Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Social Networking source

There is a question from an editor regarding the use of a video archived on a social networking site, viz: Suzuki v. Consumers' Union. It's agreed that the video is authentic and useful, as well as being extremely rare. It doesn't appear to be available anywhere else since it was withdrawn from distribution after the settlement of the related court case. The problem is that WP:ELNO #10 prohibits using links to social networking sites. How can we use this source without running afoul of WP:ELNO #10? Santamoly (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"It's agreed that the video is authentic." So cite the original work. My photocopies of a journal article are "authentic". I don't cite the Kyocera copier. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where it's agreed by all that it's not available anywhere else? Hence the discussion. It's only available on the "social networking site" MySpace. Using your example, the video is stored in the memory of the Kyocera copier, not anywhere else. Santamoly (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Who agreed that the video is "authentic"? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As an involved editor, I've seen nothing to indicate that the video is fake or altered, but I myself can't vouch for its authenticity since I'm not familiar with the source. WP:VIDEOLINK requires that "Reliability of the uploader and video must always be established", so it would seem the burden of proof is on the presenter ThatSaved (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

the hobbit is available in my local library. I still cite the author title and publisher of the book and not my library. Cite the original publication. Do not link to copyvios. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

not so sure about that... see: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT Blueboar (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works; So cite the samizdat / bootleg, but don't link to it. In that case it would be OriginalAuthor, (copydate) [Originaldate] "OriginalTitle" [electronic copy of a video.] Original Publisher Location/Broadcast channel, Digitally copied and distributed via Current Host or Samizdat. For example, Tolkien, JRR The Hobbit London: Presslypress, 1991; versus Tolkien, JRR The Hobbit originally as London: Presslypress, 1991; reprinted in samizdat EbilBookPirateDistro, [?2009] as an .ePub file. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

[?American Suzuki Motor Corporation] / [?Gladstone International] (2007-07-02) [?undated] "Suzuki v. Consumers Union." [electronic copy of a video.] Originally: Video B-Roll; In bootleg/samizdat: "caleb cannon"[pseud.] "possumassaliant"[pseud.].

It is hard to see what makes this a reliable source for opinion, given that ASMC/Gladstone don't explicitly take responsibility for the work, similarly Video B-Roll. The source lacks an internal distribution date, or indication of a distributor other than Video B-Roll. About the only thing certain about the work is that it is an electronic copy of a video and that it has a clear title. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

As above, there's no indication that the video meets the requirements of WP:RS. And you can't cite unreliable sources; WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies to Reliable Sources only, since one does not cite unreliable ones. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the position of being excessively legalistic to the point of perpetuating ignorance. A defective reference, in the absence of a better one, will at least serve as a reminder, a placeholder if you will, that a better source is out there somewhere. One can even remark that this is the best information uncovered to date, albeit not perfect. But you seem to be saying that complete ignorance of the fact that information exists is preferable to a clue leading towards a better source. This doesn't sound like an intellectually sound position at all. Santamoly (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: If might add a point here. There are valid reasons that I had to go through Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Using_a_posting_to_Youtube.com_by_the_copyright_holder to show that I could use a youtube video as a reference. Yes, it was (and is) annoying as all get out but there are very good reasons for it. Personally, we should use a demonstrated official channel copy of the video in question just to save on the migraines.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source regarding background of actions of Nazi collaboration movement?

Recently an editor has put a pdf file[1] that according to him claims as "fact" that people murdered based in part on lists made by Nazi Ukrainian collaboration organisation were "cooperating with Soviets". This goes against established information in mainstream publications.

Is this reliable to be a source about Nazi mass murder and its background?

The text of the pdf is in cyrilic and Ukrainian-meaning that we have to rely on google to translate it.However there are sentences and statements that if correct make me question the sources reliability on the issue of murders committed by Nazi collaborationist organisation OUN.

I found following examples(note that this is from google translation and a bit messsy):

• Jews traditionally made much of among the NKVD, and the Jewish sensing that she finally pursued at the state level since September 1939 actively involved in the Soviet political and social life.

• Therefore, the OUN and actions during the Second World-ar aimed at ethnic-Ukrainian unification should be seen primarily in plane of the anti-colonial struggle

• no surprise that the young insurgents quite sincerely hated the Jews

• The incredible influence of Jews inadministrative and punitive apparatus

• Second, you should never forget that In 1939-1941 showed a bright pro-Soviettion a large part of Jewish youth

• Under the leadership Lenin Jews were involved in all aspects of the revolution including its dirtiest work(I think this is a quote).

• Activities of Jewish fighters who on the eve creation of Israel, European mass-killinging and Arab settlers in Palestine (which, by the ?? Incidentally, Jews have lost almost two thousand years before then-First and occupy it based mostly , the allegations of their own religious books that that this land was promised to their people by God

• He writes that Jews made :is incredibly zhor-flow of slaughter,

All those statements if correct seem to indicate a highly biased work-I couldn't find its english translation, nor review in any journal. The text seems to be partially defensive towards OUN and attempts to portay its actions against Jews and Poles as "anti-colonial struggle". It is also used to claim Polish intellectuals murdered based on lists prepared by OUN were "cooperating with Soviets". Non-controversial sources on the murder note that those murdered had in majority no political involvment. An editor on discussion page claims that this claim originated "from source cited under footnote 4 - Кальба М. Ми присягали Україні. ДУН 1941–1943. – Львів, 1999. –С. 117 – - “memoirs of the Myroslav Kal’ba – mentioned as Schutzmann Myroslav Kal’ba - one of the Nachtigal and later 201 Schutzmannschaft Battalion member"

I believe this article isn't neutral nor reliable to source activities of OUN and its involvment in Nazi mass murder.I would welcome any comment.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how well i'd rely on Google Translate to be correct all of the time. You're losing a lot in translation, i'm sure. But the base site where that work is hosted is the site for the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Because of that, I would tentatively say that it is a reliable source. Of course, that doesn't mean that a source isn't biased, just that it is reliable. You'd have to start a discussion on the talk page, perhaps an RfC, to get consensus on whether the work is biased or not. Silverseren^C 23:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

He is quoting a lot of stuff out of context.Faustian (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if that's true or not and it doesn't really matter. This board is just to determine if a source is reliable of not. I've given my opinion on that, any further discussion on how the source is to be used should be done on the article's talk page, not here. Silverseren^C 00:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

How should we proceed with a biased source. Should we for example mention more about the author's claims-that for example OUN activity is claimed by him to be "anti-colonial" struggle? Also per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources it would mean that such biased source is not fit to be a good one for exceptional claims? Is there any other board for discussion of this or can we do it here?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Realistically, a biased source should not be used in an article. However, you claiming by yourself that the source is biased doesn't hold any water. You need to hold a Request for Comment on the talk page of the article to get other users involved, so that they can weigh in on whether the source is biased or not. The consensus that develops from that can then determine what should be done. I repeat from before, content-based discussion, other than determining the reliability of a source, should not be conducted on this board. Silverseren^C 00:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

As I've outlined on the talk page [2] part of the issue is whether the author is making these claims himself or whether he is including them as a representation of other people's views (i.e. the difference between "I think THIS" vs. "These people believed this and I'm just presenting what they believed)". This matters for the reliability of the source but doesn't determine it. If he is just presenting the views of OUN (Ukrainian nationalists - actually, EXTREMIST Ukrainian nationalists) then this source is reliable in so far as it documents their views reliably, but this needs to be noted in the text. It should not be used to source a "fact", just a particular POV (i.e. we don't use Mein Kampf as a reliable source for "Jews are bad", but we can use it for "Adolf Hitler thought Jews were bad"). Because the source is in non-English, and Google translate sucks, it's not actually clear what is going on here (i.e. is he making his own argument, or just presenting other people's thoughts?). But if the statement is his own, it IS largely contradicted by other sources. Add that to the fact that he appears to be citing some very questionable primary sources (again - is he citing them to illustrate their point of view, or as "fact"?) the issue becomes even more murky.radek (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What might be best is to attribute the source's use to him directly, regardless. That way, any problems with whether it is his personal opinion or the opinion of a separate group will not matter all that much. Just to be clear, i'm talking about organizing however the source is used in a sentence that begins or ends with "according to [author of the source]". Silverseren^C 00:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This would work if we knew whether or not he is presenting his own ideas or presenting the ideas of others. There's a big difference between "Scholar X says Y" and "Scholar X says that people Z said Y". That's at least part of the issue here. So attributing the statement to the source doesn't solve the problem. It evades (part of the) the question. The other part being that if he does say Y, and is using sketch primary sources as basis, that should at the very least be mentioned.radek (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Judging a scholar's work based on his choice of primary source for a specific piece of information seems to be original research, right? There is no indication in the text whatsoever that the author doubted the veracity of the claim. He didn't say "according to...X" He just said "X" with a ref. The ref didn't include any editorialization either. So the claim is owned by the author of the work we are discussing. Therefore when citing this in the wikipedia article I wrote "According to Patrilyak (the source in question).." I will note that the only source provided contradicting this one is a newspaper article. I tried to include both in the article, as both seem to meet criteria for RS.Faustian (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I will note that the only source provided contradicting this one is a newspaper Not a very good argument Faustian-most extraordinary claims don't have contradictions in reliable sources-that Obama isn't a space lizard for example. In fact the more outrageous the claim the less will be there coverage of it in the publications. So far besides this publication and single sentence no proof nor any background was present by you from anywhere that would support the claim that those were regarded by Germans as ooperating with Soviets nor that they did--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there are extraordinary claims including for example that some among the murdered were in talks with Stalin to form a pro-Soviet government in opposition to the Polish government in London. Please note that claim makes them de-facto guilty of high treason and complete defames their memory. In my opinion the claim is of such extraordinarity that it needs other reliable sources to back it up. As for the "professors actively cooperating with the Soviets" claim, the only one who can judge that are the Polish authorities which never ever brought up a single claim of any wrongdoings in the conduct of the professors, and in fact their reputation is beyond any doubt. Similarly 100s and 100s of Polish historians have never detected any "active cooperation" with the Soviets either. J.kunikowski (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that there is somewhat a controversy regarding Nazi era research by Ukrainian historians-see this publication by Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.Visiting Scholar Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian StudiesHarvard University: [3] President Yushchenko, nationalist parties, and many Ukrainian historians attempted to recast the OUN and the UPA as a popular national liberation movement, which fought both against Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, and to present OUN and UPA leaders as national heroes. They either denied or justified by its pro-independence struggle, the involvement of the OUN and the UPA in terrorism, the Nazi genocide, and the ethnic cleansing. I think this might be case with what we are dealing with here to some extent.Of course since we have to rely on google translate and its clumsy translation all this subject becomes very difficult--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no mention in the quote about the author of this book specifically nor about the Ukrainain Academy of Sciences specifically. Of course there are "historians" pushing all sort of nonsense. THere is no indication based on your quote that this is one of them.Faustian (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, googletranslate gives his words as Therefore, the OUN and actions during the Second World-ar aimed at ethnic-Ukrainian unification їнshould be seen primarily in plane of the anti-colonial struggle. Those are his words, correct? It does fit with many Ukrainian historians attempted to recast the OUN and the UPA as a popular national liberation movement--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the word "popular" in your quote. Nor anything about them being "national heroes." The idea of OUN/UPA being focused on attaining independence is hardly fringe or anything - actually most scholars view it that way. The Ukrainian nationalist ones just deny that they committed a lot of brutal crimes while pursuing their goal. The source we are talking about certainly doesn't deny that.Faustian (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please supply a standard citation of the work in question? not a link, a citation. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. І.К. Патриляк. Військова діяльність ОУН(Б) у 1940—1942 роках. — Університет імені Шевченко \Ін-т історії України НАН України Київ, 2004. I.K Patrylyak. (2004). Military activities of the OUN (B) in the years 1940-1942. Kiev, Ukraine: Shevchenko University \ Institute of History of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. pg. 323.Faustian (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I.K. Patrylyak and the Institute of History of the Ukraine and the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine are reliable and high quality sources unless demonstrated _specifically_ otherwise. As Patrylyak is published in an academic press, his work is reliable and scholarly. An attack on the scholarly nature of his work would need to be made on the credibility of Patrylyak, the quality of his specific book, or/and either the IHU or NASU in a scholarly setting by a historian of Eastern Europe in the twentieth century. Such attacks would need to indicate that these elements of the source are not scholarly in nature and are untrue.

