Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. Please post new topics in a new section. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

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

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

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

Red Thunder

User over at Red Thunder keeps inserting his personal website with it's own section as a "popular culture" section to advertise his site.

www.stratfor.com

Is http://www.stratfor.com/ (stratfor) considered a reliable source? It seems to me that sources used in Wikipedia should be available to all users without requiring payment of a subscription fee with auto renewal by charging your credit card and further requires you to provide all your personal information in order to verify the source used. Wouldn't finding other more easily obtainable and verifiable sources more prudent? I refuse to pay a monthly, auto-renewal, subscription fee in order to verify a source.(talk) 04:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Thank you --Jmedinacorona Struck my refuse to pay a subscription remark, oops. :) --Jmedinacorona (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

We do not require that sources be available intantly, or for free. As long as someone could sign up for a pay to view or subscription site and verify the statement, it is considered verifiable. Whether you choose to do so is up to you. Having to pay to view a web based source is considered equivalent to having to purchase a book... or having to pay for a library card to obtain a hard copy source.

As for whether stratfor.com is reliable in other ways... I think so. It does not seem to have any political agenda or bias, and it certainly has a very good reputation in the corporate world. However, I could see calling it a Self-Published Source, thus limiting its use to statements of opinion, rather than fact. Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You can use it as reference, but it should be used as opinion piece and you have to attribute the source each time you use it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only is Stratfor a reliable source, but it's a pretty excellent one. For those unfamiliar with the site, it reports on various geopolitical events and offers an analysis, for example what a diplomatic gesture might mean. Most of it is subscription, but some of the podcasts and terrorism reports are free. They definitely have an editorial staff, and this puts them in the category of secondary source, not self-published source. Being a paid source does not exclude it from WP:V, otherwise we'd have to exclude most books, magazines and academic journals.

I would like to point out that for basic events happening in the news, one may wish to cite other sources that are more accessible. For the opinions and forecasts unique to Stratfor, you'd use something like "the private intelligence firm Stratfor felt that these events in Georgia foreshadowed..." Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the source (and haven't even bothered to click on the link), but I must say that in general, books, newspapers and academic journals are available at libraries, even if one cannot access them instantly online, or if they are offered for sale and/or subscription for a price. Is the specific material being cited available in libraries? I'm not sure what Wikipedia policies are in this reguard, but I'm somewhat uncomfortable with any source that is really not available to editors who have access to a good library of the sort that exists at a typical state university, for example. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on Squidfryerchef reply above I went back to the page and indeed found that much of the content seemed to be accessible without membership. My original post was due to reference links provided on an article I was editing, that when clicked on, were not available unless I logged into the stratfor site. I then went to the site and saw where it provided for a free trial but at the same time required all my personal information, including a credit card and number be entered for this trial. I can walk to my local library, I can go to a bookstore to buy a book, I can buy a newspaper or magazine or surf the net, all without having to use a credit card, whereas to access this source required me to do so. I guess I could somehow find stratfor's location and fly/drive or walk? to their office and buy a subscription in cash, but for those users of WP who do not have access to a credit card, it just seemed limited to credit cardholders to access for verification. I do have credit cards, to my everlasting regret :), but NEVER use them over the internet. And of course I buy newspapers, magazines, etc... so my having said I would never pay a monthly subscription was an exaggeration. The credit card was the actual issue which caused me to question the source. Thx. --Jmedinacorona (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about this site in particular, but for many pay sites, one can find libraries with subscriptions to the site, though usually these are usable only by library card holders and only on premises. One of those things where people on college campuses or in big cities generally have quite an advantage.

If something like this is used as a citation for something basically uncontroversial, I really don't see any problem. I've found that, in general, when I encounter something like this and have any doubts, I can usually get the original contributor who made the citation to send me the relevant passage. - Jmabel | Talk 23:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources on Anglophilia

I'd appreciate some input on the "list of famous Anglophiles" at Anglophilia, I've given my own run-down on which are reliable here, but I'd like to get a second, third, or fourth opinion. Responses to the talk page if possible, if not here. - Francis Tyers · 14:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• I am concerned, first of all, that whether someone is an Anglophile may essentially be trivia and so it may not be appropriate to maintain a list of them in this article, or at least the list should be quite selective. Secondly, it appears that Madonna was removed from the list of Anglophiles, even though she has an English husband, two homes in England, and an English accent which she acquired in the last few years. Meanwhile, Adolf Hitler is currently listed as an Anglophile, even though, well, everything. (I realize that you did not personally list Hitler as an Anglophile.) The standards for what counts as Anglophilia are thus too vague to apply now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Self-published blog as source

At Talk:Wikipedia Review we have a discussion about the use of a self-published blog that struck me as being entirely unsatisfactory under WP:SELFPUB. See this edit [1] and related talk page discussion. It strikes me as not being allowed by policy, and that if one allows opinions of bloggers on their favorite or unfavorite websites we will be overwhelmed with such stuff. However, there is disagreement from that perspective.--Janeyryan (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As I stated on the relevant talk page the issue is not one of reliability. The blog is being used only to source the actions and opinions of the blogger. We will not be overwhelmed because there are 100 other reasons not to use blogs in most instances--and in most instances they are indeed not reliable. In fact, as I also stated, there may be reasons not to use the blog in question on the entry in question, but the issue simply is not one of reliability and certainly not as governed by self-pub.PelleSmith (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly it's an issue of reliability, and of self-publication. WP:Vdoes not allow blogs except as sources about their authors, and does not allow claims about third parties, in this case her opinions about Wikipedia Review. Positive or negative, they would need to be published in a third party source, as I read this policy. This point was made on the discussion page of WP:V, but I had understood that this page is the more central discussion focus for this kind of issue.--Janeyryan (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing someone's personal opinion about something with "a claim" about that thing. The statement only reports her personal feelings and makes no substantive claim about the entity in question (WP review). As I explained on the talk page, the only "claims" being made are about the self-publisher herself. Again, there may be ample reason not to include her opinion, but please don't confuse this with a reliability issue. What the self-pub guideline tries to prevent is the verification of a claim made by us to a self-published source. If we were to write, "Wikipedia review is fascinating reading" and source it to her blog you would indeed be correct. But no one wrote that.PelleSmith (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

By all means get consensus to remove it because its fluff, but just don't confuse the issue. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted here to obtain third opinions from uninvolved editors, not to continue the talk page discussion here. So far, here from Dicklyon and from Jossi on the WP:V discussion page, the third opinions have been that this material is contrary to policy.[2]. Talk page consensus cannot disregard policy. But I'll wait to see if there are more opinions before reverting.--Janeyryan (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Suit yourself but my interest in the entire matter comes from my off again and on again interests here. I do not edit the entry in question, nor do I have any feelings or opinions regarding its subject matter.PelleSmith (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's being used for the author's opinion "fascinating reading" and such. Not a reliablility issue if it was in an article about the author and her opinions, but it really serves no useful purpose to add a random individual's opinions about a topic to an article on that topic, which is why we have guidelines against self-published items as sources. If her opinion carries some weight, find someone who has commented on it and cite that instead; otherwise, leave it off.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicklyon (talk • contribs)

Agreed with Dicklyon. It seems fairly sophistical to argue that it's OK as it applies to Cramer's "personal feelings": even if "fascinating reading" is hardly a deep critique, it's a comment on a subject external to herself, so WP:V applies. Besides, it's not her specialism nor is she particularly famous, so why should her views on Wikipedia Review be of any interest or relevance? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The major thrust of both your arguments have nothing to do with reliability, but with relevance. She is not making "a claim" about a third party. The idea that she finds it fascinating is purely a statement regarding her state of mind. No policy thus far alluded to applies here in the least. When we start confusing real claims about third parties made BY US, which is what the self-pub guideline in WP:V regards with fluffy attributed statements regarding someone's feelings about X, Y or Z we've gone off the deep end. The whole point is not to use self published sources to verify factual claims. You have to understand that the only verification question regarding an opinion is whether or not the individual actually holds the opinion ... not whether or not the opinion itself is garbage. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem skates across several issues. Personally, I don't find any clear distinction between the expression of an idea as an opinion or a fact: it's still commentary on a third party. There's no doubt that she holds that opinion, certainly. But I'm not aware that this analysis is bound to stick only to WP:RS angles. For me, the key point is in WP:V (i.e. WP:SELFPUB) - whether "the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed". If Jimbo Wales said he found Wikipedia Review fascinating reading, it'd be notable enough to include. If the Dalai Lama said it, likewise. If someone neither closely involved with the topic nor seriously famous does, it's hardly notable. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The primary distinction involves who is making the claim. If a claim is attributed to a source, e.g. it is their opinion, then the only thing that needs to be verified is that this person has made such a claim--this is the very measure of reliability in the first place. Is the source reliable to verify the claim that we are making in the entry? If we make a claim similar to the attributed claim, without any attribution as a fact, then we need sourcing for that fact that is reliable for fact checking and accuracy. Opinions clearly attributed in the text only need verification of being made, and self-published sources are 100% OK to verify the opinions of their authors. Regarding your other point, notability is not reliability. There is no reliability issue. This board is not for the discussion of notability.PelleSmith (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability is relevant as it relates to whether Kathryn Cramer is a reliable source for a website that she happens to like. She is not indeed Jimbo Wales or Mrs. Thatcher.--Janeyryan (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to add that in these cases there possibly several other concerns to address: notability, UNDUE, BLP, etc. I'm simply saying that reliability is not one of these issues. Therefore I suggest going back to the talk page and getting consensus on removing the text on grounds that are applicable.PelleSmith (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed, and I have reverted on that basis. It is as clear a violation of WP:LEAD as one can find. Notwithstanding that, as a plurality of editors who have independently commented on this have agreed, there is really little question that SELFPUB applies. It is hard to fathom why you would have SELFPUB if it did not apply to this situation. If it did not, it would open the floodgates to self-published 'opinions' could be placed in articles having only the vaguest relationship to the matter at hand. --Janeyryan (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Unindent -- Only two editors have agreed that self-pub is relevant here. Using self-pub in this manner in fact undermines the very policy. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Is_this_an_example_of_a_.27self_published_and_questionable_source.27.3F for further information and further disagreement. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems plain that this blog material does not belong in the article, yet it seems that it skirts past one policy after another. What I was hoping to engender was interest in outside people familair with policies and procedures to increase the pool of editors at this article. I still hope that might be possible.--Janeyryan (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Britannia.com

Can this be considered a reliable source? It seems to be used quite a bit. Here is their list of authors [3]. (I ran into this on the John Michell (writer) page where someone seems to think this is actually the online Britannica - ironically Michell's article on the Druids claims, incorrectly, that modern scholarship tends to think Stonehenge to be a Celtic (ie Druid) temple). Doug Weller (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Chemtrails

Much of the sourcing in this article is to primary-source self-published websites. Can someone go through and check which ones are reliable and which ones aren't? I'm sort of inclined to say none are reliable. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed some of the primary sources from this article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

tvbythenumbers.com

As per this (part way down, the third bolded "comment" section), could someone tell me if this is a reliable source?

