Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

Quoting Facebook as a Source

In the above discussion (now moved to archive), I quoted what Mr Syed Shah Gulam Afzal Biyabani, Chairman, Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board had to say about Qadyanis / Ahmadiyas. Can this source be cited in the article on Ahmadiyas? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC).

A Facebook page could only be a self-published source. It might be usable as a source for the person's opinion, under certain conditions. Is there a good reason to believe that the Facebook page is indeed that of the stated person, and that his opinion on this topic is worth quoting as such? If the opinion ias noteworthy, has it been reported on in independent sources? Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Some of the contents of the posting are available on other websites as can be seen in the archive link. The person's opinion matters a lot because he is the chairman of Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC).

Jeremy Wade River Monsters

Congrtulations for finally changing his birth year from 1960 (wrong) to 1956 (right). However, the actual birthdate is still wrong. It is March 23 (right) not May 5 (wrong). This information can be verfied by Icon Film Productions, who are responsible for the making of the show "River Monsters".

Thomas Jefferson

Hi: It began with a discussion of the lede at Thomas Jefferson, which led to claims that The Smithsonian and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation websites, used in the body are not RS. Discussion is at Talk:Thomas Jefferson#Lede and Due and Talk:Thomas Jefferson#Redundant statements

The body now reads:

The Smithsonian Institution and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation collaborated on an exhibit, Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello: Paradox of Liberty, which presents detailed information about six slave families at Monticello. Presented at the National Museum of American History from 27 January to 14 October, it notes that evidence "strongly support[s] the conclusion that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children." In her review of the exhibition, NPR reporter Karen Grigsby Bates noted that recent scholarship has been studying the lives of slaves. She also noted the consensus on Jefferson's likely paternity of at least one of Sally Hemings' children and the "heated dissent from a vocal minority," especially the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society. The exhibit has been co-curated by the historians Rex Ellis from the National Museum of African American History and Culture of the Smithsonian, and Elizabeth Chew, a curator at Monticello.

Question: Are they RS? Thanks Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Museum exhibits are of varying quality. The Smithsonian seems to be a publisher of high quality museum exhibits. In this case the exhibit appears to comprehend the scholarly community's opinion, as a tertiary source whose purpose is to communicate the scholarly consensus. I would suggest that the exhibition, and its catalogue book, should be considered as high quality tertiary sources. I would suggest that editors follow up the secondary sources referenced against the exhibit. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. I take it you find it fine RS as used. Questions about your last sentence. What do you mean by "followup?" If you could be more expansive, it would be appreciated.Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I rather think the problems are using the opinions of an NPR reporter as being of parallel value to the direct Smithsonian statements. Especially the "heated dissent" comment which implies, IMO, that this is the only group voicing any dissent. And as always, determination of "fact" by vote is problematic - no one has any proof here, it is all matters of probabilities at most. Collect (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, why cite NPR at all, when the museum exhibit exists? Following up the sources the museum exhibit used: finding their footnotes and references and using those texts; is superior to grabbing NPR "reaction" stories. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can call them her opinions, as she is reporting on opinions, but I agree that that can be altered as the quote is not needed. (I think it was added, when it was suggested the Smithsonian was not RS). As for conclusions they've drawn, that is what we should convey. I don't think it suggests "fact," just their conclusions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This is how it now reads:

In 2012 the Smithsonian Institution and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation collaborated on an exhibit, Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello: Paradox of Liberty, which presents detailed information about six slave families at Monticello and their descendants. It is notable as the first exhibit at a national museum on the Mall to address Jefferson as slaveholder and the lives of slaves at Monticello. Presented at the National Museum of American History, the exhibit notes that evidence "strongly support[s] the conclusion that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children."

Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Change "father of Sally ..." to "father of at least one of Sally" and remove the useless opinions from the NPR cites - footnotes are not intended to hold material which ought not be placed in the article at the start.

In 2012 the Smithsonian Institution and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation collaborated on an exhibit, Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello: Paradox of Liberty, about six slave families at Monticello and their descendants. It is the first exhibit at a national museum on the Mall to address Jefferson as slaveholder and the slaves at Monticello. Presented at the National Museum of American History, the exhibit notes that evidence supports a conclusion that Jefferson sired at least one of Sally Hemings' children.

Which conforms to the factual material actually in the cites, and not perpetuating opinion via footnotes which would be improper in the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The Smithsonian exhibit says "Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings’s children." So, we can't report it that way. We could, if we delete "at least one" Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No source was removed - the "at least one" was found in a source given (Bates). Hence we certainly can use it. As the lesser claim, it certainly is valid here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say any source was removed. I said, we can't misreport what the Smithsonian said "Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings’s children." Bates was the reporter, whose "opinions" you deleted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Based on the display, Bates wrote:

As a short video on black life at Monticello plays in the background, Ellis walks past scores of artifacts made on the premises by six enslaved families. Farm tools, wooden barrels, furniture and other implements were crafted by the Gillettes, the Herns, the Fossetts, the Grangers, the Hubbards and the Hemingses. The Hemings family is perhaps the best known of the black Monticellans, because most historians now believe there is a high probability that Jefferson fathered at least one of Sally Hemings' children.

Which rather implies this is what the display said as far as Bates was concerned. Note the "at least one" given as a direct statement of fact here apparently based on the exhibit proper. Now let's look at what the Smithsonian "online exhibition" states:

Documentary and genetic evidence leads most historians now to believe that, years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings’s children.

Note that "all" is not present in the claim made. Thus the claim is far from inconsistent with "at least one" as Bates indicates. The solid evidence is only given for A man with the Jefferson Y chromosome fathered Eston Hemings (born 1808). -- that is there is solid evidence for one of Hemings' children. Not for all of them. And the link given for "learn more" leads to [1]

Since then, a committee commissioned by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, after reviewing essentially the same material, reached different conclusions, namely that Sally Hemings was only a minor figure in Thomas Jefferson's life and that it is very unlikely he fathered any of her children. This committee also suggested in its report, issued in April 2001 and revised in 2011, that Jefferson's younger brother Randolph (1755-1815) was more likely the father of at least some of Sally Hemings's children.

Which can not be ignored as it is part of the exhibition material by link. Thus "at least one" is quite solid, and there is dispute about implying "all." Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem then is that the sentence you constructed, ascribed that to the Smithsonian when what the Smithsonian says is "Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings’s children." As for Bates, she does not say where she got that from and we cannot assume (although we could report it but you deleted that). And it is inconsistent for Wikipedia to delete her "opinions" except the ones you find alright. As for the TJHS report, it is actually covered in the preceding paragraph of the article, so no one is ignoring it, even if it is not the majority opinion. Moreover, the sentence you constructed is inconsistent with both the TJHS and TJF reports (the closest it comes to is the minority report from TJHS). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Try accuracy. "The sentence (I) constructed" is directly from the NPR article which is cited. I doid no "construction" at all, and I ask you emend that claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry cannot. The last sentence is not in the NPR article and it's not even presented as so. Constructing sentences is what editors do, so if you are offended by that terminology, I can't imagine why. I didn't ascribe malice, or anything like it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Australian Business Traveller: request review of status as 'unreliable source'

My first time dipping a toe into the Wiki backwaters, so please bear with me! :)

Dirk Beetstra has suggested that I post here regarding the current status of the 'Australian Business Traveller' website (of which I am editor) being placed on a list of 'unreliable sources'. Beetstra says "You could try to ask for a review, neutrally answering any questions which arise from that discussion, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard."

So here goes... for some reason, Australian Business Traveller (www.AusBT.com.au) seems to be on a list of unreliable sources. About a year back, which was around six months after AusBT launched, an observation was made by Bidgee (and I think it'd been deleted, as I can't find it) that AusBT did seem to be more than just a 'blog' (and thus, more authoritative) but there appeared to be a question over what the site actually was, as we're not a print publication (which carries with it some association of authority).

It should be noted that AusBT is a news-based online publication employing professional journalists. We're not a blog run by amateurs which trades on rumour.

The site regularly breaks stories related to travel and aviation, attends media conferences and press trips with airlines, and the content is on a par with comparative publications already in Wikipedia's link-approved 'reliable source' list such as Business Traveller, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australia, AAP and others.

AusBT has also been described by the oneworld airline alliance as "a leading independent business travel news website".

And I myself am a professional journalist of several decades' standing, having worked as a journalist and editor at The Sydney Morning Herald and ACP Magazines.

Are there any questions about AusBT, relevant to this status, which I might be able to answer or address, in an effort to see the site rated as a reliable source? Djsflynn (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds RS to me. Collect (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

So, what's the timeframe for seeking comments before a call is made on AusBT being RS or not RS? Djsflynn (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikileaks parallel: Leaked letter from Watch Tower Society to 13,000 congregations

A letter from the New York headquarters of the Watch Tower Society (WTS) has been sent to all bodies of elders at 13,000 US congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses detailing the basis for deciding whether a congregation elder, deacon (ministerial servant) or full-time preacher (pioneer) should be removed from that position for attending university. The letter has been uploaded to Sendspace by an anonymous Jehovah's Witness and is available for download here.

A section of the article Jehovah's Witness beliefs already covers the fact that Jehovah's Witness leadership strongly discourages university attendance over concerns that members may lose faith in God or become seduced by the immoral atmosphere on campus. This is firmly attested by Jehovah's Witness publications; this view is also supported by RS James Penton, who writes of the religion's "anti-university" spirit". I added a sentence that (after subsequent editing) read: "Elders, ministerial servants and pioneers may be deemed ineligible to serve the congregation if they, their wives, or their children undertake university education, and if higher education pursuits interfere with their congregational duties or is pursued for material gain."[2] The sentence used that letter as its source; its usefulness is stating that the JW leadership is prepared to remove elders if they, or family members attend university unless they show respect for the pronouncements of the leadership and maintain meeting attendance and preaching quotas.

The letter, which gives every appearance of being genuine, and which is an appendix to a WTS elders' handbook, is addressed specifically to "all bodies of elders". In the US, this would necessarily mean distribution to more than 13,000 congregations. The Witnesses pride themselves on unity of teaching globally, so I would assume it has in fact been distributed to every one of the 100,000 congregations throughout the world.