Secondly, why aren't editors using the much more accessible to the English reader, David R. Marples (2007) Heroes and villains: creating national history in contemporary Ukraine which deals with the role of the national myth, the OUN(B), and the quality of contemporary Ukraine historiography. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem some editors are having is with a particle point that Patrilyak discusses which doesn't seem to be discussed in Marples' book.Faustian (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The "point(s)" in question is the claim that the professors cooperated actively with the Soviets and that some of the murdered meet with Stalin and were in talks to form a pro-Soviet government in opposition to the Polish government. Faustian you correctly note that this "doesn't seem to be discussed in Marples' book". Could you please provide any other source which would make the said claims? That would be very helpful. J.kunikowski (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no wikipedia policy that states that in order for a source to be reliable, any piece of information taken from that source must be corroborated with other sources. There is no policy mandating additional hoops to jump through with respect to a source's relaibiity if some people don't like some information.Faustian (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Faustian from above, if the material isn't contained in the English language Marples, then there is no problem with sourcing it from the equally scholarly and reliable Patrylyak. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice.Faustian (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency of BC and BP in the same article

Resolved

The article roddon I am working on has been criticised during a peer-review for the inconsistency of using both BC and BP within the same article. I have followed the sources whilst trying adhere to the Manual of Style#Chronological items. Would you provide advice on how to handle this inconsistency properly please. I have one BC date, 2400 BC due (Worssam & Taylor 1975, p. 93.) and there are a few BP dates such as 4000 BP (Gallois 1988, p. 77.). Do I convert the BC date to BP? If so, how? For example, if (according to Before present) standard practice is to use 1950 as the calibrated carbon dating reference then do I convert 2400 BC to 4350 BP with a footnote saying "source is 2400 BC converted to BP using 2400+1950=4350 BP"?

--Senra (Talk) 12:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I would advice against that. Conversion from radiocarbon BP to historical BC(E) is non-trivial, and calibration curves still change. It's not simply a cultural preference, as conversion between different calendars, but actually quite challenging. Also, BP dates come with a number of caveats (e.g. it gives you the age for a piece of wood, not for the piece of furniture...). I'd leave them separately, and maybe explain why they are this way, maybe in a footnote. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure this is an RSN subject but I agree with Stephan. Anything which makes an article worse is a bad edit, even if that means bending a style guideline.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Stephan; rather than attempting to convert, this is best handled by just stating what the different sources say, possibly in a footnote. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Given the above, article now says "... suggests the peat in this area was formed by a large marine incursion in about 2400 BC."^[1]

^[1]Worssam reports "Radiocarbon dates of about 2400 years B.C. ... (Godwin and Willis 1961, p.66)";{{Sfn|Worssam|Taylor|1975|p=93}} Adventurer's Fen, Wicken, Cambridgeshire, tree no. 1: 4380 ± 140 {{Sfn|Godwin|Willis|1961|p=66}}

--Senra (Talk) 11:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Source reliability on historical articles

What sources are acceptable for articles about historical events and figures? Are news articles acceptable? Books promoting fringe theories?

The dispute revolves around these two edits: [4] [5] The first edit inserts a fringe source to support a statement that doesn't appear in any of the biographies about the subject; the second replaces one of them with a news article that is apparently circularly based on the article itself at an earlier date, as is set out here.

I ask that this discussion be kept within a narrow focus of the question, and not blur off into a digression about the fringe theory itself. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

As as RSN question there is a basic way of answering which is that Wikipedia does not demand the exclusive use of academic sources, and news articles are also acceptable in many cases. Just because a subject is historical does not seem to me to make a generalizable difference to that remark. Books making fringe theory arguments can of course also be used carefully in some cases if those fringe theories are notable and agreed to be needing coverage, which appears to be the case with the de Vere = Shakespere theory. How to balance those things is of course another question. So: If I understand correctly the material that needs sourcing is a statement saying that de Vere had a large number of works dedicated to him?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

For clarity, I would ask that you link-cite the appropriate Wikipedia policy section when answering. Thanks much. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The source required is to ground the words '(Oxford) was 'one of the leading patrons' of the Elizabethan age.’

De Vere is one of the most studied aristocrats of the Elizabethan court, with an Oxfordian bio. Ward's (1928), and a very recent, perhaps definitive documentary life by Alan Nelson of Stanford, which also supplies all the relevant documents. Comprehensively just these two run to 900 pages. Other works such as Pearson's (2005) go into huge detail concerning his finances. We have Stephen May's several studies (1980, 1991, 2004) on his poetry and patronage. We have numerous articles on specific incidents in his life, etc.etc. In addition we have numerous studies on the Elizabethan theatre, its patrons. Just one to mention here is Paul Whitfield White, Suzanne R. Westfall (eds.)Shakespeare and Theatrical Patronage in Early Modern England (2006), and generally Jane Milling, Peter Thomson, Joseph W. Donohue (eds), The Cambridge History of British Theatre: Origins to 1660, (2004). There is indeed a burgeoning field of patronage studies for the period.

Given the huge volume of available material, which some editors are accessing, it is asked why a BBC page written by a staffer with a degree in media, discussing Oxfordian theories, should be sourced for such a simple affirmation. It has been shown that the BBC page actually borrowed that phrasing from wikipedia.

The question essentially is, therefore, can an unsourced comment in a wikipedia article be reliably referenced, as requested, to an article which patently borrowed that comment from the wikipedia article? That, to minds like myself, is purely circular, and extremely dangerous for the repute of the encyclopedia as a reliable synopsis of RS on any topic. Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't say that I noticed it being proved that WP was the original source, but I guess what you are saying is that there are heaps of better sources. If that is true, then of course these would be preferred. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Andrew for supplying some basic policy info. I expected as much so have no comment on his policy analysis except to say that he is spot on. In regards to Tom's opening statement and Nishidani's rejoinder to Andrew, however, I do have a few comments:

• Both Tom and Nishidani mention bios on Oxford. They accept Ward's bio, even though they admit it as "Oxfordian", and have quoted extensively from it, even though it is as fringy as much of the work they seek to exclude, and is hopelessly outdated.
• The modern equivalent to Ward (1928!) is Ogburn (1984), who provides copious biographical material, including much that had not been discovered prior to Ward's original work. Ogburn's "The Mysterious William Shakespeare" is just as Oxfordian as Ward, so to accept one and reject the other is untenable. Besides, as Andrew notes "Books making fringe theory arguments can of course also be used carefully in some cases if those fringe theories are notable and agreed to be needing coverage, which appears to be the case with the de Vere = Shakespere theory." So both Ward and Ogburn, as well as Anderson[[6]] and Price[[7]], for example, are acceptable as long as we are careful about it and don't give them more weight than necessary.
• Labeling Nelson as the "definitive" biography is a highly controversial claim. Many disagree and going by the Amazon reviews[[8]] (not very scientific, admittedly), the biased nature of the work (Tom Reedy, who filed this very report, even called Nelson a "muckraker") should warrant an equally careful approach when it should be referenced and how much weight it should be afforded.
• The works by Ogburn, Anderson and Price (the most recent authorship works that make the minority view arguments) easily fulfill the basic RS requirement of being published by "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and have been commented on extensively by mainstream scholars. Ogburn's book is even included in Tom and Nishidani's wiki article on the Authorship question as one of the milestones in the history of the entire issue. To ban it (or the others I have mentioned) from wikipedia sourcing on this and related subjects would be against policy, as outlined by Andrew above.
• Finally, the whole issue of whether the SAQ is fringe (in terms of the Wiki definition) is not a closed case. There are many who believe it is either borderline or (dare I say it) even approaching mainstream. James Shapiro, the most recent mainstream commentator on the authorship issue admits as much in a recent interview. Check the headline on the article he recently had published: [[9]], where Mr. Shapiro writes "Alas, poor Shakespeare: Conspiracy theories about the authorship of his plays have gone mainstream". Smatprt (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt, when I said fringe proponents can be used carefully, please do not forget the qualifier. If Ogburn is to be considered a fringe proponent, then it might be appropriate to attribute anything surprising which Ogburn says as coming from such a proponent. You appear to want to cite it as a mainstream source without such qualification. That might be appropriate if it is, but again, please do consider this aspect.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I see my request to stay on topic was in vain. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

For my own part I've tried. Not sure if you say I've gone off topic? Anyway you might want to consider whether everyone agrees on what the topic is. I found it necessary to look at the edits being contested. I suppose what is being disputed there might not be described the same way by all parties. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

To get back on topic, I would propose the following sources to ground the words "leading patrons of the Elizabethan age":

• Stephen May is mentioned above as an acceptable reference by Nishidani: According to May in The Poems of Edward DeVere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford and of Robert Devereux, Second Earl of Essex:"The range of Oxford's patronage is as remarkable as its substance. Beginning about 1580 he was the nominal patron of a variety of dramatic troupes, including a band of tumblers as well as companies of adult and boy actors. Among the thirty-three works dedicated to the Earl, six deal with religion and philosophy, two with music, and three with medicine; but the focus of his patronage was literary, for thirteen of the books presented to him were original or translated works of literature." Note that May assigns 33 dedications to Oxford.
• In The reign of Elizabeth I: Court and Culture in the last decade (John Alexander Guy, Cambridge University Press, 1995, page 230-232), Guy devotes several pages to Elizabethan patronage. In discussing the leading patrons, the first measuring stick he uses is the number of printed dedications each of the major patrons received:

• Queen Elizabeth, 75
• Earl of Essex, 66
• Thomas Egeron, Viscount Brackley, 31
• followed by a number of other nobles ranging from 21 dedications (Lord Burghley) down to 10 or less for a number of other nobles.

Given May's figure of 33 dedications noted above, its clear that DeVere was in the top 3 or 4 nobles in terms of patronage.

• May also notes "The writers who dedicated more than one work to him provide a further measure of the very real value of his patronage."

Given the above mainstream references, especially the comments by noted scholar Stephen May, will these two references suffice? If so, I am content to have them replace the BBC reference that is in question.Smatprt (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt, you're on the right track, but you need to look at the context of those figures. They only tally up the dedications in the decade of the 1590s. Comparing one decade of dedications to Oxford's lifetime total is misleading. I was thumbing through that book last night and wondering why Oxford wasn't listed until it hit me that most of his dedications were before that decade. Also some works had several dedications, which explains the dissonance between number of dedications (33) and number of works dedicated to him (28, IIRC).

