Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to start a new discussion thread

Fiorina on Conde Nast Portfolio "Worst CEOs" list

There has been an ongoing controversy for some time on the Carly Fiorina page about her inclusion on a list of "The 20 Worst American CEOs of All Time" published by Conde Nast Portfolio. The original publication URL is now defunct, however the story has been republished in full, with attribution to Portfolio, by CNBC at [1]. A very cursory search turns up a couple of other sites that republished the list.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first page of the feature[2] does not include a byline, and even explicitly states "Ranking by Portfolio.com". This list is obviously fully endorsed as an editorial view of a respected business news organization. Rvcx (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fox News on Lawrence Solomon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For heaven's sake, we've described The Nation as a reliable source here at WP:RSN. Are you really going to argue that Fox News is so much more biased than The Nation as to make it an unacceptable source? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Are Industry Associations Reliable Sources?

I was using self-published reports from The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PHRMA http://www.phrma.org/ ), the Europian Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA http://www.efpia.org/ ), and the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (JPMA http://www.jpma.or.jp/english/) as sources of information about industry expenditures. Any opinions on reliabilty of these sources for facts on industry expenditures? What about other industry information? To see an example go here [3]. The question arises from Healthcare in the United States. The discussion line is Talk:Health_care_in_the_United_States#Medical_products_research_and_development. The relevant diff [4]-- but an alternative, more general wording has being agreed to (awaiting input from what folks think here). However, I also want to incorporate these same facts to expand the section in Health care industry,the initial discussion of these plans is here: Talk:Health_care_industry#Investment_Trends_in_Healthcare_industry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sites providing reviews/critiques of comic books

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

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

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

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

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

• • Big Shiny Robot! seems to be a reliable source. They're often quoted by CBR and Newsarama, and even the top news link on www.starwars.com leads to an article of theirs at the moment. They have user names, but the editors have real names and a way to give them feedback.
    • It doesn't look good from its about page.[5] If it was owned by a media conglomerate, I might look more closely, but as it is it's not a RS. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
      • It's absurd to assert that a news source is unreliable if it isn't owned by a media conglomerate. It's run by a prominent media figure and Huffington Post columnist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliability of Emporis in building articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I rarely edit Wikipedia these days, so you are perhaps kinda lucky I happen to have something to edit today and saw this post. ;)

Perhaps I would like to clarify certain issues. Yes, theoretically anyone can ask to join Emporis, but there is a selection process, and there are multiple user levels, with each level given more authority or autonomy to provide data. New members are typically only given "photographer" rights, ie only the ability to upload photographs, with no ability to mess up with existing data or add new ones. Promoting someone to a higher level requires general agreement from others higher up the user hierarchy, and we have had tests etc to judge their suitability for the positions. The catch, however, is that there is no "professional requirement" to take up most posts, nor is there a formal background check done. Trust in someone's work is primarily based on the quality of his contribution history.

With regards to the "powers" of Senior Editors, yes, we are expected to check and double check entries anywhere in the database, and we do have the editorial ability to make corrections or remove suspect data, including those provided by developers (which are, thankfully, not too many to begin with). Each entry keyed into the database has to be accompanied by detailed information on its source and reliability, and editors who fail to provide such information can have their data as well as editorial rights removed.

I would also like to note that at the same time, there will be cases of inaccurate data, or even a case or two of mischief, since it can be daunting for a small team to track the hundreds of daily edits and thousands of existing entries. In addition, especially in more remote locations, building data are often sourced from the CTBUH after a successful merger or resources years ago, and some of these may not be checked by us and remain inaccurate.

Hope I have clarified some issues, but feel free to discuss this further!--Huaiwei (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Amazon.com as an RS for unreleased material

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pay per view court records

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The difference between a law as a primary source and witness testimony as a primary source is that if the New York state legislature passes a law to create a town or something like that, that is a performative utterance. In other words, the legislature's saying so makes it so. The only way that it wouldn't be so would be if there was a failure of the proper felicity conditions (say, if the New York legislature purported to create a town in Pennsylvania, or the New York state constitution forbade the legislature from creating new towns but the legislature tried to do so anyway, or if the legislature held a vote to create a town but a quorum was not present). But witness testimony is not like that. Witness testimony is normally a declarative utterance, usually about things that happened in the past. If someone says under oath, "I am a CIA operative" or "I was a CIA operative", that alone does not make them a current or former CIA operative, because they could be lying. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Car Magazine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previews from youtube

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

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

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

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

Bubblegum Dancer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Channel 4 TV edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biography of Benazir Bhutto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The issue is whether Benazir Bhutto herself asserts that her father was Sunni, in which case we would appear to have a conflict between reliable sources. I have looked at the keyword search facility for the edition of the book on Amazon [6] and it appears that the sentence quoted by Ishtiaq Ahmed is indeed in the book on page 54. The problem is who is doing the "wilful distortion of information"? Benazir Bhutto was a politician with a motive for attempting to appeal to both factions, so maybe she's the one distorting history. In this case I'd suggest that her assertion should be included, but not presented as authoritative, overriding the other sources. Paul B (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

venusians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook

Is the Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

more detailed discussion by Abd

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

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

more detailed discussion by Abd

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

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

Since the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy review, it's been clear that the cold fusion evidence is convincing to at least many mainstream academics, and you can infer more from the review than that, for the division between the chemists and materials scientists (generally positive) and nuclear physicists (generally negative) is clear in the individual reports. Martinlc, it was never true that only those involved in cold fusion "believed in it," there was always plenty of opinion to the contrary, including more than one or two Nobel prize-winners, and, what is even more the real issue ("belief" is a red herring, many of the so-called believers are skeptics by habit), there have always been peer reviewers willing to pass papers on cold fusion when asked. Are these "believers?" Certain "mainstream" publications stopped submitting papers for peer review. We have RS on that. But others continued. The first question we need to answer is "Is research into cold fusion legitimate, recognized by the mainstream?" It was recommended by both DoE reviews. In fact, however, after 1989, attempts were made to request funding for research that was exactly as described in the report, by experienced researchers, and it was denied. Huizenga's influence was very strong, and in 1989, the mollifying language was only there because a NP winner threatened to resign as co-chair if it wasn't included, whereas in 2004, it represented a real consensus. The science is mainstream now, not just among cold fusion researchers, but the conclusions (nuclear or not?) remain very controversial, there was substantial opinion for "nuclear" in 2004, with a two-thirds majority unconvinced, and there is now more conclusive evidence published, but I'd have to infer "mainstream" only from the fact that reviewers at mainstream publications are accepting the papers. That means they believe the science is solid, which doesn't imply acceptance of the conclusions. For conclusions, we need peer-reviewed secondary source, and, in fact, the subject book provides that. I still advise caution. --Abd (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Is portal site kresy.pl a reliable source?

