 1939. Winter does not count Coanda as an important pioneer because the engine in the "reactive-propelled machine" was not an aviation jet engine—the widely accepted kind with combustion in the air stream—it was a ducted fan with turbine compression ejecting a flow of warm air mixed with piston engine exhaust. It never propelled the aircraft in flight; it was impossibly weak. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, since when is an editor permitted to change the edits of another editor? I really don't get how this whole Wikipedia works. --Lsorin (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I was going by Hans Adler's request to have "best sources" listed "but with no personal opinions or arguments of yours added". You provided personal arguments, which I moved to the discussion section. I intend no harm. Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose Hans Adler can decide by himself if my entries are against his request.

Now coming back to your entries according to the definition of reactive engine any airbreathing engine is a jet engine. As I explained already in the Waiting for Winter section, basically Winter's account is <<<first full-scale jet(airbreathing reactive)-propelled>> aircraft. And another question for you can you explain your entry: "jet engine—the widely accepted kind" with some references?--Lsorin (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

An airbreathing jet engine must have combustion in the jet stream. The combustion in the Clerget 50 hp piston engine does not make for an airbreathing jet engine. Pure air coming in, and warm air mixed with piston engine exhaust fumes coming out, does not make the engine into an airbreathing jet engine. Binksternet (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Again please leave the editors, read the definitions by themselves: "An airbreathing jet engine (or ducted jet engine) is a jet engine that has an inlet duct that admits air, which is predominately used to form a jet that is emitted for the purposes of propulsion". In the type section the motorjet is listed. The motorjet article "initialy", until Romaniantruths and you came with your personal "truths", contained Coanda-1910 powerplant as well, as being the basis of the Caproni Campini powerplant in which Secondo Campini and Giovanni Battista Caproni build using his earlier friend's, Coanda, results.--Lsorin (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"Airbreathing" must include the concept of oxygen combining with fuel and heat for combustion. If the combustion is in the piston engine and not the air stream, there is no airbreathing jet engine. The fact that air enters Coanda's ducted fan or turbine makes no difference. A motorjet is an airbreathing jet engine because it has combustion in both places: in the piston engine and in the turbine. The Coanda-1910 powerplant has been said by Winter and Gibbs-Smith, and described in December 1910 Flug- und Motor-Technik with cutaway diagrams, as having no combustion in the turbine. This makes being a motorjet a disputed claim, and being an airbreathing jet engine a disputed claim. Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I asked you before to change the definition of jet engine and now [[[airbreathing jet engine]] in Wikipedia, to fit your personal claim that Coanda-1910 is not a jet engine! I did ask as well before: Are you a "jet engine" or "airbreathing jet engine" expert? Why you avoid answering this simple questions?

To add on what I stated above this article from 1942 explains very accurate the inner workings of the Campini's 1940 powerplant which is striking similar to Coanda's earlier patent. Of course the jet engine race was at it maximum high at the begging of the war, so Mussolini propaganda machine would not recognize any earlier work on the subject like Frank Whittle, Hans von Ohain, Sanford A. Moss and of course Coanda. The whole invention as an full Italian triumph.--Lsorin (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Gap from 1910 to 1950s

One of the most glaring problems with the article is that all of the pro-Coanda sources take Coanda's mid-1950s and '60s assertion as truth, that he was the first to fly a jet aircraft. A funny thing about the sources is that the ones which investigate the aircraft from before 1950 do not describe the Coanda-1910 as a first jet aircraft: they say it was not notable, did not fly, or they do not mention it all. Absolutely no jet engine history or jet aircraft development book from before 1950 mentions Coanda, let alone lists him as an early pioneer. Sources which come from the 1950s and later separate into two camps: the ones which take one or more versions of Coanda's story at face value, and the ones which compare Coanda's late-life story to texts and images from the 1910s. Frank H. Winter wrote a very detailed rebuttal to Coanda's mid-1950s and '60s stories, describing the stories in their various forms, comparing them to themselves (why are 10 December and 16 December variously given as the date of test/flight/crash?) and comparing them to documents (and the lack thereof) from the 1910s. Walter Boyne and G. Stine are listed by Lsorin as strong defenders of Coanda, but nothing in their books is cited to the 1910s—they take Coanda at his word. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

About the gap, after the test in Decemeber 1910 Coanda did not pursue the development of the engine as he consider it dangerous to be used for airplanes propulsion. The jet flames that he noticed during the test, as he said it took 20 years of studies for him to understand the phenomenon called in his name. This explain why at least he did not talk about jet engines for at least 20 years. During years before the Second World War, Coanda did work for the Germans on secret projects military sleds and other projects using similar jet-propulsion system and the Coanda effect of course. During the war he got arrested by the France Police and spent 2 months in the death row until the France Police was convinced by two English agents that Coanda might be helping the allies in the War effort. This is how Coanda managed to run during the war in England and then United States where his started to work on top secret projects until the 1950's when basically the 1910 tests were revealed. His work hidden in secrecy and the historical facts of when the events took place, explains the gaps related to this particular plane. This is explained in Boyne accounts and later articles. Sadly Winter and especially Gibbs-Smith ignored or they just did not have access to this information, like Stine. The most complete information of Coanda's work during the begging of this "gap", I expect to be largely described in Coanda's latest monography published on 1 of October 2010 by a group of aviation historians lead by Dan Antoniu. Until I get a hand on that book, I cannot put it as a most relevant source, but I don't expect surprises from historians which had access to most of Coanda's materials from England, France, United States, Russia and especially the personal Coanda 800kg documentation at the Muzeul Aviaţiei in Romania.--Lsorin (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you are using Coanda's supposed involvement in secret projects from 1942 to the 1960s to explain the absence from 1910 to 1942 of anybody saying Coanda invented the jet engine, or the jet aircraft, or listing Coanda as an early pioneer. The two spans of time have nothing to do with each other. The 800 kg of papers in Romania should have some documentation of this sort from 1910, but nothing has been brought forward by Romanian archivists who hedge their bets about the 1910 aircraft's supposed injectors and burner by writing "According to what Coanda says later on after the World War II"—meaning they do not have any other source except Coanda's word. Binksternet (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Since when the gap has been extended to 1960? Coanda's archive has not been inventoried fully as there were considered "military secret" especially during communist Romania. As well you cannot deny that Coanda's work was top secret especially during the second world war. As I questioned you in the talk section, what would be Coanda's reason to patent injectors and burner, which were already in use in most of the engines existing at the time? Gibbs-Smith especially attacks Coanda's patent, without touching at all the 220kg thrust listed by Coanda in the original 1910 leaflet.--Lsorin (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The archive's 1910s portions would be the easiest to sort, being so few in number. The Romanian archivists have found nothing. Gibbs-Smith does not care about 220 kg being too much or too little because the aircraft weighed 420 kg. Any student of aviation could tell you the result of that little power applied to that much mass. Gibbs-Smith says the full-size model displayed in 1910 was "inevitably earth-bound". Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose Gibbs-Smith knew at least this kind of student of aviation facts. As you can see that article written by a student, I suppose, the thrust of 220 Kg provided by Coanda's powerplant was more than enough for his half a ton aircraft.--Lsorin (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Gunston writes in his 1995 book he "disbelieves" the engine was capable of 220 kgf of thrust. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This means that Coanda, in Gunston mind, started to lie already in 1910 by presenting invented numbers at one of the most respectable exhibition in the world, in a leaflet which is publicly read by all fellow engine and aviation specialists of the time.--Lsorin (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Reporters of the day said that they thought the engine was not adequate to move the aircraft. The decision to place the aircraft in the upstairs gallery instead of on the main show floor was another indicator of this. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly about Gunston mind, I suppose! The contemporary reporters would be of course puzzled and doubtful, in a propelled flying machine world, to see such a futuristic design. But I could not find a single article around 1910 questioning the thrust listed by Coanda at the exhibition or if those values have been tested in Caproni's shop. Keep in mind that they were working together on that project and there were several helpers to Coanda 1910 airplane work. Could you find those reporters stories? Keep in mind as well that the jet engine was still to be patented, so how a reporter could even know what to look for in understanding Coanda's powerplant? And how it is possible to have so big lies at the main attraction of the Paris exhibition? And again if you want to remove Coanda 1910 from Wikipedia as not important because was presented in the upstairs gallery, then please reply to my consensus build up proposition! I already proposed so, having Gibbs-Smith as the main source. If not then please come with a reliable source, debating this statement from extract from "Technical World Magazine" Volume 15 from 1911 <<At the international aerial locomotion exposition in Paris, Coanda was without doubt the principal attraction.>> --Lsorin (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The reporter whose pen name is 'Oiseau' is the guy who wrote about the 1910 Paris Salon in Flight magazine. He said of the Coanda-1910 that its powerplant appeared small. This same reporter wrote about the Salon in two successive issues of Flight, and waited until the second issue, 29 October 1910, to write about the Coanda-1910. If the aircraft was universally recognized as the star of the show, he would have written about it in the first installation on 22 October! Even today, with a century of hindsight, Flight Global says of the 1910 Salon that its highlights were machines from Voisin and Sloan, with Coanda not mentioned.

Why would the 220 kgf number be wrong? Perhaps the testing procedure was faulty, or the test instruments. We cannot know whether Coanda put the 220 number forward in confidence that it was correct or with the intention of exaggerating its power. Because we cannot know, we cannot comment. Only Gunston has commented, as far as I know, and he is an expert source.

Regarding your "consensus proposal", I never gave it serious thought, as it appeared to me to be herding editors a certain POV direction. It is against Wikipedia practices to delete an article such as Coanda-1910 just because reliable sources thought it unimportant in 1910, and I have never wished for the article to be deleted. I have instead been working on a sandbox version of the article, one that is still waiting for a full copy of Winter's 1980 rebuttal. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You are incredible in manipulating the text to fit you personal opinion. Now a personal question: Have you even been to an exhibition? Of course 'Oiseau' didn't know on 29 October two weeks after the start of exhibition what would be the main attraction! Keep in mind as well the the text might have been drafted already a week before and then published in two numbers. It makes absolute sense to list the facts at the closing of the exhibition in this case a year later article from "Technical World Magazine" Volume 15 in 1911. The author from Flight Global 2009 is really missing or ignoring the epoch's materials. By the way I asked you a direct question unanswered in the talk page: "How did you get to know about the 2e Exposition de la Locomotion Aérienne in first place?"