Please see: "The NY Times link demonstrates that a news source says that it is reliable. The site also has a history of publishing information that can also be found on other reliable websites. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the site listed on the NYT page under a section called "Blogroll"; I haven't located the text where they say that it is reliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is listed in "The Sources" subsection, which implies that The NY Times uses it as a source, which means that they trust it (yeah, not the best link). –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In the last month, The NY Times is quoting one of its editors, as are The NY Post, TV Week and the Fox Broadcasting Company, as well as the listed-in-Google News-websites Broadcasting Engineering, NewTeeVee and Contact Music. Sorry that I did not get those sooner. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)"

Could we determine if this is actually a reliable source or not? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

How does one do that? This is used as a source for some American television ratings that cannot always be found on/get archived and deleted by other reliable websites. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The noticeboard is used to develop consensus on if the topic is notable or not. Its an easy way to double check on a source. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable primary source or third party source needed?

At the V8 Supercars article a user revert an edit and challenging me [4]. Since it's sourced from V8 Supercars I think it's a rather big claim to make (being the third biggest sport) since Australia has a number of large sports and I feel that a third part source is needed. Bidgee (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried phrasing the statement as a claim (as opposed to stating it as a fact)? Try something like: "According to the sport's offical webpage, it is the third biggest sport in Australia <cite to the V8 Supercars webpage>". Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

2 line anonymous review from Bookwatch

The 'review' is the 2 line anonymous comment on John Michell (writer) at this link [5] So far as I can tell from here [6] it isn't much harder to submit a book review to Bookwatch then it is to Amazon (slightly, but not much). My opinion is that this isn't a RS (although some reviews might be ok if they were authored by people who might be considered RS?). Doug Weller (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Daijiworld.Com (http://www.daijiworld.com/)

Resolved

Is this site reliable? The reasons for its reliability are:

• Daijiworld is an newspaper (e-paper). According to Wiki policies, they are reliable.
• It has its own office in Mangalore and some other places. This means it is well established.
• It's full name is Daijiworld Media Pvt Ltd Mangalore. That means it's a company.
• It has also an internet TV – TVDAIJIWORLD (http://www.daijiworld.com/page.asp?pno=1)

http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=48478&n_tit=Meet+Bollywood%92s+New+Bee+Genelia+D%92souza (a news article) is basically used to cite this statement: (Genelia D'Souza was born on August 5, 1987 in Mumbai..) Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The site is e-paper, it has an office address and has an editor-in-chief (Walter Nandalike). So the site can be used as RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much, Otolemur. Kensplanet (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

YouTube

Resolved

 – Cite the original source of the claim. If the only source is youtube, then maybe the claim isn't that important. Protonk (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been involved in a few disputes at Talk:Political positions of John McCain about YouTube. Editors have been saying that YouTube is not a reliable source for information about what is in the video. For example, the first dispute was a video of McCain responding to "would you support nuclear waste going through Pheonix?" with, "no, I would not." This is shown in the video and that is what another editor and I were fighting to include. Can we establish in a policy somewhere that YouTube is a reliable source for the content of the video? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that yes, youtube is reliable for what is in the content of a questioned video. Of course, if the video is from a no name production, there are issues of whether it's been doctored and such. In addition, there is the rule against engaging in original research, which remains. Unless a secondary source notes McCain talking about something on a video, I would say that the material stays out as original research. Ngchen (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how quoting someone is original research. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't original research as long as one treats it appropriately as a primary source, which is to say that it's used only for objective, descriptive, and uncontroversial claims. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The problems with You Tube are many. I will address the two biggest ones: First, there is no way to verify that videos appearing on You Tube have not been altered from the original. Second, You Tube, as a website, has serious issues with copywrite violations... and, by linking to You Tube, Wikipedia becomes party to any copywrite violations. There are other issues, but these are the primary reasons why You Tube is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And I will add another danger: using this kind of primary source material places Wikipedia editors in the position of determining what is and is not important material in the video: if no reliable secondary source such as a newspaper, magazine or TV/radio news show has noted McCain's response to the nuclear waste question, then why is it notable or interesting enough to be included the article? Editors making decisions of this kind is Original Research. --Slp1 (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are needed for verification, they are not a measure of importance. There are some popular ideas and even facts that papers attempting to be objective simply will not echo or even report. The John Edwards scandal for example. Anyway, in the example I mentioned, it had been taken up by the Obama campaign as an attack on McCain and McCain never denied the video's accuracy. Thus we considered that verification. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Aren't videos really hard to fake convincingly? In the example I have in mind he talks very smoothly and continuously. Unless I'm mistaken, you would hear breaks or changes in tone if someone was putting together words that he didn't actually say consecutively. In addition, his words are echoed in a number of democratic websites. I don't doubt they might cherry pick McCain quotes to make him look the worst, but out-right fabrications? They would be risking a lawsuit. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are "popular ideas and even facts that papers attempting to be objective simply will not echo or even report" then how "popular" are they? Who has determined that they are popular? You? Using primary material such as this is fraught with the danger of WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and point of view pushing. Find some mainstream media sources that have noted this incident you will be fine, and avoid all the youtube and the primary sourcing problems. Also note that the Wikipedia article on John Edwards actually did not include much, if any, information about the Edwards scandal until the saga entered mainstream, secondary sources.--Slp1 (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

1220 Google hits determines it's popular. It's not original research, and reciting what he says is not POV pushing. Just because the MSM censors this information doesn't mean we need to. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You asked here whether Youtube was reliable source, and have been told by experienced and uninvolved editors that it is not. Yet you continue to argue the case, and in addition claim censorship (always a red flag) based a mere 1220 googlehits without, apparently, one reliable source among them. Wikipedia is not the place to fight the system, though there are other websites where this is certainly appropriate and acceptable. And yes, "reciting what he says" can certainly be POV pushing if no reliable source has found it notable or interesting in any way. But I confess that I have led this thread off the topic for this Reliable Sources noticeboard. The main point is that no, the Youtube video is not a reliable source. Sorry. --Slp1 (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I see editors on both sides. There is no consensus here. I do enjoy people attempting to end an argument by claimining consensus despite the lack thereof. If you read what I said, we found a reliable source for both quotes. Those opposing inclusion on the John McCain page had to shift their argument to one of WP:WEIGHT rather than of WP:RS. Note that even "reliable sources" censor information as was the case in the recent John Edwards scandal. Reliable sources are not a measure of importance. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Reliable sources are not a measure of importance" in the real world perhaps, but they are the basis to the verifiability policy here on Wikipedia, as most other editors in this thread appear to see. As I said, this page is for discussing the reliability of sources: if you have found reliable, non youtube sources, good on you, but issues, such as the undue weight issue should be sorted out elsewhere. --Slp1 (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping I could establish consensus that watching someone do something was enough to say they had done it. I see that there is no consensus, in either direction. Looks like insertion of YouTube material will have to be considered on case-by-case basis. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm telling you, the consensus is going to be that youtube is largely not going to be considered a reliable source, especially on such a contentious issue and such a notable subject. Youtube is the WP:SPS example. there is no compelling reason to add this to an article on a national politician. Protonk (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:CRYSTAL. I don't see how SRS applies. WP:OR says that primary sources can be used for easily verifiable information. The compelling reason is that his official statements have been intentionally vague. You would list a judge's decisions on either side of an issue to get an idea whether they leaned right or left. It is the same with a political figure who takes an ambiguous stand. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• My guess is no. One, videos are EASY to fake convincingly. Two, the premise (that McCain had some obvious reversal on Yucca Mtn.) needs to be asserted by a reliable source. Three, we should be very careful about using youtube as record of events, even when that record appears plain and the event is uncontroversial. Protonk (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We found a reliable source showing the video and mentioning the other quote. One of the two quotes on the draft was deleted per WP:UNDUE. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The other issue Azure isn't mentioning here is one of context. Watching the YouTube video he has repeatedly inserted into the McCain position page, one doesn't know the question being asked. It just starts with McCain answering a question by saying, in part, that he 'might consider' a draft in a certain situation. We don't know what question was asked of him, though. If the questioner asked, "would you support a draft if every country in the world simultaneously engaged the US in a ground war?" then the answer he gave would be interpreted differently than if it was "do you support a draft for troops in Iraq?" We just don't know. This is why we need other reliable sources to have covered the question to be sure that the video isn't taken out of context. Oren0 (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oren0 is also leaving out that the section already mentions he would only start a draft in WWIII. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"We found a reliable source showing the video" - I must take exception to this. The only source other than YouTube that you've presented for this was ThinkProgress.org, a partisan blog. Also worth noting is that this is a WP:BLP page, meaning our standards for inclusion must be even stronger. Oren0 (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we must only include it if there was irrefutable pro...er, I mean...only if a MSM source mentions it! ~Sarcasm. What about MSNBC? Is that not reliable? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about proof. Like I told you before, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. MSNBC (and by MSNBC I mean Keith Olbermann, whose entire show is commentary and is therefore no different than an op-ed IMO) was only used as a source for the other quote which is a separate conversation entirely. Oren0 (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Showing a video of McCain talking is opinion? I commend you on another lie, bravo sir. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Refocus

