Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

"WP:RSN" redirects here. For "Wikipedia will be ready real soon now", see meta:Eventualism.

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. The reliability of sourcing is heavily dependent upon context, so please include not only the source in question, but the article in which it is being cited, as well as links to any relevant talk page discussions or article diffs. Please post new topics in a new section.

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to the Verifiability talk page.

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.

This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, not articles. General questions about articles, including "which sources in Article X are reliable?" may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard and may be better handled on the article talk page or the talk page of an interested WikiProject.

Click here to start a new discussion thread

Which source would be best for the current self-governing status of a Territory?

There are several sources for the current self-governing level of Gibraltar. They seem to define a variety of perimeters:

The current citation, from the Encyclopedia Brittannica, says that [1] "Gibraltar is self-governing in all matters but defense."

Other alternative sources are:

• The UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee 2007-2008 Report says that Gibraltar has “almost complete internal self-government”. Also that the responsibilities of the Governor are in the areas of "external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service” [2] (pg. 16) (i.e. they are not the Government of Gibraltar's responsibilities).
• The country profiles of the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office say that the Governor is responsible in: "external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service” [3].
• The Chief Minister of Gibraltar says that it has "self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers." [4] (page 4).
• The country profiles in BBC say that Gibraltar is “self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy”[5]
• A UN report says that “The Governor is responsible for the conduct of external affairs, defence, internal security (including the police, in conjunction with the Police Authority for Gibraltar) and for certain appointments as conferred on him by the Constitution. The Governor, together with the Council of Ministers, constitutes the Government of Gibraltar.3” [6] (pg. 3)

I think that probably the most accurate source is the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office, as the Governor of Gibraltar reports to its Secretary of State. But I'm not sure if it would be a primary source. What do you think would be the best source?

Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia. --Gibnews (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would go with the UN report, due to independence from the subject. It is of course an issue of weight, rather than reliability. Taemyr (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook [7]Fladrif (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

How many times does this have to come up at one forum or another, how many threads need to be started, before someone brings up WP:FORUMSHOP? This is the fifth different thread and the third different forum where the OP has brought this up. There's clearly no consensus on talk for the change the OP wants (if anything there's consensus for the status quo) - can we move on? Pfainuk talk 19:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm also finding it hard to follow the discussion. Last time I checked the discussion was taking place a couple of threads above and here but I lost track when the OP chose to reply on a user talk page. I have already invited the OP to refrain from further canvassing and centralise the discussion per WP:MULTI, but these threads are still popping up left right and centre. RedCoat10 • talk 20:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

unindent

Am I right in thinking that this is the 3rd thread started by this editor on this page? Previous threads acknowledged the sources as reliable and the comments in the lead acceptable given the status was amplified in the article. Is the intention to ask repeatedly in different ways to get an answer he feels is favourable. Justin talk 22:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a very interesting decision to take about which source to use in order to describe the Government status of Gibraltar, and that's independent of any dispute we may have. Two editors want to include more detail in the lead, others (you three plus other 3) think it's OK to leave the detail in the Politics section, and one is neutral. In any case, we have to use the best possible source, either for the lead or for the Politics section.

The interesting thing is that there is a variety of usually reliable sources that deal with this issue, but they say different things. And we have to a) choose only one as the most reliable one or b) reflect some of them (as this is a more technical and not a POV issue, I don't think this is called for -just my opinion). The sources are:

Gibraltar is self-governing in all matters except in …

Source	Defence	Foreign affairs	Internal security	Public service	Financial stability
Encyclopedia Britannica [8] (current source)	X
BBC [9]	X	X
British Library [10]	X	X
Chief Minister of Gibraltar (speech at the UN) [11] (page 4)	X	X	X
UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office [12]	X	X	X	X
United Nations [13] (pg. 3)	X	X	X	X
UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee 2007-2008 Report [14] (pg. 3)	X	X	X	X
CIA – The World Factbook [15]	X	X	X		X

Which alternative should we use?

This is not an easy issue, and I am sure that any help will be welcome. --Imalbornoz (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you are on the wrong track by asking which view to discuss... WP:NPOV tells us that when reliable sources disagree, we should discuss all significant view points. This obviously can not be done in the lede, but it can be summarized by a statement that informs the reader that the extent of its self-governing status is disputed. Suggest something like: "Gibraltar is considered Self-governing, but sources disagree as to the extent" for the lede, with further discussion and details explained later in the article. Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This is precisely what the article does already. As you state all significant view points should be discussed; they are. The thing is the self-governing status of Gibraltar isn't disputed. The UN applies a somewhat arcane definition of what constitutes self-government. The UN definition is:

• A sovereign state
• An integral part of a sovereign state
• A state in free association with a sovereign state

Gibraltar is none of the above but then this is not what people would consider when you talk about self-government. The stated policy of HMG is to devolve Government of British Overseas Territories as far as is practical. Its further complicated by the rather arcane ways in a constitutional monarchy reserves what are basically theoretical powers and what are actual powers. So while in theory the Governor retains the power to appoint public officials, in practical terms he is responsible as the Queen's representative for the appointment of democratically elected officials. Internal security is theoretically the prerogative of the Governor, in practise he appoints a Police Authority based on the recommendations of the Gibraltar Government.

The question posed here is misleading, its not that the sources disagree. In fact they don't, its just that they are covering the same subject from different perspectives and applying different definitions of what constitutes self-government. Its comparing apples and oranges.

The BBC statement that Gibraltar is self-governing in all matters except defence and foreign relations is reasonably accurate. The UK Government is notionally responsible for the defence and foreign relations of Gibraltar. But there even that is not entirely accurate, since the Government of Gibraltar has reprsented itself at the UN Decolonization Committee (I use the past tense as the GoG has chosen to cease attending dismissing the annual meetings as a waste of time).

But the lede actually says self-governing British Overseas Territory. As its written it implies internal self-government, were we talking about a nation state the term self-governing would be superfluous since states are by defintion self-governing. So the lede already conveys that the self-government is internal self-government. The possibility of adding internal to the lede was considered on the Talk Page but generally dismissed by most as superfluous.

Just to re-iterate, the lede as currently written is an accurate reflection of the status of Gibraltar. It doesn't contradict any of the sources and the article reflects the differing views of the status of Gibraltar.

Nevertheless thank you for your input, hopefully an objective third party observation might make this editor understand the points raised elsewhere. This has already been extensively discussed on the talk page. Justin talk 18:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Question, are there British Overseas Territories that are not self-governing? Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No there isn't, except where the territories are remote with only a transient scientific or military population eg South Georgia. All of the populated BOT are self-governing, the policy of HMG is to devolve Government as much as possible. Obviously this varies according to the population, eg the Pitcairn Islands have an island council, whereas Bermuda has a Parliament. Justin talk 20:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Or BOTs where self governance has been suspended (I forget where it occured recently, somewhere in the Windies I think) --Narson ~ Talk • 20:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Turks and Caicos Islands, corruption is the issue. And you're right it was suspended last week. Justin talk 20:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ironic, isn't it, that Wikipedia should describe the event as a "suspension of self-government".[16] RedCoat10 • talk 20:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ironic indeed. Justin talk 20:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

In which case, I don't see the need to mention that Gibraltar is self-governing in the lede at all... the self-governance is part of being a BOT (or at least is the norm for BOTs)... just say it is a BOT without the qualifier that it is self-governing and discuss what that means in terms of governance later. Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The need to mention it is promoted by the assumption in many quarters that BOT is just another name for a colony. Its a completely different arrangement, its also the case that the self-governing status of Gibraltar and other BOT has altered over time. The latest constitutional arrangements were made in 2006; full self-government of Gibraltar being delayed by the dispute with Spain. Justin talk 07:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

On its own, 'British Overseas Territory' could well imply a political status akin to that enjoyed by French Overseas Territories which are integral parts of France. BOTs, in contrast, are not part of the United Kingdom. RedCoat10 • talk 09:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT (For the lede: As Justin said, all populated BOTs are "self-governed" in a degree -safe for temporary exceptions that confirm the rule as Narson said-. I agree with Blueboar: the self-governing reference is not needed. In case there are some editors -as I know there are- who want it to be mentioned, we could always say that "it has a high degree of self-government" -that would not contradict any source- and then discuss the details in the Politics section. I wouldn't like to discuss the lede much further, as it was already dealt with in the previous question, this section is already very long, and I'm afraid that this issue is very controversial...).

For the details of the Politics section (much less disputed): I am afraid that if we explain all of the sources, it is going to look like a mess... Could we assign priority to some source and then say something like "other sources vary in their interpretation of the matters where the Governement of Gibraltar has responsability..." What do you think? --Imalbornoz (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you have an example of a similar article with such variety of views from relevant sources and how it got solved -in the detailed part of the article? Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Would someone independent of the discussion please consider closing this. This is the RS noticeboard and not the place to discuss the lede of an article - that is what Talk:Gibraltar is for. The sources used in the article are reliable; even the OP doesn't dispute that. Further discussion is not going to be productive; the OP has already had the answer that all sources should be appropriately represented and they are. He is still asking for a judgement on which source to use; notably the Politics section of the article already represents the spread of opinion. Thank you. Justin talk 09:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see any spread of opinion in the Politics section of the article, so I think the point raised is still interesting for editors of that article.

I think it would be very interesting if we could have an external opinion on how to solve in the Politics section the apparent conflict of views between BBC, CIA, Enc. Britannica, UN, UK Foreign Office, Government of Gibraltar, ... without making the Politics section a mess.

Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What it looks like to be is that the EB and the BBC ares proven to be unreliable sources in this particular--they summarized too briefly. The official statement of the two governments involved is the best source. The CIA is probably interpreting that the UK will ensure financial stability though they have no obligation to do so. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, according to the United Nations, Gibraltar has no self-government in either public services, internal security, defense or foreign affairs. It is therefore a region or colony of Great Britain. What's more, Gibraltar is on the UN list of non-self-governing territories. Period. It is therefore a non-self governing territory. End of discussion. Some editors should stop obstructing verifiable information like this. JCRB (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Fiorina on Conde Nast Portfolio "Worst CEOs" list

There has been an ongoing controversy for some time on the Carly Fiorina page about her inclusion on a list of "The 20 Worst American CEOs of All Time" published by Conde Nast Portfolio. The original publication URL is now defunct, however the story has been republished in full, with attribution to Portfolio, by CNBC at [17]. A very cursory search turns up a couple of other sites that republished the list.

Note that these sources are not being used to establish the fact that Fiorina was one of the worst CEOs in history; only that there has been significant criticism of her tenure as CEO. The page text is:

Judgements on Fiorina's tenure at HP are mixed. While Fiorina's 2000 bid to acquire EDS was abandoned, HP did go on to purchase the company in 2008; this was cited by Loren Steffy of the New York Times as evidence that Fiorina "had the right strategy" and that "after eight years, HP has come around to her thinking." In April of 2009, however, the business magazine web site Condé Nast Portfolio listed Fiorina as one of the "The 20 Worst American CEOs of all time," characterizing the HP-Compaq merger as "widely regarded as a failure", and citing the halving of HP's stock value under Fiorina's tenure.

At least six editors support inclusion of the content, while one editor continues to object to this, and any other information in the article critical of Fiorina. This editor convinced an admin to override full article protection to remove the critical material (but leaving the supportive EDS commentary) on the basis that sources were not reliable enough for a WP:BLP. Rvcx (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

CNBC is reliabel, and so was portfolio in its time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Rvcx, wp:blp is not about a vote, although you fail to mention that at least four other administrators have agreed there are serious deficiencies with the sourcing. The publication may, in and of itself, have been a "reliable" source; a photo caption calling someone one of "the worst chief executive officers ever" is not a "high quality" source as per wp:blp. Further, the piece in question here received little or no secondary coverage, making the opinion expressed non-notable, to boot. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A valid criticism was raised when the original link went dead (which I believe happened just recently, long after the controversy began); otherwise I can see no other editors who express such an opinion. Notability is not at issue on this notice board, but the EDS mentions is far far less notable than the fact that when respected business journalists try to think of the worst CEOs ever the name Fiorina springs to mind. "Worst of all time" lists don't crop up often, but of course she was also named among the worst CEOs when she still was a CEO. I'd support incorporating that commentary into the same passage, but then that is also beyond the scope of this discussion. Rvcx (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That link is a blog, written by a columnist (not for his actual publication, however), and his opinion received no secondary coverage. Let me reiterate, this time from wp:rs itself: An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used. A photo caption in a defunct publication and a columnist publishing in a blog, neither receiving any secondary coverage for their opinion, simply do not meet that criteria. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing a key part of what Rvcx posted: "these sources are not being used to establish the fact that Fiorina was one of the worst CEOs in history; only that there has been significant criticism of her tenure as CEO." Given that CNBC, MSNBC, and other reliable sources have made note of said criticism, the controversy itself has become both significant and reliably sourced. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

One poor source and one blog do not "significant criticism" make. And the prose proposed is not that "There was criticism of Fiorina during and following her tenure" or something of that sort (which I would agree with and support the inclusion of, with sourcing). The prose he wants included is that she was non-notably "named" one of "the worst American chief executive officers ever" in a photo caption, the sort of opinion that is squarely proscribed by wp:blp. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

CNBC is an unquestionably reliable source, as is MSNBC. Also, the "photo caption" is a misnomer, as each "photo" is actually an element of the entire list. That the list includes photos doesn't change that she was a member of the entire list... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Undeniably a reliable source. Assertions to the contrary stretch WP:AGF beyond the breaking point. But, the fact that she took a great company and ran it into the ground is so well documented in so many places that I'm sure you could find dozens of other similar citations. If there are BLP concerns, the best place to air them would be at WP:BLPN, not here. Dlabtot (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• You know, reporting that Portfolio listed her among the worst american CEO's (in a truly awful listcrufty article embodying the worst elements of "get it out the door" and "fill up column inches") isn't defamatory or indecent. If this were a list of 'best CEOs" we wouldn't be having this discussion. As far as I'm concerned we have one thing to sort out. Was this blog content or (nominally) an article? If it was a blog (even run by Conde Nast) then BLP is quite specific, we can't use it. If it wasn't, then what's the problem? Protonk (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt that this is the basis of the problem. Dlabtot (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The first page of the feature[18] does not include a byline, and even explicitly states "Ranking by Portfolio.com". This list is obviously fully endorsed as an editorial view of a respected business news organization. Rvcx (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't an endorsement. Portfolio.com had a syndication agreement for its blog content with CNBC.com. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As Dlabtot pointed out, it may (arguably, in my opinion) be a reliable source. As he also pointed out, this is more of a wp:blp issue, since that policy doesn't merely require a reliable source, it requires a "high quality" source. I reviewed the original "content" on Portfolio.com when it was still up, and it consisted of a photo caption. I don't think a photo caption in a "get it out the door" tombstone edition of a defunct publication meets that requirement. As an administrator pointed out on the talk page for the article, it's trying to "back up a battleship claim with rowboats." My sentiments exactly. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