To doubt 220Kg thrust, is only your personal opinion. I was asking you before: What is your expertise in engines and engine testing? Do you think that Coanda didn't know what is a Kilogram or used broken instruments for which he spent his father's fortune? Did Gunston commented the other material from 1910 as well? For instance in Zeitschrift für Flugtechnik und Motorluftschiffahrt, Volume 1 by R. Oldenbourg. from 1910 the same value is given for "testing at stand" <<Es sei hierbei bemerkt, daß Coanda vor der Konstruktion seines Flugzeuges viele Versuche bezüglich der Form der Flügel angestellt hat ... denn mit einem 50 PS-Motor hat Coanda bei seinen Versuchen am Stand einen Zug von 220 kg erhalten.>>. I hope that Hans Adler can help us with the exact translation.

The sandbox is basically the same as the current article showing the side of the story based on twisted and unreliable references. So that is why I did not comment. I build a sandbox to become an article as well for this kind of mess created by you and Romaniantruths and you refused to even consider it.--Lsorin (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been to an exhibition; many of them. Halfway through the first day there is usually a 'buzz' about one or more of the displays. One of the indicators is a great mob of people around an exhibit, another indicator is people talking to each other in the aisles. I imagine that Oiseau sensed very quickly which aircraft was the most interesting to the attendees. It does not matter, though; we will not be able to put our personal conjecture into the Coanda-1910 article.

To doubt 220 kgf is Gunston's opinion, not mine. I am just guessing at how it might have gone wrong for Coanda. Perhaps the test stand results were not the same results that would have been obtained with the powerplant mounted on the aircraft... Whatever the case, my conjecture does not count, but that of Gunston does. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The last two entries are your personal opinions. So please keep them out of a neutral Encyclopedia.--Lsorin (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Random section break

Thanks for providing the lists. I have finally had some time to look at them in some depth. Obviously I could only look at what I have access to. Here is my opinion on the sources:

1. Article Jet engine in EB online: Excellent tertiary source, but does not directly say anything about the question. This is how good tertiary sources of this kind treat a topic if (1) they don't deem it important or if (2) there is enough uncertainty that they are not sure what to say, but mentioning the uncertainty doesn't seem right either.
   We can try to draw indirect conclusions from the article: (a) By taking the article's definition of a jet engine literally and combining it with other things we know for certain about Coandă's invention. (I am not sure how that is supposed to work in detail: The definition very clearly says "aircraft", so unless the Coandă-10 ever flew – which is precisely the core of the dispute – it's dubious whether it can be applied in the first place.) (b) By drawing conclusions from the fact that it does not mention the Coandă-10 and that it gives later dates for the development of jet engines and does not mention Coandă in this context. (Here the problem is that people may use slightly different definitions of jet engine that are basically equivalent nowadays but were not so when things were still being invented. Decisions about which part of a long process was the real breakthrough is can rarely be taken according to purely objective criteria.)
   Short version: When used strictly, the source is no help at all. Even if we allow original synthesis, the source can be used either way.
2. Coandă papers at the Smithsonian Institution. That's really two sources: (1) The papers themselves are a primary source. Being mostly from the 1950s, they are unlikely to provide any useful insight into what happened 40 years earlier. I think everybody agrees more or less about what Coandă claimed in the 1950s. (2) The database entry is a secondary source. Such entries are usually written by a librarian after a certain amount of research. Since they are doing it professionally, it should go through as a reliable source. However, evaluating Coandă's claim does not fall into the librarian's area of expertise. The librarian will not normally have done independent research on the question.
   Therefore: We don't have easy access to the papers, but even if they did we could only use them to fill in the details of an account primarily based on secondary and tertiary sources. The content of the database entry doesn't help either.
3. Gibbs-Smith, "The aeroplane: an historical survey of its origins and development", 1960. (Also a 1970 edition?? Might just be an error in Google Books.) Highly relevant scholarly book. I will discuss further down what it does/doesn't support.
4. Revue romaine des sciences techniques. Unfortunately Google only shows me snippets. (If someone has a complete version of the relevant pages I would be obliged if you could send me the file.) This is a scholarly source from 1968, saying plainly that the Coandă-10 is (or was) considered the first jet plane (avion à réaction), and that it flew 30 years before Whittel, Campini and Heinkel.
5. Winter, "Ducted Fan or the World's First Jet Plane? The Coanda claim re-examined", 1980. I will discuss further down what it does/doesn't support.
6. Stine, "The Rises and Falls of Henri-Marie Coanda", 1989. Highly relevant article by a respected expert, published in a specialist magazine. This makes it a scholarly source.
7. Grady, "The American aviation experience: a history", 2000. Relevant scholarly book. Supports the claim that the Coandă-10 flew and crashed.

More comments, especially on the most interesting sources, later. Meanwhile let me just say that it's clear from the sources that there is some genuine uncertainty and that our article must reflect that. It appears to me that the sources are not strongly contradicting each other. They seem to be mostly just stressing different aspects of what is known. Hans Adler 16:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A mass of books on early aviation were written by Gibbs-Smith, starting with The New Book of Flight in 1948 and A History of Flying in 1953. The 1960 book The Aeroplane: An historical survey of its origins and development was followed by a handful of titles, then in 1970 by the more widely cited Aviation: an historical survey from its origins to the end of World War II. The 1960 and 1970 books are the ones where he deals with Coanda's claims—the earlier one having the most detail. Both books describe Coanda's aircraft in much the same way, with no change of opinion evident. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Again you are manipulating the readers: "with no change of opinion evident". Please let the reads conclude by themselves what Gibbs-Smith wrote. From his conclusion in 1960:

<<There can be no doubt that the important source quoted in the [November] 1956 article [in Royal Air Force Flying Review] was either indulging in a friendly leg-pull, or was suffering from a faulty memory. However, the 'jet' Coanda was certainly remarkable in its way, and deserves a somewhat modest place amongst the ingenious ideas that were unworkable in practice.>> – Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith (1960). The Aeroplane: An Historical Survey of Its Origins and Development, pages 220–221. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

to the one in 1970:

At least I can see the use of "reaction propulsion unit" which translates to "(airbreathing) reaction engine"=jet engine and the removal of the quotes around the jet term. Did he forgot them?

<<it was equipped with a reaction propulsion unit consisting of a 5o-hp Clerget engine driving a large ducted fan in front of it... Although inevitably unsuccessful, this aircraft stands as the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane.>> – Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith (1970). Aviation: an historical survey from its origins to the end of World War II, page 156. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.--Lsorin (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no significant difference in the way Gibbs-Smith presents the 1910 aircraft. He is equally dismissive in both books. Binksternet (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, keep your personal options for yourself. This is a neutral Wikipedia where the editors decide what Gibbs-Smith wrote in both accounts and his neutrality and expertize in the field, especially Coanda. I already analyzed the 1960 entry in the talk page without comments from you. I can do the same for 1970.--Lsorin (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Another discussion is ongoing in this talk page where basically the Wikipedia expert commented on Winter's account: "the first full-scale reactive-propelled machine" is plainly wrong. Such comment from an Wikipedia expert renders the Winter's account wrong or irrelevant for Coanda-1910.--Lsorin (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet: thanks for the clarification concerning the Gibbs books. I missed the difference of titles. Both of you: Sorry for being a bit slow. Strictly speaking, I have already done my part of what you can expect from the reliable sources noticeboard. However, now that I have started reading about this stuff, which I confess I am still not particularly interested in, I am planning to get involved and discuss possible ways to improve the article on the talk page. I suggest that we wait until Binksternet has received the missing source or the article has been unprotected, and that we also take all discussions that are not directly related to whether a specific publication is or is not a reliable source to another place. Hans Adler 12:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Walter J. Boyne is one of the most reliable source which i didnt see yet mentioned here, and he state too that Coanda-1910 was a "primitve jet" who either fly or crashed (http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2006/January%202006/0106engines.aspx), and he say this in all his books where he cover the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.230.155.42 (talk • contribs)

Sure, Boyne is a good source. The problem I have with your link is that everybody who thinks the Coanda-1910 flew also thinks it crashed and burned. Boyne is the only person in the world who seems to separate those who think it flew from those who think it crashed, in this pair of sentences appearing in an Air Force Magazine article: "Countless loyal Coanda fans insist that the airplane flew. Others say it merely crashed." This pair of sentences does not present its null set conclusion in any other Boyne work, especially in his books which would be under greater editorial oversight than a magazine article. Me, I think the sentences do not work together, and that Boyne would have fixed the problem had it been brought to his attention. I know if I were his editor, I would have pushed back against these two magazine sentences, making him rewrite them to make sense.

Boyne in his books mostly writes about air power and military air history, so naturally the non-military Coanda-1910 gets very little 'ink':

• Air warfare: an international encyclopedia, Volume 1. Boyne mentions Coanda only in passing, as one of Gianni Caproni's friends: "...by building a glider with his friend, Henri Coanda."
• The Jet Age: Forty Years of Jet Aviation. No mention of Coanda.
• The Leading Edge. Boyne mentions Coanda only in passing: "The Caproni Campini followed the general idea of the Coanda in using a piston engine to drive a variable-pitch, ducted fan compressor."
• The Smithsonian book of Flight. No mention of Coanda.
• Flight, by Time-Life Books. No mention of Coanda.
• Classic Aircraft. No mention of Coanda.