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

Posting valuable information -- need advice, help and permission

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

John Greenewald, Jr.

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

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

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

Articles should be based on third-party sources

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

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

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

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

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

An external link to an illegal recording

In the article Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline, user User:LTSally has added an external link to an illegal recording contained in a blog[7]. I and others have tried to explain why this link should be removed[8], but LTSally claims that there is no basis for the removal of the external link[9].--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you even know what WP:OR is? It's been explained here more than once, but you seem to not be paying attention. DreamGuy (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely, DreamGuy. The arguments against the inclusion of the link to the recording have so far been very weak. And WP:EL does not prohibit their inclusion as links. Unfortunately I think I'm flogging a dead horse trying to get consensus to get this approved. I'm outnumbered by Jehovah's Witnesses who, for reasons I can't fathom, don't want to see it linked. Their cited reasons all seem a bit desperate and grasping and appear to be a cover for their real objection ... whatever it is. I still think it would be a valuable addition to the article.

I sense the discussion here has run out of steam, perhaps because it's not really an issue of RS. That was raised for the first time by the dude who listed it here. I have attempted to rekindle the debate back at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline#External link, explaining again why it's appropriate and within WP:EL guidelines, but so far no one has responded. In such hearings the whole issue of privacy is presumably to protect the accused; in this case he has cast aside any expectation of privacy by posting the recording himself on his blog. Other objections all seem a little spurious. But as I say, all this now seems a touch academic. But thanks anyway. LTSally (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I wasn't supporting the inclusion of the link itself, as I never even got far enough to look into the specifics. What I was doing was pointing out the very poor arguments being made about policies and alleged illegality that do not match what our policies and the law actually says. There may be good reasons to not link to the site in question, but that doesn't excuse making up spurious legal claims and trying to apply policies that aren't related in the slightest. DreamGuy (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I have added an RfC back at the article's talk page. LTSally (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Articlesbase.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One more reason -- each page is very ad heavy. I've been going through it, most of the articles, maybe all, that I've seen are promoting the author in some way. Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bullshido.net

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTE: I have posted a deletion review on this article, asking for the last closure to be overturned and this article to be deleted. *** Crotalus *** 20:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

ahh, yes. one source has been deemed unreliable and so therefore the article's 6th failed deletion should be overturned! yes! Theserialcomma (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

While it is certainly possible for journal publishers to manipulate their impact factor, it still remains one of the best systemic indicators of reliability that we have available for established journals. Publishers also have been known to manipulate circulation figures, but that doesn't mean they aren't relevant to us (or to advertisers). They translate into the ability to fund quality editorial work in a commercial publishing venture. LeadSongDog come howl 14:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Your desire is not unreasonable, merely unachievable, unfortunately. Even within a single issue of a single journal different portions will have different degrrees of reliability (letters versus peer reviewed papers versus editorials, and then variation within each of those categories). That doesn't make impact factors unuseful, it merely means that they can't be decisive. GRBerry 15:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

We already have objective indicators for class of content. PubMed (and other catalogues) apply xml tags to article metadata for "Original research", "Review", "Systematic review", "Short correspondence", etc. When we have doubts about a source we pay attention to this, especially at GAR and FAR of medical articles. WP:MEDRS#Biomedical_journals is sufficiently clear on that. For impact factors I would be happy to see wording that cautions against giving them too much weight in the assesment of sources, but I do think we should acknowledge that they are indicative of the relative reliability of different journals. Original research in Nature or even PLOS Med is far more likely to attract a review than if it is published in a small private McJournal. We should have a way to reflect that increased transparency and scrutiny in our priority of sources.LeadSongDog come howl 16:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I'm not sure that the impact factor (or whatever thompson/reuters has renamed it to) is the best method. Modified page-rank methods, other more flexible methods, and relying on review or meta-review articles may be better for some purposes. One of the critical points made in the above linked article is that measurement based on impact factor introduces a number of unspoken assumptions which may skew results. Protonk (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

These newer methods might in theory be better, but unless/until we have access to the published ratings the methods may as well not exist for our purposes. Impact factors are routinely published, usually right on the journal's website. That's what makes them useful. Is there a place to read the ratings by the newer methods? LeadSongDog come howl 21:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A couple things. As I said above, most of the complaints that I have about impact factors involve the vast middle ground between journals like Nature and journals like Reviews of crazy space physics i just made up. I don't think it is wrong to set some very low bar and just note that below this a journal might be suspect as too new or too outside the mainstream. It is wrong to treat that bar as an automatic decision rule, because novelty or marginality is not sufficient to rule that something is not a good source. Another point to make is that if we are looking at individual papers the problems with impact factors stop being academic. There is very little connection between the impact factor of a journal and the acceptance of a particular paper within a field. That's for sure. Protonk (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Communist genocide

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

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

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

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

The first source makes no mention of Communist genocide.[11]

The second source states: Soviet and Communist genocide and mass state killings, sometimes termed politicide, occurred in the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and the People's Republic of China.[12][13]

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

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

Sources in two World War Two articles

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

1. An article from official webpage of Polish Radio, Polish equivalent of BBC [14]
2. A book by Grzegorz Motyka, renowned, professional historian, specializing in Polish - Ukrainian relations during the war,
3. A book by Sol Littman, former Canadian Director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. [15]
4. A book by Tadeusz Piotrowski, professor of Sociology at the University of New Hampshire [16]
5. A Polish - language tourist guide of Western Ukraine, by Grzegorz Rakowski PhD, author of a number of publications [17]

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

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

on the Huta Pieniacka massacre

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

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

There is also doubt over Grzegorz Motyka

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

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

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

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

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

60 Minutes and the Assassination of Werner Erhard

Source in question

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

This book is being put forth as a source by those that support the controversial training programs Landmark Education and Erhard Seminars Training developed by Werner Erhard. It was removed as a source, but this was disputed [18], [19], [20], [21]. The book should not be used as a source on Wikipedia: it fails WP:RS as it comes from a non-notable publisher, lacks coverage in reliable sources, lacks editorial review, and both the publisher and author have a bias as being associated with Erhard himself and his controversial trainings. The book's publisher has acted as Werner Erhard's attorney.