To be fair to portfolio, while they were in business, they hired some excellent editors and writers (Felix Salmon among them, one of the best writers on the financial crisis). I'm not sure how they blew through 100 millions dollars in short order, there has to be a good book about that coming down the pike sometime. Protonk (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The caliber of the staff they assembled was undeniable. For the purposes of this particular issue, though, keep in mind they laid off most of those folks in December 2008. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Further sources that attest to the existence (and notability, although that is not at issue in this forum) of the list are here, here, here, here, here, and here. Rvcx (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Where do any of those "sources" provide critical commentary of the listing? Half of them are regarding Vikram Pandit, not Carly Fiorina. One apparently does mention her by name, in a single sentence, on the last page. Still "rowboat sources" for "battleship claims" that simply are not "high quality" as required by wp:blp user:J aka justen (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Portfolio is a reliable source. Period. Its "Best" and "Worst" CEO list (and, yes, there was best CEO list as well as a worst CEO list) are certainly notable as well, as they were widely reported. It is hardly slanderous, and is perfectly appropriate to include in the Fiore article per BLP. This matter should be closed. Fladrif (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Conde Nast Portfolio seems like a reasonably reliable source for material on a businessperson. I think the WP:BLP issues are misguided here, and are serving to generate a lot of acrimony without a lot of policy substance. A better question is whether being named on a magazine's "List of worst CEOs" is an encyclopedic part of the article. I don't see it adding a lot of substance, since the blurb is so short; if there's substantial criticism of Fiorina, then I as a reader would rather see more substantial sources. That's an editorial decision, but I don't see either WP:RS or WP:BLP as being active here. A major publisher's business periodical is a reasonable source for material evaluating a businessperson, and this doesn't appear to qualify under WP:BLP given the adequate sourcing. That said, I personally don't see it as essential to a complete, encyclopedic biography either. MastCell ^Talk 18:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  Quite, it's not an issue of WP:RS - the inclusion in the list is reliably sourced. The issue is rather WP:NPOV - is the list sufficiently important, or inclusion in it sufficiently informative (it seems to be mere inclusion, rather than inclusion + explanation?) to justify mentioning it in the article? Rd232 ^talk 16:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, an admin has restored the material, citing a CNBC article commenting on the Portfolio article, so it looks like the point is resolved, unless we want to add a supplemental cite to Portfolio for redundancy. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As I commented at the page in question. I'm not clear on what exactly makes CNP a reliable source for the purposes of determining the 20 Worst CEO's ever. Conde Nast in general is certainly reliable within its purview. As a determiner of historical relevance though, I'm not sure the magazine has ever established its claim to authority. What was the methodology used to establish the ranking? How wide a field of expertise was consulted? Ultimately, this was a survey of business-school professors based on unclear criteria, tabulated in an unclear manner, summarized in an editorial fashion. Really, it's an opinion piece. It has no factual basis. Certainly it is notable that CN chose to publish an opinion piece and title it as the 20-Best/20-Worst EVER!!, and it's notable that other parties chose to comment on that for various reasons - but I fail to understand how this rises above the treatment we would give any op-ed piece in any magazine. Put simply, it's reliable that this particular article occurred at some point in time, but it's not reliable that Conde Nast is a source for determining 20 all-time worst anything. Surely that is just opinion.

To Squid, if you refer to Jenna's restoration of the material, she explicitly noted my comments post-facto and declared ambivalence on the matter, so I don't see a definitive decision there. I'm willing to continue discussion here in an unheated environment, but I don't personally see this as resolved. Within any reliable source, there are varying degrees of reliability. I would never quote something from The Economist or Nature that came from the editorial bits of those magazines unless I made clear that it was an editorial or opinion bit. Putting aside the political kerfuffle, the issue is whether CN is reliable for definitive statements on worst-ever. I maintain that it is not, and in general, no source is reliable in that regard. It can only ever be quoted as opinion. Franamax (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be attacking a straw man. Nobody has suggested using this source to support the claim that Fiorina was a bad CEO. Only that there has been significant criticism of her tenure. Rvcx (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Fox News on Lawrence Solomon

I am being told by an experienced editor that the following article here cannot be used to establish that the environmentalist, Lawrence Solomon, is in fact an environmentalist. I do not understand why this article would not qualify as a reliable secondary source. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one the article does not look like a very good source to me, but rather like a collection of tidbits used as a teaser. But more importantly, it does not say that Solomon is an environmentalist. So I can fully understand the concern. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Fox News is, in broad terms, considered a reliable source ... The problem is that, in this instance, the source does not support the statement. That means that this specific Fox News report is not a reliable source for the specific statement it is being used to support. Blueboar (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not simply ignore a source that does not support what you need it to, and look toward G Books where several sources refer to him as an environmentaist. Then there's Washington Times, Nashua Telegraph and Boston Globe which all call him environmentaist. Heck, the Outlook even calls him an "internationally acclaimed environmentalist". MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Michael, it looks like it may be easier to find this stuff than I thought, and your refs look better. Meanwhile, for my own humble Wiki-education, I am still unable to understand the concern and would appreciate a response from uninvolved editors. The article states: "A former adviser to President Carter's global environment task force and one of Canada's leading environmentalists is disputing the claim that there is a scientific consensus about the human origins of global warming. Lawrence Solomon writes ..." What is the problem here? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Fox News is not a reliable source. We've been through this in many different cases. Find a better non-partisan source.Camelbinky (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

But it's fair and balanced! Seriously, though, where has it ever been determined, by consensus, that it is "not a reliable source"? My search through pages and pages of matching archives shows it, time and time again, being defended as a reliable source. I don't watch it (and don't like it), but that's because of its editorial slant, not because of any inherent bent towards factual inaccuracy. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Fox is a reliable source. They have a right wing slant, but that doesn't take away their RSness. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources that pass WP:RS for one fact or in one context often fail under different circumstances. Trying to get a definitive answer about whether something is a reliable source in every case is an exercise in frustration. In this case, if other sources support it as well, I'd just cite it to several and move along to the next project :) -Pete (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fox news is reliable under our guidelines. That doesn't mean it is preferred as a source for cases like this. Just like cnn's website wouldn't be preferred, fox's 'print' side isn't great. That's without taking into account their slant. Protonk (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

@Michael - every single one of your sources are opinions (Op-Ed's, letters to the editor etc.). The trouble is that so far no one has been able to come up with a sufficiently reliable source to the effect of calling Mr Solomon an environmentalist. And that is the problem in this case. The insertion has historically on the article been controversial (several edit-wars), and thus it requires a reliable reference - which is all that is being asked for, before insertion. For what it is worth, my personal opinion is that he is/or has been an environmentalist - but that is neither here nor there. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Alex... the problem here is in the writing at the fox news article (caused by the fact that they created the print report by simply transcribing the vocals on a TV report). The way they wrote it up, there a paragraph break in the middle of what you are citing. A new paragraph indicates that there is a clear separation between the two sentences ... that

• Canada's leading enviromentalist (unnamed) is disputing something... and
• Someone named Lawrence Solomon has written something.

For the citation to support the contention that the leading environmentalist actually is Lawrence Solomon, it would have to read something like ... "

• A former adviser to President Carter's global environment task force and one of Canada's leading environmentalists, Lawrence Solomon, is disputing the claim that there is a scientific consensus about the human origins of global warming.

Hope that helps clarify why that particular article doesn't work. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ah. this is a critical distinction. I didn't even read that closely. Thanks, blueboar. Protonk (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Geez, I don't think there's any doubt that the sentence is referring to Solomon, and a lot of newspaper-style articles introduce a subject in this way. If it's not referring to Solomon, then who else is it referring to? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. FOX still has an obvious POV to push here. They have every incentive (and a history of doing so) to pump up the prominence of anti global warming claims. Protonk (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And that is why FOX news is not and will not ever ever ever EVER be considered a reliable source for anything that is remotely political in nature. It has been repeatedly stated and verified in other actually reliable news sources regarding their bias. Do I have to seriously write an essay "Dont use FOX News!" to get the point across? It seems we go over this question once a month. It is my period apparently because it happens like clock-work and I get cranky everytime it occurs. How about a hatnote at the top of this page- if you have a question regarding using Fox News, dont bother asking, the answer is "probably best to find a better source".Camelbinky (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Fox News is great. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Photography gear reviews

There are a lot of articles about various cameras, lenes, etc (An example: AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G ED). There is a lot of data about these that would add to the articles, but it comes from self-published review sites like [19] or Digital Picture. Now that mainstream media publications like Popular Photography Magazine focus almost entirely on entry-level photography, websites have taken over the job of reviewing mid-range to professional gear, and the websites frequently do a more complete job with entry-level gear as well. What criteria would a photography review website need to meet to be a reliable source with regard to an article about a camera or lens? MirrorLockup (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Named authors, recognition within the field (like an article about them in some rs about photography saying how awesome they are or some award for their work), evidence of fact checking or editorial control and/or hiring experts within the field to do reviews. That's the basic idea. You can probably convince folks that they are reliable if they consistently produce better/more in depth reviews of products than flagship magazines, even if you can't produce evidence of editorial control. Protonk (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Ok. This is the old "just because everyone knows it's true doesn't mean it's reliable" problem. The sites will definitely fall into the latter category...there isn't any editorial control, because most of the time it's just one guy writing the reviews...where that guy is very well-regarded among photographers but doesn't necessarily have the backing of, say, a magazine. Either that will have to do, or there are going to be a lot of photography-related stubs :) Thanks for the advice. MirrorLockup (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"Backing of a magazine" is a catch-22: step up on the reliability scale, step it up twice, and still "the guy" is the mag, and the mag (hardcopy or web) reputation relies on one person only. Magazine shell itself isn't worth much. NVO (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

DPReview is notable enough to have its own article here and lists both authors and their credentials [20]. The reviews editor is a published author [21] and I'd be inclined to say it was the most citable web-based source per WP:RS. There are also some very credible self-published authors out there; Luminous-landscape.com is pretty well respected (and frequently cited) but the author's credentials probably don't cut it. I often wonder whether, as web-based sources "mature", they become more "reliable". Reichmann's certainly been round the block a few times :-) --mikaul^talk 22:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Are Industry Associations Reliable Sources?

I was using self-published reports from The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PHRMA http://www.phrma.org/ ), the Europian Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA http://www.efpia.org/ ), and the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (JPMA http://www.jpma.or.jp/english/) as sources of information about industry expenditures. Any opinions on reliabilty of these sources for facts on industry expenditures? What about other industry information? To see an example go here [22]. The question arises from Healthcare in the United States. The discussion line is Talk:Health_care_in_the_United_States#Medical_products_research_and_development. The relevant diff [23]-- but an alternative, more general wording has being agreed to (awaiting input from what folks think here). However, I also want to incorporate these same facts to expand the section in Health care industry,the initial discussion of these plans is here: Talk:Health_care_industry#Investment_Trends_in_Healthcare_industry.

• Pharma industry financials can be easily verified/approximated through individual co's financial reports. Doctoring this data makes no sense, so I'd take the lobbyists' word for it. However, since corporate, university and govt research are all mixed together in one pot, take care to present the whole pic rather than only corporate side. NVO (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Industry associations serve two general purposes. One, to provide information and idea exchange within the industry. Two, to provide information and advocacy on behalf of the industry to those outside it. It would be wrong to start from a general presumption that everything they say is unreliable. Some statements will be more reliable than newspapers in general, others will be advocacy. The details in the relevant diff were news to me, but that the U.S. funds a disproportionate share of medical research has been known among those well informed in the subject for decades. So it should, with a bit of dead tree research and willingness not to have the most up-to-this-instant data (which will would have to come from industry publications) be possible to find non-industry sources. But it seems to me that current discussion is more about where and how to include these well known facts in the article than the specifics of whether they are reliably sourced. GRBerry 20:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

True, the real concern is whether the facts from these reports should be qualified by a statement that indicates a conflict of interest, e.g. "According to industry advocates the industry spends x...." or whether I can just say "The industry spends x.." Mrdthree (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be cited only with attribution, imho. Dlabtot (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is difficult, because there may be different approaches to reporting these things in different countries. Do you report net or gross expenditures? How are subsidies and taxes included? What is a research spending - salaries? Lab equipment? Building write-offs? The secretary helping the tax accountant to optimize the tax report on research spending? Depending on the local legal and cultural conditions, the resulting numbers can be very different. So I would not compare numbers coming from different sources unless they explicitly conform to an agreed common standard. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

When a cited source is comparing the health of an industry in its own country with the health of an industry overseas, I would assume they use the same metric. But, I assume your broader concern is that it might be a bad idea for an editor to use financial data from two different countries and then make direct comparisons or statements about the industries? Also I am curious are you expressing caution or do you have knowledge that it is the case that financial statements vary significantly between Europe, Japan and the United States? Mrdthree (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You called the tax accountant, now hear the tax accountant. Your concerns on diverse accounting treatments are well justified, and actual output from one megadollar injected in the industry will vary quite widely. Counting output is futile; R&D financials are useless in estimating R&D output. It is simply a measure of input; just disregard all the suckers who join the feast downstream - R&D is a black hole even in the most transparent economies. It's not about how "two different economies" invest their monies, it's only about spending. X spends 1 dollar per capita, Y spends 100. Nothing more. Now, I have matters to discuss with my secretaries... :) NVO (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So your point is R&D spending per capita is the best measure? Mrdthree (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the point was: consider spending as just this, spending, expense, cash out. Don't ask "What is a research spending - salaries? Lab equipment? ..." this is below the radar of public knowledge. A black box. NVO (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've dealt with this a lot IRL for academic-style writing. A number like the amount of money spent on research by the pharmaceutical industry has a source. When you use the number, you include the source. You say, "The pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. spent $X billion dollars in 2005 on research and development, according to the trade association PhRMA." If you can find somebody who disagrees, you add, "or $Y billion dollars in 2005 according to industry critic Marcia Angell." (BTW Angell has argued that the pharmaceutical industry is inflating their spending on research.)

There is no one true number for the amount spent on research and development in the U.S. in a given year, for reasons like Stephan Schulz gave. There are many different definitions of "research" and "development." A Fortune 500 company may (legitimately) come up with one number for tax purposes and another number for investment analysis. If they appoint a bunch of doctors to an advisory panel and fly them to Hawaii for a pre-launch seminar, they could call that research, development, or marketing, and they might have legitimate accounting reasons for assigning it to one category or the other. How much of the cost of the legal department should be counted as research?

In accounting, and economics, they have to make a lot of arbitrary rules. The numbers are somewhat arbitrary, but they're still useful.

So I think the answer is yes, industry sources are WP:RS. But if you can get non-industry WP:RS, include them too. It would be WP:OR to compare different countries yourself in the article, but there are some organizations like the OECD that compile comparative statistics and they're WP:RS. If you can find someone who disagrees with their methods, it would be WP:NPOV to add them too. You should make it clear what the limits to accuracy are, and the better reports will explain those limits, so you can quote them. --Nbauman (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

National Post Biography of Lawrence Solomon: SPS? or RS?