I thought May's statement, "The writers who dedicated more than one work to him provide a further measure of the very real value of his patronage," was interesting, and it's instructive, given the assertion of some that no evidence exists that Southampton was Shakespeare's patron. This is what we mean when we talk about double standards. Since few real records of money changing hands are extant, dedications--and especially more than one dedication from the same writer--are used to gauge patronage, but when it comes to Shakespeare that criterion doesn't apply.Tom Reedy (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Patronage is an extremely complex topic, and when I read the phrase I took it out not only because the 'leading patron' is (a) unsourced but also because it is (b) question-begging. The latter because it could mean Oxford was a leading granter of annuities or money to writers and actors or (b) a leading provider of posts in government offices, (c) a leading provider of hospitality, lodgings to people active in culture (d) a leading figure among those who lent their name to some artistic activity, in order to cover it with prestige etc.etc. Of all of these aspects in Oxford's life we know little or nothing, hence my insistence on a very strong source. Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's salutary to see the principle accepted at last that academic sources are the appropriate references. However, they cannot be used in violation of WP:OR, as above. You appear to now support the phrasing by a series of deductions, making a conclusion not in those sources.Nishidani (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Where academic sources are available for academic topics, they should be preferred. Where there is a dispute about the status of some academic opinions as fringe, academic field reviews should be preferred to determine what the standard of research knowledge is in the field. BBC is not known as editing to an academic standard. Penguin may or may not, depending on the particular work. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not usually possible simply to substitute better sources for poorer ones to reference identical text. The good sources must be read through and reflected accurately. Otherwise, the result is likely to be original synthesis, which is what I think Nishidani is concerned about. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A clear problem when writing an encyclopaedic article on a topic covered heavily in academic discourse and relying on access to popular material by deep searching. But accessing Review Articles or major monographs, which survey a field, is inherently useful, as these contain the standard of academic debate, and when read and assimilated by an editor, allow better judgement about the quality and fringe status of other works. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the best response to the original question asked in this thread is that news articles are acceptable, but that, given the choice, academic works or other published accounts which have been seen as having academic merit (not all biographies are necessarily "academic works," for instance) are the preferred ones. I tend to agree with Fifelfoo and others that the best way to proceed here is to see which sources have been given the greatest credit in the academic community and make the bulk of the material in the article relevant to them, with perhaps some of the material in the article about the so-called "fringe theory", although the amount if any of such material is probably best determined at either WP:FTN or on the talk page of the related article, possibly with an RfC on the subject. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

One can indicate what has reported in news, however, there is much that appears in news regarding both current and historical events which is politically and otherwise motivated and in no way represents reliable or even responsible reporting, even at the generally venerated BBC. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Way up at the top of this discussion, User:Tom Reedy asked that responses include ref's to WP policy. The policy is at "WP:IRS"[10]. Here's a relevant quote, "Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both." The trick, when sources do not agree, is to make sure that all reliable POV are represented rather than choosing one over another. WCCasey (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, what makes this particular use problematic is that it is an entertainment piece written not by an authoritative author, but by a television presenter. The subhead from which the quote was pulled may have even been written by a copy editor instead of the author, and if it was fact-checked (I don't know BBC Oxford's policy), it appears that the Wikipedia article on Oxford is what was used, as well as for the image.

Another factor in the use of this particular source is motive. What is the motive for insisting that the term "leading patron" be used for this article, given that it does not appear in any of the many scholarly sources available? Should the editor not instead be trying to word the article accurately to the best sources, instead of Googling the preferred phrase to support his edit? I submit that the motive for this edit is not a desire for accuracy, but for advocacy instead. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

In this particular case one possible action is to contact the author/news service to find out the actual source for the statement to determine how reliable it is. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I did, and I'll report any reply. ITMT, it doesn't really matter. If the statement was made in any other source we'd have found out by now. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from others were requested on the biography project page, so I'll add three --

• When this discussion began, the statement that Oxford was a major patron during at least part of Elizabeth's reign would have been already largely justified by the following sentences. They could be improved with further detail, and citations could be added to support these details. A Wikipedia article (like almost any piece of historical writing) has to propose interpretations and justify them, otherwise no one learns anything. To ignore the justifications, and demand a citation for the generalisation, is time-wasting.
• To me (based on what I read above and in the article) the only dubious word is "leading". In context, if Queen Elizabeth was in the list, no one else who valued their neck would claim to "lead". If this was the word that irritated the editor who placed the "citation needed" tag, fine. But the answer would be to adjust the statement, not to find a citation for the precise wording.
• Just to broaden it for a moment, reliable written sources for non-current events are (a) reports by people who knew because they were there, and told the truth afterwards (b) work by people who have studied such reports and draw honest and sensible conclusions from them. Beyond this, it's up to the author(s) and readers of the encyclopedia article to make judgments. But a report in a modern news publication would scarcely ever qualify as a reliable source in this context: the journalist wasn't there and, nearly always, wasn't allowed time to do the studying. So, in historical articles, we still cite modern news reports, but it's nearly always because they say something about modern historians (and others) and their theories (fringe or not); and we make it clear in the text that that's why we are citing them. OK, to come back to this case, it's not a fringe theory that Oxford was a major patron; it should be evident, and our job is to make it evident by providing detail. The article already did this, though further detail can be added. Andrew Dalby 09:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In the messy real world, sometimes a newspaper journalist does some good research and writes a useful review. WP editors, who are all volunteers working at their convenience, might not have had time to do the same work (or academics might not have written a secondary review, if the subject is obscure enough) and so, until they get the time they may sometimes use sources which are not the best sources. I am not saying that is the case here, but just reacting to a generalization with a counter-generalization. :D --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I did say "nearly always" :) Anyway, you're right, Wikipedia articles don't start out perfect, and part of the task of perfecting them is finding the really good sources to employ and to cite. Andrew Dalby 12:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think context is missing here. I found the page full of WP:OR violations, and poorly sourced to primary source archives. To show how deep the problem was I listed 23 examples of statements that were speculative, poorly sourced or unsourced besides the phrasing about patronage.
• The number of accessible sources on this specific issue, and his life, is extensive. Since it is simple to remove WP:OR, given the abundance of established WP:RS addressing all aspects of Oxford's life, I set to fix that aspect of the page.
• I began to rewrite, sourcing every statement to standard academic works. (The whole rewrite has been blanketed now by a reverting IP who prefers archival references no one can verify). All those archival sources are referred to in secondary sources readily available, but which some editors refuse to use, on doctrinal grounds, or dislike.
• In the meantime I asked for a source for this phrase from its author, and the source he provided turns out to be himself, mostly likely.
• The wiki phrasing in question was composed by Smatprt, without sourcing, in July 2009, and was on the page, right up there in the lead for Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, when the BBC television presenter, Dave Gilyeat, with a degree in Media Systems but not in literature or history, wrote his article on the 27 November 2009, 4 months later. It is this article, repeating verbatim the wiki text, which was then cited by Smatprt to justify his own phrasing. This is circular, and the probability is that an inadvertent WP:OR infraction has been covered by, unwittingly, a spurious or specious attempt to back it by some newspaper tidbit that arguably qualifies as WP:RS. A wiki editor makes an historical generalization, it is picked up by a news outlet, and then the news outlet is cited as independent proof for the validity of the historical generalization.
• Since we have an entire sub-chapter on Oxford's literary patronage in a very exhaustive recent biography of de Vere by Stanford's professor emeritus, the Elizabethan specialist, Alan Nelson, in his Monstrous Adversary (2003) pp.236-248, and dozens of articles ranging over his patronage and that of other Elizabethan nobles (I have read 10 such articles available, aside from the biographes).

• In reply to Andrew Dalby, book dedications are not, in themselves, evidence of patronage in any of its several forms. Books dedications were evidence, often as not, of the authors’ desire for patronage. How therefore the evidence for book dedications is to be used to illustrate ‘leading patron’ (as opposed to a person whose patronage was much sought) is an issue best left to historians familiar with the period, not to wiki editors tempted by WP:OR to make, as the editor apparently did here, a judgement which, so far, in 14 months, has failed to find an adequate, independent, external reference. Were we all not under a voluntary topic ban not to touch the page while external input was provided, the whole issue of Oxford's patronage, with several article and book references, would have been written detailing every scrap of evidence, and what the consensus of Elizabethan experts has determined about Oxford's patronage. The lead should reflect that section in the body of the text, and not invent a phrasing which then obliges the subsections to prove it. The rule is: write historical articles from sources, do not write off the top of your head, and then wait round for years for someone to source your prose's assertions. I thought these were basic principles of the encyclopedia? Nishidani (talk) 10:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, I'd have to disagree about your statement concerning rules and principles, and say that in practice this particular encyclopedia typically works based on people writing and then sourcing. This can and does work because a lot of people know something about a subject and therefore they can focus on writing clearly, keeping in mind what they already know can be sourced, and then they can source it later. Other editors watching them will also often typically know the same sorts of things, and will often ring a bell if they seem something going beyond what can be well sourced. It is very hard to define WP:CK sometimes, but I think it is very reasonable to be flexible about it when articles are being improved from a low standard at least (which is where most articles are and have been historically). People who edit the other way around, learning about the subject as they work and only editing after they've put together their notes from sources, also exist I guess, but I think they are neither typical nor are they better for WP in any simple sense. IMHO WP would not exist if we only had editors of the latter type.

Coming back to this particular case, sorry if this sounds thick, but I am unclear about whether there is actually any disagreement about what the verifiable facts are which should be in the WP article, or is this just a dispute about which refs are preferable? I was starting to think the latter, but you also make an accusation of OR. What is the OR? Is it the equation of many dedications with much patronage?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, the facts are that Oxford was a patron, and that the extent of his patronage in relation to other patrons of the era has yet to be determined, so we don't know if it was extensive or paltry in comparison to others, much less whether he was a "leading" patron. (Just guessing from what I've read, I'd say he might have been above the mean but hardly in the front of the pack, given that 7 of those dedications were from one writer and a few others were multiple dedications found in one work, but my opinion is beside the point.) The edit in question gives it a notability not found in the biographies and scholarly papers written about him. The crux of this discussion is whether in the absence of such scholarly evidence, can a popular article written by a television presenter be used to cite a description of his patronage found in no other source? That's really all there is to this. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, so there does seem to be real disagreement about what should be written and not just what the best sources are. In such a case it sounds like no possible solution can answer all possible criticism and then it seems interesting to ask whether the strongest sources really disagree with the weak source or sources?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is, should a weak source, possibly copied from wikipedia, determine the phrasing for a passage on an historical issue for which there are an abundance of scholarly sources. Should a quick piece by a Media Systems journalist determine how we write the details of a formerly obscure Earl in Elizabethan England. The simple solution is to drop the dubious source, keep that phrasing for a month, and in the meantime read, as some of us are, several hundred pages on the issue of patronage to find if anything like that 'leading patron' can be found there. No source on the page, with a question, is clearly better than a bad, perhaps plagiarised source, from a journalist with no background in the subject he descants on.Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani, but first of all that WP is the ultimate source seems an uncertain (if reasonable) guess at this stage, and secondly according to Tom the text being sourced is not really the same as anything you have an abundance of sourcing for. And I am reading between the lines that it also does not really disagree with those abundant better sources. Still getting to practicalities, if people are searching for sourcing right now why not just mark the spot for a while with an {{rs}} tag or something similar? (Rather than deleting the source. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.) I guess some of us will also be wondering if just tweaking the wording would solve the problem, maybe just making it a tad vaguer, but I suppose you guys would have discussed that idea?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's very probable wiki is the source, but even a shadow of a doubt would suggest extreme caution in using it, otherwise the impression is given wer are careless about sourcing, and even risk making it circular.

