Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 36

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

American College of Pediatricians

Is it apropriate to use American College of Pediatricians (ACP) as a reliable source on same-sex parenting issues? According to http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/31/beliefs_drive_research_agenda_of_new_think_tanks/ ACP has only one employee, between 150 and 200 members, and it was established in 2001 by 59 charter members (http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=10002&art=25&BISKIT=2920801063). The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has 60,000 members, in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and many other countries. Members include pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists and pediatric surgical specialists. More than 34,000 members board-certified and called Fellows of the American Academy of Pediatrics (FAAP). AAP was established in 1935 (http://www.aap.org/visit/facts.htm). I consider promoting ACP and their members' views (http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=10005&art=187&BISKIT=2920801063) by citing them on such topics to be against Reliable sources and Undue Weight principles (it multiple signifiance of marginal views roughly 300 times) of Wikipedia, since it is apparently biased. Main, long-established non-activist organizations around the world reach the same conclusion on this issue different to ACP, which is rather ideology based (http://www.acpeds.org/index.cgi?BISKIT=2920801063&CONTEXT=art&cat=10002&art=83) than scientific (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349). --Destinero (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The American College of Pediatricians is a political pressure group (astroturf). If it's opinions are notable, they will be referenced in obviously reliable sources. Use those sources. Hipocrite (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Question:Can an articles be updated as per the new 2009 Consular Travel Warning For India?

My question is if the US Department Of State modifies or updates the Consular Information Sheet removing an earlier warning can this information be updated in the relevant article?
It stated as follows "U.S. citizens should be aware that there have been unconfirmed reports of inappropriate sexual behavior by a prominent local religious leader at an ashram (religious retreat) located in Andhra Pradesh. Most of the reports indicate that the subjects of these approaches have been young male devotees, including a number of U.S. citizens.".
  • Since July 2007 US State Department removed all indirect references to Sathya Sai Baba from their Official website under the crime section. Please look at the Consular Information Sheet for 2009. http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1139.html#crime the earlier warning statement has been removed.
  • We don't know the reasons why it was added in the first place and why it was removed. May be there was a misconception earlier and later after clarification from the Sathya Sai Organisation it was probably removed. The underlying question is the article is still quoting the old travel warning which does not exist anymore. Can this be removed as per the new Consular Information Sheet?. Please advice.
Radiantenergy (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Not looking to deep into this, but if that's a reliable source, then you could just say that one version says X and the other doesn't mention him. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes. The 2009 Consular Sheet website I mentioned is the official U.S Department of State Website - Which issues Travel Warnings and other travel updates. Its definitely a reliable source. http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1139.html#crime.
  • May be the article can say something like 'In 2006 Consular Information Sheet for India there was a travel advisory warning about travelling to Andhra Pradesh indirectly refering to Sathya Sai Baba. Now in 2009 Consular Information Sheet for India published by U.S Department of State this travel warning to Andhra Pradesh and all indirect reference to Sathya Sai Baba has been removed'. This way the article can reflect the correction made in the new Consular Sheet. Will this be good enough? Please advice. Radiantenergy (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
In this case I'm not sure if the information should be included at all. Though the 2006 source can be considered reliable, the source labels the reports as 'unconfirmed'. Including unconfirmed reports in the lead of a BLP is probably not a good idea. I would suggest that you first delete the information entirely, explain why on the talk page, and then, if there are objections, take it to the BLP noticeboard. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a tough call. On the one hand, a reference in a US state department official document is not as casual as an unconfirmed report in a tabloid. On the other hand the report is unconfirmed and indirect, doesn't mention Sathya Sai Baba by name, and most importantly concerns a BLP. So I would have to come down on the side of exclusion, but the issue may be swayed if other reliable sources took note of, or expanded upon, the state department warning. Aside: the fact that the the warning does not appear in the 2009 report is not of much consequence; we are not a news site and don't have to report only the current warnings (unless the earlier reports were found to be baseless, of course). Abecedare (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

From the transcript of the BBC documentary Secret Swami:
We contacted the US Embassy in Delhi and they confirmed to us for the first time that they’re directly referring to Sai Baba.[1]
We have a reputable news source referencing official and unofficial statements by the US Government. Consular information sheets are not tabloid journalism. Bhimaji (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that source. It is a reliable secondary source for the US embassy warning, and the fact can be included in the article if it is due (which is best decided through discussion on the article talk page). Be sure to phrase the information carefully so that wikipedia does not make any unsupported claims. Note that the BBC documentary aired in 2004, so it predates the 2006 consular sheet discussed above. Abecedare (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Including the information about the 2009 sheet is OR by Synth/Implication if used even remotely to try to prove that SSB was cleared by the US Government. The information in the 2006 sheet is unconfirmed. The BBC documentary is a reliable source of fact, and should be the sole cited reference. Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the BBC is the better source because the travel warning is a primary source and the BBC is a reliable secondary source. Andries (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Serial Killer Article

This is a recent discussion I posted (and was replied to) in regards to credibilty of sources for the Serial Killer article. I admit I should have put my edits up for discussion originally, but I'm done with this unless others concur with my point and want to do something about it:

"I'm removing the list of serial killer characteristics, because they are cited from drphil.com. Normally, I would put this up for discussion, but I think that it is self-evident that a television personality is hardly a credible source much less an expert one.

In it's place I am putting information from the F.B.I's website. Please feel free to add psychological or other law enforcement sources if they are credible and peer-reviewed such as the American Psychological Association or similar groups that operate on a consensus within the mental health or law enforcement professions. 65.30.180.228 (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

An editor has returned the list, which has two sources: Dr. Phil's website and The A to Z Encyclopedia of Serial Killers. While they are not peer-reviewed journals, they both satisfy the source requirements. Please note that Dr. Phil McGraw is a former psychologist, although it's not always apparent on his show. :) momoricks 01:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Phil is a former psychologist who had his license revoked for improprieties with a female client of his. He is not legally allowed to practice psychology and is only allowed to give "advice" on his show because the California Board of Psychology determined in 2002 that he did not require a license because his show involves "entertainment," rather than psychology. Dr. Phil himself concurs with this opinion (ostensibly to avoid legal liability). I'm not familiar with "The A to Z Encyclopedia of Serial Killers" (on Amazon.com it is described as "lighthearted" and "amusing" with "useful tips" for finding "tourist attractions devoted to serial killers" and a review states that "this is not an encyclopedia that is meant as a real reference work of any sort" but that it is "a valuable source for juvenile cheap thrills"- hardly an academic text), but I do know that the list of characteristics presented in this article is in direct contradiction to that determined by a consensus of law enforcement and criminal psychology professionals. Since the term "serial killer" orignates from law enforcement and is not recognized within the field of psychology, I feel that is the more credible source. I'm posting the characteristics that you keep deleting here in hopes that editors that can tell the difference between science and entertainment will include it in the article proper (from http://www.fbi.gov/publications/serial_murder.htm#three):

• Predisposition to serial killing, much like other violent offenses, is biological, social, and psychological in nature, and it is not limited to any specific characteristic or trait.

• The development of a serial killer involves a combination of these factors, which exist together in a rare confluence in certain individuals. They have the appropriate biological predisposition, molded by their psychological makeup, which is present at a critical time in their social development.

• There are no specific combinations of traits or characteristics shown to differentiate serial killers from other violent offenders.

• There is no generic template for a serial killer.

• Serial killers are driven by their own unique motives or reasons.

• Serial killers are not limited to any specific demographic group, such as their sex, age, race, or religion.

• The majority of serial killers who are sexually motivated erotized violence during development. For them, violence and sexual gratification are inexplicably intertwined in their psyche.

• More research is needed to identify specific pathways of development that produce serial killers. 65.30.180.228 (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)"

If the issue is whether Dr. Phil's website is reliable, I would say that it meets our criteria for reliability (consider it the same way a dead tree biography written by an amature historian might be considered reliable). However, I would agree that the FBI site is significantly more reliable than Dr. Phil's website. Probably the best way to handle this is to briefly mention what both sources say, giving much more weight and space to the FBI. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
It's reliable in the sense that he (Dr. Phil) is responsible for condoning the material on the site, but it is no more accurate of a depiction of serial killers than quoting from the script of Silence of The Lambs or Psycho. The data contained therein was not obtained nor analyzed scientifically nor was it subjected to peer review. It doesn't make sense to include information in a scientific article from a website (or any other source) which was created with the intent to entertain for profit rather than to inform for the common good. To do so would subject the article to a potentially endless series of such listings. Should we include the opinion of everyone who has a website on serial killers? And if we draw the line somewhere, should not that line be drawn on the basis of expertise in the field and commonly accepted scientific method rather than the amount of money spent promoting a website or the celebrity status of it's creator? 65.30.180.228 (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
After looking at the wiki criteria for reliability, I fail to see how Dr. Phil, et al. meet any of the reliability criteria. "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Dr. Phil, et al. have no such reputation. View the criteria for "Extremist and fringe sources" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources). That is the only defense I can see for including Dr. Phil, et al. and even then there should be a separate article, "Serial kIllers in Popular Culture", for example. 65.30.180.228 (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Gratius Falsius - purported Ancient Roman historian

The Pugnaces Britanniae page currently contains a quote from "Gratius Falsius", "an ancient Roman author and historian writing in the year 8 AD". I've raised concerns about the authenticity of this person, particularly in the light of his name's meaning in Latin ("gratuitous hoax") and that the only mention of him to be found is in this book[2] and on this page[3] citing the book: "Roman author Gratius Falsius from the year 8 A.D. written of big exhibition fights in the Roman amphitheatre between the pugnaces from Epirus and the pugnaces from Brittain and it turn out that these wide mouth dogs from Brittain were far superior to the Greek Molossus". Apparently, however, I need "citations for my assertion about "Gratius Falsius" not being a real person"[4]--Yolgnu (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This is obvious nonsence and should be removed. As for your justification... the burden falls upon those who wish to add or keep sources to prove that "Gratius Falsius" is real, not your burden to prove him a hoax. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! I just didn't want to enter an edit war with a user who seems quite civil but unshakable in his belief in Gratius.--Yolgnu (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, if it helps, there is no entry for "Gratius Falsius" in the Oxford Classical Dictionary which is your basic starting point for people from antiquity. They list basically every author in the Classical periods that is known, even those only known from tiny excerpts. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
It's been removed. Let me know if it pops back up. Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem has been resolved. Apparently due to a telephone game, Grattius Faliscus had become "Gratius Falsius". It seems that many dog authors simply copy from each other without even looking at the references they are citing. The only remaining question is whether someone needs to apologise to someone else. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Procurator Cynegii – linen draper or procurer of fighting dogs?

Unfortunately a related problem has come up. The same dog books that copied from each other until a poet had become a historian whose name was no longer recognisable also claim that Roman Britain had an officer whose job it was to select the best fighting dogs for the emperor. Another dog book, from 1886 explains where the misconception comes from. Which is more reliable on antique history? A dog book from 1886 with immense details on the topic, or a recent dog book that makes no attempt to indicate the original Latin sources? More details here. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that the more modern source has already been shown to be unreliable (or at least very sloppy) in his scholarship, repeating the error of turning Grattius Faliscus into "Gratius Falsius", I don't have any confidence that he has done any better when it comes to "Procurator Cynegii"... I think we should rely on the older source. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Screw source

In the differentiation between bolt and screw section the following link is given as a source for one of the statements: http://euler9.tripod.com/bolt-database/boltdef.html. There is currently a discussion about it on the talk page. I think that it isn't a RS, while User:Davefoc believes it is. I believe a third opinion would be very helpful. Wizard191 (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a personal web site by some guy named Garrett D. Euler. Unless Garrett D. Euler is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, it is not considered a WP:RS. If Euler is such an expert, the site may be used only in limited circumstances and with caution. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 for more information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

Are these considered reliable sources for music articles: About.com, Mohave Daily Miner and the Spokane Chronicle? Pyrrhus16 10:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Both the Mohave Daily Miner and the Spokane Chronicle appear to be treated by other publications as accepted sources. However when I did the Google web/books/news archive search, it was almost all citations. Are those papers no longer around? Which is fine for RS, I'm just curious. About.com might be, but we'd have to see the article you want to cite and how you want to use it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the Mohave Daily Miner and the Spokane Chronicle are around anymore. I'm using About.com as one of the music reviews for Billie Jean. It was asked in it's peer review whether it was reliable or not, but I wasn't too sure myself. Pyrrhus16 12:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Well that particular one appears to be written by a staff writer at About.com who specializes in music, so I'd say the review was published by About.com just like any other newspaper. In the article we use it alongside other sources so there isn't any "undue weight" problem. ( For those reading this wondering why cite About.com for a song recorded in 1983, this was in a paragraph about a remix ). You might want to expand the About.com citation just like it was a news article, with publisher, city, of the media company that owns About.com. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks for your help. :) Pyrrhus16 14:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source review

What is your feeling about www.gregpalast.com. He might have several years professional reporting behind him, but seems to me the website is a single persons point of view. Spider senses tingle. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 10:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It would fall under the "recognized expert" section at WP:SPS. But we'll want to see which article and what it's being used for. Is it new information provided by an expert, or is it only opinion? Is it a biography? We don't generally use third-party selfpubs in biographies. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

2 Skinnee J's

2 Skinnee J's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not really sure to go about this, but a version of this article I wrote which cites reliable sources keeps getting replaced by what is apparently the bandmember-written "official" version. I don't think this is as much spam as nostalgia, because the band is no longer active, but nevertheless, I think the version I wrote, based on newspaper references, is the version we should keep. I have explained this to the editor but I think I failed to make it comprehensible enough because they've come back with their version more than once now. Can an outside editor, hopefully one with more tact than me, look at this situation and try to better explain the problem with the editor? I really don't have the time. Note that the band-written version of this article was apparently mocked on some Anti-Wikipedia site (see the AFD) which is the entire reason I rewrote it. Please feel free to move this request somewhere else if it doesn't belong here. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted User:Andyaction's latest edit and left a note on his talk page. Let's hope he reads it. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Well this has become a minor disaster... everyone meant well but the new editor just didn't like that we were removing what quite possibly was more accurate, but utterly unreferenced, content... more help to try and persuade him to not hate Wikipedia is appreciated. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Following his recent edits adding "official" statements to the article, I have reluctantly reported him at WP:COIN. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Igdir

This article contains the sentence, The Genocide Monument

Genocide Monument and Museum
In August 1997 construction started on the "Iğdır Soykırım Anıt-Müzesi", the "Igdir Massacre Monument and Museum". The monument was built to commemorate massacres of Turks by Armenians during the First World War period.

Which uses these "sources".

  • EXCAVATION OF THE MASS-GRAVE IN IGDIR - OBA VILLAGE http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/massacres/oba_village.html
  • http://www.poligazette.com/2008/01/29/mass-grave-discovered-in-eastern-turkey/ Mass Grave Discovered in Eastern Turkey
  • Halil Kemâl Türközü. Armenian atrocity according to Ottoman and Russian documents,Page 34, A little while ago news reached us that Armenians massacred Turks at Erzincan. Institute for the Study of Turkish Culture, 1986.
  • Azmi Süslü. Russian View on the Atrocities Commited by the Armenians Against the Turks,Page 37 armenians were disgusted, embrassed, and shocked by the massacre of innocent and defenceles muslims, KÖKSAV-KÖK Social and Strategical Research Foundation, 1991. ISBN 975-7430-01-3

Consisting of either Turkish government sites or written by Turks. Should these be considered third party sources? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Soul Survivor, a new book on reincarnation, a reliable source?

This is being discussed at Talk:Reincarnation research. The book (Amazon link here [5] is claimed to be a reliable source because it is endorsed by Jim Tucker, "Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia and author of Life Before Life: A Scientific Investigation of Children's Memories of Previous Lives" says (on Amazon and probably elsewhere) that it is. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No. The very idea boggles the mind. And all my previous incarnations agree. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
A reliable source for what? Unomi (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Read the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I would say the endorsement makes its point of view more likely to be relevant. If I understand that talkpage discussion correctly, citing the point to Leininger should be perfectly sufficient. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(Un-)Reliable Site: Movie-censorship.com

Hello,

I was sent here by IllaZilla from his board: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IllaZilla#Alien_vs._Predator_References'

As you can see, I posted a complain on his discussion-board and would like to pick up his suggestion to build consensus as to whether http://www.movie-censorship.com is a reliable source or not. As I already posted on IllaZilla's Board, m-c.com is the counterpart to the German website http://www.schnittberichte.com which is the biggest website dealing with censored movies and different movie-versions in the German countries. It has over 40.000 visitors per day.

Every author spends hours/days/weeks in order to make an as detailed comparison between two movie-versions as it gets. Nearly every comparison is made on the PC by watching both versions in two windows. A lot of them are made with Virtualdub to get a frame-by-frame-comparison. The DVDs which are necessary to make the comparisons have been bought so every author has two originals to make the comparison. A lot of DVDs also being provided by the labels themselves. The German-Site exists since 1999, so it would be ten years by now. The English counterpart is online since March 2008. The German-Site contains over 5200 comparisons. The Englishsite so far 230.

Regarding the objection made by IllaZilla, that there is no list of authors: That is right. There is no list on the English-site. But there is one on the German-Site: http://www.schnittberichte.com/page.php?Show=Mitarbeiter . Beside that, you can find the author of every single comparison under the concrete report.

I think the site should not be marked as “unreliable site”. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask.