Rationale

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

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

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

   • The publishing company "Breakthru Publishing" publishes the same books as company "Walter Maksym Publishing". Compare this: About Walter Maksym: Publisher of Perfect Pleasure: Beyond the One Hour Orgasm, The New York Times Best Seller Diets Don't Work!, with this list of books published by Breakthru Publishing [22] = the series of "Diets Don't Work" books.
   • Walter Maksym represented Werner Erhard as his attorney, when Erhard sued 20 different defendants after a critical broadcast of CBS News 60 Minutes where Erhard's daughters and business associates made controversial claims against him. See San Jose Mercury News article, which states: Erhard's attorney, Walter Maksym of Illinois, could not be reached for comment.

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

   • When attempting to check if their website lists any form of editorial review - it appears that the website is itself abandoned [23].
   • A listing of other books published by Breakthru Publishing yields only "Diet's Don't Work" and other series of marketing/sales to self-help clientele - nothing related to investigative journalism, see [24].

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

   • The wiki article about the book was deleted essentially for this very reason: (AfD discussion).
   • Search in books show it is not cited as a resource [25].

---

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

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

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

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

That the book itself is not notable is not relevant to the question of its reliability, but does make it harder for us to accurately judge its reliability.

We no longer have an article on Breakthru Publishing, because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breakthru Publishing. Editors there noted that the article described the press as a vanity press, and none of them found reason to disagree with the article. That is a reason to conclude that the book is not independent of its author. Accordingly, the book should be treated as a self published source. The next question then is whether Jane Snee has previous work in the relevant field that is published by reliable third-party publications. I note DGG's opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Self that she has "one unimportant book, and nothing else". DGG usually looks hard for opportunity to include articles, and if he found nothing else I'm willing to rely on his conclusion. So I conclude that this is not the variety of self-published source that can be used in articles about subjects other than the author of the source. GRBerry 15:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

New York Times Article on Alternative Minimum Tax

Resolved

 – yes, the NYT is a reliable source

Unresolved

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

An editor is claiming, with this revert [26], suggesting that the New York Times is not a "truly reliable source." The editor has previously excised any references to the NY Times topic on the Alternative Minimum Tax. Looking for some guidance here.Mattnad (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

In fact, it isn't vandalism. Calling a good faith edit vandalism closes down the debate about the issue and sets up downsteam editors for failure. It also reinforces the image that we have outside wikipedia as being insular and distrustful of editors bringing up errors in sources. The words "treat that editor like a vandal...and take appropriate warning steps against said editor if he/she continues to vandalize" seems pretty crystal clear to me. And you have not wandered into myspace, thank you. Protonk (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So, Protonk you are saying that if an editor, for whatever reason, is going around removing every single source that is the NY Times from an article (or worse from EVERY article) then that is not vandalism? I would say you are wrong then. If someone removes something everytime they see it is sourced to the NY Times that is indeed a vandal. They arent saying that the particular info is wrong, they are saying the entire NY Times is unreliable and not a valid source ever. If the editor is saying that then they are indeed a vandal. They are being disruptive to articles for no reason other than they have a beef with the NY Times. If they were removing one or two references that just happen to be from the NY Times because those particular pieces of information were found to be wrong then I'd agree with you wholeheartedly. Either you truly think that someone is allowed to go around removing any references that use the NY Times on purpose or I failed to get that point across that I was only talking about purposefully removing correct information from an article just because the source happens to be the NY Times. I dont like Fox News and I dont think they should be used as a source ever for anything other than a statement saying "in Fox News opinion ....", but I dont go around removing every source to them, if I did I believe lots of editors would then call me a vandal.Camelbinky (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In this case (As is shown below) there is a considerable amount of discussion about whether or not the NYT ought to be judged as a reliable source on the subject. Which means if the NYT contains incorrect or misleading information and a better source exists it certainly is not wrong to remove references and stated claims based on those references with an informative edit summary. Doing it en masse is less cool and doing it across "every" article is borderline disruptive but neither action would be vandalism, because the editor has a good faith belief that the quoted source is in error. Saying something "is not vandalism" does not immediately mean that the action is proper or desirable or that the outcome from the action is the best possible outcome. But calling it vandalism moves us out of debate on the subject and into immediately protecting the encyclopedia from disruption. When those circuit breakers are closed for edits which are vandalism it offers a quick means to block editors and protect pages (as opposed to long discussion and consensus). When those circuit breakers are closed for edits which are not vandalism, we alienate potential long term editors, do damage to our reputation and prevent beneficial changes to articles. We may be in general agreement, but recall that I was responding to the point I quoted above, which in no way indicated that your charge of vandalism was reserved for editors conducting wholesale removals. If I misunderstood the words then I'm sorry, but they seemed clear to me. Protonk (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems I probably should have chosen better words when I first discussed this topic and should have said "an editor" instead of "this editor". In further clarification I did in subsequent posts state what I meant, I apologize I wasnt clearer from the beginning though. As always you have taught me something new, sir.Camelbinky (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