The BBC source says something neither I nor Tom have found anything in scholarly RS for, 'one of the leading patrons'. He was certainly quite an active patron of the theatre and of writers around 1580-1584. The Elizabethan age is a long one, full of aristocratic patrons. You see, Elizabeth had the most dedications, but we have extensive documentation on her exercise of patronage, she helped with money, with securing 'jobs' or 'income. Dedications as proof one can infer he was a major patron of the arts are tickly.

• Note that in the wiki Elizabeth I of England article, there is no mention of this in the lead, and the text tells us she was not, despite the 76 dedications, a major patron of the arts.(sourced)
• Earl of Essex has nothing about this, though he two was a significant patron of the arts, and that could be easily documented in academic sources.
• Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester is described in the lead as 'a principal patron of the arts, literature, and the Elizabethan theatre.' (and we are given two fine sources on this, not newspapers)

Elizabeth was a major patron of de Vere himself, whose life is mainly a losing battle against the massive exhaustion of a wealthy estate, whose diminished fortunes he sought to shore up by seeking Elizabeth's patronage, by speculations, and by marriage. As to tweaking I'm fine with 'de Vere was notable for his theatrical and literary patronage' and variations of same because I can easily source that. We can't edit that page, but, sure, your suggestion is one possible way out. My only point here is to plead for sourcing that gives the reader out there the assurance that what he reads reflects what the scholarly consensus is. That's how I construe my job here. Though, to reply to what you wrote earlier, I have credentials in a few fields, I never write off the top of my head on those, but prepare beforehand, even if I have a thorough knowledge of the subject, and I only enter articles like this when, on reading them, I find a lot of things that strike me as fanciful, since they don't correspond to what I recall of the period. If I get a source that backs that phrasing, I'll certainly edit it in, and not wait for consensus. Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• It sounds like a compromise of some kind is possible and likely to happen??
• BTW I personally have no problem at all with people who pre-prepare their wording and sourcing in order first and to bring it in together, and I sometimes do it myself. My real point was that it is not really common and we can not demand that it be considered a basic rule or principle of how this encyclopedia must work.
• Back to the subject: you say you want to make sure WP reflects scholarly consensus, but it is not always easy for groups of editors to come to consensus on what the consensus is. What WP reports can not always be restricted to what is scholarly consensus of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Scholarly consensus on this particular area is not difficult. Compromise? Well, we were told not to make controversial edits. An editor made one, introducing a controversial number of sources, including this one. It might be actionable, but that doesn't interest me. I think the fair compromise in the circumstances is simply to revert to the status quo ante, before the ban came into effect. That means, the unreliable source, or dubious source, or wiki-copied pseudo-source goes out, the phrasing the original editor put in stays up, with a citation needed tag. I think that's a fair compromise. Sticking to the strict letter of the law, plus respect for quality sourcing, without being punitive.Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, I agree that most editors don't provide references beforehand (although WP:CITE specifically "requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged"), but once a statement is tagged WP:RS certainly comes into play. Like you, I sometimes do so myself, but I'll usually tag my own edit and note in the edit summary "ref coming" or some such. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of being off topic I also do that sometimes. And I find editing bit by bit on the article, tagging yourself and then filling in the sources as time allows, is more well-accepted by other editors than trying to pre-prepare text and sourcing in a draft and then making big edits. What's more, and this is important, other editors not only feel better about being able to follow the progress but they can and should then tweak your tweaks and sometimes find better sourcing before you do. That is after all how WP really works: letting people leave jobs un-finished, so that jobs can be split up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Summing up. Would an uninvolved editor read over this and sum up the consensus, please? Which to me appears to be that newspaper articles written by non-specialists are superseded by better sources when available, and that wording should reflect the source rather than deep-searching popular literature to find a source that matches the wording. As to this particular edit, the wording as it stands is not supported by any reliable source, but the phrase "noted patron" is acceptable to all. Does that sound correct? And if so, would someone close this out? Tom Reedy (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Compromise, as per Nishidani. I have been following the conversation to absorb the various comments from uninvolved editors and I'd like to thank everyone for a good, thorough discussion. Nishidani's compromise phrasing of

" 'De Vere was notable for his theatrical and literary patronage'

is acceptable to me and it seems that "noted" also works for Tom. As the three of us are the "involved" editors, I think we have something we can all live with. As far as references, I think the primary mainstream critic we can agree on is Stephen May, who Nishidani notes above, and who I find acceptable as well. From May, who probably falls somewhere between Ogburn and Nelson in terms of neutral commentary, we have:

• "Abundant evidence of Oxford's lifelong devotion to learning occurs in the contemporary trib-utes to his patronage. " May notes that these tributes lasted from 1574 to 1599. (page 8)
• "The writers who dedicated more than one work to him provide a further measure of the very real value of his patronage. " (page 8)
• "The range of Oxford's patronage is as remarkable as its substance. Beginning about 1580 he was the nominal patron of a variety of dramatic troupes, including a band of tumblers as well as companies of adult and boy actors. Among the thirty-three works dedicated to the Earl, six deal with religion and philosophy, two with music, and three with medicine; but the focus of his patronage was literary, for thirteen of the books presented to him were original or translated works of literature. " (page 9)
• "Oxford's genuine commitment to learning throughout his career lends a necessary qualification to Stone's conclusion that De Vere simply squandered the more than 7o,ooo pounds he derived from selling off his patrimony (p. 582), for with some part of this amount Oxford acquired a splendid reputation for nurture of the arts and sciences. " (page 9)

The citation for all these quotes is:

• Steven W. May, The Poems of Edward DeVere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford and of Robert Devereux, Second Earl of Essex (Winter,1980). Studies in Philology, Vol. 77, No. 5, Texts and Studies, University of North Carolina Press, pages 8-9, Accessed: 23/10/2010 17:40 http://www.jstor.org/stable/4174058

Comment:Frankly, an offer of alternate wording, based on the existing facts already known to we editors, would certainly have been welcome prior to this. I proposed "leading" in the lead from a good faith reading of the article. If the word so offended, suggestions were certainly welcome. "Major" ,"Notable", "Noted", etc. - all capture the lower sections on patronage pretty well, as far as I am concerned. As we know, the lead captures the article and, as noted by others here, there is plenty in the two sections on patronage to justify the existing (or similar) wording. Placing fact tags on specific words and then demanding a reference for the exact wording, especially in a generalization, seems like a waste of time and energy. As also noted above, there has been no sourcing offered that says De Vere was not a major patron, quite the opposite if you consider the primary sources. As noted above, they people who were there, and wrote it down, are the most reliable sources, since all future scholarship derives from these primary sources. The copious tributes, if one bothers to read them, paint a vivid picture of De Vere, and flattery notwithstanding, the re-occuring themes of learning and patronage, and devotion to the furthering the arts and sciences, are extremely well documented. Smatprt (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, if we want to avoid any interpretation or generalization, we could also simply quote May as follows: "According to historian Stephen May, "Oxford acquired a splendid reputation for nurture of the arts and sciences." (page 9)

• And on a side note, I received a message today from BBC reporter David Gilyeat who wrote: "I'm open to the idea that I subconsciously borrowed the phrase, but the interviews I conducted for the article contained a wealth of content that I did not use in the finished piece, and the consensus to me was that de Vere was a high profile patron of the arts in his day. ". It sounds like even if he did (subconsciously) borrow the phrase, it was because his research and "wealth of content" led him to believe it was accurate, and not out of some sloppy journalistic lapse. (And I suppose we could add "high profile" to the list of possible wording!) Smatprt (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt, I think your earlier compromise suggestion is a better text if you can all accept it. (De Vere was notable for his theatrical and literary patronage.) Detailed attribution ("According to historian Stephen May") sometimes becomes necessary if no compromise is possible and then WP needs to report different positions. Is it really necessary here? It seems that everyone basically agrees as much as they need to in order to get a decent straightforward text into the article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Since Smatprt has said this phrasing is 'acceptable', that makes two of the three involved editors. It's not quite what I want. I think Tom would prefer 'noted', but it solves two problems. It dispenses with the suspect source I challenged, and reformulates in a way that needs no source, because it is something no authority would disagree with. Let's just hear what Tom has to say. We have a 2 thirds consensus, but unanimity on these things is nicer. In the meantime, thanks for that mediation, Andrew, and to others for their input. Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(adding an opinion since I commented above) To me the dubious word was "leading". I could happily accept the suggested De Vere was notable for his theatrical and literary patronage; and I would say that this doesn't need to be attributed specifically, because it is not contentious and because it is justified by the details that follow.

It was kind of David Gilyeat to reply so helpfully. Andrew Dalby 09:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Noted," "notable", la même chose a moi, although "noted" is better grammar and reads more smoothly (using "notable" makes Oxford a condition, not necessarily contemporary, while using "noted" makes him the object of action by his contemporaries, which is evident from some of the dedications). No reference is needed, since the bone of contention was the degree of notability. I'm sure a study of Elizabethan dedications has been done by someone, but I can't find one and from what I've read in the course of this conversation Oxford was somewhere in the middle in terms of numbers. And we certainly prefer not to quote in the lede, although the main William Shakespeare article offends in that regard. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then. That's unanimous, thank ***(*) and the independent Rs commentators. I guess we can close this, if someone neutral editor just plunks a note on the Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford page to the effect, with a link, that this particular issue is resolved for the lead, which will, when, sometime within the following decades our topic ban expires, read by consensus at that point: 'De Vere was notable for his theatrical and literary patronage' /sourcing not needed).Nishidani (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"decades"? Centuries, maybe. It took 6,000 words to determine the use of one word inserted with no support 15 months ago. At about 4,800 words, that means about another 29 million words to go through the entire article, a little more than a century's worth. Then it's on to all the other SAQ articles that have been edited in the mean time. Timely enough for Oxfordians, I'm sure. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Get a notary to add a codicil to your will, so your heirs can take up the burden as a kind of family tradition, on pain, if in default, of being disinherited (and don't use a derivative fund to cover the costs, or hedge your bets). I'm childless, so I think I'll have to borrow that monkey in Gore Vidal's Kalki to keep hammering out on the proverbial ape's typewriter, with a good internet connection prepaid with the proceeds of my estate! Nishidani (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Have no fear. The Trust is immortal! Tom Reedy (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Company histories on answers.com

Answers.com can be a problematic source to evaluate, since the same domain hosts both reliably published content and unreliable user-contributed content. I'm looking for others' impressions of the company histories hosted on answers.com. This page indicates that the company histories are from International Directory of Company Histories, published by The Gale Group, Inc. I believe this to be a reliable source (and I note that similar content often can be found on fundinguniverse.com), but today I encountered an article where another Wikipedian had expunged citations to this source with an edit summary saying "Sorry, answers.com is not considered a reliable source."

