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

Partisan group self published source Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites in Saudi Arabia

The article [1] has a lot of citations from a single partisan self published source which reflects only a fringe standpoint of history. Many of the names of the graves mentioned are not even verified , here is the source:

http://www.al-islam.org/history-shrines/history-cemetery-jannat-al-baqi

It looks more like a blog presenting personal opinions on a matter and that too by a fringe group which accuses a Jewish conspiracy in the destruction.

Hence proof of the graves from reliable independent, non sectarian sources should be added. Relevant tag: WP:BIASED,WP:FTN (fringe theory).

partisan base self published source

in article Mufaddal Saifuddin

However, Muffadal Saifuddin's succession has not been accepted by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, who claimed the title of the 53rd Dai of the Dawoodi Bohras Himself.[10] Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin performed nass on him 49 years ago, a ritual during which he appointed him as his successor in private, just before he was publically appointed as Mazoon, second-in-command in Bohras hierarchy.[11] After the death of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin he claims that the succession was not done in London as Mohammad Burhanuddin suffered from a full stroke at the age of 100, that made it difficult for him to write, speak, or move.[1] Khuzaima Qutbuddin explains that he never claimed to be the rightfull successor, as per Mohammed Burhanuddin's instruction to keep it secret.[12][13] It is further claimed that former CJI upheld the validity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin as the rightful successor.

Dispute as to who Sheb Wooleys Children

Sheb Wooleys Wikipedia says that he had two daughters ; when in fact he had ONE LEGALLY ADOPTED daughter Christi Lynn Wooley who was his ONLY CHILD and a step daughter ( never legally adopted) Shauna Dotson . Wikipedia states that Sheb had two daughters ; when in fact he had one legal daughter and one step daughter

Royalty source

War of the Windsors: A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy Stephen Prior, Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, 2002, Mainstream Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84018-631-4

1. List of bisexual people (G–M)
   • Prince George, Duke of Kent was bisexual
   • Page 153
2. Prince George, Duke of Kent
   1. His death, on 25 August 1942, marked the first death of a member of the Royal Family on active service for 500 years
   • Page 377
   1. The bride was a daughter of Prince Nicholas of Greece and Denmark and a great-niece of Queen Alexandra
   • Page 82
   1. In 1939 George was elected Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England, an office he held until his death.
   • Page 153
   1. Other alleged sexual liaisons were with his distant cousin Louis Ferdinand, Prince of Prussia, and the art historian and Soviet spy Anthony Blunt,
   • Page 57
3. History of monarchy in Canada
   • As the Statute of Westminster had not yet been implemented, the British Cabinet eventually advised against the Canadian idea and instead recommended the Earl of Bessborough as viceroy,
   • Page 37
4. House of Hanover
   • In 1837, however, the personal union of the thrones of the United Kingdom and Hanover ended. Succession to the Hanoverian throne was regulated by semi-Salic law (agnatic-cognatic), which gave priority to all male lines before female lines, so that it passed not to Queen Victoria but to her uncle, the Duke of Cumberland. In 1901, when Queen Victoria died, her son and heir Edward VII became the first British Monarch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Edward taking his family name from that of his father, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
   • pages 13-14

Is the book a reliable source for these claims? (Also cited in Royal intermarriage, Sophia of Hanover, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, John Bowes-Lyon, Prince Michael of Kent,Winston Churchill in politics: 1900–1939 and Winston Churchill.)

Also Double Standards by Stephen Prior, Lynn Picknett, Time Warnere 2002

This was brought up by User:Choess in 2007 Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_British_Royalty/Archive_1 in 2007, but no discussion ensued.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC).

I cannot readily find formal reviews of this book. It has negligible trace in GScholar. What sets off my alarms are comments I've seen in Amazon reviews about specific errors and conspiracy-mongering. I would be reluctant to accept it as a source. Mangoe (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

New Matilda being used to support anonymous allegations against Prime Minister

The New Matilda published an article "Whitehouse Denies Lobbying, PM Can't Recall, and 400 People Saw It" in which an un-named "Whitehouse insider" made allegations against the Prime Minister.

New Matilda is a heavily partisan online opinion blog. Over the past week it has published seventeen opinion articles written by a handful of regulars.

The article in which this source is used is Whitehouse Institute of Design, and the content is

It has subsequently been alleged that Leanne Whitehouse, the owner of the institute, has engaged in lobbying Tony Abbott in relation to gaining accreditation for a Masters of Design course

The article uses several excellent sources, such as the ABC and The Age for other material, but no reliable source has made or reported the same allegation. --Pete (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a deeply misleading characterisation of New Matilda. New Matilda is a well-respected independent news and investigative journalist new media outfit that's been around for more than ten years. It's at the bare minimum one of the most respected new media sources in the country. This is a cheap attempt to get reliably sourced information that Skyring wants out of an article by hoping US editors won't be familiar with the source he's making claims about. (This is not the first time, either: last week, he claimed the news section of a 147-year old daily newspaper was an "online opinion blog".) The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Pure rubbish. New Matilda as already stated is a well-respected investigative news media outfit. People pushing the line that it isn't simply don't like the implications of what is being reported. Alans1977 (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's an opinion blog nowadays, with a couple of posts a day. My point is that for a story about someone as notable as the Prime Minister, why aren't these same allegations on the front page of every metropolitan daily newspaper and all over the ABC news bulletins? It's now a week old and nobody in mainstream journalism has noticed? --Pete (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Claiming that every citation you want out of an article is an "opinion blog" doesn't make it so. New Matilda is one of Australia's oldest, most respected and reliable new media outlets, and once again you're resting on the hope that if you spout enough bullshit you'll come across some US editors who've never heard of it and that some of it might stick. It doesn't make it any less reliable a source. New Matilda wouldn't be the first publication to run further with a story than their counterparts. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• In an article of 650 words, adding just about any "X alleged Y" stuff is transparently WP:UNDUE. I see from the history of Whitehouse Institute of Design that some even more extreme UNDUE coatracking is being attempted. My guess from a very quick scan is that there is a real, although minor, scandal brewing under the surface, and it's understandable that some editors would want to tell the world. However, if the affair is not sufficiently notable for its own article, it is not satisfactory to highjack an organization's article to explain how unfair life is. Re the OP: if the matter is significant, there will be other sources. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no argument that half the article is undue weight. This has been stated at length on the talk page and here, and there is no "coatracking" going on. The issue at the moment is people trying to remove it altogether. The affair - currently being covered in every mainstream media outlet in the country - concerns the institution's political lobbying, so talking about "hijacking" their article is deeply strange; not mentioning it in the article at all is such a bizarre move that it's going to look to any neutral reader like someone with a COI has been at it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
    • The story is being covered. Or rather has been covered as it's no longer news. But the lobbying allegation comes down to one anonymous source in one partisan outlet. It's that allegation I raised, and I'm looking for a reliable source. --Pete (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
      • You've repeatedly tried to get rid of the entire story. But yes, as for this, there were multiple anonymous sources, in a story by a respected, non-partisan media outlet - one that you've tried to impugn through deeply misleading claims about them in the hope no one looks too closely. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The lobbying allegations come down to one anonymous source in New Matilda, as noted at the very start of this section. Now, we can trumpet our own opinions on it and wave our hands around, but let's look at the facts, shall we?

• New Matilda is not mainstream media. Normally for a story involving a head of government - one widely covered in the media - we'd be using mainstream sources such as the ABC. The mere fact that these allegations were not raised in any of the usual reliable sources is an immediate red flag.
• New Matilda may have been around for a few years, but looking at our article, it has had its ups and downs. It may be about to fold, going by a recent source we use.
• It currently publishes fewer than twenty posts a week. They are opinion pieces, written by a few regular contributors. They are not news stories.
• The general tone of the website is heavily left-wing. It's hardly an objective source.

Maybe it was something more in the past, but looking at what it is now, I'm calling it as I see it. --Pete (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT, NM is claiming that speaking before the PM is exactly the same as "lobbying." In which case, anyone who ever gives a speech before any official is "seeking to influence a person", then the claim of "lobbying" is met. The problem is that this claim is linked in the edit to an fairly clear imputation of bribery - which is a criminal act. As it concerns a non-notable living person, the daughter, the applicable policy then becomes WP:BLP which requires strong sourcing for contentious claims (that a person was given a consideration of monetary value in order to influence an official action). If a strong secondary reliable source corroborated the claim that speaking before the PM was regarded as lobbying, then that claim would be allowed. If a strong secondary reliable source said criminal charges were being investigated against a notable person, then that would also be allowed. The mention of the daughter's name with the imputation that the daughter was involved in any crime requires strong and direct charges in reliable sources. On its own, "newmatilda.com" appears to be primarily a blog, and thus is not a strong secondary reliable source for claims of fact, or for any claims of criminality affecting living persons. Collect (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I actually think that this is, sources aside, quite a compelling argument for excluding this particular material. However, the repetition of the claim without basis that New Matilda is a blog is frustrating - at no point has anyone actually stated any basis to back that up whatsoever. It's one of the most established, respected and long-running providers of web-based journalism in the country - that it is a website without a paper edition does not make it a blog. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