I am interested in the opinion of uninvolved editors (please) who consider themselves to be experienced and knowledgeable on what constitutes an WP:RS. Specifically, it has been argued that the this newspaper "blurb" / biography is actually a WP:SPS and therefore not WP:RS. The biography is presented in the third person at the newspaper where the subject is a journalist. I would argue that all that matters is that the newspaper was happy to publish it, authorship is attributed formally to the newspaper, and nowhere to Solomon; it is therefore a WP:RS. Other editors have argued, on the contrary, that these sorts of biographies are "typically" written by the subject, and are therefore WP:SPS. I would like to use the biography to establish the fact that Solomon is an environmentalist (all those given above by Michael were also rejected for various reasons...). Many thanks in advance. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a WP:RS, this does not seem to be a WP:SPS and seems that the newspaper has published this piece of information., most of the newspapers have a small writeup about the author which is not WP:SPS always! --Nvineeth (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I would not call it an independent source - generally speaking we don't consider employers independent of their employees, and to the extent LS is a columnist for the Financial Post he an employee. But I would call it a reliable source. I would choose not to use peacock terms (especially "leading") that are sourced from non-independent sources. In business PR, leading is an expected adjective, because nobody ever wants to buy from a supplier that isn't leading - and it is never defined in what way the supplier leads. But frankly, I can't believe that anyone would dispute in good faith that he is an environmentalist that is just too obviously true to be subject to serious dispute. GRBerry 20:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not an SPS ... for it to be self-published it would have to be an autobiography, written by Solomon. Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Err, it *is* an auto biography, not a biography. who do you think wrote it? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Then why is it labeled 'Biography' instead of 'Autobiography'? lol Dlabtot (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

@Dl: because on very very rare occasions, newspapers have been known to not be 100% accurate? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL - I see, it's simply 'wrong' because you say so. Look, I understand that it can be frustrating when the overwhelming consensus is so clearly against you, but it is something we all must learm to deal with occasionally if we want to edit Wikipedia. 17:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would assume it was written by a staffer at the financialpost.com (and not by Mr. Solomon himself) Blueboar (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would you assume that? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it is written in 3rd person and not in 1st person. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is the convention for such blurbs - no matter who writes them. (just as it is in Who's who - which is also written by the subject). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps... but see my comment below. Blueboar (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Effectively a SPS. It is safe to assume that even the Notional Past would fact check the bioblurb, but it is clearly against their financial interest to present a balanced POV about a columnist. And if there's anything Conrad Black understands, it's that his newspapers are in business to make money.LeadSongDog come howl 21:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, Conrad Black hasn't had any part in the ownership of the National Post since 2001. Risker (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ever tried to change a corporate culture? It's nearly impossible.LeadSongDog come howl 21:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• WP:RS? Yes. WP:SPS? No. Dlabtot (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Um... the publisher is the National Post (even if it was authored by Solomon). So unless Solomon runs the National Post, it isn't self-published. Blueboar (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but as stated below, Alex didn't write it up correctly. The sticking point here is: That while the National Post may be an RS for some things, not all things in the National Post are reliable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"not all things in the National Post are reliable" - And you know which is which how? Are we expected to simply take your word that it is unreliable in this case? --GoRight (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read what i wrote again: There exists a subset Y of text in NP that is not RS. For instance: Opinion columns for instance belong in the 2nd category for anything other than the authors opinion, letter columns are completely unreliable as RS's etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

But the biography in question is none of those things. --GoRight (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The question/write-up by Alex is not entirely correct. There has been no statement that the bio is an SPS - but instead that it is very likely to be written by the subject himself, without much editorial oversight, and thus is not an RS, and equivalent to an SPS. As has been said above, these kinds of blurbs are typically full of peacock terms. The major trouble with the information that Alex wants to extract here: that Solomon is an environmentalist, is that it is (so far) devoid of any mention in reliable sources. We do have a opinion sources that say this, but they are singularly from one side of the political spectrum. Thus the problems with the blurb. As a comment to GBerry: If it is so obvious that Solomon is an environmentalist (even without the "one of Canada's leading" part), why is it so hard to reference/find a reliable source to document it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

An interesting conundrum - how to refer, briefly, to a person who was amongst the founders of Energy Probe (an anti-nuclear group well known in Canada), the World Rainforest Movement, Friends of the Earth Canada, and Lake Ontario Waterkeeper. We could call him a founding member of multiple environmentally-oriented organizations...or we could use shorthand and call him an environmentalist. Risker (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

@KDP - (a) Is the biography in question attributed to Solomon as the author, or is it published merely under the newspaper's auspices/label? (b) Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that Solomon is the author, or is that all conjecture on your part? (c) Can you point me to the section of the policy that discusses this SPS "equivalence" of which you speak? --GoRight (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

GoRight the bio is attributed to no one at all so your question is without relevance. Now all that i'm saying here is: It is not unusual for such blurbs to be written by the subject him/herself. Can i say that this is the case here? No. Can i say that this isn't the case here? No. Do such blurbs have the usual editorial oversight from newspapers as journalistic articles? The answer is: No. (and the point in case is from the same newspaper NP, where Timothy Ball's blurb was incorrect for years - same type of column/blurb). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No there's absolutely no indication whatsoever or any evidence at all pointing towards the idea that it is very likely to be written by the subject himself, without much editorial oversight. Frankly, it is an absurd suggestion, imho. Dlabtot (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Absurd? Hardly. In the very same newspaper Timothy Ball for years claimed in his blurb that he had been a professor for >30 years - despite it being completely impossible considering his background. Shows you a bit about the level of editorial oversight that such blurbs are subject to. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Compare this SPS at Energy Probe. Clearly the man is not shy about blowing his own horn. The Financial Post bioblurb is a verbatim clone.LeadSongDog come howl 21:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why you made the assumption that the bio at the Financial Post was copied from energy.probeinternational.org instead of the other way around. Could you say? Dlabtot (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

He's shown as "admin" on the Energy Probe site. I did make the small assumption that if he, as admin, posted that text he would know who had authored it. I also assumed that he wouldn't lift it from the FP without attribution unless it was his own work. In any case, it matters little which came first.LeadSongDog come howl 19:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Is this all about calling him an environmentalist so that we can squeeeeezzzeeee in the line "environmentalist XYZ thinks global warming is a sham"? Protonk (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense. MastCell ^Talk 23:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't that translate to: "Honey, I think I'm gonna be sick?"  :>) Blueboar (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • Uh. Ok. Still looks like that to me. If that makes me the bad guy, oh well. Protonk (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah. I think this focus on the term runs both ways. Thatcher made a perceptive comment about it at AN: "This is...a particularly idiotic form of edit war, since it relies on both sides heavily relying on the fallacy appeal to authority...What difference does it make in reality if American Spectator calls Solomon an environmentalist? None, of course. His claims and writings stand or fall on their merits. But you folks are fighting over a label because you perceive that the label conveys more authority than his actual writings. I've seen a lot of fighting over labels and appeals to authority on the ethnic geopolitical disputes. Funny to see it here among a bunch of scientists." Cool Hand Luke 04:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

        Actually, I can't speak for anyone else but this is not why I am fighting over this label. I don't believe that the label conveys any sort of special status to the man at all. For some people "environmentalist" is a badge of honor, and for others it is a pejorative.

        I just think that it is an accurate and verifiable label that concisely describes one aspect of the subject of the BLP and I object to having it removed simply because Solomon's detractors happen to think (presumably) that it casts him in some sort of positive light. --GoRight (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sites providing reviews/critiques of comic books

I need to know if the following sites are considered journalistically reliable to rely on for providing critical reaction information on comic book articles, not in the matter of including information about the reviews, but on general reaction as a whole to a given book or series, and more generally, regarding reaction to Jeph Loeb's work as in general, particularly with regard to this section in Loeb's aritcle. Does relying on these violate WP:SYNTH? I really would appreciate that as many experts in RS's chime in here as possible, because this is extremely important. I've included the authors of the reviews as well as the names of the sites in the links:

• Brent Hibbard. iFanboy.com
• Andrew C. Murphy and Ben Berger. Weekly Comic Book Review (Source not only for reviews of Ultimatum #1 but reaction to Loeb's work as a whole.)
• Augie De Blieck Jr. Comic Book Resources
• James Hunt. Comic Book Resources
• Jesse Schedeen. IGN
• Jesse Schedeen. IGN
• Richard George. IGN
• Kevin Fuller. IGN
• Z. Julian Cenac. ComixFan (This is an interview with Loeb in which he is asked about the reaction of some fans to the content of Loeb's Hulk work. If the interview is authentic, I'd imagine that it's reliable, since Loeb himself is responding to the matter, but I'd still like to know your thoughts on this.)
• JasonKerouac. Panels on Pages
• Brendan Kachel. The Examiner
• David Wallace. Comics Bulletin
• Rokk Krinn. Comic Book Revolution
• ComixUp (The fact that the reviewer only gives his first name leads me to wonder if this would be seen as an RS.)
• Big Shiny Robot (Again, this review provides only a username.) Nightscream (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Well, this is kinda a big question for one post. Anyways, without actually looking at any specific link, and understanding it may be dependent on the author and what you want to cite, here goes.
    • Comic book resources and IGN are generally reliable. No forum posts or fan edits, obviously. The Examiner is not reliable, unless they've got a heck of an author, and then it's only based on the author. Interviews are different from normal articles, but we need to believe that the site would transcribe the interview correctly. Look for info on the interviewer or on the site itself. Are there sources on Google news that cite the interviewer or site? (For instance). The rest I've never heard of, and I work on comic stuff, so there will have to be a good reason to think they're reliable which you should look for. Look at about pages for editors and reporters and whatnot. Hope that helps. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you tell me why the Examiner is not reliable? Nightscream (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a user submitted site. There's discussion in the archives (and recently) I think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Big Shiny Robot! seems to be a reliable source. They're often quoted by CBR and Newsarama, and even the top news link on www.starwars.com leads to an article of theirs at the moment. They have user names, but the editors have real names and a way to give them feedback.
    • It doesn't look good from its about page.[24] If it was owned by a media conglomerate, I might look more closely, but as it is it's not a RS. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
      • It's absurd to assert that a news source is unreliable if it isn't owned by a media conglomerate. It's run by a prominent media figure and Huffington Post columnist.

How does posting here work? Are the respondents on this board supposed to be those who are experts in Reliability, or at least make it one of the aspects of Wikipedia on which they work on frequently? Why are there unsigned posts from an anonymous IP?

And how binding are the responses here? Nightscream (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have another site: Neil Shyminsky. ComicBoards.com Nightscream (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason I mention a media conglomerate, is that there a lot of sites that are run like newspapers, but call their writers bloggers. If it's "run by a prominent media figure and Huffington Post columnist." it may be one of those. Huff Post is considered borderline here, though (it's one of those blogs run like a newspaper, although it depends on the particular article too.) Being quoted is a good sign. The other thing about media companies, is it means there's someone with money to sue if they commit libel. That adds to reliability.

The people here are sort of experts on RS stuff. Anyone who wants to do it can, of course. I've probably answered roughly 100 questions here. It's not binding, anymore than any other discussion on WP. The more clear cut the case, and the more people who respond, the stronger the conensus, I guess.

For the comicsboard.com review. Is Neil Shyminsky an expert? Otherwise it looks like that site allows anyone to post, making it not reliable. They may be reliable for interviews, although I don't think that's what this source is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of Emporis in building articles

Emporis is currently used as a source for most building articles and lists of tallest buildings, and up until now it has been regarded as a reliable source - it has been cited by hundreds of news sources, including Reuters, Bloomberg, the New York Times, Le Monde, the Boston Globe, and the Seoul Times, as an authority on building data. However, recently an editor has questioned its reliability, as it appears that any user can register and submit new data, although this data is never published on the site until it has been confirmed/verified by senior editors on the site. Does the fact that anyone can register, however, make Emporis unreliable? Cheers, Rai•me 14:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that Emporis has also been endorsed by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (the international architectural group that announces the title of tallest building in the world and is regarded worldwide as a reliable source for skyscraper information) as an official building database. Cheers, Rai•me 14:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite reliable for the U.S., but there you can easily find better printed sources. Each step away from North America makes it worse and worse. YMMV. NVO (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The building in question is Four Seasons Hotel Miami; I am having trouble finding statistics for the building's height, floor counts, and dates of completion from sources other than Emporis and primary sources such as the building's developer. In this case, then, you would say that Emporis is a reliable source? Cheers and thanks for your help, Rai•me 16:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: User:Jezhotwells has found sources other than Emporis to use in the Four Seasons Hotel Miami article. Still, I am curious to know if other editors find Emporis to be a reliable source to use in lists of tallest buildings and other articles. Cheers, Rai•me 23:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that someone, and actually multiple someones, have finally stepped forward and shown with proof that Emporis is in fact a reliable source. I once collaborated with someone who said it wasnt and that scared me from ever using Emporis again. I now feel confident in using it as a source again.Camelbinky (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, anyon can register and contribute to Emporis, There is some unspecified oversight of contributions, so I would not consider itb reliable, Jezhotwells (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The oversight comes from senior editors (see a complete list here - many senior editors have been interviewed by reliable sources as indicated by this list). As far I can tell, nothing contributed by registered users is published on the site without review and verification, so I don't see why it is unreliable. Cheers, Rai•me 00:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This brings up an interesting point that we're going to see more and more of. There are a number of sites that allow user submissions, which are controlled in a non-transparent way by editors of some sort. IMDB is kinda like that, and I think there's a soccer stats site that's similar. These site may be extensively cited by normal reliable sources, and they're actual accuracy may be as high or higher than normal reliable sources. Ultimately, I think we're going to accept these type of sources, but it's going to take a while before people get used it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That is likely true, but I do note that User:Raime said at Talk:Four Seasons Hotel Miami, You're right anyway - Emporis can often be wrong. and So this information is incorrect; another instance where Emporis is wrong which doesn't make me think that it is particularly reliable. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This is true, but the two quotes Jezhotwells is referring to are from two years ago, and Emporis has since corrected all of the information regarding the Four Seasons Miami. I was incorrect when I said "often wrong", as since then I have really found very few instances where Emporis' statistics varied widely from the developer's information or the statistics from other data sites. Having used Emporis as a source for over 30 featured lists of tallest buildings since 2007, I can testify to its information being "correct" when compared to that stated by the developers. The New York Times can also be wrong at times, but that doesn't make it unreliable. -- Rai•me 16:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Senior editors do not (and can not) verify provided data. Developer's PR rep logs in, types in numbers; the only way to verify these numbers is through checking as-built drawings... the catch: actual building may be in fact taller than the official specs (money money...). NVO (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I moved NVO's post to the bottom of the thread to make it easier to everyone who has been following this thread (such as me) to find. When it came up on my watchlist and I came here I was a bit confused and had trouble finding his comment. With that I would like to ask NVO a question- you state senior editors do not and can not verify provided data, but others here are saying they do. Can you provide me with anything to prove that fact? I am an impartial reader who would like to use Emporis, but if you are right and it isnt a reliable source then I would have to take your side. I'm just looking for some sort of resolution and proof from one side or the other of this debate.Camelbinky (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The senior editor list linked above states "The senior editors are responsible for managing large amounts of information throughout the Emporis Community. This especially applies to reviewing added and updated textual data such as building facts, news stories, and descriptions." I have contacted Huaiwei (talk · contribs), a senior editor with Emporis, to see if he/she can help clarify this issue. Cheers, Rai•me 14:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Raime! Perhaps this can solve this problem for good with some facts.Camelbinky (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Amazon.com as an RS for unreleased material

Well right now there is a small discussion going on at This Is Us (Backstreet Boys album) as to whether or not Amazon.com is a reliable source regarding the tracklisting. There has been no mention of any track listings on the Backstreet Boys' official website, or their Record Label's website, yet it is on Amazon.com. Should Amazon.com be used? PopMusicBuff ^talk 18:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think so. Amazon is a retailer, not a publisher. The material on their site is intended to sell things, not to inform. Dlabtot (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say wait until October on this one unless you can corroborate the list with a source independent of Amazon. The lack of mention at the official label websites would sometimes indicate that the track list might not be finalized, but with just over a month until release I doubt that that is the case here. If they mention any song titles in promotional interviews and the like, then those could be mentioned. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. There are articles purporting to have a track list (www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00026793.html), but these don't claim to be from press releases. Might be listings assembled from web forums. Seems to have been some leaking issues on this album. Cool Hand Luke 18:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a case of WP:CRYSTAL... We don't need to "scoop" anyone by including the latest rumor. It won't hurt the project one iota to wait until the album actually comes out before we say what songs are on it. Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I now changed it, as everyone says no so far, in accordance with WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RSN#Amazon.com as an RS for unreleased material, WP:NALBUM, WP:N, WP:NRVE, WP:RS, WP:SBST and WP:GNG. PopMusicBuff ^talk 22:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If the general consensus is that Amazon is not an accurate source then we can revert the article back to its former version. However all i would like to say in Amazon's defence is that since i began editing articles over 1 year ago amazon has only ever been wrong once and this was with Keri Hilson's debut album where one song was removed from the final pressing of the album. I would say that i have edited over 100 articles and must have used amazon as a source for maybe 1 quarter of them. I have like i said only found Amazon to be wrong once. I assumed that because it is the second largest retailer behind iTunes that it would be seen as more credible than blog sites etc. I can see everyone's point though about how the album is not released till october but Amazon have posted a tracklisting over 1 month in advance and this could constitute a WP:crystal. i agree to the track listing being removed and only being added should an independent source be found to validate the information. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC))

Accuracy is only part of it - specifically, what we call on Wikipedia reliable sources, have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and are independent of the subject. It's not just about perceived accuracy. As a retailer, not an independent publisher, Amazon is never independent of the subject. Dlabtot (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"It won't hurt the project one iota" – I think your statement may have consensus, but I think a reader visiting the page and looking for the info is ever so slightly "hurt" by not finding it.