As you can see, Boyne does not have a lot to offer about Henri Coanda in his books, mentioning the engine only once, as an influence on the Caproni Campini, calling the engine a "ducted fan compressor". Books of the sort listed above are higher level references than a magazine article. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(It has been pointed out to me that Boyne's seemingly null set sentences might divide people into these two groups: those who think he flew and crashed, and those who think he taxied and crashed. There are, of course, those such as Gibbs-Smith and Winter who think he did not ever test the vehicle at all; a group Boyne does not mention in his magazine article.) Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Coanda-1910 sources: JPGs as references

An edit warring, IP-hopping editor from Romania keeps inserting the following image URLs into the article about Henri Coandă, saying that they are from the "Museum of Technology 'Dimitire Leonida' where part of Coanda archive is kept". I wonder what other editors think of these:

1. http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7099030/4/aerodina-1932.jpg
2. http://www.agentia.org/img_editor/userfiles/image/Coanda/coanda%20foto%202.jpg
3. http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7099030/3/aerodina-1956.jpg
4. http://www.agentia.org/img_editor/userfiles/image/Coanda/farfuria%20planuri%20coanda%20foto%204.jpg
5. http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7099030/5/aerodina-1961-1965.jpg
6. http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7099030/7/aerodina.jpg

Are these images at all useful as references? Can they be used as "External links" instead? Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

These are clearly primary sources and as such not very useful for the article. (See WP:PSTS.) They are still under copyright. If they were not, they could serve as an illustration that in his later years Henri Coandă tried to develop a flying saucer, but only if this claim could be sourced otherwise (with a secondary or tertiary source).

Whether the links can be used as external links depends primarily on whether they are likely copyright violations. Even if they are not, we should not have a list of links to individual pictures. A link to a gallery might be OK, though. Hans Adler 15:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, these aren't even exactly primary sources. The 1932 jpg. ia actually a pieced together montage of several images from different eras. The mushroom (pilz) shaped thing is a 1930's Coanda patent for a Stationary propeller which is often represented as a flying saucer because it has that saucer shape. However it is an object which was meant to replace the prop of a conventional aircraft. The patent is available on espanet, I'll post it here later.Romaniantruths (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Those images are most interesting, but they all appear to relate to Coanda's later work on the "flying saucer" (efficient production of lift via a large massflow of low-speed air, using entrapment around a lenticular bbody by means of the Coanda effect). This does not appear, nor have I seen it claimed hereabouts, that his 1910 aircraft made use of the Coanda effect.

There is a claim that he first noticed the eponymous effect in relation to his aircraft, but that doesn't make these drawings relevant to the 1910 aircraft. You could make as much of a claim about my teapot. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• those images are not related with Coanda-1910, but are part of article about Henri Coanda and his all inventions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.230.155.42 (talk • contribs)

These images show up in the Henri Coanda article in references to claims that he built a jet powered flying saucer for the nazis. The poster asserts that it failed the wind-tunnel tests because the 12 jet engines it needed (Jumos, I think)were not available as they were needed for jet fighters. Why working jet engines would be needed for wind-tunnel tests, he doesn't say.

The Large Image in the first jpg dates to a 1938 patent [5] for a Coanda effect propeller. I believe the other images are of a much later vintage(I'd be willing to give great odds that They post-date June 24, 1947 [Kenneth Arnold]if anyone wants to wager). It is true that Coanda made announcements during the 50's and 60's about a flying saucer craft he was working on that would be incredibly cheap and have an amazing performance envelope. It was the Moller flying car of it's day (if you know what I mean). Romaniantruths (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• the images show up as a overall inventions of Coanda, not (necessary) related with any Nazi flying saucer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.230.155.42 (talk • contribs)

The images appear to me to be unsupportable as references or external links because they are collages of many different images. One is a snapshot of a museum display, but has no encyclopedic explanation associated with it. I continue to believe that these image URLs have no place in Coanda articles. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper article about overturn of a conviction

Related to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Lester_Coleman_request_for_comment and Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#How_to_find_a_record_of_a_sealed_conviction

A man named Lester Coleman entered a guilty plea in a perjury trial and received a sentence and a fine.

A British newspaper reported that his conviction had been overturned: "Court clears Lockerbie claim agent, Marcello Mega, The Sunday Times, 13 June 1999, Scotland News 6" It stated:

"A FORMER American intelligence officer convicted of perjury after

alleging United States complicity in the Lockerbie bombing has been

cleared by a court of appeal.

Lester Coleman, who was convicted of perjury last year, had the verdict

overturned last month. He is living with his wife and three children in

Kentucky and in the past few days has launched an action for $10m

against the American government.

Three judges issued a sealed ruling, an unusual step which means that

not even Coleman and his lawyers can read why they quashed his

conviction. Reporting restrictions also ensured the case received little

attention in the United States."

I cannot find any other newspapers, American or British, that talk about his conviction being overturned.

In another thread another user said "A Google search for the author of that story, Marcello Mega, indicates that he has something of a fondness for fringe theories concerning the Lockerbie incident, as in this story."

The article does exist, because http://www.newsint-archive.co.uk/pages/free.asp is the database, and the article can be found if you input the following:

I set the search times from 1 May 1999 to 1 August 1999.

"Lockerbie" is the search term

If I do not find any other sources about this, what should I do? I want to find a database I can use to check to see if Marcello Mega is telling the truth about the overturn of Coleman's conviction. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a glitch in the search page, you cannot go back with the "Back" button if your search fails (damned Javascript). You first have to refresh the search page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The conviction is a fact about a BLP subject that has very strong negative implications. The article from 1999 strongly undermines this, but is questionable in itself. If this is really the full information, then it is probably best to just state without any comment that the Sunday Times reported in 1999 that the conviction had been overturned. It would be totally unacceptable to leave such information out of the article, but on the other hand if it was not widely reported that's suspicious. Without further research we can't do more than alert readers to the problem. Hans Adler 10:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In this case I put on User:WhisperToMe/Coleman that the newspaper reported that this was the case.

Without any other articles saying that his conviction was overturned, I feel suspicious about the article.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I found an article on the Lexington Herald-Leader.

"EX-FEDERAL AGENT SENTENCED FOR CHECK FRAUD TERM IS PROBATED BUT DEFENDANT ALSO FACES U.S. PERJURY CONVICTION." Lexington Herald-Leader. April 11, 2000. - This says that his perjury conviction was still in effect, and "He will be transferred to federal custody because he is wanted for parole violations" - This also answers the question of why he was released in 2000.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I would love to see more sources on this. But, as the Times article states, the court imposed reporting restrictions on the case. It is therefore to be expected that US newspapers would not cover the story. Reporting restrictions do exist in the real world. Believe or not, I have even had my blog censored because of restrictions imposed by a Finnish court. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if every single US newspaper could not cover the story or decided not to cover the story, there are also Canadian, British, Australian, etc. etc. newspapers.

Remember that Verifiability, not truth, is the criterion for inclusion. If it cannot be verified for certain that the ruling was sealed, then we cannot say with certainty that the ruling was sealed.

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Petri, we don't have that in the United States. Here, a judge will sometimes seal records or issue a gag order on persons involved in a court case. But that doesn't prevent the press from doing their own research. It's more likely the British press was simply more interested in the issue. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Squid: that particular Marcello Mega article said "Reporting restrictions also ensured the case received little attention in the United States." - So if reporting restrictions like that do not happen in the United States, then the article is not stating the truth. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that could be just a little hyperbole resulting from viewing the American gag order through a British lens, or it could be a generalization of if something was said to one or two media outlets, or if the media had trouble getting access. I wouldn't toss out the "overturned" based on this, as that may still be accurate so we'd still be remiss to leave it out of the biography. Just attribute as "London's Sunday Times reported...." and leave out the "reporting restrictions" language. I would also suggest not using this as an example in the reporting restrictions article as this is just a passing mention in an article about something else. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In my draft at User:WhisperToMe/Coleman I'll take out the "reporting restrictions" bit but I will keep in the bit about overturned. I'm waiting for some resource requests from a Kentucky newspaper (Lexington Herald-Leader) to be fulfilled. Maybe this will help determine or clarify things, because the newspaper articles discuss the state charges, Coleman serving time in the federal prison system, and a few other legal issues involving the State of Kentucky's justice system. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I searched a pretty large commercial news database (Factiva) without finding any mention of Coleman's perjury conviction being overturned. Actually, isn't it a bit peculiar that someone would plead guilty (as Coleman did) and then appeal against the resulting conviction? He would have to somehow prove that his plea was coerced, or something like that, wouldn't he? Zero^talk 06:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I find that peculiar too. In the USA usually people who plead guilty to a non-death penalty case do not appeal.

And in order for a conviction to be overturned, one has to appeal first. Where are the news articles saying he appealed?

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact he makes a case that he was coerced. Many reliable (per WP:RS) sources believe in his version of events. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What does "many" mean? I know Lester Coleman says to media sources and/or writes in his book "I was coerced" but in order for it to matter legally, he has to file an appeal. Without an appeal, he gets no possibility of an overturning.