We allow some blogs as sources (particularly "blogs" associated with newspapers) -- but the proviso is that opinions must be cited as opinions, even from a New York Times blog, and NM appears to be quite substantially a provider of opinions rather than that of facts qua facts. Collect (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

They do both. I'd also point out that one of the authors of much of their investigative journalist material is Walkley Award-winning (the Australian equivalent of a Pulitzer) investigative journalist Wendy Bacon. Her work doesn't magically become a blog post because she shifts to working for a website instead of daily newspapers, Sixty Minutes or Dateline. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Depends if it's a blog or not. People post on a blog, it's a blog post. As noted, the Huffington Post is a blog, with some respected writers. You do understand this, I trust? --Pete (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Votesmart

Is the Votesmart website (http://votesmart.org) a reliable source for politicians ratings, endorsements, and political positions? Cwobeel (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably not. What's the context, please? --Pete (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

See an example I came across, this BLP: Greg_Bonnen#Political_life. Cwobeel (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I see what you mean. So long as the voting records are well-sourced and the endorsements are fairly calculated, I can't see a huge problem here. Is there any reason to suspect that the numbers or facts are being manipulated? --Pete (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

My concern is of WP:VERIFIABILITY. We are forcing readers to trust a source that is compiling data from other sources, but we can't reassure readers of the accuracy of that source. Makes sense? If indeed these numbers are correct, why not quote a source that can be easily validated? Cwobeel (talk)

Project Vote Smart looks kosher to me. For voting records, what other secondary sources are available? We use similar "scoring" sites such as Rotten Tomatoes and Michelin Guide. --Pete (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

One of the red flags for me was this footer on the Votesmart site:

Most performance evaluations are displayed in a percentage format. However, some organizations present their ratings in the form of a letter grade or endorsement based on voting records, interviews, survey results and/or sources of campaign funding. For consistency and ease in understanding, Project Vote Smart converts all scores into a percentage when possible. [2]

This means that readers will be trusting a percentage rating as quoted on articles, when in reality there is no such a thing. Cwobeel (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Skyring: Pete, how do we address the above? Cwobeel (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd feel a lot more comfortable if some American editors commented on this. If it were an Australian site describing Australian politicians, I could check the information on the site against my own perceptions. But American politics is a surprising and uncertain field for me. I adore Barack Obama and Jed Bartlett, detest Sarah Palin and a few others, but the rest of the field is not mine. --Pete (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Kekoolani

I remember Wikipedia's judgement about Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Genealogies on Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley which seems to conclude that it is a unreliable source. I wonder what the Wikipedia community consider about The Kekoolani site. It is written by the descendants of a chief Solomon Peleioholani. It is used extensively on articles about Hawaiian history. And many things asserted in it are not found in any other academic sources at all which I have noted on Talk:Kamehameha I#Parentage. Is it a reliable source according to Wikipedia:HISTRS or other policies? Please help. Thank you. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Not reliable. In the same category as thousands of other genealogy sites: great for amateur genealogical research but no good for an encyclopaedia. It specifically says "no doubt there are many errors". Genealogy is generally a work-in-progress. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A couple of things. This seems to be asking about a reference I used for the only dating the birth of Kānekapōlei.

First, the website itself, is the official site of the Kekoolani Famiy and is administered by a professional genealogist and family member. The data is collected not written and notations exists for every person listed to the location of the originating data. In this case to the LDS Genealogy official webpage. Some of the information is also from SLK Peleioholani, who was the genealogists for the ali'i and worked for the Bishop museum until his death in the late 50s. The site itself is not a simply genealogy website. Its a database of the Hawaiian Royal family and the ruling chiefs. Its an actual official site of a notable ali'i family. I have used it way within limits and only when a date of a historic figure had no other source such as Fornander or S. M. Kamakau. SLK Peleioholani is a published genealogist as well. An official site can be used to site some information when it is about the subject. In this case this line of ruling chiefs.

But the I should mention that the first discussion linked above was that sources about historic figures should be notable and referenced. Not whether an official site of a family existing today can be used as a reference for a date on someone from about 1753. This is not an unreferenced piece of material. It a reference that states where the information comes from. The JDS listing have been used extensively. I don't know the status of that. The second discsussion concluded that the source being discussed was a god collection of primary sources. Primary sources are not banned but should be limited in use. These types of sources will be used. It was felt that we have no preference for using the more established authors.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Genealogy by SLK Peleioholani, a noted Hawaiian genealogist, can and should be used if it can be cited properly but the other stuff in this site, the amateur opinions and interpretations of the site's master should not. Many thing stated as fact such as hypothesize birth years are independent of the source it uses. It's hard for me to prove that since I don't have access to the LDS genealogical data bases in order to cross check everything asserted prior to a citation mark. We find this all the time on Wikipedia with editors writing a paragraph of facts follow by a citation which validates everything before and then we have another edits later that is added onto it, could be just one sentence of untruth/amateur speculation in a mountain of reliable words.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Also to continue what I mean by the site master's amateur opinions and interpretations, the site contains a paragraph being used to cite the parentage of Kamehameha I, an interpretation made in c, 2010 "THE IDENTITY OF THE BIOLOGICAL PARENTS OF KAMEHAMEHA THE GREAT". It asserts one truth: that Kamehameha's father is disputed, reliable sources stated that it could be Keoua or Kahekili, but his paragraph also asserts things which are not found in any other reliable source. 1. That Kamehameha was adopted or hanaied by Keoua and Kekuiapoiwa, 2. That Kekuiapoiwa II was not his mother, sources never dispute his mother's identity, this one does in order to explain his niau pio rank (reliable source also contradict and said Kamehameha was a chief of the wohi rank) 3. That his mother is instead Ku, the sister of Kahekili. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the disputed words from the paragraph: "Kamehameha was not the natural biological son of Keoua Kalani-kupu'uapai-kalani-nui Ahilapalapa and Kekupoiwa Nui but rather given as a gift to them by his true biological parents from Maui. These biological parents were Kahekili (Ruling Chief of Maui) and his sister Ku, the son and daughter of Kekaulike (Ruling Chief of Maui). This Maui genealogy would make Kamehameha a full NINAU PI'O chief (the mother and father are full blooded brother and sister and children of ruling chief)." I keep saying source but not stating them only because I want to save time and I haven't read them in while but I will find them for you if you disbelieve.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Also the names located in the parentheses in some of the entries indicates that the site draws heavily from whatever is on the Internet including stuff like ancestry.com, royalark, and geni.com or even Wikipedia. One example is the alternative spelling Keawepoipoi in the site's entry for Keawepoepoe. Searching Keawepoipoi -Wikipedia, we see that the site draws a significant portion of its work from unreliable sources such as the royal ark. You can do cross check this with some other of its entries. The site is riddle with mistake. Another is the assertion that Queen Kalama's mother was I-Kape'ekukai. (Also editors using it could mistaken that Kalama's mother died in 1825 at Chile, when in fact it was her father) This is only found in royalark and geni.com. Most sources indicate it was Inaina. I can find more discrepancies too. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I am attacking a source which I have relied heavily on and used in the past when writing articles, as lazy way to get sources. But it's unreliability outweighs the benefit.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

To those currently uninvole, please help square this out and add in your opinions as editors and users of reliable source. I don't want this to be archived again without discussion. Thank you. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

KAVEBEAR please calm down and take a breath, Yes, I am almost certain I did add the Kekoolani reference. But you are very much leaping to conclusions about using anything of Mr. Kekoolani himself as he only adds notes and I have never used the notes to reference anything. There are other sources that have Kamehameha's parentage and the controversy. It is not new and the article was already discussing the fact before any change I made. It appears you have an issue with Mr. Kekoolani's opinions. This is not the place for that but be aware there are no "right" answers to much of this content. Genealogies differ depending. The two major genealogists of the day, Fornander and Kamakau differ greatly. The royal family even kept their own records and Kanaina was one of the main researchers. I should ask however, for you to please be a little more sensitive about living persons you are discussing here. Much of what you take issue with seems to be Mr. Kekoolani's opinion. That is fine, but this isn't a platform for you to vent at the author of a source. You have already been told he is a professional researcher.