Is there any particular basis for questioning the reliability of answers.com as a republisher of this kind of content? Obviously, if it is used, the source would be need to be identified with both the original publication name (author and source) and "answers.com" ("say where you got it"). (In the particular article that I dealt with today, only "answers.com" had been identified as the source, although examination of the cited URLs indicates that answers.com attributed the content to International Directory of Company Histories.) --Orlady (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You may be referring to my revert, sorry about replying here as I do not want to put off independent replies but context might help. You will note that answers.com suggests in their FAQ; "In order to cite Answers.com as a source, you must cite the relevant publisher and copyright notice listed at the bottom of every AnswerPage, as the actual source of the material used. If the article has an author, also cite the author's name(s). Most articles do not attribute authorship, but if there are more than 5 authors listed, cite at least five." In this case the Gale Group should have been cited, the source document could then be shown something like:

• Group, Gale; Votteler, Thom (2002), "Duck Head Apparel Company Inc", International directory of company histories, Volume 50, St. James Press, ISBN 9781558624764

This would have avoided any confusion as to the reliability of the source material. BTW I'm not sure about the volume number here, so a bit more research might be needed before using such a citation. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your thinking, Fæ. I don't have much experience with answers.com -- and I had not looked previously at the answers.com pages cited in that particular article. When I looked, I was surprised to discover that the material was attributed to a solid source. Accordingly, I wanted to find out if there was a Wikipedia consensus opinion about the reliability of the website.

It's pretty common for Wikipedia contributors to cite the content they found on websites incorrectly (or incompletely) -- leading to lots of "opportunity" for other users to repair citations. As for how to properly cite this particular source, note that "Gale Group" and "St. James Press" both identify the publisher ("Gale Group" is not an author) -- as the article Gale (publisher) explains, St. James Press is an imprint of Gale, which is in turn a subsidiary of another company. (That's the kind of complicated interrelationship between businesses that makes it helpful to have access to authoritative company histories!) --Orlady (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not persuaded that Gale is producing a reliable source. The work has no introduction as reprinted on Answers.com; there is no title page, or discussion of the editors of the work. The individual entries I surveyed give no indication that they are anything more than a compilation; or that individual authorship and supervision occurred over them. Answers.com may accurately republish elements of the International Directory of Company Histories. I see no indication that the IDCH is in itself reliable, and not a trivial TERTIARY. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "no indication" of individual authorship. Each of the company histories that I've looked at has an author's name at the bottom, below the "Further reading" bibliography. --Orlady (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC) The Amazon listings for the print edition of the book identify Jay P. Pedersen as "author" for the volume (probably "editor" would be a better description). The book is produced annually, and each of the last several annual volumes seems to be available from Amazon for $237.60. --Orlady (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... Here's what the US Library of Congress says[11] about the International Directory:

This multivolume set is a work in progress, providing brief essays on the historical development of approximately 3500 major companies. The first volumes group companies by industry; later volumes list companies alphabetically, but also include an industry index, as well as a cumulated company index covering all volumes issued to date. The set includes publicly held, private, and non-profit companies in addition to some state-owned companies. Companies are selected for inclusion based on annual sales, and for their influence within their industry or in their region. Entries contain legal name; address; phone; fax; and website, if available; incorporation date; number of employees; recent sales figures; SIC codes; stock exchange; a summary of the corporate mission and goals; lists of principal subsidiaries, divisions, and operating units, and, if available, references to articles for further reading.

The Library of Congress gives a Table of Contents for the first 35 volumes: http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/becites/89-190943.toc.html --Orlady (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Compilation isn't authorship for the purposes of reliability, and a byline is not a good indication in a dodgy online reprinting. None of this is convincing that this is a reliable tertiary source. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

True, so here is what should be a good indication. It looks like it is kept as a reference by Copenhagen Business School [12], Harvard Business School [13], Lancaster University (which seems quite proud of it), University of North Texas [14], and Vanderbilt University [15]. When numerous respected university and business school libraries have a given business reference, and especially when they make a big deal of acquiring access to that reference, that seems strong evidence that business reference is a reliable source. It's also in the National Library of Australia [16], which isn't a university or business school, but the fact that it went to a national library half way around the world seems contributory. --GRuban (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The NLA also holds the complete works of the Communist Party of Australia, including works that are high quality reliable sources published by the CPA, and works that aren't reliable that are published by the CPA. Libraries, particularly academic libraries, hold non-academic works, or works which are unreliable by Wikipedia policy. Find the academic introduction to the International directory of company histories which discusses the method of compilation and the responsibility taken by the editorial team. My searching did not reveal a scholarly introduction. Without such an introduction, it looks like an unreliable TERTIARY. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, true, but I believe if you will look carefully, you will see these links that these university libraries are recommending this work to be used as a reference work for its stated purpose, that of looking up information about companies. To show that a source is reliable, we don't need to show a scholarly introduction, we merely need to show that other reliable sources treat it as reliable. The links I have found show this. --GRuban (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

... Libraries are not reliable sources. Reliability is comprised of the text, the author, and the publication. In this case all three are suspect; and citing a library catalogue does not change the reliability of the source. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, libraries are not sources of any kind, but presence of a work in a serious academic library is an indicator that that work is reliable. Obivously other criteria such as author, publisher and so on also need to be considered. Barnabypage (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I would think that Answers.com as qualified above is a reliable source until something better comes along. Then WP users have something to start with. However, it appears that Fifelfoo is saying that only Fifelfoo is an authority on this issue, and is throwing down the gauntlet. Am I correct, or am I dreadfully misreading Fifelfoo's position? Santamoly (talk) 05:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I certainly hope so! Anyway, let me try again. Google Scholar says the work is cited in 12 academic papers,Google Scholar and 12 legal ones.[17] Good enough? --GRuban (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Is mediapost.com a reliable source of info?

As I look at it, there appear to be reviews by a number of folks and subsequent comments by decidedly non-noptable folk. I'm being told that the writers of the reviews are regular journalists doing a gig at Mediapost, but I'm not finding any of the reviewers' bios, to verify that. Has someone else come across this issue? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Difficult question. It's the website of a commercial enterprise geared to providing services to media, marketing and advertising professionals. Those services include newsletters and trade publications. It has a named editor-in-chief. I would say it's at the lower end of reliability. Was there a specific article or statement in contention? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OWOW

We have thousands of links to http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com, many of them as sources in WP:BLPs. VRTS ticket # 2010090810000806 states that the site has the subject's name wrong. I am unconvinced of the reliability of this as a source. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Editorial policy [18] and [19] indicate this is not an RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo is correct. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Blog article

http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/dpsatish/237/61930/mangalore-diary-highrises-malls--beautiful-bunt-women.html Is this source reliable in the Mangalore article. Though this appears in a blog of IBN Live, it is a blog operated by a professional journalist of the news channel and is under the control of the news channel.115.242.217.252 (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

ibnlive is a commercial news source. DPSatish's blog is an opinion piece, with little editorial oversight (copy editors haven't removed asterisked section breaks). The reliability of the source depends on the purpose for which it is being used. Can you quote what the source is being used for in Mangalore? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Birthday.se as a source for titling BLP articles

Recently I've seen a user moving BLP articles with birthday.se as a source. Birthday.se is a Swedish site for finding more in-depth information about a particular person's birth date. Does birthday.se qualify as a source? HeyMid (contributions) 15:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not about sourcing. It's about article naming. See WP:article names and in particular WP:PRECISION. When disambiguation is needed we disambiguate people based on profession first, then usually nationality. And we don't disambiguate when there are only one article. See WP:Disambiguation, in particular WP:NCDAB. Taemyr (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Living persons could be hurt by the following link

The link here [20] could create harm to living persons. Can you please block it?--Zucchinidreams (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This ought to be taken to WP:AN/I for discussion. Thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

World Net Daily - RS citation?

1. A full citation of the source in question.: McCullough, Kevin (August 06, 2004). "Kerry was asked to leave Vietnam". World Net Daily (Commentary). Washington, D.C.: Joseph Farah. Retrieved October 24, 2010. The image Americans were asked to believe, at the Democratic National Convention,... {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. A link to the source in question: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39835
3. The article in which it is being used: Swift Vets and POWs for Truth
4. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting: Firsthand Accounts Entry - Lt. Thomas Wright
5. Links to relevant talk page discussion: The previously acceptable source was deleted twice ([21], [22]) without discussion by User:Blaxthos with the following edit summaries...

A. (rm - wnd is only acceptable for the editorial&opinion sections)

B. (nothing has changed since 7 months ago, where the appropriate use of WND was explained by several editors)

While I believe these 2 undiscussed and rather aggressive edits/deletions demonstrate a less than consensus-based approach to editing this article, my concern here is the rationale offered to support the deletions.

While WND as RS was initially under discussion in the WND article talk section which User:Blaxthos linked to above, that discussion led to an extensive WP:RSN on the subject of WND RS and I reject User:Blaxthos' purported interpretation of the result of that RSN as some Wikipedia carte blanche justification for undiscussed deletions of WND citations. In fact, this wasn't WND news content at all but rather an offering from an established WND commentator/contributor.

IMHO (and with significant support from multiple contributors to the RSN), the RS of WND content (just like that of any other source) must be considered in terms of the context in which it is offered. Kevin McCullough is/was a significant contributor to WND and the citation in question served as a legitimate RS addendum to his audio interview of Lt. Wright. Observations appreciated. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not this again. I'm not going to rehash this ad infinitum for an editor who refuses to hear a consensus with which he does not agree. We do not evaluate a reliable source on a case-by-case basis for reporting dry facts -- either a source is reliable, or it isn't. The last time Jake tried this multiple editors explained that WND is only reliable for its opinion (not dry facts), and we referenced at least six previous RSN discussions that validated this point; Find the last RSN discussion (that came from Jake's last attempt) here. How many times do we have to go through this? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• WND is a propaganda outlet. It's not a reliable source for anything (except maybe it's own opinions, when the opinion writer in question is notable and relevant and so on).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• What Bali Ultimate said is correct. WND is not a reliable source for anything other than its own opinion, and inclusion of that opinion has to meet WP:DUE and should always be attributed when it does. Case closed.Griswaldo (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the previous discussions seems to indicate that WND is not an open and shut case. I see a rough consensus for saying that it is unreliable (but with significant disagreement)... and a lot of agreement that no source is always either 100% reliable or 100% unreliable. Certainly WND is reliable for statements as to what the opinions of constituent groups are (such as the Swift boat vets group.) Blueboar (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