Ok. Can we get, under this new heading, each video that Azure wants to have reviewed as a reliable source? And as a general, sweeping statement, if something is on MSNBC, then cite MSNBC. Unless they link to the youtube video (possible but odd), then there is no reason for us to link to it. So let's get the links below this heading and just go through them one by one. When this started I thought we were talking about Yucca Mtn stuff, now is is draft stuff, etc. I just want to know what we are talking about here. Protonk (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's kinda confusing because there are two different draft quotes that are being fought over simultaneously. Below are both, with ref tags removed:

1. In September of 2007, while speaking about issuing a draft, McCain said, "One, it's the best military we've ever had, it just isn't big enough. Two, there's never been a draft that I've ever heard of since World War II that was fair. What we've done is we find rich people find a way out, and lower income people are the ones that serve. I might consider it, I don't think it's necessary, but I might consider it if you could design a draft where everybody equally would serve. But it just doesn't happen. And the other thing is that, because you know from here in Brauman, it takes intensive training with the equipment and the technical skills that now our people are required to engage in, that it makes it not conducive to a short term. Now they enlist for 4 years. We used to draft people almost for 2 years or even 18 months so it's much more difficult."McCain: I 'Might Consider' Military Draft
2. At a town hall meeting on August 20 2008, an audience member said "Senator McCain I truly hope you get the opportunity to chase Bin Laden right to the gates of hell and push him in as you stated on your forum. I do have a question though. Disable veterans, especially in this state have horrible conditions, their medical is substandard. They drive four hours one way to Albuquerque for a simple doctors appointment which is often canceled. Our VA hospital is dirty it is understaffed, it is running on maximum overload. The prescription medicines are ten years behind standard medical care we have seven hundred claims stacked up at the VA office in Albuquerque some of them are ten and seven years old waiting to be processed in the mean time these people are homeless. My son is an officer in the Air Force, and I am a vet and I was raised in a military family. I think it is a sad state of affairs when we have illegal aliens having a Medicaid card that can access specialist top physicians, the best of medical and our vets can’t even get to a doctor. These are the people that we tied yellow ribbons for and Bush patted on the back. If we don’t reenact the draft I don’t think we will have anyone to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell." McCain responded with "Ma’am let me say that I don’t disagree with anything you said and thank you and I am grateful for your support of all of our veterans.""Feeling Feeling the Draft". Countdown with Keith Olbermann. 2008-08-14. {{cite episode}}: Check |episodelink= value (help); External link in |episodelink= (help); Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)

Azure's revision can be found here. Have at it. Oren0 (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well first, as an editorial matter, we aren't Project Votesmart. I don't think we need direct and largely unabridged quotes on each issue area. We could probably make due with a list of coverage of each area sized in proportion to its relative import. But that is for another day. Protonk (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• As for the sources. Again, WP:SPS is fairly clear here. There are a dozen reasons why video from the candidate on youtube shouldn't be used unless is from the candidate himself (in other words, his youtube channel) and relates only to noncontroversial details about the candidate himself. In the case of someone like McCain or Obama, that simply isn't necessary. Now that the Olympics are over, they are the two most watched people in america. A multi-billion dollar news industry watches both of them (to varying results) and we can't, in good faith, say that there is some detail about either man that can only be derived from watching a primary source on an unreliable site. The second source is a little more reliable, but the commentators above are correct. Olbermann is basically the liberal version of Billo. Stuff from his show should be treated as opinion, rather than fact and I'm honestly not sure what kind of fact we are looking to convey here. We should not be relying on offhand remarks and interpretations of responses to audience questions in order to present out readers with an encyclopedic view of his policy positions. In my opinion, both of these mentions should be scrapped and the page should be started from scratch using the candidate's web page, reliable lists of his policies and scant full quotes attesting to policy without some additional support. Protonk (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Laugh at "using the candidates web page." I'm sure that will be very balanced. The only reason I've seen against YouTube as a reliable source is that it could possibly have been tampered with, but no examples of this ever having been done convincingly have been given. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• We aren't using it in order to make a judgement. We are using it to make sure that it is actually a policy plank. And youtube itself can be tampered with but it is far more important to note that anyone can add anything to youtube, so all the "tampering" can occur before uploading. Further, the WP:RS gateway that is imposed is done so in order to limit the ability of single, unsupported individuals to impact the encyclopedic outlook on something. There are (like I said above), a dozen reasons why youtube isn't a reliable source. I may never convince you of that fact, but that isn't strictly necessary. Protonk (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Give one example of this happening ever, convincingly. We are debating right now whether or not YouTube is a reliable source so don't try to say that the "RS gateway" blocks out YouTube when there is clearly no consensus for this. You keep saying there are a dozen reasons but I only see one, with no evidence. You're right, I don't think you will convince me, so I will continue to add these quotes. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'd really rather you didn't. IT doesn't help anyone to do so. Just step away for a while and work on another article, rather than continue to insert disputed content. Protonk (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• That it is disputed is not enough reason to remove it. Is anyone actually disputing the accuracy of the videos? It is true, I wish the question was in the "I might consider it" video, but the context of McCain's position on the draft is mentioned in the previous paragraph. We leave it to the reader to decide the implications of this message rather than decide for them that it is not important enough. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• We report, you decide is the motto of a different organization, not wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, let's decide for the reader. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you're suggesting we can perform synthesis by excluding something. Oren0 (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha, fair enough. I don't know what policy exactly that would violate besides WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR. It seems to me it's basically the same thing as synthesis, deciding something and then excluding based off of that decision. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is intent. Your intent is to show that McCain is for the draft by including those two sections. This is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH Arzel (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. No claims are made in the article, we simply quote him. We've been over the requirements for a violation of WP:SYNTH before. C must be specifically mentioned in the article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Reliable secondary sources have already used this question/answer while specifically speaking to McCain's position on the draft. Additionally, most anything on youtube can be traced back to and sourced to the originating show (Countdown, Verdict, etc). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• "YouTube Yes" and "YouTube No" are both overly simplistic. We have to exercise some intelligence about the specific clip in question. If it's posted by somebody completely unknown who says, "Here's a film of one of John McCain's houses, and you can see the three gardeners working out front," then it's worthless, because it might easily be faked (someone else's house). If it's McCain himself saying something, though, it's in a different category. The presumption should be that it's valid unless a good-faith dispute is raised (that the guy on screen is an actor portraying McCain, or that the clip was edited to substitute a different question than the one he actually answered "Yes" to, or the like). Of course, this applies even if it isn't YouTube. A month ago, CBS broadcast a distorted interview with McCain, in which the network edited out one of his statements that made him look bad (when he claimed that the surge had caused the Anbar Awakening, which actually preceded the surge). In a case like that, it's reasonable for an editor to cite CBS or link to the clip, but once the deception is pointed out, the doctored clip can't be linked to blindly as if it were established fact just because it's on CBS. Also, if a clip on YouTube seems to show McCain endorsing the annexation of Canada or something, it's on a different footing from a clip that shows him opposing trucking nuclear waste through his home state. Rule of reason, people.

In the specific case of that nuclear waste clip, I did some research at the time. My recollection (not 100% sure and too lazy to re-check) is that McCain was being interviewed by a Nevada-based news show, that the tape of the full interview was available on the show's website, but that you had to pay for it. In a circumstance like that, where the full interview is available, it's reasonable to assume that the McCain campaign would be on top of the situation. Specifically, if the excerpt were doctored, they would have obtained the full tape and pointed out the deception. This inference is especially strong if the YouTube excerpt is being widely commented on (even if only on blogs). On the other hand, if a YouTube clip has received no such attention, then this inference isn't available, which cuts against citing the clip. JamesMLane t c 06:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

howardbloom.net

Is howardbloom.net RS? I found it in the article War against Islam. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Jasmin St. Claire

Resolved

Are the following two sources reliable for the information they provide on Jasmin St. Claire?:

• http://www.lost.art.br/yasmint_e.htm
• http://www.lukeisback.com/stars/stars/stars/female/jasmin_stclaire.html Nightscream (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Luke Ford is a self-published questionable source. He is a porn gossipist and does not exactly have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And lost art? Nightscream (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Exploring the lostart link also clearly indicates that it's a gossip blog that does not meet WP:RS.  Xihr  09:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about whether lostart is reliable as a source itself. However the article features snippets from the interview and I'm uncomfortable on having to rely on random quotes without context to verify a biography. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

iTunes reliability

There is an on-going discussion about the reliablily of iTunes as a source, specifically the release of "iTunes only tracks", at Talk:All Hope Is Gone (album)#iTunes Bonus Track inclusion: original research. If there is a previous discussion about iTunes please direct us to it and feel free to let your thoughts on the matter known. Thank you. Blackngold29 03:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_17#iTunes and a similar case: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_8#CDuniverse.com_is_a_reliable_source.3F. My opinion is no, as they are a retailer. The link could be used to describe something like song length or something if absolutely nothing else did and the subject was otherwise notable, but for 99% of the cases, no. Protonk (talk) 03:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Chronicle of Higher Education - Forum

A heated debated ensues about the use of posts in the Chronicle of Higher Education Forums in an article about Eastern Mediterranean University [7], first in mediation [8] and then in the talk page for the article [9]

The crux of the argument is that "Forums usually don't count, unless frequented by academics, and this is the case here." [10] It is also suggested in the same post that it might be good to cite the source but explain the nature of the forum (so readers would be able to evaluate it's reliability.