My question now is this: has the letter been published to the satisfaction of WP:V? Two editors say "yes"; two say "no." The information page at Wikipedia:Published defines "published" as "Information ... created for distribution and actually distributed with a transfer of ownership to [the public, or a group of people]. (emphasis mine). The letter would not be ordinarily accessible by lay members of a JW congregation; it is a direction by HQ to local elders, but I would argue that the letter has definitely been created with the intention of imparting directions to a sizeable "group of people". Again, so there is no mistake: it was never intended to be read by all JWs. Its intended audience was elder bodies within those 100,000 congregations. My best comparison is a letter written by corporate management to middle management but subsequently leaked to all staff. Decisions made about Wikileaks leaks will clearly have set precedents for such material.

I would appreciate some comments. Is this letter usable as a source or not? BlackCab (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The primary issue for Wikipedia is publication by a reliable source. As you have not shown it to be published by a "reliable source" it is not usable. Collect (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, three editors at the article's Talk already rejected the supposed "letter" (see Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Verifiability of "letter" and here). I personally wrote at the article's Talk, "If the so-called "source" is actually encyclopedically useful, it will eventually become commented-upon in some actually-verifiable publication and then can be included here." Editor BlackCab aka LTSally is simply too impatient.--AuthorityTam (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The source for the statement is the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, a subsidiary of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, the administrative headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses. That body issued the letter then distributed it. My question is whether, based on the WP definition of "published", it is usable here. The letter is now also available here. BlackCab (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source unless the WTS formally acknowledges it and makes it accessible, or a reliable source republishes it and vouches for its authenticity. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree... so far I would have to say it has not been reliably published. PDF scans of hard copy documents are always problematic. Just looking at the PDF, we have no way to know if we are looking at a "true and authentic" scan of the actual letter, or something someone made up to look like the actual letter (ie a fake). What we can do, however, is determine whether the venue (ie the webpage) that hosts the PDF is reliable... ie can we trust it to present a "true copy" of the actual letter or not? Blueboar (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If we had a secondary source confirming the letter, then we would be in good shape. As it is, it's exactly the sort of primary source we are wary of. Mangoe (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The 'challenge' about the "supposed" letter and the "so-called" source are pretty weak, and there hasn't been any real contestation of the letter's authenticity per se. This is a separate issue to whether the leaked document can be considered published for Wikipedia's purposes. Reference to LTSally is not in any way relevant to this discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I was one of those agreeing the letter not appaired to be a good source, but I also stated it was no reasonable doubt about it's authenticity, as it both in style and content, appairs to be in harmony of JWs believings. The interpretation, as it was used in the article, was imidiatly highly doubtful, and the interpretation was contested as well as the letter, so I suggested to use other sources to describe the topic. It was fair of BlackCab to ask for comments here, even though the answears probably didn't support her point of view. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

We are not equipped to assess the provenance, validity or authenticity of documents -- we have to use the judgement of reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy for that. We have a policy of using such sources so that we do not have to have this sort of debate. Please note that I am not saying that I think these documents are or are not authentic, or that Grrahnbahr is or is not correct in their assessment of its authenticity. I'm saying that it is not up to us but up to those reliable secondary sources to make that assessment. Unless and until that happens we simply cannot use them. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the majority here, the letter cannot be shown to be genuine, whether it is or not is irrelevant to the discussion, as it cannot be proved to be legitimate, therefore does not meet WP:RS Willietell (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources in Aquatic ape hypothesis article (continued)

I would like to re-open the discussion. (Previous thread is here)

As it may involve a rare case of transition from pseudoscience to proto-science, the matter is a bit complicated. Please bear with me.

In brief, a few criticizing sources like blog posts by scientists John Hawks, Greg Laden, PZ Myers, as well as an amateur website are cited extensively in the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis article, while their reliability is disputed.

This is in the context of another dispute -- a supportive e-book published by Bentham (made it equal to self-publishing), co-authored by scientists Phillip Tobias, Michael Crawford, Anna Gislen, Erika Schagatay, etc. is deemed unreliable and not permitted a mention.

A few thoughts:

• There's a clear definition of what is RS and what's not. A self-published source is unreliable in principle, but can be considered reliable when "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (WP:SPS). The above-mentioned scientists are experts in human evolution, so the blogs and the e-book can be considered reliable (but not the amateur website).

I can further argue that the bloggers haven't published anything on AAH or water like the e-book authors did (see the reference list below), but I only demand a fair treatment on pro & con sources -- Either both reliable, or both non-reliable.

• WP:DUE and WP:PARITY are used as reasons (or excuses) to avoid a fair treatment, however neither policy states so. WP:DUE says that competing views should be presented "in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject", that means the quantity is to be skewed, not the quality / reliability. WP:PARITY says that we can use non-RS's to criticize a fringe theory only when no RS is available, but this is not true for AAH since there're numerous peer-reviewed sources available (see below).

• The due weight applied the article is even questioned and may be out-dated. After a search in the published literature, there's a surprisingly large number of peer-reviewed sources in support of the AAH, mostly in the form of modern scientific research (e.g. underwater archaeology, shore-based diet, diving physiology) -- see here for a full reference list.

In comparison, the sources that traditionally used to reject the AAH (e.g. Langdon's 1997 paper, blog posts) are not that numerous as one thought, mostly consist of personal opinions from (paleo)anthropologists. Admittedly, the AAH is still dismissed in the (paleo)anthropology circle, and is far from mainstream, but it has generated non-negligible academic interest and activities in other fields. It can be said that the AAH has entered a proto-science stage.

• My main point is: Some sources (questionably reliable and not really "numerous") are used to judge the AAH as fringe theory or pseudoscience, which permits one to expand the criticizing sources and remove the supportive literature, even converting RS into non-RS and vice versa. This in turn sustains the common belief that "AAH is pseudoscience", "It has no evidence" or "No scientist takes it seriously" and completes the cycle. I urge that we should re-evaluate the status of the AAH, and in particular the reliability status of the sources used.

Yours, Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 19:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You know, there's a reason that we ask people to provide full bibliographic citations at RSN, and this post makes a fine example. Who or what is "Bentham"? Is that a person or Bentham Science Publishers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's Bentham Science Publishers, more precisely the eBooks division. Another division (Bentham Open) is deemed a vanity press, but so far not eBook. Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 06:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

How is an "e-book ... equal to self-publishing"? An e-book is just a book, but in another media. I agree with WhatamIdoing that this is a bit hard to follow. If Chakazul is asking whether published books are normally considered stronger sources than blogs, even blogs by scientists, I would tend to agree within reason. But of course I can only generalize with the information given so far.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Many of the issues here do not seem to be suitable for the RSN.

Blogs and websites are not used extensively in the current version of the page, 4 websites versus 12 articles and 13 books [3] and the previous discussion of them on the RSN (linked above by Chakazul) seemed to indicate they were acceptable parity sources.

The Bentham publication, of which Chakazul is the author of one chapter [4], was briefly discussed previously on RSN (here). Bentham apparently has a pay-to-publish branch and is not particularly well respected for that reason.

Many sources explicitly call the AAH interesting but ultimately not widely accepted by the scientific community [5], [6], [7].

The "full list" presented by Chakazul contains at least a couple sources that would require ignoring our policy on original research to include; for instance, there are several primary sources in that list, [8] and [9]. There are a lot of questionable assumptions made in the list as well - for instance, is the fact that protohumans may have relied on fish and other aquatic sources of food support for the AAH? Should this be discussed on the page? What about if the source never mentions the AAH by name, never cites any of its prominent opponents and never uses the phrase "aquatic ape"? Are four references by an advocate for water birthing, all published before the year 2000, relevant? The list currently sits at 173 unlinked sources, at least a substantial portion of which are questionable. I don't feel like going through all of them, particularly when the most relevant sources - review articles, broad scholarly books and textbooks and the like - either do not mention the AAH or mention it only to dismiss it as not widely accepted. The fact that a minority of proponents thing the AAH is unjustly rejected does not mean that we rewrite the page solely from their perspective; that is why WP:PARITY and WP:FRINGE exist. I believe that it would be undue weight to portray the AAH as anything but a topic of popular interest and appeal with little real impact in the actual scholarly community. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I should raise the due weight issue elsewhere. What's relevant here is:

• Those sources all mentioned that AAH is dismissed in one academic circle, NEVER the whole scientific community (my list proved the opposite). The above reply has carefully avoided this fact.
• Throughout the history of the AAH article, it's infested with low quality sources -- amateur website, blog posts, unsourced claims, original synthesis, student-run journals -- all are extensively used by a few editors (in particular WLU and Mokele) to insert criticisms, even when many high quality sources are available. I've never seen such an unrestricted use of low quality sources in WP, even among articles about fringe theory. Policies like WP:DUE and WP:PARITY are highly misused here.
• I agree with Andrew that some sources are stronger then others -- perhaps not a black-or-white (reliable-or-not) issue. It's reasonable that lo-quality sources should give way to hi-quality ones. If one point can only be found in lo-quality sources (e.g. a blog post claimed that AAH is pseudoscience while contradicted by published sources), it should not be mentioned at all. Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 05:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course the "whole scientific community" hasn't dismissed the AAH. The whole scientific community has better things to do than look at every bit of questionable fluff that turns up. I'm not sure that most scientists would suggest that the AAH is pseudoscience - mostly because they are unlikely to possess the level of knowledge to make such an assessment. What is evident though is that those amongst the scientific community that do possess such knowledge (palaeoanthropologists) have dismissed it - not necessarily as 'pseudoscience', but as vague, lacking in useful content, and almost certainly wrong. It is a nice idea. Nice ideas are a poor substitute for evidence. Go away, find it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Certainly paleoanthropology is not the only field that possesses the knowledge of human evolution -- others like archaeology (especially when close to the origin of Homo sapiens), evolutionary nutrition (e.g. paleo diet, the expensive tissue hypothesis), primatology, genetics, and other fields that deal with the current human phenotype.

So back to the question here, should published books / e-books be considered a stronger source than blog posts, as some here suggested? Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 16:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly pointed to the relevant passages in WP:FRINGE. If you wan't the policy changed, this isn't the appropriate place to propose it - and per WP:PARITY, the answer is clear - we can use reputable blogs as sources to counter the promotion of the (fringe, and rejected by all relevant scientific disciplines: or do you have a source that asserts otherwise?) AAH, sourced from 'published books' - anyone can publish a book. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

flayrah

flayrah.com - Several pages use this blog as a source. Upon doing some research, I find no evidence that it is in the least bit a reliable source. Additionally, most references to it were added by the owner of the site, which I'm pretty sure is a violation of numerous WP policies regarding advertisement. -badmachine 23:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Flayrah has been publishing news on furry fandom since January 2001; its founder also co-founded and chaired Midwest FurFest. I became editor in January 2010, after three years of publishing WikiFur News – and a brief stint at Wikinews, where I was awarded an original reporting barnstar for my coverage of furry conventions (Further Confusion; Anthrocon). I also founded WikiFur, served three years as staff at Anthrocon, maintain the ODP's furry categories, and serve on the advisory board for the Anthropomorphic Research Project.