My edit summary said that the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution is a truly reliable source. And on this issue it is: see [27] and [28] and judge for yourself. It is clearly (in my opinion) vastly more reliable on this topic than the NY Times, which is after all a daily newspaper and does not produce academic studies of archival value. When they directly contradict each other, as they do here, the NY Times (in my opinion) is clearly wrong. I really can't see how anyone who has read both sources could possibly believe the NY Times discussion piece (unsigned!) over the TPC article. Whether the NY Times is reliable in general is not the point at issue: sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, and I certainly would never say that it is intrinsically unreliable. However on this specific issue, the NY Times discussion piece is not a reliable source (in my opinion, and I have provided evidence from a reliable source).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I think you are missing is that the NYT and Berman are talking about different things. The NYT is talking about the fact that what was covered under ATM increased. Berman, on the other hand is saying that participation and revenue decreased. Coverage is not the same as paticipation and revenue. So Berman does not actually contradict the NYT. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think we are getting close to a conclusion. I thank everyone for some reasonable points. Many months ago I added the AMT line that says "the AMT has evolved significantly in many ways since then, with substantial changes in 1978, 1982, 1986, 1990, and 1993, among others". There were significant changes in 1986. However, folks, it is just not true that the 1986 act was the one that expanded it to cover the deductions that most Americans receive! The NY Times article is just flat out wrong on this point! I am surprised by how credulous some people are with this source. However let's put the NY Times quote and the others I will add side by side in the main article and let people judge for themselves just how reliable the NY Times really is. (The main issues for most Americans are state and local income taxes, personal exemptions, and standard deduction, all of which were added to the AMT calculation before 1986. The lack of indexation was in before 1986. The 1986 act added the phaseout of the AMT exemption and the extra medical expenses deduction, neither of which is "targeted at the deductions most Americans receive". It made extensive definitional and rewording changes, as it did for the regular tax system also.) PMcGarrigle (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't take it personally, but I think we give the NY Times more credence than we would a single editor. And be careful with what you add since I suspect you'll be interpreting technical articles and promoting your own conclusions as you did with the Berman article.Mattnad (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I just want to caution everyone involved in this article ... It seems to be a topic that could very easily slide into original research... If you have not read our policy on that, please do so. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Mattnad, the issue is whether we should believe the NY Times above Berman, not whether we should believe the NY Times above some random anonymous editor. If I couldn't find any contradictory sources, I would not have said anything. I find Berman reliable but if someone came along with an even more detailed and authoritative source that contradicted him, then I would assume Berman had slipped on that point and move on. I wouldn't cling to a determined belief that Berman had to be defended at all costs. As for conclusion-promotion, that's what I thought you were and are doing. PMcGarrigle (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

All I'm doing is quoting the NY Times. The reason we're discussing this here is that you don't agree with that source and sought many times to exclude it from the article. Per Blueboar, see original research.Mattnad (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can point at directly contradictory statements between the NYT and Berman then please provide them. I've looked through both and couldn't find any. The contention that "it is just not true that the 1986 act was the one that expanded it to cover the deductions that most Americans receive" is neither supported by any reliable source I have read, nor incompatible with the NYT story (which merely asserts that the 1986 changes expanded the range of AMT applications). If you feel that such a contradiction is an obvious conclusion to be drawn from the Berman paper, then I suggest you detail your reasoning on the article talk page or WP:ORN. In the (IMO unlikely) event that you achieve consensus that Berman directly contradicts the NYT story then you'll have an issue relevant here. Rvcx (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Mattnad: well, no, you're also adding text that is not in quote marks, and that (now that I look at it again) involves a rewrite of and change of emphasis for the NY Times text. The NY Times article said the AMT was "subtly changed" by the 1986 act, whereas you say it was a "major change". I read the NY Times article to say the overall tax system had a major change, and as part of that the AMT was subtly changed. Also you attribute the act to Ronald Reagan, whereas the NY Times article attributes it to "President Ronald Reagan and both parties on Capitol Hill". The overall effect is to tilt the NY Times article discussion in a way that casts Reagan in an unfavorable light. If you insist on citing the NY Times article, well and good, but the extra topspin will need to go.

In the spirit of brevity and editorial decision, I didn't quote the entire article. If you want to add "both parties" to share the responsibility for the tax changes, go for it. It's not necessarily the best writing, but I won't stand in your way. As for the the "subtly" vs. "major." I think the point that should be made is that "subtle" changes in 1986 had a "major" impact on who pays the AMT now. But I'll give you points for focusing on editorial questions (which should be on the article talk page) now.Mattnad (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Rcvx: I take your point -- I didn't cite the new evidence (beyond Berman) here because it's off topic. I will do so on the AMT page. (I certainly don't expect anyone to take my word for it and never meant to imply that.) I agree we will just have to let all quotes stand and let the words speak for themselves. PMcGarrigle (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I note that the NYTimes thing is their topic page, not one of their articles. I don't know that we have really addressed the reliability of their topic pages, but I don't think it is higher than the reliability of their articles, especially if the topic page is not attributed to any author. If you go a little further down the topic page, they have a list of all of their relevant articles, that can be sorted in date order. I sorted it oldest first (none from before 1981 reflecting that the name of the tax was changed from "minimum tax" to "alternative minimum tax" in the 1983 change to this tax), to see what they said before 1986. These articles are behind a paywall, but some of the summaries are useful to this discussion. A January 1983 New York Times article[29] opens saying "BEGINNING this year, the alternative minimum tax - a term that a relatively small number of Americans have been aware of, and a tax that relatively few have paid thus far -will have an effect on many more Federal income taxpayers." Later in 1983, a different New York Times article[30] by a different author said "ONE of the thorniest financial problems that many well-to-do taxpayers may face in the next few weeks is how they can avoid being subject to the new alternative minimum tax. The intent of the tax, which was revised and expanded for years beginning with 1983, ..." Then there is a third NY Times article by a third author in November that also says there was a revision and expansion in 1982.[31] It seems pretty obvious that the author of the topic page didn't reflect the New York Time's own articles on the subject. Since the topic page is both 1) not attributed to any author and 2) not reflective of the NYTimes articles on which it is supposedly based on I personally would elect to treat it as not a reliable source. Editors might look for actual NYTimes articles from later than 1986 that reflect this line, but I wouldn't use the topic page here. Also, there are other reliable sources out there, such as this PDF of a 2001 report of a Joint Economic Committee of the US Congress, in which page 16 lists the significant legislative history of the AMT and shows major changes (via use of italics) in 1969 (introduction), 1976, 1978, 1981, 1982, 1986, 1990, and 1993. (Unfortunately, it uses congress-speak rather than plain language to describe the changes.) GRBerry 16:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the original NY Times article that has the text in question [32]Mattnad (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll add that the author David Cay Johnston, is notable for covering tax issues. Mattnad (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd rate that article as more reliable than the topic page (as you expected), and thus suggest that you should use that source instead of the topic page. It also has much more extensive discussion of the issue, and its entire discussion should be reflected GRBerry 18:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Mattnad, this is the reliable sources/noticeboard, your comment "Note this is not about reliable sources now (that's been established)." is exactly what my last post was trying to tell you and others, you didnt seem to understand it though. This thread and noticeboard is for talking about reliable sources, if you have established that this thread is about anything other than the reliability of a source then you must go back to the talk page of the particular article or somewhere else with this discussion.Camelbinky (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Nassau Guardian