Thanks.--2knowledgeable (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Probably not. Sites usually absolve themselves of all responsibility for forum posts (and so no control over the content is exercised) and there is no way to judge who is on that forum. Anyone can register and claim to be professor so-and-so. As for the last sentence, we don't present unreliable sources knowingly and let the readers judge. we try to (especially where the issue is contentious) present the best possible source on a subject. Protonk (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

PAHighways.com

[11] - Is this reliable? A lot of PA highway articles are using it and so was I. Deigo (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe. Snap judgment about these road guide websites tend to be wrong. Most of them look like they were made by a 13 year old in 1997, but the proprietor tends to be an expert in the subject. In this case I can't find much on the owner/operator, but that doesn't mean nothing exists. Protonk (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert in characther

Resolved

Discussion has been moved to The Village Pump. Contents of the discussion are preserved there as an archive. Protonk (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Rockdetector

Resolved

Rockdetector: On its own page about Rockdetector it has positive responses from Digby Pearson- Managing Director of Earache Records; and Blabbermouth, a reliable source, which is hosted by Roadrunner Records (further feedback from Blabbermouth can be seen here and here). And such sources give Rockdetector positive feedback as well: here and the introduction of this. Is this proof enough of reliability of that source? Thanks for answer(s).--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 16:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone have a look on this, please?!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 08:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't normally do music stuff, so I didn't answer earlier. My suggestion is to use your judgment. WP:SPS creates an exception for self-published sources where the author is an expert in the subject and the material being sourced isn't for a BLP and isn't particularly controversial. So if you have reason to believe that the editor of this site is an expert (I have no opinion on that) and you are using the site to source things like tour dates, album names, etc., that is fine. Questions raised by other editors in the course of using this site about the reliablity of Garry Sharpe-Young should be taken seriously. I see he's written a few books on the subject, so he's not some kid in his mom's basement. So. follow WP:SPS and have at it. Protonk (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

International World History Project

http://history-world.org/: reliable source or not? See especially http://history-world.org/who.htm. I looked up our own (near-orphan, somewhat poorly cited) article on Robert Guisepi. I can't tell whether to presume this is a solid source; I detect a (slight) whiff of crackpottery in the article but can't tell whether that reflects the late Dr. Guisepi or our contributors. - Jmabel | Talk 23:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Unattributed website article as RS

Resolved

I swear I asked here about this exact source before but I can't find anything in the archives so here I am. Rosencomet has been using http://www.murugabooker.com/ace.html as a source for a number of articles. I had a long discussion with him about its WP:RS status on Talk:Merl Saunders back in Dec. 2007-Jan. 2008 here. The source in question, titled EXPANDING THE FRONTIERS OF YOUR CONSIDERATION, has a number of problems as a reliable source. I think the shortcomings will be obvious to many WP editors.

Now I know this source isn't remotely a RS and I've explained as much to Rosencomet, including pointing him to both WP:V and WP:RS many times over many months in different situations, but he seems confused as to the distinctions between independent and reliable. Unfortunately, because of past conflicts between Rosencomet and myself, he tends to discount my editorial judgments when such opinions conflict with his. So I wanted to get a little feedback about the source, hoping that he might be convinced by other opinions. Cheers, Pigman☿ 00:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The page cited above doesn't appear to be linked to from the home page of http://murugabooker.com, and is in plain text. Its lack of integration into the Muruga Booker site suggests that it hasn't been "published", but has been uploaded as a draft document or semi-private communication. As a document that is not publicly accessible from the Booker site it shouldn't acquire any status as an RS from any status that the Booker site has. Maybe the problem with the concepts of reliable source and independent source is that a source can be independent and not reliable, and vice versa. Ning ning (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ning ning. In my first draft of this post, I made some of the exact points you did. I removed them because I was pretty sure someone would point out the source's lack of integration with the main Muruga Booker website among other problems. I thought Rosencomet might give the critique more weight if it came from someone other than myself. I also note that the only link in the "source" is to the main ACE website and Rosencomet has been taken to task before for linkspamming on Wikipedia. Cheers, Pigman☿ 15:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would not consider it a reliable source either. The page is totally unattributed, and the website hosting it doesn't look too reliable either (i.e. whenever using it as a source, it'd be sure to say "According to the band's website....". Yilloslime (t) 16:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Not reliable. Can be used only within the limits of WP:SPS, which is to say, on articles about murugabooker.com. My guess is that there aren't very many of those. Protonk (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Yilloslime and Protonk. Since I notified Rosencomet of this discussion, I'm hoping he gain some clarity about sourcing. Cheers, Pigman☿ 16:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Audrey Tautou

There has been some debate as to varying sources with differing birth years for the French actress Audrey Tautou. There has been some discussion at Talk:Audrey Tautou and WP:RFPP#Audrey Tautou. I would appreciate having a few other experienced editors to take a look at the references linked in the article, the talk page and the RFPP discussion to see if there is a clear cut answer or if the current compromise of listing both years in the article is best. Cheers, caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 03:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

CNSnews.com aka cybercast

I removed a section from the John Lott article saying that the source wasn't reliable - and that the references weren't available, ie they don't work. Now I know Cybercast News Service is a conservative news agency and I'm not sure it's a RS for the claims in the deleted section. And in any case, the references are no longer available and this is not a paper newspaper. (I've looked for another RS and failed). Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The links are broken, but you can find the correct urls are here: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/searchresults.aspx?Keyword=%22JOhn%20Lott%22. I'll pass on the question of whether cnsnews.com is itself an RS--at first glance it appears to be, but I've only just glanced. If the story is truly notable, then surely you can dig up coverage in other sources, and sidestep the whole csn/RS issue. Yilloslime (t) 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether CNS is reliable. It's not a conventional news organization, but rather a group founded by conservative media activists to serve as a counter-balance to perceived liberal bias in the real news. It could be a good source for the opinions of American conservatives, but I doubt it would be suitable for general purposes. (And certainly not for negative contentious information in a biography of a living person.) <eleland/talkedits> 17:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

typophile.com

It's a wiki, but it is owned by a (presumably for-profit) company. They display advertisements from type foundries and the like on their site. Can this be considered a reliable source for typography related material? What about NPOV and COI? VasileGaburici (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter who owns it. It's constructed by user contributions with no apparent editorial oversight, so it's not a reliable source. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so my actions to move links to it from "references" to "external links" were appropriate :) VasileGaburici (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. There are suggestions about what goes in external links. the guidance there suggests that we should be selective in choosing when to link to wikis. I can't say yes or no, but it is something to think about. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to propose typophile.com for the interwiki feature; this would qualify it for exception 12 in that list. There are a number of well know typography experts that regularly post (under their real names) to the forums on that site, so it's reasonable to assume that there's expertise in the user base. The wiki entries get automatically liked in user posts based on keyword detection, so they not likely to be bunk.

Well, exception 12 seems to apply regardless of interwiki status. The trouble is that typophile.com uses some id number in URLs instead of names, so interwiki won't... VasileGaburici (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, planetmath.org has the same limitation, and it is in interwiki nonetheless. I'm going to propose typophile.com anyway. VasileGaburici (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

David Cymet, Piłsudski and anti-semitism

A recent discussion and an edit war on a Featured article Józef Piłsudski concerns the reliability and due weight of the following source: David Cymet. "Polish State Anti-Semitism as a Major Factor Leading to the Holocaust." Journal of Genocide Research. (June 1999), Volume 1 Issue 2. This source is used to support the following statement: "Cymet cites the interview as evidence that "Pilsudski not only fully shared at this early date the eliminationist goal of Dmovski but that he was doing his best to achieve that goal." In other words, it is a veiled way of saying that Piłsudski is an anti-semite, a rather exceptional claim (for starters, a claim not present before in this Featured article, and contradicted by sources present in it that describe Piłsudski's opposition to anti-semitism). There is a plethora of reliable, academic sources that claim exactly the opposite: Here is an academic book that states simply: "Piłsudski was not an anti-semite". Here is another work stating exactly the same: "Pilsudski was no antisemite". Here is another one, stating that the "Purpose of Piłsudski... was to weaken the antisemitic endecja camp". Here: "When Pilsudski assumed power, anti-semitic violence ended". Here: "Under Pilsudski, the party opposed anti-semitism".

Journal of Genocide Research is a reliable publication, but per WP:REDFLAG, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Now, I cannot find any indication that David Cymet published any other academic work but this single piece. I cannot find indication that his work is cited. I cannot find any information on David Cymet, an academic (or even as a widely known amateur historian). In other words, it appears that this controversial claim is supported by a work of dubious reliability (I have read his article, it contains few citations, some errors and a lot of emotional, biased language, for example from the very first para: "Poland... holds the loot plundered from millions of murdered and executed Jews"; later in the article Cymet writes about Piłsudski: "His sinister words and the bloody actions of the army under his command..." - and so on).