In addition:

A user who writes at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_October_10#How_to_find_a_record_of_a_sealed_conviction points out:

"I just want to note that there is, from a legal perspective, a HUGE difference between enjoining publication of the press (very hard to do under US law because of the First Amendment) vs. the release of court documents (something that is more common, though it is usually not the ruling that is sealed, but evidence and depositions often are). In general the US government (especially the courts and Congress, less so the Executive Branch) has lots of methods and legal recourse to keep internal secrets, but very limited powers to regulate information outside of the government. These are legally very different scenarios and should not be confused. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)"

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable sources: Daily Mail and Fox News

Neither the Daily Mail nor Fox News have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, and therefore, I propose that they do no meet the criteria for a reliable source at this time. For the most recent example, please see Niall Firth's October 1 article in the Daily Mail.[6] This article appears to be a complete distortion of a news article that appeared over a year ago in The Australian on May 9, 20009.[7] At the time, Gliese 581 e had just been discovered and announced on April 21, 2009. The May 9 article in The Australian covered this announcement and mentioned Ragbir Bhathal, an astrophysicist at the University of Western Sydney who detected a putative signal while performing a SETI search. Although the story doesn't go into specifics as to where Bhathal's signal came from, a quick bit of fact checking shows that Bhathal reported in April 2009 that previously, in December 2008, he found a signal from the direction of 47 Tucanae.[8] Although there was no relation between Gliese 581 e and Bhathal's signal, The Australian mentions him in a discussion of SETI astronomers and the hunt for Earth-like exoplanets. Firth of the Daily Mail decided to recycle this story when the discovery of Gliese 581 g was announced, but instead of paying attention to the facts laid out by The Australian, Firth claimed Bhathal's signal came from Gliese 581, even though the original article in The Australian never said this. As I said above, a quick fact check shows that Bhathal's signal came from Tucana, not from Libra, where Gliese 581 is located. However, this didn't stop Fox News from repeating the same false claims a week later.[9] If these two media outlets cannot be bothered to check their facts for accuracy, how can we consider them reliable, especially for claims about Ragbir Bhathal, a living person? Looking at this objectively, we see that Bhathal never made the claims the Daily Mail says he did, and that the most recent Fox News article not only repeats the same claims, but appears to engage in character assassination. Why these two news outlets have chosen to spread false rumors about Ragbir Bhathal is anyone's guess, but because these sources cannot be trusted, Wikipedia should not use them. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the Daily Mail, but the Fox News source came from space.com, I seen New York Times and history books from highly respectable publishers with inaccurate information. It doesn't means it's not a reliable source. Secret ^account 02:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It's now a wire story being repeated by media outlets all over the world.[10] This is the same thing they did with the Climatic Research Unit controversy. One media source releases bogus information, and the others join in and reprint it. Reliable sources have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. It took me approximately one minute to discover that Bhathal never claimed to detect a signal from Gliese 581.[11] But the media isn't letting a little thing like facts get in the way. That's not right. Reliable sources do not report made up stories invented from the imagination of a journalist. If these sources can't be relied upon to report the facts, then we can't be expected to call them reliable. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Love to know how Fox gets the feed from space.com, which is the source of the article. Fox may just have a reprint agreement with Space.com where their articles get added automatically. Ravensfire (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't space.com fact checking their sources? They even say, "there are some scientists who are skeptical of Bhathal's assertion." That's interesting, since Bhathal never said or asserted it. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Even "reliable" sources do get fooled by urban legends and hoaxes. http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp from Snopes says "Nonetheless, a number of news publications (including the staid Economist) were taken in by the hoax — some mistakenly citing the information as having come from the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, or even IQ and the Wealth of States — and published portions of the chart, and discussed it as if it were valid. (A similar hoax about presidential IQs produced similar media-fooling results back in 2001.)." Yes, even the Economist can get fooled into publishing a hoax. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps what I wrote wasn't clear. Nobody was fooled. The journalist for the Daily Mail made the story up. And other sources, without doing any fact checking, repeated the same made up story. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to how other sources were reprinting the hoax without checking. That scenario has happened many times. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In 2010, I'm having trouble envisioning how it could happen. A journalist working for a middle market tabloid newspaper made up stuff about Ragbir Bhathal. Why would any reliable source reprint it without first asking Bhathal for his opinion? No, I can't see any reason for this kind of shoddy reporting. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The full story: Ragbir Bhathal did not find a pulse laser Gliese 581 g - the media mess up again. original article:

October 4, 2010 23:26. Yes, we discovered a laser look

alike signal but not from Gliese. It was from the region of Tucanae. Despite searching for it for quite sometime we have not seen it again. We have placed a BIG QUESTION mark against it.

The search for laser signals from outer space continues. Cheers. Ragbir

Now the media will correct their mistakes, right? Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

TL,DR. I don't know who this person you're referring to is, but bringing up one story out of the millions that Fox has run to make a case as to why we should never use it at all doesn't fly. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What other reliable sources do this? Does Fox have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? Not according to academic studies on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not at all fond of Fox News, keep in mind that pretty much all newspapers and non-specialist TV channels are woeful when it comes to scientific stories. When I read a scientific article in the paper I usually find it safe to start by assuming that it contains at least one major error of fact. (There are some exceptions to this - long articles are more likely to have been written by somebody with a clue.) This is why our guidelines on RSs already deprecate the use of popular-press sources for scientific claims. If you want to argue that Fox News should be considered unreliable in general, probably best to look for examples outside science to make your point. --GenericBob (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

All things considered, both are WP:RS. Every source may be "wrong" but that is not what WP:RS refers to - it refers principally to the ability of anyone to verify that what is in a claim is what is in the reference given for the claim and that the source is recognized as being under editorial controls, and is not "self-published" stuff. This has nothing to do with the side issue about "scientific issues" where even science journals make it very difficult to figure out precisely what is being claimed. Errors have been found in the New York Times, The Times, and every single newspaper or radio/tv source that exists. That has nothing to do with WP:RS however. As for the conspiracy theorists "that is the same thing they did" - that sort of argument has naught to do with WP:RS either. This noticeboard is not for cavils about "errors" or "conspiracies" or "them" -- it is for determining whether a given source is RS under the WP definition of RS. Collect (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry. The core of the RS policy is that reliable sources have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Editorial control can be one method for fact-checking and ensuring accuracy, but it is neither sufficient nor necessary. 21st Century Science and Technology no doubt has strict editorial control, as does the Korean Central News Agency, but that does not make either of them remotely reliable. Alternatively, experts can have a good track record for fact-checking and accuracy, even if they self-publish their results. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And both indeed have fact checking and accuracy, roughly the same as other news media. The silly comparison to the DPRK is inanae, and does not help WP in any way. Meanwhile "self published sources" are strongly discouraged in any field on WP. Vide :

All users are reminded that as stated in the verifiability policy and reliable source guideline, blogs and self-published sources in any media may be used as references only in very limited circumstances, typically articles about the blog or source itself. Neither blogs nor self-published sources may be used as sources of material about living people unless the material has been published by the article's subject (in which case special rules apply).

Collect (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Daily Mail has come up before and has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It's a mid-market paper and RS refers to "especially newspapers at the quality end of the market". I don't see any reason to doubt its reliability on everyday news. Its science reporting has come under particular fire, though, especially in relation to medical articles. The Daily Express is similar.Itsmejudith (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Collect, I think Stephan was referring to this part of WP:SPS: "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." For instance, I'd have no hesitation in citing Edward Tufte's self-published books on visual design. --GenericBob (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be mistaken, regarding motivations. see WP:ARBCC. There are specific references to this sort of referencing discussed here. Horologium (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Horologium, was that a response to my comment? If it was, I didn't understand it - could you elaborate a bit? --GenericBob (talk) 06:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

GenericBob—Yes, I was responding to you. The dispute above seems to be spillover from the arbitration case I linked to above; a couple of the people who are attempting to delegitimize Fox News in favor of self-published blogs from experts have been doing the same thing on climate change articles, even when it contravenes our BLP policy. Horologium (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now I get it. Thanks for the clarification. --GenericBob (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Fox has been discussed a lot previously. It's undoubtedly a news source, albeit one known to be partial in certain things. My view is that things should be looked at on a case by case basis to divine if Fox is realiable to source the material in question. For example, if they say that it rained heavily in Sarah Palin's rally I see no reason to consider them unreliable. If they say that Obama is incompetent, I wouldn't use them to source that. --Dailycare (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

is Allmusic.com a reliable source?

I just added it to One Step Closer (Linkin Park song) and I'm wondering if it qualifies as reliable. Thanks, Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 10:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It says "The AMG editorial staff, along with hundreds of expert contributors (all music fanatics in their own right)" on the about page for that site, making me think it's has user submitted content similar to Discogs, and DIscogs is not a reliable source. I would wait for more opinions though. It does say it has an editorial staff, so I'm not sure which content is the editor content and which is the user submitted content. Devourer09 (t·c) 14:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

AllMusic is mentioned here as an acceptable link for record reviews, I don't if this extends to their general text. It's an important question to answer because the site is referenced a lot. I'd also like to know if DigitalMusicDoor.com is considered reliable. I posted this question last week and got no responses. IHeardFromBob (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor podcasts with famous people interviews as sources

Okay, let's say some writer or actor is interviewed at a convention and he talks about his script or character - for instance Michael McConnohie said in a recorded interview that the voice he did as Cosmos on the Transformers was inspired by the voice of Peter Lorre. Now the podcast that broadcast this was just some fan site, probably not that notable, but the actual actor said it to all those people who were present. Can this be sited, and how would you site this? Do you just ignore the "podcast" and report "he said this" at the convention? Do you add a link to the podcast as proof? Thanks in advance for any advice. Mathewignash (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Nitpicking, interview probably isn't the word you want. You might say "Speaking at whateverconventionitwas, McConnohie said that ...". Interview sounds more like a 1-1 chat than a Q&A session at a convention. But yes, just make it clear it is something that they said themselves and add a reference that has a link to the podcast. The only thing to be careful with about this kind of source - McConnohie speaking ad-lib - is to only use it as a source for what he thinks about himself and his actions, rather than for anything more controversial. The only person who really knows if he based a character on Peter Lorre is him, so he's by far the best source for that kind of thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, what of someone said something at a convention panel, and the only "proof" you have is a youtube (or similar video page) video an individual made of apanel? Do you still just quote that "at XXX the actor said YYY" then do you link to the youtube video to back up the claim? Mathewignash (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

yes... That is how you would attribute and cite it... however... there are a separate set of questions when it comes to citing youtube videos. A lot depends on who uploaded the video to Youtube... Did they have permission to do so (a copyrite issue)... can we be sure that they did not edit or manipulate the video in some way. Generally, unless we know these things we should avoid using youtube. Some Youtube videos can be used...others can't. I do not know what category the video you are talking about would fall into. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In terms of YouTube there is a policy in place WP:YOUTUBE Dwanyewest (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, for instance, a public panel at a convention interviewing a voice actor or Hasbro exec, asking them a question, and the person answers. Is that useable? Mathewignash (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have a specific example in mind, could you provide a link? I'm not sure that there is any substantial difference between a video such as you describe and a youtube video, in that the same questions regarding authenticity and verifiability would apply. Given the ability of folks to edit video, I think caution in this area would be advised. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Register article on physicist's resignation from the American Physical Society

Physicist Harold Lewis resigned from the American Physical Society recently, in protest over what he calls the "appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change." The Register reported his resignation here, and I added this cite to Lewis's Wikibio diff, replacing an earlier cite to a blog. The originally posted copy of Lewis's letter appears to be here, and his protest resignation has received considerable notice, for example this blog lists six newspapers carrying the story online. The Register's story appears to me to be the best quality of the lot, and is written by the only reporter who apparently contacted Lewis for comments.