"Amazon is never independent of the subject" – I don't think independence matters (that's a NOTE thing, not an RS thing). Whick leads me to...

Our assumption is that all retailers can't have a rep for fact checking and whatnot. I think this may not be true. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if these were not independent from the publisher, it would be a more reliable source. Cool Hand Luke 14:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Cite it with attribution. Amazon may be a primary source, but it is reliable. Perhaps remove it from the song listing but in the prose have something like "Amazon.com reports an additional song entitled XYZ", which protects us from the slight possibility of the listing being in error. I looked into CRYSTAL, but unless we want to delete the whole article, it wouldn't be appropriate to use CRYSTAL to delete one song that's going to appear on the album with the others. Gut feeling is that it should be mentioned somewhere in the article; it's these hard-to-find nuggets of information that I rely on WP for, well, if I cared about the Backstreet Boys. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Pay per view court records

I'm in the process of working on the biography of Frank Dux. Some of his supporters have posted a lot of material that is based entirely on court records of LA county. The county charges 4.75 per name search, let alone actually viewing or obtaining the documents. While court records would certainly be a reliable source, this presents a real problem with WP:V. There is verifiable third party coverage that the suits existed and the outcomes, but some editors are referring to specific details contained only in the court records. Alleged copies of the court papers appear on a website owned and operated by Frank Dux, but that would kind of defeat the whole third party idea. Any suggestions? Do I have grounds to challenge these sources? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Not on WP:V or RS grounds ... WP:V says things must be verifiable, but that does not mean personally verifiable, by you, right now, without any effort or cost on your part. This is like citing a book that costs $25 to purchase, or citing a rare manuscript that is only available at the Bodleian Library in Oxford (which, since I live in NY, would require me to spend hundreds of dollars to personally verify).
  That said... depending on what is being stated and sourced to the court documents, there may be WP:BLP issues. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• (ec) Not on the point of cost. Sources need to be publicly available, but not free (consider classical off-line books). Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange might be able to help. But also note that court documents are usually primary sources, and hence often not appropriate. As an example, a deposition by a party is reliable only for the fact that the deposition was made, not for its claims. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is that you can at least verify that the book exists for free. I can't even verify the case number exists without paying. I can't verify that someone testified in the case without paying to find out, or worse, paying to find out that they didn't testify. These are being used to make some pretty dubious claims about "proof" of being a covert CIA operative etc. These claims have been questioned (some even debunked) in verifiable, reliable sources, but these court documents are the only "proof" that the claims are true. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Stephan, let me ask specifically then. If a person testifies that they were involved with Dux in the CIA, would that be considered a primary source for the Dux article? Or would that be considered acceptable? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A primary source is not unreliable or unsuitable per se. But a simple statement by some person, even in a court of law, is not usually reliable, no. People lie to courts all the time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Paid sources per se aren't disallowed here. In order to get at federal appeals court documents you need to pay to access PACER. In order to get to articles in scholarly journals you normally have to have institutional access, a subscription to the journal in question or the willingness to pay some absurd per-use fee. However, use of court documents, especially circuit court documents as primary sources is very dangerous. WE aren't wikileaks. We aren't a crowdsourcing operating to comb court material. We should show here what is covered in sources whose intent is to publish, rather than sources which appear consequent from trial and discovery. For BLPs we need to be doubly careful, since we have a strong presumption in favor of privacy for BLP subjects. Protonk (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't that it costs money to verify the source. The problem is that court documents, like transcripts and exhibits and particularly legal arguments motions and briefs are not only primary sources, but they are primary sources with an axe to grind, pushing a particular POV. It is one thing to use a court judgment in a Wiki article as a source; at least you are then reporting an indisputable "fact" the court issued an order and it said whatever it said. But, writing that "in the trial, witness A said X, and Exhibit B showed Y and Attorney C did Z" is totally inappropriate, particularly since that there is no independent secondary source verifying any of it. If there was an independent, reliable secondary source on any of this material, then judicious (yes, that was a deliberate pun) use of the primary sources, might be considered, but not under these circumsances. And, as an aside, the whole article you're talking about is a horrible mess, almost none of it reliably sourced. Fladrif (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are issues as well. But they don't relate to the central complaint: that it costs money to access those briefs. As for your arguments, I mostly agree with them. Out primary source guidelines (mostly thanks to strenuous argumentation from fiction article writers) contain loopholes large enough to drive a truck through, but the basic guidance should be "don't use primary sources to support a disputed claim or a claim which could be interpreted multiple ways by reasonable people. Don't use primary sources when you aren't sure that the source itself doesn't have an underlying interest in structuring the source a certain way. Don't use primary sources to cite something that in the reasonable future could be cited from a secondary source" But I don't write guidelines, mostly because I can't help but say things like "...strenuous argumentation from fiction article writers". Protonk (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep the separate issues separate, please. A court document, online or not, is generally a reliable source for what it is and says. One can obtain a look at a court document for free by going to the clerk's office (a copy will cost you, though). If it is available online, even for a price, that makes it more, not less, accessible to Wikipedians generally. As what statements in Wikipedia may be appropriately sourced to a particular court document, consistent with content policy and guidelines, that depends on the nature of the document (judicial decision, pleading, affidavit, transcript of testimony, etc.), what it says, who said it, and the statement in Wikipedia for which it is cited as a source. —Finell (Talk) 21:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• They aren't separate issues. They are bundled rather rightly. While obviously there is a wide gulf between briefs/motions and court rulings, documents that issue at various points in court cases should be looked at with some skepticism. Falling back on the PSTS defense is not sufficient. Who cares what the court document says? Why does it belong in the encyclopedia article? Why can't it get done eventually using a reliable secondary source? Protonk (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

While I dont disagree with you Protonk, I do wonder if, since this is the Reliable Sources noticeboard whether it is within our scope to really look at "why" this should be put into an article. We can, I think and hope, all agree that yes there is not an RS problem with a court transcript, ruling, etc that you must pay for. Which Blueboar and I have stated similar statements on several occasions (the navy museum was one that comes to mind) that being verifiable does not mean "I must be able to see it this second from my computer chair, without paying anything, and without being inconvenienced". Being a document of a court would, I hope, make it where we all can agree it is reliable, since saying "in the trial x person stated y" can be verified and reliable based on the court transcript. It may also be relevant, but the relevancy issue shouldnt be considered here. Only whether or not such a type of document is reliable and/or verifiable. Which I hope we can all agree that it is.Camelbinky (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You raise very good points. The reason I bring up the 'why' and the 'how' is because often in disputes like this noticeboards are brought in, shown only a small portion of the elephant, then reports from the noticeboard that the elephant is indeed a horse are used as a sort of imprinteur for the general use of the source. Someone complains that source X might not be good to use in article Y and the response will be "RS/N said it was kosher". So I try to offer some general hedges regarding court document sourcing. Protonk (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes think we should put a huge banner at the top of this page that says... "WARNING: Just because we say a source is reliable, that does not necessarily mean it can or must be used. There are many other policies and guidelines on Wikipedia that may bar or limit using the source." Blueboar (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• You all have brought up some very good points and I appreciate it. I hadn't really started to think about it in PSTS terms and perhaps some of this is better suited for the BLP noticeboard. There an inherent reliability problem, as I see it, with calling a source "reliable" just because it came from a court. The court merely records what is said. If Subject A claims in court that he was a CIA operative, simply citing the court record that he said it is still a primary source. They just recorded that he made the statement. In the Dux bio, nobody disputes he made the claim. Hell, he wrote a book making the claim. The concern here is that the court record is being cited as "proof" that the claim is true because he swore "under penalty of perjury" (yes, that's how the editor put it) that is was true. I appreciate the input. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Protonk and Blueboar on everything they said. Niteshift however- there is a big problem with your example about the CIA "operative" on the stand. One- the attorney from the otherside would, unless a bad lawyer, prove in cross-examination that the person was perjuring and two- the attorney who put the "CIA operative" on the stand would be put in contempt of court and brought up on disciplinary action for accessory to perjury, possibly disbarred depending on just how much he/she knew ahead of time and how it impacted the case, depending on the severity of the lie it could even cause a mistrial. Stating "x said y in court" is a verifiable reliable statement from a court transcript, whether or not what was said is true is irrelevant to Wikipedia guidelines and policy what we are concerned with in Wikipedia is whether or not it is true that x person said y statement, which obviously that part IS true because it is in the court transcript. Primary sources, especially when coming from a government source, is not a bad thing, editors in my opinion need to get over the whole "its a primary source" issue. In dealing with histories on counties, cities, towns, and villages in the state of New York I have cited directly many state laws, which are primary source, on when they were formed, their type of government, annexations and boundary changes, etc. instead of trying and finding a reliable secondary source that actually gets it right. Primary sources are our friends.Camelbinky (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Car Magazine

Is Car Magazine a reliable source? Specifically, is an article about Mazda published in July 1999 (reproduced online here) usable as a source? Another editor has made the claim that it is a tabloid, based on the fact that it's published by Bauer Media Group (which makes no sense to me). Any outside thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that the author has written over a dozen books on automobiles. Parsecboy (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's reliable, although it may depend on the statement. If it's controversial, bring it up here, otherwise it's fine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact it's being used to source is that Mazda designed the international version of the Ford Ranger/B-series line of trucks, and the line from the source that's being used is Mazda and Ford continued joint efforts. In 1994, the Mazda B-Series line was split between an international (Mazda-designed) version and North American clone of the Ford Ranger. Parsecboy (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Dlabtot (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Previews from youtube

Cartoon Network's website removed their School Rumble page and unfortunatly it's in flash so archive.org could not archive it. I'm wanting to know if I can use these previews on youtube to cite that there was an Italian release.陣内_Jinnai 19:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think they're copy vios, so we can't link to them. I don't think we've ever come up with a solution for dead links that aren't archived. We're basically screwed at that point. Notable thing become non-notable and all sorts of problems. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just google for -- "School Rumble" Italy -- then pick any of the Anime News Network pages that credit the voice actors who dub it into Italian. The less controversial a claim is, particularly when it doesn't involve any BLP matters of substance, the more leeway you have to use a source that requires a tiny bit of inferencing, especially for a claim that lost a reliable source. Then ask on the Italian Wikipedia for help finding an Italian-language source. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I can verify there is an italian translation for the series still, but results from google do cannot verify it with reliable sources that it was shown on Cartoon Network. I was planning on bringing the article to FAC after a copyedit.陣内_Jinnai 03:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Bubblegum Dancer

I wondering if Mitch Adrews's site [www. bubblegumdancer.com Bubblegum Dancer] could be a reliable self-published source for his interview with Jorge Vasconcelo who has had his CD mentioned on Fuji News Network. He has won an award for his Bubblegum music video at NME's online site which is a well established magazine in the UK pop music and appears to be connected with multiple bubblegum dance band.陣内_Jinnai 03:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. I'm assuming this is for an article to be written. You'd have to argue that the site has a reputation in its field. I rather like the site, it's been around for a long time, and it seem to be the place for information on the bubblegum genre. You could probably use it, but it wouldn't count towards establishing notability. NME would, but you'll need more than that plus Bubblegum Dancer to get the article going. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's for a small subsection on Popotan. Basically to use Jorge Vasconcelo's comment that Carmelldansen has become an internet phenomia, which is generally very hard to verify.陣内_Jinnai 21:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be bold and go for it. It's about time somebody documented a link between bubblegum and anime. Some of that Scandinavian pop music is really, really kawaii. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Is Big Brother Network a reliable source for events on the Big Brother reality TV show?