(Please excuse my English, but it is not my native language)

Kind Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.192.229.58 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

To be a reliable source the source should be proven to be regarded as reliable by a wider community, this can be demonstrated by it being cited by other reliable sources, by clear statements of editorial policy, by contributors being regarded as being reliable and authoritative by other sources. Statements published by such sources should be verifiable. The burden of proof is upon the editor adding information. The site does not seem to be a reliable source, it is not cited by other news sources, for instance. The statements which you make above about the source are not verified. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I got your point. But you have to consider that the englishsite still is a new site which is actualy growing. That is why not so many other sites cite it. But it has the same content as the German-Site (only less, because not every report has been transleted by now). And the Germansite is being cited by thousands. This is what you get, when you type "schnittberichte.com" into google.de an run a search http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=schnittberichte.com&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=&aq=f&oq= 79.192.229.58 (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid that you don't seem to be getting the point. Explanations of why a source gets few citations are irrelevant. Until a source can be proven to be reliable it isn't a reliable source. Looking at the German site, most of the citations to it are on forums or blogs. One or two mentions in passing quote users posts from "schnittberichte.com", but say nothing about the reliability of the site. Such citations could only reference individual user comment. You make all sorts of assertions about the web site but you bring no evidence to the table. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Cherwell.org - Student news and reviews at Oxford University

Is http://www.cherwell.org/ considered an acceptable source for making biographical claims about living people? I'm uncomfortable with it since it is a student website. It isn't subjected to the same editorial rigour that a professional news site is subjected to and the people who write for it aren't subjected to the same sanctions (i.e. possible dismissal etc). I would welcome some impartial opinions, so thanks to anyone who takes the time to respond. Betty Logan (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I suspect not good for BLP purposes, might be good to ask at Wikipedia:BLP_noticeboard. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I've wondered this myself. BLP issues aside, are school newspapers considered reliable sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It's an issue that comes up repeatedly. Having worked on one I can tell you that you can pretty much write anything you want provided it's not libellous, and independent fact checking is virtually non-existent. I personally don't feel they have credibility as sources. That's not to do them down - they can produce good writers - but there is a lack of peer review and experienced editorial judgement in these places. Betty Logan (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hannibal roman bust

There was an image of a Roman, it looked like solider on the Hannibal page, and it was used as a depiction of hannibal. The image clearly stated that "this image may not authentic". and it had two sources when I clicked the link of the source. It didn't seem to support that the image was of hannibal. I removed it and it was brought back by another editor Catiline63, who changed the words under the orginal bust and tried to provide sources to say that the image was of hannibal. I felt and suggested that since non of her source can say that the image its truly of hannibal, and they or seem to say "MAYBE" it is. Then it shouldn't be included in the page and we should take time to find one, but it doesn't seem that my discussion with this editor Catiline63 is going anywhere so want this to be looked at from a neutral point of view and to decided whether the roman bust is realible image that should be used to depict hannibal.

Here are some links I added to conversation from my talk page to the Articles disus. page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hannibal#Edits_by_TruHeir.2F76.118.238.21

Here is my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TruHeir#top

and her is the editors talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Catiline63

TruHeir (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This was previously removed from here because it's not really the right forum, so I replied on the relevant Talk page. However, I may as well note here what I said there. There are undeniably reliable sources that discuss the image and assert that it represents Hannibal. That does not mwean that it really looks like him, of course, but we can't know. There are no unambiguously authenticated images of Hannibal. This is simply the best that exists. Paul B (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
p.s. Catiline is a male name. Paul B (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the name didn't realize it was a male name.. As the admin who removed it stated on my page, it was not removed because it wasn't in the right forum but it was removed because I did not list the sources being disputed. Here are the "sources": magazine The Edinburgh review) (1866). A. and C. Black. ed http://books.google.com/books?id=E-sEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA353&dq=hannibal+bust+authentic&client=opera&hl=es and Goldsworthy, A. (2001) Cannae p.24. Cassell, London.

Also paul you say "There are undeniably reliable sources that discuss the image and assert that it represents Hannibal" however these 2 are the only sources on the pagehannibal and not one of them support or say that the image is of hannibal. Infact they all are not sure and say the image "might be" of Hannibal. you also say "There are no unambiguously authenticated images of Hannibal". Well if there is no authenticated images of hannibal and the sources provided can not support that the roman bust is indeed of him then why is the image trying to be pasted of as hannibal in the 1st place? Then you say "This is simply the best that exists." How do we know that it is the best or even real when here is nothing to back it up or there to compare it to? Basically say it can't be verified. so this is more the reason the image shouldn't be there. This is not the place for a dicussion, we can do that on the talk page. This image/"sources" are verified then so be it, if not them image should be removedTruHeir (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see also the talk:Hannibal page where I have given all the additional sources I have been able to gather since this dispute began (i.e., Lancel (citing Museo Arch. Nazionale, Naples), Matyszak, Carey, and more Goldsworthy) not just the two that have been presented above. Catiline63 (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Truheir, I have already answered all these points before on the page. I see no point in repeating myself. In the absence of authenticated images we use what is available, in just the same way that historians do [6]. Or would you prefer a picture of Victor Mature? [7] Paul B (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think the picture of victor Mature would quite cut it, Like I said before I respect your view Paul and I agree that historians use pictures of what is available but thoese images are atleast backed up with something. My question is are these sources and this particular image reliable? Nothing support that it is and I hope from this noticeboard that question is answered TruHeir (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources not reliable? Well, Adrian Goldsworthy has a doctorate in ancient military history from Oxford. Matyszak had a doctorate in Roman history from Oxford. Lancel is a professor of archaeology. Can you get any more reliable? Catiline63 (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

is this considered a reliable source?

I'm doing a GA review of TNA X Division Championship He has some source issues -- well, I think they are source issues, but he's not convinced. There are two problems, one is a section "based on information stated during TNA Impact!, weekly PPV events, monthly PPVs event, special released DVDs, etc by wrestlers, commentators, etc. Written sources are not available for such comments at this time and using cite episode for such things would be difficult seeing as it is near impossible to quote someone correctly." This is how he footnoted it. Advice? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Having done a few pro-wrestling GA reviews, I would say that there should be plenty of online material to reference statements. I note that there are several references to youtube which is not OK, also revver.com which looks to be a youtube type site. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thanks, I've asked him to clarify what those sources are, in the footnote and in the discussion page. Generally, I suspect youtube is not a good source, but this might have been a specific broadcast that was available on youtube, where he saw it. We'll see. :) --Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Fathers' rights movement

Does an opinion piece published by Glenn Sacks in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune published in 2002 (link) justify adding a sentence that contradicts information published in three scholarly books?

There is a slow-burning edit war over this, as well as a discussion on the talk page that isn't really going anywhere - Talk:Fathers' rights movement#Deletions of well-sourced material which may or may not be worthy for inclusion in the article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you reasoning on the talk page. I don't think adding the sentence is justified. Dougweller (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Solid published books trump a "Talk Radio Host / Columnist / Commentator" for statistics. Also, Sacks&Thompson do not indicate sources, especially not worldwide ones. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Celebs101

www.celebs101.com was recently added to a WP:BLP article (specifically, Keri Hilson) in order to cite a birth date. Looking through the site, I am unable to determine whether this source is reliable or not, and would like others' input. — Σxplicit 05:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any indication that this is a reliable source, doesn't appear to have been cited by any other media sources for instance. It appears to be a privately owned site based in Karachi, Pakistan. The WP:Burden of proof that a source is reliable is upon the person who introduces that source. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Source review - Back To Bible Workgroup

Hi all, appreciate if can help us to review if this website be use as a reliable sources for wikipedia?

http://www.backtothebible.nl/

Nccwebmaster (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No. It is essentially a WP:SPS. It would be possible to use it for an article about the Workgroup itself but its descriptions of the activities and beliefs of others cannot be relied on for accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinlc (talk • contribs) 08:53, 9 June 2009

Medical review in the Lancet

A group of editors is editing chronic fatigue syndrome and similar articles and edit warring to delete information from a review in UK medical journal Lancet. The review is Prins JB, van der Meer JW, Bleijenberg G (2006). "Chronic fatigue syndrome". Lancet 367 (9507): 346–55 The authors are world experts on CFS and treatments. The group of editors dispute at a role for psychiatry and psychology in treating CFS. Their opinions on Prins et al are exampled in a comment by User:Sam Weller [8] "Prins 2006 is not a valid source" and [9] a source in the Lancet Reivew is in Dutch so the Lancet Review can not be used.

Is a Lancet review a reliable source and should Wiki editors say, I do not think a source cited in the source is valid, so that makes the review not valid? Thx RetroS1mone talk 18:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Calling an article published in The Lancet (which is peer-reviewed) unreliable for making a claim about a medical topic, especially when the authors are renowned experts in that specific topic, seems strange. Our own article on The Lancet calls it "one of the world's best-known and most respected general medical journals". WP:RS would indicate that The Lancet is reliable for making claims about medical topics, but of course, in any and all cases, the specific statement being sourced should be evaluated for compliance with that source.
It strikes me that Sam Weller is arguing that the claim being made doesn't strictly come from Prins 2006, but is instead from Prins 2001 written in Dutch. However, if the same claim is made in Prins 2006, or if the claim made in Prins 2001 is quoted or cited in Prins 2006, then I would think it appropriate to cite it to Prins 2006 per WP:RSUE; Prins 2006 could be considered a translation of Prins 2001, which is in the Dutch language.
Now, Sam appears to also argue that the conclusions in Prins 2006 are contested in other publications. My suggestion would be that if Prins 2006 is considered a significant study, then a treatment of its conclusions in the article (i.e., "Prins, et al. said [blah blah blah] in 2006"), while also treating the opposing viewpoint (i.e., "In opposition to Prins, et al. (2006), [foo bar baz] said [blah blah blah]"). If it is of poor significance, or has been heavily contested in reliable sources, it should receive a proportionally smaller treatment. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely, The Lancet is a WP:RS. It's a peer-reviewed, medical journal. Encyclopedia Britanica describes The Lancet as "a highly prestigious medical journal around the world".[10] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
RetroS1mone left out a link to a more lengthy discussion of the subject, which can be found here. She's also misrepresenting the position of a great many people in saying that they are disputing a role of psychiatry and psychology in the treatment of CFS...they've done nothing of the kind, and they've told her that on many occasions. All they've done is called that particular citation into question by virtue of the fact that Prins is citing Prins. You can read the lengthier discussion as to the reasoning in the link I mentioned. --Rob (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This issue involves both the role of psychological factors in CFS and the editing behaviour of RetroS1mone. This is a long-standing issue that is also spread throughout Archive 9 and 10 of the CFS talkpages. For this particular recent issue, the Lancet paper (Prins et al) states "Personality and lifestyle are presumed to influence vulnerability to CFS. In a review of personality characteristics, neuroticism and introversion have been reported as risk factors for the disorder.[48]" with a self-citation in Dutch [Hoogveld S, Prins J, de Jong L, et al. Persoonlijkheidskenmerken en het chronisch vermoeidheidssyndroom: een literatuuroverzicht (Personality characteristics and the chronic fatigue syndrome: a review of the literature). Gedragstherapie 2001; 34: 275–305.] No one has been able to access this reference to check it out. However, the verifiability of this statement rests largely on the shoulders of the Lancet itself, rather than the primary source. The so-called "group of editors", contrary to regular assertions made by RetroS1mone, are not bullying this editor or making a co-ordinated attack on all mention of psychological factors at all. A number of editors want a more balanced view of the subject with a wider range of sources. For example, the inclusion of two systematic reviews which are more recent and discuss the issue more specifically, such as PMID 17892624 (published in "Psychological Medicine") and in particular PMID 17350740 (published in "Clinical Psychology Review"[11]). However, the "Lancet" has more impact factor than "Psychological Medicine" and especially "Clinical Psychology Review". But impact factor of a journal isn't the only criterion for judging the relevance of an individual paper, and several editors are annoyed at the constant hand-waving of the word "Lancet" that is used to dominate the issue. .
A reasonable goal is to have a brief summary of sources on the main CFS page, and further expand the details on the appropriate sub-page. I doubt any of the main so-called "group of editors" involved would actually object to using the Lancet paper if it was amongst a range of other sources on the subject and not persistently enforced as an unquestionable source to the general exclusion of other conflicting sources. If some editors have been stringent on the Lancet paper, it may have been in response to RetroS1mone's history of double-standards on this issue (ie adding only positive primary/secondary sources, removing most if not all negative primary/secondary sources, saying others shouldn't engage in "cherry picking" while at the same time selectively using primary sources, accusing others of "OR" when they legitimately use the same sources that RetroS1mone uses, etc). On WP:COI it says "the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted". The material in question here isn't even necessarily "critical", but more comprehensive in scope and offers relevant qualifiers. WP:MEDRS says "Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy." However, RetroS1mone usually removes reliably sourced "uncertainty or controversy" as "non-MEDRS", "OR", "SYN", "non-NPOV", usually without adequate explanation or discussion or collaboration, and usually with some accusation about the (alleged/hypothetical) "agenda" of the editors (focusing on the editor rather than the edit).
This Lancet paper was also the centre of an earlier dispute about CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy), where a similar "edit-war" unfolded (in relation to the proportion of patients improving with CBT); where other editors preferred to use more-specific more-recent systematic reviews on CBT in CFS from the "Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine" and from "Cochrane" (review database). RetroS1mone also used the latter paper (along with the Lancet paper), but generally refused to allow caveats from the systematic reviews, and also selectively used primary sources in partial contradiction to J R Soc Med and Cochrane. In another dispute, the Lancet paper was cited in text about the purpose of CBT in CFS, but the self-citated source used an inclusion criteria for "CFS" that didn't officially exist (ie just the "fatigue" component without the further requirement of any "minor" symptoms eg the CDC-1994's definition), this doesn't necessarily exclude any relevance, but some editors expressed concern about the way this paper was applied. Ever since then, RetroS1mone seems almost obsessed with the notion that there is some major vendetta of some sort against Prins' and anything supporting psychological factors at all.
In the process, a stream of misrepresentations and false accusations have followed. There are regular allegations about some (imaginary) "cabal" attempting a massive coordinated attack on the CFS wiki-article. RetroS1mone tends to lump anyone who disagrees with their views into this group and accuses them of COI-POV, "bullying", and being uncivil. Also, none of the main editors involved called the lead author of the Lancet paper (Prins et al) "stupid"/"OR" as claimed on another talkpage, so just in case anyone follows this dispute and comes across more such claims (which are common), be aware that these claims are likely to be false or misconstrued. And even if someone did do or say that, just be aware that RetroS1mone may implicate several editors for just one single editor's actions. Sorry for such a large tiring post, but this issue is the tip of the iceberg that is the long-term problem a number of editors are having with RetroS1mone's apparently disruptive behaviour across a number of CFS-related pages.
_Tekaphor (TALK) 12:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Tekaphor describes in detail the bizarre editwarring and namecalling by RetroS1mone. Nobody at all has questioned the standing of the Lancet, and I'm not aware that any information from Prins 2006 has been deleted, or even their assertion based on Prins 2001. However, specific hypotheses about personality and other risk factors for CFS have been examined in recent systematic reviews by van Geelen 2007 [[12]] and Hempel 2008 [[13]]. Mendaliv suggests that Prins should be balanced by contradictory findings. We agree, and this was already being followed exactly here [14] and here [15]. We have to ask why RetroS1mone failed to mention this here. She also failed to mention that she has deleted MEDRS findings multiple times if they call into question any claim at all by Prins 2006, which she insists is a systematic review when it does not claim to be one. In effect, she is saying science stops at Prins 2006 and no more recent findings are allowed, unless they happen to agree with Prins 2006. Clinically speaking, this is ignorant, dangerous obscurantism that should be shown the door. If WP endorses such attitudes then I will get my coat. Sam Weller (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Sam Weller, Tekaphor, and Rob are involved editors, Sam Weller says in his edit summary "Prins 2006 not valid source" so that is why i asked to RSN. Editors that are not involved say Sam was wrong and say Prins is valid source. Lancet also is a highest quality medical journal, it is more influential then the others but OK i do not have problem with balance. RetroS1mone talk 15:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually, I don't believe any of us except for Sam said that. We said it required investigation and I think we all would have been quite happy to post an RS notice, though I think it was a little under-handed of you to take it here without notifying the "involved editors" so that we could present a balanced view of why the Prins 2006 edits came into question. --Rob (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I did not delete Prins 2006 or state that the Lancet was not a valid source, as misleadingly claimed here and elsewhere, in spite of my serious reservations about them being used to advance a POV. When I said in an edit summary 'Prins 2006 not a valid source', I meant that Prins 2006 is a general overview of cfs, that contains an unverified assertion on psychological causes based on 'Prins 2001'. All any editor here knows is based on this one sentence in Prins 2006: "In a review of personality characteristics, neuroticism and introversion have been reported as risk factors for the disorder (Prins 2001)." 'Prins 2001' might be a valid source, but nobody has seen, or translated from Dutch what Prins 2001 actually claimed. We have no way of knowing anything about the risk factors. Were they weak, strong, tentative, tenuous? In spite of that ignorance, a strong statement that neuroticism and introversion predispose to cfs was in place, and attempts to balance it with two recent verifiable systematic reviews devoted to the topic of personality factors and cfs were deleted by RetroS1mone in both the general cfs and pathophysiology articles.
We still need to know the status of Prins 2001. This is science, not literary criticism, so we are not just comparing opinions, but trying to represent the state of clinical knowledge. If Prins 2001 (or 2006 or whatever) has been falsified by more recent scientifically-conducted systematic reviews, why should a statement about predisposition remain, regardless of whether it it was uttered in The Lancet? It's interesting historically and culturally, but scientifically it appears dead. The present locked version belatedly and correctly says 'previously thought'. Even though there appears to be an uneasy truce, I predict that as soon as the article is unlocked it will be neutered to make it appear as if it represents current knowledge, and the fact that an unseen article in non-PMID Gedragstherapie was cited in a general overview by its own authors in the Lancet will be given more weight than the topic-specific PubMed systematic reviews that refute it. That is the RS issue that need urgent clarification, not the strawman that opened this request. Sam Weller (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Every body pls cool off. The later review is balancing Prins in article. There is alot of contradiction in EBM literature, it does not mean every time the later review in a small jouranl is "refute" the earlier one in bigger journal. Rob, Tekaphor, Sam are not on the point, Lancet, NEJM, Science Nature, JAMA are like the biggest medical science journals in world, the articles are written from world experts, edited with wrold experts. They are review from world experts. We are Wiki editors we report what reviews in the journals say, it is not my job, guessing second the lancet reviewers and editors. Some world experts believe neuroticism predisposes to CFS and other world experts disagree, the article needs that, not editors deleting Lancet reviews they do not like. OK? RetroS1mone talk 09:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
We do not "like" or "dislike" the reviews or any other sources. We have concerns about it, we have questions about its validity. That's why the RSN exists. --Rob (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Great Power Politics.com