Editor William M. Connolley reverted, commenting "happily, all that has to go - el rego isn't an RS". I asked him to specify his objections here and here, but he hasn't yet replied.

This diff is an accurate quote of Lewis's letter (though the selection could be improved), and this Register story is (to my eye) better-than-average journalism.

Can this Register article be considered a Reliable Source for Lewis's resignation? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note archived discussion, which is on topic, but may not be conclusive enough.--SPhilbrickT 17:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw it earlier, but thought it was old and inconclusive. (I probably should have referenced it, but I'm new at this; first RS/N  ;-)) Since then, the Register has become more active in reporting & commenting on environmental news. What I've seen of that has been respectable. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Just don't use it as a source on Wikipedia itself...--Daggerstab (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Register is definitely an RS for computer security and privacy issues, and I'd support citing it alonside other sources if the Register went into the most detail on this resignation letter. But anyway, it looks like the editing has moved past that point, and the article now cites multiple secondary and primary sources for discussion of the letter. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, though I may add the Register article back as a cite, if it still seems appropriate. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• just in the future always note that the Register as a source will almost always be reverted on sight mainly due to their articles attacking Wikipedia. Thus it is largely distrusted regardless of whether its relaible or not. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Which appears fairly ridiculous to those editors who had been reading The Register for professional reasons years before WP came along. It's true that they love to skewer sacred cows ( the iPhone is another ), but that, or having a picture of a buzzard on the cover doesn't make them non-RS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Fringe Freemasonry?

Is there any reason to consider the Zoser Research Society even remotely reliable for statements about African-American Freemasonry? It seems to be mostly focused promoting two Fringe authors. Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No, they don't appear to meet WP:RS for any subject, much less something they are directly involved with promoting (i.e., they are not neutral for that). First Light (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks... issue resolved. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

DIPAS and Sterling Hospitals

Here are the links: http://www.sterlinghospitals.com/ and http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/labs/DIPAS/English/index.jsp?pg=homebody.jsp&labhits=710 .

Sterling Hospitals is a large organization, possessing official medical and scientific standard certifications, and who's work is supervised by various entities, including governmental ones. If it publishes something, it must be approved by various supervising bodies. The same goes for DIPAS, which is a governmental organization and a research facility. Its publications are approved by multiple supervisors before they appear on their official site. Please comment. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

For context - there has been some concern at Talk:Prahlad_Jani#Reminders that the article is using self-published, non-peer-reviewed sources to support exceptional claims about a living person (namely that research at Sterling Hospitals showed that a mystic was able to live healthily for several weeks without food or water). That the press releases are "supervised by various entities" and "approved by multiple supervisors" may not be enough to prevent them from being considered questionable self-published sources, particularly in relation to a BLP article. --McGeddon (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks, McGeddon. The correct talk link would probably be Talk:Prahlad_Jani#DIPAS_and_Sterling_Hospitals. And we are speaking about 15 days under supervision in laboratory environment in 2010, if people are too lazy to read it all in the Reminders. lol. -- Nazar (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with McGeddon. I also replied on the Prahlad Jani talkpage [12]. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I do appreciate your input, guys, I think we need some more neutral opinions here. Both McGeddon and Dr.K. are actively engaged into the article related argument and represent one of its sides. Namely, the skeptic one. -- Nazar (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

A self-publishing hospital is clearly not reliable enough for that kind of WP:REDFLAG claim. Hans Adler 13:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"The Numbers" as a source for budgets.

The website: http://www.the-numbers.com/
Data type: Film budgets
Article where issue as arisen: Resident Evil: Afterlife
Relevant discussion: Talk:Resident_Evil:_Afterlife#Budget

Background

The Numbers offers film information such as grosses, DVD sales, budgets etc and is increasingly being used as a source on film articles. The Wikipedia Film Project currently accept it as a source for box office data: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Resources#Box_office. There have been previous discussions where its reliability has been called into question, with no definitive outcome: [13]

Context

The issue has arisen in the discussion at the Afterlife page that it should be the preferred source for the budget, because it offers a more precise amount ($57.5 million) ahead of the more widely quoted figure of $60 million (The NY Times—"about $60 million";the LA Times—"nearly $60 million"). Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and The Wrap all carry the $60 million figure too.

Concern

The ambiguous statements of the LA Times and New York Times are certainly consistent with The Numbers, in that $57.5 million could quite easily be "about $60 million" or "nearly $60 million", but they don't back up the figure directly. Nearly $60 million could just as easily be $59 million. My problem with The Numbers is that it has form for misquoting its budget sources. In many instances it simply doesn't give sources for budgets, but here are a few examples of it misquoting the sources it does give for some of its budgets:

Robin Hood ($210 million). Quotes the New York Times which says "...more than $200 million..." [14]
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen ($210 million). Quotes Variety that says "north of $200 million" [15]
Disney's A Christmas Carol ($190 million). Quotes the LA Times which says "nearly $200-million" [16]
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button ($160 million). Quotes the The Hollywood Reporter which says "...at least $150 million..." and Variety which says "$150 million-$170 million" [17]

It seems to draw from secondary sources, and what's worse is that it seems to make up its own numbers. At least in the cases quoted readers can clearly see its misquoting information, but there is a danger that in the cases it doesn't provide sources its estimates will be regarded as factually correct.

My view

The website clearly doesn't seem to have primary sources when it comes to budget information so draws on previously published information. It is demonstrably unreliable when it comes to publishing information from its various sources, so I don't think it should considered as a reliable source for budget information. Betty Logan (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Other views

There is quite appreciable evidence that no numbers are accurate (vide the number of lawsuits about what are, or are not, "net profits.") Where it is clear that studios do not accurately know how much a film cost, there is no reason to dispute any figures at all, as long as readers are informed that all figures are "estimates" of some sort. Collect (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That isn't actually the issue at hand. Estimates in this capacity are qualified as "expert opinion" and are permitted on Wikipedia—the question is over which sources are legitimate for reporting such opinion. The New York Times is valid for reporting such estimates, but me publishing the same estimate on my own persornal blog isn't. My contention isn't that it is not reliable because it simply offers different numbers, but because it presents numbers that contradict the sources it gives which calls its fact checking policy into question. Betty Logan (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

From what I have seen, the NYT is no more authoritative than, say, Rotten Tomatoes is. All such estimates are pure guesses especially since court cases have shown that the studios do not even know costs. There are, essentially, no "facts" which can be checked. No "primary sources" exist. None. Collect (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times is a reliable source for reporting, which is what RS addresses. RS does not address accuracy. For instance, the NY Times can be trusted to accurately report a viewpoint by a medical professional. The validity of that opinion comes to down to the expertise and qualifications of that professional—which is a separate issue—and it has no impact on the NY Times as a reliable source, so what you are saying in regards to the NY Times is not correct. The movie industry doesn't release budget statements, but there are industry writers who report estimates. It is not Wikipedia's job to decide who is qualified to make those estimates, and therefore not our place to say which estimates are valid or not—just like it's not our place to decide what is a valid medical opinion or not—since that is determined by the esteem in which that person is placed by their field, so I'll pose the question again: is The Numbers a reliable source for publishing legitimate industry estimates? Betty Logan (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Iranica

A new article on an academic journal called Iranshenasi was created today. The only source given is an article in the Encyclopaedia Iranica. Looking at the page About Iranica the source seems reputable enough. However, when I read the article about Iranshenasi, things get more problematic. The style and wording are such that this article would not survive for 5 minutes on WP... Lots of peacock and weasel words, nothing sourced. I put refimprove and notability tags on the article, but they have been removed twice now by the article's creator. If EI is accepted as an RS, then I guess Iranshenasi might squeak by our notability standards, but otherwise I think it should go to AfD. (I have looked for other sources -even a homepage of the journal- but have found none; however, that is immaterial to the discussion here). --Crusio (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

My comment: The editor of the journal is 80+ old and from what I know, he is probably not computer literate. But i do recall seeing a website some years ago, however the website is in Persian. I would have to do a google search for it, except that the word Iranshenasi is very popular in Persian. So that argument is not really a good argument (Wikipedia does not require a website). The writer of the article in Iranica is Abbas Milani who is a Professot at Stanford [18]. I have provided more refences to the citation of the journal itself.

Also I am not sure why Crusio deleted: "The founding editor in chief was Jalal Matini. The journal is published in Persian (with a small English section) and covers Iranian history, Persian culture, and Persian literature.. Among its board members (past and present) one can mention Peter Chelkowski, Roger Savory, Zabiollah Safa. Ehsan Yarshater, Heshamt Moayyad and Djalal Khaleqi Motlaq."