In 2010, Flayrah published 300 stories from 31 contributors. In 2011 we published over 350 stories, from 42 contributors. We have also posted ~750 one-line 'newsbytes'. In July 2011, we joined Google News (stories); I'm not aware of any other non-profit fan news site/magazine which has been permitted to join. We are also syndicated by various furry sites.

Our most active contributor is Fred Patten, a recognized expert in the fields of science fiction, anime, manga and furry fandom. His furry-specific credentials include two decades editing Rowrbrazzle (the first furry APA), during which time he also provided reviews to a variety of furry fanzines. He was also editor of short story analogy Best In Show/Furry!, and a founder of the Cartoon/Fantasy Organization. In addition, Flayrah syndicates In-Fur-Nation, a furry news blog by Rod O'Riley, co-founder of the first furry convention, ConFurence.

Flayrah covers a variety of sub-topics, and was recently nominated for Best Anthropomorphic Magazine at the Ursa Major Awards (furry fandom's award for "excellence in the furry arts"), after a decision by the awarding organization that Flayrah counted as a news magazine, not merely a website. We have a clearly defined editorial review process, and apply corrections when they are (rarely) needed. All submissions are edited before publication, and opinion pieces are clearly tagged.

One story that badmachine proposes to remove is 2009 charity donations down; $490,000 raised this decade. The underlying figures were obtained from convention representatives and historical records dating back over a decade; each is linked to an online source, where available, so that data may be verified. We seek to apply this level of sourcing to each story, so that readers need not rely on the authority of the contributor or editor. GreenReaper (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You gave a history of the site but failed to state why it is notable. -badmachine 09:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The word "notable" does not appear in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. What matters is that the work, its creator, and its publisher must be reliable enough to verify the facts asserted. (Wikipedia's notability criteria is used to determine whether a topic should have a standalone article, not whether it is a reliable source. As there are few other reliable third-party sources in the field, it would be hard to create such an article, though perhaps not impossible.)

That said, I'd argue that Flayrah is notable within furry fandom (just as the Signpost is within the English Wikipedia), based on its syndication and recognition by other furry news outlets and magazines:

• Aside from our presence on Google News, Flayrah provides a significant portion of reporting for the other major operating furry news outlet, Furry News Network (half of their front page, and a similar proportion of their archive).
• Our stories are often read verbatim by furry podcast FurCast, where I was also interviewed less than a month ago [73:16 onwards].
• We are the news provider for two of the top furry social networks by member count and longevity, Furry 4 Life (displayed on the front page) and FurNation (news tab, registration required).
• In an interview by published furry author Phil Geusz in Anthro #28 (March/April 2010; a competitor for Best Anthropomorphic Magazine), I am called "the furry fandom’s leading online archivist and news source". [At that time I highlighted lack of opinion coverage as a weakness of Flayrah; since then we have published over 75 reviews and several interviews.]
• In a more recent interview in Russian furry magazine Hugs, Flayrah is described by the interviewer as "one of the most popular furry news website[s]".
• Flayrah is also close to meeting the first two criteria set out in Wikipedia's draft periodical notability guideline (one would be required), and has an ISSN (2163-730X) - though that by itself is not a significant achievement.

Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Popular culture and fiction states that "when a substantial body of material is available, the best material available is acceptable". Flayrah is the best secondary coverage available for furry fandom, beyond academia and mainstream news outlets (where coverage of the fandom is generally shallow, and often contains inaccuracies, sensationalism, or undue weight towards aspects such as fursuits). GreenReaper (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose what I'm trying to say is, it's hard to determine whether a review blog is a valid source just because it has been acknowledged among members of the particular sub-culture. -badmachine 15:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Reviews published in news-reporting media are a valid primary source for the opinions of the reviewer. Whether these are worth noting depends on the reviewer and the topic. Fred Patten's opinions are notable within his fields of expertise, as determined by independent third-parties like UC Riverside; his opinion about politics or car maintenance, less so. Reviews can also be used as a secondary source for assertions of fact — "What’s this about 'artist unknown', though? It’s Howard V. Brown!" — but this requires closer examination of the reviewer's credentials and the publisher's fact-checking ability.

You chose to link a provocative topic, perhaps thinking to discredit our output. Yet one of Flayrah's strengths is that it is able and willing to report in depth on controversial topics and media which are typically not mentioned to external reporters. One example is the ongoing debate about underage characters in furry cartoon pornography; work featuring them has been banned from conventions and a major furry website, yet also nominated for awards.

Representing Flayrah as a "review blog" is misleading. Our coverage includes summaries of research efforts, website user privacy issues, external media coverage roundups and a retrospective on the use of talking animals in World War 2 propaganda. We also broke a story concerning Anthrocon and the 2012 NHL Entry Draft which was taken up by at least ten other reliable sources of sporting news. GreenReaper (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

-badmachine 17:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The website appears to be used 9 times on wikipedia. I looked at all of them, and in nearly every case the use was for basic information that could be sourced to more reliable outlets such as conventional news publications or was redundant to another citation. I would suggest deleting or replacing, whenever possible, the flayrah link with a more conventional news outlet. While Fred Patten`s opinions might be notable, that doesn't validate an entire website he posts on; I would suggest that reliability, like notability, is not inherited. In cases where he happens to be cited via posting on flayrah, it is Patten`s opinion that is relevant, reliable and noteworthy, not the website he happens to post it on. I've started removing the more egregious and unnecessary citations. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed all redundant or inappropriate citations (if a website gives an award, the appropriate citation is to the website itself, not a news page), the only remaining issue I can see is the review of Grandville (graphic novel) found on flayrah, I'm creating a section on the talk page to address that. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The awards had been cited to Flayrah because the Ursa Majors were tardy in getting their own website updated. This is an issue for the replacement on Mongrels (TV series); their front page will not contain the nominees after the award ceremony in May (they're likely to be at http://www.ursamajorawards.org/UMA_2011.htm but that page is not yet up). User:badmachine also removed references to Flayrah before posting here; in the charity case mentioned above, there is no other source with an equivalent analysis. I would like to know whether it can be used, as the alternatives are to either cite a handful of convention websites (which loses the big picture), or to do the analysis on Wikipedia itself (which will involve original research in the form of personal communication; several events either do not have websites or never announced final charity figures on them, and some are now defunct). GreenReaper (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree the ursa major front page is less than ideal, but it works for now and should be migrated when appropriate (the best source is always the award-giving organization itself). If the lack of donations hasn't shown up in any other, more conventional locations, perhaps it's not particularly noteworthy; we are not a miscellaneous collection of information. If the only sources are personal communication and a dubious website that aggregates them, perhaps the information is not worth mentioning. If you are the author, editor or reviewer of most of the posts being linked to on wikipedia, that is an obvious conflict of interest and should be avoided. My inclination is to say that it is not a reliable source, though the topic overall is fairly low on the notability and general interest scale, making it harder to tell what sort of serious attention it may get. I've never thought that being cited by another source is of much use in determining reliability, unless that source is itself highly reliable (and even then, the citation would be to the citing source). When the only real indication of reliability is the word of the person substantially creating the page (and integrating it in wikipedia articles) that argues against reliability. Independent sources actually discussing the site would be much more helpful. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

He is the owner of the site fyi -badmachine 22:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

MiracleHunter.Com

Copied from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Our_Lady_of_Akita

User History2007 is challenging the validity of MiracleHunter.com as a source of reference for the Catholic Church's position on the article Our Lady of Akita.

Under Vatican Approval in the Talk Page, History2007 claims MiracleHunter.com is full of errors and is non-WP. I asked him what errors are on the site, he didn't explain. He instead claims the site is non-WP because "Who operates miraclehunter.com? Any clue from the website? None." and "What evidence is there that the operator is not making things up? None."

In reply, I quoted the site: "Michael O'Neill, creator of MiracleHunter.com, will be presenting a paper at the 2012 MSA Conference." (from the homepage) and I told him about the Church documents referenced on the Akita page of MiracleHunter.com, which I have referenced in the article.

Oct13 (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Miraclehunter.com is a tertiary site, presenting a collection of letters with secondary sources cited. In the instance of Akita, a letter from Bishop Ito is cited to Fukushima, Francis Mutsuo. Akita: Mother of God as CoRedemptrix. Modern Miracles of Holy Eucharist, Publishing Company (July 1997); a letter from the Apostlic Nuncio in Tokyo is cited to Christian Order, December 1999, p. 610. These sources themselves should be verified and vetted as WP:RS or non-RS as the case may be. It cannot be permitted to use Miraclehunter.com directly, as it lacks editorial oversight. Elizium23 (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well said. Sometime ago, I started a talk page discussion here for a list of the no-no self-publishers such as AuthorHouse, etc. I think we should make a list (per project probably) of these types of sites so one can just refer to them, instead of debating them. There are a few others like Miraclehunter and I have had to discuss them a few times. The list would save the effort. History2007 (talk) 10:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

These are a serious problem, I come across them frequently. A list (with suitable caveats) would be a good idea. Dougweller (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I started that discussion Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Self_publishing_list a while ago. I will restart it on the talk page again. These really need a bot, and the bot will not be hard to write. It will just need to look up a list and leave a message, like the bot that Blevintron wrote quite recently. History2007 (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Nowrunning

I found the site Nowrunning.com, being used in many articles under the Indian cinema task force. The site, shows no signs of notability in any manner, getting 0 hits in the Google News Search. Hence, I wish to get a few opinions on whether the site can be used, in specific, for quoting reviews from the "critics" of the website, as well as for other reports, in articles related to Indian cinema. Secret of success (talk) 05:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I would tell them: "now stop using it".... not RS at all. History2007 (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look reliable for me. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 19:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Christian Broadcasting Network and Talk:Krista Branch