Hey, I can't figure if this source is reliable or not [16]. It seems like a blog, but it is written by people who say they have degrees in the field [17] and seems to have valuable information. So I can't figure out if this is reliable or not. Also, same for this source [18]. Deavenger (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Are there any third-party sources that cite it?Martinlc (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
How can I tell if any third-party sources cite it? Deavenger (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment The first source {http://greatpowerpolitics.com/} links to 3 sources which would appear to be reliable. It is these sites, not the summary which you should look at. Robert Kagan is a columnist for The Washington Post so his opinions may be referenced as opinions. Likewise Christian Brose and David J. Rothkopf are columinsts on Foreign Policy, so their opinions may be cited as opinions, not facts. Likewise Christopher Herbert on the Foreign Policy Blogs Network has opinions which may be cited as opinions only. To check if other 3rd party sources cite these, try copying a sentence from the opinion and paste it into Google and see if other reliable sources cite it. Hope this helps. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Michigan.gov

Can anyone tell if http://www.michigan.gov/hal/0,1607,7-160-15481_20826_20829-54118--,00.html is a reliable source for use in the Geography of Michigan article, currently up for DYK Geography of Michigan? Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say that for the purpose discussed in the DYK all the statements are interesting but not particularly remarkable or controversial. Good source for this purpose. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

GateWorld

The reliability of the website GateWorld has come up in several GANs, for the legitimate reason that it was created and is still run by a fan since 1998. My explanation for its reliability have always been accepted so far, but a reviewer at Talk:Stargate SG-1/GA1 would prefer a secondary opinion to be sure.

The facts in support of reliability or at least usability on wikipedia are:

  • GW has a special relationship with Stargate distributor Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and occasionally offers exclusive news reports. The last time, GW was the third in a group with TV Guide and Entertainment Weekly, to be given an exclusive on the new cast of Stargate Universe.[19][20][21]
  • GW site runner Darren Sumner gave a seven-page interview for the 2005 book Approaching the Possible: The World of Stargate SG-1, in which he said (p. 86) "I am working with MGM on their official sites, I am responsible for reviewing and editing every Stargate comic book for continuity with the TV shows, and now I am serving as the news editor for the official Stargate SG-1 magazine. We do six pages of news at the top of every issue that is 'in association with GateWorld.net' - it's a great priviledge." (I can't verify that, as I've never bought SG comic books or official magazines.)
  • GW runs dozens of interviews with the cast and crew a year.[22] It was 16 so far this year, and 45 last year.
  • The producers repeatedly named the website in DVD audio commentaries, e.g. "Childhood's End", "It's Good To Be King", ...
  • Several DVD features were produced in collaboration with GateWorld (I'd have to look which ones)
  • Several actors and producers etc. blogged on GW[23]
  • Several actors and producers etc. commented on the forum[24]
  • Several actors and producers etc. said they get their news from GateWorld or at least check the site regularly: The last time, main actor Michael Shanks said he did so in an interview this month.[25]
  • Secondary facts:
    • GW is the biggest and most popular Stargate online community and newssite.
    • Just the newssite part and the interviews are used for the purpose of wikipedia. That excludes editorials, reviews, fan encyclopedia, the forum, and podcasts, or anything you would expect from a pure fansite.
    • The Stargate franchise has been ignored by TV critics nearly unanimously since it hit the TV screen in 1997[26][27] (that doesn't make GW reliable, but at least it illustrates that GW is hardly replaceable)

The facts counting against reliability are:

  • It is technically run by a fan.

– sgeureka t•c 20:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

None of the factors you list as being in support of reliability are part of our WP:RS guideline as far as I can tell. Dlabtot (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The basic question is if it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I don't know GateWorld, but it seems that may be the case here. Wether it is or is not run by a fan is irrelevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
You are right that the main consideration, besides independence from the subject matter, is a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The only valid way to determine whether such a reputation exists is by looking to other independent, third-party reliable sources. Do they cite the source? That would be an indication of a reputation for reliability. Do they specifically review the source and report that it has such a reputation? Even better.
I don't see anything like that presented here. Dlabtot (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe the points Sgeureka brought up -do- count as showing that this is more than a fansite. The points about fact-checking and accuracy are part of the RS guideline ( remember it is only a guideline; WP:V is the policy ), but we don't typically insist on finding articles that review the reputation of a source except in unusual cases. Remember that we're citing it for cast interviews, and the site has a relationship with the studios. If there was any problem with the accuracy of the interviews, that relationship would not last long. Don't overthink what "reputation" means. Just do a proper cite with publisher, city, etc and that should be fine. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The fact that the website is promoted by the subject of the article hardly makes it more reliable. That's what we mean by 'independent' when we talk about independent, published reliable sources - not confirmed as reliable by the subject of the article, but actually independent. And we don't need to overthink what 'reputation' means, rather we just look to the plain meaning of the word. What is the reputation of gateworld.net? Obviously, the answer to that question must be found elsewhere than gateworld.net in order to be verifiable. Dlabtot (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Being promoted by the subject of the article takes it beyond simply being a self-published source. I don't think this source is part of a notability debate which is where independence becomes a must in addition to reliability. Reliable sources may be independent secondary sources, but they can also be primary sources related to the subject of the article, primary sources from official or semi-official sources ( public records data, TV listings, etc ), self-published sources by experts in the subject matter, or tertiary sources such as guidebooks. I believe that being endorsed by the studio is one way to attain reputation. A critical evaluation by an independent source is simply another way. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The fact remains that the question is: "Is gateworld.net a reliable source?" Clearly, we must look to someplace other than gateworld.net to answer this question. Dlabtot (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
There are some sources cited in the Gateworld article that speak well of it. The Province [newspaper in Vancouver] called GateWorld "amazingly detailed", we have GateWorld.net is the winner of the 2007 SyFy Genre Awards for "Best Web Site", and from a Stargate prducer's blog I have always been a supporter of Gateworld and consider it the premiere site for Stargate fans online. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The Province article does indeed mention gateworld.net, saying: "There are fan websites like the amazingly-detailed Gateworld"[28]. Does the noting of this 'amazingly-detailed' fan website, establish it as having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Since the author does not mention fact-checking or accuracy, and there is no indication that the author investigated the fact-checking and accuracy of the site, the answer is clearly: NO. Dlabtot (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
How about if one of the most prestigious, peer-reviewed academic journals in the world cites them[29]? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It's reliable for Stargate news and interviews, beyond a reasonable doubt in my opinion, which is good enough for this type of information. As always, don't use it for controversial BLP info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Quest, if you subscribe to Nature, you might want to cite that in the Gateworld article cause Nature is pretty compelling. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Dlabtot, I understand that "amazingly detailed" is not the same as a point-by-point assessment of accuracy, but you seem to be asking for something that would never be written about this type of source. Could you imagine a serious fact-finding inquiry into the reporting standards of a journal about Star Trek? Some sources are so specialized it's unlikely anybody would worry about their reputation enough to write a critique. Gateworld is used as a source for cast interviews. The only way a source for interviews would not have a reputation for accuracy would be if the interviews were made up or taken far out of context, which is of course impossible because they have a relationship with the studio. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what to tell you, except that I am a native English speaker, and the two words "detailed" and "accurate" don't have the same meaning, similar meanings, or overlapping meanings. They are just two different words for two entirely different concepts, so a statement that a source is "detailed" is in no way a comment for or against its accuracy. In other words, irrelevant to the question of whether it meets the WP:RS guideline. Dlabtot (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, our reliable source guideline says that articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It doesn't say: articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy unless they are on a specialized topic. If a source doesn't live up to the guideline, it doesn't belong in WP, regardless of the topic. Dlabtot (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Outdent. While "detailed" does not always mean accurate, they aren't completely unrelated either. Kind of like accuracy and precision in the physical sciences. Now while that one adjective is not a glowing scorecard of a source's accuracy, I would assume that if the newspaper found the site questionable they would have used a different word to describe it, or left it out entirely. Anyhow that point is moot because somebody found an article about GateWorld in Nature (!) which I'm sure has more than one adjective in it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting an exemption from reputation for specialized topics. But you seem to be arguing that instead of inferring reputation from who's on the editorial board, whether they're endorsed by various organizations, or from how a source is cited in other media (which is explicit in the guideline), you seem to demand that each source must have a critique published about it to be considered RS. The problem with that idea is that sources generally get critiqued only if there is some political or academic controversy, and this would limit us to only about 250 or so approved sources when there's probably 25,000 sources out there that are usable by our guidelines. Requiring a critique would exclude not only sources that discuss pop culture, but also academic journals about the properties of plastics, trade journals about locksmithing, or local newspapers. Many of these are RS, and censoring them would create huge gaps in WP's knowledge, but because they don't deal in controversy they are not often critiqued. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The only thing I am 'arguing' is that our policies are clear and not at all ambiguous that fan websites that do not have an independent reputation for reliability should not be cited. This discussion has engendered some long-winded and far-fetched arguments but I'm not the one making them. Dlabtot (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, it seems to me that being featured in Nature counts a long way towards reputation. We should also examine what we're citing the source for. Is the reputation strong enough to support a cite for cast interviews? That's pretty hard to screw up. Unless they were fabrications or taken wildly out of context, which obviously isn't so because the studio keeps granting them interviews with their stars. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
So now you are claiming that Gateworld was featured in Nature  ? Really? Have you actually looked at the article in Nature? And based on what you read, you are asserting that they were "featured in Nature"? Or are you actually totally ignorant of what the Nature article says and just making pronouncements based on no facts and no information? Which is it? Dlabtot (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, cited by Nature. Looks like they cited a show transcript in the intro to an article on telomeres to show that the concept was in the popular culture. But that still comes back to reputation. The editors of Nature were fine with using Gateworld to source some basic facts about the TV show, just like we're proposing. I say, if it's good enough for Nature, it's good enough for a GAn on Wikipedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

An additional point is that according to our reliable source guideline, we should use sources that are independent from the subject. Much of the discussion here has highlighted quite the opposite: the degree to which this fan website is not independent, but a conduit for PR from the show. Dlabtot (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Tot, our guideline says in the most general terms Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources, emphasis mine. While "third-party" excludes most primary sources, notice they say "primarily" and not "exclusively". That means that while each article must cite at least some secondary sources, there is no requirement that every source be independent from the subject. By your logic, if the studio itself published the cast interviews that would be completely unacceptable, but that's not what the policies, guidelines, or common practice here say. The studio, or a media outlet affiliated with the studio, is an RS for ordinary cast interviews. If the cast had some sort of dispute with the studio I wouldn't expect such an interview to be candid, but for basic information about who played the different roles the source is more than acceptable. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, no. Sources must be independent from the subject, they must be published, and they must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This fan website clearly fails all of those tests. Dlabtot (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no requirement for all sources in an article to be independent from the subject. It's perfectly acceptable to quote General Motors in an article about General Motors. I don't know where you're getting all this from, but if you're giving people advice on RSN you should know it well. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Requiring all sources to be independant is beyond the scope of this noticeboard, and would never gain consensus anyways. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
It's perfectly acceptable to quote General Motors in an article about General Motors. - absolutely. Similarly, it may be acceptable to quote gateworld.net in an article about gateworld.net. That what our WP:SELFPUB policy is about. However, would it be acceptable to quote some GM fan's website in an article about GM? Our policies are clear and weigh in specifically on this point. Dlabtot (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a little more than just some fan's website. If GM had a relationship with a third-party website such that it routinely granted them access to executives and designers, trusted them to report the interviews accurately ( there's the "reputation clause ), and the journals of the SAE and ASME started writing articles about it, then that's on its way to becoming an RS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Where are you getting this from? A special relationship creates a conflict of interest and thus damages its credibility to accurately report on this topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think a relationship that goes only as far as thinking a media outlet is important enough to grant them interviews creates a conflict of interest. If it did, pretty much all our sources would be in trouble. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
GateWorld is a single purpose Web site. Other publications such as Time Magazine or Newsweek cover thousands of different topics. Even more specific publications such as Sports Illustrated covers dozens of different sports. Car and Driver likewise covers many different car manufacturers. Anyway, I've been swayed by Dlabtot's arguments that this is not a WP:RS. That said, I think that referencing intereviews with the cast, writers, producers, etc. would be fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Up until this point I've been arguing essentially that a "fansite" can become RS if it's no longer self-published, if it has editorial control. But should there be a special case where if a source is so specialized it's only about one brand of car, or author, or TV show, that even if it has reputation, staff writers, and an editorial board, it's still problematic? Now even my example of an obscure trade journal on locksmithing would be about more than one brand of lock. But even if it did concentrate on one brand, that still doesn't make its facts any less reliable. The only thing that would be problematic would be as an argument for notability; a news source only about brand X isnt a good cite to show notability of X products. So it's kind of like my other example of a small-town newspaper in that it takes on some caveats of a primary source. You might cite it for facts about the town, but you wouldn't use it to argue notability for the local pizza parlor. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
But anyway we may be making the same argument about what Gateworld is usable for, cast interviews. Nobody is arguing that it's a general-purpose RS like the Washington Post. The Post is an RS for pretty much every topic under the sun other than exceptional claims about the Post. Gateworld may be an RS only for some very specific areas they are well-known for. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You are not allowed to use a official homepage to reference television articles and others, so that statement is wrong or inconcistent, just as if GateWorld is reliable or not. It is reliable. --TIAYN (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Policy is clear that primary sources are allowed; they just can't be the only sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Primary sources and self-published sources are not the same thing. This is a pretty basic point. Dlabtot (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
There are editors who use "primary" in the sense of how the source is used as opposed to where the source came from. They say things like "X is a primary source for this topic", and they use "primary" to refer both to official records as well as to self-published material used in articles about themselves. There are also editors who feel "self-published" implies published by an individual, and that count articles published by corporations as primary. There might be a better way of doing things but consensus on a new system isn't happening anytime soon; let's just say that we're talking about a hypothetical publication by an organization (studio) that is a party to the article topic (tv show).
Remember this was in response to Trust/TIAYN who was questioning citing the studio itself, not GateWorld. MGM can be a reliable cite in an article about an MGM film, though not an independent secondary source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Eurovision articles

The (to me) readily apparent blog sites {http://www.esctoday.com/} and {http://www.oikotimes.com/} are used extensively as sources for Norway in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 and Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008, and for that reason I quick failed them at WP:GAN. This has been challenged. Comments welcome. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the false classification as blogs. I ask others to weigh in on whether they are reliable sources or not. Both have editorial boards, multiple authors/employees, field reporters, time stamps, etc; they are full service news organizations, not someone writing about his favorite song contest. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
From oikitimes.com[30]: Are you fanatical about the Eurovision Song Contest? Do you enjoy following the news from the World of Eurovision all throughout the year? Would you like to join a team dedicated to the Eurovision all year round?
If yes, then you could be just who we’re looking for. We are looking for enthusiastic volunteers to help oikotimes.com continue to be one of the leading sources of Eurovision news. We are one of the only websites that keeps visitors updated about Eurovision stats past and present throughout the whole of the year, and can offer a unique opportunity to highly-motivated fans to be more closely involved with the contest on one of the World’s biggest Eurovision news websites.
If you’re interested in working with us please don’t hesitate in completing a form by clicking the link above. Good English is required, and other languages are an advantage- but don’t be afraid to get in contact with us even if you’re not very confident with your language. Unfortunately we cannot pay any of our volunteers, however we can help with accreditations for events.
So if you think you can help us with national finals, general news, events for past Eurovision stars, the Dance Contest, or multimedia and graphics, we’d love to hear from you!
Also from about us on that site[31]: We are not a fan club, we are not trying to be the best in the web. We are some friends from Greece and around the world who want to have a webpage (without any restrictions among us) which will include news, rumours and many collaboration projects with other major or not websites.
I can't find any editorial policy or information about esctoday apart from exhorations to join and donate. No editorial policy statement, no listing of editorial team or indication of their notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
[32] for ESCToday and [33] (to a lesser extent) for Oikotimes. I think it's worthy of mention that both of these sites have a great reputation and involvement in the contest. Not only do they report the news (Oikotimes has a section for rumors separate from the news), but they routinely take part in high level communication with the national broadcasters, with both even sharing a seat on the nine member jury to choose the Greek entry in the 2006 Contest for example [34]. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Both of these sites have been heavily cited, see [35] and [36]. Jezhotwells' quickfailing a GA based on an arbitrary assumption without even asking the nominator to defend the sources first and without doing any research whatsoever is uncivil and grossly in conflict with assume good faith. Grk1011 should follow the "second opinion" procedure on GAC and this issue should get more attention. --129.10.104.191 (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
esctoday.com is referred to as a fansite by reliable sources e.g. The Independent [37], The Washington Post [38], The Daily Telegraph [39]. I can find no reliable sources citing oikotimes or any of its "senior editors". Both are fansites and/or group blogs and thus are not reliable sources. If editors are unhappy with the decision to quickfail then take it to WP:GAR. There are undoubtedly plenty of reliable sources available in both the English language press and the national press of each participating country. These should be used, but esctoday and oikotimes are not reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Obviously the sites aim towards the fans since they are the audience. This, however, does not change the reliability of the information, which from my experience has never let me down. Also, who's to say that there is an abundance of other English language sources? I know for a fact that an editor would have a hard time tracking enough down to write a full article. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry this is not a matter of your (or my) personal opinion. Your experience is not a way of determining reliable sources. If there are no reliable sources then the information is not notable. That is how Wikpedia works. It is a Wikipedia guideline. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Well you are the one who steadfast believes they are blogs and seem to be the only one so far. How about both of us not respond and let some uninvolved editors respond? I understand that you feel you must defend yourself for inappropriately quickfailing the articles without even inquiring about their reliability or status, so let some uninvolved people respond. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks to me that the larger issue is that the Norway and Portugal articles are almost entirely referenced to Esctoday and Oikotimes, with about 30 citations to each. I'd like to see a greater diversity of sources. You could make the case that both sources are more than just fansites or blogs because they show an editorial staff.[40][41] But I'd have a hard time GA'ing an article with so many cites to the same two sources, even if they were the BBC and the Washington Post. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. That is a legit concern and I can work on diversifying the sources. I usually search oiko and esctoday for all stories of the country and its participation and expand the article accordingly to reach GA; it's not usually gradual. I'll work with the creator of the two articles and have him swap out some of the sources where appropriate. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Can I please get some more feedback to sense the reliability of these sources? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I spent some time finding new sources for one of these article. My impression was that these two pages to a high degree just takes the news from other sources or from each other. I have to agree with Jezhotwells that they are not good sources. Rettetast (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Guidance sought on use of FAQ as source

PERQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) describes a family of computers built in the 70s and 80s by Three Rivers Computer Corporation and later, ICL. Some of the content is sourced from an online FAQ, which appears to be written by subject matter experts. I've no reason to doubt the veracity of the information it contains, but I'm concerned that such a FAQ – which itself doesn't cite sources from which its contents are drawn – doesn't satisfy WP:V. What, if anything, is usable from this kind of source? Thanks, Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 15:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If the FAQ is archived it meets WP:V. Whether it's an RS depends on whether it's a bona fide faq based on questions from many people and answers from experts, which it appears to be. I wouldn't expect a technical FAQ to cite other sources for the bulk of its content. Most of it appears to be written by owners of the systems who can simply look inside and see which color wires go where. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Squidfryerchef, and a follow-up: In the topical case we have a FAQ that appears on a personal web site. No indication is offered as to whether it's archived, but that's doubtful: the introduction suggests that the page will change as errors are reported or additional questions are submitted. And while the copyright is marked 2000, the last modification was made in '06. Are you still satisfied that a source such as this meets WP:V? Cheers, Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 15:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
No comment on the reliability, but the page certainly is archived. Franamax (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Well I meant archived as in published on the web somewhere so readers can verify the cite, as opposed to floating around on a mailing list or newsgroup servers. But anyway, the original alt.sys.perq FAQs are archived someplace else, at Google Groups. The material on the website is consistent with the early FAQs that were periodically posted since around 1993.[42] FAQs generally have an intro that solicits additional questions. The idea is for a FAQ to expand as new questions are asked and new information is found, especially during the first few postings. It's likely been stable for years, just there may be some HTML formatting, photographs added, and so on. So basically we're dealing with material that is self-published by experts, with the benefit of some peer input. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Asking for assistance at Ed, Edd n Eddy

I need some assistance at Ed, Edd n Eddy. For two years, a rumor of a movie has been making its way around the net. Now most recently, supposedly, the movie aired in Denmark on May 31, and on June 5 in AU/NZ, but so far, there has been no reliable sources given that it actually has aired. One editor insists that the video posting on youtube provides evidence, and that the TV schedule of DK and AU also is suitable. The relevant discussion is at Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy at the end of the current talk page. I cannot find any other venue suitable for dispute resolution, as WP:3O is only for two editors, and this involves three. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

TV listings sound like the most reliable source for when a movie aired on TV. But be careful of online listings because most don't let you go back in time to verify the cite. And newsprint TV listings generally aren't archived online. Perhaps a newspaper will have an article in its entertainment section reviewing the movie. But whatever you do, dont link to Youtube uploads, that can cause a copyright problem. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute as a source for human rights issues

Is the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute a reliable source for an article on human rights - specifically: Human rights and the United States? Thanks Pexise (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the specific webpage in question: [43]. Pexise (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Boarderline... I can not find a directory or "about us" page to tell me whether this "Institute" is one person with a cause (ie unreliable) or a This seems to be a legitimate advocacy org. (which would be reliable for attributed statements as to the group's opinions on human rights in the US, but not for statements as to "facts" regarding human rights in the US). Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

daijiworld.com

Is it reliable? Shahid • Talk2me 08:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

any admins here? Kindly note Daijiworld.com has already proved as a reliable source in reliablesources/noticeboard. here is the link [44]... and this site is featured in many newspapers and third party sources --> [45] [46] [47] and [48] which makes it more reliable. 59.92.169.155 (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As 59.92.169.155 indicates, Daijiworld was previously found to be a reliable source, and it still appears to be a professionally operated web portal. Is there an actual dispute about its reliability? Who is claiming it is unreliable, and why? Which Wikipedia article does this dispute relate to? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Admins have no special power in content questions, but yes, there are some here. The link to the previous discussion is useful, but that case was apparently resolved very quickly. I think it would be useful to have a somewhat longer discussion - not every publication with an editor in chief is reliable. We do not, for example, accept much of the more sensational yellow press and tabloids. The overriding rule is the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracies". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The Hindu, India's national newspaper, clearly mentions it is known for it's accuracy and is a very reputed portal. So, there's no question of Daijiworld not being reputed.
Not only newspapers, but check this document Environmental Concerns For A Typical Fast Developing Indian City : Mangalore, pp. 5-6. It is a research by National Institute of Technology Karnataka, a premier autonomous university in Mangalore. I am sure that if Universities rely on Daijiworld's research and cite it, it has to be reliable.
Other points are it is an e-paper and publishes it weekly. It has offices in Mangalore and some other places. It just fits into Wikis reliability category. KensplanetTC 14:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Kensplanet's research is impressive. But the reason I started this is, as pointed out by Stephan Schulz, that only one editor approved this (with all due respect to the editor). Afer what you've said, what do suggest to do, Stephan Schulz? Shahid • Talk2me 18:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I think confirmation by 4 experienced editors is more than enough to prove that a source is reliable, considered that Daijiworld is not the only query at WP:RSN. There are 1000s of them. I agree with Metropolitan90, that Shshshsh has not provided a valid reason. Why do you consider DW to be unreliable? If you are talking about the Genelia article on DW, then you have the reliable TOI article which supports Daiji's claim. There has to something fishy there. How can both be so incorrect? Apart from that article, did you find any other article on DW, whose reliability can be challenged. KensplanetTC 05:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, as always, it might be useful to know what claim is being sourced to it. The popular press, even the most reliable papers, often have horribly misleading reporting on science. And even generally reliable sources often publish editorials and opinion pieces that are not usable as sources for facts (but of course for the opinion of the authors). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
All I would like to say, is use DaijiWorld wisely. For contentious historical claims, do not use Daiji, but use History books. I do not say that Daiji is 100% reliable. But however it just fits into Wiki's RS category. Even the most reliable newspapers sometimes have misleading reports. This is not the case of only the press. Even books may be unreliable sometimes. For example, if you are writing an article on the History of a city, and source the article using Geography books, then those geography books may not be reliable for History. As a general newspaper, Daiji is reliable.KensplanetTC 17:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

There is a discussion if Asian Voice Newspaper can be used as a reliable source in wikipedia. Here's what I found when exploring about Asian Voice Newspaper. Can it be used as a reliable source as per wikipedia? Please advice.

  • Asian Voice Newspaper has been serving the British Asian community for 35 years.
  • Asian Voice newspaper with the highest circulation among the Asian community in the UK is widely read amongst 650,000 people of Indian origin all over Britain.
  • Asian Voice newspaper is in its 30th year of publication.
  • According to the publisher's own statement, Asian Voice is the: "First and foremost Asian weekly in Europe...In terms of circulation, Gujarat Samachar and Asian Voice are the largest such publications outside India. In the UK, we are the only member of the Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC) in our sector."
  • Asian Voice Newspaper also organise the Asian Diversity Awards. Recently in the House of Commons, UK - “International Entrepreneurs of the Year” was awarded to JetAirlines Founder Goyal and voted by the readers of the Asian Voice.
  • Asian Voice Newspaper also has an electronic version epaper catering to the internet community. Here's a news link from Asian Voice - http://epaper.asian-voice.com/AV/AV/2009/06/13/ArticleHtmls/13_06_2009_002_001.shtml?Mode=1
Radiantenergy (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


30 years, or 35 years? What I've found is that every single article I've read by the publication has multiple grammatical mistakes. The article which Radiantenergy wants to use claims, among other things, that Bill Clinton is a follower of Sathya Sai Baba. Nobody has found another source that backs up this rather significant claim.
You can find the publication online at [49].
The current issue has one story on the front page:
"The ship had sat sail..."
Should be set, not sat.
"...was also about the Ship"
"Ship" should not be capitalized.
Are those serious problems? No, they're not that serious. But they're endemic and speak to the poor editorial quality of the publication. Bhimaji (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Bhimaji says that Asian Voice cannot be used as a source because he feels that it has poor editorial quality. By the way in his explanation he says I am planning to use this statemnet "Bill Clinton is a follower of Sathya Sai Baba. Nobody has found another source that backs up this rather significant claim". I will like to clarify that I am not planning use this statement. I don't agree with his POV. As I mentioned above Asian Voice has been serving the British Asian community and has been named the First and foremost Asian weekly in Europe. I would like to know what are the requisites in wikipedia in determining if a source is reliable? Next question will be does Asian Voice satisfy those requisites for being used as a reliable source?. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Did you read what you pasted? They have not been named "first and foremost". They called *themselves* the "First and foremost Asian weekly".
For the third time, are they 30 years old or 35 years old? The text you've pasted claims both. Bhimaji (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The generic requirement is that the source has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. This is typically established by references in other reliable sources, by positive reviews by competent commentators, and the like. Circulation is less of a criterion - many highly reliable academic journals have very low circulation, while the National Enquirer sold over 6 million copies in its heyday. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Question on Source

I am currently in the process of working on the List of early world heavyweight champions in professional wrestling and am wondering whether this can be used a reliable source [50], my original thinking is its reliable as its a publication from around the time of the Championship win, however User:Wrestlinglover has brought my thinking into question. Afkatk (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks good to me, needs citing something like this:
"Dean Dutton Wins Title From Levin". Prescott Evening Courier. Prescott, Arizona: Prescott Courier, Inc. 29 September 1936. p. 5. OCLC 15262241. Retrieved 2009-06-12.
Jezhotwells (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[51] World this be considered a Reliable source? Afkatk (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Essentially this is written by the PR office at the University of Michigan, would be good to get a supporting source. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Opinions on http://www.philsp.com/magazines.html ?

Can this be used as a reliable source for article about pulp magazines? The site itself seems self-published, but is comprehensive, and much of the material is taken from reliable sources such as Science Fiction, Fantasy, & Weird Fiction Magazine Index, Compiled by Stephen T. Miller & William G. Contento Locus Press, Oakland - so perhaps this could be treated as a convenience link. NoCal100 (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If the material is taken from reliable sources then cite them, rather than a rehash. If this site is commented upon by other reliable sources as being reliable then it is OK. Read WP:RS for details. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting interpretations of quote

Hi, can the second paragraph here be used to support this? Unomi (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that it needs slight re-wording for accuracy while the group itself states they are acting "clearly outside the scope of our training and experience". should be while the group itself states that the the building's collapse "presented us with a body of evidence (i.e., controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience." Jezhotwells (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Unomi (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper published comments of praise received, admissible or not?

Please see diff. A reader who is a media advisor and has a PhD, sends a letter to the newspaper basically praising them. They publish the letter (or part of it?) on their website. Is the reader's comment admissible for wikipedia? Please opine (based on policy of course). --Asdfg12345 11:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Intuitively I would say no, since we have no idea what sort of qualifications the guy really has. He claims to have a PhD, but we don't know in what, and where he works, and so on. Furthermore, the quote is from a blog, and blogs are generally not considered reliable sources except in cases where the blog can be said to reflect the views of the blogger. Ngchen (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

IndiaGlitz

I have often seen IndiaGlitz used as a reference in articles about films/actors from India. Given the "gossip mag" tone and the substandard grammar ("The fans ... was not able" "The pretty 'Kallori' fame Tamanna is the heroine of this movie." just two examples from the first two paragraphs of this particular article) I am wondering if this site is considered a generally reliable source or if it has just been used a lot improperly? -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Questionable article at List of best-selling music artists coming from Forbes [52]

I realize that Forbes could be viewed as a reliable source; however, in the case of this very article published by them makes its reliability somewhat questionable. The given article by Forbes states that the artist Beyonce has sold 118 million records in her career. The article fails to separate her sales of solo career from the sales she's achieved with Destiny's Child. An editor LAUGH90 (talk · contribs) who just recently made an attempt to support Beyonce's stay within the bracket of 100-199 million on the List of best-selling music artists seems to be having a difficult time believing that the figure includes also the artist's previous participation with the trio Destiny's Child with which they managed to sell over 50 million records world wide. I studied Beyonce's record sales as a solo artist through her Certifications and posted at the talk page of the "List of best-selling music artists" in hopes that it might help LAUGH90 understand my point, but seems like my efforts have gone in vain. What I am asking is, is it possible to simply reject the use of this article in question regardless of the fact that Forbes ordinarily could be regarded as reliable? Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be better to note the discrepancy "Forbes credited her with career sales of 118 million records but it is not clear whether that includes her Destiny's Child sales" (ref).Martinlc (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that's something we could do, but then there are other reliable sources such as The Independent which in this article for example, has claimed in January, 2007 that Beyonce's album sales at the time was 15 million as a solo artists and 40 million with Destiny's Child. This figure, although, a little old, immediately disagrees with the figure that Forbes has in the article in question. --Harout72 (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because an article doesn't break down figures along the lines required by this Wikipedia list doesn't make it unreliable -- it is a profile of Beyonce's entertainment earnings in Forbes magazine after all -- just not very useful. Your own calculations won't hold up against such a clear statement, however, so'd you'd be better off finding a current reliable source that breaks that number down in a way that you can cite. Why not start by contacting the Forbes' reporter and asking for her source? Flowanda | Talk 03:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at this very recent article ("75 million records worldwide as a solo artist and as a member of the trio Destiny's Child") by The New York Times. All prominent news services seem to disagree with 118 million units stated by Forbes. That's not my conclusion.--Harout72 (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The underlying question is: What benefit are these figures to an encyclopedia? Answer what the purpose of the sales figures is, then it will be possible to say whether Forbes is reporting figures that are relevant and reliable to Wikipedia. If Group X sells 10,000,100 albums, and Group Z sells 10,000,000, does that mean Group X is better than Group Z? Exactly what, if anything does it mean? That the marketing department for X is better than Z? That X lives in a country with more record buyers? That X sells its albums at a heavy discount? These hyped sales figures have no encyclopedic meaning, and NONE of them belong in Wikipedia. The problems with the Forbes figures are simply a component of the problem with ALL sales figures. Remove them from Wikipedia, and leave them to fansites and MySpace pages run by marketing departments. Piano non troppo (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree there is little point in arguing for long about such arbitrary criteria. I sugegst that the List adds a definition to say either "artists who have been reported to have sold more than 100 million albums" (ie include Forbes and any other stats anyone comes across) or "artists with certified sales more than 100 million albums" and restrict it to whatever industry sources are considered universally reliable.Martinlc (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Cracked.com

Is it reliable? Specifically this for their opinion on dumb D&D monsters. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a forum to me, so no. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Cracked is a humor website. Even when it is dealing in more-or-less factual information (in this case, information about fictional species in a role-playing game), there is a high level of sarcasm involved. I wouldn't use it as a reliable source even for a pop culture subject such as this one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a good question and one that I've wondered myself. They have professional writers with a professional editorial policy so on those grounds, I would tend to think that it's a reliable source. However, as Metropolitan90 points out, they are a humor publication. Some of the things they write might be satire and therefore difficult to ascertain what they really mean. This particular article does not seem to be a forum posting. But it's really an opinion piece about what Cracked thinks are the dumb D&D monsters. I personally don't know much about D&D, so I cannot comment on this in any real detail. But I would say this article is reliable for Cracked's the author's opinion. In general, however, I would say that use should use Cracked with caution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The articles dispense with accuracy if it improves the humor, so the site is in no way, shape or form reliable for any purpose... the only thing they would be reliable for is that someone at the site wrote words saying something (not that they even necessarily believe what they wrote, because, again, it's for humor sake), and that's not notable. "One of the writers at Cracked made fun of a D&D monster" is not encyclopedic, it's trivial. DreamGuy (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, no evidence of "professional writers" or of a "professional editorial policy", unless you count this as one. This is the editor's page, this is that of the author of the article cited by Peregrine Fisher - . Please read WP:RS to get an idea of what is reliable. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed... while it is RS... but the fact that Cracked made fun of D&D is not encyclopedic. see WP:Triva.
OK, I was thinking of the print publication which I thought had a professional staff, but maybe not. I don't have an issue in front of me. Please disregard my previous comments. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The print publication hasn't been around for a while, and when it was it was spoof content only, no articles about nonfictional topics. A friend I know who has had stuffed published at the new Cracked website says the editors are not the same as the editors of either version of the print magazine (bought the trademark for the new site?). No fact checking involved in any of the humor pieces, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the The Jamaica Observer a reliable source?