Also the journal is well counted in google books [19] despite being in Persian. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• As far as I can see from the article history, I did not delete the first part of the statement that you cite ("The founding ... Persian literature"). I did delete the second part of that statement (editorial board members) according to long standing practice in articles about academic journals. As for the website, of course that is not a requirement for an article in WP. I was looking for it because it often provides helpful clues when looking for sources on a subject. I included the fact that I didn't find one here to stress the importance of the question whether the blurb-like article in Encyclopaedia Iranica constitutes an RS or not, as it currently is the only source available. --Crusio (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If its claims of peer review and invatation only are true (as well as its other claims of accademic quality) then its RS, no matter how an article is writen. It can be assume sthat its writen (again assuming its claims are true) by an expert in the field and has been peer reiwed (unless tey invite non experts to write artciels).Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

@slatersteven:. The article is written by an expert [[20]] in the field. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

@Crusio: The article is a not blurb. However, if you need other citations for the journal [21] [22]. Also the article is written by a Full Professor at Stanford [23]. "Important articles on the Shahnameh and related topics have been published in the periodical Iranshenasi in Persian, but with an English resume."[24].. and etc. Note also again the journal is in Persian, so you should not expect quadrlion citations but the amount is still impressive in google books. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Given this its RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree. Several fringe science journals are peer-reviewed, too, so that is not the all and only (I'm not saying EI is a fringe thing, of course, just that referees are not the only thing). I just find the article on this journal in EI overly laudatory. The WP article is reflecting this, too. I'd appreciate some more opinions of other editors here. --Crusio (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• • This can be a problem. Even peer reviewed articles are not always RS, just as not every book by an established publisher is automatically a reliable source. I certainly don't think that it can be used for the claim about its authoritativeness. Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Is a paper (possible blog) by a psychiatrist valid regarding old claims regarding dentistry?

Over on the Weston Price I have been trying to balance a claim made by Stephen Barrett (Stay Away from "Holistic" and "Biological" Dentists) using a November 3. 1933 paper presented by Charles F. Bodecker, D.D.S. laboratory of Histo-pathology, Columbia University School of Dental and Oral Surgery, New York called "Metabolic Disturbance in Relation to the Teeth" which cites then contemporary article from Journal Dental Research, Science, Journal Dental Research, British Med. Journal, British Dental Journal, and the Journal American Dental Association to show that Weston Price wasn't the one lone nut Barrett implies him to be.

I even added more modern sources (Ensminger, Audrey H. (1994) Foods & nutrition encyclopedia: Volume 1 CRC Press, Page 546; Chernoff, Ronni (2006) Geriatric nutrition: the health professional's handbook Jones & Bartlett Learning, Page 193) to show the ideas presented in this old paper are not entirely out of date and we have WP:NPOV and WP:OR tag being put on those claims rather than the Barrett claim. I have even found two reliable references that show that Barrett's claim "This "focal infection" theory led to needless extraction of millions of endodontically treated teeth until well-designed studies, conducted during the 1930s, demonstrated that the theory was not valid" (citing a 1951 and a 1982 article) to be in error.

The 2009 Textbook of Endodontology by Gunnar Bergenholtz, Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit putlich by Wiley page 136 states that the focal infection theory never really died and Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188 states: "It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas,..."

Now in the light of all this can Barrett be considered a reliable source?--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I might be inclined to look into this, but you are not writing very clearly. Perhaps you can rework the description of the problem, taking in mind that the kind of readers you expect here have no prior knowledge of the conflict and can easily be confused by overly terse formulations or unclear sentence structure. (Feel free to remove this comment.) Hans Adler 18:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, BruceGrubb's concerns need to be made clearer.

A review of similar RSN discussions would also be helpful: Search for "Stephen Barrett" at the top of this page. From what I see, Quackwatch and the related sites run by Barrett have been repeatedly found to be reliable sources for skeptical viewpoints on a range of alt-med and fringe-med topics. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Barrett's article is it's main thrust is regarding Holistic and Biological Dentists with only three paragraphs on Price with only the one regarding focal infection theory having any references and as shown by the above even that statement is suspect. Furthermore I have found out via the link provided that Price's book was originally published via Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers so you would assume (or at least hope) some form of peer reviewing was going on there.

Barrett's own Biographical Sketch page on quackwatch.com states despite having honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association and teaching health education at Pennsylvania State University for two years that he is a "retired psychiatrist" so evidently even he doesn't consider himself a nutritionist.

Furthermore right in Price's own book is a forward by Earnest A. Hooton of Harvard University which in part states "A quantity of excellent evidence has been amassed which indicates that dental caries is, to a great extent, connected with malnutrition and with deficient diets." Now this totally flies in the face of Barrett's statement "he ignored the fact that malnourished people don't usually get many cavities." Ok, how does that work?

In short, in terms of Holistic and Biological Dentists Barrett's article as a whole is reasonably sound but the information on Price has major problems--most of the claims are not sourced and the one point that is appears to be in error likely because the source material used is so out of date.

"This is why the dental and medical communities are cautiously reconsidering the biological plausibility of the 'focal infection' theory." Henderson, Brian; Michael Curtis, Robert Seymour (2009) Periodontal Medicine and Systems Biology, Wiley; Page 33)--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Barrett is a good debunker and a useful pointer to the scientific standing of theories. But it should usually be possible to find better sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that WP:SPS is quite explicit regarding the use of such self-published sources as Barrett: In some circumstances, self-published material may 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(sic).

The biggest problem is the lack of reference to all of Barrett's nutritional claims regarding Price's research. If there is one thing I still remember from my research days is that is better to overcite claim then to undercite but in this section there is nothing. So where are these claims coming from?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Barrett & Co. are technically reliable sources (sometimes borderline cases when things are just published on the web), but generally not of a very high quality so far as scientific claims are concerned. Citing them in spite of the often relatively poor quality of their research and the mixing of fact and opinion is a necessary evil for some topics because they are often the only sources addressing a fringe topic from something remotely like a mainstream POV. But ultimately there is very little difference between something that Barrett publishes on his website and the climate change denial on a "conservative" blog. Both must be taken with some care and are automatically trumped by better sources, where available.

One problem with Barrett is that apparently he lives in a world that only has black and white – no colours and no shades of grey: Holistic dentists are charlatans and cite Price as an authority, so Price must have been a charlatan. Price was a charlatan, so everything he did must have been wrong. Everything he did was wrong anyway, so it's OK to say so without any further research (which would of course be a waste of time). That's the problem with debunking: In contrast to scientific discourse it's all about the one and only true "scientific" belief rather than facts.

Barrett may be an expert on modern fringe theories, but he is certainly not an expert on the history of dentistry. E.g. I doubt very strongly that when Barrett says "Price also performed poorly designed studies [...]" he means what a qualified scholar would mean by that: That Price, who died in 1948, performed studies that were poorly designed for his time. I am not even sure that Barrett checked whether the studies were up to modern standards. Much more likely "poorly designed" is just his way of saying he doesn't agree with the results. That's much more in line with Barrett's thoroughly unobjective writing style. Hans Adler 22:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

To say it very clearly: An article about a leading dental researcher who died in 1945 is an article about dental/medical history, not a fringe article. Barrett (i.e. things self-published by him without any editorial overview) is to some extent a reliable source on fringe. He is not a reliable source on dental history. Barrett has an extreme POV that makes it necessary to be careful even about what he says in the field of fringe. This extreme POV obviously affects how he treats this historical topic: He is mistaking what appears to be a perfectly legitimate stage in the history of mainstream dentistry (whether it was an error or not) with fringe. Hans Adler 23:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Hans. The criticism section doesn't really belong in the entry. It isn't relevant to Price, but to contemporary holistic dentistry.Griswaldo (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I never heard of "holistic dentistry" (sounds very suspicious), but if it is sufficiently notable it may be appropriate to mention it in a "legacy" section of the Price article, without giving it undue appearance of validity. What is not appropriate is keeping it unmentioned but bashing Price as a proxy for something that came up after his death. Hans Adler 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine, but the "criticism" section seems inappropriate, which I think we're in agreement about.Griswaldo (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Hans Adler. Your point is exactly what I mean though I need to correct you on one minor issue--Price died in 1948 not 1945. As I have shown with Charles F. Bodecker's paper there was a lot of articles published regarding a connection between nutrition and tooth decay in the 1920s and 1930s and the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service article "Vitamin Deficiency Underlies Tooth Decay" provides more references from that time including three by Price himself in the Journal American Dental Association. Even the focal infection theory is getting a second look.

Very simply put holistic dentistry works from holistic medicine's idea that the body is one unit and that actions on one part can effect others ie a problem in the mouth can effect the body and vice versa. The problem is when other ideas like homeopathy or controversial issues like mercury fillings are involved.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is significant to note that Barrett has been involved in quite a bit of litigation over his writings. He has not lost all, but enough it appears to warrant caution regarding his credibility. Furthermore his lack of training and expertise in dentistry are a handicap to his ability to bring suitable analysis and historical perspective in the case of Weston Price's research. Apparently some don't feel the litigation against Barrett to be appropriate content to include in his biographical article, though it appear relevant to me given his profession. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 17:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that most of the sources that make comments regarding litigation against Barrett are iffy under normal WP:RS guidelines meaning that under the stricter WP:BLP requirements they are totally unusable hence that is why there isn't anything regarding these cases in his article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I should mention that of Barrett's claims only the focal infection theory one has any reference and those can be shown to be possibly out of date. In fact, searching through Price's book shows some serious errors in Barrett's claims.

Barrett: "While extolling their health, he ignored their short life expectancy and high rates of infant mortality, endemic diseases, and malnutrition."