Interesting discussion there about whether this is a good source for the material I removed here. Any opinions are welcome, either here or in article talk. --John (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess the 700Club is what it calls itself, more of a club than anything else. It is not scholarly or a mainstream news organization, and has a 40% chance of being WP:RS in my book. But then the topic is not scholarly either.... I do not think this specific news piece is a Jayson Blair class piece, but they do seem to be wearing rose colored glasses as they report it. Has this been reported elsewhere? That would clarify things anyway. Personally I do not buy it, but my opinion on that matters not, of course. History2007 (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a reliable source for a limited claim like "Branch tells how her daughter's accident..." etc., but we shouldn't retell the story in detail based on just that one source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, probably so. Anyway, I do not usually watch this page, was here by chance.... History2007 (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The story wasn't retold in detail, though. Basically the material said the kid almost died, kid didn't die, kid could have had brain damage, kid didn't have brain damage, parents say it was because they prayed. Just because it's a Christian source doesn't mean its unreliable for such a basic description. All the religious editorializing was left out.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Christian Broadcasting Network has come up once before on this noticeboard.[10] In that discussion, one editor says "it's a tough call", a second editor says "it should never be used as a source for statements of fact, but only to represent its own opinion" and a third editor says it's reliable for news. This source in this case is a bio, not news. I'm not sure if that makes a difference, but I will at least note it. It seems to be that CBN may fall under questionable sources. The content in question is this:

“ Branch had left the child briefly, not knowing her daughter had blocked the drain of the tub, which slowly filled up with water. When Branch found her daughter floating in the bathtub, she was certain the child was dead. Kenna Branch was resuscitated when EMTs arrived after the child had been without oxygen for eight to ten minutes. Although the paramedics expected Branch's daughter to suffer brain damage after being without oxygen for so long, a CT scan showed the child's brain activity to be normal. ”

According to our article on Drowning, "the brain will die after approximately six minutes without oxygen" Assuming that our article is accurate, the claim that the child went without oxygen for eight to ten minutes or more seems like an exceptional claim. According to WP:EXCEPTIONAL, any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. I don't think that CBN qualifies as a high-quality source for a medical claim. Even if it did, we would need multiple high-quality sources. I recommend at least removing "for eight to ten minutes" and replace it with "several minutes". The claim that "Although the paramedics expected Branch's daughter to suffer brain damage after being without oxygen for so long" is problematic because it's dependent on the exceptional claim. I recommend removing that as well. Finally, it might also be a good idea to use in-text attribution ("According to the Christian Broadcasting Network..."). Alternatively, you can try to find multiple high quality sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That section of the article on drowning is actually uncited and tagged for possibly lacking in factual accuracy. As I understand it, brain cells begin to die after that period of time. However, the exact time this takes is variable see here: http://www.transweb.org/faq/q3.shtml. Specifically, in the cases of a child drowning, survival is possible even after 30 minutes. Basically, kids are more durable than adults so they can go without oxygen longer and still bounce right back.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that source says brain cells begin to die after a minute and that serious brain damage is likely after 3 minutes. The 30-minute exception is only when a child is suddenly plunged into very cold water. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately, we should not be trying to source how many minutes the child was without oxygen, certainly not to The 700 Club. That's more than the source itself is trying to do, in my view. The point is, the Branch's attribute their child's survival to the power of prayer. The shorter version here is about right, maybe with the addition of something like "Branch tells how..." I think The 700 Club article is an adequete source for that. But, it's only one source, and it's still an open question whether or not this incident belongs in the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the significant point is that the child survived without suffering serious brain damage.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• CBN is not a reliable source for facts and especially not medical claims. I'm not sure how I feel about whether the material can be included (ie. does BLP apply to the child? because CBN is not a BLP-compliant source) but if it is, it must be attributed copiously (ie. "Branch said the child had been without oxygen for eight to ten minutes," etc.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It actually is not making a medical claim. The source says the child was without oxygen for an estimated eight to ten minutes and that paramedics believed there would be brain damage, as that is the standard time-frame when brain damage occurs. No contentious medical claim was being made there. The lack of brain damage does not appear to be an exceptional claim either as cases of children in a cold drowning allow for that kind of recovery.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Gross misuse of source?

[11] in Radical Right uses "courser" as a source to place the Tea Party movement in the category of "Radical Right". Note the person edit warring for this does not even indicate a page number for the claim. There is a reason for this elision, I fear, as the source specifically states:

However tempting it may be to lump the Tea Party together with characterizations of earlier social movements of the “radical right,” a careful and objective comparison evinces few similarities

I submit that where a source not only does not label the TPM as "radical right" but specifically states that it "evinces few similarities" to "radical right" that a reliable source is being fully abused. The source is reliable, the use of it to say the opposite of what the source clearly states is objectionable entirely. The edit warrior [12], [13], [14] however states that "right wing populism" is a "synonym" for "radical right" thus allowing the placement of a current group in that category as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice by so making a section on the specific group in Radical Right. Consider if there were a "John Doe association" which someone said "opposed gay marriage" - would it then be proper to label it "homophobic" and place it in the articles thereon when the source used says "it is not homophobic"? Collect (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree with user Collect, the source does not say the tea party are radical right at all. And looking at the preview of the article [15] being cited it says the TP are neither racist or radical. If the source says they are not radical then they cannot be in the category of radical right. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Orange County Register, Entertainment section

1. This diff removed a source which was from the Orange County Register, Entertainment section with the edit comment [remove opinion piece:"we're sure..." "we're betting..." "it might just look like a blob", with errors of fact (readers led to think that Earhart was trying to land on Gardner)], which I thought would be the end of the story.
2. Instead, the edit was reverted here.
3. In the confounding context of a related discussion, this analysis was added.
4. The original source already documented the July date, so the editor is claiming that the OCR is being used to source "Niku-7".  I say that the article is an unreliable opinion piece and should not be used.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the Orange County Register is a reliable source, and meets RS requirements set forth in WP:NEWSORG. Now if this was an opinion article, which it is not, such an article needs to be attributed and can only be used to verify the opinions of the author. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The OCR doesn't really qualify as a source, per se, as their reporter contributed nothing substantial to the story. The OCR reporter obtained almost all of the content from this CBS article/video: [[16]]. Except for the word "Nikumaroro", which doesn't appear in the CBS version. She got from this website: [17]. The source for "Niku-7" is here: [[18]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't use the Huffington Post article. I'd source everything to tighar.org and CBS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Bahrain: Shouting in the Dark

Bahrain: Shouting in the Dark is a 51-minute award winning documentary by Al Jazeera English on the 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising. I wonder if it can be used as a reliable source and if so what template can be used for citation (minutes need to be specified)? Also, does this apply to other documentaries published by reliable sources or do they need to be assessed individually? Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 10:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say a lot depends on the reaction by other news sources (negative reactions might argue against using it), but the citation template would be {{cite episode}} or {{cite video}} depending on if it is part of a larger series. If it's award-winning, that argues it could be used. Normally I would expect this sort of thing to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a good source to me. Bahrain's government didn't like it but they're not exactly objective here. And the documentary won a Foreign Press Association award. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a way to specify minutes after the citation to avoid using the same reference multiple times? For example, when citing reports, you can use this template {{rp|page=143}} to show page(s) number. Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 09:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but looking at the Template:Cite video page, the very last parameter discussed at the bottom might let you. You'll probably have to play with it to figure it out. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Al Jazeera English has garnered a rather good reputation as far as its reporting (and in particular its accuracy) is concerned. So in general you might use it as any (good) documentation on CNN, BBC or PBS. So much for generality as far as this concrete documentation of Bahrein is concerned, it seems ok to me to be used as a source. At least i didn't notice any fishy or odd things when browsing it and it received that journalistic awards as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Multiple sources possibly not RS

He is openly gay.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://instinctmagazine.com/blogs/blog/instinct-cover-guy-nick-adams-discriminated-against |title=Instinct Cover Guy Nick Adams Discriminated Against |publisher=Instinctmagazine.com |date=2009-07-27 |accessdate=2012-03-28}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://thenickadams.blogspot.com/2009/07/turtle-gay.html | title=Turtle Gay | publisher=Nick Adams | accessdate=March 29, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://micahjesse.com/interviews/spotlight-nick-adams-queen-of-broadway-micah-jesse-interview/ | accessdate=March 29, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://greginhollywood.com/nick-adams-talks-to-advocatecom-about-nyc-club-gay-snub-and-using-the-internet-to-spread-the-word-9218 | accessdate=March 29, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/01/12/Nick_Adams_Likes_Ryan_Reynolds_Abs/ | accessdate=March 29, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://bestgaynewyork.com/2009/07/30/broadway-darling-nick-adams-boycotts-the-anito-gay--turtle-bay-grill-and-lounge.aspx | accessdate=March 29, 2012}}</ref>

WP:BLPCAT requires specifically

Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

Thus the questions are:

1. Is an Instinct magazine blog which does not make the specific claim that a person is "openly gay" a reliable source for that claim?
2. Is a "nickadams" blog a reliable source for the claim that he is "openly gay" when it does not make that claim?
3. Is micajesse.com a reliable source for this?
4. Is greginhollywood.com a reliable source?
5. Is advocate.com a reliable source for this claim? It describes him as "out" in a fairly bloggy post at best, IMO.
6. Is bestgaynewyork.com a reliable source for staing that a person is "openly gay"?