http://bigbrothernetwork.com/ - it just looks like a fan page, with updates based on the OR viewing of the show by the person making the reports. There doesn't seem to be any kind of peer reviewing. Yet it's used as a reliable source, and when I questioned it, I was told, "Start a fight that is actually worth fighting.". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that this is a BLP article when we're discussing who did what on a reality TV show, so the use of reliable sources is doubly important. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have already said, technically we don't need sources because the TV show is the source. We use these as "double" verification. What about Zap2it? Where else can we get anything about these? Where do you EXPECT to get info on a TV show? –túrian^patois 04:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I asked a while back on WP:BLPN whether information on reality TV shows was a BLP concern, and was told it was. That requires reliable sources. You have yet to convince me that Big Brother Network is a reliable source. If a consensus develops here that it is, I'll let it go. Until then, as far as I am concerned, the article is in violation of WP:BLP. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Then the show is enough for sources. We don't need sources. –túrian^patois 04:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What parts of Wikipedia:BLP#Sources and WP:V do not apply here? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion over the use of TV shows as sources. There appears to be some level of tolerance for the sourcing of non-contentious in-universe content to the fictional works themselves, for TV shows, books, movies etc. There is certainly no consensus for the idea that direct citation of ot-fictional TV shows for real-world information related to themselves is acceptable -- formally, because they're primary sources at best, and the analysis is original research; informally, because such citations boil down an individual editor's assertion that "I saw it on TV," and that just cant fly, especially in the context of BLPs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If bigbrothernetwork is a fan site, then no, it is not a reliable source. If the only source one can come up with is the primary source, then whatever fact being debated isn't notable enough for a BLP. For anything contentious an excellent source must be produced. AniMate^draw 05:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Turian, the question wasn't "Where else can...", or "Where would you expect..." or "Is the show alone enough", the question was "Is bigbrothernetwork a reliable source?". It does not seem to be a reliable source to me, and I agree with AniMate above. If you can't find valid reliable sources, maybe that's because it's just not that notable. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's for something that actually happened on the show, then the show itself is adequate as a primary source. If a semi-reliable source is added as an "extra" footnote that should be okay; in the case of Big Brother Network it appears to be a post from the site owner and I don't see anything about an editorial board, so you'd have to argue that the owner is something of an expert on the show. If there's any speculation about why someone did something or why someone is no longer on the show then using only the show as a source won't work. But it looks like ( this appears to be at List of Big Brother 11 HouseGuests (U.S.) ) a clear RS has been found for the matter, a column at Entertainment Weekly. One more observation: "house guests" should be written as two separate words. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The show itself is absolutely not acceptable as a source. The exception for the use of television programs as primary sources for their contents in WP:RS applies only to shows that fall into the general category of "artistic or fictional works." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing like that anywhere in policy. Almost anything under the sun may be used as a primary source in an article about itself, including television shows. Though the show should be archived somewhere to meet WP:V. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, 8 million viewers per episode is beyond notable. –túrian^patois 23:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 8 million sure is a big number. Protonk (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to raise a linked issue involving the current UK BB10 series which is being discussed on the article's talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)#Cite_Episode_template. I have followed the above editor here, somewhat by accident, but am grateful to him for helping me to find the correct place! As indicated over there, there is no or an inadequatly documented consensus to use the cite episode template to refer to broadcast episodes as verifible source. These programmes are not readily accessible to view and there is no documented retention policy. The nature of the particular dispute (apart from it indicating the incorrect episode) boils down to the use of a summary section which is intended to very briefly state the key activities of the week and point to a reliable source to provide the additional detail required by readers to understand the "full picture". Without links, the summary is inadequate to relate the full story or provide verifiability. Being threatend with a 3RR block is only obscuring the necessary discussion. There are questions and an open invitation to resolve on the talk page and my talk page, but the involved editor is uncompromising. Is there any help you can provide please? leaky_caldron (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I add that the shows, being edited highlights of 60 minutes with 4 - 5 commercial breaks, contain little more that 40 minutes content. There is no certainty that anything stated in the article will appear in the broadcast material, leaving article content unverified. leaky_caldron (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, whoever wrote that needs to be slapped. I have never read something so blatantly ignorant. And there are multiple sources. And no one has brought up a good point as to why BBN is NOT a good source. –túrian^patois 00:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Never? I find that hard to believe. Protonk (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, what is wrong with BBN? –túrian^patois 00:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a group blog and a fan-driven source, so it isn't reliable per our guidelines. The number of hits they receive is largely immaterial. Protonk (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Channel 4 TV edit

A user has been continually adding mention of a Channel 4 cut to the The Simpsons episode "The Cartridge Family". Now, as UK user, I know what they're adding to be true, however they have not yet provided a reliable or verifiable source. I thought about citing the broadcast itself but surely, because it would be my interpretation of the changes from the original broadcast, that would be OR? Anyway, the user added (and perhaps made) this YouTube video of the cut. So my question is, is that video useable proof? Gran² 05:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the video is a copyright violation and cannot be used. AniMate^draw 05:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think AniMate is too strict - I belive that copyvio should not be linked to as a reference or an EL but could still be used as a source.Martinlc (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The YouTube video doesn't actually show any evidence that a cut has been made. I'd say that if no RS has seen fit to pass comment on the edit, then it may not be noteworthy enough to include, and including information on the basis that an editor has observed it probably is OR. --FormerIP (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The video clearly shows the credits appearing after Marge has binned the gun, so it supports the assertion. However, we have no reason to believe that the video is authentic. It could be a recording of an edit created and shown on his own TV by the uploader. Paul B (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It supports the assertion only partly, because you can't tell just by looking at it that an edit has been made. The important thing is that it doesn't make the assertion - the assertion, in this case, is make by an editor, which is OR. --FormerIP (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily have to assert. If a book is published with a green cover in the first edition and in the second edition has a red cover we don't necessarily need a reliable source to "assert" this fact in order to mention it. If we argue that the change of colour has some special significance then that's constructing an argument or synthesis. There's always a hazy area between what is legitimate summary of observations and what is constructing an argument or synthesis. IMO, this would count as legitimate observation if it were undisputed. However, this debate is properly a matter for the OR board. Paul B (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the policy isn't just to prevent untrue information being presented, it it also to prevent trivial information being presented. If it's worth mentioning, someone will have already mentioned it somewhere. Wikipedia is not supposed to undetake new (original) research. I'd say the same thing with regards to the colour of a dust-jacket (ie: "prove to me that an RS has previously found this fact interesting"). --FormerIP (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, I think that's a bit glib. No reliable source provides encyclopedic information on each episode of a TV show, because the show itself stands as a primary source. In this case I think the fact could be notable, because the plot of the episode is different in the Channel 4 airing than the others. This has been noted on message boards and forum postings all over the internet, but of course such posts are not reliable sources as to the show's content. Even if you don't think this particular case is notable, that's not the issue here. The issue is what is necessary to cite the airing of a TV show as a primary, authoritive source for that show's content. It makes me uneasy that we don't have a good answer to that question. I'd like to think that events unfolding on live TV or radio can be used as primary sources.

To take it one level further (and more hypothetical): what if reliable-source commentary commented on the notability of a fact, but assumed understanding of the primary source? E.g. the NYT writes that "the color of Michelle Obama's dress caused great controversy", but they don't mention that the dress was red because everybody saw it on TV. Rvcx (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no perfect way to know what's OR, and what isn't. Even with secondary sources, unless its a direct quote, we're still summarizing with the possibility of OR. All we can do is work with consensus, and it sounds like this Simpsons fact doesn't have consensus. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course the episode can be used as a primary source as to its contents. But the episode does not actually contain the fact that it has been shown in different edits - this is something that needs to be deduced by an observer. Really, that observer should be an RS, not a WP editor.

The colour of MO's dress in your example is directly verifiable - no deduction is required - so it's not really the same.

I don't have any great interest in defending the current text of the article, but it is the case that in the US version, Marge keeps the gun for herself. In the Channel 4 version she throws it in the garbage. Both of those are objective facts which accurately summarize the two primary sources (which we currently don't know how to cite, but which I have seen with my own eyes, and the latter of which will be re-broadcast tomorrow night), and notability aside it should be entirely reasonable to include those two facts in the article. There is a tenuous case that WP:OR prevents combining these two facts to form the conclusion "the UK version edited out one shot in the final scene". I don't buy that argument, but even if I did it wouldn't prohibit mentioning the two facts in isolation and letting the reader make their own inference. Rvcx (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This might seem pedantic (OK, I'll give you that), but my basic point is that if there are certain things that no-one ever seems to have passed comment on, it is probably because they are just not noteworthy. The edit doesn't appear to have been controversial or unusual (it looks to be just standard practice for terrestrial broadcasters in the UK, and it probably happens on a daily basis). --FormerIP (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There are several threads on forums discussing the edit, and it even appears on the tv.com page as a piece of "trivia" about the episode. I don't feel strongly about notability, but I definitely don't think it's an open-and-shut case either way. More importantly, all of the above mention the show's content, but none is in itself a reliable source. If we had 1000 other self-published blogs mentioning the fact, we'd have notability, but none of them would be a reliable source either. The broadcast of the show should be a reliable source. Should be, but I don't know how it could be. Rvcx (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is tv.com (I'm not familar with it) not a reliable source? That would put an end to the problem. --FormerIP (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, but it looks to me like the "trivia" entries on tv.com are user-contributed. It's possible tv.com fact-checks them, but I'm skeptical. Rvcx (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as the YouTube clip, there shouldn't be any concern about linking to a copyright violation because it's only a few-seconds long shot of a TV screen, and is fair use.

However, it wouldn't be accurate to say Channel 4 made the change, because obviously someone from the Simpsons animators had to draw the alternate version. So unless the "dropping the pistol in the trash" sequence is a splice from another episode, it would be more accurate to say that an alternate ending for the show exists, and yes you could use YouTube as a source for that.

We have to watch out for original research. The US version showing that Marge keeps it and the UK version showing that Marge tosses it doesn't necessarily mean that the UK network made the edit. It's more likely that the US made a censored version to air in gun-phobic regions of the world, the UK being one of several. So to phrase it without introducing any assumptions you would say "An alternate version of the episode where she throws the gun away exists(cite Youtube) which was reportedly seen in the UK(cite tv.com, etc).

I would be tempted to IAR on the sourcing needs, though I would prefer a semi-reliable source ( say a fan-oriented site with a volunteer editorial board ) to forum posts on a message board. I would go ahead and use TV.com. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The animators didn't produce an alternate ending. It's a Channel 4 cut. They just took out a few frames. The DVD is completely unedited here. When the episode aired on BBC2 the ending was the correct version. And no, I'm going to use TV.com because that essentially is just like Wikipedia. A lot of the stuff they have on Simpsons episode pages is wrong (for example, their entry for "Homer's Phobia" previously said something like "It was a really controversial episode that received numerous complaints" which was completely wrong). My policy with the UK cuts has always been "unless a reliable third-party sees the need to mention it it isn't notable". That's only ever happened in relation to "Trash of the Titans" and "A Streetcar Named Marge". Gran² 16:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Biography of Benazir Bhutto

Dear Editor, I read that you are considering the imposition of restrictions on the biographical sketches of public figures. This is an important decision and I congratulate you on that.

Recently I corrected a wilful distortion of information on the religious background of the late Ms Benazir Bhutto. She and her father were presented as Shias, which is not true at all about her father and she herself never declared that she was a Shia. In her latest book published posthumously, Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy and the West, Simon & Schuster, London, New York, Sidney, Toronto, 2008, p. 54 Benazir Bhutto writes and I quote directly:

"I, like so many Muslims, had a Sunni father and a Shia mother".

However, after a few days someone edited it and restored the false information describing her father and her as Shias.

I am a professor of Political Science and a Pakistan specialist, and therefore very conscious of the fact that facts should not be distorted. In case you need I can email you a scanned copy of page 54 of her book.

I would advise you to introduce some controls so that Wikipedia can continue to be source of ready and reliable information. Sincerely, Ishtiaq Ahmed Visiting Research Professor Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore

The essence of this concern seems to be not just Benazir Bhutto, but also the information listed for Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, whose infobox lists him as a Shia. The page lists not one, but four sources for this information. I can't find relevant information in the first link, but the second is an article in the Times (a British paper) explicitly stating "Like his daughter, he was a Shia and he appealed particularly to that fifth of the population of Pakistan that follows the Shia faith." This article directly cites Benazir Bhutto's biography (which they describe as "evasive"), so the author of the article must be aware of its content. The third reference also explicitly describes both Benazir and Zulfikar Ali as Shia. The fourth reference is book unavailable to me. Without more context for the quotation you offer (or other sources for the information) it does seem that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's status as a Shia can be verified, while his status as a Sunni cannot. Rvcx (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So what exactly is the questionable source here? (Or, what's the question here?) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue is whether Benazir Bhutto herself asserts that her father was Sunni, in which case we would appear to have a conflict between reliable sources. I have looked at the keyword search facility for the edition of the book on Amazon [25] and it appears that the sentence quoted by Ishtiaq Ahmed is indeed in the book on page 54. The problem is who is doing the "wilful distortion of information"? Benazir Bhutto was a politician with a motive for attempting to appeal to both factions, so maybe she's the one distorting history. In this case I'd suggest that her assertion should be included, but not presented as authoritative, overriding the other sources. Paul B (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems this has been discussed at length on the talk page. All sources indicate that Benazir Bhutto came from a Shi'a family and community, but that is/was a political liability in Pakistan, so she claimed to be Sunni at various times. I don't know enough about the facts to say what's worth including in the article, but there certainly seems to be enough evidence of equivocation from Bhutto that her own autobiography can't be considered a reliable source on the facts; only on the claims she made. Rvcx (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've just been reading the discussion, which also occurs on the page about her father Talk:Zulfikar_Ali_Bhutto#Shia_or_Atheist. It also seems that Benazir Bhutto made this claim in earlier publications. Paul B (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not really an RS issue... it falls under WP:NPOV, and I would advise you to ask about it there. But to give you a preview ... When two reliable sources disagree, the trick is to discuss the disagreement and not try to choose between them... discuss what both say, in a neutral tone, and attribute opinions to those who hold them For example:

• "There is some scholarly debate as to whether Bhutto was Shi'a or Sunni. Noted historian Ima Scholar is of the opinion that she was Shi'a <cite to Ima> while Prof. P. H. Dee is of the opinion that she was Sunni <cite to Dee>. Bhutto herself stated, in an interview in the Peshawer Daily Bugle, that: 'I am both, as I had a Sunni father and a Shi'a mother' <cite to Bugle>"

(obviously my example is made up... you would need to substitute the actual opinions and the real citations). Hope this helps.Blueboar (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

venusians

sources are not reliable. Logos5557 (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Feel free to fix whatever you think you should, but don't try to disrupt the process to make a point. NVO (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• i am in the process of improving/correcting my understanding on very basics of wikipedia. meanwhile, somebody might want to deal with it. i don't think this is a disruption to the process. you simply are assuming bad faith. try to assume good faith. Logos5557 (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems like bad etiquette to me, to bring something here for comment, and when someone makes a comment that you don't agree with, you accuse them of bad faith. If you don't want opinions, don't bring it here. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 14:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're wrong. If somebody has a overwhelming belief that I had a point while making that edit, she/he should either report it or reveal the point she/he's talking about, instead of implying something that I'm not aware of. Opinions on venusians are welcome, but I don't need opinions on me. Logos5557 (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The other editor started his response with "Feel free to fix whatever you think you should", and warned you about a policy you may or may not be aware of (WP:Point), since you yourself said you were in the process of understanding the basics. There was nothing said about you. This noticeboard is about sources, not editors. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Check the order of appearance first, before briefing me about what was the issue there. The other editor warned me of a policy referring to what behaviour/point exactly? If you don't know the answer, why don't you cease from interpreting other editor's edits. Logos5557 (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

*sigh*... Again, this board is about sources, take your complaints about editors elsewhere. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 19:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• :) it seems we have a mimicking monkey situation here. you better leave now, if you don't have any comment on the sources of venusians article. Logos5557 (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's always cute when we get the kids on here... good luck with your "process of improving/correcting my understanding on very basics of wikipedia". -- Maelefique ^(talk) 00:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, this is not the board for asking for specific reliable sources on a particular topic, but for looking for consensus about the rules and conventions for using them. However, the original question, if misconceived, seems to be sincere, so this whole sniping sneering saga seems, shall we say, unhelpful. Paul B (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook

Is the Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook

1. a reliable source to show that cold fusion has gained mainstream acceptance?
2. a peer-reviewed source?
3. a WP:SECONDARY source?