WND as an accepted source for its own opinion is uncontested; however there has been a consistent consensus that they do not qualify as source that "has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" when sourcing bare facts. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that Certainly WND is reliable for statements as to what the opinions of constituent groups are: they have a long history of misreporting and misrepresenting such opinions. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we have to be on guard for editors support Electronic Intifadah and its ilk as reliable sources, and denigrating sources with opposing views. Certainly, there is a sliding scale of reliability, but it is not clear to me that we get a non-POV even-handed reaction to this question when we deal with heavily POV issues.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• In the previous discussion several examples were brought forth where WND either had the facts wrong, misrepresented the facts to create a false impression, or simply passed off an editorial as a news story. We expect that sources will sometimes get things wrong, but that doesn't mean we have to turn a blind eye to a pattern of deception. Reputable sources issue corrections for their mistakes. Dlabtot (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• WND is not a reliable source for general facts. It is an especially unreliable source for facts about liberals. It is an unacceptable source (per WP:BLP) for anything about living liberals. Hipocrite (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Orange Mike and Hipocrite. The use of WND outside its own article would have need an exceptional case. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This has got absolutely nothing to do with Electronic Intifada. Why has it been mentioned here? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Because it covers the precise same subject matter, from the opposite end of the political spectrum, with lesser indicia of editorial board oversight and accuracy, and this noticeboard had indicated it is an RS. What we have to be on guard against is editors reacting to the political view of the source, rather than its reputation for reliability and indicia therefor. It's a slippery slope, as most editors simply comment that a source has -- or does not have -- the necessary reputation of reliability. Without any substantive support for their view. This could lead to uneven results, and we should be on guard against it.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This has got absolutely nothing to do with Electronic Intifada. Why has it been mentioned here? An attempt to obfuscate the consensus, or create a false equivalency, apparently. The unreliability of WND has absolutely no relation to where they allegedly sit on someone's conception of the 'political spectrum'. Dlabtot (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Dlabtot beat me to the punch (EC) - Let's avoid trying to resolve this issue (as if it's not already resolved) by bringing up unrelated/off topic issues -- one, it gives the impression of a false dichotomy; two, it only tends to confuse rather than clarify the actual issue at hand. Discussion should focus around the reliability (or lack thereof) of WND. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fine -- I think that what would be most helpful are fact-based statements on this noticeboard (and in this string), rather than conclusory ones (such as some editors are making).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Based upon the dearth of citations provided in the most recent RSN on WND, were Wikipedia standards for verifiability applied to assertions that WND has been demonstrably deficient in journalistic "fact-checking and accuracy", that assertion would be rejected for failure to satisfy WP:V. Citing prior RSN's which amount to nothing more substantive than "me too" vote tallies bereft of supporting citations is, IMHO, a corruption of this process. JakeInJoisey (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Jake, you haven't ever accepted/respected the multiple previous consensuses by this board on this subject (and you've asked the same question repeatedly, about every 7 months, for years)... I find it unsurprising that you now accuse us of "corrupting the process" when you're repeatedly rebuked. Regardless, consensus is plainly obvious and unchanged from the last time you brought this up -- perhaps it would be better if you'd accept it and move on, instead of pretending you didn't hear and bringing it up over and over and over and over and over. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

...you haven't ever accepted/respected the multiple previous consensuses by this board on this subject...

On the contrary, it is you who appears to be less than abreast of the most recent RSN results (see User:Blueboar comment above). As you were a non-participant in that quite extensive RSN, your familiarity with this ongoing issue is somewhat suspect. Did you actually read the content of that RSN? Perhaps if User:Dlabtot had not previously deleted the RSN summary from the RSN archive (which was not restored until after your two deletions), you might have been both more informed and, perhaps, more open to discussion of the edit (as I requested) rather than editing by unilateral decree...which precipitated this current RSN inquiry.

...consensus is plainly obvious and unchanged...

Not according to the RSN summary and the opinions of a significant number of contributors to that RSN. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hold on... my comment was simply to say that previous consensus discussions were not quite as cut and dried as people were making out... I do think the general trend was definitely towards saying it was unreliable, but there were a few disagreements and hesitations (such as a few people saying it might be reliable in specific instances).

I don't normally like polls... but I think this may be one of those situations where we need something that clearly demonstrates consensus... something that we can point to when WND is raised in the future (and I have a feeling that it will be)... Am I correct in thinking that argument against WND is that it should qualify as a "questionable source" under WP:V? ... if so, I suggest a simple yes/no poll on that argument. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I've looked over that discussion and I see your opinion shared by the opinions of 2-3 editors, not "a significant number", which is however an accurate description of the opposition. The RSN summary appears to have been incorrect, and who decided to put it up anyway? There clearly wasn't consensus on the summary. Jake, as you can see here WND is not a reliable source for anything other than it's own opinions. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

...I see your opinion shared by the opinions of 2-3 editors...

I would be interested in responding but I'm unclear as to exactly what you refer to when you state "your (my) opinion". Can you be more precise as to what opinion you are attributing to me that is "...shared by the opinions of 2-3 editors..."?

The RSN summary appears to have been incorrect...; There clearly wasn't consensus on the summary.

Certainly legitimate contentions that could have, perhaps should have and still can be re-opened for further discussion. That's the way we do things here, no?

Jake, as you can see here WND is not a reliable source for anything other than it's own opinions.

Griswaldo, thus far two of the editors heavily involved in that RSN (myself and Blueboar) have stated otherwise. I'll look forward to further development of this discussion and a consensus resolution as to the validity of the citation which Blaxthos deleted. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Jake, please don't speak for me... I have not "stated otherwise"... I am still undecided on the matter (but leaning towards "generally not reliable except for its own opinions") Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, my representation of your prior comments...

Actually, the previous discussions seems to indicate that WND is not an open and shut case.

I see a rough consensus for saying that it is unreliable (but with significant disagreement)...

...and a lot of agreement that no source is always either 100% reliable or 100% unreliable.

I do think the general trend was definitely towards saying it was unreliable...

...as "stated otherwise" was intended as rebuttal to Griswaldo's assertion that...

...as you can see here WND is not a reliable source for anything other than it's own opinions.

It was not my purpose to specify your actual position, only to note that (per your prior comments), Griswaldo's declaration is not the settled question that he appears to imply.

However, in light of your objection, I will certainly reconsider both my choice of words and possible amendment if you find this response to your objection to be unsatisfactory. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No, your explanation if fine and the apology is accepted. In a complex discussion like this, where subtle nuances are important, I simply do not like people speaking in my name. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

About 7 or 8 editors have told you that it isn't a reliable source. It's a highly partisan propaganda outfit -- it doesn't even pretend to be otherwise. This is about as slam dunk as they come.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Statements here continue to be subjective "it's so because I say it's so", rather than objective statements with supporting refs. The conclusion may well be correct, but the approach used by a number of editors here is one that could well open the discussion up to POV bias, which is why I think that objective criteria would be superior.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Farah is a self-described member of the tea party, which is prima facie evidence of a political axe to grind. A moderate voice columnist sez: it’s still something of a surprise to see World Net Daily – the rabid right wing online publication that has become famous for promoting the birther issue. http://themoderatevoice.com/83248/ann-coulter-not-conservative-enough-for-world-net-daily-conference/. Thankfully, the truth is that Farah doesn’t represent the feelings of a majority of either political party, just the far-right ‘fringe’ of the evangelical right. Red State http://www.redstate.com/pratsha45/2010/08/21/joseph-farah-of-world-net-daily-bad-news-for-the-conservtive-movement/. While some Washington conservative distance themselves from WorldNetDaily (“I don’t know anyone who reads it,” said Henke), its associations with the rest of the movement run deep. Washington independent http://washingtonindependent.com/57776/far-right-site-gains-influence-in-obama-era. A prayer that kicked off the conference today thanked God for Farah’s right-wing, conspiracy-minded WND. Later, one of the speakers thanked God for Farah. Farah, however, was far less interested in thanks than in the kind of political mudslinging for which he and several other conference attendees are well known. SPLC http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/09/16/political-mudslingers-populate-far-right-miami-conference/. World Net Daily’s source for their latest insane Birther article is James Edwards — an open white supremacist who runs the vile “Political Cesspool” radio show Little Green Footballs http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36517_World_Net_Dailys_White_Supremacist_Sources. At the conservative Web site World Net Daily, Writing for the ultra conservative World Net Daily, which followed the case closely, Joseph Farah invoked the words of Martin Luther King (both NYT). the conservative Web site World Net Daily knows what it is. "Obama's Supreme pick has love affair with socialism," it reports. It did not specify whether this was a same-sex or heterosexual encounter. Dana Millbank WaPo http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/14/AR2010051404072.html.

• They're a movement propaganda outlet. Their game is a political game, not the game of trying to build off facts and check biases. If you really want to play i didn't hear that a while longer I'll pull up a bunch of debunking of the flat out fantasies they've run and never retracted. Bali ultimate (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• The last time JnJ wasted everyone's time here with his disruptive refusal to accept consensus on this matter, the result was him getting blocked. [23] In the time since, absolutely nothing has changed.

While we are required to assume good faith, we are not required to pretend that an editor is acting in good faith when the evidence otherwise is clear and overwhelming. JnJ is not editing in good faith. Even a cursory review of his edits shows that he is here to push a particular political point of view. If he persists in disrupting this noticeboard I think it may be time to consider a community ban. Dlabtot (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• WND has a heavy political slant towards the Christian Right, and I'd cite it more like an advocacy group than a normal newspaper. Is it too POV to use in a biography? I don't know, but this is an article about the "Swift Boat" controversy, and WND may have been notable in that controversy. The text being cited is an interview of an officer who was with Kerry, and regardless of people's feelings towards WND, I don't think they're so unreliable as to be unable to conduct an interview. You could use it with attribution "Mr. W, as interviewed by the conservative news source WorldNetDaily, says XYZ", or you could consider this article in American Thinker.[24] Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I contend that they are, in fact, so unreliable as to be unable to conduct an interview. They have previously taken quotes from The Onion as facts, fabricated quotes from Greg Caton, founder of Lumen Foods, fabricated a story about Iraq buying PS2's to network together... List goes on. Hipocrite (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

An Important Point - I want to make one thing very clear... The political stance of a source does not make it unreliable. There are reliable sources that take a very conservative stance and reliable sources that take a very liberal political stance. Advocacy of a political viewpoint is also not a reason to deem a source unreliable (as it may be very reliably express the viewpoint it is advocating). Again, there are reliable advocacy sources on both sides of the political spectrum. Please focus purely on the "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" aspects of this debate. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I want to underline blueboar's point -- WND is not being challenged because of its point of view (though several respondents have brought it up); WND has always been considered to be unreliable because it does not have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (as there have been several well-documented examples of their misrepresentations in the past). Furthermore, had I been aware of Jake's previous block for repeatedly bringing up this very issue, and Jake's subsequent threats to keep bringing it up and the stern administrative warning against doing so, I would have brought this immediately to the attention of WP:ANI and the blocking admin. Jake has undeniably continued to "disrupt RSN" by refusing to get the point, and at this point I hope some administrative action is quickly forthcoming. We, as a community, shouldn't have to deal with this sort of behavior ad infinitum from an editor who is obviously not an honest broker on this subject, and seems obsessed with this issue. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

YouTube used as source on Deadwood (TV series)

In the Deadwood article, a YouTube video of a David Milch interview is being used as a source in the themes section. On the talk page, I have repeatedly asserted that, according to past discussions here on WP:RSN, YouTube should not be used as a source. I have encouraged the other involved editors to try to find the original source for the video, which was a class at USC (COMM 426, "Religion, Media and Hollywood," January 24, 2008). As an edit war has now broken out over this issue, I would other, noninvolved, editors and administrators to look at the video and judge whether it is a reliable source. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected during the edit war. Please discuss - revert warring is not OK, period. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Two things are under discussion here, as sources

• David Milch, Speech to USC class COMM426 [unpublished], 2008-01-24.
• David Milch, Speech to USC class COMM426 [unpublished videorecording], [samizdat] via Youtube, [unknown date].

Neither appears to be reliable for film criticism (the establishment and identification of themes) due to the Self Published nature and Primary nature of the source: David Milch, the executive producer of Deadwood. Neither would be reliable for his opinions either, as neither is published in the sense of responsibility taken for them by a publisher. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(This is a copy from the talk page.)