Price: "This physician stated that there were about 800 whites living in the town and about 400 Indians, and that notwithstanding this difference in numbers there were twice as many Indian children born as white children, but that by the time these children reached six years of age there were more white children living than Indian and half-breed children. This he stated was largely due to the very high child mortality rate, of which the most frequent cause is tuberculosis." (Chapter 6)

"The changes in facial and dental arch form, which I have described at length in this volume, develop in this age period also, not as a result of faulty nutrition of the individual but as the result of distortions in the architectural design in the very early part of the formative period. Apparently, they are directly related to qualities in the germ plasm of one or both parents, which result from nutritional defects in the parent before the conception took place, or deficient nutrition of the mother in the early part of the formative period." (Chapter 19)

"It is important to keep in mind that morbidity and mortality data for many diseases follow a relatively regular course from year to year, with large increases in the late winter and spring and a marked decrease in summer and early autumn. [...] I have obtained the figures for the levels of morbidity for several diseases in several countries, including the United States and Canada." (Chapter 20)

"Dr. Vaughan in her reference to the data on the annual report of the chief medical officer, the Minister of Health, states as follows: Our infant mortality returns show that over half the number of infants dying before they are a year old die before they have lived a month..." (Chapter 21)

The direct quotes from Price's own book showed that he was very much aware of the high rates of infant mortality of native peoples and the effects of endemic diseases on them so how can Barrett claim Price is ignoring these things without a single reference backing up that statement? Better yet since Price published through Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers (who was publishing textbooks like Modern Practice in Dermatology back in the day) while Stephen Barrett is self published with the majority of his claims unreferenced how can we say Barrett trumps Price regardless of how old Price's work is, especially when we can show via old source the claims are in error? There is something very wrong with that picture.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Master's thesis

Is the following Master's thesis, published by a press called VDM considered a reliable source on the topic of Longevity myths? Robert Young, AFRICAN-AMERICAN LONGEVITY ADVANTAGE: MYTH OR REALITY?: A Racial Comparison of Supercentenarian Data. I will admit upfront that my view is that the article on "longevity myths" is an original synthesis. The author of the afore mentioned book, who is also an editor here, maintains that it is not and cites his own master's thesis. As you can imagine there is also a thread related to this at the COI/N - Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Ryoung122_on_Longevity_myths. I originally told Mr. Young that master's thesis are not considered reliable sources in general, but he asked for confirmation on that as well.Griswaldo (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

VDM does not adequately check works published.

Was the Masters Thesis by Research?

From which University?

Was the Masters Thesis accepted as an element in the award of a degree?

If the answers are Yes, A Research Accredited University, Yes, then it is a reliable source. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Fifelfoo that VDM doesn't have strong editorial oversight, but I don't agree that MA theses from research universities are reliable sources. There have been previous discussions about MA thesis and PhD dissertations—see e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Dissertations.3F and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_26#Masters_Theses. I don't think there's a strong and lasting consensus about the use of these types of sources, partially because people with knowledge of graduate study understand that theses and dissertations can vary widely in quality, and the oversight of theses/dissertations differs wildly by institution and department. The best advice, I think, is "handle with care"—and if the source in question makes an argument that's outlandish, then it shouldn't be used until the thesis is published with a reliable press, or reworked into a peer-reviewed article, academic monograph, or some other type of source normally considered reliable. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding. I was inadvertently injecting my expectation that Masters (Research) Theses would be externally examined as they are in my system. In relation to the production of humanities knowledge, as long as they're externally examined, or examined internally at a top tier research university, and as long as the MA programme is 2 years separate study, research (not an automagical "top-up" year), I'm reasonably happy. VDM doesn't mean anything other than a more readily available copy of the thesis. If the thesis' own examination meets reliability criteria, then the thesis should be okay. Providing more detail here will help us in detail evaluate this work (Originating University and Department, length of degree, if the degree was research, if they externally examine if you can find, etc etc etc). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with Akhilleus, and especially they should not be used other than for their exact subject, and if better sources are available. However they can provide useful summaries of other scholarship on an obscure subject, which may be hard to find elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is that a Wikipedia editor, and author of the master's thesis, asserts that "longevity myths" are a cohesive subject matter and uses his own MA thesis to source that claim, but fails to produce other sources to corroborate. I don't want to get into the content issues too much, but a couple of us think the current entry is both OR and listcruft, which is why the discussion is going on. Further input would be appreciated.Griswaldo (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Supplying the requested detail can allow RS/N to determine if the source is reliable. MAs are not considered reliable for the establishment of new or original subjects of research: originality is not part of the ambit of masters research. As such an MA could never be reliable on Wikipedia for the establishment of the existence of an object of encyclopedic inquiry existing. Take any OR questions to WP:NOR/N Fifelfoo (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your input on this mater.Griswaldo (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Parish of Aycliffe

Hi, I'm planning to write a article about the History of the Parish of Aycliffe, a area now made up of Newton Aycliffe, School Aycliffe and Aycliffe Village. I'm trying to gather some sources together to get a basis. Anyway I've found a book on Google Books, named "The history and antiquities of the county palatine of Durham" from 1857 and it explains the history of the Parish's name on page 524. I've never really used books sources and I don't know if this is reliable or not. Any help or advice with this will be greatly appreciated. Thanks --George2001hi (Discussion) 21:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem with the source, other than the fact that it is old. But sometimes you have to use old sources because they are the best you got.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A downside of Google Books is that the material available is heavily weighted towards old sources. This can, and often does, lead to Wikipedia articles containing obsolete information and discarded theories. There is nothing wrong with you citing this book but you should make an effort to locate more recent sources too. Zero^talk 03:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a side remark in the form of a sweeping generalization, but for anyone gathering sources on old English parishes, there is often a lack of modern material which adds anything to 19th century work anyway. I make this remark because I think it at least means that the above approach is quite a reasonable starting point. If there are newer sources, as there sometimes are, then great. You can sometimes find references to newer publications on things like local history websites or county archives websites. Might I also suggest British History Online as a place to browse? And there are publications such as the Surtees Society's for this region.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent points and suggestions. As long as everything is clearly referenced it's easy for other editors to note and possibly replace out-dated material with more up-to-date stuff. If we think of articles as 'works in progress' there's no problem. Baby steps to making a better article. It's kinda fun actually hunting for better sources and seeing an article grow in quality. Another good resource is Archive.org - lots of freely downloadable pre-1920s books there to get an article started.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for the advice, I'll try to find a more recent source and if I can't then this one will do. Thanks --George2001hi (Discussion) 10:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

19th century source

User:Sulmues is bent on using a 19th century source (from 1872) to "prove" that the town of Konitsa was "Albanian" [25]. The source is John Murray, one of those 19th century British travellers who roamed the Balkans. It is of course heavily outdated, and the author is not a historian or scholar of any sort, yet this user simply cannot see what is wrong with the source. Can someone please explain to him that 19th century sources are heavily outdated and should not be used? God knows I tried. Ditto here, where he is using a source from 1920 [26] and (of course) can't see anything wrong with that. This user has a very hard time understanding that anything older than ~50 years is deprecated and should only be used with extreme caution. Athenean (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it here, Athenean. In the current version written by me, I clearly describe how "John Murray, a British book travel writer" sees the city in the 19th century [27]. What I have a hard time understanding is why we would remove old sources, when we have no new ones on how a town looked in the 19th century. My opinion is that we would of course replace an old source as soon as a new one becomes available. Wikipedia works like that: it's the best world possible. As of today. If you or anyone else tomorrow bring a more contemporary source that will, of course, be more reliable and will strike the reader as such, please feel free to remove my source and to enter the better and newer one. But why remove immediately old sources, when they can give us some information on the town's articles, when they can give us the flair of the past? Especially when the source is in English and clearly researcheable from the reader. Thank you for your attention.--Sulmues ^(talk) 21:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

When will you understand that 19th century travelers are not reliable sources? First because they are outdated and second because they aren't accredited scholars or academics, or any such thing, but just travelers. As such, they fail WP:RS. It's no different than using a travel blog as a source. Athenean (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I see a lot of contemporary travel books entered in Wikipedia as references. "Bradt travel" for example is everywhere. The Murrays travelbooks have been classics in the 19th century like Bradt is today. The point is that you will deny me every 19th century source, just on the ground that they are old, even if I bring you the censuses from that century. You will just tell me that they are too old. Censuses in the 19th century can't be done a posteriori though. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As a totally uninvolved admin, I'd think that unless Murray had an agenda, it would be entirely appropriate to mention how he perceived the town. That, and no more, and no conclusions to be drawn from it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! That and that only will be said. Unfortunately I'm being edit-warred there [28]. --Sulmues ^(talk) 22:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I should add that the source uses language to describe the town such as "the filthy streets, comfortless houses, and wild-looking population proclaim the Albanian town" [29]. That is just soooooo 19th century. I mean, come on. Is this the kind of source we should be using here? Athenean (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to read 19th century language with some caution. "Wild" simply means "non-civilized by 19th century British standards". The wording that we use in Wikipedia today can be slightly different. Good Articles such as Teuta of Illyria which use sources such as Polybius don't use Polybius language either, but still successfully source from him.--Sulmues ^(talk) 22:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you need to be cautious about this kind of source. But the description quoted by Athenean says as much about Murray and his culture as it does about the place he visited, and I think most readers will "get" that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

All he says is "the Albanian town", he doesn't say anywhere that it is populated by ethnic Albanians. He could just mean "Albanian" in a strictly geographical sense, i.e. that it is in what they referred to in the 19th century as "Albania". Many older sources refer to Epirus (region) as "Albania". And that's the problem with 19th century sources. The terminology has changed dramatically since then (e.g. consider the case of how they used "Greeks" to describe ethnically Albanian Orthodox Christians, and "Moslems" and "Turks" instead of Muslim Albanians. Also "Turkalbanians", which is no longer used.). That is the essence of WP:PSTS: Because older sources are outdated, and use outdated terminology, we should not interpret them on our own, but rely on interpretations by contemporary, secondary sources. Generally speaking, anything older than 1960 should be treated with caution, and avoided if possible. Athenean (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not know if it should be used, all I am saying is that it may be used. I am aware of no guidance on age of sources; clearly you try for the most recent possible reputable sources, but I've used even 18th century sources in FA's, simply because you take what you can get. Whether the source should be used is a matter to be discussed among the editors who work on that article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering that we have plenty of contemporary works I really don't see a reason why a 19th century traveler should be preffered, especially when the terminology was diferrent that time.Alexikoua (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua we could add Mann's contemporary source that still says predominantly Albanian speaking, so you can't avoid that issue.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not use that source then (either on its own or in addition to the other one if absolutely necessary)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I am getting the impression this is one of those Balkan ethnic things that sensible editors run away from screaming. Either way, I have no opinion as to whether it should be used, I merely opine that it can be used, as set forth above.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. In other words Athenean is not quite right to question this IF the ONLY problem is that it is "old". However, I see Athenean does indeed have other concerns such as whether the author concerned was really talking about Albanian in the same way it would be understood today. Indeed such ethnic terms are not always clear, rarely stable, and never have been. That would be a content discussion best left to those who know the subject though I am afraid.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