Thank you. 99.55.163.178 (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not entirely clear at the moment. The description of the book's contents imply that it contains significant new theories and evidence, but it is a collection of conference papers (which typically, may summarise work in progress but do not provide definitive data). To answer your questions-

1. it will show mainstream acceptance when it is reviewed seriously by respected mainstream scientific journals; until then, no
2. the editorial process may have involved editor or peer-review, or not. Unless the book says explicitly that its contents were peer-reviewed, treat with caution - most conference paper volumes allow the speaker to say what they wish
3. not a secondary source (it would appear), since each paper will reflect the view of the speaker; if some papers comment on/review others, they would be secondary. But a good secondary source would be reviews, critiques and third-party references to the volume as a whole or individual papers.Martinlc (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's published by OEP (OUP, I was confusing it with the journal Oxford Economic Papers). Whatever complaints one might have about how marginal the views expressed in it are, it's a reliable source per WP:RS. Protonk (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree it is an WP:RS for the views of authros. I don't agree that it can be used to demonstrate that the topic has 'gained mainstream acceptance' - to me that means acceptance by others in the academic community, and that would require a mainstream publication reviewing it respectfully (which they may well do). The decision by OUP to publish a collection of papers from a conference does not, in my opinion, demosntarte that.Martinlc (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well then frankly your opinion doesn't comport with the reliable source guideline. Publication by one of the preeminent academic publishing houses in the world is more than sufficient for WP:RS. Whether those views are mainstream, whether the data support the conclusions, whether the material is being used to push a view rather than present science is a more nuanced discussion that needs to happen in an RfC or on the talk page. Protonk (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are other fora more suitable venues for discussing those aspects of reliability? 99.35.129.22 (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Because they principally aren't aspects of reliability. I think cold fusion is a sham, but no one knows me from Adam and it isn't really my business to say that even though the OUP published some conference proceedings on it that the contents are probably hokum. Likewise I have no idea what the conference admission requirements were or what stage the research was in when it was presented. I'm also not competent to evaluate their data (even if they had presented it along with the papers) so I can't decide that research presented without all underlying data is immediately suspect just in this field (where I might accept it elsewhere). Protonk (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a copy of the book, generously donated to me by Oxford University Press, and much has been written about it here which is not true. Protonk, thanks. You are correct, as far as you go, except about "conference proceedings." --Abd (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

more detailed discussion by Abd

It's unfortunately not on-line, most of it, and that can make it hard to discuss. But it was sponsored by the American Chemical Society, which is the largest scientific society in the world, through, as Protonk notes, Oxford University Press. I have written that there are grounds to conclude that cold fusion had moved back in or close to the mainstream by 2004, based on the friendly reception by many experts on the U.S. Department of Energy review panel that convened and reported then. To summarize that, from the overall report, half of the reviewers considered that evidence for the basic experimental claim of anomalous heat was "conclusive." Very few in the other half, if we look at the individual opinions, considered it bogus! -- merely not well enough established for them to consider the matter proven. One, however, used the F word, Fraud, and made hardly any comments at all, giving a clue as to how seriously he took the whole thing. One-third of the experts, however, considered the evidence for nuclear origin to be "somewhat convincing" or better. Nevertheless, in 2004, the exclusion of cold fusion papers (very active, by editorial policy, not through ordinary rejection at peer-review) from the more notable mainstream publications was still extensive. Token one-day panels were allowed at ACS conferences and American Physical Society conferences. But by 2008, the ACS was ready to back the publication of the Sourcebook, and, in 2009, it featured, with a press release and press conference, a four-day session on Cold fusion where some very significant results, published in January 2009 in Naturwissenschaften regarding finding low but unmistakeable levels of energetic neutrons in cold fusion cells, were presented, with relatively wide media attention. Apparently another Sourcebook is in press. The 2004 panel, the ACS publication, the CBS special on cold fusion featuring Robert Duncan (physicist), continued governmental funding of cold fusion research (the 2009 International Cold Fusion Conference is being held in October in Rome, sponsored by ENEA (Italy)), rising publication in peer reviewed journals of increasing impact factor (Naturwissenschaften is a multdisciplinary journal with impact factor in that category of 50, just behind Scientific American at 49), all point to increased acceptance. How far that acceptance goes is very hard to tell. There is no "Journal of Mainstream Opinion." And most scientists, outside of their specialties, know little about details of research in other fields. That's why the 2004 DoE review is important: there was a cross-section of experts there, uninvolved, given an opportunity to become knowledgeable. I'd say it was unfortunately short and shallow, but it was far better than nothing, and our opinion that cold fusion is rejected by the mainstream is based on the situation twenty years ago, not supported by more recent evidence; indeed, since 1991, the bulk of all peer-reviewed publication has been favorable to cold fusion. --Abd (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As to the book itself, it was published under peer review. It is not a collection of conference papers. Conference papers are published in the proceedings of conferences, and papers previously published were excluded, with one exception, a very significant conference paper by Fleischmann. (And we already have a link to that paper whitelisted, should anyone want to use it. It was usable before because of Fleischmann's notability, but, now, there is the additional factor of being republished by the ACS in a peer-reviewed compilation.) From the Foreword, "As a rule, only original research papers and original review papers are included in the volumes." Editors may have been confused by the fact that some of the research has been previously described, but, for example, Vyosotskii wrote an original review of his previously published work, from 1996 on, which was accepted. I'd still consider this primary source, because he is reviewing his own work, but with an edge of notability. --Abd (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

more detailed discussion by Abd

Material from the Sourcebook should be used with care. Publication in the Sourcebook, in my opinion, establishes notability, it does not establish "acceptance" by the mainstream. Vyosotskii, as an example, is reporting work of such astonishing implications that to consider it accepted would be very foolish. It is so far out of the expected that, I suspect, it hasn't been taken seriously, even by most other cold fusion researchers. But from an experimental point of view, if what Vyosotskii reports is accurate as to his experiments, and they seem simple enough ... well, prepare to be astonished if it's confirmed. That hasn't happened, to my knowledge, nor has there been any disconfirmation or even noises about attempts or plans. He is reporting biological transmutation with strong evidence, very difficult to explain away, AFAIK. On the other hand, some of the original research in the book represents confirmations of published work by others, which makes them a type of secondary source, plus, of course, there is a review of the field, overall, and specific reviews of various aspects, which should be considered golden unless contradicted by other quality source. In my opinion, those parts of the book which are secondary source reviews are usable for fact, as with any peer-reviewed secondary source, where there is no source of comparable quality contradicting it, and especially where primary sources confirm the facts or likewise do other secondary sources, perhaps of lesser quality. Where it seems clear that something from the book hasn't been accepted, it should be used with attribution. While the comment "but this has not been generally accepted by mainstream physicists," is often a violation of WP:SYNTH, nevertheless, where it seems reasonable, and where it increases consensus, I favor allowing the technical violation, but "not accepted" shouldn't be every other phrase in the article. It can be covered by a few blanket statements, generally, and there are some media sources for that. Older sources should not be used to imply present rejection. Cold fusion is clearly still very controversial, and I see statements on blogs by nuclear physicists all the time about how bogus it all is. But they aren't experts in condensed matter nuclear science, what I see them write shows ignorance of the actual reported experimental results (why bother reading detailed reports of totally bogus and impossible experimental results?), they often repeat statements that were weak twenty years ago and clearly false in review, ("Where is the ash? No ash, there can't be nuclear reactions!" The ash is known (helium) and quantitatively confirmed by multiple reports as correlated with excess heat, at the "right" value for fusion, which doesn't prove fusion, because there are alternate pathways, the point being that they clearly aren't aware that the peer-reviewed papers exist.) The theory that Fleischmann was falsifying is one that has been solidly accepted theory with no recognized counterexamples for more than the lifetime of most of us: that theory implies that there is no difference between condensed matter nuclear science and what physicists actually studied and characterized, plasma nuclear science. As a cliche, Chemists say that the phenomena called "cold fusion" couldn't be chemistry, and nuclear physicists say it couldn't be nuclear physics.... Who are the experts? It's a difficult problem for an encyclopedia, but my opinion has been that if we simply follow RS guidelines, without prejudice against authors and subjects, but only considering the reputation and reliability of publishers, and we firmly adhere to NPOV, which means that we don't allow our personal conclusions to warp the text, we will be on the right track, and if we seek maximized editorial consensus, we can hardly go wrong, even if we individually have biased POVs. --Abd (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why I thought this was conference proceedings - my mistake. I do (as I said above) accept this as RS. Notability isn't at issue here. In reply to the question 'who are the experts?' - the question is more 'what do non-specialist academics think?' There was a time when only those involved in cold fusion believed in it - if the point has been reached where others do, then, yes, that's mainstream. Martinlc (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Is portal site kresy.pl a reliable source?

Is Portal Site Kresy.pl considered to be a realiable source. Best that I can determine from http://translate.google.ca/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&u=http://www.polskieradio.pl/historia/artykul.aspx%3Fid%3D58130&sl=pl&tl=en&history_state0= is that it is a collaborative site like Wikipedia without any editorial oversight. If deemed not a RS - how do I deal with articles that reference pages on that portal? Bobanni (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Posting valuable information -- need advice, help and permission

Ok I hope I now don't get in trouble for cross posting, but was told to repost this here:

---

Although I first submitted this directly to Wikipedia, I was redirected here. I have a disagreement with User:Hu12's tactics, and decisions to delete my posts. I am not here to spam.. and understand why it may be perceived that way. However, I ask that you all help me and reconsider this moderators decisions.

First, to explain my unique expertise and contributions. For 13 years, I have filed more Freedom of Information Act requests than almost any other person (In excess of 3,000). I have amassed well over a half million pages of declassified government and military documents from the U.S., most of which are not found anywhere else in the world. They are declassified for my request, and sent to me. (This is verifiable, and heavily sourced on the internet by major media outlets)

I run the largest database of declassified documents in the world at www.theblackvault.com I felt, since a lot of this information is NEW and NEVER BEFORE SEEN, it would be a benefit to Wikipedia. So I learned how to edit. Although a couple years ago, I only added links, and I realized this was WRONG. I talked with a moderator who helped me understand to write my content into the article, and source it. Which, I am now doing, or was.

Now, User:Hu12 perceives this as a conflict of interest, and my edits were deleted. I would love to source other sites other than my own if I could, but as I mentioned, these are unique documents not available anywhere else. I would love permission to add these records, that anyone can verify. It is rare, valuable and needed. Rather, I get form letters and rude responses.

I know that it could be perceived as spam, but it isn’t. I do not make money by linking to PDFs as the source for my edits. Not a single penny. These pdfs of the documents are used only as sources, and I am rarely adding external links. It is frustrating, as I would think Wikipedia would want this information (which is 100% real and verifiable) rather than some of the other silly sources which I have seen referenced.

I hope someone can help me. I do not hide behind nicknames - anyone can Google my name and see my contributions and press regarding the archive. It is a unique situation.

Sincerely,

John Greenewald, Jr.

--Johnbv417 (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• If those sources are in the public domain, then you are better off adding them to Wikisource, a public source document repository. If they aren't in the public domain or they are otherwise parochial or restricted, then you are best hosting them on your own website. Linking to your website on wikipedia should be avoided if at all possible. I understand that you don't make money from the site, but our guidelines on external links and spam do not discriminate between for profit and not for profit links. My suggestion is that you edit wikipedia on subject in which you do not hold a large stake. If and when someone else decides that your site offers references for important information then they can link to it. I'm sorry you have received form letters and rude responses in the past. Please understand that we deal with a considerable volume of editors who add links to their sites for less laudatory purposes. That's not an excuse for not assuming the best, but a reason why someone might not have dealt with your situation carefully and personally. I hope I've answered some of your questions. If I haven't, leave a message on my talk page. Protonk (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Also watch out for the issue of undue weight. You don't want to introduce what's really a little nugget of information within a broad topic by writing a long paragraph beginning with "The Black Vault FOIA archive released...". Most FOIA-obtained documents are only a small piece of the puzzle, and are primary sources with a capital, bold, and italic 'P', so it takes a lot of detail work to weave them into an article without making a tangent, and even then it might be used to source only one little clause out of the whole aritcle. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles should be based on third-party sources

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:V#Articles should be based on third-party sources. Protonk (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wikipedia:Verifiability says: *Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. *Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as ... the article is not based primarily on such sources. There is a general dispute between myself and another editor about the meaning of these policy statements. My view is that they mean that most of an article, including most of each section or entry, should be based on 3rd-party sources, and that primary or self-published sources should be used sparingly for illustrative quotes, factual details, etc. (The self-published materials in question are by the subject of the article). The other editor has written that "There is no 'correct ratio' of primary to secondary sources." In other words, if a 3rd-party source mentions an issue, even very briefly, then it is acceptable to write any amount of text on that issue drawn from primary sources. In addition, the other editor seems to believe that if there are secondary sources in some parts of an article then it's acceptable for other sections to rely exclusively on primary sources. So here's the question: Does "based on" mean "partially based on"? Is it acceptable to use several primary sources to synthesize an overview of an issue instead of relying on secondary sources?   Will Beback  talk  21:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is probably best discussed on the V or RS talk page. My quick answer is that there is no quick answer. Some local guidelines (e.g. WP:MEDRS) are really specific about the use of primary sources. Some local guidelines (e.g. WP:FICT) are too caught up in related battles to offer clear guidance. WP:PSTS is offered as a solution to the problem, but in my opinion that is a terribly written piece of policy/guidance and it leads us astray on a great many issues. Protonk (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd debated where to raise this. Since it doesn't involve questions about specific sources it may be better on a talk page. I'll strike this out and move it to WT:V. Thanks also for for the feedback on the dispute.   Will Beback  talk  22:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An external link to an illegal recording

In the article Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline, user User:LTSally has added an external link to an illegal recording contained in a blog[26]. I and others have tried to explain why this link should be removed[27], but LTSally claims that there is no basis for the removal of the external link[28].--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

To date the three editors who have "tried to explain why this link should be removed" have offered these arguments: (a) the recording is illegal (b) the link is "not suitable", (c) the recording was made without the consent of all involved (d) that it amounts to an "investigation" or original reseach. There has to date been no discussion of the external link as a reliable source and no evidence that the blog contains an illegal recording.

Here are my arguments for its inclusion as an external link:

The style guideline at Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided does indeed suggest that links to blogs be avoided. This is a guideline only, and exceptions are allowed. I believe that this blog is such an exception. The opinions expressed on the blog are of secondary importance only. The critical content of the blog is the audio recording of a judicial committee hearing of an individual who has himself uploaded the content to the internet with the intention of it being heard. The subject of the article is disciplinary procedures of Jehovah's Witnesses, including juducial committees. The inclusion of a recording of a complete judicial committee hearing is a valuable addition to the written material in the article. It is informative, instructive and quite rare. It's claimed the recording is illegal. It is certainly contrary to the policies of Jehovah's Witness judicial committee hearings, but that in itself is not a crime, thus making it illegal.

Suggestions that privacy is being violated are spurious. The individual on trial from this church court has clearly approved of his case being made public at his Death or Obedience blogsite. Those who made the allegations against him should have no shame about, or objection to, their accusations being made public, since the accused has no objection. Their evidence consisted of the viewpoints of the accused expressed – at their invitation – at a prior shepherding call. They accused him of "spreading" apostate views ... in this case, sharing his views with them in a pastoral visit in response to their questions. The accused has no objection about that being publicised either. Jehovah's Witnesses' judicial committees are held as a secretive court session with no observers and no subsequent report of evidence or defence. This recording is a valuable record of such proceedings and a link to it on an article dealing with disciplinary procedures is entirely appropriate.