Or is it a tabloid? Pyrrhus16 10:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm working on this in my sandbox, and a few of the artists I could add are cited in the above paper. Would it be acceptable to use as a source in that type of future article? Pyrrhus16 15:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • A few quotes about singers who appreciate Michael Jackson's work. Hardly controversial and doesn't scream BLP vio. I see no problem :) — R2 18:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Bridget Marquardt

An anonymous IP keeps removing the following sentence from the Bridget Marquardt article:

According to the book Bunny Tales, by former Hefner girlfriend Izabella St. James, Marquardt worked as a dancer at Spearmint Rhino before becoming one of Hefner's girlfriends.

The IP claims that "St. James' book was an AUTOBIOGRAPHY not a biography. No other source confirming or denying the information about Bridget. No reference to the book. What's written on paper doesn't make it accurate or true. Just ask James Frey." and that "A one sided autobiography that presented the story as a rumor and not a fact is not a reliable source." The book was not self-published, and it seems to have gone through a publishing process. The book seems to be reliable for the topic at hand, but that's just my opinion. So is it acceptable to use for this article? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's reliable to the extent that it supports that St. James made the claim, not that it actually happened. All too many people don't get the difference. As long as it's written in the article that St. James made the claim, it's fine. If it tries to say it did happen that's too much. We can reliably say that someone made a claim, not that the claim is accurate. DreamGuy (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright, sounds good. I've restored the version that reflects that. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

David Knijnenburg

We need a third party decision regarding the above article. An editor is adding sources that I believe are unreliable, so therefore the addition is invalid. It refers to allegations that he auditioned for the role of Doctor Who and the sources provided are:

However, both sources are quoting this Australian newspaper that seemed to be involved in an act of speculation based entirely upon original Research [53].

Could a more expereinced editor please take a look at these sources and advise on their validity, thank you. magnius (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If an otherwise reliable source prints a rumor that doesn't make the rumor itself reliable, just the fact that a rumor was going around. The easy way around that is to say that "such-n-such a source reported unconfirmed rumors that such and such happened" versus "such and such happened". In general any controversial claims should be sourced to a source in the text of the article itself so we acurately say someone said something not that it is true. DreamGuy (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The disputed text reads: "He was one of dozens of names mentioned during the media speculation over the casting of the eleventh Doctor Who after David Tennant announced his resignation." The sources are the proof of the statement. It is not actually a question of whether the original source is reliable or not. 11:46, 16 June 2009

I would agree that the sources do reliably support that particular statement. DreamGuy (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Citing sexuality

I question whether this reference is sufficient for citing homosexuality. From this article draft, by the way. Shouldn't there be additional references for this type of information? لennavecia 19:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO, no it isn't enough. People speak for their own sexuality, and if this guy hasn't verifiably spoken for his, it isn't for a local newspaper to take that decision for him. If that's the best reference, I would say that his sexuality is irrelevant. Bluehotel (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I more or less agree. However, with the source given above and another one I found, it seems that claims for homosexuality may be correct. LeaveSleaves 19:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I really dislike the shotgun use of multiple secondary sources that "kinda sorta" substantiate a particular statement. The first source which Jennavecia provides, in my view, is not appropriate; it appears to be an editorial (I could be wrong), and it's not clear it was published in print (which would imply to me it went through the sort of editorial process that WP:RS likes). The backup source LeaveSleaves gives is a bit better in my view, though its identification of the subject as homosexual is syntactically ambiguous (maybe only in a context-free situation) and definitely a minor detail of the article (more potential for a mistake to slip through). Also, its being an online and likely politically-biased source serves to bring its credibility into question.
I'm not saying those are necessarily good reasons to oppose those particular sources, but I do see them as concerns from an WP:RS perspective. And from a WP:WEIGHT perspective, if the subject's sexual orientation is of particular significance, it should not be a difficult matter to find a reliable source which states it and everyone can agree on. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Per the BLP policy that WP:LGBT upholds, a RS must confirm, but not speculate using clues, that a living celebrity is gay or has romantic/sexual history with the same sex. The subject does not necessarily need to confirm this, but if the subject directly refutes it, that must also be included (see Little Richard). I would try to get a better source for this. Is it an editorial? I thought so at first, but it may be a story. Can you email the writer to ask him how he knows this? Ask him for a RS that says the same, preferably from another publication? --Moni3 (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wordpress

This is on Chuck Grassley page As of December 17, 2008, all three ministries have been placed on a list of potentially risky organizations for monetary donations. it uses this from WordPress.com. Is this reliable? Showtime2009 (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No., that is a self-published blog. It might be possible to use the MinistryWatch website as a Primary Source, although so9me third-party evidence that Ministry Watch is a respected infromation source.Martinlc (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, no matter what the significance of that statement or of MinistryWatch itself, the wordpress blog is simply unreliable, especially considering the Grassley article is a BLP. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Pastor Russell website

http://Pastor-russell.com is a self-published website operated by User:Pastorrussell, who contributes to articles about Charles Taze Russell (a 19th-20th century religious minister), Bible Students (the religious group he started), and related articles. The editor who operates the site was the first editor to insert links to their site in Wikipedia articles. I recommended to:

  • not link directly to its main page - Wikipedia should not be used for self-promotion of an editor's website. Articles should only link directly to hosted primary source materials that are exact (un-annotated) reproductions.
  • not to cite it as an authoritative source - As a personal website, particularly one produced by a Wikipedia editor editing articles about the same topic, the site does not meet Wikipedia criteria as a reliable source. Other than reproduced materials from Russell's era, which are available from various sites, new information, interpretation or opinions constitute original research. The site therefore doesn't have any special authority for the purposes of Wikipedia citations.
  • not call the website "official" - The site's operator claims the site is official in some informal sense, but with no support of that claim.
  • not claim copyright of the hosted materials - The hosted materials are mostly from pre-1930 and the copyright of almost all has expired.

See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Charles Taze Russell --Jeffro77 (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The website is not a self-published source, but is the official website supported by several entities directly connected to this man, including his only surviving relative. Most (but not all) of the links were initially placed by me back in 2004, but when removed were added again by other individuals without my prompting. I'm requesting of other editors to please advise how to confirm the official status of the website. There are some disturbing issues surrounding user Jeffro77's bringing this matter up despite a past consensus among editors, and that none others have considered it a problem after that. Thank you. Pastorrussell (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your website does not contain any sort of "About us" statement that indicates that it is anything but a self-published source (note: self-published, as Wikipedia uses the term, is not limited to individuals. Even the "official websites" of organizations can be self-published). This does not mean that your website can not be used as a source, but it does limit how we can use it. See WP:SPS for the details as to what those limitations are. Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The issue here is about its status as a Reliable Source. There is a limit to how far we should take the evidence of a website about itself on trust, since their content may be misleading (or indeed completely fictitious). If the website has been endorsed by other bodies, the existence of references in their publications or on their official websites would be much better evidence than what the site says; similarly, any reference to it in established academic literature would help. Unless such evidence is available, there is a limit to how much weight can be given to it as a source. Finally please WP:AGF assume good faith about other editors.(same time as Blueboar)Martinlc (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that really depends on the exact statement that the site is being used for. There are few sources that are completely reliable or completely unreliable. However, I do agree that the site should not be used for anything controvercial. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a little more information will aid in the discussion. The article in question deals with the life of Charles Taze Russell, an early 20th century pastor, and also documents the schism and results of it which developed after his death. There were two groups which are represented: the Bible Students and the Jehovah's Witnesses. The Jehovah's Witnesses organization has an official website at watchtower.org, which is listed first in the referenced links because they are currently the larger of the two groups. The second is pastor-russell.com which is the official Russell website, but also the primary website representative of the Bible Students, the other group. Bible Students are different from the Jehovah's Witnesses however in that they follow a congregational style of church government, meaning that each congregation makes its own decision on internal matters and there is no central organization or headquarters therefore no possibility for an official "Bible Student's" website. But there is one that is the most widely endorsed by all groups and most congregations of Bible Students, as well as being supported by his only surviving relative and that is pastor-russell.com. (the website, incidentally, is being rebuilt at this moment). This was the first to put online numerous documents relating to the schism, as well as unbiased information about the life, writings, beliefs and activities of Pastor Russell. This was in 1996. Since that time others have either taken the documents, and even entire sections, and placed them on their websites without any citation, but in some cases certain documents which were obtainable by others elsewhere were scanned by them and put on a website. There are no other websites by the Bible Students with such wide overarching support, and therefore none others able to represent the entirety of the Bible Students. It is the closest that one will ever get to the idea of an official website of the Bible Students group due to the form of church government used. I do not know the definition Wikipedia uses for "notable" website. It is the most prominent Bible Student and most prominent Pastor Russell website. The article is about Russell, and there is only one website that represents him, and is supported by the only living relative, which is the website in question. The Jehovah's Witnesses website doesn't even mention him. There are other important matters, but am not sure what else needs to be known. Thanks. Pastorrussell (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
If all of this is true, then the site would be an organizational (but still self-published) website, and could be used for statements about what the Bible Students say about themselves (as per WP:SPS). The problem is that there is nothing on your website that indicates that it is the "offical website" of the Bible Students. It does not have an "about us" page... it does not give contact information for Bible Students groups (such as a mailing address or a telephone number) in fact the only contact info is an email address to "webmaster" (whom I presume is you). In other words, it seems to be nothing more than a personal webpage.
As for notability... The core concept for notability is that the subject is discussed by reliable third party sources that are independent of the subject. So if your site is the best we can do for Pastor Russell... perhaps he isn't notable by our standards. Neither your site, nor those of the Jehovah's Witnesses are independant of the subject. Blueboar (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
There was a "links" page which gave all of the contact information, links to other websites, and "about us" details, but it was taken down as the website is being rebuilt. Russell is one of the most significant religious figures of the 20th century. The Jehovah's Witnesses are the largest religious group who are loosely connected to him, but their website does not even mention his name. Pastorrussell (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Totally invalid as a source. Have not evaluated as an external link. Hipocrite (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Russell is absolutely notable as founder of a significant sect. Collect (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect, the discussion is about the site run by User:Pastorrussell, not about the notability of Charles Taze Russell.

As long as there is

  • 1) no "about" page which establishes the site's connection to a notable, reputable organization
  • 2) no evidence that the site has been referenced by reliable sources then we should not use the site as a source in my opinion. Offliner (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I referred to an earlier statement "So if your site is the best we can do for Pastor Russell... perhaps he isn't notable by our standards." which appeared to raise an issue about Russell's notability. Collect (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Please define "reliable sources". The official website is referenced in the new book Introducing American Religions by Charles Lippy, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Tennessee in Chattanooga. It is quite possible it is referenced in other works as well. Over the past eight years with the site under its current name (pastor-russell.com) we have been contacted by numerous individuals of note, including researchers, authors, professors, students, book publishers, a couple of journalists, one group doing a documentary on Jehovah's Witnesses, and two Hollywood celebrities (Nimoy and Asner). So, I do not know of every place it could potentially be listed. But Professor Lippy's book is one that I know for certain. Pastorrussell (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
If the professor thinks the site is reliable enough to be referenced in the book (this should be verified), then I think we can use it as a source. At least in a limited fashion. Offliner (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment via WP:COIN, where I suggested bringing the question here: Offliner sums up the problems.
1) If you look at official websites - for instance, Church of Scotland, Dalai Lama, Arthur Conan Doyle - you generally see an assertion of exactly who is asserting, and on what grounds, the site is "official". Pastor-russell.com has no such attribution.
2) The reliable sources problem. I've previously explained to Pastorrussell the central criterion of WP:RS: "reliable, third-party, published sources". For the secondary material at Pastor-russell.com, there's no attribution of authorship, no indication of editorial process, and as an affiliated source, it sure isn't third-party.
this should be verified
Certainly - and being mentioned in a book doesn't automatically mean it's a reliable source beyond (say) reliability about what the site maintainers believe. Reliability on historical/biographical matters is a bigger picture, of which "official" sources are only a part. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The "about us" page along with its links was taken down a couple of months ago because the site is being redsigned/rebuilt. It is a simple matter to put it back up. In looking at references to Lippy on Wikipedia his other works are cited/referenced in numerous articles. He would certainly be a reliable third-party source. If the website is not considered reliable upon the grounds listed then neither would several of the other referenced links in the said article. The consensus reached was that the word "official" be removed from the citation on Wikipedia and only be listed as "a pastor russell website". The article is about Pastor Russell, not Bible Students or Jehovah's Witnesses. The Jehovah's Witnesses don't even mention him on their website. The Pastor Russell website in question was the first one online in 1996, is supported by the only remaining relative, and is referenced in third-party sources. This isn't about self-promotion. It's a matter of neutrality, fairness, and proper representation. If the link is removed there are no other links that have anything to do with Pastor Russell at all and if any others were put there the same issue would come up. How would that be consistent with the fact the article is about him? Pastorrussell (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Outdent

I think where we are is (to restate Jeffro77's recommendations)

  • not link directly to its main page - an EL seems appropriate
Is this appropriate given the user's own introduction of the site to Wikipedia to promote their own site, while also having removed reference to other Bible Students sites denouncing them as 'personal webistes'? See also WP:COIN#BibleStudents.net.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • not to cite it as an authoritative source - until the secondary material (ie the web pages text) is given some form of authorship (name, date, references) and has been cited in RS (the Lippy ref may help with the second part, but the first is still needed), and the website porvides some infromation about its editorial processes
  • not call the website "official" - until the website contains a page explaining its rationale for claiming to be official (and possibly not even then - still open)
  • not claim copyright of the hosted materials - this isn't directly relevant; all material said to be primary should have a clear statement of provenance, authorship, and rights status.Martinlc (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Jeffro... your last comment is something new to the equation... can you give us a dif. where Pastorrussell has removed rival Bible Student website? Blueboar (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The claim made by Jeffro77 is blatently false. He is making an assumption based upon something he sees, and even after having discussed it with him he continues to kick the dead horse. The link removed was not a rival website, it was removed because it was placed for self-promotion. The website in question was listed entirely for self-promotion purposes. There are other important matters involved but which are not necessary to address here. I broke no Wikipedia rule to remove a link placed by someone who was seeking self-promotion. On those occasions when the link was replaced with another of similar name that also does not violate Wikipedia standards or practices as I have nothing whatever to do with the link placed, and goes to prove that I had no intention of removing a "competing" website. How relevant to this conversation is it to mention that both here and by email Jeffro has continued to abuse and libel me? Such things can cloud one's train of thought and motives. We should always assume good motives, but this is getting out of had. His claims are false, and each of the points raised can be documented as fulfilled by me according to Wikipedia standards pure and simple. No other active editor of the Russell article has supported his perspectives. Jeffro77 is evidently not going to be happy until every link to the official website is removed. Hopefully the other editors reviewing this talk can note this and other matters. Thank you kindly for your time. Pastorrussell (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
PastorRussell here claims that he removed reference to the 'rival' site (I did not use the word 'rival') because it had been placed for self-promotion (though no evidence that it was self-promoted has been presented), however if that were the reason, neither should Pastorrussell have replaced the link with a link to his own site. Where the link was replaced with a link other than PastorRussell's site, those articles also had a link added to Pastorrussell's own site, either in the same edit, or in a prior edit by Pastorrussell. It seems that Pastorrussell's specific dislike of biblestudents.net may be because it hosts out-of-copyright materials that are also hosted on his own personal site.[54][55]
I have made no libelous statements about Pastorrussell. If Pastorrussell believes I have made any untrue statements, he is free to present them. I have never e-mailed Pastorrussell at all, regarding this or any other subject.
There has been no verification of Pastorrussell's site as official.
See the section below for the instances where Pastorrussell removed references to biblestudents.net.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This is still unresolved, along with elements of the section now at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_33#Charles_Taze_Russell. Of particular concern is Pastorrussell's entirely false claim that I have 'abused' him, and that I have done so by e-mail, which seems to be a claim of attack to deflect from the actual issues raised.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The issue here as presented on this talk page is merely about listing the website in the external links and in following the "reliable sources" maxim. It is a notable and popular site. It is referenced in reliable third-party sources. Although it is the official website that word is not included in the external link. When in the past the link had been removed it was replaced more than once by other users who have no association with myself. It is the most notable website that actually deals with the person the article is about, whereas at least one of the external links not in question is not. The user Martinlc summed the situation up perfectly. It is an appropriate external link for the reasons given which is all that Wikipedia standards require. Anything else, including personal problems between editors, is entirely irrelevant in this context. Pastorrussell (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The creator of the site saying the site is "notable and popular" is hardly an appropriate basis. I have seen no evidence that creators of other sites in the relevant articles introduced their own website to those articles, and if I learn such to be the case, I will also raise those issues as well. Gordonofcartoon indicated above that the third-party reference to your site does not confirm your site as either official or reliable. My earlier suggestion was that links to the site be removed, and if other users find the site notable they can add reference to the site (excluding original research), without suggestion or coercion by Pastorrussell, and it is unclear why Pastorrussell should have any objection to that course of action, when considering Wikipedia's standards regarding Conflict of Interest. I note that Pastorrussell has now backed away from the previous entirely false claim that I have 'abused' or otherwise contacted him by e-mail. Response from Blueboar (and possibly other editors) is still pending. Elements in the related Conflict of Interest discussion (which has since been archived but is still not completely resolved) are also relevant here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
There is no conflict of interest because I have nothing to do with the links as they currently appear, and have not contacted or influenced anyone who returned the external link. I am not personally backing away from the true claim of libel which will be dealt with personally and outside of Wikipedia, but it is not entirely relevant to the most important current issues, which again are regarding the site being (1) notable, (2) referenced in more than one independent third-party source, and (3) directly related to the individual on whom the article is based. The concern here, and source of my "objection", is that the editor who raised this is twisting every possible argument to remove the link despite the fact Wikipedia standards have been fully satisfied. I don't claim to be perfect in some of the things I've said in the past, but the relevant issues here are regarding notability, third-party referencing, etc... and those have been followed according to Wikipedia rules and that is all that matters here. Pastorrussell (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
As 1) there has been no instance of libel at all and 2) I have no knowledge of, or affiliation with, you outside of Wikipedia, I find it laughable that you imagine it "will be dealt with personally and outside of Wikipedia", and can only conclude you imagine this might convince other editors of your veracity. You have also misrepresented my motives here (again), as I have not suggested that your site be eternally banned from Wikipedia, but that you should not have been the person to originally promote it, and that other editors should be given the choice to link to it if it is indeed the notable resource you assert it to be. You are still yet to provide evidence that 1) your site is official, 2) it is considered notable by third-party sources 3) other editors consider it notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