The nickadams blog, if it is indeed his, does not make the overt claim, and is the only source used which I consider (per SPS) as valid for declaring him to be "openly gay" - but it does not do that. The second issue always present is whether "openly gay" is "relevant to (his) public life or notability" but the issue of whether these blogs and non-news sources are "reliable sources" is the primary question here. . ThanksCollect (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this beside the point: Unless, per WP:BLPCAT, "the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability" it is irrelevant whether the sources are reliable or not - this doesn't belong in the article. On what grounds is it being argued that Adam's sexuality is relevant? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hum - looking into this it seems to me that Adams' blog is a perfectly good source for his sexuality, and for the fact that he has made something of an issue about anti-gay discrimination. I'd think that WP:SELFSOURCE covers this -unless there are grounds for suggesting that this isn't his blog. As for whether it merits inclusion in the article, that is another debate - but I can't see any particular objection to including it, if Adams is making a public stand on the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Your forum-shopping won't help you, Collect, since he's come out in pretty much every medium in which it's possible to come out. And to be frank, if you actually read his blog post and somehow didn't notice the four or so places where he mentioned that he was gay, you need to go to the optometrist. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Not "forumshopping" to point out that non-RS sources can NOT be used in articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an abstract 'non-RS' source. Any source can be used for the opinion of its author - and Adams' blog is a perfectly good source for his opinion that he is gay. As to whether this merits mention in his bio, that is another issue - but not one for this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Andy here. Adam's blog is perfectly reliable for the information it is used to support per WP sourcing policies. The words "overt" or "openly" do not have to appear in the source, if that is what is meant. There is no good reason to doubt that the blog is indeed his. There is no reasonable doubt that he has "publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question". Discuss relevance on the talk page. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Has Adam;s actually written on his blog that he is gay? Or openly gay? Just because someone takes up a cause does not mean they are gay after all, or were the equal rights guys from the 60's all black? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Has Adam;s actually written on his blog that he is gay?" Yes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this woody woodpecker sources good

I am trying to improve the woody woodpecker articles particularly his television show articles. I just wish to know if The Walter Lantz Cartune Encyclopedia! (see here http://lantz.goldenagecartoons.com/) is a valid source as the website states that its an unofficial website so surely all these sources on woody woodpecker articles should be removed. I thought I better ask before any militant inclusionists accuse me of "destroying valuable information".Dwanyewest (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a self-published fan site. A very nice one, but a SPS nonetheless. So, I was inclined to dismiss it out of hand, but we have to ask the second question per WP:SPS: Is the author is a recognized expert in the relevant field who has previously been published by independent reputable publishers? The answer, to my surprise, is "Yes". The author is Jon B. Cooke[19] who is indeed a recognized expert on comic books[20][21], and has been extensively published by independent reputable publishers in the relevant field.[22] So, the Walter Lantz Cartune Encyclopedia is just fine as a reliable source for Woody Woodpecker and related articles. Fladrif (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Foreign Policy Journal

Hi,

Is this source reliable for this sentence: "After the war senior Israelis have acknowledged that Israel wasn't expecting to be attacked when it initiated hostilities against Egypt"? It seems sufficient to read the last three paragraphs of this piece. (This is the homepage of the journal) --Dailycare (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No. The author is also the editor/publisher of this online journal, not to be confused with the prestigious journal Foreign Policy. I do not think that this journal can be used for anything other than the opinion of a particular author, not for a statement of fact, and only then if the author and his or her opinion is notable. The notability of the author and his or her opinions on the subject would be established by the extent to which it is cited in other, third party, reliable publications. I see little indication that Mr. Hammond, or his opinions, are notable in the least, based on the lack of coverage in anything other than his own websites and a handful of blogs. Fladrif (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There are, however, reliable sources to show that several senior Israelis (notably Ezer Weizman)did indeed believe that there was no realistic threat from Egypt. I'm not at home at the moment, and do not have access to sources; but if necessary I could provide details in a few days. RolandR (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with reliability of the source its clearly have no editorial board and WP:SPS--Shrike (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As a point of fact, there is no requirement that periodicals have editorial boards. We want "editorial control", which can be supplied by a single person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

adding links to philipkdickfans site

Is the official fan site for Philip K. Dick, http://www.philipkdickfans.com/ (that has be recognized by the Philip K. Dick Estate and is linked to from philipkdick.com) a reliable source? There is a complicated history for this site and I realize at one point it has been taken over by malware. The site has changed hands two times and the malware no longer exists on the site. The site was rebuilt from scratch, is stable and will be around for a long time.

The site now contains all the articles that the original site had with some exceptions and can be safely linked to. In addition the site has a vast section that is a reference for all the works that Philip K. Dick wrote called PKDweb or The Encyclopedia Dickiana and contains VALBS which is a reference for secondary materials published about Philip K. Dick. VALBS exists elsewhere on the Internet but this is the official copy of the information.

Also, another fact is that this site was the official Philip K. Dick site until the domain name was taken over but the Estate. The content here is not only generated by one fan but by scholars who are fans of the writer. The content linked to is from published works by scholars who teach or write or other secondary and primary sources like Wikipedia requires. I don't believe that the site is a fan site as defined by Wikipedia.

I would like to add these links on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick to the site:

http://www.philipkdickfans.com/

http://www.philipkdickfans.com/pkdweb/ An encyclopedia of all of Philip K. Dick's writing

http://www.philipkdickfans.com/pkdicktionary/ A listing of all of the words that Philip K. Dick created in his writing

Horselover Fat (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What text are these links going to be used to verify? Did you want to use them as sources, or as external links? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that User:Mirfishe (AKA Horselover Fat) is the site's developer. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good as an EL, not as a source. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And if this is the case, the consensus should be generated on the talk page or external links noticeboard rather than the webmaster putting it on the page himself. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

These links would be added to the external links section. Sorry I neglected to mention it. Also, the discussion has been going on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mirfishe#adding_links_to_philipkdickfans_site and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rray#adding_links_to_philipkdickfans_site Horselover Fat (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I have copied the request to the talk page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick because from the comments, it seems the discussion should be there and not here. Horselover Fat (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Website http://bcozz.multiply.com/journal/item/2191/Timeline

Can any editors assist in determining if the site http://bcozz.multiply.com/journal/item/2191/Timeline is a reliable source? There is a discussion at Talk:Dnepr M-72#Dubious fansite but I don't feel like putting up with more personal attacks so I'd rather others took part. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

b-Cozz is well quoted within the English-speaking Soviet motorcycle community as a well respected source. Unfortunately you chose to be flippant in attempts to correct your vandalism to the M-72 (motorcycle) when you arbitarily renamed it without any concensus. Perhaps if you had been more open and respecting of other opinions at the time and less rude and condescending, you would not have been personally attacked. Pot calling kettle black comes to mind in your complaint. Jew not Zionist (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell us the titles, authors, dates, etc. of the publications which vouch for the reliability of bcozz.multiply.com? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

there are a few "official" feeds on multiply dot com that could be used for non-promotional content about themselves, but mostly its a PR tool / social network site and does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama

I have been accused of playing games and trolling and have been warned that I may be blocked for libel because I am not providing a source. I claim that I gave a reliable source and would like an opinion. My editing has been limited to talk pages. I have not edited articles.

Pergram, Chad. "Obama Struggles With Smoking 'Addiction' as He Praises Congress for New Tobacco Regulations." Fox News. FOX News Network, 12 June 2009. Web. 31 Mar. 2012. <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/12/obama-struggles-smoking-addiction-praises-congress-new-tobacco-regulations/>.

link to source

Article in which it is being used:

Obama talk page DD2K talk page

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

Asked if the president still smoked, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama has "a struggle with nicotine addiction" every day.

.

Relevant talk page discussion: Section from Obama talk page Closed Section of DD2K talk page129.2.64.165 (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Obvious trolling. The so-called source is a political attack piece, not journalism. See WP:SNOW for why wasting time discussing this sort of thing is disruptive. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for your thoughtful response. I am sorry that you think it is disruptive. I assure you, I am not trolling. I wanted opinions from editors other than the people that watch the Barack Obama page. 129.2.64.165 (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that the source is reliable, however, the insertion of tying this in with his policies has been discussed and rejected by other editors on the talk page. I am not involved with editing that page, but I do agree with the consensus that has formed. Location (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If I feel like because I am a minority, the consensus is already formed against me, although I feel like WP:Clue I have more valid reasoning. "disputes generally are, and should be, resolved in favor of whoever has the best reasoning." What can I do to prevent the decision making to be based on majority viewpoint?129.2.64.165 (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

More sources confirming Robert Gibb's quote:

1

2

"Obama Quits Smoking after 30 Years." Premier Drug Rehabilitation Providers. Web. 31 Mar. 2012. <http://www.drug-rehabilitation.org/news/obama-quits-smoking-after-30-years-02141.php>.

"Obama Struggles to Quit Smoking: White House." Barack Obama. Web. 31 Mar. 2012. <http://news.oneindia.in/2009/06/13/obamastruggling-with-smoking-addiction-every-day-admits.html>.

There is also an article by the examiner, but that website is apparently blacklisted.129.2.64.165 (talk) 22:04, 31

March 2012 (UTC) In order to further contest this issue, should I post on the talk page of the Obama wiki-project? Or would that be considered canvassing?129.2.129.220 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I would consider it pushing a fringe, irrelevant, POV issue. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

As to whether the FOX source is reliable, I would say not. FOX does not have a great reputation in reporting on Obama, and the article itself starts out as an attack piece. As to the other sources, they are probably reliable, but not the best sources to use for this kind of information. Better sources suely exist.

As for using the sentence you quoted above in the Barack Obama article, that is a matter to be decided on the article talk page, not here. Remember that reliability and relevance/noteworthiness are two different issues. Just because something can be sourced doesn't mean it belongs in the article, even if the source is very reliable. One also has to take into account that the information in the source you used is three years old, and that reliable sources have stated that since then, the situation has changed. Even if your source were totally reliable, it's relevance may have changed, even though it's reliability is still the same. That needs to be decided on the talk page, not here.

Your question about the decision-making process on talk pages is out of place on this noticeboard. We can only point you to WP:DR for guidance. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your response. I was scared to continue editing on the discussion page because I was warned that without proper sources, I was libeling and nearly blocked.129.2.64.165 (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Let me say that this IP hopping ip didn't notify me he was bringing my edits and Talk page up on this board. As for the trolling portion, the ip is obviously trolling, and the edit he/she was warned about was this one, which I reverted. All one has to do is look at the link and obvious attempt to introduce a tabloid accusation into a WP:BLP from the Globe. Enough. Dave Dial (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sri lanka

I believe two sentences on the sri lanka article constitutes self research and thus doesn't meets WP NPOV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka#Post_independence_Sri_Lanka

in the 3rd paragraph, last three sentences states. "In 1987, the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord was signed and Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) was deployed in northern Sri Lanka to stabilize the region by neutralising the LTTE.[120] The same year, the JVP launched its second insurrection in Southern Sri Lanka.[121] As their efforts did not become successful, IPKF was called back in 1990."

The provided source does not indicate that the failure for the IPKF was due a JVP insurrection. I'm not contesting that a JVP insurrection occurred, but its linkage to the failure of IPKF. On the same logic I can simply relate any other incident that occurred that year to the IPKF failure. I think WP as an encyclopedia shouldn't make assumption on ones 'pinons' we should simple state it as it is. The IPKF was engaged in military conflict with the LTTE however due the LTTE superior military capacity, the IPKF failed to realize its objective. Distributor108 (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

Verification of reliability

The article on Jayne Mansfield has the following content.

First marriage

In May 10, 1950, a pregnant 17-year old Jayne married 22-year old Paul Mansfield at Fort Worth, Texas. One biographer, Raymond Strait, wrote that she married Paul publicly in May 6, had an earlier "secret" marriage in January 28, and her first child was conceived after the secret marriage. Some sources cite Paul as the father of the child, while others cite it to be a result of date rape. The marriage certificate of Jayne and Paul lists their date of marriage as May 6, 1950.