Sorry it is my style as a history major to call out questionable things and point out blatant contradictions when I see it. You said it yourself that its his opinion. Does the professionalness a person or occupation of a person indicate anything he say is reliable? My problem is the site's inconsistencies and habit of compiling whatever is on the Internet and use of unreliable sources such as royalark, geni.com, and ancestry.com. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

No one genealogy is wrong, it is one version of the events and people. If you are attempting certainty where there is none, I have no access issues with the LDS genealogy website.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That's debatable. I certainly can claimed that I descend from the first emperor of China when reliable sources say the entire Qin imperial clan was eradicated by Xiang Yu after he deposed Ziying. My stance is still that Kekoolani site is an unreliable source for Wikipedia and should not used at all here, which is the key issue we should be discussing here. I presented my take on it. I will wait to here what other have to say. I hope there will others. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Itsmejudith what do you think?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Also User:Mark Miller would you mind if I ask editors who've made comments in the past discussion on this same topic (the use of genealogy sites on wikipedia) about their opinions. I don't think it will violate Wikipedia:Canvassing since they fall under "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)." Also to not influence the result I will merely word it: "Hi, can you give your opinion here?" and contact all editors involve not just a select few. Thanks. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything special about the LDS research in relation to Hawaii? Because I'm familiar with their familysearch website works in relation to Britain and Ireland and there is no way it is a reliable source for WP. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Hi User:Itsmejudith. Not to my knowledge. It (the LDS record) would probably the last place any serious researcher in Hawaiian history would look to for reliable source (for whatever my opinion is worth). Maybe they would have more reliable ancestry on people who've live closer to the present or are Americans or Europeans. It heavily focused on the West, for example you can't find much Chinese genealogy on the LDS records either. What is you view on the other points I've brought up? Also do you think I should unbiasedly ask the view points of other users in the past discussions? Thank you.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what else you're asking about. If any other RSN regulars want to chip in, they can do so now. The main point is that genealogical sites are rarely RS for us. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Yes which is what I agree with. I have also presented other points for reasoning that Kekoolani is an unreliable source. But now it is only me, Mark Miller and you discussing. I was wanting to contact other users who have discussed similiar discussions in the past to put in their views.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Alert them to this discussion but you may not find that they have anything to add. If Mark Miller wishes to put forward the argument that the source is reliable, it will be read here. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: I will alert them. But by what avenue can I get the Kekoolani be recognized as an unreliable source like Cawley has been and have each occurrence on Wikipedia labeled "better source needed" as in Anne of York, Duchess of Exeter#References? This is my ultimate goal. I ultimately plan to replace them with better sources. I need support for such a bold move since Mark Miller believes it to be reliable and I don't. Or does the board have no such power? If so where can I seek such a move. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I only alerted the editors in the Cawley discussion since I believe this is the more similar (on online genealogical database) while the other discussion didn't really deal with a source. Thanks..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Another example why I believe this site to be an unreliable source is the text which follow this entry, a exact copy of the Wikipedia article Abigail Maheha.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Anime News Network's encyclopedia section reliable for "credits"?

A discussion is underway about whether Anime News Network's encyclopedia section—which has previously been declared unreliable because of its user-generated content (WP:A&M/RS#Situational)—can be used to cite voice acting credits. The discussion is taking place at Talk:Bryan Cranston#ANN's encyclopedia. —Farix (t | c) 13:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian Blog a reliable source for BLP?

Currently, This source is being used for Boxxy's article, a BLP. Since it is a blog, even though one from a now respectable online newspaper, would it be qualifiable as a reliable source? I believe that since it's a blog and thereby not subject to editorial control of the newspaper, would it not be a reliable source in that context? To see the diff of what it's being used for, see User:Wikidemon's reversion of my edit. (No ill intent, but it's the best indicator of what it's being used.) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boxxy&diff=611532104&oldid=611422189 Tutelary (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

On what grounds would this post published on the outlet's website not be under its editorial control? The Guardian doesn't let anybody post whatever they want: this appears to have been a commissioned piece, and I don't see why it isn't a RS. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSBLOG 94.195.46.205 (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that I'm not going to win on this. Just going to withdraw. Feel free to archive whenever. Tutelary (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

sciencecorruption.com

Is this article at sciencecorruption.com [3] reliable for the following quote at the article Death in the West? Note: This article is nominated for DYK; the article passing as it currently is is waiting on confirmation of whether this source is reliable or not for any of these statements.

• (Block quote) "Yeah, cigarettes are ... So what are we to do, stop living? The best way to avoid dying is not to be born you know. And if one avoided doing all the things which are alleged to be harmful to people these days we would vegetate in a mountain cave". Note: the fact this conversation takes place can be backed up by viewing the film (you can find it on youtube here [4]), but I wasn't sure if I could use the film itself as a source for a quote, please advise.

And would this article [5] at the same website be reliable for this paragraph (not currently in the article)?

"In 1985, Dutch TV station Veronica began making a documentary film about Phillip Morris' suppression of Death in the West. Veronica planned to use footage from Death in the West in their film. Phillip Morris subsequently threatened them with legal action if Veronica used said footage, which successfully prevented the film from being released."

Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Any comments would be appreciated. Freikorp (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

TV Viewership - SonOfTheBronx Again

Trying to restart discussion on whether SonOfTheBronx is considered a reliable source. It has been discussed in the past (#1 and #2) but there's been no solid conclusion. This site is used on numerous articles. Please read the #2 link above for a more extensive discussion. Any conclusive input would be very helpful. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Some other past discussions of this: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_154#.22Son_of_the_Bronx.22_site and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_162#Son_of_the_Bronx EvergreenFir (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Any reply would be appreciated EvergreenFir (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Russia Today

Is Russia Today considered a RS? Sayerslle (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Fyi, Russia Today have changed name to RT. And yes, as a well-established news organisation they are considered to be a reliable source for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It depends a lot on what the claim is. They have "opinion content" as well as fact reportage, and without stating what it is to be used for, there is no single answer. Collect (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

'as a well-established news organisation they are considered to be a reliable source' - that's just you saying that though erlbaeko, - RT is a joke . the stalin regime was 'well established' by 1950 - tells one nothing about its reliability for truthfulness - where does it say RT is a reliable source for wp. - not just your (biased)opinion erlabaeko Sayerslle (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it just me saying that? Have you even read the link I provided you with? Citation from Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations: well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It's as reliable as any other news source for factual reporting, and reliable with attribution for opinion.

One would assume, however, that the OP has read the WP article, RT.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

No, this has been discussed previously. For it to be considered a reliable source it needs to have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS). It has no such reputation as it is widely regarded as a propaganda outlet.

It can be used for certain claims, for example those of Russian officials, with proper attribution, as well as for statements for its opinion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Please, show me a WP community consensus saying RT (TV network) (or ITAR-TASS for that matter) is not a WP:RS for statements of fact. They are both major news agencies with bureaus around the world. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

volunteer marek has said its been discussed before and community consensus was RT doesn't have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. you saying they have bureaux all over the place I don't see why that equates to reputation for fact checking and accuracy. clueless putin and assad lovers are kind of power worshippers really- oh, putin has a lot of power and money , so that means he is truth teller and RT reliable. no. Sayerslle (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess he can speak for himself, and I still like to see that consensus, if it exists. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

'if it exists' - so cynical all of a sudden! - but , so trusting when it comes to putinist shit. ah, well - takes all sorts - just kind of annoying you will trash wp articles with RT shit. Sayerslle (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a very useful search box at the top of this page that you can use to find previous discussions. Here are a few: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_140#Russia_Today_verus_CNN; Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_71#Russia_Today; Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_159#Enquiry_concerning_the_RT_Network; ... There are others. Consensus seems to be that RT is a biased source, reliable for simple, non-controversial facts, but should be avoided for anything controversial. --GRuban (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll echo that. Of course, there may be instances where they print things that can be verified independently through reference to other sources. At which point a case-by-case determination can be made. But in general it's probably best to be wary. TheBlueCanoe 17:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I would be surprised if someone can give some examples of RT reporting something in a story that turned out to be false. In contrast, the NY Times has printed stories with major implications that it later had to retract. Notable examples are that Iraq had WMDs, that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people, and that there is photographic evidence that Russian special ops forces are operating in the Ukraine. All this leads me to conclude that RT is actually a more reliable source than the NY Times. The only significant way in which RT is biased is that it is not going to publish stories that put the government of Russia in a bad light. Otherwise, it is more objective and professional than major Western news outlets like the NY Times, the Guardian, the BBC, CNN, and MSNBC. There is currently a civil war going on in the Ukraine, but there is essentially a Western news blackout about it. That should tell you how "unbiased" major Western news sources are compared to RT.

As far as I am aware, previous Wikipedia discussions about the reliability of Russian media gave no evidence of how Russian media have published false information. The "consensus" that is claimed that RT does not have a "reputation" for "fact checking" derives from the fact that RT paints a very different picture of events in the Ukraine, for example, than Western media do. But how does one know that Western media are the ones who are not biased, as opposed to RT? No evidence for that is ever given. This is merely an ethnocentric, highly political assumption. That the Western media have essentially instituted a news blackout about the fighting going on in southeastern Ukraine shows that when it comes to events in the Ukraine, Russian sources, including RT, are more reliable than Western sources. Just do a Google News search for Slavyansk. Nothing comes up from the past few days other than Russian sources. This is despite civilian buildings getting regularly shelled, and the residents of Slavyansk being without electricity and water. Kiev's offensive on the separatists has made Slavyansk look much more like something out of Iraq than out of Europe, yet the Western media are not reporting this. And it is ridiculous to claim that the Russian media are exaggerating the situation in Slavyansk, since the web is deluged with videos of what is happening. – Herzen (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Is TwoCircles.Net a reliable source?