BibleStudents.net

(Copied from WP:COIN#BibleStudents.net per Blueboar's request.) At various times, User:Pastorrussell has selectively removed references to the website, http://www.biblestudents.net. Sometimes the links are deleted[56] [57][58], sometimes they are changed to http://www.biblestudents.com or http://www.biblestudents.org (websites unrelated to BibleStudents.net)[59][60][61][62] , or to pages hosted at pastor-russell.com[63][64][65][66][67]. This concern was raised in 2005 and 2006 but the behaviour continued as recently as August 2008.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources in Montreal article

We have a dispute on the Talk:Montreal page, which centers around which of two references is authoritative. The status quo is that the folllowing lede is stable, and therefore preferable:

Montreal is the second-largest primarily French-speaking city in the world, after Paris. [1]

I proposed the following replacement, due to a more authoritative reference:

Montreal is the third-largest Francophone city in the world, after Paris and Kinshasa.[2]

The Nadeau reference, "The Story of French" is more authoritative on the subject of the French language and its use than is the status quo reference (Participatory Democracy: Prospects for Democratizing Democracy), for the following reasons: (1) the subject at hand is the French language, and its use. The relevant topic is the exclusive subject of the Nadeau reference, and is not the subject of the Roussopolous reference, which is politics. Thus, my proposed reference is directly relevant to the subject at hand, and the existing reference is not. (2) The publisher of "The Story of French" is St. Martin's Press, which is a major, worldwide publisher of non-fiction books; it is an imprint of Macmillin, with 32,000 books to its name, a staff of thousands, covering all areas from non-fiction to academia to general interest; in contrast, Black Rose Books, the publisher of Participatory Democracy is a tiny private printer, which puts out about 10 books a year, all of which are political in nature. Thus, I assert the publisher of The Story of French is far more likely to have a staff capable, experienced, and motivated to check facts, than the publisher of Participatory Democracy, and therefore The Story of French meets the given rule of thumb for an authoritative work regarding the French language and its use, while Participatory Deomcracy does not. Finally, (3) The authors of The Story of French, Nadeau and Barlow have written no fewer than five books about the French language and French culture including LA GRANDE AVENTURE DE LA LANGUE FRANÇAISE : de Charlemagne au Cirque du Soleil, Sixty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong, PAS SI FOUS CES FRANÇAIS!, PLUS ÇA CHANGE: THE STORY OF FRENCH FROM CHARLEMAGNE TO THE CIRQUE DU SOLEIL. In sharp contrast, the Montreal article doesn't even specify who the author is of the cited fact, and only the book editor is given. Thus, the authors of my proposed reference have multiple books to their names on the subject area at hand, while the author of the fact cited in the Montreal article is anonymous, and their experience in the subject at hand is unknown.

I have failed to get counterargument from editors on the Talk:Montreal page, where the level of response is contradiction. What I am looking for is a definitive statement about which of these two references is authoritative. My understanding is that the weaker reference is removed in deference to the authoritative reference. Rerutled (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Collapsed references
Notes
  1. ^ Roussopoulos, Dimitrios; Benello, C. George, eds. (2005). Participatory Democracy: Prospects for Democratizing Democracy. Montreal; New York: Black Rose Books. p. 292. ISBN 1551642247. Retrieved 2009-06-05. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  2. ^ Nadeau, Jean-Benoit (2006). The Story of French. St. Martin's Press. p. 301. ISBN 9780312341831. "The world's second-largest francophone city is not Montreal, Dakar, or Algiers, as most people would assume, but Kinshasa, capital of the former Zaire."

None of the following are relevant to the above "reliable sources" question. Rerutled (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think folks can see for themselves at Talk:Montreal that there certainly has been a bit of counterargument, Rerutled.  ;) The problem isn't between which source is more authoritative, the problem is that we have two separate sources that are defining two separate things (one: "Montreal is the second largest primarily French-speaking city," which is the current stable language; two: "Montreal is the third largest Francophone city," your proposed language). The definition of what constitutes a "primarily French-speaking city" is considerably different from the definition for what is a "Francophone city," as we have discussed on at least two separate occasions in the past at Talk:Montreal. There are reliable sources for each, but consensus in the past has held that the former is more informative and precise, as the latter can be arbitrary and ambiguous. That being said, I look forward to seeing any uninvolved opinions that might crop up here (although I think this isn't really the proper venue). user:J aka justen (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I second J's comment, it's a good summary. I would though appreciate an opinion on my contention that "second largest primarily French-speaking city" is already reliably sourced by means of the Statistics Canada information directly following, 3.6 million people in the CMA, of whom 70% speak French at home. How much sourcing is needed for a plain fact that can be verified by anyone with a calculator? To take two extreme cases, do we need a reference stating that the Pacific is the largest ocean, or that Antarctica is the most-southerly continent? Franamax (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
(a) User:J and User:Franmax are bringing discussion which belongs on the Talk:Montreal page here -- and talking about an issue which is not relevant to "Reliable Sources". I've deleted it once, and Franmax reinstates it. Oh, and wiki defines Francophone as "French speaking, usually as a primary language", so their distinction between the two does not exist. Rerutled (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment just to note that Rerutled has in fact twice deleted comments not supporting their position, and more pertinently to note that I've requested an opinion on a different issue as regards sourcing, as outlined in my post above. I'm hoping that an answer will emerge as to how diligently plain (although perhaps obscured by necessity of calculator use for the math-challenged) facts should be sourced. The OP concerns should of course be addressed also. Franamax (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Franmax is misrepresenting. I did not delete these comments because they were not supportive of my position, I deleted them because they are about whether Francophone means "primarily French Speaking" irrelevant to a "reliable sources" discsussion; further, are repeated from a debate which is occcuring on [Talk:Montreal], and burying the "Reliable Sources" discussion which I came here to get, having been sent here by Franmax and J for third party consulation. Rerutled (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The issue here is that we have two reliable sources that dissagree over facts. When two or more reliable sources disagree, Wikipedia does not choose which is "correct" or more "authoritive"... it acknowleges that there is a discrepancy and discusses what all the different sources say (see WP:NPOV).
So may I suggest the following as a compromise: "Montreal is either the second or third largest French-speaking city in the world (depending on how one defines "French-speaking")<footnote that discusses the discrepancy and cites both sources>, after Paris." Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd previously suggested a similar mitigating wording. The problem is that this is somewhat unwieldy for the lead section of a prominent article. Thinking about it though, perhaps a solution would be to leave the article text as is and include a footnote on the lines of "Kinshasa and Abidjan are larger cities than Montreal which use French as their official language"? The actual issue addressed by the writers of the article is what language is actually used by the population, as opposed to what language is "officially designated".
I'd still appreciate an opinion here as to whether the "second largest primarily French-speaking city" assertion is in fact supported reliably by the directly following census data. Can we reasonably expect our readership to compare actual numbers if they suspect a claim is untrue, or do we need a citation to (paraphrasing) "four is bigger than two"? Should I open a separate thread for that? Franamax (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is reliably supported... but so is the counter assertion. Unwieldy as it may be, I think some sort of compromise is the only solution. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
You agree that it is unwieldy to try to explain the different definitions, but more importantly, it's just not key to the lead. It's detail that should be mentioned later in the article, perhaps along with any number of other "rankings" of the city by population that any particular editor wishes to promote. The lead is about relative emphasis, as can be sourced; Montréal is most widely reported as the second largest primarily-French speaking city. The extent to which Abidjan and Kinshasa are mentioned in the sourcing, in that context, is quite limited. In any event, I think you've answered one of Rerutled's inquiries, in that both sources are indeed reliable and that it is not a matter of which is more "authoritative" (that sure would be an unwieldy precedent to try to deal with!). user:J aka justen (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no I don't agree that it is all that unwieldy... but even if it is, I still think it is the best solution. Blueboar (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Well-sourced factual accuracy is relevant everywhere, and avoiding "unwieldiness" is not preferred over factual accuracy. Moreover, I don't recognize any factual difference between "primarly French-Speaking" and "Francophone" as J and Franmax do -- and I don't think anyone reading the article does either; Wiki certainly doesn't either, defining Francophone as "French-speaking, typically of a primary language." Webster defines "Francophone" as "of, having, or belonging to a population using French as its first or sometimes second language". Thus, it is only a few mislead editors, including J and Franmax, who believe it means something different. Thus, the lede as it stands is factualy misleading. If you don't think it's misleading, compare these three lines taken from three articles: Montreal:

Montreal is the second-largest primarily French-speaking city in the world, after Paris. [1][verification needed]

  1. ^ Roussopoulos, Dimitrios; Benello, C. George, eds. (2005). Participatory Democracy: Prospects for Democratizing Democracy. Montreal; New York: Black Rose Books. p. 292 of 347. ISBN 1551642247. Retrieved 2009-06-05. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Kinshasa:

It is often considered the second largest francophone city in the world after Paris[4], though on criteria such as number of native speakers Montreal retains this distinction, as African languages, especially Lingala, are more widely spoken in Kinshasa than French is[citation needed]

noting that someone inserted an unsupported fact. And even Abidjan:

It is the largest city in the nation, and the second largest French speaking city in the world.

(unsourced).

Not all of these can be true. What is needed to adderess this confusion are relaible secondary sources, for citation in each of the articles.

I've contested the source above. J's statement "Montreal is most widely reported as the second largest primariy-French speaking city" is not a good enough source, because it leads to the CIRCULAR problem -- it's been in wiki so long, people adopt it, which is why having an authoritative secondary source -- as I have proposed -- is important. Rerutled (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There's another straw man argument again. Indeed, my statement alone is "not a good enough source"! But that's not what you're arguing against, and you have to know that by now. You're arguing against a reference in a perfectly authoritative, secondary, published work (that does need to have its citation completed, but it includes more than enough information to be verifiable). In this case, your "not a good enough source" argument can come into play, and that's not a good enough argument. It is so incredibly subjective that it's not an accepted argument on Wikipedia (just like "truth" is second to "verifiability"). You should work on a consensus to build language into the body of the article that conveys what you want, or pursue dispute resolution (as you have begun with mediation), but I don't yet see any support here for your proposal to get rid of the "primarily French-speaking" statement from the lead. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
J - Blueboar does support modifying the lede. You are correct that your argument makes no sense to me at all. There is nothing "straw man" about my proposed change. It would only be straw man if -- as you appear to think -- the existing source is authoritative, and it is not. Rerutled (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Blueboar supports adding your language to the article in addition (and I believe, secondary to, since it is a caveat) the existing language. He has not yet responded to my point that it should not be in the lead, and rather should be in the body. However, please remember that it is important that you craft your proposal and bring it to the talk page for consensus. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Please, both of you need to stop puting words in my mouth. I will clarify my view: I'll start by amending my suggested wording:
  • "Montreal is either the second or third largest French-speaking city in the world after Paris <footnote>
  • Suggested footnote text: "Ranking depends on how one defines the term "French-speaking". Source A defines it as 'blah blah blah' and places Montreal second after Paris (ref). Source B defines it as 'tum-tee-tum' and places Montreal third after Paris and Kinshasa (ref)."
I would also support any other compromise language you might come up with. I do think such a compromise should be put in the lede (where we normally include the passing references to rankings). I don't think we need to go into detail on this in the main text. I think the issue of where and how Montreal is ranked is not worth discussing beyond a footnote. The article should simply acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion on Montreal's rank and move on. Finally, I think this was a really petty thing to argue about and that both of you should take a step back and have a nice cup of tea. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This should probably go back to the talk page, as it is not (and never really was) relevant to this noticeboard. However, I support the existing language in the lead, although your footnote would be acceptable. Any additional rankings should go to Demographics or another relevant section. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
(undent) I'd really prefer that Rerutled make the effort to make my own username not show up red here, lest I should be tempted to point out where the vast majority of the red-linked Rerutled's edits have been concentrated, nay, SPA'd...
I would prefer to partially adopt Blueboar's suggestion by keeping the "second-largest primarily French-speaking..." wording whilst explicating further within a footnote as to the larger cities with French as the official language. This to me would adequately resolve the competing tensions as regards this article. The genuine intent of the wording in the lead is to convey which urban areas in the world have the most number of native-speakers of French, not which book author went to the best publishing house.
And I would have included in that last quote above the words "[factually true]" except that now I see that Brussels has placed a knight upon the course. The fun continues... Franamax (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
These editors appear to be aligning the citations around the fact they desire to have: "Montreal is the second largest Francophone city"; that's not how citation works. Citation works by finding the most authoritative source(s), and using the facts which happen to be there . The disparaging comment about "which book author went to the best publishing house" is an example of having the priorities backwards. This is why the editors continually come back to what they want in the language, rather than discussing what the most authoritative and reliable source is regarding the relative sizes of Francophone cities in the world. It's a complete reversal of how scholarship works. Rerutled (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC) (Continued). Franamax, a specific question: you say you favor lanauge like that suggested by Blueboar "Montreal is either the second or third largest French-speaking city in the world after Paris <footnote>, but then you revert out such language once it was inserted: Montreal is one of the largest francophone cities in the world, after Paris, France and Kinshasa, Congo <footnote>. What precisely do you find objectionable about the language you reverted from, and what is your preferred language? Rerutled (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Well d'uhh, obviously we align the citations to the wording. The whole point of writing an article is to present notable facts that educate the reader. It's a notable fact that Montreal is the "second-largest primarily French-speaking city in the world", so that's what goes in the lede. Why would we select less-notable facts? Should we say "A lot of people drive Toyota's"? Of course not.
My preferred wording is Montreal is the second-largest primarily French-speaking city in the world, after Paris. <ref>[[Kinshasa]] and [[Abidjan]] are larger cities which use French as their official language of government.</ref> That wording properly reflects the consensus previously established at the article and also recognises your desperate crusade to get Kinshasa mentioned. Franamax (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem with that distinction is that there seem to be about 3-4 editors who believe that Francophone is different from primarily French speaking -- but that is not the common understanding of those two phrases, which are widely consdiered equivalent, and therefore creates at misleading statement in the lede. For example, we define Francophone on its page as French speaking, typically as a primary language. There is therefore no basis to make this distinction. (continued) An example of common usage: In Time magazine's coverage of French President Sarkozy's recent trip to the Congo, they describe the Congo as the world's largest French speaking nation. Your argument is "ah, but it's not primarily French speaking." This is a hair so fine, nobody (except 3-4 editors) sees it, let alone sees how it is being split by the existing language (which you and the 3-4 editors have continually reverted back to, insisting that the split hair -- misleading statement -- should be the exlusive statement in lede). Rerutled (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I hate to sound like a broken record, but guys, this really isn't the place for this part of this discussion. Both sources are reliable, that's about the extent to which this noticeboard is the correct forum. Further discussion should be on the article's talk page. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
If I understand J correctly, he is conceding that "The History of French" is a reliable source. Is that correct J? Rerutled (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
My comment was entirely referring to the relevance of the forum. I'm not going to respond further here unless there are new concerns regarding the reliability of the sources. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't we then look for a source for cities with the largest number of French speakers? Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, for sure. We can look at the StatsCan figures already in the article. We can compare them to census figures from anywhere else in the world. Statistics agencies are generally considered reliable, or at least they lie and distort for purposes other than en:wiki editing. Again though, you need careful attention to the basis. This whole kerfuffle arose from a mistaken interpretation in the Lyon article, where basically the population of an entire province was cited from fr:wiki as the "metro population", from which wiki the cite has no basis. (I really should go fix that, but now I'm worried about charges of whatever bias it is that I'm charged with) This led conveniently into a discussion of "I read this book that says..." and "this book is a better book than your book". OK fine, we've established to death that there are comflicting sources, which each have a claim on reliability. Can I introduce a new reliable source on basic math? This seems crazy to me, no-one has yet refuted the precise claim that Montreal is the "second-largest primarily French-speaking city in the world", which is supported by the census data. I genuinely seek clarification here - from all of my research on this, it's a true statement and it's surely not controversial. No-one is claiming that Abidjan or Kinshasa have a smaller population, no-one is claiming that Abidjan and Kinshasa don't use French as the language of government. The fact is sourced and unrefuted: Montreal is the "second-largest primarily French-speaking city in the world". What's the problem? Franamax (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Franamax, the reason there's a problem is because you keep repeating your talking points as if they are not disputed -- or, as I see it, refuted. Specifically:
  • (1) using "basic math" is, the way you're doing it, original research, I don't agree at all with your conclusions, in particular because you fail to compare your basic math derived from stats canada with any figures from Kinshasa; your doing so is a synthesis of figures, what is called "original research", which is not used on wiki. This should be addressed by using secondary sources, as required by WP. Secondary sources means, you can cite a statement made elsewhere, in a reliable, verifiable, authoritative source. This is what leads us to the present "reliable sources" discussion, upon which we have not reached consensus.
  • (2) You continue to claim that "primarly French-Speaking City in the world" is understood -- if not defined -- by everyone as being different from Francophone which is not true; we define Francophone (FOLLOW THE LINK) as meaning "French speaking, typically as a primary language." (This is relevant because you continue, in order to refute the proposed reference, to insist that the "primarily french speaking" language in the article is recognizably different from the "francophone" word in the citation I proposed; it really is not). And,
  • (3) the chapter, in the book "Participatory Democracy" edited by Roussopolous, in Montreal which is cited for your statement is:
    • (a) written by a presently anonymous author (ie. it has not been verified) because it is a chapter in an edited book, and nobody seems to have bothered to look up who authored the cited statement, written in 1971 (and kept in the 2005 version of the book) "Montreal is the second-largest primarily french-speaking city in the world"; thus, the article requires verification. But, even if verified, the article :
    • (b) primarily about politics, which is not the subject at hand, which is French language and culture. And according WP, makes it a less authoritative source than the source I propose: "The History of French", by Nadeau and Barlow -- authors who have 5 books between them on the French language and culture, making it a far more authoritative source than the source you rely upon. This reference has a conflicting statement to that in the article now, saying "Montreal is the third largest Francophone city in the world, after Paris and Kinshasa."