Is this article a reliable source that establishes notability? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip A. Burrows and here for context. If the source is reliable and establishes notability, I would be inclined to switch to keep. Cunard (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks odd to me. It is attributed "By FESTIVAL STAFF WRITER, For the Guardian" When I do a search for the phrase "festival staff writer" at site:thenassauguardian.com, there are no other results, just this page.[33] I believe that this was written by a publicist, not by a regular writer for the The Nassau Guardian. My problem is that I can't figure out what the publicist was trying to publicize other than Mr. Burrows. So I'm highly skeptical that it is an independent source, which is relevant to notability. I'm not inclined to doubt reliability of the source in general, but wouldn't use peacock terms from it. GRBerry 19:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your research. I won't change my vote. Cunard (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Conversion Therapy

Conversion therapy, which in the lead is referred also as "reparative therapy" has a debate about reliable sources. Some editors believe that because the American Psychological Association has grave doubts about the work of NARTH, a group that supports "providing psychological care to those who are distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions" that they are not reliable as a source, and are fringe. Others believe that they are a minority view but not fringe. Given that the article is about therapies for those "distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions," surely the modern day proponents of conversion therapy need to be heard so that others can understand what (they think) they are doing, not excluded. Can anyone help? Is NARTH an unreliable source, per se? Or is it at least reliable in describing the phenomenon of reparative therapy, a term coined by a former president of NARTH? Hyper3 (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the quality of the rejections of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality and conversion therapy, I would not use narth.com as a source for anything other than their own views. Such use is described by Wikipedia:Fringe theories. If there is disagreement regarding how much space to devote to NARTH's side of the controversy, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard may be a better place for discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

agreed - I'd use it only for statements about the organisation and its views. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree also. Would add that NARTH appears, on the balance of available evidence, to be a non-scientific organisation and, if its views are presented, they should not be misrepresented as having a scientific basis. --FormerIP (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a crucial distinction that must be made here. There is a difference between using NARTH as a source for what its own stated views are, which in principle is fine, and using it as a source for statements about the organization in general. No organization, least of all a fringe organization such as NARTH, should be able to control how it is portrayed in a neutral encyclopedia. If reliable sources contradict what NARTH says about itself generally, then NARTH's view must not take precedence over the reliable sources. I'm not sure that Cameron Scott's comment above quite captures this point. Born Gay (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

CelebStoner

Can http://www.celebstoner.com/ be trusted for BLPs? -- œ^™ 23:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• No, because it is self published. I will say that the guy running it is certainly competent to talk about bud. Protonk (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So you would say it would be considered a reliable source in Cannabis-related articles? -- œ^™ 03:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably. The sole proprietor was the editor of High Times which is about as reliable as sources get on marijuana, so he may meet WP:SPS. Just remember that WP:BLP pretty explicitly forbids blogs as sources on living persons. Protonk (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tate Publishing

Tate Publishing & Enterprises is a vanity press (in the sense that they make authors pay or "invest" to have their books published) but a few of their books have some mainstream reviews. I'm finding quite a few used as references in our articles: see Special:WhatLinksHere/Tate Publishing & Enterprises for the ones I've found so far. Is this acceptable, or is it a violation of WP:SPS? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

PS There is another Tate Publishing that is even more widely used as a source but that is a respectable art book publisher. So anyone investigating this should take care. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a question that can be answered, at least not the way you present it. WP:SPS limits when and how we use self-published sources, it does not ban them altogether. Thus, we might say that a source published by Tate is reliable for one statement but not reliable for another. I would say that Tate qualifies as a vanity press, and so anything cited to one of their books should be looked at closely to see if it does have WP:SPS issues. Blueboar (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Al-Ahram

This has come up a number of times. Some editors have argued that Al-Ahram is not a reliable source, alleging, among other things, that there is no such thing as a free press in Egypt and the paper publishes things that are anti-Semitic. These claims are generally made without resort to sources that support these positions.

Can we hear some editors views regarding whether or not Al-Ahram is a reliable source? Disclosure: The particular Wikipedia article this pertains to at the moment is Aftonbladet-Israel controversy and the article in question is Horrid beyond words by Khalid Amayreh. The talk page discussion on the issue is here. Tiamut^talk 14:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to very leery of any source that has as its byline "from occupied Jerusalem." That said the Ahram article is chock full of innuendo, unattributed quotes and an attempt to characterize an arrest for selling 1 kidney (and a 7 year old accusation of smuggling organs from Eastern Europe that was reported to but never investigated by the FBI) as a massive IDF organ harvesting conspiracy. Even the author of the Aftonbladet article admits he has no basis for the accusation other than "wanting to see it investigated." So, I would look for better sources than Al-Ahram. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

East Jerusalem, from where Amayreh is writing is part of the Israeli-occupied territories. The UN calls it occupied. Are they an unreliable source?

Also, the question is not is the material in the article WP:TRUTH, but whether or not Khalid Amayreh and Al-Ahram are reliable sources for their opinions and/or those of others for the purposes of the Wikipedia. Tiamut^talk 09:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

However... for an attributed statement of opinion such as "According to the Egyptian news paper Al-Ahram, 'Israel is bad bad bad'<cite to Al-Ahram>" it would be a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are reliable for what they claim they are saying, but that's missing the point. There are two aspects to reliable sources: 1) is what they say true or probably bullshit? 2) are they reliable in the sense of - are they mainstream and not WP:FRINGE? Sources that are WP:FRINGE are not inclusion worthy even if they are being used just to say what they are saying. AL-Ahram clearly fails both tests. And especially applied to this scenairo, where they are trying to perpetuate a blood libel.

BlueBoar: We've went through this before. Your stance, which allows everything into WP because we believe the unreliable source that they said what they claim to have said, is an extreme stance. It is not in line with Wiki-policy and fails the letter of the law and the spirit of WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. Respectfully, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There are two aspects to reliable sources: 1) is what they say true or probably bullshit? No, no, no, no. We don't let editors decide that sources are unreliable because they print "bullshit" instead of what the editor believes is "The Truth™ ". In fact is inconceivable to me that someone could actually arrive at that conclusion following a good faith reading of the reliable source guideline. Dlabtot (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood, Dlabtot. There's no argument being made that there are unreliable because what they said in this specific instance is bullshit. The point being made here is that they are unreliable because they are renown for publishing bullshit. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to back that statement up? nableezy - 06:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This particular article could easily have come from a western newspaper (including the claim that Jerusalem is occupied, in no respectable dispute). Whatever other faults there are in this newspaper, the "rigorous treatment" and testing it should be getting on this page is laughably absent. If an Israeli paper was getting such treatment, the cries of antisemitism would be deafening - this case makes Wikipedia (even in its control mechanisms, let alone amongst its editors) look Islamophobic.