Most of the Indian articles, especially the ones on Islam, are built mostly referenced to Two Circles[6]. It is a non-profit online news content website, which is not national/widespread in circulation. Is Two Circles a reliable source? If not, can we review the articles contents which are cited from Two Circles here? -Vatsan34 (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I think no. There articles are mostly written with a set agenda. Their About page tells me this about their motto: In increasing commercialized media, TwoCircles.net (TCN) is the non-profit voice for the marginalized sections of India i.e. the mainstream. Hereis one recent opinion piece from them. Here is one of their facebook share which shows the kind of discussion they promote. Jyoti (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

My gut instinct is: Two Circles can be considered reliable for an attributed statement of opinion ... but should not be considered reliable for an unattributed statement of fact. It really depends on whether they have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Blueboar (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

A good way to determine whether they have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking is to see how they're discussed by other, more established news outlets. I see their articles cited briefly in two other papers serving Indian audiences, but not sure that's enough to go on. Otherwise I agree with Blueboar that they can be used to cite opinions or attributed view points, but maybe not much else. TheBlueCanoe 17:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

They are reliable IMO specially for news regarding Muslims and their issues which often skipped by the mainstream media such as this.Edmondhills (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

That is another non-notable source with a passing reference to two circles dating 2012. Jyoti (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Is "Varietyultimate.com" a reliable source for film related articles?

Hi. I want to add some information about filming locations and dates to some film articles with the source "Varietyultimate.com". Is there consensus at the Film Project whether the same is a reliable source? I believe it is, as it has editorial oversight, but want to make sure. Thanks. Zombiesturm (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

VarietyUltimate is an online archive of Variety magazine, a reliable source. Go ahead. – 23W _{(talk · contribs)} 00:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

references for specific family connections to Armenian genocide

Koç family had:

The wealth of the Koç family, however, originates from money and property which was appropriated through the [[Armenian Genocide]] in 1915. The [[Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey|confiscated]] [[Armenians|Armenian]] but also [[Greeks|Greek]] property led to the emergence of a new wealthy social Turkish class.<ref>Ugur Ungor, Mehmet Polatel: ''Confiscation and Destruction. The Young Turk Seizure of Armenian Property.'' Bloomsbury Academic, 2011. p. 132</ref><ref>Sidney E.P. Nowill: ''Constantinople and Istanbul: 72 Years of Life in Turkey.'' Troubador Publishing, 2011. p. 77</ref><ref>Ayse Bugra: ''State and Business in Modern Turkey. A Comparative Study.'' SUNY Press, 1994. p. 82</ref><ref>Geoffrey Jones: ''Entrepreneurship and Multinationals: Global Business and the Making of the Modern World.'' Edward Elgar Pub, 2013. p. 35</ref>

The problem is - I actually went to the trouble of examining all of those sources:

"Koç" is not found in the 2011 Ungor book on Armenian confiscation. It fails as a result. [1]

The 2011 Ashenden book page 77 specifies that Koç "had not played any part in the Wealth tax" and makes no comment whatsoever that he profited from the confiscation.

Bugra page 82 makes no claim about Koc and the confiscation-- that page refers to his "business mentality" and not to "confiscation" at all. It does not support the claim made.

Leaving Jones page 35 which makes no connection either -- it states that Koc "was one of a new generation of Islamic Turks who began to build businesses ." It dates his government contracts to the 1930s, and makes no claim that he profited from Armenian confiscations.

In short -- not a single one of the "sources" is valid for the claims ascribed to them.

The remaining question is: the sources are "RS" for sure, but what to do about editors using them to say what they do not say? Collect (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

These sources are not reliable for the specific claims made, for the reasons you give. Please refer the editors here if they do not understand. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

There's more than enough sources that can verify the claims for both the Koc and the Sabanci families. For one, the Ashenden book says that Vehbi Koc didn't take part of the Wealth Tax (Varlik Vergisi). That has nothing to do with the fact that he leftover Armenian property in Istanbul which he turned into a museum ([7]). Even Ashenden alludes to this fact by saying "He took over many collapsed of confiscated enterprises" on the very same page which you have failed to mention. As for the claims regarding Sabanci, there's way too many additional sources that verify these claims ([8][9]) (will provide more if needed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a funny rule -- we can not make claims not explicitly made in reliable sources. The sources you have given quite frankly do not support the claims made. And I regret that the Bing translations of the Armenian sites (including "Armenians in Western Armenia", and Ulusal Kanal, which appears to be a blog (and possibly an anti-Semitic one if the Bing translation is close), do not appear to be usable under WP:RS either. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

For one, I didn't provide any sources in the Armenian language. The sources are in Turkish. Armenian and Turkish are two different language with distinct alphabets. Secondly, I provided sources that explicitly mention that both families had directly or indirectly benefited in an economic scale from the Armenian Genocide and the confiscation and expropriation of Armenian properties. Ungor's source and the others (i.e. Taraf, Hetq, and Ulusal Kanal) provides the exact wording you're looking for. For the record, Ungor state's that Sabanci's rags-to-riches story was an "example of Turkish entrepreneurs who benefited from the Armenian genocide". That line is almost identical to the one found in the Confiscated Armenian properties article. As for the claims of anti-Semitism, I do not know where you got that from. I'd need an RS from you to back your claim instead of utilizing some sort of personal conjecture from a (mis)read Bing translation. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Um -- I made no such claim. IO would note your edit war on this now has:

The wealth of the Koç family, however, originates from money and property which was appropriated through the [[Armenian Genocide]] in 1915.<ref name=ayse>{{cite news|title=Ermeni mallarını kimler aldı?|url=http://www.taraf.com.tr/yazilar/ayse-hur/ermeni-mallarini-kimler-aldi/370/|agency=Taraf|date=2 March 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Ozkoray|first1=Erol|title=Why Is the Armenian Genocide Still a Taboo?|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100520022946/http://hetq.am/en/region/29407/|publisher=Hetq|date=29 March 2010}}</ref> A house in the district of Keçiören near Ankara was confiscated after its original owners fled the premises during the Armenian Genocide.<ref name=ayse /> The [[Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey|confiscation]] of [[Armenians|Armenian]] but also [[Greeks|Greek]] property led to the emergence of a new wealthy social Turkish class.<ref>Ayse Bugra: ''State and Business in Modern Turkey. A Comparative Study.'' SUNY Press, 1994. p. 82</ref>

Primarily relying on the same sources which do not support the claims made, and adding one source which does not appear to meet WP:RS for claims of contentious fact. In fact, the Taraf opinion column does not appear to mention the Koc family at all, meaning its use here is against Wikipedia policy. In fact, I find the editor who misuses sources in such a blatant manner to be acting against the proper requirements of Wikipedia at this point. Collect (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No, friend. Please (re)read the Taraf source:

Çankaya Köşkü’nü Kasapyan ailesi hiçbir kimseye satmamıştır. Devrin hükümeti yalnız o köşkü değil, bütün mallarını ve mülklerini ellerinden alıp Ağustos 1915 yılında tüm aileyi sürgüne sevk etmişlerdir. Benim babam (Ankara doğumlu 1887-1930) o tarihlerde ecnebi bir şirketin sahibi olduğu demiryolunda çalışması vesilesiyle tüm aileyi Ankara’dan (Konya yoluyla) İstanbul’a kaçırmıştır. Ayrıca Kasapyan ailesinin sahip oldukları mülkler arasında Keçiören’deki bağ evi vardı ve bu bağa da Vehbi Koç ailesi sahip olmuştur. 15 veya daha fazla sene evvel, İstanbul gazetelerinden birinde bu bağ evinin resmi çıkmıştı -bu evi Vehbi Bey müzeye çevirmişti- ve annem rahmetli Vehbi Bey’e bir mektup yazmıştı. Vehbi Bey de anneme o bağ evinin renkli bir fotoğrafını yollamıştı….Ayrıca Ankara’da dedemin ailesi ve kardeşleri kendi paralarıyla bir (Ermeni Katolik) kilise inşa etmişlerdi ki, bu kilise de yakılmış…

Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Taraf isn't ruled out as a source and we may need some Turkish speakers to let us know whether this is an op-ed or reportage. The important thing is not to take more from a source that is actually there. I only have Microsoft Translate for this and for a language so different from English as Turkish is, it isn't a great deal of help. I see mention of one house. It is a far cry from that to "made their money from". As I say, it may require to have an independent Turkish speaker to look at this. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The entire contextual basis of the Taraf source provides detailed information to the confiscation of Armenian properties and assets during and after the forceful deportations of the Armenians as part of the Armenian Genocide. The very title of the source, Who took the property of the Armenians? (Turkish: Ermeni mallarını kimler aldı?), provides the basis to the entire theme of the article. The source starts with background information to the Armenian Genocide in the section paragraph under "TEHCİR BAŞLIYOR" and includes notable examples of confiscations, like those of Vehbi Koc, Nusret Bey, and other Turkish entrepreneurs, who made a fortune off confiscated Armenian property coupled with the elimination of competition resulting from the forced deportations and massacres.

If the Taraf source itself is not enough, the information here can be easily verifiable with other sources. Page 250 of this source describes the expropriation of Armenian assets by the Koc family and sums it up by saying, The inheritance of such wealth through the loot of Genocide victims continued with a passion for years. (Turkish: Soykırım kurbanlarının bıraktığı mirasların yağmalanma tutkusu yıllar sonra da devam etti). Page 166 of this source also describes in detail the confiscation of Armenian property by Vehbi Koc under the context of the confiscation of Armenian assets during the time of the Genocide. Aside from these, I also recommend the Hetq source which explicitly states:

Apart from monetary and weapons help received from Lenin, the biggest financial source for the War of Independence was money appropriated through the Armenian genocide. With this money, weapons were purchased, an army was set up and its logistics provided. The persons involved in these came to form a new social class that owed its wealth to the Armenians’ property (for instance, the porter Haci Ömer Sabanci is the ancestor of today’s Sabanci family, and grocer Vehbi Koç the progenitor of today’s Koç family), and thus the social bases of the movement emerged.