To insist an off-topic book about left-wing politics by an anonymous (or rather, unknown and unverified) author is what wiki should rely upon for its facts because "it's a stable lede that others have agreed upon" is deny the primacy of authoritative, on-topic resource. Rerutled (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The allegedly "off-topic," "left-wing," "anonyomous," and old reference still is supported by the actual population figures Franamax mentions above. We cannot cite original research, but it can help us determine whether the actual source is still accurate (although verifiability is our chief concern, I think accuracy is also a very important responsibility). Anyone can argue one source or another, but the estimated number of primarily French-speaking people in Montréal still comes second only to Paris. I don't expect that statistic will change anytime soon, but until I see reliable sourcing otherwise, I'm going to continue to support the current source and lead. That being said, I think I've said just about everything I can say about this matter, so I'm going to let any remaining interested parties take it from here. user:J aka justen (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
As said many times above, what J continues to ask for, and Franamax thinks he is providing, is original research -- to rely on original research to make decisions about article content is a violation of WP:NOR. I have provided (top of this section), instead, a secondary source, instantly verifiable, and which is authoritative -- it is this secondary source that J and Franamax continue to revert away from. Rerutled (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
wp:nor proscribes publishing original research via Wikipedia; wp:nor does not proscribe using original research to help ascertain the accuracy of new claims. Independently confirming the accuracy of newly introduced facts, citations, and sources can be aided by original research. You can't turn around and publish that original research on Wikipedia, but it certainly can help in raising concerns or objections to potentially questionable sourcing. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
J, by writing here that you perform original research which you do not cite in an article, you indicate that you fail to understand the purpose and importance of citation. The purpose and importance of citation is to make transparent and verifiable the facts upon which a statement is made in an article. When you go off to do your own uncitable original research -- which you state here, you do -- you are denying transparency and verifiability, and including facts which are not transparent or verifiable. If you are indeed going this for the Montreal article, you are violating [[WP::NOR]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rerutled (talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 June 2009
Sorry, I'm going to have to repeat that I don't believe you understand the intent of wp:nor. An editor doing research to ascertain the accuracy of a verifiable citation is not diminishing the transparency of the actual citation. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Basic math and original research? I don't know what the math in question was ( this whole debate should really be taken to a specialty Wikiproject ), but for instance taking a source that says the city of Montreal has one million people and another source that says 70% of Montreal residents speak French as their primary language to say Montreal has 700,000 French speakers is not original research. Because that figure doesn't contain any judgement or estimate unique to the Wikipedia. On the other hand, if you take a source that says Montreal has a million people and another source that says 65% of Quebec speaks French to get 650,000, then that is original research because that figure includes a guess about the proportion of Francophones in Montreal. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

www.kirjasto.sci.fi

This site is used as a reference in over 300 Wikipedia articles. It has a separate page for each of many authors with biographies written by a librarian in Finland. I don't like that there are Amazon.com links on every single page. I have found many mistakes on every article I have looked at so far. It seems to me to be self published only on this webpage and not spell checked or edited.

Here is an interesting one about Jack London's elf-designed ketch:

  • In 1907 London and Charmian started aboard the Snark, the author's elf-designed ketch, a sailing trip around the world. On the voyage he began to write Martin Eden. After hardships - his captain was incompetent, the ketch was inefficient - they abrupted the journey in Australia.

On the topic of elves, here are some excerpts from the JRR Tolkien article:

  • The Hobbit takes the reader to a long journey from the safety of the Hill, where the Bagginses live, to look for their stolen treasure. The story introduces Gandalf, a wandering wizard, Bilbo, a brave hobit[sic], Gollum, a small slimy creature, who likes goblin meat and throttled them behind, and other characters whom Tolkien developed further in The Lord of the Rings.
  • In a letter to the Observer, he said that "my bobbit... was not furry, except about the feet.

So far there has been some discussion of this website at Philip K. Dick. Here is an excerpt from http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/pkdick.htm.

  • Dick died of a stroke on March 2, 1982, just a few months before the film Blade Runner, based on his DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP (1968), was released. The blockbuster film Total Recal [sic] from 1990 was based on the story 'We Can Remember It for You Wholesale' and also led to a cable TV series. In the story many humans have left the planet. Rick Deckard hunts androids who have been imported to the planet from Mars. His chief wish to be able to afford to purchase and care for an artificial sheep.

At the end of this paragraph the writer seems to be talking about Total Recall but is actually discussing DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP or attempting feeble humor, I'm not sure. Thanks, -Crunchy Numbers (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been referring to this site for years and it can serve as a useful starting point for finding good sources on the listed authors, since it provides a bibliography and "further reading" information for each. However, the website itself is self-published by an hobbyist and is not a reliable source for wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
If you look at the front page of the site, you'll see that the site is copyrighted by "Kuusankosken kaupunginkirjasto, Finland", this translates from Finnish as "Kuusankoski City Library, Finland". The person who writes the author essays is Petri Liukkonen, who is, according to this article, the director of the library. In other words, the site is not "self-published", it's the work of an information professional with, presumably, access to whatever work of reference he needs to use. The site was awarded the Finnish Writers Association Prize in April 2008.

User:Crunchy Numbers is aware of all this, because I told him so on Talk:Philip K. Dick, here, but CN seems to have a burr in his saddle about this site. He first started deleting it saying that it was "spam" ([68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73]) and even reported it to WP:Spam ([74]), claiming that it was spam "hiding" as a reference. When nothing came of that, and various people pointed out that it wasn't spam, and was "hidden" in references because... it was being cited as a reference, CN dropped his spam claim, and took up this "not a reliable source" claim. (And then started following me around, undoing my edits without any particular reason - [75], [76] and [77] - which is only relevant because it indicates that there seems to be some kind of ulterior motivation behind CN's actions.)

The kirjasto site is neither spam, nor self-published nor, as one of CN's edits has it "just someones webpage", it's part of a project to create a "calendar" of author essays, written by a professional, published by a library. That the professional and the library are in Finland doesn't make them any less reliable.

(Incidentally, despite his knowledge that I was interested in this site, and had previously defended it, CN neglected to inform me that he was posting this comment here. I guess I will have to stay on my toes to see where Crunch Numbers forum-shops this to next, and what new justification he comes up with for eliminating this worthwhile website from Wikipedia.) Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd also point out that highlighting a few trivial errors (the ones concerning The Hobbitt were both typos for goodness sake!) hardly makes a source unreliable. No source, not even the best and most reliable one, is always right, or is immune from human error, typographical or otherwise. For kirjasto to be deemed "unreliable" in that manner would require a whole heck of a lot more mistaken information than Crunchy Numbers has been able to show. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am still not convinced that the website is a reliable source. Being a "information professional with, presumably, access to whatever work of reference he needs to use" does not make one a citable literary critic. The author is a director of a municipality library in Kuusankoski a town of around 20,000 persons. He does not have any record of having published any peer reviewed article or book on the subject. His writings do not seem to have any editorial oversight or review (which is what makes it self-published). I have yet to see his reviews being cited by any scholar, or reliable source.

I have had the website bookmarked for 7-8 years and consulted it regularly (especially in the pre-wikipedia days); I admire Petri's work as a hobbyist just as I admire the film reviews at this website. If anything, I am biased in favor of www.kirjasto.sci.fi, but I cannot see how it meets the WP:RS standards. Abecedare (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Some random comments:

  • The typos and minor errors in the website's content are not a determinative factor in my analysis of its reliability. Rather, we need to evaluate it's reputation for fact checking and accuracy (and this is distinct from both correctness and popularity).
  • I don't regard the website as spam, and my guess is that many different editors have added it is an external link or reference in good faith. I really doubt that there is any concerted effort to add it to wikipedia to increase the website's page hits.
  • The webite may be a valid external link, especially in less developed wikipedia article, since it does provide a decent write-up and a very useful bibliography. See WP:ELMAYBE ("Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.")

Abecedare (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out your experience with the webpage. You made a good point. The fact that it has been around 7-8 years shows it isn't a fly by night spammer site and it has its own following.
I have no problem with a webpage in Finland or any other country other than it looked suspicious that it was in English and not Finnish. But that is probably more a sign of the times since English has become so dominant in Europe. Maybe the author is using this to improve his English. This brings me to the one thing I disagree with that you said. The excerpt I pasted above shows much more than a minor error on the article for Philip K. Dick. He talks about the film Total Recall but is actually talking about Blade Runner. "His chief wish to be able to afford to purchase and care for an artificial sheep." Even if it had been in context this is a ridiculous thing to say and makes a mockery of the story. For a Monty Python skit it would make sense. Also, typos in names and quotes are more serious than in other places. A typo in an average word is easy to spot or spell check but in someone's name it can easily be copied and spread by unknowing readers. A typo in a quote makes it look like the person being quoted made the mistake. Quotes and names should have been copied letter by letter so typos should be very rare. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this.-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the site has existed since at least 1999 and in the pre-wikipedia days it was perhaps the single best source for author bios on the web. Many wikipedia articles in fact are likely to have started as paraphrase and summary of the Petri's writings: for example this is his write up on Andre Malraux that he wrote in 1999 and this is how our article on Andre Malraux started in 2002. So while I think we shouldn't use it as a reliable source anymore it would be wrong to label it spam or dismiss it as an effort by Petri to improve his English. We may have outgrown our roots, but we should now not be disrespectful or patronizing towards such sources.
Also we need to replace the website with better alternate sources, not blindly remove the reference link without having rewritten the material we got from the website; the latter will be plagiarism in that we'll be using the material without giving appropriate credit to the source we got it from. Abecedare (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The copywrite info at the bottom of http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/malraux.htm says "May be used for non-commercial purposes. The author must be mentioned. The text may not be altered in any way (e.g. by translation). Click on the logo above for information." Everything in this article has been changed yet the material was copied so the copywrite has been violated. The plagiarism article seems to imply that this is a blatant violation. If text was copied from kirjasto it should have been in a block quote form that would not get edited even to fix mistakes.-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
If the material was paraphrased then it is not a copyright issue since facts per se cannot be copyrighted; if short extracts of the article are directly quoted with proper attribution then that falls under fair use and again copyright is not an issue (despite what the license may literally say). If large amount of text is cut-n-pasted from the website without quotation marks or is not properly attribution, then it is blatant copyvio.
Plagiarism policy is even stricter than copyright and says that we should not incorporate (even non-copyrighted) material without giving dues credit to the source; that is the reason IMO we should not remove the source without either removing the related material (if we think it is factually incorrect), or replacing it with a better source (if we think the material is fine but the source is non-ideal). I have posted a query at [Plagiarism talk page] related to the issue. Abecedare (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the talk page at the article about Plagiarism is the right place to have a discussion. That talk page is for improving that article. What about [Copyright problems]? It says "This page is for listing and discussing possible copyright problems involving text on Wikipedia, including pages which are suspected to be copyright violations."-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh come on, CN, there are plenty of other noticeboards you can try, you just need to use some imagination. Maybe the Finnish librarian is making it all up? Try posting at the Fringe theories noticeboard. Wait! The Finnish librarian is still alive, doesn't that mean that the Biographies of living persons noticeboard is yet another safe harbor.

Well, you get the idea. Keep plugging away until you find a way to blast that nasty old Finnish librarian back to the Flintstones. Sic semper tyrannis! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If Abecedare or someone else wishes to post this to an appropriate discussion board then that is great. I don't plan to. Keep this professional. I don't consider the librarian a tyrant. I have no interest in blasting anyone. Your harassment has crossed the line this time to a personal attack. -Crunchy Numbers (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Look, you started by deleting refs that used the site saying that they were "hidden spam", and when you were shot down on that you took up the argument that it was not a reliable source. I don't know what's motivating you, but it's sure as hell not "professionalism" or anything like it. This is quite simple, if you keep on this mistaken quest of your to persecute kirjasto, a perfectly innocent and helpful little webite, I'm keep on your back, countering your confabulations with facts. That's not a threat, personal or otherwise, it's just an attempt to keep things on the staight and narrow. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This reminds me of difficulties I had in the past with interpreting the reliability of the U.S. National Park Service's National Register Information System (NRIS) and its system of webpages on U.S. National Historic Landmarks. These are both comprehensive and wonderful for wikipedia, especially as they are public domain sources, but they are both also contain numerous errors. These include data entry typos in names of places, county or street location description errors, and some errors of omission or incorrect inclusion in the database. The satisfactory-for-me resolution was to start documenting the errors systematically (at wp:NRIS info issues and wp:NHL info issues), to invite other wikipedia editors to note apparent errors in those sources, and to begin a systematic process of reporting errors to the National Park Service for them to correct. Which they are doing. In this process, it seemed obviously important to be polite and respectful to them, and they have been very cooperative and appreciative enough. They are certainly well aware of the now-huge wikipedia coverage of NRHP places (almost all 84,000 now covered in detailed list-tables indexed here), and some staff are wikipedia fans. So, for this Finnish site, how about contacting Petri to inform him of some apparent typos to correct? Also, the facts that the website has been open to the public for so many years and that it is apparently so salient, suggests to me that its information has already been pored over and probably already has been corrected in many places where initially there were minor errors. I expect it is far more reliable than many academic articles published in peer-reviewed publications that have had few eyeballs ever scanning their content, and have no process whatsoever for noting and posting error corrections. doncram (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Photographs

Can a photograph be considered a reliable source of information. For example, can the file:Packwood post mill.jpg be used to claim that the windmill was in fact, a post mill? There is no {{cite postcard}} to use in this situation. Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Note image has been identified as Shrewley, Warks and can now be found at Commons:File:Shrewley Post Mill.jpg. Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, no... a photograph should never be considered a "source" (either reliable or unreliable). To my mind a source should be in written or spoken form. Photographs and other images should be viewed as illustrations that are used in articles to illustrate what is stated by reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
If a textbook discusses a speech/visit by a president and has a picture of him in the said act, can we use the photo to say that he wore a blue shirt etc? I think yes, in these black and white cases, or to say that this painting has two people in it etc,.... although if a photo itself was used to "classify" a picture as modern/romanticist/impressionist etc, no, nor would the raw script of a music composition be sufficient to determine baroque etc. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Yet a picture paints a thousand words. For comparison, it wasn't a smock mill or a tower mill, which are the other two main types of windmill. There are occasions when a photograph does provide evidence which isn't available in written form. This is one of them. Mjroots (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Using a photograph as a piece of evidence is original research and not allowed on wikipedia. However there may be a way out here since this is a postcard and not a stand-alone photograph. Can you tell us what the description (usually found on the reverse side) on the postcard says about the structure ? Also, do you know who published the postcard ? If it is some reputable organization, like the National Geographic Society, it could qualify as a reliable source. Abecedare (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The postcard is a real photo postcard published by Collectorcard, Croydon CR0 1HW (Pamlin Prints). It is identified by the reference number C6113. Card was produced c1979 and is identified as Packwood, Warwicks. It was one of a series of Collector Windmills postcards, all reproductions of old photographs, some dated, some undated. Mjroots (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, for that information. I don't know anything about that publisher - but given our generally lax rules about image sourcing, I think the information you provide should be sufficient to say that this is a "Windmill in Packwood, Warwicks"; although we still don't have a reliable source saying that it is a post mill. Is the latter a point of dispute ? Abecedare (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Discussion also at Talk:List of windmills in Warwickshire. The point of dispute here seems to be what constitutes original research. As stated above, there are three main types of windmills, post mill, smock mill and tower mill. Is stating that in this case the mill was a post mill original research, or is it interpretation of the image presented? Mjroots (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
A picture can be used as a source without it being original research. But we have to be careful that we only make descriptive claims and not interpretations. If whatever it is about a windmill that makes it a post mill is explicit in the photograph then it's not OR. If there's more than one way to interpret it, that concludes in it being other than a post mill, then it's OR. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! What makes it a post mill is the main post that the mill stands on, and is turned around to face the wind. This is visible in the photograph. Therefore using the picture to back up the fact that the mill was a post mill in this case is not OR. Mjroots (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I still have hesitiations with calling any picture a source for information... however, I do agree that it isn't OR to say that a particular windmill seen in a picture is a post mill. The identification of a post mill as such seems to be basic stuff (ie it is an identification that any amature with a rudementary knowledge of windmill types should be able to make). I would classify such identification as "common knowledge" that does not need to be sourced. In other words, describing this windmill as a post mill is a descriptive comment easily verifiable by looking at the picture and is not OR. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Illegible references in Chinese typeface?