Jehovah's Witnesses are avid contributors to this article, so I'm baffled at why they shy from adding a link to a recording that cuts out the middle man, allowing the public to hear for themselves JW disciplinary procedures in action. LTSally (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the place to talk about sources, not external links. Arguments on both sides seem weak (what's illegal about it? blogspot??), but this is not the place to hash it out. DreamGuy (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Illegal is the recording, since it is made without the approval of the persons involved.--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not the right noticeboard to bring forward the issue of alleged illegality, though. --LjL (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's not stand on ceremony. If there's a link to copyright-infringing material, the link should be removed pronto. Jehochman ^Talk 13:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone claimed copyright. I'm not stoked about linking to the blog from article space (read: don't do it), but let's not take claims of illegality at face value. Protonk (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no issue of copyright in this debate. No one has made that suggestion, so I don't know why you raise it. LTSally (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

...Please read the comment directly above mine. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(I think that was a reference to the comment before yours... not everyone uses indenting the same way, which makes threading of comments confusing.) DreamGuy (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If there were a copyright problem I'd have said it needed to be removed for sure. Whether it is illegal to record people without their approval depends upon state laws. In some jurisdictions all it takes is one of the people being recorded to approve of it for it to be completely legal. Even if it were against the law to record it that doesn't necessarily mean that posting it online, or linking to it, would be illegal. That's not to say I support linking to it, just clarifying the legal situation a bit. But none of this has anything to do with Reliable Sources. DreamGuy (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly surprising that this matter is yet-unresolved.
Hello, WP:OR. The source is original research because it is not peer-reviewed by any stretch of the imagination. No one useful can verify that this is actually a recording of what it purports to be (rather than, for example, actors or voice actors portraying roles). The link cannot be allowed on that basis. That should end the discussion for conscientious editors considering a contested source.
Completely as an aside, there seems a disappointing and odd willingness to ignore the real possibility of illegality. See WP:DOLT.

• In many jurisdictions, it is illegal to record a person without his knowledge.
  
• In even more jurisdictions, it is illegal to use that recording for any but "personal use".
• In even MORE jurisdictions, it is illegal to share that recording indiscriminately (eg on the internet).
  

For example, a person who merely records a sex act without his partner's knowledge may or may not be subject to prosecution depending on the jurisdiction, but in literally everyplace in all 50 states in the USA, sharing such a recording can be prosecuted as a crime (not merely a civil infraction for which one could be sued). Clearly, I'm not threatening legal action, but it's naive for conscientious editors to ignore the real world.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Obviously I concur w/ the bulk of your statement, but the recording is not "Original Research". WP:OR is a policy which constrains editors on wikipedia in articlespace from presenting their novel conclusions. It is not a sensible description for anything else, be it arguments made by wikipedians outside of articlespace or materials made off wikipedia. Furthermore, it obviously isn't original in any way because it's a recording of a meeting. Lastly, it should be said that the material obviously doesn't belong in the article and shouldn't be otherwise linked from the article. Whether or not it can be linked on the talk page (or here for that matter) during a discussion of the meetings in general is a more nuanced question. Protonk (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I had intended to apply this part of the WP:OR policy, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. [emph added]" Of course, there is overlap with WP:V regarding what might be called 'editor-as-peer-review'.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. The source itself isn't OR, tho. Protonk (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR has nothing to do with an outside source, and sharing recordings of sex acts is far different from sharing recordings of a meeting. Perhaps you should drop the tone of moral and intellectual superiority and focus on the topic actually being discussed other than some straw man arguments about some other situations entirely. DreamGuy (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ELNO prohibits the inclusion of links to personal blogs ,the link contains OR and does not need to be included--Notedgrant (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Articlesbase.com

I can't find where this has been discussed. Anyone can add to this site - it's used extensively as both a source and an external link. Does anyone disagree with removing it? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Remove it from which article? All of them? Some of the articles might be useful for external links. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

All I'd say - we don't link to open Wikis, this has the same problems. And I note a number added recently seem to be articles linking to a commercial website. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

We do link to open wikis if they are relatively stable; the offloading of a lot of sci-fi material to Wookiepiedia, Transformers Wiki, etc, is one example. Articlesbase is only the channel, just like with other selfpub venues we can deal with these links on a case by case basis. However, most of their articles aren't really necessary in our articles, and some link back to commercial sites. I'd recommend adding it to XlinkBot, which will disallow it most of the time but unlike a full blacklist if editors really want a particular article they can revert the bot. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, the problem with open Wikis is that anyone can change an article. For example, I change an article that says "Barack Obama was born in Hawaii" to say "Barack Obama was NOT born in Hawaii". This is different than anyone being able to upload an article. If someone uploads an article that says, "Barack Obama was born in Hawaii", nobody can go into that article and change it to mean something else. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

True, but the ones added recently are like this one [29] which link to a sales site. I don't think many if any will pass ELNO 1 even. How do we add it to Xlinkbot? Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

ArticlesBase doesn't meet any of the requirements for WP:RS, and there's no reason to expect that any of the articles would meet WP:EL either. And notability for its Wikipedia article seems to still rest on two foreign-language articles used in its AfD. Flowanda | Talk 04:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Flowanda here. It's not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination, doesn't meet EL rules, and shouldn't be used at all. If a bunch of articles link to it they should be unlinked. DreamGuy (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Bullshido.net

There has been some dispute about whether this article, published on the Bullshido.net Web site, is a reliable source for the biography of Ashida Kim. My own view is that it does not meet the elevated sourcing standards required on biographies of living people. In particular, I have not seen any evidence that this site has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by our sourcing guidelines. I am also concerned about what, if any, editorial processes are in place. Note that there is a discussion on this matter at Talk:Ashida Kim and I have posted here to obtain input from the wider editorial community. *** Crotalus *** 15:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No way, no how is that article or that website a reliable source for a BLP. The article (on Bullshido.net) even lists the Wikipedia article on Ashida Kim as one of its own sources. This has been going on for far too long. I understand that Kim has many (very vocal) detractors in the small world of online martial-arts but until this criticism is published by reliable, secondary sources it has no place here. Winter Haven is not a very large town and if this fellow and the surrounding controversy is so noteworthy it will have been reported by local news outlets and not solely by a partisan internet forum with an axe to grind. The lack of coverage by reliable sources seems, to me at least, to indicate that the subject needs no attention in the encyclopedia. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Blimely O_O where to start with that - I think the answer is NO, NO, NO, especially for a BLP. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

crotalus's message here seems a little disingenuous. first of all, the owner of bullshido has visited the talkpage just yesterday to state :"As the executive director of the Bullshido websites I can state that Sam Browning's research articles are not self-published, nor are they presented as open discussions for participatory research. Rather, they are the fully and professionally researched works that are presented for the benefit of the general public in order to inform consumers of the true credentials of someone who has been selling books on martial arts related subjects since the 1980's". second of all, crotalus has WP:Pointy nominated this article for deletion twice in the past year, which may or may not be related to why he is rejecting well researched articles. ashida kim is a fringe martial artist/fake ninja. he isn't going to have articles written about him by the new york times. we should accept this source after the website owner comes and assures us it's reliable and fact checked. Theserialcomma (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

ashida kim is a fringe martial artist/fake ninja. then why are *we* writing about him? he isn't going to have articles written about him by the new york times. I'm not asking for the New York times, I'm asking for reliable sources, if they don't exist, the article should not exist, not just this section. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Protonk (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this- "we should accept this source after the website owner comes and assures us it's reliable and fact checked." is one of the silliest things I have heard in a long time. L0b0t (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

um, how are we supposed to know about a questionable source's editorial oversight unless we ask? how is that silly? sure, he could lie, but any newspaper could be lying/deceiving people about their editorial oversight. i'd like to hear the editor's explanation, regardless, and then use that information to help to come a conclusion, rather than blindly speculate. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not silly to try to determine a questionable source's oversight. It is silly, however, to claim that questionable source is reliable just because Willie Website Owner or Francis Forum Host shows up at the talk page of an article (with a long history of troublesome sources, mainly the one in question) to say that their particular troublesome source is Jim Dandee. L0b0t (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The main reason for my opinion is that the article on Bullshido uses references itself, then draws conclusions from these, it is not just a blog entry or forum post. The fact checking side is partly the peer review from the forum community where the whole ethos of the site it to pick holes in dubious claims, there is also ample information of any one to review the conclusions drawn. --Nate^t/_c 09:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Not reliable in the slightest. It's sad to see so many what should be obvious cases being fought over by people who don't seem to get the basic concept of what a reliable source is. This is just an online forum, with no proven expertise or notability or fact checking or anything. They are fine for what they do, but what they do isn't encyclopedic. DreamGuy (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Is a journal's Impact factor a useful indicator of reliability?

It appears from an archive search that the point has been considered here but never really concluded. How high or low an impact factor ensures that a journal (not an individual paper) is or is not taken seriously as a reliable publisher for WP, barring special confounders? Can we put this question to bed?LeadSongDog come howl 16:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The degree of error one would expect to be present in a work like Wikipedia is probably high enough that differences in cited journals' impact factors is immaterial. It's akin to leaving all your windows open but worrying whether your front door has a knob lock versus a deadbolt. Wikiant (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This has been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard before. Here, where the consensus was that impact factors do not correlate with reliability. Nevermind. It appears you have read those archives. What needs to be put to bed? Is there a specific case you have in mind? Protonk (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In one form or another the question pops up on many WP:Fringe-ish and WP:Pseudoscience articles. The case at hand was that publication in the Central European Journal of Physics, with an impact factor of 0.448, was being advanced to bolster the credibility of a paper at Blacklight Power. Similar questions have previously come up at Talk:Homeopathy archive search and I'm sure elsewhere, so I'd like to see some general position arrived at rather than having to tackle each case on an ad-hoc basis. Is that unreasonable?LeadSongDog come howl 18:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreasonable is the wrong word, because it describes you or your position too broadly. I think if you read the archives and read a little of the literature on the subject, the answer is that impact factors just don't correlate well to any underlying metric for quality. There is some argument to be made that something with an impact factor over 20 will generally be a highly regarded journal and something with an impact factor under 0.5 might be less than mainstream. But this varies tremendously across disciplines and sub-disciplines, is prone to manipulation and doesn't offer much tractable data between the extremes. Protonk (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Communist genocide

Are the following sources reliable for the lead of Communist genocide?

1) '"Understanding genocide" by Rebecca Knuth, p. 248

2) Gender and catastrophe by Ronit Lentin, p. 3

The lead begins: Communist genocide refers to mass killings of particular categories of the population carried out by communist regimes, which may be considered genocides or politicides, with the perpetrators either convicted in a court of law, or accused of engaging in genocide by third parties.

The first source makes no mention of Communist genocide.[30]

The second source states: Soviet and Communist genocide and mass state killings, sometimes termed politicide, occurred in the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and the People's Republic of China.[31][32]

The first source is not about Communist genocide, neither source supports the lead, and the Knuth article is only available on Google Books in snippet view.

The Four Deuces (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources in two World War Two articles

For some unknown reason, user Jim Sweeney has been tagging two WW2 articles - Pidkamin massacre, and Huta Pieniacka massacre, claiming that sources used there are unreliable. If somebody could check these sources, and help out, I would be grateful. Here are the sources Jim Sweeney dislikes:

1. An article from official webpage of Polish Radio, Polish equivalent of BBC [33]
2. A book by Grzegorz Motyka, renowned, professional historian, specializing in Polish - Ukrainian relations during the war,
3. A book by Sol Littman, former Canadian Director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. [34]
4. A book by Tadeusz Piotrowski, professor of Sociology at the University of New Hampshire [35]
5. A Polish - language tourist guide of Western Ukraine, by Grzegorz Rakowski PhD, author of a number of publications [36]

I am awaiting opinions of uninvolved users. Tymek (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I skim through the arguments, and since the biggest problem is that the source is in Polish, I just want to point out that the laugage of the source is irrelevant on the reliability of the source per WP:NONENG. Unless someone has equivalent English sources to replace the Polish sources, saying Polish sources is unreliable due to language barrier is groundless. Jim101 (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

on the Huta Pieniacka massacre

• ref 1 appears to be a ukranian forum ?
• ref 2 is to a googl book review
• ref 3 has two big errors there was no 14th sub unit or 4th regiment so what make the rest of the site reliable
• ref 5 is to a dead external site
• ref 8 is a google book search that reveals it was another ss division responsible
• ref 10 is to a dead external site

All the other refs are a foreign language but if they are the same as above there credability is in some doubt --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There is also doubt over Grzegorz Motyka

"Grzegorz Motyka refers to no archival sources when he claims in his book Ukrai ska partyzantka 1942-1960 — dzia alno Organizacji Ukrai skich Nacjonalist w i Ukrai skiej Powsta czej Armii (Warsaw, 2006) that Huta Pieniacka was “pacified” [i.e., annihilated] by the 4th Regiment of the SS Police, which was made up of Ukrainians, and by the UPA’s Siromantsi Company under D. Karpenko’s command" and so he is not reliable. SOurces are a must in references from User:Chaosdruid --Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

On Tadeusz Piotrowski (sociologist) his article claims he is a book editor, reviewer, manuscript referee, and a translator. Its not claimede he is a historian. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Dead sites, while regrettable, should be investigated and fixed, not removed as long as the accessdate field was properly filled out for the citation we must assume good faith that the site existed at that time and did say what it said.

• Citing a book that is placed on Google books is not a problem. Just because a site has a major mistake that doesnt make it unreliable for everything else in it, you must prove it unreliable for the actual information being cited.
• You can not assume that "because the other refs are not credible then the other foreign language cites are too", that's not logic, that's assinine and not a legitimate defence.
• We do not require that our sources use and cite in them any sort of primary documents or archival sources, therefore your comment about Grzegorz Mtyka is also not legitimate.
• I dont understand the comment about user Chaosdruid, but if he has done something to make it where you no longer give him good faith then ok, but references should be a must from everyone anyways. *As for Tadeusz Piotrowski it does not matter if he is a historian or not; lots of good history books have been written by non-historians, his other qualifications seem just as good to me; we dont require that only sources written by historians are accepted for articles about historical events. Camelbinky (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Jim101, and Camelbinky, for your prompt responses. I must admit I was very surprised to see user Jim Sweeney basically dismiss all the sources provided, especially in the Pidkamin massacre article. If we see works of professional historians and professors of universities as unreliable, then we basically should get rid of all sources in all articles. As for sources other than English, there are rules, and it is clear. A number of my articles has been featured on the front page (DYK), and most of them are based on Polish-language sources. All it takes is to assume a little good faith. Nevertheless, if user Jim Sweeney needs some clarification of Polish language sources, I am always willing to translate them, upon request. Thank you again. Tymek (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

60 Minutes and the Assassination of Werner Erhard

Source in question

• Self, Jane (November 1992). 60 Minutes and the Assassination of Werner Erhard: How America's Top Rated Television Show Was Used in an Attempt to Destroy a Man Who Was Making A Difference. Breakthru Publishing. ISBN 0942540239.