The 17 Feb 2001 article entitled Setting New Agendas for Turkish-Armenian Relations in the Armenian Reporter states:

Wealthy magnates like Vehbi Koc, according to available information, accumulated their wealth from abandoned Armenian properties.

Page 77 of Ashenden's book, when in reference to Vehbi Koc during the Varlik Vergisi in the early 1940s states:

The businessman, Vehbi Koç – who later became a titan of Turkish industry and trade – had not played any part in the Wealth Tax, but he had been quick to see the opportunities it provided. He took over many of the collapsed or confiscated enterprises.

As for Turkish language translations, I must say that although I may not be ethnic Turkish, I am proficient in both modern Turkish and Ottoman Turkish and can help out in translating the Turkish sources if need be. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

See WP:HISTRS for the kind of sources that are needed for making such a claim. I would not see the Ashenden book as reliable on this, for example. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

LSD and erowid.com

I would like to get some second opinions about this section of the LSD article: Lysergic acid diethylamide#Adverse drug interactions. The entire section is sourced to anecdotal content from erowid.com, including anonymous anecdotal accounts gleaned from usenet groups. I would think that this is unacceptable per WP:RS and epecially WP:MEDRS.- MrX 01:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Rediff.com News?

Is Rediff.com considered a RS? Several Wikipedia articles have citation from [10] but I didn't find any editorial or such to consider it as a reliable publisher. This link[11] which is used in Mukkam Muslim Orphanage made severe allegation(diff) so seeking for a third opinion. Thank you. Edmondhills (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Green Bean Galaxies

There's a claim at Talk:Green Bean Galaxies that a Wikipedian's post on a webforum constitutes an acceptable source for a claim that he predicted the galaxy type to exist.

Thomas Zolotor predicted GBGs from theorizing that a new Grean Pea galaxy (GP) would be found.

Is based on the statement [12]

Re: Give peas a chance!

« Reply #2848 on: September 10, 2012, 12:35:55 am » I think that a new class of pea galaxies will be found and or it will show these galaxies from way back in the past before they got very bright. I also believe a new form of galaxy ill be found soon by this Zoo project. :)

Tom Zolotor

— Freethesouls * Newbie * Posts: 22

There is an open request about this claim and the source it is backed with at Talk:Green Bean Galaxies and WT:AST. Input from RSN would be nice. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

References

It appears this edit shows the problem. That needs to be removed! Johnuniq (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Chain of Reliability issues

An issue raised from the Video Game project [13]:

There is a Asian magazine CoroCoro that specializes in reporting on Pokemon games that would be considered a reliable source for all purposes. An upcoming issue is claimed by gaming forum users (ETA: Specifically, a normally non-reliable gaming site Serbii.net that claims to have scans of the issue) (reporting in English) that the next Pokemon game sets have certain new features; however, this is from users who have seen the issue before it has hit newsstands which is due this Friday. Gamespot, a normally reliable source for video games, has reiterated what the forum users have said in a published report on their site by one of their editors.

Myself and others have attempted to point out that while CoroCoro and Gamespot are reliable sources, the inclusion of what is claimed to be in a yet-published issue (eg, failing WP:V for 4 more days) by random Internet users is making this information unreliable, at least until Friday when the magazine hits news stands. Others claim that because Gamespot has reported it, it must be reliable regardless of the source and want to include it now.

It would be helpful to have clarification if the inclusion of "random Internet users" in the chain of authority information taints the whole chain, or if it only matter who is the last to publish where we rest our hats for considering reliability. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As long as the information that it's a leak is included in the article, what's the problem with using Gamespot as a reliable source? They have a review process and the article is written by a staff member that "puts its reputation at risk", so to say, which are the main criteria we use for non-academic WP:NEWSORG sources. Diego (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

In their article, they clearly disconnect themselves from the claim by citing the chain - they site the information on the questionable site Serebii by name, even noting it through Siliconera (a not-necessarily reliable video game site that specializes in Japanese games for the Western/English-speaking world). So if the information proved wrong, Gamespot would have zero reputation on the line since they named their sources. I would agree that if Gamespot came out and said themselves directly that this feature would be in the next game by "sources" (without clarity), then that would have been a reliable statement. But they took steps to make sure it was clear that they didn't report this themselves. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't see how identifying their source by name makes any difference; in both cases they'd be reporting that a leak happened. What this shows is that the staff crew gave enough credibility to the reported facts so as to repeat them in their own website. Diego (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That's fine for Gamespot, but that's not good for us where we have much stronger weight on reputation. A rumor from any unreliable source that ends up published by a reliable source is still a rumor from an unreliable source. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the article in question - http://www.gamespot.com/articles/pokemon-omega-ruby-alpha-sapphire-remakes-add-new-mega-evolutions/1100-6420187/ It is published by GameSpot, a recognised reliable source. The article publishes statements contained within a leak as fact. A reliable source has the ability to confer reliability onto what would otherwise be unreliable information. GameSpot have professional editorial oversight and a legal team. I am happy that this story meets WP:V and WP:RS. Verifiability depends on the public availability of the story, not the public availability of its sources. Amateur Wikipedian sleuthing into "chains or reliability" are unnecessary and futile given their lack of insight into external editorial policies. - hahnchen 15:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong. The story that needed verification was the material claimed to be printed in CoroCoro, which at the time could not be verified. Gamespot couldn't verify it. We can verify what Serebii said, but they are not a reliable source so what they said has to be taken with many grains of salt, and as a rumor, shouldn't be used. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Amazon.com

According to WP:RS, basic requirements for a source to be considered reliable are:

[A] reputation for fact-checking and accuracy

Given this, can Amazon.com be considered a reliable source for the listing of the future publication of a book?

In my opinion, Amazon does not have a requisite "reputation for fact checking." My assumption is that when they receive a listing from a publisher of future books publications, they slap it on their website without doing any checking whatsoever. Their purpose, after all, is to sell things, not to do research.

Now, I also assume that the publisher's listing of that future publication exists online somewhere, and if that can be found, although it would be a primary source, it would certainly speak to that publisher's intention to publish the book, and could therefore probably be used for listing the book as a future publication in a Wikipedia article.

This inquiry stems from a dispute on Jonathan Lethem; please see Talk:Jonathan Lethem#WP relies on Reliable Sources, not non-commercial sources. BMK (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

At the video games project, we specifically exclude any storefront as a reliable source for a future release date because they are going to put in any placeholder they can as to get you to pre-order, and as such the date could be fake. I would apply that across any media source. --MASEM (t) 00:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you read through the instructions above, please, and provide the exact source and wording in the article? Amazon can be a reliable source for some things. As for future works, Amazon is going to be as reliable a source as the publisher, surely? --Pete (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's an entry of a future publication of a book in a author's list of works, that's about all there is to it. BMK (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I would note that different fields tend to have different standards of honesty and trustworthiness with regard to release dates. While vaporware and badly-slipping release dates are part and parcel of the software world – and particularly the video game world – the same is much less true for conventionally-published books from established publishing houses. Book publishers generally have the actual manuscript in hand many, many months before the title appears on shelves. Cover art is commissioned; text is edited; advertising campaigns are planned. Sometimes it can take more than a year for a publisher to have a slot open in their publishing schedule. If Doubleday says that the hardcover is coming out in February 2015, I would be rather surprised if it did not. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I think using a publisher's announcement would be fine, despite being a primary source -- but are we really satisfied to rely on Amazon's non-existent "reputation for fact checking and accuracy"? Amazon has an excellent reputation for service, at least as far as my dealings with the company have gone, but that's not the same thing at all.

BTW, there are many, many examples of books not making their scheduled publication dates. The production gears start turning well before all the necessary adjustments to the manuscript are completed, if not, they would never be ready on time, risking the book being stale upon pblication. They may have an author's final version of the manuscript in hand, but it still has to be edited, copyedited (several passes, generally), vetted by lawyers, referenced, pictures researched and selected, intros written, blurbs collected etc. etc. Given the current "just in time" ethos prevalent in business, the idea is that this all gets done at the right time to put it into production, start promotion, and then ship it to the stores, so an announcement of future publication is certainly proof that the publisher believes everything will come together on a certain date, but it's no guarantee of it. BMK (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

So what if we say the author's next book is to be published in June and it doesn't hit the shelves till August? We source the information as best we can, and when June comes and the book doesn't, we update our article. We can't be 100% accurate on the future - nobody can. In this case, I say that Amazon is a good source for future publication dates, but the publisher is an even better one. --Pete (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

We're really not asking if Amazon is a good enough source to base one's future purchasing plans on, I'm sure it is. We have a somewhat different concern: How do you get around the policy requirement for "A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" with Amazon? BMK (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking back to the first post in this discussion, I'm seeing phrases such as "In my opinion", "My assumption is", and "I also assume". I don't think we can base Amazon's business reputation on your assumptions. Do we have anything more concrete?