YouTube does not confer credibility to videos published on it the same way the reputable NY Times does. However, it also does not taint the credibility of every video published on it. YouTube videos are so diverse and lack any kind of editorial oversight which means YouTube does not lend its brand name to any of its videos one way or the other. This means, quite rightly, that any random YouTube video cannot be considered a credible source outright - which is what the people here who are against the edit are saying. It also means that not every single YouTube video is absolutely not credible just because it's on YouTube. This is a good example of why it's important not to be dogmatic about rules. Some of them, like this one, are ill stated.

The video in question is not used as a reference by pointing to some random ten second quip said by some unknown talking head, edited wildly, and published in a dubious context. It's an hour long video taping of a university lecture. There is no voice over narration or additional footage. It's obviously unedited. The ref provided is a time mark in the 4th part of the lecture pointing directly to the relevant part (it continues to the 5th part), and it can be easily discernible it's not out of context. And it's a recording of David Milch, who is clearly visible, audible, and identifiable. Milch is the main man behind Deadwood. It has been established in numerous reputable articles about him, and maybe there is a point of adding those to his wiki article, if they are not there already. He is the creator, executive producer, head writer, and notoriously all around "auteur". So all in all, barring a terrible sinister attempt to troll people with philosophical rambling (and we are assuming good faith all around), this is a prima facie good source. The single counter argument is "but it's YouTube", which is not a valid argument because no one is asserting credibility of the recording based on the YouTube brand. The source is good because of all the above arguments for it. 109.186.62.61 (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, the title of this section is misleading. In this case, YouTube is not the source. It's the medium. No one is asserting the source is credible because it's published on YouTube. It's a prima facie good source. 109.186.62.61 (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

YouTube videos can be used as a source. However, the reliability of the Knight Chair in Media and Religion, part of the University of California's Annenberg School for Communication needs to be established. The uploader says it is the official channel. It looks to be academic in nature (which editors tend to approve of), but without secondary coverage I suppose it could be argued that it isn't worthy of inclusion. I would lean towards keeping this one, though.

We do not have a policy on YouTube for sources (just external links) I recently created an essay based on policies, guidelines, and previous discussions @ WP:VIDEOLINK.Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Also see: USC Annenberg School for Communication and JournalismCptnono (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And the only thing I see wrong with the material cited is that he "repeatedly" says. Realistically, even if this was SPS (which it is not but it is him speaking) I might still be OK with it since who better then to say what his intentions were. Of course a proper write up on it in would be preferable. Cptnono (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh... a lecture is a mode of communication; but, nobody is taking responsibility for the lecture except for David Milch himself. If you want to argue that it being a lecture in undergraduate teaching lends credibility to the source, I would also challenge this: undergraduate teaching is not a venue for the advancement of film knowledge, it is the equivalent of a TERTIARY source. Additionally, as Milch is the "auter" and is commenting on his own work, this should be treated as self. If Milch is being used for an analytical critique of Deadwood, or for its reception, or for its construction of film, he isn't reliable. The other two features of a reliable source are lacking: reliable publisher, and reliable mode of publication with review. Youtube isn't the problem with reliability: the fact that this is an unpublished and unreviewed lecture by a very interested party in the work is the problem. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You're over-analyzing the issue. Take a look at the disputed article. The ref link is used to back a text that says what Milch said, attributed to him, and is having Milch on video saying it. That video is beyond a source - it's a proof. You said a guy said something and then you showed a clear unedited video footage of him saying it. What counter-argument is there? That the video is fake? That it's not really Milch saying it on camera? That it was taken out of context? (It's an hour long unedited video.) I think it's just common sense. 109.186.62.61 (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work on your idiosyncratic version of common sense. It works on reliable sources. The video given is not reliable for the claims, "Milch has pointed out repeatedly in interviews that the intent of the show was to study the way that civilization comes together from chaos by organizing itself around symbols (in Deadwood the main symbol is gold). Initially, he intended to study this within Roman civilization (the central symbol was to be the religious cross), but HBO's Rome series was already in production and Milch was asked by the network if he could stage the story in another place."

Firstly, it involves after the fact justification, "Initially, he intended to study...", secondly it makes claims about other agents which Milch is not reliable for, "Milch was asked by the network," thirdly, the second involves bombastic rhetoric implying Milch is correct, "has pointed out repeatedly," fourthly, the video is meant to support "the intent of the show," not "Milch's stated intent with the show" but the intent of the text itself. The video given isn't reliable for this. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Three more fundamental questions... 1) who is "KnightChair" (the user name of the person who posted the video to YouTube)? 2) Does he/she have permission to post the video to YouTube? (If not, then there is a potential for a copyrite vio here.) 3) Can we be sure that the video has not been edited in a way that changes Milch's words? Without these answers we can not call the video reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The University of California's Knight Chair in Media and Religion has been addressed and does not appear to be a copyright vio. It is also reasonable to assume that an academic institution would not modify the video especially since it would serve no purpose. Fifelfoo is correct that the wording would need to be tinkered with. No secondary source so far is the only concern I can see at all even though I think verifiability is met so still lean towards inclusion.Cptnono (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been monitoring this discussion for a while and thought I'd weigh in now that it's in cool down mode. After reading some of the discussions about using YouTube for a source, I feel that as a community, we must establish a firm rule for YouTube. The simple fact is that content on YouTube is user-generated, with no editorial oversight (with the exception of some legally contentious material). WP:RS is clear about self-published content with no editorial oversight. It does not pass muster. The video in question is allegedly from a good source (USC), but we here cannot verify that A) that video actually comes from that source, and B) that someone has not altered its content. If the video had been included in a DVD, or shown by a broadcaster, it would have been exposed to scrutiny. But YouTube is like Wikipedia without the references; I could, with enough technical savvy, create a video proving life on Venus. Please understand I am not inferring any shenanigans are afoot with this video. I do feel, however, that the large potential for shenanigans that YouTube represents makes it unsuitable for an encyclopedia. I realize this issue is still being hashed out here and many other places, but I'd like to state my position (for what it's worth).

Is it not possible to source this video directly from USC? That would cut YouTube out of the equation. We seem to be in agreement about the fundamentals of this argument: i.e. that sources need editorial oversight to qualify as reliable sources. IP appears to seek an exemption from this, as the source is highly relevant to the topic at hand. A good analogy for this would be an excellent thesis that has not been peer-reviewed yet and posted to the internet. There is a certain amount of long-term patience required with WP. If Milch stands by his comments on the video, they will eventually be available in a peer-reviewed form, i.e. his own writing, academic writing, or established film criticism. As I have noticed with YouTube referencing in other articles, this is premature. Deadwood is a relatively new topic, and it will take time for criticism to coalesce. The Interior(Talk) 21:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

above comments copied from Talk:Deadwood (TV series) by The Interior(Talk) 21:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There have been numerous discussions about YouTube. Attempts at creating a policy or guideline have failed (the reason I created an essay linked up above). There is a precedent for the acceptance of YouTube videos if they are from RS on their official channels. If this part of USC is considered RS then it should be fine.Cptnono (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

General question - Does anyone know what is involved in making a YouTube channel "official"? Does YouTube verify these channels? Knowing this would help re: RS. The Interior(Talk) 21:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell it is a case of if it is reasonable to assume. The AP, for example would be all over that channel for copyright violations (logo and videos) if it was not official. Some of those bigger guys have relationships with YouTube and do attempt to get copyright material removed. And I just remembered, there sources discussed it when the AP was launched. In this case, I would be shocked if it was not the official channel. It looks legit and I see no reason why someone would pretend to be the department. However, there is no way of actually knowing 100% without shooting off an email (which may not even be responded to). Some common sense should apply.Cptnono (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

CIA world factbook as a source for statistics and demographics

Recently I have noticed the CIA world factbook being used as an authoritative source about demographics and population statistics in articles - I have noticed it in articles about Latin America, but I am sure it i used elsewhere. I don't personally consider the CIA factbook a reliable source for demographics in Academic contexts and my gut instinct is that it shouldn't be considered one in wikipedia either. But maybe other people have different perspectives. In a Latin American context it is problematic because it applies racial and ethnic categories that are not recognized as valid in the countries to which they are applied. For example it for Mexico it breaks down the population into "mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 60%, Amerindian or predominantly Amerindian 30%, white 9%, other 1%". The Mexican Statistics Intitute INEGI does not count people according to racial categories, only according to ethnolinguistic criteria. It also does not use the category "mestizo" as an ethnic category at all. The concept was abandoned because a large body of literature documented that the concept of mestizo in Mexico is not based on descent but on cultural factors and that the same person may be white, mestizo or indigena in differnt contexts. How then does CIA get information about these categories in Mexico? And why does it find it to be informative to apply categories to Mexico that mexicans do not themselves use? Where does it even get the information? And what to do when the factbook conflicts with other studies for example in the ethno-racial categories it applies?·Maunus·ƛ· 14:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The CIA world factbook has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, is widely cited in academia, and is a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is this reputation established? Which kinds of academia uses it? A sociologist or demographer who used these data would be laughed out of academia.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Start laughing - [25]. Hipocrite (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of those are about how to construct internet data mining programmes. others are studies criticizing it.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not true. It's time for you to lose, gracefully. Hipocrite (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The CIA world factbook is a reliable source. In cases where the ethno-racial demographics are contested by other reliable sources, discuss both. Seek high quality academic sources discussing the immediate ethno-racial demographic problems, and discuss the problem of different sources using high quality sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Where does the factbook get its demographic breakdowns from? How can we classify it as a reliable source without knowing this? How do they count mestizos? Which criteria do they apply and how do they get acces to the data? Do they make their own censuses? I would contest that no statistic can be described as reliable unless it lays this out plainly for everyone to evaluate. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly from old census data. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

So we have no way of knowing whether this information is from when the Mexican government last time used mestizo in a census (in the 1930'es)? How is this reliable information? How is it even information?·Maunus·ƛ· 15:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This issue came up some while ago on the NOR board over the use of the terms "Hamitic" and "Bantu" to categorise populations in Rwanda [26]. The issue was somewhat different, since the only claim being made was that the term "Hamitic" has not fallen completely out of use. Clearly the CIA are using categories that are widely considered obsolete. Part of the problem is that there is no indication of where these racial categories come from - what is the source of the statistics? Probably old censuses (as suggested above). I've no doubt that the CIA is reliably reporting data from the source. In that sense it is 'fact checking', but it can't be used as 'proof' that Tutsis are in fact Hamitic or that 60% of Mexicans are in fact mestizo. The sources of the categories are not themselves idicated. Of course, it may be true that "the concept of mestizo in Mexico is not based on descent", but that does not mean that people do not self-identify as mestizo, which in itself is significant. Paul B (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well studies say that generally they don't (its mostly pejorative these days) or that they do sometimes and at other times they don't. Byut the problem is that noone is counting it anymore. What does it mean when you say that the factbooks statement cant be used as proof that 60% is mestizo? Can it be put in a table format (there is a table of "ethnicities" in Latin America based mostly on the factbook)? How can factbook data be compared with other statistics when we don't know whether we are comparing apples with pears? Can it be stated with "according to the CIAFACT book 60% are mestizo"? Should the problems with the source be laid out in the open "according to CIA 60% is mestizo, but..." ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Also the factbook and the tables based on it in wikipedia clearly claims that "mestizo" is about descent, not selfidentification.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant I don't think it should be used in a sentence to say that mestizo is a meaningful category and that 60% of Mexicans belong to it. I agree with you that the factbook is problematic since there is no indication of where the information comes from. The was true odf the Rwanda example too. I'd suggest it can be referred to as a statistic used by the CIA within its classification system. Paul B (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"According to the CIA world factbook..." should be fine; the larger concern isn't the reliability of the source, but rather it being used to synthesize thought. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The CIA Factbook is a convenient one-stop collection of statistics. From what I've seen, it usually gets its data from the World Bank, the IMF, the UN, and national agencies of the country under discussion. If you can get data from these sources directly then such data would be preferable and more likely up-to-date. Lambanog (talk) 06:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think either the World Bank, IMF or UN count mestizos in Mexico. The Mexican bureau of statistics haven't doen so since the thirties.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The CIA has access to qualified demographers who can make estimates of change from old censuses and other sources. They try to publish the same kind of info for each country, even though the stats different countries collect vary. For example, in the UK the most recent census asked about religion so the CIA can base its figures on that. In France the census doesn't ask that, so the CIA has to estimate. Their estimates seem to be in line with recent survey data. And the French do not like at all the "American" idea that their ethnic composition can be calculated. (They are all French.) So as to reliability, the CIA figures are to be regarded as reliable. Whether the figures present interesting or relevant info, and how to give them due weight in the encyclopedia, has to be considered as a separate question. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

you write: "And the French do not like at all the "American" idea that their ethnic composition can be calculated. (They are all French.) So as to reliability, the CIA figures are to be regarded as reliable." This looks like a non-sequitur. You are saying that the figures are reliable because they force other countries to fit into an American racial scheme that is not applied in those countries?