Can someone verify the following part of it?

The marriage certificate of Jayne and Paul lists their date of marriage as May 6, 1950.

If the marriage certificate is true, then almost all the biographers are wrong. That's serious.

I don't have access to the certificate and have no clue of its credibility.

References

BTW, I have already posted this to help desk, village pump, and Wikiprojecr Fact and Reference Check... no success so far. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for. This was added by User:Dasani recently, after stating that is what it says. [23] So you want someone else to confirm that is what the link says? You'll believe them, but not Dasani? If it's such a big deal, why not pay for membership, or at least take advantage of the Archives.com 7 day free trial and see it yourself? Or are you asking whether Archives.com is a reliable archivist? --GRuban (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Greater London and Ceremonial counties

I wanted to add some precision to claims to do with Greater London being called ceremonial county. Conspicuously not called so by any official websites such as [24]

The first thing to realise is that Greater London was explicitly not made a county although removing counties: London Government Act 1963 3 (1) (a) "no part of Greater London shall form part of any administrative county, county district or parish;"

views the schedule (appendix) as creating a county of London [25] because it defines it as "the counties for the purposes of this act"

However if you look at the order that follows on from the act: [26] Greater London is not constituted as a county.

The legal definition for the area can be confirmed from a later act from 2001 [27] Referring to "The Lordships Lieutentant"

The problem is that surprisingly strong POV issues arise from this - because it suggests there was usage of the word county for Greater London. Now the term Geographic county also redirects to this page and then there is the issue of Middlesex etc. There is little point going into the details butone example when a historically important area has no reference to the county it was in (and many still regard it to be in) i,e. Kingston [28] but states that is in the ceremonial county of Greater London.

The page claiming GL is a CC has been up since 2003 and still I cannot find any evidence to support an unambiguous claim that GL is a ceremonial county independent of wikipedia's claim.

Also being stopped from referring to Greater London as an area before admin body 1965 despite being used from before 1907 perhpas this is the clearest reference [29] The region is called "Greater London." Tetron76 (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, "ceremonial county" is our own shorthand for "Counties and areas for the purposes of the lieutenancies in Great Britain", and we ourselves define the term as denoting areas that have a Lord Lieutenant. Well, it seems from your first external link above that Greater London has one, so by our own definition Greater London is a ceremonial county, but by the beautifully vague official terminology it isn't; it is, instead, one of those "areas for the purposes of the lieutenancies in Great Britain". The problem, then, is whether we should call it a ceremonial county, or whether we have to change our term because it is misleading. Are there off-wikipedia reliable lists headed "ceremonial county" in which it is included? If so, we can cite them and merely footnote the definition problem. If not, we ought to rephrase our term "ceremonial county" or exclude GL from the list.

[Added later: I think I am merely rephrasing your statement here. The real problem, maybe, is our need as an encyclopedia to have some geographical network into which to slot English places, and if not some incarnation of counties, then what? The problem with saying that a town is in a certain "Lieutenancy Area" is that one might struggle to make the fact appear notable.]

As for Kingston, it was in Surrey for about 1300 years, I guess, and is the seat of Surrey County Council right now. I don't see why one or both of those notable facts shouldn't be in the first paragraph :) Andrew Dalby 18:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Lengthy discussion at Talk:Greater London on this. One point to note here is the definition of "Counties and areas for the purposes of the lieutenancies in Great Britain" (its only "counties" for England and Wales and only "areas" for Scotland) so Greater London isn't an "area for the purposes of the lieutenancies in Great Britain".

The ceremonial county is the most practical geographic split for our purposes, which is why its used at WP:UKPLACE. London is a special case for article naming there (as "London" is a better disambiguator than "Greater London" for relevant articles).

As for Kingston, fully agree both those facts are worthy of inclusion early in its article (its current lead is pretty poor).

This ought to qualify as a reliable source.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Useful link. And thanks for the mention of WP:UKPLACE, Nilfanion. Andrew Dalby 09:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources at Web Sheriff

The Web Sheriff article reads like promotional material from the company itself. This is due in part to the nature of the sources being used, many of which reproduce PR copy from the business itself. Based on my reading of sources, I put forward a list of sources which I felt were inappropriate. Agadant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the primary contributor to the article disagreed with my evaluation of the sources. As such, I am asking the broader community for input on some of sources which I felt were least reliable:

1. http://musiciancoaching.com/music-business/how-to-fight-music-piracy/
2. http://musicnewsaustraliadotcom.blogspot.com/2012/01/web-sheriff-has-helped-everyone-from.html
3. http://encore.celebrityaccess.com/index.php?encoreId=312&articleId=39802
4. http://allthingsd.com/20080218/ymca-piratebay/
5. http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?storyCode=27184&sectioncode=1
6. http://torrentfreak.com/web-sheriff-takes-down-rlslog-090119/

By my estimation, none of these citation are reliable secondary sources. They are all either un-notable blog postings, or press releases based entirely on promotional material from Web Sheriff itself. If someone could clarify whether any of these sources are sufficiently reliable for article content, that would be appreciated. Thank you, aprock (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources as far as I know and I checked them carefully:

1. http://musiciancoaching.com/music-business/how-to-fight-music-piracy/, blog (according to aprock) - IMO: This is an independent interview by professional: interviewer's in music industry resume
2. http://musicnewsaustraliadotcom.blogspot.com/2012/01/web-sheriff-has-helped-everyone-from.html, blog (according to aprock) - IMO: info written and posted by musicnewsaustralia: Music News Australia is a company specializing in covering the Australian and international music, film and entertainment business.
3. http://encore.celebrityaccess.com/index.php?encoreId=312&articleId=39802, press release (according to aprock) - IMO: No. It's listed in Label and Publishing news & posted by Celebrity Access Staff writers - directly above it is an advertisement labeled as such but does not refer to the Web Sheriff article below it.
4. http://allthingsd.com/20080218/ymca-piratebay/, blog (according to aprock) - IMO: not blog: All Things Digital: online publication that specializes in technology and startup company news, analysis and coverage. Article by professional editor: John Paczkowski
5. http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?storyCode=27184&sectioncode=1, press release (according to aprock) - IMO: not press release per Music Week: "Music Week is the bible for anyone interested in the music industry in the UK."
6. http://torrentfreak.com/web-sheriff-takes-down-rlslog-090119/, blog (according to aprock)- IMO: not blog: - source of latest breaking news) Used as source on GA article reviewed by an editor who has reviewed more than 594 GA articles [30]

Thanks, Agadant (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

After 13 editors (aprock was one of the most active) left after having unrestricted material and source deletion that ended on 09-08-11, four of these reliable sources were already there and not questioned or deleted as of when the editors left together after the !-1/2 month long siege on the article: #1, #3, #5, #6 That makes me feel very confident that they would have been deleted if there were any doubts about them. (I have added the other 2 since) But aprock came back many months later to now question them and tag the article with NPOV and ADVERT both by reason of unreliable sourcing. Thanks, Agadant (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Drug Free Australia

Requiring some input on a source being disputed at Talk:Insite#Expert Advisory Committee. User:Steinberger wishes to categorically delete all text [31] describing any observations or criticisms of harm reduction interventions deriving from Australia's peak drug prevention organization, Drug Free Australia here. Drug Free Australia is continually cited and quoted in Australian Parliamentary debates and Inquiries and in the media [32] [33] [34] [35] see full pdf [36] [37] in relation to its critiques of the studies on harm reduction interventions, and more particularly here its analyses of safe injecting site evaluations.

I note that the same user lodged a Reliable Sources/Noticeboard question on Drug Free Australia’s reliability as a source on 13 October 2010 here but its reliability was there affirmed. The relevant source documents in dispute are all found on the Drug Free Australia website here, here and here. Steinberger challenges Drug Free Australia’s credibility in analysing or commenting on harm reduction interventions such as supervised injecting sites and needle exchanges on the grounds that they do not publish their critiques in medical journals (although their critique of a Lancet study on Insite is published as a 1 page letter in Lancet, complete with chart). I note that analyses of safe injecting site and needle exchange outcomes do not require in-depth medical expertise, with no physiology, biology or biochemistry being involved in the outcomes, which are rather just statistical and able to be adjudicated by anyone well versed in statistics. Nevertheless, the Drug Free Australia contributors to these documents on SIFs and needle exchanges are almost entirely medical doctors/epidemiologists/addiction medicine specialists worldwide who each have multiple entries in Pubmed against their name (eg Dupont – 120 articles and letters, McKeganey 64 articles). I am concerned that the MEDRS objection is just an excuse for censoring content that may be too confronting and uncomfortable for some with an unquestioning support of these interventions, based as it is on analyses of all the data available.

I understand that the requirements of a source will change according to its application in Wikipedia, and that peer-review is not an absolute requirement for Wikipedia articles, particularly for this kind of critique by such well-qualified teams of medical and social commentators from such a high profile prevention organization in Australia. Your assistance on the issue appreciated. Minphie (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The specific question Minphie askes in this case, is if findings of a DFA report should be given equal validity to articles in Lancet? The DFA report in question say that the Lancet article is dead wrong and that is authors may have engaged in scientific misconduct. The university of some of the authors (UBC) took the allegation seriously and sent their report for review (by Mark Weinberg of McGill) but dropped the matter, when they found out that the report is "without merit" and "not based on scientific fact" [38]. The authors of the original Lancet article have also written in length on the DFA report [39] and Lancet have not retracted the original article. Steinberger (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Libya Herald

Can articles posted on Libya Herald be considered as reliable? It is one of the few english-source, private owned media from post-Gaddafi Libya at a time and their articles were mostly made of first source informations by their own editors at a place of event and especially usufull for articles about current situation in country. IT was suggested here that it is "nowhere near reliable" [40] so I would like to settle this issue. Thanks EllsworthSK (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Whether or not Libya Herald is biased is not an issue in determining reliability. Libya Herald is a newly formed online news site with a big dream, but as of now they don't meet the criteria mentioned in WP:SOURCES. What separates it from other news sources like The New York Times is that NYT has an editorial board, but Libya Herald does not have one. There is no evidence of "fact-checking and accuracy" in Libya Herald. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 22:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Their lack of published editorial board and also not signing their articles is truly one that was bothering me, however this is only current situation. Possibility is that in few days/weeks it can chage. However I would like to refer my question to "evidence of fact-checking and accuracy". When or what exactly classfies as such thing? Because it seems to be pretty vague requirement. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Despite the endless repetition of the claim on this noticeboard, neither SOURCES nor any other policy or guideline requires a source to have an editorial board. A published editorial board may or may not indicate an interest in fact-checking or accuracy. (Poetry magazines have editorial boards, but that doesn't make their contents fact-checked, after all.) The absence of an online page that names an editorial board means nothing. The Mulberry Advance, for example, didn't have an "editorial board" because Kansas's smallest regular newspaper didn't have enough employees to have a "board". Instead, they had what's known in the publishing business as "an editor". One proper editor is sufficient to meet the policy requirements about "editorial control". An entire board of editors is not necessary—and one person actually doing the job meets the requirements, whereas a [long list of made-up names and figureheads does not.
  A more reliable sign that a periodical does fact-checking and is interested in accuracy is whether they publish corrections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

AnimeCons.com

[41] < The Website in question

"A directory of anime convention related information, including guest lists, attendance figures, dates, and press releases. While the content of the convention directory is user submittable, all submissions are checked and verified against the convention's website, press releases, or other reliable source before being added to the directory. Because of this, information can occasionally be incomplete. Also hosts a video podcast about anime conventions."