PRIMARY by non expert not reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not necessarily disagree, but I prefer Wehwalt's wording. The question for me, which I believe is a content question, is whether knowing what an Albanian town is would be a subject requiring expertise or not. Obviously for example, if an article needs to mention whether a building was standing in the 19th century, a 19th century travel writer would be fine?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you need to be a specialist to conduct ethnodemography? Yes, yes you do. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand your point and I tend to agree with it. The reason your remark might not be obvious to all is because it assumes that calling a town Albanian requires "conducting ethnography". I do agree that this is probably correct, but then this agreement requires an opinion about this particular content. The content argument is (I think) that this ethnic term in that period is not a simple and clear terminology, like some ethnic or national terms are in some periods. Do you agree with that summary?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not RS. Also, if the book is used to proved that the town was Albanian it is original research. TFD (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

TFD, just on terminology, "original research" is not a problem when we are talking about sources. What WP does not want is original research by Wikipedians publishing for the first time on Wikipedia. Perhaps what you mean is that this would be a "primary source" which means more or less original research outside Wikipedia. Primary sources can be used, but that does not mean Athenean is wrong to question the source. I think the explanations most relevant are those of Wehwalt and Fifelfoo above and I think you probably are saying the same thing as Fifelfoo? See WP:PRIMARY. Does that make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Social Networking source

There is a question from an editor regarding the use of a video archived on a social networking site, viz: Suzuki v. Consumers' Union. It's agreed that the video is authentic and useful, as well as being extremely rare. It doesn't appear to be available anywhere else since it was withdrawn from distribution after the settlement of the related court case. The problem is that WP:ELNO #10 prohibits using links to social networking sites. How can we use this source without running afoul of WP:ELNO #10? Santamoly (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"It's agreed that the video is authentic." So cite the original work. My photocopies of a journal article are "authentic". I don't cite the Kyocera copier. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

www.wes.org

Can anyone confirm if http://www.wes.org is a reliable news source? It seems to me like just a commercial "evaluation" website, not a credible news agency! Is this really a credible source for encyclopedic content?? It is used in a bunch of articles on wikipedia. Monsig (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the website and the Google meta describer ("World Education Services is a not-for-profit organization specializing in foreign credential evaluation") I would have to say that it is not a reliable news source.

Contrast this with IPS Inter Press Service whose Google meta describer states "IPS is the world´s leading provider of information on global issues, backed by a network of journalists in more than 100 countries". Even there I had to go find an independent reliable source to show the validity of using IPS Inter Press Service as a reference in an article: "IPS (Inter Press Service) is probably still the largest and most credible of all 'alternatives' in the world of news agencies." (Boyd-Barrett, Oliver and Rantanen, Terhi; eds. (1998) The Globalization of News London: Sage Publication)

Even World Education Services doesn't call itself a "news source" so why should we?--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This query was a bit misleading. The source that Monsiq objects to is not the domain wes.org, but rather World Education News & Reviews, which is published by the organization that owns the domain. The "about" page for that source is http://www.wes.org/ewenr/aboutWENR.htm . This is a monthly newsletter publication (formerly in print, but more recently online) that has an editor and whose articles have named authors who generally cite sources. Two of the specific articles that have been cited in Wikipedia are http://www.wes.org/ewenr/05oct/feature.htm and http://www.wes.org/ewenr/00july/feature.htm . Current contents of this newsletter require registration: [30]. --Orlady (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

As noted at the top of the page, it is always helpful to know the article and the edit that is in question, since reliability is generally not an all or nothing phenomenon. In this case, it appears that the article is Buxton University and the edit in question is the claim that the university is linked to a website selling degrees called Instantdegrees.[31]. Monsig, it was a very good idea to come here; just to point out that WP doesn't require "news sources" only. Lots of other sources (including books, scholarly articles, etc) qualify as "reliable sources" per WP:RS.

"World Education News & Reviews" is a newsletter associated with a not-for-profit company advising on credentialling. It appears to have a "masthead" and info about contributing, but the links do not work on their website, so it is hard to know the extent of their editorial control. On the other hand, the newsletter has been cited extensively by others which is a good sign.

George Brown, who wrote the article, has a PhD and peer-reviewed publications in the field.[32] so even if there are doubts about the newsletter then he probably qualifies as a self-published expert.

Finally, here is another, clearly reliable [news source, making the same point about the Instantdegrees-Buxton University,. --Slp1 (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like this one can be resolved as: "It doesn't really matter whether the source is reliable or not... because there are better (clearly reliable) sources available for the same information. Just use those instead." Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Major John Potter - is he a reliable source?

I am doing some editing on the Ulster Defence Regiment article and another chap there has called into question the reliability of a book I am using to verify some of the material. Can someone please tell me if the book "A Testimony to Courage (The Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment) is a reliable source to use? The ISBN is: 0 85052 819-4

Thank you in advance.SonofSetanta (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Curious which chap called it unrelaible? Mo ainm~Talk 17:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the book in question is considered to be not a whitewash but definitely a favorable portrait, as the title should have tipped you off; he is probably reliable, though, on such topics as infiltration of the UDR by the Protestant paramilitaries and their maltreatment of Catholic UDR members. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC) (a Prod and a republican)

I am absolutely taken aback that a genuine request for assistance yields such an awful sectarian comment. I had hoped that people of position on Wikipedia would be above such behaviour. Can anyone genuinely help please without using such bitter language.SonofSetanta (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

? I'm puzzled; I thought my language was quite moderate, and indeed in harmony with Major Potter's own reports on the topic! I'm sorry if I somehow gave offence inadvertently. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Who claimed it wasn't a reliable source? And what is sectarian about the comment made by Orange Mike? Please be aware the wikipedia doesn't allow personal attacks Mo ainm~Talk 17:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You should not ask whether an individual is a reliable source but whether a book is. This book was published by "Pen and Sword Books" as one of their "regimental history books".[33] But reliability refers to the facts in the book, and the history of this regiment is controversial. You need to determine how historians view the regiment and this book may not address that. TFD (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Deuces. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I simply want to know if Potter's book can be taken as a true source of facts (facts only - not opinion, unless supported by other sources) and if Potter can be referred to in the article as the "Regimental Historian". I don't want to enter into speculation on the Ulster Defence Regiment or accusations about it. The Wikipedia article already explores that in great depth. I will use what I'm told here as absolute. With regards to what historians feel about the regiment this is the only history currently available so it's all I have to work with as a Regimental History, apart from a book written by a journalist in 1991 and some smaller histories produced by former members of lesser rank.SonofSetanta (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It states in the book that the MOD have not endorsed any part of the book, nor the unofficial sources refered to and Potter himself states that "I must also emphasize the the opinions expressed, were they are not attributed, are my own." Having said that I would say that Potter in general is reliable but being a former UDR member anything contentious would need attribution to him. I'm also at a loss as to why a "new" editor would come here when their was no question of the reliability of the book on the talk page. Mo ainm~Talk 18:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In the first few pages of the book there is a disclaimer that reads ". . . this does not imply MOD endorsement of any part of this book". I will also add that the so-called journalist Chris Ryder is a respected author on The Troubles, which Potter does not seem to be despite the claims he is a "historian". Former soldier turned writer yes, but not a historian. O Fenian (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on climate change: No scientific body

In Scientific opinion on climate change, the statement:

• No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.

is sourced to:

• Julie Brigham-Grette; et al. (2006). "Petroleum Geologists' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" (PDF). Eos. 87 (36). Retrieved 2007-01-23. The AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (2007). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. The MIT Press. p. 68. ISBN 9780262541930.

1. I don't think the first is a reliable source: it is a statement by AMQUA, but not within their field of expertise, hence not falling within WP:SPS.
2. I don't know about the second; MIT Press does have non-fiction and semi-fiction imprints, and I don't know where this book fits (or what it says, as I don't have a copy.)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Arthur I don't see how the first cite is even relevant to the statement, and it's from a source that predates the supposed event (2006 < 2007). Can you clarify that part. As I see it it fails verification so there is no RS issue. No idea about the second.Griswaldo (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The book is published under "Environmental Studies and Nature" - "Environmental Politics & Policy", not as part of "semi-fiction".[34] I do not know if they even have such a category. TFD (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change is certainly a reliable source. It's published by the MIT press. DiMento is a double professor at UC Irvine and Director of the Newkirk Center for Science and Society, and Doughman is an assistant professor of environmental studies at UI Springfield. The chapter in question has been written by Naomi Oreskes, Professor of History and Science Studies at UCSD. I found the manuscript for the chapter here. I think the statement used is "In the past several years, all of the major scientific bodies in the United States whose membership’s expertise bears directly on the matter have issued reports or statements that confirm the IPCC conclusion", which is somewhat different from our version (it's positive, not negative, and it's limited to the US, major, and societies with appropriate expertise). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec as I got a phone call while writing) This is RS/N, not WP:NPOV/N, so I will only address the question of formal reliability here and make my proposal for fixing the verification failure on the article talk page.

1. Seems to be about as reliable as it gets for this kind of thing, short of a peer-reviewed publication.
2. A snippet from the foreword: "The original idea for the book evolved from a program of the Newkirk Center for Science and Society at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). The Center supported book production throughout its many stages. [...] We are responsible for the analysis, but it is a more complete treatment thanks to the serious, substantive, and detailed comments that the anonymous MIT reviewers supplied." So this is a peer-reviewed book. Hans Adler 19:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)