(unindent) I do understand your concerns. Let me try again to say what I think is coming out as consensus here. If - if - it is useful in an article to present figures about how many people of different ethnicities live in a country, then the CIA book is a good source for that. If it isn't a useful thing to include, then don't include it. How useful it is to have ethnicity figures is a very big and debatable question - it's been debated at great length in many countries - not directly a source quality question. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree strongly that any actual case for the reliability of the factbook has been made. The only argument boils down to "its the CIA therefore its reliable". How can it be a reliable source for demographics when it doesn't even inform us about what definitions it operates with or how the data is arrived at? If it is useful to rpesent data about ethno-racial demographics then how can the factbook be a reliable source about that if we don't know how they define the groups or compile their data? This is what reliability in an academic context means. You are telling me that we should just take their word for it because they have good demographers. Good demographers know that in order to understand statistical data knowing about the how the material is constructed is crucial for the value of the data. The CIA factbook maybe good enough for high school assignments but I just don't think it is even close to be sufficiently reliable enough for wikipedia, much less for academic purposes. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The CIA Factbook is reliable according to wikipedia policy for reliability. Hermeneutical analysis of the internals of a document, such as, "How can it be a reliable source for demographics when it doesn't even inform us about what definitions it operates with or how the data is arrived at?" is not part of the wikipedia reliability policy; it is part of academic demography. If you can find previously published scholarly articles specifically attacking the CIA Factbook's demographic reliability, and, demonstrate that this is the consensus amongst academic demographers, then you may have a case in point. If you are, in fact, an academic demographer capable of analysing the internals of the document, I eagerly await your peer reviewed article criticising the research of the CIA Factbook. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That is ridiculous and patronizing. Of course we are allowed to question sources according to their academic suubstance - that IS a part of WP:V and WP:RS. The factbook is not peerreviewed so where it's reliability as an academic source is established I don't know. Of course no demographers have written studies about this, and they aren't likely to because it is not considered to have any academic credibility that scholars need to engage with. At best we could say that it is presenting a fringe view that is not accepted by general academia. I can find plenty of academic sources problematizing the ethnic categories and labels it is applying and showing that it makes no sense to take census data about them for face value. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually here[27] is a study that problematizes the factbooks classifications, and the porblems of making such classdifications in general. (Later peerreviewed published as[28]) He mentions that that factbook data had to be suplemented with data from the Library of Congress because the latter: "I used the CIA’s World Factbook online for a “first pass.” The Factbook’s numbers and designations were then compared with those in Encyclopedia Brittanica (EB) and, when possible, the relevant Library of Congress Country Study (LCCS). Significant discrepancies between these sources prompted an investigation using country-specific sources. For a number of countries and particularly for Latin America, LCCS provides a nuanced discussion of the nature of ethnic identity. These were often used to modify the Factbook’s listing. For example, for choices about whether to code “whites” separate from “mestizos” in Latin America I followed LCCS when possible." It also states about the factbooks coverage of Africa that "In general they are remarkably ethnically diverse, and Africans often manifest their multiple ascriptive affiliations in highly complex, situation-dependent ways. At the time of access, at least, the Factbook was unusable for much of the continent, providing either uninformative or superficial breakdowns (e.g., Bantu/Nilotic, or a statement about the total number of ethnic groups in the country)." and It asks "What about many Latin American countries, where the lines between “indigenous” and “mestizo,” and between “mestizo” and “white,” are often vague to the point of being imperceptible or situation-dependent." and "Moreover, sets and subsets are not the only problem we encounter. Should Mexico be divided between “indigenous” and “mestizo/white,” or should “white”

be broken out?" This should amply show that as a source of ethnic demographics it is not an unproblematic source and is not thought to be so by the academic community.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but, as encyclopaedists we have to also accept that James D. Fearon doesn't reject the Factbook. So it is reliable for wikipedia policy. Attribute, and then compare and contrast with higher quality academic demography studies. If you find a higher quality study, and the material is being used in a table on a non-demography article (say, for example, "New Zealand" as opposed to "Demography of New Zealand" or "Theories of race and ethnicity in New Zealand"), replace. But "Demography of New Zealand" or "Theories of race and ethnicity in New Zealand" should have both. The Factbook isn't as utterly rejected by the scholarly demographic community as, for example, David Irving is in History. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly the factbook is not discussed or used as a source in the peer-reviewed version of the paper, only in the version presented at the conference...·Maunus·ƛ· 02:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The CIA World factbook is a reasonably reliable and respected source for country statistics. It has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, and easily meets WP:RS. If we rejected every source which an academic source had disagreed with in some way, we'd have to discard most academic sources too. Disagreements are the lifeblood of academic writing. If you have specific demographic studies, you can certainly add those too. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No, accountability and integity is the lifeblood of academic writing- the factbook has neither. Where is this reputation for fact checking that people talk about documented?·Maunus·ƛ· 03:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Accountability and integrity are important to academic writing, as they are in many areas of human endeavor, but they're not what drives academics to propose new theories or ideas. As for the rest, please review the comments above, where this is addressed. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to read WP:IDHT at about this point in time. Wikipedia Reliable Sources Noticeboard editors have given you a very very strong indication that a source is treated as reliable by the wikipedia community according to wikipedia policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of being disruptive? I have heard you and I disagree with you. DO I recognise that consensus here doesn't agree with me? Yes. Does that mean that I should stop arguing my point or stop trying to make you produce better arguments than "it has a reputation for factchecking" or "The CIA has good demographers"? no. ·Maunus·ƛ· 04:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• The Factbook is a tertiary source. The problem with them is that we cannot tell where they got their information or the degree of acceptance their statements have received. I believe it would be helpful to have stricter rules relating to the use of this type of source. My own preference would be to not use them at all, but that is a discussion for WP:RS. TFD (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Superman 2 date

Superman 2 was released nationwide in June 1981, the same summer as Raiders of the Lost Ark. Countless sources, however, list it as a 1980 release. No doubt this confusion comes from copyright filings but it was released in 1981 for sure. Thank you.

Do you have any sources for any of this? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

From Superman II: "It was released in Europe and Australia in late 1980, and in other countries throughout 1981." ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

BUAV and antivivisection.info

Hi,

I did a quick search and neither BUAV.org or antivivisection.info came up. Can the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) article which lists Amerijet as a primate transporter here and the National Anti-Vivisection Alliance (Nava) listing of Amerijet here be used to source a claim along the lines of

Amerijet is one of only a few airlines that still transports primates to be used in experimentation. They have transported primates from the islands of Saint Kitts and Barbados, and elsewhere in the Caribbean and South America, to the United States. The shipments were for companies, such as Primate Products, Inc. and Worldwide Primates, that provide primates to laboratories. In August 2009, Amerijet was cited by the USDA for failing to meet federal standards in regards to enclosures holding 15 tamarins.

in Amerijet International? Thanks, Mechanical digger (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Advocacy groups should generally be cited with attribution. If the advocacy group is the only place a claim appears, questions of WP:UNDUE may surface as well. Dlabtot (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Dlabtot is correct. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Is @WestWingReport on Twitter a reliable source for the First Transcontinental Telegraph?

Someone please help verify First_Transcontinental_Telegraph#Belated_150th Talk:First_Transcontinental_Telegraph#Belated_149th.

Also, is this US-centric? Was there an earlier trans-European telegraph? 71.198.176.22 (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing not, per WP:TWITTER, but I may be wrong. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 02:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that section or source in the article. Am I missing something? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the IP made a post to the article's talk page at Talk:First Transcontinental Telegraph#Belated 150th. Maybe that's what s/he's talking about? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 03:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh right, I see. I can't imagine how that source could possibly comply with WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant 149th. My mistake. At least there is now plenty of time to verify this fact. Sorry I was off by one. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a worthy project, I look forward to seeing it at FAC, IP71. I think there are times when twitter is useful, tweets from a person can be used to show their plans and whatnot. However, I do not see why a better source is not available for a historical fact.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Israel, Palestine and the United Nations

I've been gradually working through the above article, trying to improve the sourcing, getting little or no help from regular editors to the page. The area is embattled and anyone arriving is perceived as having an agenda. I have a disagreement with User:AnonMoos on whether a particular fact (or facts in general) need to have a source. My view is that the whole area is potentially contentious, so every statement needs a good source. The last section in the talk page is where the discussion is going on. I'd really appreciate further opinions on this. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos has clarified through discussion on our talk pages that he doesn't have a disagreement with me about this matter. I do have a further query though. The section in Israel, Palestine and the United Nations is supposed to be derived from United Nations Regional Groups#Special cases#Israel. I went there to see if I could pick up the sources, and found that it was drawn fom two primary sources plus an article that I said "could well be fine". Now I have looked at the article referred to (this article), I'm not sure. It's in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law. It seems that this is an undergraduate journal, so wouldn't be an appropriate source for Middle Eastern history. I don't actually know how contentious the facts referred to are. Which UN international group Israel is a member of, which it applied to, when it was admitted, are presumably simple matters of public record. But we are getting into interpretation here, and apart from anything else I would like a secondary source just to guide the wording. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law is a student publication listed by Ulrich's as not peer reviewed. The standard of sourcing expected in your article is scholarly works. No wikipedia-definition scholarly work can be published in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law as Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law fails to meets wikipedia's standards of scholarly behaviour. Treat as a popular work equivalent to magazine articles or popular books. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a student project and shouldn't be used as a source (except regarding itself). Zero^talk 22:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- I think you are mistaken. Why do you say it is an undergraduate journal?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Woah, woah. The Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law is a reliable source for information about law. Much like the Harvard Law Review, it is produced by law students (not undergrads), but that's what many (most) law journals are produced and edited by. Hipocrite (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)