Do we have any examples of Amazon pulling future titles out of thin air, or getting things wildly wrong in their notices of future books? And if they are getting their information on upcoming titles from the publishers, just how are they supposed to fact check? "Ah, we just want to check on this list you sent us. Is it complete bullshit?" Maybe they could wring up individual authors. "Your publisher tells us that your next book 'True Confessions of a Merchant Banker' is going to be published in July. What's the strength of this?"

I'm finding this whole discussion rather bizarre, to be honest. A reasonable person would accept that if Amazon says a book is going to be available on a certain date, they got that date from their suppliers, they didn't just think of some random date so they could ship books that hadn't been written. --Pete (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Are the publication/release dates accurate? Since the information comes directly from the publisher, there is not doubt to their accuracy. But what you are getting hung up on is the "fact checking" bit. How does one fact check a future publication/release date? Here is a hint. You can't. Either Amazon, or any other source, trusts the accuracy of those dates they get from the publishers or they don't publish it themselves. And in cases where the publication/release date does change, Amazon updates it to the new date.

I also see a bit of rules layering going on here. No where does WP:RS require that the source undergoes fact checking of its information. WP:RS explicitly states that we can include opinions from reputable authors and there is no way to fact check those. What WP:RS does is set guidelines on how to identify a reliable source. That doesn't mean that those are the only standards that apply. What we are more concern with is the accuracy of the information. And since there is no doubt that the publication/release on Amazon is accurate at the time, Amazon is a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 11:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of source - amazon, publisher, author, etc - doesn't WP:CRYSTAL apply to all future events, including book publishing? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No, WP:CRYSTAL is dealing with speculation of a future event. However a release date given by a publisher is not speculation. That doesn't always mean that the publisher will hit that release date (delays are always possible), but unless there is good reason to believe that a delay will happen, it shouldn't be left out based on WP:CRYSTAL. —Farix (t | c) 11:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

More to the point, WP:CRYSTAL point #5 explicitly mentions product announcements normally do not lead to separate articles, but are perfectly acceptable within a related article (product creator, product series, and the like), so long as we stick to the bare facts of the announcement. As a more extreme example, Jasper Fforde lists several vaporware titles, some of them have been there for years. I see nothing wrong with this: information about JF should include the titles he's been parading around for years, and absolutely no one reading the article thinks of it as anything but that. And if someone wants to commit wikicide, why, try removing the several paragraphs from J. K. Rowling about planned work, including ohhhmyyyygossssh, three more Harry Potter universe movies!!!! (Sourced to NYT, by the way.) Choor monster (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the clarifcation. But, yes, wikicide never looked more inviting. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• I quote from Wikipedia:Book sources#Online text (the source text for ISBN invocations). These are the first external links on the page, before all the world's national libraries and so on. (I leave out the actual links):

For verifying citations in Wikipedia articles, and finding more info.
These sites can search within some books, and show some or all pages
of some books. See digital libraries also.

    Find this book at the Open Library
    Find this book at Google Book Search online database
    Find this book on Amazon.com (or .ca, .cn, .de, .fr, .it, .jp, .uk)

Amazon is considered good enough to verify that a book cited in a WP article actually exists. Does anyone at Amazon actually call the publisher every time some WP user hits an ISBN link? No. Choor monster (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• The key is to phrase any mention of a future release date as being an "estimated" or "expected" release date. Amazon is certainly reliable as a primary source for such estimates... since they are the ones stating the estimation. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• • I don't get this. First, the publisher is the primary source for the estimate (not all sources are published). Second, I assume we write in ordinary English for readers to interpret as ordinary English. And ordinary English allows for uncertainty of the future to be understood without being stated. When you tell someone you have to get to bed early because you have a 10 o'clock flight tomorrow morning, no one is fooled even though you didn't mention it was only the estimated time.

Close to publication, with actual books available, Amazon firms up with a more-or-less guaranteed shipping date for pre-publication orders. That, of course, is a date they know. Choor monster (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Choor monster is trying to include the book as if it already exists. That's not what WP:CRYSTAL advises. If it's a speculative or predicted date, it has to be framed and written up as a speculative and predicted date. It can't be used as a reliable source that the book actually exists as a confirmed and ready product.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree here - if Amazon has a future release date for a book and it cannot be corroborated with the publisher or another reliable source, we should consider that suspect, even if Amazon does have a known track record for being right on those dates. Using such a date from Amazon does violate CRYSTAL, while using the same date provided by the publisher directly is not. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Even if the publisher makes an announcement, that can only be written up as an intention to publish, not a magical guarantee that it will happen for sure. We don't list industrial or consumer products as guaranteed to be available in a certain time frame even when announced. We shouldn't list a book that doesn't even have a cover designed as if it's predestined. No publisher is immune to delays or cancellations, and no editor can guarantee they'll watch their addition to fix it if it turns out a book didn't actually happen. This is an encyclopedia regarding things that have actually happened, not a fansite.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This is remarkably silly. As I said above, I am writing in ordinary English for the sake of readers who understand ordinary English. No such reader is interpreting a "(2015)" date as a guarantee or destiny foretold or fannish obsessiveness. It's simply the date being passed on from Amazon. It comes with an explicit external link. As I said on the article's talk page, I prefer leaving the link in all its ugliness right there next to the title, the better to encourage its removal once the book is published. I also prefer leaving out the month this far ahead, and closer to the date I would always leave out the day.

I once came across an article that listed a forthcoming book with an estimated date of publication about two years in the past. You know what I did? I looked up for more information. I edited the article! And fixed it! Yay, Wikipedia. Choor monster (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

That proves why we shouldn't put announcements in as fact! If you're putting something unverifiable into an article, it runs the risk of being in there for years if it doesn't happen. As an example of one of the many reasons to not trust a bare announcement, look at what happened here. Book announced, Amazon took pre-orders, "publication date" announced, the book never happened. We can't treat announcements as finished or guaranteed products.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You are not making any sense. So the publisher changed its mind. What of it? No one is treating any announcement as a finished or guaranteed product. As we get better information, we edit the article accordingly. For whatever reason, Deen does not have a list of her books. I would be happy if the list were there, the 2014 book remains listed as cancelled, with references of course. The book absolutely does exist, it's just not in a form for sale to customers. Choor monster (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The book exists somehow? What are you talking about? They pre-announced it before it was actually published. Like this one. You have a strange idea of what a published book is, if you don't actually require it to be published. BMK was correct in removing this, as it's not adequately sourced currently. Your plan to massage the date as the possible release time approaches is not encyclopedic. If you forget or miss an announcement delaying the book, then we'll have an unverifiable vapor-book for who-knows-how-long when that situation is easily avoided by waiting until publication is verified. WP:V is not silly.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Deen's book and probably Lethem's book already exist. In a very tiny handful of copies, for internal use only, as part of the normal publishing process. As I said, "not in a form for sale to customers". That you keep harping on blatant misreadings of what I've said with ridiculous claims is simply a waste of time. Updating data as new information arrives is standard WP, so complaining about it and coming up with insulting descriptions of it is simply a waste of time. And relying on more users than just myself is also standard WP, so envisioning the fate of the article without me as something hopelessly irredeemable is simply a waste of time. Choor monster (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a big difference between updating a fact when new information is found, and putting in something we know from the start isn't a fact. Future events are unverifiable. You seem to be okay with all of the instances of stale announcements such as "This book will be published in 2008", but they make the encyclopedia look bad. (Saying that Deen's book exists is an extraordinary claim, by the way. Do you have a source that a single person has ever read it anywhere? No source means you believe it must be true based on yourself alone. You are certainly not a reliable source that a book must exist. This is fairly conclusive proof that the "Publication Date" on an Amazon page cannot be assumed to be correct.) Now you may think it's okay to add unverifiable things to articles because it will probably be updated when we know for sure, but that's a guaranteed way to include junk in articles.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Most simply, Wikipedia can say that someone has invited people to a wedding in a year, if we have multiple sources, but we can't frame it as if we believe a wedding will take place. Individual books get delayed or cancelled more often than weddings. It doesn't matter how much you personally believe it will probably happen.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it seems the issue relates to a list of book titles by the author which take the form of:

• Book title (date) <cite amazon>

I would suggest that for upcoming books not yet released this be amended to:

• Book title (expected 2015) <cite amazon>

A very simple change like that would be perfectly reasonable... accurate... and amazon would be a reliable source for the statement. Nothing more to argue about. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar. This is a reasonable and effective solution. Neuraxis (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggested this on the talk page, and encouraged him to make the change. Listing the date "(2015)" does not constitute an assertion of existence or guarantee, and I have no idea where Elaqueate gets the idea that it does. And no, it is not an extraordinary claim on my part to believe that mainstream publishers get ready for forthcoming printings as they have been doing for the past several years. As it is, this is in regards to one title.