In conclusion, I find this source rather unreliable, and certainly not an exceptional source needed to support an exceptional claim that Piłsudski - an important figure in interwar politics - was an anti-semite.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Took a quick look at the page and after a short search, it seems that you have the better of the argument here. This NYT article says "The consensus of historians is that Marshal Pilsudski resisted the rising tide of Polish anti- Semitism in the early years of the Depression, and envisaged a Poland in which Jews and members of other minorities would live side by side with their fellow Poles." and it is easy to find many other sources supporting this consensus. Cymet, apparently an expert on Mexico[12], seems to be pretty lonely in his position.John Z (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Now, what's your advice if the two users who disagree with me refuse to accept my arguments on talk, and are out-reverting me in mainspace? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely inappropriate. There is no doubt whatsoever that Piłsudski believed in a multi-ethnic state and it was only in the post-Piłsudski period that sanacja moved rightward, becoming what JP had fought against. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at the talkpage, however, shows that the OP has mis-stated the crux somewhat. The question is not what Piłsudski believed for the state, or what his policies were, but what his personal opinions were about the Jewish citizens of Poland. I personally believe that that, unless discussed extensively enough to be relevant, is not useful as a part of the article - besides being too bloody speculative for my taste. Nevertheless, the point being made by the article in JGR might be reasonably considered to be orthogonal to the rebuttals provided. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with John Z and Piotrus, given the evidence, there is no good reason why Pilsudski should be labeled as antisemite on WP. The use of given source clearly constitutes a violation of WP:UNDUE.--Termer (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And I was saying the same thing, or thereabouts, but you're not agreeing with me? I'm heartbroken but unsurprised. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that I missed your post Relata refero, how can I make it up to you? Should we close this discussion as resolved?--Termer (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to be stable. I am not certain if the sixth para in Józef_Piłsudski#Internal_politics has best weight, but unless you've other suggestions, I think it's a reasonable compromise.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my late entry here as Piotrus neglected to inform me that he had taken this issue to the board regarding a source I had introduced. Let me try to unravel some of the spin Piotrus has put on this dispute, which misrepresnts the actual dispute. As Relata refero points out, Piotrus is misstating the situation, despite my having taken the time to make plain on the talk page the distinction between Pilsudski's policies and his beliefs. The beliefs are well sourced to a number of sources besides Cymet (who actually took the Pilsudski quote from Ronald Sanders. Shores Of Refuge: A Hundred Years Of Jewish Emigration. New York: Henry Holt, 1988. Piotrus isn't opposing Cymet, if you look at the article history, he is rejecting the introduction of the quote from Sanders, which was sourced to yet a third ref:

In an interview following a 1918 anti-Jewish pogrom, Pilsudki remarked "I must say that the Poles are not philo-Semites. That must be admitted. The Jews in Poland form a very large number and are a foreign body whom one would like to get rid of." Sourced to Beryl Wein. Triumph of Survival: The Story of the Jews in the Modern Era 1650-1990. Mesorah Publications, 1990.

Piotrus has vociferously fought the inclusion of this quote, no matter who it is sourced to, not based on WP:RS, but on his rather spurious claim that there is a past "Consensus" about not having quotes (and note that this quote was included in the footnotes, not in the main text.] So the issue isn't Cymet, but the quote itself, a quote that Cymet himself sourced to the Sanders book--another perfectly reliable aource. So this is not about painting Pilsudski as an active anti-semite (nowhere was such a claim introduced) and therefore contradicting his documented attempts to block Polish fascists, but an attempt to block well sourced evidence of Pilsudski's views on Jews.

Piotrus' attempt is akin to claiming that Richard Nixon could not have had anti-Jewish views because the record shows that he supported Israel and never hurt the Jewish community. I think we understand that history and individuals are more nuanced than that. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 01:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with a petition

It has recently come to my attention here, that there are manylinks being used on A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism which are not from reliable sources. However, they cannot be removed, because the people who added such information believe that they are reliable.

The two main ones in question are these:

• |title=CA112 Many scientists find problems with evolution.

From talk origins, which is posts chat room conversations and other such things. Plus, it does not cite sources, use evidence, or anything at all close to being academic.

• The Leader's Guide

Others, on the page, have seemingly equal problems:

• Barbara Forrest’s Letter to Simon Blackburn Barbara Forrest and Rebuttal to Reports by Opposing Expert Witnesses William A. Dembski

From the designinference website, not an academic source but is a blog as it clearly states on its main page.

• Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goal

Not an academic source, basically a POV website.

• How to be Anti-Darwinian.

Another talk origins site.

Can we get a ruling on these? This deals with over 100 BLP pages and is used to justify remarks on those pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There is extensive discussion on TalkOrigins in the noticeboard archives, which concluded with the assessment that there's no way in hell we will ever let you say it's unreliable, you creationist troll, you. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing unreliable sources

I've pulled some links to a few unreliable sources like stormfront.org, rense.com, and some others - thought I'd mention it here for feedback, and in case others would like to pitch in, or add to my list. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've considered creating a list of frequently used but questionably reliable sources in science and medicine, along these lines. There's a preliminary effort at User:Yilloslime/Questionable Sources. If you don't mind, maybe I'll add a few to your userspace page. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do. If anyone know how to limit the displayed external links to just those in article space, that would be helpful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please make it clear in your edit summary why you're removing them. --Ronz (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be sure and do that in the future. Thanks for pointing it out. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to do this, please keep in mind that Wikipedians are not babies, and sites like rense.com or prisonplanet.com may be good references for conspiracy topics. Also don't forget to tag or remove the fact being cited if you remove the source. P.S. I looked through some of those edits and noticed there's a syntax problem with List of Iraqi security forces fatality reports in Iraq. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal Website as a Reliable Source?

Resolved

I need some help. On the page for David Michael Jacobs a site was referenced that I am questioning as a reliable source. It's the personal website of one of his former clients. Could someone please take a look at this site: http://www.ufoalienabductee.com] and render an opinion on its reliability for a wiki page on a living person? Thank you very much.
Fiona2211814 (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The exact reference that I provided for the contribution at issue is an audio clip of Dr. Jacobs reading a section of a transcript of an instant messaging conversation that he believes that he had with an alien hybrid (which is an event in his life that is appropriate to include in his biography.) The audio clip itself, consisting of Dr. Jacobs reading this transcript, is the source that is referenced, not the entire website. [13] For clarification, see the discussion about this at [14]. Thank you. Angie186 (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The audio clip is clearly heavily edited and therefore has no context to determine the validity of the information. It also is Dr. Jacobs in his own words, which one of the editors on the Biographies of Living Persons board said is not a valid source. See user:Suntag on the page located here [15]. Also, if you look back in the history of changes in the page at [16], you can see other pages besides the audio clip that have been referenced in the past. I'd like a complete look at the site to settle any future problems with references to this website. Thank you.Fiona2211814 (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Basically, no. Interviews with the subject should be used rarely and judiciously. Interviews (or readings) held on personal websites are almost always not considered appropriate for BLP's, especially when the personal website carrying the information is not the subject's. as far as other sites quoting this page, they probably shouldn't. No one is "an expert" on being abducted by aliens so the normal exception of accepted self-published sources doesn't apply. The audio clip MIGHT be valid as a source if it were hosted on a site owned or operated by Jacobs or hosted by an otherwise reliable source, but in this case it isn't. Protonk (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Protonk. As far as I'm concerned, this resolves the issue. I will wait to hear Angie weigh in though. (talk)

Thanks Protonk. That is fine. I made the contribution to the article concerned in good faith believing that the source was reliable according to Wikipedia definitions. Your opinion that the audio clip might be valid as a source if it was hosted by a source considered reliable by Wikipedia's definition was interesting. * Fiona, I accept Protonks view at this stage. Should the audio clip, or other information about this event, become available on a different site, or in a different forum, that is considered reliable according to Wikipedia definitions, I will revisit the issue again. * I have not appreciated your offensive attitude in our exchanges about this issue. I suggest that you show more respect to your fellow editors in the future. Angie186 (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

For the "audio clip might be accepted if it were hosted by an RS", imagine if National Public Radio, CNN or the New York times hosted that clip. It would be a lot harder to explicitly exclude it as a source in that case. Protonk (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Audio interview hosted at BlogTalkRadio

• Olsen, Dawn. "Church of Scientology, David Miscavige, Marc Headley, Tom Cruise". BlogTalkRadio. www.blogtalkradio.com. Retrieved 2008-08-30.

There is a question about usage of the above audio interview source in the biographical article David Miscavige, because that audio interview is hosted on BlogTalkRadio. A Request for Comment has been opened to assess community viewpoints on this. Please weigh in at Talk:David Miscavige#Request for Comment. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Air Combat Group RAAF

The reference

Link

I was wondering whether this link is reliable for the article it is being used in (linked above). CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 22:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers in countries without a free press

I am interested in whether a newspaper in a country without a free press can be considered a RS on news events? Specifically, I would ask about the Jordan Times, a newspaper that Freedom House considers "partly free" for the year in question. However I am more interested in the broader question. Thanks for any thoughts. Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Common sense seems to suggest no as the answer to the general question. Peter jackson (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would seem so to me as well, particularly in contentious areas such as the I-P conflict. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that free=/=reliable and unfree=/=unreliable. I would think this is obvious. I also think that Freedom House rankings are full of shit, personally. Last year, IIRC, Pakistan's noisily critical press was declared as unfree as China's, and India -- with draconian freedom of speech regulations and a very active press council -- was declared "partly free". Load of rot. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The rankings are one thing. The descriptions of a free press another. Of course free does not necessarily mean reliable as witness the tabloids, for example. Still, unfree would seem to suggest unreliable. So how does one determine reliability of an unfree or partly free press? Do you have any thoughts on the Jordan Times, Relata? Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