This book is being put forth as a source by those that support the controversial training programs Landmark Education and Erhard Seminars Training developed by Werner Erhard. It was removed as a source, but this was disputed [37], [38], [39], [40]. The book should not be used as a source on Wikipedia: it fails WP:RS as it comes from a non-notable publisher, lacks coverage in reliable sources, lacks editorial review, and both the publisher and author have a bias as being associated with Erhard himself and his controversial trainings. The book's publisher has acted as Werner Erhard's attorney.

Rationale

1. The book is biased: the author self-admits in the book to being involved with Erhard's training for several years prior to writing the book.

   Jane Self describes her association with Erhard's trainings as such: In 1988, I started a lifelong relationship with Landmark Education, a corporation designed for ongoing personal growth and development (it was called Werner Erhard and Associates when I started).

2. The publisher is biased: The publishing company is associated with an individual named "Walter Maksym", who has acted directly as the attorney for Werner Erhard when Erhard sued individuals discussed in the book itself.

   • The publishing company "Breakthru Publishing" publishes the same books as company "Walter Maksym Publishing". Compare this: About Walter Maksym: Publisher of Perfect Pleasure: Beyond the One Hour Orgasm, The New York Times Best Seller Diets Don't Work!, with this list of books published by Breakthru Publishing [41] = the series of "Diets Don't Work" books.
   • Walter Maksym represented Werner Erhard as his attorney, when Erhard sued 20 different defendants after a critical broadcast of CBS News 60 Minutes where Erhard's daughters and business associates made controversial claims against him. See San Jose Mercury News article, which states: Erhard's attorney, Walter Maksym of Illinois, could not be reached for comment.

3. "Breakthru Publishing" is not regarded as a publishing company respected for editorial review, and has no standing within any of the fields related to this book's subject, such as journalism, psychology, or religion.

   • When attempting to check if their website lists any form of editorial review - it appears that the website is itself abandoned [42].
   • A listing of other books published by Breakthru Publishing yields only "Diet's Don't Work" and other series of marketing/sales to self-help clientele - nothing related to investigative journalism, see [43].

4. There are no independent reliable secondary sources that significantly discuss the book.

   • The wiki article about the book was deleted essentially for this very reason: (AfD discussion).
   • Search in books show it is not cited as a resource [44].

---

I present this issue here to see if previously uninvolved editors can help make a determination if this book is an independent reliable secondary source. Than you for your time, Cirt (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, so I can't speak to the actual quality of the writing (although if you say its subpar, I'll believe you). But given the close relationship of the publisher and Erhard, the type of fare the publisher usually puts out and the fact that the book has not apparently been reviewed or analysed by any reputable entity I'd say that any mention of the source in a Wikipedia article, and especially wrt claims about a living person, should require at least a couple of sentences describing its background and doubtful reliability. Without such caveats I don't think it would be an appropriate source for any article except one about the book or the author. Nathan ^T 22:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, such caveats in prior sentences before the source would then itself be WP:OR in article mainspace, as such, the source should probably not be used/mentioned in article mainspace at all. Cirt (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the book is basically a WP:SELFPUB source. If the person's view is already shown to be notable then it could be used as a source for what his opinions are, but the book cannot demonstrate notability or be used to support facts. DreamGuy (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

New York Times Article on Alternative Minimum Tax

Resolved

 – yes, the NYT is a reliable source

Unresolved

 – Discussion continues. No need to archive this if something productive will come from it. Protonk (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

An editor is claiming, with this revert [45], suggesting that the New York Times is not a "truly reliable source." The editor has previously excised any references to the NY Times topic on the Alternative Minimum Tax. Looking for some guidance here.Mattnad (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't know much about this, but the NYT is obviously a reliable source for most facts. I think you may have more of an editorial disagreement, than a RS problem. What to do with that, I don't know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The NY Times meets all our requirements for a reliable source. Treat that editor as a vandal and put the NY Times reference back in and take appropriate warning steps against said editor should he/she continue to vandalize. The only problem, and it would have nothing to do with the NY Times being a reliable source is that the references you are using from the NY Times are actual fact-checked articles and not op-eds or some other format in which it is the editor or writer's opinions. If they unbiased news articles then they can be used for facts, figures, etc. Always remember though- a source is not inherently always reliable or unreliable. The particular use of information as a reference from a source must be reliable in the context it is being used.Camelbinky (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

DO NOT TREAT THIS EDITOR LIKE A VANDAL (end yelling). Engage the editor via dispute resolution. If the source makes an egregious factual error, then we can deal with that specifically on the talk page. Protonk (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

IF this editor is removing NY Times sources anywhere he/she finds them just because he things the NYT is, as a source in general, unreliable, whatever his motives are it is vandalism and he needs to be treated as such. Removing source information because you have an axe to grind with that particular source is vandalism. I'm not saying this particular editor does or that this is what he's doing. My suggestion was for if an editor is removing any information that was sourced from the New York Times for no reason other than "the New York Times is not a reliable source" and not based on the particular piece of information, which according to the edit summary it was my understanding that this is what that editor was doing. Oh, and capital letters and bold typeface is not "yelling" so dont worry about it I took no offence, this is a print media not real life, or did I suddenly get on Myspace by accident?Camelbinky (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

New York Times Article on Alternative Minimum Tax - Discussion Closed Prematurely?

I agree that in general, the New York Times is a reliable source. But in this specific instance, was reliability actually determined? It seems to me that the discussion might have been closed prematurely. The specific issue raised by PMcGarrigle is "NYTimes quote added by Mattnad rehashes debate of 1-10-2009. NYTimes quote is contradicted by [3, p. 17]. Direct link added to [3] (a truly reliable source, authors v. knowledeable on this issue).)" Has this specific complaint been addressed? If so, I don't see it. Also, have other editors had time to look into this and give their opinions? It seems like this discussion may have been closed too soon. 71.57.126.233 (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A reply from the editor in question: Mattnad misquotes and misunderstands my earlier comments, and apparently has not even read the supporting evidence I provided. Indeed, he deleted the newly added link to the supporting evidence.

Some considerable time back, Mattnad added a quote to the AMT entry, consisting of one sentence, from a New York Times article (discussion piece? editorial?; it's not clear which). To anyone who follows AMT, the quote is clearly incorrect. After a little search, I found the sentence is directly contradicted by a very authoritative paper by Berman et al. in an article published by the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. I provided a reference to the article and deleted the NY Times quote, in January 2009.

In the past couple of days, Mattnad added back the NY Times quote, without referring to the earlier discussion. This time I added a URL for the Tax Policy Center article, re-explained that the NY Times quote is contradicted by the Tax Policy Center article, and again deleted the NY Times quote.

Some minutes later, I find that Mattnad has reverted to the previous version, again without any discussion of the contradictory evidence, and has also thereby deleted the URL for the Tax Policy Center article. I find this very disappointing.

My edit summary said that the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution is a truly reliable source. And on this issue it is: see [46] and [47] and judge for yourself. It is clearly (in my opinion) vastly more reliable on this topic than the NY Times, which is after all a daily newspaper and does not produce academic studies of archival value. When they directly contradict each other, as they do here, the NY Times (in my opinion) is clearly wrong. I really can't see how anyone who has read both sources could possibly believe the NY Times discussion piece (unsigned!) over the TPC article. Whether the NY Times is reliable in general is not the point at issue: sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, and I certainly would never say that it is intrinsically unreliable. However on this specific issue, the NY Times discussion piece is not a reliable source (in my opinion, and I have provided evidence from a reliable source).

If Mattnad still thinks the NY Times discussion piece is correct, it would be helpful if he explained why the Berman et al. article is wrong, or why he thinks there really is no contradiction between the two. In the meantime, I will wait for further guidance here, but at some point will revert the AMT article to the previous version. Thanks. PMcGarrigle (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• This discussion is ridiculous. The New York Times is a reliable source, generally, and specifically in this instance. When reliable sources contradict, we report the dispute, we don't say which source is 'right'. Dlabtot (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll add on here. I only reversed Dlabtot's archiving of the section because I felt there was the possibility this might lead to some resolution surrounding the specific issue. We can talk about two sources contradicting here, with maybe some resolution as to how the article will report that contradiction or dispute. But we don't need general inveighing. If the discussion dissolves then I won't hesitate to close it down here and direct parties to elsewhere in the DR chain. Protonk (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • Include what they both say, and don't mark threads here resolved. Everything is case by case, so resolved doesn't work very well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I would think the caveat about academic topics at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations applies here. Newspapers tend to do a very poor job covering academic/scientific subjects so scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. L0b0t (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it isn't particle physics. In theory the NYT should be able to do a competent job reporting on the AMT. In practice... Protonk (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It's not physics but it is pretty advanced math for liberal arts/journalism graduates, I always have to reach for the salt cellar when the local fishwrap has anything to say about economics or tax policy. Oh, one might want to check the NYT for an issue or two after the one in question. If there was a mistake and it was corrected there should be a retraction. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The tax topic in the NYC times is actively maintained and what's at issue is not math per se, but history. Mattnad (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's put aside for now a basic tenant of Wikipedia that allows for contradictory content to coexist in an article when there's reliable sources supporting different points of view. When I read the Berman article provided by PMcGarrigle, I saw nothing that contradicts the NYtimes article content (the other link he provided is to multiple articles). The Berman article focused on the current implications of the AMT and only provides a cursory evaluation of the historical changes leading up to now. Here's most of what Berman says about the period in AMT history that PMcGarrigle wants removed

"The 1986 reforms also fundamentally altered the AMT. The Act added numerous AMT preferences, expanding the difference between rules and definitions in the AMT and the regular tax, and significantly increasing the role of deferral preferences. It raised the AMT rate to 21 percent, created the exemption phaseout, introduced the notion of the AMT as a floor on taxes by limiting the extent to which net operating losses and foreign tax credits could reduce AMT, and created a minimum tax credit in the regular tax for AMT liability caused by deferral items. After 1986, AMT participation and revenues fell to pre-1982 levels."

Note that the Berman article does not contradict the information from from NYtimes that includes "A major shift occurred in 1986 when Ronald Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The AMT was greatly expanded to aim at a different set of deductions that most Americans receive. "A law for untaxed rich investors was refocused on families who own their homes in high tax states." Berman does not contradict the NYtimes. Rather, the Berman article is written in tax speak, is oriented towards the current implications, and glosses over the historical fine points that the NYtimes bothers to explain for non-academics. Here's a good example of why editors should not assume they know more than other reliable sources. And I'll add that PMcGarrigle should not be allowed to pick and chose the sources he agrees with. Mattnad (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I thank Mattnad for reading the Berman article I cited. Now we are making progress. We are still not in agreement (as I will explain in a moment) but at least we are on the same page, even if at opposite corners. If some further discussion cannot resolve the question, then we may have to end up citing both sources. Plus possibly some more.

Here is the crux of the disagreement: the NY Times article says "the AMT was greatly expanded to aim at a different set of deductions that most Americans receive", whereas the Berman article says "After 1986, AMT participation and revenues fell to pre-1982 levels." So did AMT expand or contract in 1986? The NY Times seems to say "expand" (in fact "greatly expand"), and the Berman article seems to say "contract". To me these seem to contradict directly. What am I missing?

By the way, here is another reference I dug up: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/2223.html, which shows how many returns were affected by AMT and how much AMT revenue was generated, for each year from 1970 to 2005. Check out what happens around 1986: it sure looks like a contraction to me. What am I missing?

By the way, the NY Times discussion piece then goes on to talk about the 1986 bill refocusing AMT on "families who own their homes in high tax states". I have to be honest and say I do not know what they are talking about here. I wish I did, because I'm in a family that owns its home in a high tax state, and has dealt with complicated AMT issues for almost the last ten years, and I might learn something of interest. Unfortunately the article "glosses over the historical fine points" so I have to guess. I am unaware of any specific change the 1986 act made in the AMT liability of (a) families, (b) homeowners, or (c) people in high tax states. Does anyone have an idea what they are talking about?

Incidentally, I see that the Wikipedia article on the Tax Reform Act of 1986 repeats many of the same points Mattnad makes, complete with the same NY Times quotes! As soon as I have a chance to dig up a comprehensive set of references for the AMT article, I will also add them to the TRA_1986 article.

Finally, I'm puzzled what Mattnad means when he talks about the Berman article involving "tax speak", while the NY Times "bothers to explain for non-academics". I pay AMT, lots of it, so my interest in the topic is not academic but instead very personal. I can't understand how anyone who has AMT issues of any significance could find that the NY Times discussion has "explained" anything of value. (Has Mattnad ever paid AMT? I very much doubt it.) The Berman article is very straightforward and clear. If it's not considered an appropriate reference, I will upload many others, all of which (as far as I can see) support Berman and contradict the NY Times article. PMcGarrigle (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I would add that the NYT piece has no byline (that I could find) and of the sources presented is the only one that "glosses over the historical." L0b0t (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, a little too much delving into the specifics for this arena (this is coming from someone who is a grad student in a poli sci department, so if its getting boring for me...) Anyways- I have to disagree with some of the other regulars who contribute on here, whom I normally like to agree with since I do respect them, such as Dlabtot, and this is an issue that I have disagreed with many times actually. When two normally reliable sources contradict it is Dlabtot and other's opinion that we should just report the dispute and put both in. I disagree. In many, if not most cases, one is right, one is wrong. Find out which is right or dont report either is probably the safest thing to do in most cases. I even have a dead president who agrees with me, he's no Jimbo Wales but I think we can take a cue from him-

• Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong. Thomas Jefferson

You can find more quotes regarding truth should trump verifiability in the first section on my talk page. :-)Camelbinky (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The core of the dispute seems to be over whether the 1986 changes "greatly expanded" the AMT or not. I don't think either source supports that language. The Times article says:

How did the tax's reach expand? In 1986, when President Ronald Reagan and both parties on Capitol Hill agreed to a major change in the tax system, the law was subtly changed to aim at a wholly different set of deductions, the ones that everyone gets, like the personal exemption, state and local taxes, the standard deduction, certain expenses like union dues and even some medical costs for the seriously ill. At the same time it removed and revised some of the exotic investment deductions. A law for untaxed rich investors was refocused on families who own their homes in high tax states.

Any expansion (which I don't think it verifiably described as "great") was in who was subject to the tax, not in total revenue; the removal of "exotic investment deductions" presumably wiped out the new revenue (but such an assertion is not verifiable). The article should clarify that the changes "expanded the number of people subject to the AMT" (or similar words); an additional point from the Urban-Brookings paper that actual revenue dropped might be relevant. Rvcx (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Note this is not about reliable sources now (that's been established). Short-term revenue shifts are not disputed. The "history" section is designed to explain major building blocks of the current law. It's all about who would be targeted by the tax system. I've made a tweak to the article to read "The reach of AMT was expanded to aim at a different set of deductions that most Americans receive." One could argue whether the adjective "greatly" (now removed) can still apply. The NYT article says the AMT was changed to aim at deductions "that everyone gets" instead of exotic deductions. Clearly the AMT is a very broadly felt tax system now. And there are articles on the AMT that mention the authors of the law were aware of the long-term revenue impact and designed it that way (e.g. income thresholds not indexed for inflation, focusing on broader base of typical deductions). I'll get around the digging those up later to provide a cite.Mattnad (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)