I should point out I've been following a few dozen authors on WP, and editing in regards to a few, and this is the first time in two years I've seen anyone raise a concern that such listings of forthcoming works could possibly be a problem. In every single case, it has been absolutely clear that the book does not exist yet. Really, I absolutely do not get it. Choor monster (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree on this, if Amazon (or any other storefront) is the source. I have no problem with the "expected" language if we have a statement from the publisher, the author, or some third-party source with reasonable author that have made the claim the work will be out in some year; we can source that and the "expected" part removes any issue with CRYSTAL. But when it is Amazon or others, you have to beg the question: where did they get that date? With the former case, I can have reasonable expectation of tracking who told whom when to expect the book, but with Amazon, which is knows to assign release dates to populate their database as to allow for pre-orders, there's simply no authority confirmed there. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem with using Amazon as a source on the expected release date. Especially if the publisher of the book is an established and respected one. Presumably Amazon is getting their info from the publisher, so no reason to require additional corroboration from publisher. TheBlueCanoe 18:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree... with the proviso that there is no such thing as a 100% reliable source... any source can be challenged when it comes to a specific fact... for example if the publisher listed some other date, I think there would be a good argument for saying that the publisher was a more reliable source than amazon... and legitimately call amazon's date into question. But barring any such contradicting source, I see no reason challenge amazon. Their "expected" release dates are usually fairly accurate (ie I think they have a reputation for accuracy on such things). Blueboar (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

So here is an example of the problem with Amazon: it lists A Different Kind of Tension (the forthcoming book we're talking about here) as being published by Doubleday, but, in fact it is being published by Random House. (The page for it is here) Yes, Doubleday has been (one of) Lethem's publishers, so maybe some intern just assumed, but obviously no one checked, because there information is just flat-out wrong (although they did get the date right). Or maybe Lethem switched it from Doubleday to Random House for some reason, I don't know -- but that's the point, we depend on reliable sources to check these things, and Amazon didn't, which is wny Amazon is not a reliabel source.

I'm off to the Lethem article to replace the reference from a non-reliable source (Amazon) with the publisher's page. I trust that meets with everyone's approval? BMK (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Doubleday is one of Random House's many imprints. I wouldn't find it all that surprising that the main Random House database list all books published by its divisions and imprints. To confirm this, I checked to see if Attack on Titan, which is published by Kodansha Comics USA and distributed by Random House, was also listed on Random House database and sure it was there.[14] Same is true of manga that was published under the Del Rey Manga imprint.[15] So you can't use the main Random House database as proof that Amazon isn't reliable. —Farix (t | c) 22:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering why BMK has such a downer on Amazon. I fully support using the publisher rather than Amazon for expected publications, but without we have some clear evidence that Amazon is somehow manipulating the information they get from the publisher, then I see no problem with using Amazon as a reliable source for expected publications. Using language that makes it clear that the publication is in the future is what we should be doing as a matter of course. In the end, listing upcoming works from an author is a useful part of a biographical article (or one on a series of books) and we have to source the information from somewhere. --Pete (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Pete - I love Amazon. I buy a lot of stuff from there, and I've never been unhappy withe either the products or the service. Depending on what I buy it often gets to me the very next morning. It's pretty amazing.

But irrelevant. For a site to be used on Wikipedia as a reliable source, it has to fulfill certain criteria, and Amazon just doesn't, nor does any other store website. It's not what they're about, their function is to sell stuff, not to maintain a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." They're not, by our policy, a reliable source and cannot be used as a reference. BMK (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

And just to make it clear that we are all discussing what we believe regarding WP-vis-a-vis-Amazon, I absolutely loathe Amazon. I purchase dozens of books a year. The last time I purchased something from them was because someone gave me a gift card. The two times before that were for extremely rare books that I found at Amazon affiliates. I absolutely cannot remember any earlier purchases, although I know I must have made them. But the consensus is that for a very narrow range of items, Amazon is WP:RS, and I absolutely cannot understand how someone can't see this. Choor monster (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no such consensus in this discussion as you state. BMK (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is definitely here. It is not defined as unanimous opinion or even majority opinion, but simply reflects the weight of the arguments. You and others have given zero arguments against treating Amazon as WP:RS for a limited range of product announcements/details. Each time you bring up commercialism, you in fact are saying nothing, since commercialism is completely irrelevant to WP:RS. That you keep beating this dead horse shows you simply are unwilling to actually discuss the issue. Your latest folly, where you trumpeted and crowed over Amazon, guessing that they're a bunch of morons who are too lazy to get it right, when in fact Amazon was absolutely correct and you were totally unaware of the concept of imprint and subsidiary (sort of like how you didn't know BookFinder was owned by AbeBooks, which has been owned by Amazon for quite some time) is pretty much proof that you are not bringing anything to this discussion.

As it is, I carefully did not say "this discussion". Unlike you, I knew what I what I was doing. See, for example, [16], and I have quoted above the WP ISBN page. Choor monster (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that we're talking about an announcement of a future event. For other media and products, we don't "announce" something in Wikipedia's voice unless one of two things has happened, 1. We have independent sources that say that the producer has made significant investment and concrete physical steps to finish the project (this is the case for films, for instance, which generally need to have started actual shooting) or 2. We have multiple third-party sources that say anticipation for the product is somehow notable in itself. We seem to be throwing all of this out in this case. For books, if we say Amazon (or even a thin publisher entry) is good enough by itself, then we are saying we should add material based on filling in an Amazon form where the publisher can withdraw or significantly delay the title with almost no notice. The book we're discussing hasn't even been the subject of a press release. It's arguably less of an issue for those books from bigger names like this one, but it's still not appropriate to consider Amazon a good enough reliable source for a book that hasn't happened yet. Amazon announces books that don't happen. Amazon announces books that have no notability with any reliable source.[17] Those facts put Amazon reliability at the same level as IMDB. Fine for checking possibilities, but not for certainties. Stale announcements make otherwise good articles look like garbage. When Alice Munro won the Nobel Prize, people around the world saw an article explaining when her next book would come out, two books behind reality. The only argument I've heard for putting in future announcements with no third-party sourcing is that they'll probably be verifiable for some percentage of the times we do it.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This is rambling irrelevant nonsense. You invent policy regarding product announcements contrary to what I've quoted at you before from WP:CRYSTAL #5. Instead, you cite (rather inaccurately and very misleadingly) from WP:THIRDPARTY, which is, first off, an essay, not policy, and second, it is about articles, not individual items of information in an article. In fact, if you bother to read the essay, you would see that had someone created an article on the forthcoming Lethem book based on the Amazon citation, the recommendation would be to delate the article and keep the information with its single citation in some other article. In other words, we're respecting WP:THIRDPARTY by including the one-source item in the Lethem article. And you cite an example of a totally non-notable forthcoming book as if—I give up, I have no idea. How, exactly, has Amazon harmed its reliability regarding mainstream publishers? And your description of the Munro article is blatant falsehood. Her two most recent reprint collections were red-links at the time of the Nobel Prize announcement, nothing of concern whatsoever. Choor monster (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing false about the fact that Alice Munro had mention in the article of her "future writing plans" from the perspective of 2009, that managed to wheeze into 2013. My point was that these announcements become stale very easily, it happens across many articles, and that any editor who puts in too much material primarily based on a speculation, is creating avoidable work that often remains unencyclopedically for years. I never cited WP:THIRDPARTY so I can't be citing it inaccurately; it's strange that you insist I did. (You really should take back or strike all of your personal attacks about "falsehood" and "misleading" anyway, it's disruptive.) The intent of Crystal is to minimize rumour and speculation. It doesn't mean we are encouraged to have any amount of unverifiable material as long as we keep it in articles. Better to not have it, or as Blueboar suggests make it clear that it is an attribution regarding an event that may not even happen.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

But quoting Munro's plans in 2009 is nothing of concern in 2013. Quoting her plans from 1989 would be fine too. We have been talking about listing forthcoming books, so if you secretly changed the issue, you are engaged in blatant falsehood just the same: you mentioned "two books" behind. What books were they?

You most certainly did quote from WP:THIRDPARTY, the bit about multiple third party sources, but you did not cite it.

Product announcements OK, Rumor and Speculation not OK. CRYSTAL#5 says so explicitly. In the contexts of books, it means we leave out party talk that makes it into print, as often happened with Pynchon. Choor monster (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Stop with the personal attacks and bad faith assumption. I never quoted from or cited the essay WP:THIRDPARTY (an absolutely bizarre thing to be insistent about). At the time of Alice Munro's win, we had material talking about how she was planning to work on a book we also reported was finished. This was in addition to two other compilations of her work coming out in that period. Speculation gets stale, and that's an example among many. Now, your replies are taking on pretty aggressive wording and you're becoming self-contradictory in your accusations ("You cited THIRDPARTY" "You didn't cite THIRDPARTY"). I think you're making this more personal than it has to be.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You said "multiple third-party sources" as if it were policy, and as if it were a requirement for WP:RS, the topic of discussion. I did say "cite", I struck it out. Feel free to obsess about that. Meanwhile, "multiple third-party sources" is a recommended requirement according to WP:THIRDPARTY. Where ever it came from, hazy memory or peculiar coincidence, it is not relevant to WP:RS discussions. Meanwhile, the fact that your argument was based on something that is already dealt with in WP:THIRDPARTY, and runs contrary to your claims, still stands.