An unfree press might publish articles which are planted, in which case those would be unreliable. Or it might be censored, in which case articles it published would be reliable. A free press might practice self-censorship, and be reliable, or be held hostage by commercial interests, and be unreliable. Merely using a non-descriptive statement as "free" or "unfree" is, in the end, not helpful at all. On the Jordan Times, I don't have the slightest opinion, though I believe I have both added and removed academic book reviews from it at various points. [I note, however, that Jordan had a widely-publicised clampdown on the press in 1997, which seems to have eased somewhat a few years later. It is also true that this newspaper seems to largely be described as "independent".] --Relata refero (disp.) 21:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the claim that "it might be censored, in which case articles it published would be reliable". Why would a censored article be reliable? Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If there are two facts, X and Y, then just because X is censored does not mean Y is untrue. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It does not mean Y is untrue, but it does not mean Y is true, either, which is what you imply when you say "it might be censored, in which case articles it published would be reliable". In addition, selective censorship can easily lead to biased, misleading articles, which would alo smake the article unreliable. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is honestly an issue of case by case review. Pravda was probably a horribly unreliable source for the happenings of the Soviet government. Perhaps it might have been a reliable source for reviews of plays and works of art (maybe), I don't know. State control or state influence means that we should treat as suspect (or at least qualify as non-independent) claims made by the source about the government. Determination of that control is again a case by case manner. I can't support Freedom House's rankings as an editorial tool on wikipedia. We should review and act on individual claims about the editorial freedom of individual publishing houses. Protonk (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. You can't generalise this, particularly as the degree of state control is highly variable. In some "non-free" states, such as the old Soviet Union pre-Gorbachev, the media was entirely a creature of the government - it was owned by the state and reflected only official views (even on issues such as theatre and art which, let's not forget, were also subject to strict ideological controls). In modern Russia the media isn't formally under state control or ownership, but the state directs it from behind the scenes. At the next level down, the media in some countries may be subject to what could be called ideological conformity on some issues, even if they aren't controlled or directed by the government. I'm thinking of countries such as the Arab Gulf states, where the media is relatively free but still has to operate within certain ideological limits (such as not being overtly critical of the regime). I'm not familiar with the Jordan Times, but I would guess that it falls into the latter category. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting thought Chris, as to what entails "ideological" limitations in regards to something like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Freedom House said that the Jordanian press practices "self-censorship" since should one anger the government a reporter can lose his credentials and his livelihood. In which case, since Jordan involved itself in the Al-Durrah case (in particular after the reported death of the boy), there could well have been an "acceptable" viewpoint in relation to the reporting of the incident. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not confuse presentation and facts. The facts in an article may be correct, but the presentation and/or selection may have a bias. // Liftarn (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly so. This is the same in a lot of countries. It's almost always the case that certain avenues of argument are closed off by general social and political convention. (You'll never see criticism of King Bhumibol in the otherwise raucous Thai press, for instance). This isn't so much a restriction on free speech as a form of self-censorship, as you say - an unwritten agreement that the scope of free speech has certain boundaries. But the Western media has just as much of a self-imposed bias in various directions, as the whole "political correctness" debate makes clear. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Self-censorship due to state control of the press is very different from "political correctness" in a free society. A reporter can choose to be "politically correct" or not. In a country with a free press, there will be plenty of reporters who are neither politically correct nor self-censoring. In a free society with a free press, the marketplace of ideas and commerce will ultimately decide who "survives", not the government and its ideological thrust. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Where are the articles arguing in favour of underage sex and racial discrimination in the mainstream Western media? Every publication self-censors, for commercial, social, moral or political reasons. There's no such thing as an unfettered "marketplace of ideas" anywhere, simply because some ideas are considered unacceptable by the general population. The government doesn't have to censor if social pressure does the job for them (this is very much the case in Thailand with regard to criticism of the king, for example). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles in favour of underage sex and in favour of racial discrimination would not be the purview of mainstream reliable sources. They would be opinion pieces anyway. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the Jordan Times is controlled by the government. That makes it absolutely off limits, except when it is referencing itself or it has something to do with official Jordanian government policy. In general, non-free presses should be avoided, especially on controversial issues. IronDuke 23:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the paper is published by the Jordan Press Foundation. According to Alan George, the JPF is "62 per cent owned by the government via the Social Security Fund" [17]. Partial state ownership certainly doesn't make it off-limits; plenty of broadcasters (the BBC, France Télévisions and RAI are European examples that come to mind) are wholly state-owned. Don't forget that state ownership doesn't automatically equate to state control - it did in the case of Pravda, because that was directly managed by the Soviet government, but many state-owned media outlets have a strict arm's length relationship with the government. WP:V#Reliable sources sets out four criteria: it must be a (1) reliable, (2) third-party (3) published source with (4) a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Note that the question of ownership doesn't enter into the equation. Its articles are quoted by numerous published authors, so it clearly does seem to have a reputation as a reliable and accurate source, satisfying the first and fourth criteria. It obviously also meets the second and third criteria. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that if it were "controlled," as opposed to "owned," it would make a difference as to its reliability? I'll also point out, the books you link to are intriguing, but a) there is no context at all for the citations in the books, and b) the standards of any given random book may not be Wikipedia's -- is Winnie the Pooh a reliable source? What happens if we ask Google Books? IronDuke 02:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It may make a difference, but it really depends on the degree of editorial independence enjoyed by the media outlet in question. Some are totally under the grip of their government masters - The Herald (Zimbabwe) is a case in point. Others are stridently independent, like the BBC. Some are in-between with a sort of compromised independence, like RAI. The only real way to tell is to to find out what others say about the outlet in question and, in particular, determine how widely it's cited as a source, hence the usefulness of reviewing Google Books to answer that particular question. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Given we have no good way of teasing out what parts of the Jordan Times are independent (assuming any part of it is at all) I'm not sure how we can rely on them as a source. They are controlled by an undemocratic government, that makes them automatically highly suspect. Google books doesn't help at all here, although looking at the books on Google might. Again, despite our inability to write reliable articles, we do have higher standards than many of the works we reference. IronDuke 15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, ownership isn't part of our reliable sourcing criteria (nor should it be, considering the POV mischief that would permit - e.g. people trying to disqualify the BBC or Al Jazeera on the grounds of government involvement). You have to apply the criteria we have, not the criteria you'd like to have. If the JT is a reliable third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, then I see no reason not to use it. Note that I'm not arguing that it meets those criteria, since I don't know much about the newspaper - I'm just stating for the record that those are the criteria we have to apply. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

but policies and guidelines a descriptive of a community standard of behavior. I agree that we can't claim "WP:V says no state owned media" but it we instead claim "An editor has raised a concern in good faith that the lack of editorial independence at newspaper X renders it unfit to be used as a reliable source on issue Y", then that is another matter entirely. If we have good reason to believe that a newspaper would make editorial judgments at the behest (or in advance of that behest) of their owners on a particular matter, then we can discuss that. Even in England, we would be incorrect to cite a British paper on a matter subject to a DA-Notice as an authority on the matter--we would expect that they would withhold items related to the issue from publication. Protonk (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course ownership impacts reliability, especially when the owner is a state which censors and controls the media -- very much the case in Jordan. There are tough cases, to be sure, but this isn't one of them. You keep saying you don't much about the newspaper... fair enough. From what I know, it is unreliable, and I have seen no evidence that it meets the criteria you set out. Could a story in the JT be true in all its particulars? Most definitely. But there's no way to know, and good reason to be skeptical ... thus, it is unreliable. IronDuke 19:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We simply don't operate on that basis - it amounts to a back-door way of eliminating all media citations from particular countries. I see from Reporters without Borders that Jordan is actually rated the third most free country in the Middle East in terms of press freedom, after Israel and Kuwait. But then again, you're blurring the difference between government ownership (which in this case appears to be only partial, if George is right) and government editorial control. The British government owns and funds the BBC World Service 100%, but it doesn't exercise control. Your case seems to be based entirely on the assumption that the newspaper has no independence due to the government's partial stake in the fund which owns it. I don't think that's a logical conclusion. You certainly haven't cited any sources to back up your assumption that the newspaper is not independent. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Offline publications