It is particularly disturbing that, according to the complainant, this failure to present any evidence has happened on every occasion, as if both Wikipedian editors and experts flaunt bigotry. 86.157.70.95 (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That warning has been applied by BrewCrew, who must be following me around. I don't wish to bring a different issue to this page, please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Defensive_Shield#Recent_edits and my Warnings Page (accusations of vandalism) for the locus of this problem. Please advise what I'm supposed to do, if not ask the people concerned directly, quoting from the Book of Rules. 86.157.70.95 (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Putting that aside for a moment so that we stay focused on the issue at hand ... the material being cited to Khalid Amayreh and Al-Ahram is here. I just restored it after it was deleted by Brewcrewer User:Rm125 [34]. If people could comment on whether or not Al-Ahram is a reliable source for this information, as phrased or phrased differently, it would be much appreciated. I would note that Al-Ahram is the Arabic equivalent of the New York Times and the The London Times is terms of circulation and the way its viewed by the Arabic speaking world. As this is the world's encyclopedia, and not the West's alone, I hope people will take other perspectives into consideration when making their comments. Tiamut^talk 10:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And that is the key... This is a WP:NPOV issue not an RS one. Yes, Al-Arham disagrees with western POV, and yes it is biased... but we still have to account for Al-Arham's POV. As far as WP:RS goes, it is a respected news outlet with a significant circulation in the Arab world. It passes our test for reliablility.

That said... no source is "always" reliable... context is very important and reliability depends greatly on the statement it is being used to support (even the New York Times can be unreliable for some statements)... and being reliable does not mean a source must be used in any specific article. There are a host of other policies and guidelines that might limit or bar the use of a source in a specific article. But, in general terms, most of the time, in most articles, Al-Arham is reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the question here is not reliability but notability. While Al-Ahram may not be reliable, it is the mouthpiece of the Egyptian state, and this makes its position notable. -- Nudve (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Al-Ahram has a circulation slightly lower than the NYTimes, is read throughout the Middle East and by Arabs around the world, and is the biggest paper in the largest country in the Middle East. How do you expect to have a world view of topics by not using such a source and only using Israeli, European and American sources? What about WP:RS#News organizations is not met? Mainstream? 1 mil+ readers, seems mainstream to me. What exactly is objectionable to using al-Ahram? The BBC was used by the British government in attempt to instigate a coup in Iran. The NYTimes has printed disinformation fed directly from the Bush administration. For some reason their reliability remains unquestioned. nableezy - 15:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Dlabtot (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Its statements like these, Blueboar, that result in allowing the inclusion of statements of unreliable sources because they are believed to say what they say they are saying. The editors that are pushing for the inclusion here are not pushing for its inclusion because they want to use the unreliable source to show what the Arab media are saying. They want to use the unreliable source for the truthfullness of its statements.

We wind up with these ridiculous statements that Government-controlled-Holocaust-denying-hoax-spreading-antisemitic publications are equal to the New York Times and the BBC because these great media outlets have also sinned in the past.

The fact that lots of readers read that newspaper, means nada. The Pravda and Der Stürmer had a huge readership, but we don't use the former for the truthfulness of any analysis regarding capitalism v. socialism and we don't use the latter for the truthfulness of anything regarding Jews. Similarly we don't use Holocaust-denying-hoax-spreading-anti-Israel publications for anything that pertains to Israel. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Is Nazi-baiting your fallback response in any RS/N discussion not going your way? How is it you are comparing al-Ahram to Der Sturmer? How does al-Ahram not meet the requirements of WP:RS, specifically WP:RS#News organizations? nableezy - 01:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't use any sources for the truthfulness of anything. Period. Verifiability, not truth. Dlabtot (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You're not understanding what's going here, Dlabtot. WP:RS is a condition of WP:V. Full stop. Al-Ahram is not a RS because they are goverment controlled and have a history of perpetuating anti-Israel and anti-Jewish lies. Full stop. Nevertheless, some editors here are arguing for an exception to the WP:RS/WP:V requirements, claiming that Al-Ahram unreliability is not pertinent if we are not using their content for the truthfullness of their content,. They claim that since we are quoting Al-Ahram to show what they are saying, their unreliability is a non-factor. I hope this clears everything up for you. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what al-Ahram is being used for. This is the passage the source is being used for in the article:

Khalid Amayreh reports in an article in Al-Ahram that prior accusations of organ harvesting had been made by representatives of the Palestinian Authority. During a 2002 interview with Al-Jazeera, the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat made the accusation, saying, "They murder our kids and use their organs as spare parts. Why is the whole world silent? Israel takes advantage of this silence to escalate its oppression and terror against our people." Amayreh notes that no genuine investigation into the Palestinian allegations has ever been carried out, even though allegations of organ harvesting date back to before the 1990s, as outlined in a report by Saira Soufan on the treatment of Palestinian guerillas. She wrote that, "Upon return of the (Palestinian) soldiers' bodies to their mourning families, the pillage of body parts is discovered during the burial process. The empty cavities have been filled with garbage such as cotton wool, garden hoses, and broom sticks, then sewn up as a result of the so-called autopsy."

It is also used for the following:

Jonathan Cook, a journalist working in Israel / Palestine, says many Western journalists, himself included, have heard such rumors, but none before Bostrom had written of them. Cook also writes that, "[...] the families making the claims were not given a hearing in the late 1980s and early 1990s, during the first Intifada, when most of the reports occurred, and are still being denied the right to voice their concerns today. Israel's sensitivity to the allegation of organ theft [...] appears to trump the genuine concerns of families about possible abuse of their loved ones."