But what makes this source reliable is a question raised over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Looking for feedback here as a-lot of articles we have reguarding conventions link to this website. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The information presented in the site is user submittable. The site does not have any editorial board, and there is no evidence of a rigorous fact-checking mechanism. It is not RS. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 22:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

AnimeCons.com has received coverage from Anime News Network and Right Stuf's Anime Today podcast [42] [43] [44], and has been used as a source by Anime News Network [45]. I would say that being treated as reliable by a major anime retailer and a top anime news site is sufficient to establish that the site's staff-written news stories are reliable. However, I don't think that the database is reliable, as the database is user submitted. I would consider it similar to Anime News Network, where the staff-written news stories and articles are considered reliable, but where the user submitted database is not reliable. Calathan (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Who are the writers and what are their credibility? Is there any evidence that the articles submitted by the writers go through a fact-checking mechanism? Coverage in other reliable sources does not make one site reliable, see, for example, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_116#Adherents.com. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I would at the very least say that Patrick Delahanty, the site's founder, passes WP:SPS as an expert on anime conventions. WP:SPS seems to be written with researchers and print publications in mind, but I would still consider Anime Today a publication by a reliable source in the sense intended by WP:SPS (i.e. it doesn't matter that they are publishing his voice instead of written text, as it is still a reliable source giving him credibility as an expert). One of the press releases about one of the podcasts also states that Delahanty is a founder of Anime Boston, a major anime convention, which means he has actually worked in the business of anime conventions (as opposed to just being a random person who decided to write about anime conventions). I'm not really sure about the other people who write for the site. Calathan (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings

"Islamic radicalisation during prison and jihadist familial connections were cited as factors in his becoming a radical jihadist. French investigators believe that Merah turned to Salafism in prison" Do the following sources support this assertion. Have a look at the lead of the article to gauge its context. Thank you

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/26/world/europe/france-shooting-suspect/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9165091/Toulouse-shootings-the-making-of-a-French-jihadi-killer-with-a-double-life.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17481537 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/terrorist-mohamed-merah-found-his-inner-jihadi-in-prison/story-fnb64oi6-1226309644280 To access the entire source for the last link, you may have to google "terrorist mohamed merah found his inner jihadi in prison" and select the link for the Australian which should be the first one.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well the sources say "French investigators believe that Merah turned to Salafism."

However, I'm not sure if they say "jihadist familial connections were cited as factors in his becoming a radical jihadist".

In any case, are you sure this is the right place for this discussion? With attribution and correct quotation, these sources are certainly reliable.VR _talk 00:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Rupert Gerritsen, Batavia Online Publishing, Archaeopress, Hydrographic Journal, Fremantle Arts Centre Press

Hi all, I recently noticed that Robert.johnson27453 (talk · contribs) has added material to several articles citing Rupert Gerritsen as a source. Several of these cites e.g. [46][47][48] reference "Rupert Gerritsen (2011) Beyond the Frontier: Explorations in Ethnohistory, Batavia Online Publishing".

I was concerned that BOP might not meet sourcing requirements; I tried Googling but for an online publishing company, its web footprint is vanishingly small - it doesn't even seem to have its own website. The only references I can find to BOP are in connection with Gerritsen, and one PDF published by BOP appears to give Gerritsen's personal website as BOP's:

Batavia Online Publishing

Canberra, Australia

http://rupertgerritsen.tripod.com

Published by Batavia Online Publishing 2011

Copyright © Rupert Gerritsen

This leads me to think that BOP is Gerritsen's private press. His website also lists another publication (not via BOP) in quite a different field: "A Conjectural Preon Theory and its Implications has just been published... This publication proposes a new paradigm in particle physics." Copy available via his website. Among other things, it offers to overturn the Standard Model with a theory stating that "There is only one fundamental particle, and its antiparticle, the neutrino". While I'm not a physicist, I get a bit dubious about claims of this sort...

Another source cited by Robert is "Rupert Gerritsen, Australia and the Origins of Agriculture (2008)". According to the 'publications' section of Gerritsen's website, this was published by "Oxford: Archaeopress", confirmed on their website. It's not clear from their website whether their publication process involves editorial oversight that would satisfy WP:RS. I'm not a historian either - hoping somebody here could provide an informed opinion on whether this is a source that should be cited.

Robert also cites two articles by Gerritsen in the Hydrographic Journal at Wouter Loos and Hutt River (Western Australia): "Rupert Gerritsen 2007 ‘The debate over where Australia’s first European residents were marooned in 1629 – Part 1’, Hydrographic Journal 126:20-25" and "Rupert Gerritsen 2009 ‘The debate over where Australia’s first European residents were marooned in 1629 – Part 2’, Hydrographic Journal 128-129(2009):35-41". The Hydrographic Journal does seem a bit weightier than the other publishers mentioned above, but I'm not sure whether it would qualify as a RS on a historical topic.

In addition, Ring of Stones has a couple of sections about Gerritsen's work, cited to his book And Their Ghosts May Be Heard, published by Fremantle Arts Centre Press. Again, I don't know whether FACP has editorial oversight that would satisfy WP:RS. This material was added by Bill Woerlee (talk · contribs), who is also mentioned with thanks on Gerritsen's website.

All in all, I have doubts about how much of this material should be cited on WP, but I'd like feedback from editors with more expertise in these fields. --GenericBob (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Archaeopress is a serious academic publisher; I have several examples of first-rate research published by them. Otherwise this question is difficult. I'm 99% you are correct that "Batavia Online Publishing" is Gerritsen's own label as some major Australian catalogues don't list any outputs without Gerritsen's name. I don't think it meets WP:RS. Zero^talk 12:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As to Archaeopress, I agree that a lot of good academic material is published by them, but that doesn't prove that everything they publish is reliable. Their website suggests that they offer a publishing service; it doesn't suggest that they do any peer review. I'm not saying they don't: I'm saying that we don't know, and can't assume their whole list to be reliable in our sense.

As to Batavia Online Publishing, that looks like self-publishing to me. I suggest we need to know that Gerritsen has published in peer-reviewed journals (e.g. Hydrographic Journal) in the specific subject areas on which we want to cite him. Andrew Dalby 17:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology a primary source?

Resolved

The title pretty much says it all. Is the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology a primary source? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A primary source for what exactly? Cusop Dingle (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The context is here. BitterGrey (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The specific citations at paraphilic infantilism are:

“ In 1993 sexologists Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund published and discussed a series of case studies involving infantilists and noted a distinction between them and pedophiles. While pedophiles were attracted to children (and objects related to childhood) due to the desire for a child sexual partner, infantilists imagined themselves as children and adopted the objects of childhood or infancy to increase the power difference between themselves and their preferred sexual partners of adult women, with whom they acted out masochistic fantasies. ”

“ An additional theory is that infantilism is an erotic identity disorder where the erotic fantasy is centered on the self rather than on a sexual partner and results from an erotic targeting location error where the erotic target was children yet becomes inverted. According to this model, proposed by Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund in 1993, infantilism is a sexual attraction to the idea of the self being a child. ”

Both would be sourced to page 531, with paraphilic infantilism discussed in the left column and the theory of erotic target location errors discussed in the right. Essentially, is the OTP an appropriate, reliable, secondary source to verify the ideas that a) paraphilic infantilists are not sexually attracted to children and b) within the theory of erotic target location errors, paraphilic infantilsts are attracted to the idea of themselves being a child. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as the quoted text alone is concerned, it seems to be an appropriate reliable source, that these ideas are considered by the academic community. However it cannot be used to state these ideas as facts or that they represent a consensus at large in the academic community.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@WLU: Usually textbooks are tertiary or secondary sources for the most part. So you would have to be more specific concerning why and for what aspect exactly you'd suspect it to be a primary source. However more important than a formal distinction between primary/secondary/tertiary is the quality and reputation of the source. This seems to be a a book by renowned academic published with a renowned academic publisher, so I see no reason, why it couldn't or shouldn't be used as a source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC) My basic point was that Fruend and Blanchard's "Erotic target location errors in male gender dysphorics, paedophiles, and fetishists." was about, according to the very first line "A clinical series of male paedophiles..." As an article about pedophilia with no reference to infantilism, it should not be cited in the paraphilic infantilism article (much less have THREE sections based on it). WLU appears to have implicitly conceded this point, and is now hoping to use CB&B's claim in the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology. Specifically, he hopes to use the claim that F&B was about infantilism (in spite of F&B not mentioning it) to support his exceptional claim that infantilism is some type or form of pedophilia. These sources have been discussed at RSN before[49]. Since F&B make no claim to being about infantilism, CB&B's claim that F&B was about infantilism is new to CB&B, making it a primary source for that claim.