I am using a US Dept. of Justice Publication that is not available online as a source for an article on the Crips. I used the same format for documenting it as an offline book was used in another article. Another editor is removing it solely because he can't find it online. I have been told by admins before that offline sources are reliable , so I am taking them at their word. Could someone please look at the article and see if the format is correct and, if not, tell me how to correctly document it? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's true that offline sources are acceptable, and a U.S. government publication would normally be considered a reliable source. However, the source you have cited (U.S. Department of Justice (2002), Crips) is difficult to locate. I can find no evidence on the Department of Justice's web site of a publication by this name, and I looked on two university libraries' web sites and found no evidence that they had such a government publication in their collections. If you can produce evidence that this publication exists, that would help a lot. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is difficult to locate. No, it is not available online. If I scanned the publication and emailed it to you (about 8 pages), would that satisfy you that it exists and that it is being presented completely accurately? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely, if something is to be verifiable, the source has to be available in some way for people to verify it? Peter jackson (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked the same thing of an admin when an article contained in a database that everyone doesn't have access to was used and he told me being online or accessible to everyone isn't the criteria. That's why I'm asking here.Niteshift36 (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the publication even mentioned online somewhere? It's not listed in the Library of Congress catalog, nor in OCLC's catalog. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not a book, it is a publication. It totals 8 pages and published by the Dept. of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center under the Drugs and Crime Gang Profile series. The product number is 2002-Mo465-001, published November, 2002. Again, I am willing to scan and email it to you for impartial verification. I am making an effort to improve the quantity and quality of the information in the article. I have the material in my hands. It was compiled by the US govt. The fact that you can't find it or don't have access to the one database I know it is contained on shouldn't preclude it's use. I am offering to provide you a hard copy of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• If it's a Work of the United States Government, it probably isn't copyrighted. That means you could scan it and upload it to Wikipedia as a file so everyone could see it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I posted a link on your talk page where you can go to obtain your own copy since you apparently have some issue with having one emailed to you. You can feel free to get one straight from the source and find that everything I have said was 100% accurate. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Before we get too upset about this discussion, please understand that WP:BURDEN requires that the editor inserting the material show (in the citation or on the talk page) where a reader would find the material before inserting it. I'm not saying that it is ok to jump to conclusions about "fabrication" (it isn't), but there is standing policy that tells us how to deal with offline sources. This is a fairly recent change to WP:V so not everyone may be used to it. It is the current community expectation for sourcing, though. I don't see a problem with using this material so long as we provide sufficient detail to the reader. I suggest posting the product number in the cite (try {{Citation}}) and providing some instructions on the talk page (or a wikiproject talk page) for further instructions. I apologize if this seems extreme, but most people are used to working with material that can be found from a large university library and when we get outside that rather large net, we get suspicious. Protonk (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got no problem with adding the product number or instructions. I do have a problem with certain editors implying that the publication doesn't exist just because they don't have access to the DOJ database. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• The article has to be published somewhere; that's what WP:V is about. If it's something you obtained through FOIA or whatever, it isn't enough to show it to a couple other editors for verification. The idea is that we want a good cite so ten years from now, some grad student can look it up to write his thesis. You could try checking certain university libraries that are designated as repositories for government documents. If the library puts an OCLC on the doc, put that in the cite cause people will be able to look it up on WorldCat. Another option is to find a respected web site that publishes goverment docs online and cite the doc there. If those dont work out, you could maybe (this is pushing the limits of WP:V) cite it as a book with the publisher being the DOJ and the ID being the product number you gave us and the URL a link to the order form. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is published somewhere. The problem is that the DOJ database isn't publicly accessible. I already said I would be happy to add the product number and the URL that I provided Metropolitan. Oddly, nothing I am putting in is outrageous or stretches the imagination. It is a single editor that is disputing the fairly pedestrian material. I may just publish it on wikipedia, then every editor who felt the need to add "if it exists" to their response can see it in full and realize that they weren't assuming good faith when they said it. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Product number and link to where you can request a copy has been added. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Secret printed documents which "are not available to everybody" (to paraphrase what was written by Nightshift36) should not be cited in encyclopedic works. Period. RFerreira (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that is policy nor do I think that it is an accurate characterization of the source. If we were citing "super Secret Squirrel document #437 which can never be revealed", then sure, it fails WP:V. But if this is a public domain document (it probably is) web available on request it is probably fine, so long as the means to find the source are clearly laid out. Protonk (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Nobody called them secret Ferrira, except you. Not being available to everyone doesn't make them secret. I have provided a link to where you can request your own copy, as well as the exact product number you can request. Short of dialing the phone number for you, I'm not sure what you want. Have you even attempted to get your own copy? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Using a partially disputed Vanity Fair article as a source?

Resolved

I'm working on the Lindsay Lohan article and I'm looking for some input regarding the Vanity Fair article from 2006. It contained claims regarding drug use and/or bulimia that were disputed by Lohan, but Vanity Fair stood by the article and there was never a lawsuit. The conflict is outlined at Vanity Fair (magazine)#Lindsay Lohan interview. Obviously if the specific disputed contents were included in the wikipedia article it'd need to be mentioned that Lohan disputed it, but can the rest of the VF article be used as a reliable source without special considerations? Siawase (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would say that Vanity Fair can be considered a basically reliable source for the popular culture topics that it normally deals with. It is a widely distributed monthly magazine, owned by a major magazine publisher. Presumably they have access to lawyers to vet any article which might place them at risk of a libel lawsuit. If a particular statement in Vanity Fair has been disputed (even if the person in question has not actually sued over it), that should be mentioned. But if the rest of the article has not been disputed, it should be fine to use as a source. That said, we still need to make sure we are not placing undue importance on gossip about living people even if it is mentioned in a source such as Vanity Fair. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, that is pretty much what I'm leaning towards myself. And indeed, I am looking to use the Vanity Fair article specifically because it contains so much material of substance. Most likely I'll exclude the disputed material completely. The bulimia comment looks like a simple misunderstanding, and her drug use is already substantiated in the wikipedia article with undisputed sourcing (police reports via news media). Siawase (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Astrology-online.com

I am having a persistent issue with a guy that keeps inserting material sourced to Astrology-online.com in the Aquarius (astrology) article. This website doesn't seem to fulfill Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources, it obviously duplicates much of the copyrighted material from Elore.com (much reworded but still obvious), and the few claims it does introduce are often deeply contradicting, which flies in the face for any argument for scholarliness.

I have given him many warnings about it, yet he continues, often outright falsifying sources (I have that Oken book). I don't know what to do about him, if anything. I was thinking of removing all references to that website in the article, but I want to make sure I am on the right here and do it correctly.

Please check it out. Thanks, --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If your analysis of it is correct (which I'm not doubting), then the source should be removed. If the other editor is linked with the site, then you might want to post on WP:COIN. Ty 06:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Biography of Roald Dahl

Is Jeremy Treglown's Roald Dahl: A Biography a reliable source? marbeh raglaim (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Treglown is a professor of English; he's edited and introduced a collection of Dahl's "mordant short stories for adults;" his biography of Dahl has been reviewed, and is recommended in Roald Dahl's bio at Guardian.co.uk. Does he say something controversial, or something at odds with other biographers? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Daily Mirror

How much and how far to trust a newspaper like the Daily Mirror for accuracy and reliability? Should it be used as an only source in highly disputed articles? My instinct is to say "no" since it is clearly distinguished as a tabloid. According to its wiki article, there seem to be a fair number of problems associated with it. Thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Mirror is certainly a mass-market tabloid, but one with a fairly distinguished history (no Page Three girls!) and the second-highest circulation of any UK national daily. It does serious reporting; it has foreign correspondents who cover major overseas stories such as the US elections. In the specific case of the article which you're disputing, it was written by David Leigh, a Mirror correspondent with a very high reputation - he was formerly its news editor and very recently won a prestigious award for breaking the John Darwin disappearance case, one of the biggest UK media stories of 2007. At the time of the report which you're disputing, he was the newspaper's Jerusalem correspondent. The Mirror itself clearly meets the four criteria of WP:V#Reliable sources: a (1) reliable, (2) third-party (3) published source with (4) a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That's not to say that it doesn't get things wrong - every newspaper does - but it's certainly one of the better UK tabloids. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In what I remember of previous discussions with you Chris, you have been against singling out reporters as having a "good" or "poor" reputation. You have required that we accept the publication's reputation only. The four criteria of WP:Reliability cannot include reliability -- that is defining a term by itself, not. Are you sure that the David Leigh bio-ed in wiki -- David Leigh and here is the same David Leigh writing in the Mirror in 2000? Neither articles even mentions the Mirror. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There are two David Leighs - the one you linked works for the Guardian, the other whom I'm describing used to work for the Mirror but now works for Splash News in the US. You're right that we don't rely on the reputation of individual writers but of publications, but the point I was making (which I thought was obvious - maybe not) was that the Mirror does serious reporting, not just gossip columns. Some tabloids - the Daily Express comes to mind - certainly do rely on gossip and recycled news agency reports, but the Mirror isn't one of them, as the John Darwin case showed recently. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The National Enquirer made quite a scoop recently with catching an American presidential candidate with his pants down . None of the mainstream newspapers followed up on the rumours. But one scoop/investigative report does not reliability make. Just as one gaffe does not take it away... My understanding is that the very concept of 'tabloid' actually means 'not reliable' -- Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, that's nonsense. "Tabloid" simply refers to the format. Even The Times is a tabloid these days. The format of the newspaper has no bearing on how reliable it is. There are certainly some tabloids which have a very bad reputation - the National Enquirer is a case in point - but the Mirror is not one of those. It's a very long-established newspaper which has played a central role in British media and political affairs for over 100 years. It was the biggest-selling British newspaper for decades. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaking "size" or "circulation" for reliability. To the extent the two are related, it is usually an inverse correlation - sensationalist, unreliable tabloids will have the larger circulation numbers, while high-brow, respectable and reliable papers will have smaller ones. This is nowhere clearer than in the case of the UK, where the largest paper is the News of the World - a rag focused on celebrity gossip and titillating sex scandals, which should not be used anywhere in Wikipedia (followed closely by the The Sun, a paper whoe biggest claim to fame is pictures of topless women on page 3), while a quality paper like The Times, considered by many to be the UK's newspaper of record, has a circulation 5 times smaller. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