And I repeat, there is absolutely nothing bizarre, untoward or wrong about quoting someone about future plans. That the article poorly correlated what Munro said in 2009 with what Munro actually did means nothing whatsoever, other than, somewhere on WP, an article needed cleanup. To mention it in this discussion about citing forthcoming books implied there were in fact two books listed as forthcoming long after they had been published. And there weren't. There were two books red-linked. Sean Connery once said "never again" regarding Bond films, and boy, was he wrong. Choor monster (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Another point to consider in this issue is the current mess between Amazon and Hachette. While removing pre-order links or manipulating the claims of available copies due to contract disputes is far different from publication dates, it does show that we shouldn't trust Amazon for uncorroborated information. --MASEM (t) 00:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I also feel that people have been relying on their gut feelings about Amazon's reliability and not giving much thought to all the times it does stuff like this. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Again... so much depends on how you phrase things... Amazon is not reliable for saying that a book will be released in January of 2016... it is reliable for saying that a book is expected to be released in January of 2016. It may not be the most reliable source (and I have no problem with favoring a more reliable source, if one is available)... but it is a reliable source for the expected release date. It qualifies as a reliable primary source for the expected release date. If necessary, we can even attribute the information ("Amazon has announced an expected released date of January, 2016"). The point is... if amazon announces a release date of X, then it is a reliable primary source for the fact that amazon has announced a release date of X. Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

When Amazon adds the "Jan 2016" date to a book, that is only say "This is when we want to take your money and ship you a book". Reasonably, this should be when they expect they will get the book from the publisher and 90% of the time I expect they are right. But Amazon has enough questionable business practices that if the date cannot be corroborated with a sourced directly related to the book, we have to question if that date is legit. It is better to be absent of information as to include potentially wrong information. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

A great big "so what?" to Elaqueate's link. I've watched numerous forthcoming books on Amazon for almost two decades now, and I have seen some cancelled or their dates pushed back, sometimes for several years. 10% of the Olympics have been cancelled, yet we've got 2016 Summer Olympics. You have done a remarkable job of proving that Amazon.com is not perfect. But we all agree with this. Now, keep the discussion relevant, OK? So long as Amazon has a better track record than the Olympics, I see no problem. You as might as well argue we should eliminate the NYT as WP:RS because they sometimes get it wrong. Or at least, never ever cite them (or any other newspaper) without explicit attribution every single time.

Amazon's questionable business practices do not seem to impact on the accuracy rate of ship dates, and therefore it is not an issue for discussion. The fact is the taking-money part (which we are not interested in) is very strongly expected to coincide with the book-finally-ready part (which we are interested in), whether or not they are the Embodiment of Evil in their war on publishers, competitors, employees and readers. Choor monster (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

To be completely on point, no one has offered any proof or specific source that Amazon has a source-(not editor)-recognized reputation for accuracy in these dates, or how often they get amended. The New York Times has published corrections, Amazon moves dates around without any history of what they've changed. There has to be an actual source-able reputation for accuracy, not an argument that the absence of that reputation is good enough. Discussions like this make it clear that Amazon's "publication dates" concerning books in the past are not as trustworthy as something like Worldcat. Amazon probably shouldn't be used solely on its own, when there's no independent source corroborating notability or detail.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I prefer "leaving out the month this far ahead, and closer to the date I would always leave out the day" as I said above. The accuracy rate, which we wish to keep high, is improved this way. Meanwhile, the link you cite above is amongst librarians who want the exact date for their records. Your summary is highly inaccurate. It's simply a handful of librarians sharing their experience, not very different than what we are doing here, except we're not librarians. Meanwhile, one stated that WorldCat is more accurate than Amazon for older books only. Older was not defined, perhaps before Amazon's existence? The takeaway message I get from the discussion is that Amazon is more reliable for forthcoming books, and that Amazon has zero motive for getting past publication history correct, and that "publication date" is frankly not well-defined. For what it's worth, WorldCat for forthcoming books will typically link to Amazon and nobody else, as I noticed with the Lethem book. Smaller bookstores typically sell books before the publisher's official date, for example, while Amazon is not allowed to.

I've also noticed publishers sometimes do a lousy job with describing their own inventory. I've seen books listed as ready for immediate shipment on Amazon while still listed by the publisher as forthcoming on a date from two weeks past. What's going on, of course, is the publisher hasn't quite figured out this Internet webpage thingie yet. Or they just do a monthly update, since their bottom line is essentially whatever Amazon and B&N sell, and that's the part that everybody involved gets right. I'd call that fact-checking on Amazon's part.

You said, There has to be an actual source-able reputation for accuracy. Ultimately, that's your own made-up requirement. Choor monster (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Per the requirement "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", either that reputation should be blatently obvious (hence why the NYTimes and the BBC are highly regarded sources) or we have citable evidence that a work is reputable. Amazon does not have word-of-mouth reputation for release dates so we need evidence that positively shows they are reputable --MASEM (t) 18:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Can Internet Archive be used as a reliable source for the biographies of living person?

Can Internet Archive be used as a reliable source for the biographies of living person? Can Internet Archive be used as a External link for the biographies of living person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qecalumini (talk • contribs)

• Internet archive is not itself a source. Internet archive is a repository of old web pages. The original webpages would be the source, not Internet Archive. The reliability is therefore only dependent on the reliability of the original source, so there's no way we could answer your question without everyone getting a chance to review the source directly. --Jayron32 14:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the source. Is it usable in wikipedia article? If, yes then how? https://archive.org/details/Prof.Dr.DevendraPrasadGuptaViceChancellorRanchiUniversityTheTelegraphCalcuttaInterview

Your source in that is The Telegraph (Calcutta), which seems for all purposes a major reliable Indian newspaper, so you should be fine to use that as a inline citation (you can make it a {{cite news}}-based citation and use the archiveurl links to point to the Archive.org version of it) --MASEM (t) 15:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Canback - rush job

• Site: http://www.canback.com/
• Link: User talk:Zanabelles#Tables

A user is adding figures and accompanying canback ref to a large number of articles. When replacing old figures, I'm reverting. I need to know if the source is good, to know whether or not to leave the contributions that are simply adding new data. This is a bit of a rush job because the articles all get lots of edits and these will all get buried very soon, requiring manual removal. Please advise. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

We need a better idea of what kind of information is being added. Can you supply us with a few diffs? Mangoe (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure. GDP figures. Examples: [18][19][20][21][22] Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

These don't look verifiable, peer-reviewed, scholarly, or published. Completely unreliable. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It could be COI, but at the very least someone is using more than one IP account plus a named account to insert links to a source I can find no mention of in other reliable sources..__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

COI or not, this is spamming. Coretheapple (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

And blocked. Now to see about blocking the site. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

And reverting all that spam! Coretheapple (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC) No, they seem to be all reverted. Coretheapple (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this source a subtle case of WP:CIRCULAR?

Article: Battle of Wawon, and its first revision on November 29, 2009

Source: Turkish veterans recall Korean War memories, posted on October 19, 2010. Currently used as citation #7 in the article.

Passage in question:

It is certainly no exaggeration that almost all Korean veterans here talk about the heroic efforts of Turkish soldiers in fierce battles with the communist North and especially praise their performance during the Battle of Kunu-ri on the eastern bank of the Chongchon River. Kunu-ri, also known as battle of Wawon, was one of the key battlegrounds during the Chinese onslaught. The Turkish brigade lost more than half of their total casualities in the Korean War during this battle, resulting in the deaths of more than 400 Turkish soldiers. Turkish troops, cut off when they were encircled by Chinese regiments, were able to breach the Chinese trap and rejoin the US 2nd Infantry Division. The delay the Chinese troops encountered after meeting with staunch Turkish resistance helped UN forces to reassemble and withdraw without suffering many casualties.

Google search result on Battle of Wawon before November 29, 2009

I don't recall in any print sources before that date about the Battle of Wawon that used the same narrative as TR Defence aside from the original article I created by cross referencing official US, South Korean and Chinese military histories on the matter. The key thing that draw my eye was the description of "Chinese Regiments", which is information published by Chinese language sources only. Putting that fact in the same sentence as the "400 causalities" fact from page 90 of Disaster in Korea: The Chinese Confront MacArthur ISBN 978-1-60344-128-5 just raise the red flag even further. Jim101 (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Malcolm Moos: Office of the President, University of Minnesota

The subject article appears at [23]. Contrary to the Wikipedia article Malcolm Moos at <http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Moos>, Professor Malcolm Charles Moos earned "a doctoral degree in political science from the University of California at Berkeley," NOT "Los Angeles".

FamilyTreeCircles

I am not familiar with FamilyTreeCircles, used as a reference in Matthew Canfield. Althought it claims to be moderated, I don't think they mean that in the same way we refer to the editorial policies of reliable sources.

Anyone have thoughts on whether it is acceptable?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks very much like user-generated content. The sketch on Matthew Canfield might have been written by a staff member but it isn't signed so there's no indication of reliability. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment moderation isn't a reputation for fact-checking and reliability. "Submissions on this website are the opinion of the poster and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of FamilyTreeCircles.com." I don't think it's better than a random blog post for reliability.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

We might want to check that article and related ones for copyvio problems as well. The creator of the article has been blocked for ignoring copyright issues.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually reviewing it as part of a CCI, but running into other issues. Thanks for finding that disclaimer, I was looking for something like that and did not see it. I didn't think it would be reliable, but I wanted to ask before removing any content using it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)