Al-Ahram is being used to source statements from Palestinians about the issue. Nowhere is al-Ahram being used to say that Israel did in fact steal organs from Palestinians. Your idea that because Western media outlets have not given them that attention Wikipedia should not is against WP:NPOV, and to do that you are distorting WP:RS into saying something it does not. Again, what about WP:RS#News organizations is not met? What about what al-Ahram is being used to cite is improper to include? You are trying to make it so Palestinian reactions do not appear in the article, an odd thing to do for an article focusing on allegations of stealing Palestinian organs. nableezy - 06:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Its being used for exactly what WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE was intended to get rid of: The emboldment of crap. There are plenty of mainstream sources that cover the I-P conflict. They all realize that the underlying allegations are a joke and are focusing instead on the free-speech/lack of denouncement aspect of the controversy. The only sources that are willing to discuss the actual underlying nonsense allegations are fringe and unreliable publications. The quoted texts above proved my whole point. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your brushing off of the Palestinian viewpoint on an article about the alleged theft of Palestinian organs is at odds with core policy. And you are distorting both WP:RS and WP:FRINGE to do so. nableezy - 07:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

He's not brushing off the Palestinian viewpoint. He's saying Al-Ahram is not a reliable source. It doesn't matter who's viewpoint they are reporting. They are a government controlled publication. They can not and do not report freely and thus are not a reliable source. I'd also suggest that Khalid Amayreh is not exactly a "reporter" in the sense most English speakers think of one and encourage editors to look up some more of his work before making up their mind about this issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources are not disqualified from use simply because there is an element of government control/funding for the publication in question. I would suggest that you stop wasting people's time trying to disqualify the use of the most widely circulated publications in the Arab world. There are plenty of other newspapers that are government controlled/funded that we use all the time without any objections. Singling out Al-Ahram is not justified. Tiamut 14:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And what the f does this mean? "...Khalid Amayreh is not exactly a "reporter" in the sense most English speakers think of one..." He writes in English, for English-language newspapers. He's a journalist by any sense of the word. Do you have a source that indicates that he is not a journalist? Or are you just hoping to exploit people's latent racism against Arabs to get what is obviously a reliable source that you do not like persona non grata status at wikipedia? Tiamut^talk 14:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Is Judging Genocide based on looking into someone's eyes a valid source?

Shaun Walker of the First Post writes:

"...On Tuesday, as the war came to a close, there were reports of massacres in Georgian villages inside the conflict zone ­ Ossetian militias checking the ethnicity of residents and treating all Georgians to a bullet in the head. It's impossible to verify, but having looked into the dulled eyes of Alik, a man who lost all fear and all humanity during the conflict, the rumours are not hard to believe."

Is this a valid source/quote based on the "investigation" that was conducted, of looking into people's eyes, seeing hatred, and assuming genocide/ethnic cleansing? http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/45119,features,into-south-ossetia-with-dull-eyed-alik,2 HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain this edit [35], given that the cited article says quite plainly that "Georgia has rejected those claims, alleging instead that Ossetian militia engaged in the ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source for saying that the massacres actually occured... but it is a reliable source for saying that a) there were rumours that they occured and that b) Shaun Walker finds the rumours believable. Blueboar (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well here's how it's currently cited: "As the war of 2009 in South Ossetia came to a close, there were reports of massacres in Georgian villages inside the conflict zone ­Ossetian militias checking the ethnicity of residents and treating Georgians to a bullet in the head, however this was impossible to verify.[9]" How would you suggest changing it, or is this fine? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That edit, Mr. Wolfowitz, was done because the article doesn't mention what it cited. The article is being cited for "Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia was the removal of Georgian people, which was conducted in South Ossetia and other territories occupied by Russian and South Ossetian forces". However the article doesn't talk about that at all. Anything that even comes close, Mr. Wolfowitz, is the article's statement that the Georgian government claimed there was ethnic cleansing. But there are already six sources from the Georgian government that say exactly the same, and even expand on the topic, and are cited several times as well. So it seemed to me like it's "article advertisement". The only thing the article said is that Georgia's government accused Russia of being mean and evil. That's been proven multiple times, and we don't need a seventh source for that. I am sure six sources can hold that fort. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Jake Tapper ABC News White House Correspondent's Blog

An editor keeps removing content sourced from him, but Jake Tapper is ABC News's Senior White House Correspondent, and his blog is on ABC News's website so I would assume it's just as credible as any other article published by ABC News. I think this is already settled but this other person doesn't think so, any input would be appreciated.

Examples:

[36]

[37]

Thanks. -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The relevant policies aren't as clear as I would like, but this language (from WP:BLP) is helpful: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." I don't think there's any reason to distinguish between newspapers and broadcast TV network news organizations here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

References concerning GAETANO MOLLA

"Musykalnaja kultura goroda Taganroga" ( Musical culture of the town Taganrog) by V.S. Kukushkin and Z.A.Boiko Isdatelstvo GinGo Rostov na Donu 1999 ( Edition Gingo Rostov on Don, 1999 ) "Музыкальная история города Таганрога" В.С. Кукушкин, З.А. Бойкоб Издательство ГинГо Ростов на Дону 1999

"N.V. Kukolnik i Taganrog" by Aleksandr Nikolaienko, Isdatelstvo Taganrog 1998 "Н.В. Кукольник и Таганрог" Александр Николаенко издателство Таганрогб 1998

"Kak igrat na rojale" by S.M. Maikopar Ed. Musgis Leningrad 1963 "Как работать на рояле" С.М.Майкопар, Музгиз Ленинград 1963

"Gody uchenia" or "Pochemu ja stal musykantom" by S.M.Maikopar, ed ? "Годы учения". "Почему я стал музыкантом" издателсьство ?

Walter Laqueur

At Islam and Antisemitism, Walter Laqueur, an historian who has specialised on modern history, totalitarianism, fascism and Zionism, is quoted for his authority on the Qur'an. he writes:

'Al-Baqara says about the Jews, slay them (the sons of apes and pigs) whenever you catch them.'

(1)Al-Baqara, Qur'an 2:191 says 'slay them whenever you catch them.'