How about the former editor of Daily Mirror who admitted he printed false allegations against Arthur Scargill in 1990? [18] . That's a real baddie. Add the 2004 hoax photos [19], the suit by Leicester City F.C.[20] as well as the recent libel against Kate Garraway and I really think the criteria for a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" mite be a bit compromised. The tabloid concept (as in supermarket tabloid -- not size) is discussed here with ref to the Daily Mirror -- [21]. Doesn't sound like a good rep to me. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust the Express or Mail any more than the Mirror. The mirror is not a sensational gossip-filled newspaper. Ignore libel suits, libel laws are vastly different in the UK. So a football club decided to start legal action? Why do you add that rather than the outcome (not mentioned on the football club's site). What newspapers don't get lawsuits? Show that it gets more than other newspapers and you might have a point, just mention a couple (and yes, it had a problem editor, he's gone now), and it means nothing. --Doug Weller (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, which "newspaper like the Daily Mirror" did you have in mind? It would be better to bring it up here when there is a case at hand, rather than speculatively. There is no overwhelming reason not to use the Mirror as a reliable source, as opposed to any other paper. The errors by it mentioned above caused a stir for the very reason it was not expected of their normal conduct. Ty 07:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want specifics, Tundrabuggy is objecting to the citation of an article of 21 January 2001 by the Mirror's Jerusalem correspondent, David Leigh, in Muhammad al-Durrah. The report is of value because it's a on-the-spot piece of reportage by an accredited foreign correspondent for a major national daily newspaper. However, it takes a position that contradicts a conspiracy theory that Tundrabuggy apparently supports. This is essentially a WP:IDONTLIKEIT affair at root. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's nonsense, ChrisO. Please stop with the constant name-calling and personal attacks. I brought this up at this site because of what I read about the Daily Mirror in wiki, (ie that it is a supermarket tabloid), what I have read on the 'net in regard to the Arthur Scargill allegations. A decent newspaper does not knowingly print false material that harms other peoples' reputation. Nor would an article of 21 Jan 2001 be an on-the-spot account of anything, as the Al-Durrah incident occurred in 2000. Finally, your assertion that David Leigh was "on-the-spot" has yet to be backed up with any references. Tundrabuggy (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought the attempt to discredit the Mirror was somewhat contrived. I don't see a problem with using it as a source. There is always the possibility of the format "David Leigh of the Daily Mirror reported xxx", depending on how the rest of the article is written. Ty 08:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My object is not to discredit the Mirror but to ask uninvolved editors their thinking on it. ChrisO is deeply involved in the article in question and has a stake in the Mirror being reliable. I am much more interested in the opinions of the uninvolved here. Tundrabuggy (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of or connection with these editorial disputes, nor the editors for that matter. There is no valid reason why The Mirror can't be used. Re. "A decent newspaper does not knowingly print false material that harms other peoples' reputation." You'd be surprised! Ty 12:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not anything like a US 'Supermarket tabloid', eg the National Enquirer or Weekly World News. It is populist, I'd say. Doug Weller (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no more stake in the Mirror being reliable than in any other source in that article being reliable. The Mirror report wasn't even the subject of any dispute before you started this nonsense about it being a "supermarket tabloid" (an American term for which there's no British equivalent). There's no "name calling" - I'm simply pointing out that the report contradicts a POV which you've promoted, a conflict of interest on your part which you didn't mention.

As for the other points you raised: the article is bylined "DAVID LEIGH FOREIGN EDITOR AT BUREIJ CAMP GAZA" (hence, on-the-spot) and it's an interview (claimed to be the first) with Muhammad al-Durrah's father after he returned home from hospital, three months after the incident of 30 September 2000. You really shouldn't make such definitive pronouncements without first making sure that what you're saying is accurate. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Article on American Chronicle

The article Sarah Heath Palin, Middle Class Change or More of the Same is being cited by Feminists for Life. I believe this is an unreliable source, for the following reasons:

• It is frightfully badly written, suggesting little if any editorial review.
• This disclaimer appears at the bottom of the page: "The American Chronicle and its affiliates have no responsibility for the views, opinions and information communicated here. The contributor(s) and news providers are fully responsible for their content."
• The publication's Author Account Information page says "All articles are subject to editorial review (mostly for grammar and formatting) before they are published." (Emphasis added.) To me, this suggests the factual claims were not subjected to review.

Since the relevant section of the article is about Sarah Palin, WP:BLP applies, raising the bar even higher. Tualha (Talk) 18:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It looks pretty unreliable to me, and the "reporter's" credentials listed on the right are somewhat kooky ("Psychic Intuitive Science Consultant"?) The American Chronicle seems to be a compendium of syndicated reports from other sources such as AP, Reuters, daily newspapers etc, plus original writing from freelancers. They even have a "Submit Work" page inviting submissions from readers and contributors. It looks like it's effectively run as a sort of cross between a newswire and a closed-source Wikinews; definitely not a reliable source in my judgment. You should also bear in mind the four criteria set out in WP:V#Reliable sources: a (1) reliable, (2) third-party (3) published source with (4) a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I would say it decisively fails the fourth criterion, and may well fail some of the others too. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at what links here: [22] -- a bit worrying as it looks as though it isn't a reliable source. Doug Weller (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's a cool tool, I didn't know about that. It is indeed worrying. Tualha (Talk) 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but what exactly is being linked? - original reports such as the one you cited, or newswire articles? The latter are reliable, the former certainly aren't. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

She looks kooky to me too (she's published articles on UFOlogy) but that's ad hominem, so I didn't depend on it... Tualha (Talk) 19:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I took a look at the article linked to the Hmong people and the sidebar shows the author to be very reputable (and I checked also), so it may be one of those issues where you have to look at the source? This one was probably a syndicated report. Doug Weller (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess they should all be checked. How tedious. I guess we should focus on the Palin article here, and perhaps open another item dealing with The AC in general? Tualha (Talk) 20:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The format suggests that it was a submitted report - the syndicated ones don't seem to have an author sidebar (unless I missed something). Strictly speaking, though, when it comes to reliable sources we're supposed to consider only the publication, not the author. There have been plenty of instances where authors have published reputable, mainstream things in mainstream sources, and kooky stuff in fringe publications where editorial standards are lower or non-existent. Tualha, I don't think there's any point in opening a second section - let's deal with the AC here in this section. Don't forget that many of the returns from the linksearch tool are on talk or project pages; we only need to concern ourselves with the links from articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if I may summarize so far (and reset the indentation):

• Tualha thinks the Palin article is probably unreviewed and therefore unreliable, and is concerned about original articles on The American Chronicle (hereinafter TAC) in general.
• ChrisO seems to think that newswire articles on TAC should be treated as reliable, original articles as unreliable, and the Palin article falls into the latter category. Correct?
• Doug Weller seems to think TAC is unreliable in general, but we should consider the author. Correct?
  • ChrisO disagrees re considering the author.
• We haven't heard from BenjiBoi yet, the editor who cited it in the first place.

Tualha (Talk) 20:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The original content on the site does not look reliable. As others have pointed out, the site certainly fails the "with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy" part of WP:RS. Also, their writers are unpaid[23], and, at least for the few I checked at random, none of the writers have the usual journalism credentials one would expect for a real news source. The disclaimer at the bottom of every article is a bad sign, too, as is the fact that nowhere on the website (at least that can find) are the names of the publishers or editors given. These are all hallmarks of non-reliable sources. Yilloslime (t) 21:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Newswire articles on TAC shouldn't be cited to TAC but, rather, to their original publications. Hence for instance this article lifted from USA Today should be cited (and linked) to its original publication, not to TAC's copy. Apart from any other considerations, we don't know whether TAC is republishing such articles unaltered. As for the point about considering publications rather than sources, this is pretty much what WP:RS requires: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process". Note that the emphasis is not on who writes the piece, but how the piece is published. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, a quick google search turns up plenty of hits, many of them reliable, confirming that Palin is a member of Feminists for Life. Yilloslime (t) 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If that's the point that needs to be made in the article, it would be much better made through citation of a more reliable source than TAC. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya, that's kinda what I was trying to say. Yilloslime (t) 22:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there's no doubt she's a member of FFL. Originally I was questioning whether she was pro-contraception; the Anchorage Daily News cite supports that now. I'm not sure if there's any claim left in the article that's supported solely by the Morris article. I just want it out because it's a sucky source.

We seem to have a fairly solid consensus that this article is unreliable, though I would still like to hear from Benjiboi, now that I've stated my case better than I did in Talk:Feminists for Life. Tualha (Talk) 23:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Take it out, I don't think you need Benjiboi's permission for that. If he gives you problems just refer him back to this discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I see from hir contribution list that ze was on for several hours after your comment and has had plenty of opportunity to respond. Fair enough. Tualha (Talk) 13:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

{unindent} For the record, I don't consider the TAC a reliable source, anything that looks reliable almost certainly is from elsewhere and should be sourced from there. I think we need to do something about its use elsewhere in WP. Doug Weller (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, assuming the original source is still available. If it's not, well, I doubt the TAC copy would have been deliberately altered. It would be good to reduce the number of references to TAC as much as possible, since checking them isn't a one-time-and-done task. Tualha (Talk) 13:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Questionable website as a reference?

There is a website that is being used as a reference for various UK sitcom article pages. The site is http://www.phill.co.uk and the site owner calls it a "British TV Comedy" site, but upon closer inspection, the site seems to be little more than the personal website of a fan who likes UK comedy (the address of the site suggests this further). Details about some shows have very little relevant detail, and it appears what information is there was possibly just copied from IMDB or TV.com. There is also a commercial element to it as the site seems to be little more than a way for the site owner to make commission off Amazon sales (via various Amazon DVD links for the various shows it lists). Of course, this by itself is not necessarily a problem, but considering that the site (and its anonymous owner) are not a recognised authority on the subject, should this site be prevented from being used as a valid reference source?79.66.22.104 (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say definitely not. I agree that it looks like a personal website, I don't see why clearly reliable sources couldn't be found, and I certainly wouldn't rely on its accuracy. Doug Weller (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Doug. Just to clarify, you did mean that the site should not be used as a reference, didn't you (my question was should it be prevented from being used)? If so, and in the abscence of an official site from a production company, would a site like TV.com be more preferable for quoting things like airdates and episode titles, etc? Or do airdates and episode titles even need to be sourced/referenced at all if it did not contain any material that was being challenged?79.66.22.104 (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Official distributor posting on forum

Official German distributor of the GP2X console Michael Mrozek, who uses the forum name "EvilDragon" (this is confirmed by a number of articles and video interviews, eg. [24] [25]) recently gave the total number of GP2X units sold worldwide as 60,000, but did so in a forum post here. The info currently in the "GP2X" article about number of units sold is from October 2006, and is quite outdated. Would it be possible to add this information to the article? Esn (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Aspartame

In Aspartame and Aspartame controversy, are http://www.presidiotex.com/bressler/index.html and http://www.presidiotex.com/aspartame/Facts/92_Symptoms/92_symptoms.gif reliable sources? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Good gravy no. CENSEI (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Yilloslime (t) 17:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Noterino. _diddly Protonk (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)