A point already raised on the article's talk page is that a source's reliability is dependent on what it is being used to support: A source on Einstein's Theory of Relatively might be generally reliable, but like F&B, have no relevance to this discussion. This is why WLU was hoping to get Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology declared universally reliable. BitterGrey (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well this board is for discussing the reliability of sources. Whether a source is used appropriately (read and cited correctly) is another question, that in doubt needs to be discussed elsewhere (the article's talk page, the talk page or quality assurance of a related portal). Any source now matter how good or reliable can be misused of course. Aside from venues just mentioned above you could also request a third opinion to ensure that source is used correctly.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Kmhkmh, I think both sources (Freund & Blanchard as well as Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree) are reliable and there's no reason to remove either. Though Freund & Blanchard doesn't use infantilism or infantilists specifically, it defines "masochistic gynaephiles" as "habitually imagin[ing] themselves as little boys or babies", which pretty much the definition of paraphilic infantilism. Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree (authors of the chapter in the OTP) cite this paper on page 531 in the discussion of "erotic target location errors" and specifically refer to infantilism. Thus, though I consider the use of F&B a common sense accomodation despite not using the word "infantilism" specifically, CB&B makes the point and link explicitly. I consider the page enhanced by the use of F&B's more explicit and detailed citation, however to address Bittergrey's claim that such a use is either original research or an inappropriate use of a primary source, I'm willing to substitute CB&B (published in the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology, which started the section) thus resolving the issue. Bittergrey apparently considers the book chapter by CB&B to be a primary source also, for reasons I find unconvincing. In other words, if F&B is unacceptable for WP:PSTS reasons, CB&B, which is not a primary source, should be fine and should resolve the issue. I have no issue with removing F&B and replacing it with CB&B if it means I don't have to keep reverting the removal of both sources and the text they verify.

Bittergrey's core objection seems to be any association between paraphilic infantilism and pedophilia, an association he, as someone running a website on paraphilic infantilism, finds objectionable. My point, one I have been making for a long time, is that both Freund & Blanchard, and Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree distinguish the two groups. Both sources say quite clearly that paraphilic infantilists are not the same thing as pedophiles and are not interested in children as sexual partners. But anyway, expect a long and ugly discussion, they all turn out that way. I've never suggested infantilists are pedophiles and neither do any sources. "Autoerotic form of pedophilia" is not the same thing as "pedophilia" anymore than being aroused by people with amputations is the same thing as being aroused by having an amputation or being interested in members of the same sex is the same thing as wanting to be a member of the opposite sex.

Anyway, a question the board can answer is whether Freund & Blanchard and Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree are reliable sources for the statements above. I think they are, and I think the objections are spurious. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Now if WLU will kindly focus on content and refrain from personal attacks...

Are we in agreement that F&B doesn't use "infantilism" or any term defined by any other RS as to be synonymous with infantilism without requiring WP:SYNTH? (This wouldn't be CB&B since CB&B doesn't mention "masochistic gynaephiles" or any of F&B's other neologisms. This is odd considering that all the authors discussed so far work together.) BitterGrey (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Freund & Blanchard don't use the term "infantilism", though I think we can use common sense to temporarily ignore the policy on synthesis since Blanchard is a co-author of the chapter in the Oxford Textbook of Pathology and that text does use the term "infantilism" explicitly as well as making exactly the same points. It's quite possible the term "infantilist/ism" wasn't used that often in 1993 and they adopted a more recognized term in the intervening 15 years. Irrespective, I still see CB&B as reliable for the text currently on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU has the WP:burden here and he concedes that F&B's pedophilia article doesn't discuss infantilism (without setting aside many policies and guidelines relating to RSs, that is). I think we can put a stake in the ground here: F&B doesn't discuss infantilism according to F&B. Others are still free to disagree, but I'd like to get this closed. By the way, the term infantilism was in common use since the mid-70's and was formally adopted by the APA in DSM IIIR, in 1987. In 1993, F&B could have used the term - but didn't.

Now that we've accepted that F&B doesn't claim to discuss infantilism, we can move on to CB&B's claim that F&B discusses infantilism. This claim would be new to CB&B, and so would CB&B would be PRIMARY in that respect. The dependence between the sources isn't relevant, since we are no longer discussing a plurality of sources. (Well, except for being aware that CB&B's claim about F&B doesn't match F&B's claim about F&B.) Are we all OK to this point? BitterGrey (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

So you are misunderstanding burden; burden requires text to have a citation to avoid being removed per WP:PROVEIT. This text has a citation, in fact it can have two. You're also misrepresenting my position on Freund & Blanchard, who do discuss paraphilic infantilism, even if they don't use those exact words (again, they discuss people who "habitually imagine themselves as little boys or babies", which really is the definition of paraphilic infantilists). So please don't claim "I accept F&B don't discuss infantilism. I believe Freund & Blanchard are quite clearly theorizing about paraphilic infantilism and given the lack of sources on the subject, I think using F&B is perfectly acceptable. You are the one who disagrees with this, and I attempt to address your disagreement by substituting an unarguably acceptable secondary source.

You are misrepresenting how the DSM deals with infantilism when there is unarguable consensus that it doesn't, using the word only in reference to a single behaviour by masochists, not paraphilic infantilists in general (here and here).

Your third error is claiming CB&B is in any way a primary source (per WP:PSTS, "Primary sources are very close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved). CB&B is a secondary source, synthesizing primary research. Again per PSTS, "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." CB&B synthesizes a variety of research to make claims about infantilism (found in the left column of 531) and the theory of erotic target location errors (found in the right).

I've explained all of these points so many times that it seems pretty clear you are willfully misrepresenting my position, the community's position on the DSM and the contents of the Oxford Textbook of Pathology, and either misunderstand, or are misrepresenting several of wikipedia's policies as well.

Also please stop removing my text above, I am stating that you have self-disclosed that you run a website on paraphilic infantilism, which might be biasing your judgement. I am also saying, as I have said repeatedly, that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles, desire adult sexual partners, and desire to be treated as and act as if they were children. I base my belief on the statements made in the relevant scholarly literature, including Freund & Blanchard and Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree - both of which clearly state that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As the only editor seeking to keep the text WLU, you are the one burdened with finding sources to support it - and those sources need to match the text. Were there any value to your sources whatsoever, you wouldn't need to resort to personal attacks. As for primary, the event would be the decision by CB&B that F&B discuss infantilism. This decision would have been made by CB&B, not based on F&B or any other source. This, CB&B is primary in this respect - and this will remain so no matter what you write about me. BitterGrey (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The sources do support it. Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree explicitly say paraphilic infantilists do not desire children as sexual partners, but instead wish to behave as and be treated like children; this is the core of their theory on erotic target location errors. I'm not sure how saying "I don't think you are a pedophile" is a personal attack. Your claim that CB&B is primary is still completely at odds with WP:PSTS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@WLU, Greybitter: No offense but you should take your personal fight over content elsewhere. Since apparently you cannot agree on correct interpretation of the (reliable) source in question, you should move the argument to special subject portal (psychology, medicine). There other WP editors with background knowledge on the subject may comment on the correct interpretation/use of the source. Alternatively request a third opinion or use a conflict resolution site, but please refrain from using this site as platform for your personal disagreements. The idea of site is to request reliability assessment from 3rd editors, it is not meant to continue your personal conflict/arguments. For that use the article's talk page or your personal talk pages or maybe some conflict resolution site.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, I tried to keep things focused on the sources. Basically, 1) a quick review of F&B will confirm that it doesn't mention infantilism, or any established synonym. 2) This would make CB&B's claims about F&B new to CB&B, that is, primary. 3) CB&B claims F&B makes an exceptional claim "[Freund and Blanchard] interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." This would then be supported by only one primary source. Since exceptional claims require multiple high quality sources, this point, and the two related points WLU is trying to make, should go away. (On Dec 6th, WLU inverted the text to mean the opposite of what the references actually say. However, he is still fighting to use the same sources.)

I think we can make progress if others are simply willing to look up the sources. BitterGrey (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Done, talk:paraphilic infantilism, WP:SEX, WP:PSYCH. One point I do agree with Bittergrey on, it will require outside editors to become familiar with the sources in detail. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I realize that this was marked resolved, but one point bares mentioning here. BitterGrey's idea of a primary source isn't correct. The Oxford Textbook is not a primary source by definition. If an article in the Textbook refers to a study and makes claims about that study that are incorrect then it makes incorrect claims, but that doesn't make it a primary source. Whether or not the Textbook is correct in its claim about the study it refers to is not a matter for this board to resolve, as Kmhkmh has pointed out several times. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Griswaldo, let's see if I understand this properly: If I decided one day that the sky was purple, without reference to any other source, and somehow published this in Oxford press, would that be a primary source? I'd think yes, because it was "written by people who are directly involved." (Oh, and please don't pay too much attention to WLU's marking this thread closed, last time he marked a thread closed TWICE[50][51]... and then eventually reversed his position completely. It is just a thing he does to discourage others from commenting.) BitterGrey (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what your bizarre "sky is purple" analogy is supposed to imply. If you published the statement in the peer reviewed "Oxford Companion to the Sky" it would not affect the book's status as a reliable source by Wikipedia's rules, and it certainly would not make it into a "primary source". It would simply be a case in which a technically reliable source contained an error. It happens regularly. This whole dispute seems to me to be built around deep disingenuousness. It's blindingly obvious that Blanchard believes that infantalism is an "Autoerotic form of pedophilia". WLU says that "Autoerotic form of pedophilia" is not the same thing as "pedophilia". Well, yes it is. That's what "a form of pedophilia" means. I think this theory is utterly idiotic, and I can well understand why you find it deeply offensive. But since I don't get published in peer reviewed medical/psychological journals my opinion is irrelevant. Bittergrey should just accept that a theory which he understandably finds offensive does exist in the literature, and stop wikilayering to keep it out. WLU should admit that theory does indeed state that infantalism is a form of paedophila, and reciognise that infantalists will find this view offensive. The article should discuss the theory to the extent of the weight it has in the literature as a whole. Paul B (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

3D University

I have a close personal/professional connection with the 3d@home consortium, which publishes the [3D University] site to educate consumers on 3D televisions. They are a non-profit trade organization (topic experts) focused on educating consumers on 3D televisions, but are funded by the manufacturers and thus - I believe - potentially bias. We discussed adding information to Wikipedia (including academic reports and information from other sources) to fulfill the company's mission to its member organizations to educate consumers on 3D televisions.

My question is:

• Would the 3D University site be a reliable source for non-controversial information, like descriptions of different types of 3D formats or historical information?
• Would it be a reliable source for information "likely to be contested" where it may be used to present one of many minority or majority viewpoints on an issue?

Thoughts? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Abdullah Jalghoom research on Quran

This article relies entirely self published books and lesser sources as references. I was hoping for input on whether there are sufficient sources here to construct a decent article. Polyquest (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Fr. Tomislav Vlasic

I submit the article I made, Fr. Tomislav Vlasic, for review of verifiability. Oct13 (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)