(2) 'the sons of apes and pigs' is a gloss Laqueur has added from another section of the Qur'an, (Al-Ma'ida 5.60), where the reference is probably respectively to Jews (apes) and pigs (Christians), though nothing is said about slaying them. Al-Baqara 2:190 however says 'them' refers to those who fight Muslims, and does not mention the Jews. The idea that this is a specific invitation to murder Jews seems to be peculiar to Laqueur and others who have no professional training in Qur'anic Studies. Al-Baqara 2:62 says Jews and Christians need have no fear of Muslims. Commentators do not read therefore this text as the outsider Laqueur does. See the discussion here

(3)Laqueur, with no specialized training or professional knowledge of Arabic and Islamic studies, is being used as an RS for reading the Qur'an, though this is not his field. We have many specialized studies on Jewish stereotypes available for citation. Yet the retention of this patently fabricated reading of a sacred text is defended simply because Laqueur has credentials as an expert on antisemitism (which he and most define as a modern phenomenon). Input on this from the community would be welcome. Clarification esp. is required on what to do if a reliable source generally turns out to make an error, misquote, or get facts wrong. Does one retain the datum out of a fetishistic esteem for RS, or does one use commonsense and simply cast about for a RS that does not bungle the same evidence? Nishidani (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The verse in al-Baqara (2:191) as well as a couple that follow it (192 and 193) are very clearly discussing fighting polytheists (191 ends with فاقتلوهم كذلك جزاء الكافرين which is often translated as "such is the recompense of the disbelievers"). The word كافرين (plural of kafir, disbeliever) does not apply to Jews anywhere in the Quran, it is only used in the Quran for those who practice shirk, ie polytheists, or atheists. Now this is all original research, but Laqueur clearly is not quoting the Quran correctly if he is referencing this verse as evidence of the Quran saying to kill the Jews. nableezy - 22:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Without looking at the context of the WP page, why would we want to quote someone quoting something else? If you wish to quote the Koran, then it would surely be better to quote it directly. If sources reagrding its interpretation are required, then these should ideally be experts on Islamic scripture. --FormerIP (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nab. You have provided philological proof for what the sources I checked merely say without citing the Arabic original. It is however not absolutely clear that the verses refer only to kafir. Some early islamic commentaries take 2:191 as referring to those Jews who broke the Sabbath, i.e. not 'Jews' but former Jews who had broken with their religion (hence the 'kafir' reading?).

Former IP. We quote primary sources optimally through secondary sources that qualify as RS. There would be nothing wrong citing Walter Laqueur, though he has no professional knowledge of Qur'anic literature, regarding it and the broader question of antisemitism. What is plainly intolerable is defending someone like Laqueur's presence on a page, as RS, when he, as here, has tampered with, and consequently falsified, the reading of an ancient document. If no orientalist on that passage takes the word 'kafir' to refer to Jews, obviously we shouldn't be citing an amateur (in this area) who reads it, against the consensus of specialized learning, in this way.Nishidani (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Jews who have broken with their religion being called kafir, (the verse that comes to mind having just read over it is 2:65 And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected.") I would have to look for that. Will get back to you. nableezy - 10:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The secondary sources I have read note that too. My point is that in citing or referring in Wiki articles to primary texts notorious for the difficulties they pose to interpreters, one should absolutely avoid using thinkers, writers, or historians who don't know the period, the language or the intricate traditions of hermeutic controversy. Citing Laqueur on the Qur'an is like citing Bertrand Russell on Heraclitus. Russell was a great philosopher, but he knew no Greek (indispensable for understanding Heraclitus) and nothing he wrote on this cannot be found in the commentaries written on Heraclitus by scholars, is generic and just a second-hand summary of what he found in the best secondary sources of his time. One goes to the area experts, i.e. directly to the best secondary sources. God I'm wasting a huge amount of time on asking for confirmation of what is obvious.Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Media coverage on a WP:SPS source

Does media coverage of a self-published source count as RS when the subject of the coverage doesn't? The source in question is the Kilgour & Matas report in this discussion (feel free to join if you want). From what I can see most media reports go along the line of "The K&M report alleges..." so they all depend on that single report, which is itself SPS. My logic is since those coverage heavily depend on a non-RS source they shouldn't be counted as RS themselves, but I would like to hear more third party inputs before pursuing that argument further. Thanks. --antilived^{T | C | G} 01:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• That's a big mess. For the lazy among us can you link to the source and link to some of the coverage of the source? Thanks. Protonk (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The report itself, and some media coverage. (there's also more in the "stack of sources", obligatory link here) --antilived^{T | C | G} 03:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not an ordinary SPS. The publisher of the report is a notable Canadian ex-politician, David Kilgour. According to his WP article, he's a former Canadian "Secretary of State, Asia-Pacific (2002-2003)". It's generated notable press coverage, e.g. by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I say it's notable, though possibly opinionated, so the article should present its conclusions as the conclusions of the Matas + Kilgour report, not as fact. Or to put it another way, http://organharvestinvestigation.net is a notable primary source, the coverage on CBC[38] is a notable + reliable secondary source. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Author is a Canadian ex-politician, but it's published... as good as annonymously in my opinion. Should we really overlook the fact that it's not written under any scrutiny, not published in any journal, not peer-reviewed in any way, just because it's written by some ex-politician and some lawyer? --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As much as I think the report is extremely "opinionated" (citing above), I think Peter has got it about right. Even works of fiction can be notable if they get enough publicity and/or becomes a bestseller. But is it reliable? Only as far as what they say can be reported as "Kilgour & Matas say", and no more. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That not withstanding, in a hypothetical situation I've described, would my logic be correct? --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• There is nothing stopping a reliable source, such as the Independent, covering a crackpot conspiracy theory. It is in turn the RS that becomes the one we cite, regarding what it said about the theory - its claims, the reacton etc. The only work to do in such circumstances, although strictly unnecessary, is to go to the crackpot theory to verify that it has been reported faithfully. I would probably draw the line at writing about anything in the theory itself which was not reported in the RS, because it would not have been reliably covered. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Pat Buchanan

According to WP:RS#Extremist_and_fringe_sources, Buchanan's book Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War is not a reliable source for a historical claim if Buchanan is either "extremist" or "fringe". The book has over 1300 endnotes but the reliable source policy does not appear to allow for ANYTHING that might save an otherwise "fringe" source. So the question seems to simply be, is Pat Buchanan mainstream or not?Bdell555 (talk) 10:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source because Buchanan is not a historian (he is a politician and educated as a journalist), because Crown is not an academic publisher, and because the book has not been received well by historians. The number of end notes is, at best, a crude heuristic, but not a guarantee for reliability. Not a WP:RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Buchanan does not strike me as a reliable source as an historian. (Whether he's reliable as a political commentator is a different matter.) If his book has extensive endnotes, however, then presumably he gives citations to other sources which may be more respected and reliable. As with most questions of reliability, the answer really depends on exactly what facts you are trying to verify; my expectation is that if you really can't find any other sources to use then Buchanan's original research is fringe. Rvcx (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)