An editor has been adding Chinese references to the List of vegetarians article. There are many foreign language references on there such as Portuguese, Dutch, German etc and since they share the English typeface they can still be verified and translated. The Chinese language doesn't use the same typeface and just comes out as gibberish. I removed them because I think that on the English language Wikipedia the references should at least be readable which is the case even if they are in German but this is not the case with Chinese. This is the English Wikipedia after all, so I think references should at least use the English typeface so that someone who is versed in German or whatever will at least be able to translate them without having to install other typefaces on their computer. Foreign languages are verifiable through translation, other typefaces makes them non-verifiable IMO. I would welcome some input on this - do Chinese typefaces (with no Englush translation provided) make references non-verifiable? Am I correct to remove the references along with the text they support? Betty Logan (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No. If Chinese characters come out readable or not depends on the set-up and capabilities of your web-browser. The page in question looks fine in Safari on my Mac - not that I can read it, but it looks like fine Chinese to me. In principle, sources in Chinese are just as welcome as sources in German or any other non-English language, i.e. they are acceptable, but we prefer English sources where available in the same quality. Of course, any source must meet the general requirements from WP:RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I think it depends on the context. A Chinese reference is OK for the length of a bridge in Bengbu and not OK for the length of a bridge in Liverpool. Ignoring the question of sense or nonsense of a list of vegetarians, your revert [78] (or at least the reason you gave) wasn't OK because the Chinese source was used to back up a statement about a Chinese person. The best sources for such a statement will be in Chinese, and the editors most interested in checking the statement will understand Chinese.
By the way, your assertion that "English computers" can't display Chinese characters is wrong. The only reason your computer doesn't display them (if it's reasonably new, say less than 5 years old) is that you haven't installed a Chinese font. Chinese fonts are not installed by default because they need a lot of space and most people don't need them. Of course even if you had Chinese fonts installed it wouldn't help you to understand Chinese. But this is not really relevant. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Since this is the English language Wikipedia am I obliged to install technology that isn't there by default? If I could read the Chinese font then it would greatly help me to understand the Chinese in the same way I can understand French or German because I can at least see the letters displayed. How is something verifiable if it doesn't display right in most English speaking coutries? Betty Logan (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Just like wikipedia is not responsible for flying you to London or to Rome so that you can personally verify content sourced to rare published books that the only copies are in the British Museum or the Papal Library, we are not responsible for you to have a browser that can verify the Chinese characters. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
A font is not some special technology. You probably have many different fonts for the Latin alphabet on your computer; if you use Microsoft Word you are perhaps familiar with choosing "Arial", or sometimes other fonts that look more interesting. Any "letters" on a Chinese page are normally displayed even without installing a special font. What you would need a font for is the Chinese characters – and I doubt that they will be of any use for you if you can't read Chinese. You will not even be able to verify that an English name appears in a Chinese text if it has been transcribed from English to Chinese in the normal way (just like we transcribe Chinese names into the Latin alphabet). Simply removing information because you can't read the language of the source, as you have done, is not acceptable. The reason why I haven't reverted you is that in my opinion the list needs to be deleted or severely reduced in scope anyway. See also WP:BIAS. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Using second hand reporting when we can't find the original report?

Hi all,

In the 2009_Iranian_election_protests#Militia_violence section, a user named User:Jalapenos do exist has insisted on an inclusion that I find problematic. His latest revision is this edit [79]. The problematic sentence in this revision is this:

Voice of America reported that the government recruited up to 5,000 fighters from the Lebanese Hezbollah militia to clash with protesters.[1]

What he is doing is saying that the publication Voice of America has reported something, but he is then citing a German language article on Der Speigel. No one can find the original Voice of America article and this claim is not backed up by any other RS reporting that we have found so far, even though it supposedly happened 3 days ago and there is tons of reports coming out of Iran.

There are two Hezbollah organizations which I think is the confusing that is occurring. There is a Hezbollah that is native to Iran and is involved in the protests -- see Ansar-e_Hezbollah#2009_Coup_Protests -- and then there is a better known Lebanese Hezbollah that if you exclude this second hand citation, doesn't appear to be involved. I think the German reporter in question must have confused the two thinking there was only one Hezbollah, although since we can't find the original, this is hard to prove either way.

So overall, I think that including this information does a disservice to Wikipedia readers because we are making a claim that we haven't been able to properly verify. Instead of getting into a revert war with User:Jalapenos do exist, I figured it might be best to get some independent input on this question. --John Bahrain (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

At best, the article should say "According to an article appearing in Der Speigel, the Voice of America reported that the government recruited up to 5,000 fighters from the Lebanese Hezbollah militia to clash with protesters". This makes it clear that this is second hand reporting. However, I do agree that if no one can find the actual VOA report, then it should probably removed as being an erronious report. Blueboar (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Forum International

An editor has objected to the use of Russian sources at the LaRouche articles, in particular the publication "FORUM International"[80]] which is a disputed source at Helga Zepp-LaRouche. It has been suggested that the source is unreliable because it is sponsored by a government agency. My view is that under WP:RS, news media that are government-sponsored are not singled out as being less reliable than privately owned media (which may have reliability problems of their own,) and that no particular nation or language group has a monopoly on reliability. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

My view is as follows: there should be no systematic view that government-sponsored or state-owned news media are either unreliable or less reliable than private media. For instance, the BBC is government owned but is a reliable source. The state owned newsmedia of some countries; however, are less reliable and I suspect that is what the other editor is suspicious of, given this is a Russian government-owned publication. Perhaps a helpful tool could be the Press Freedom Index. Government owned media in countries w.o free media might be subject to greater scrutiny on controversial topics. As an example, one would not use a North Korean government newspaper as a RS -- accept as a source stating the NK government's views. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference between something being less reliable than another soruce and it being unreliable. I would agree that government owned and controled media will generally be less reliable than completely free and independent media, but that does not make them unreliable as a class. Now, some specific government run and controled media may actually be so censored and propaganda filled that they do cross the line into "unreliable"... that needs to be determined on a case by case basis. What I am trying to say is that we can not call Forum International unreliable simply because it is Russian government sponsored. We might call it unreliable if it has a poor reputation for accuracy and fact checking. To determine whether it is reliable or not, we have to look at what other sources say about it. So... What do other sources say about Forum International? Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't find an assessment of the magazine using English search engines -- a Russian speaker would have better luck. However, I found the following sites which describe SOPS, the agency which sponsored the issue in question: [81][82]. --Coleacanth (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The organisation seems reputable -- looks like some affiliated individuals have given papers at Harvard etc. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
What information do we have this publication is a reliable source? Also, should we make our own summary of the subject's speech, using the publication as a primary source? Aside from the speech itself, the only text in the publication about the subject is some minimal context for the address, (appreantly delivered six years prior to a committee of the Duma).   Will Beback  talk  18:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
He just said why he thinks it is reliable... affiliated individuals have given papers at Harvard. This certainly is a valid indication of reliability. It shows that those involved are respected in their field of study. In the absence of anything else, I think this is enough to nudge it onto the "reliable" side of the equation. Blueboar (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't think that's any indication of reliability of a magazine. "People associated with the sponsor of the magazine have given papers at Harvard?" That does nothing to establish the reliability of the source. I don't see anything about that in WP:V or WP:RS.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that "Forum International" is being used to document only two assertions: first, that Helga Zepp-LaRouche addressed the Russian State Duma hearings in 2001, and second, that a transcript of her speech was published in 2007 in "Forum International." Neither claim is what we would call "exceptional." However, Will Beback has another interest here, which is that he seeks to have the bio of Zepp-LaRouche merged or deleted on grounds of non-notability, and a reference to her in "Forum International" is an obstacle to this claim of non-notability. --Leatherstocking (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
We're here to discuss whether or not "Forum International" is a relaible source. So far I haven't seen anything that establishes it as one. The burden of proof is on the editor wishing to use it. (PS: I've changed the name of the section - we're only discussing one magazine, not all Russian sources. )  Will Beback  talk  20:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
A) is Forum International a reliable source for a statement that Helga Zepp-LaRoushe addressed the Duma. I would say it probably is. At least I would need a very compelling reason not to treat it as such. B) is Forum International a reliable source for the fact that something was published in Forum International. The answer to this one is, without hesitation, Yes. Absolutely. Any source is reliable for a statement as to what it contains. Blueboar (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow your point B. If I printed a magazine at home, and it contained the text of a purported speech, would it be considered a reliable source for the text on the basis that a source is reliable for its own contents? If so then every piece of paper is a reliable source. Regarding point A, the reliablility of a source has to be established, it isn't the default assumption. I again ask how this is considered a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  21:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
On point B... In this context, yes. For a limited statement to the effect: "The speech was published in Will Beback's magazine" then your magazine would actually be the most reliable source... for that clearly verifies the statement. This is like quoting... it is always better to cite the original (even if in other contexts it would not be reliable) than to rely on a pass-through.
On point A, no... the default assumption (as per WP:Assume good faith is that media sources are reliable. We challenge them as being unreliable when we have reasonable cause.
Re: B. For us to write in an article, "the speech was printed in 'Beback magazine'", then that source should be somehow notable or significant. We would not, for example, write that "the speech was reprinted on an anonymous blog", because no one cares what is written on anonymous blogs. Furher, the proposed material doens't simply metnion the existence of the speech - it summarizes it based on that magazine as a source. So I don't see how point B gets us anywhere.
Re: A. WP:AGF applies to editors, not to sources. (Someone should remind user:Leatherstocking). We do not assume that sources are reliable. The burden of establishing a sources' reliability is on the editor wishing to use it.
Another editor has summed up the situation in response to another inquiry on this page:
  • To be a reliable source the source should be proven to be regarded as reliable by a wider community, this can be demonstrated by it being cited by other reliable sources, by clear statements of editorial policy, by contributors being regarded as being reliable and authoritative by other sources. Statements published by such sources should be verifiable. The burden of proof is upon the editor adding information. The site does not seem to be a reliable source, it is not cited by other news sources, for instance. The statements which you make above about the source are not verified. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I that that applies here too.   Will Beback  talk  21:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The fact that SOPS, a prestigious academic research organization, selected Forum International as a venue for publishing transcripts of its symposium in both Russian and English is a testament to its reliability. It makes the magazine, in effect, an academic source, which according to the policy page WP:RS is the preferred kind of source for Wikipedia. --Coleacanth (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Scholarly publications are considered highly reliable due to the peer review process. There's no evidence that there has been any peer review with this publication. The evidence provided makes it appear to be more like a self-published publication, or a programme, rather than a reliable, 3rd-party source. Also, from what I can tell SOPS is a government agency, not an academic institution.   Will Beback  talk  23:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Many academic institutions are government-sponsored, including in the U.S., where there are big state-sponsored universities in every state. SOPS is described as "the oldest state research institution (institute) performing studies in the field of regional economy and policy, territorial socio-economic development of Russia and subjects of the Federation, comprehensive problems of productive resources deployment, economic integration of Russia and its regions with CIS countries and Baltic states." --Coleacanth (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anything in there about it being an academic institution. Regardless, the discussion here is primarily about Forum International.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
In the past, you have taken a very liberal, inclusionist stance on sources that others considered borderline, such as a self-published site [83] and a blog at a college paper [84]. Could you explain specifically what it is about "Forum International" that you find so objectionable? --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
We're discussing Forum International. If you want to use it as a source then it is your job to show that it meets the standards.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that what has been presented by Bigdaddy1981, Blueboar and Coleacanth is quite sufficient. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
What presentations are those? It appears that the most compelling argument is that someone associated with the sponsoring agency has delivered a paper at Harvard University. That says nothing about the reliability of the magainze. I still don't see any actual information about this magazine or how it would qualify as a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  03:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we can satisfy everyone's concerns if we get the help of a Russian speaker. I know that Wikipedia has some sort of translators' group, but I quickly became confused in trying to find the right page. If we could contact a Russian speaker and have him search the Russian-language web, we could resolve this. --Coleacanth (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't speak Russian, but it appears that Forum International is the programme of something called the International Investment Forum, which seems to have met for the past few years in Sochi, a resort town on the Black Sea in Krasnodar Krai, Kuban region. The conference is often billed as "Kuban 2006" or "Sochi 2008" so try Googling "International Investment Forum" Sochi OR Krasnodar OR Krasnodarsk OR Kuban for more info. There are a number of hits in news archive, and the conference appears important. Here's an article from Moscow News. [85] This particular meeting was about the possibility of a rail link under the Bering Strait and what it would mean for eastern Siberia. The programme seems to be reliable on who was at the conference and what their proposals were. But it would be a primary source, so a citation should just stick to the facts and nothing extraordinary. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI, the source is not being used for "who was at the conference and what their proposals were". It is being used as a source for a speech delivered years earlier at an apparently unrelated hearing held by a committee of the Duma.   Will Beback  talk  01:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
We have another primary source for the text of the speech. "Forum International" is being used only to confirm that the speech was delivered to the Duma. It also establishes that the speech was considered notable enough for inclusion in what is evidently the program for the Sochi/Kuban/SOPS/International Investment Forum conference, which dealt with infrastructure planning, the topic of Mrs. LaRouche's speech. The claims to be sourced to Forum International are not exceptional, the source is adequate, I suggest we close the discussion. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
You still haven't presened any evidence that the source is reliable.   Will Beback  talk  20:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Will, I'd suggest that you re-read this thread from the beginning. Every other participant has indicated that from what we know about FI's institutional affiliations, it is permissible to use it as a source for the limited purposes that it was used for in the article. Are you just conducting a filibuster? Also, given the positions you have taken in the past on sources that were more congenial to your POV, I think you ought to re-read WP:SAUCE. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand the the assertion of reliability. You are saying that the magazine was sponsored by a state agency for a single issue and so it is a reliable source for something unrelated to that agency? Is that correct?   Will Beback  talk  20:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Nope. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, then what is the basis for your claim that the source is reliable?   Will Beback  talk  16:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I won't speak for Leatherstocking... but this google scholar search gives me more than a hint that it is reliable. Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this helps or not, but a Google Scholar search on "prisonplanet.com", an insane conspiracy Web site, reveals 84 citations[86] versus 6,370 for "Forum International". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for those searches, but it appears that "forum international" is such a generic term that it appears in the titles of many organizations or journals. I see "Tourism Forum International", a great many for "Ceramic Forum International", quite a few for "Hair Transplant Forum International", "American Venous Forum International Ad Hoc ...", "7th Mechatronics Forum International Conference", "World Social Forum International Council", "SOUTHWEST FOUNDATION FORUM INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM" etc. And then, given the nature of search engines, the two words can appear next to each other in text, such as "Fifth Asian Fisheries Forum: International Conference on...", or "Prince of Wales Business Leaders’ Forum, International Organisation of Employers and ..." So I don't think that the Google search really tells us anything on its own.   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but quite a few of those search hits are citations to the specific Forum International under discussion. So my point stands. Blueboar (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Will... several editors throughout this thread have expressed reasons why they think Forum International is reliable. It is obvious that you disagree. So would you please express why you think it is unreliable? Blueboar (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
It is the burden of the editors using the material to establish the reliability of a source. As for responses here, they don't necessarily address the issue at hand. For example, Squidfryerchef suggests that the source may be reliable for the events that the magazine issue covered. But that isn't what the source is being used for. The problem with Google search is that it doesn't actually show the papers, so we don't know if they're citing the source as being reliable, or if they are referring to it as worthless. I've asked the editor who is proposing this to state why he thinks it's reliable, but I haven't yet gotten a straight answer. Let's hear that and then we can evaluate his answer.   Will Beback  talk  04:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't buy hiding behind WP:BURDEN here. furthermore, I think you are misapplying it. That part of WP:V refers to what happens when someone challenges uncited material. It says that the burden is on those who add or want to keep material to provide a source for it. In this case, however, a source has been provided... so WP:BURDEN has been complied with.
When it comes to reliability discussions, both sides of the debate have to be able to express why they hold the opinion they do. Those saying that the source is unreliable need to express a why they think it is unreliable, while those who think it is reliable should express why they think it is reliable. Then a consensus can be reached. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not a magazine per se, but a program of an annual conference. According to the page at Larouchepub.com describing the PDF linked above, 4,000 copies were printed up for the conference, and anyone in Russia can request a copy. I don't think we should worry too much about who's cited the program, the conference itself looks important. It looks important enough that we ought to have an article on it; the Russian WP probably does ( don't know what they'd title it but their page on Sochi probably mentions it ) and maybe we could translate it.
But the issue is that this is more of a primary than a secondary source and whether it can be used to describe a speech that happened outside of the conference. While I'd rather see a Russian or international newspaper as a citation for the speech, Forum International might not be too bad as this is a speech delivered to the same goverment that was sponsoring the conference. It's a little like citing a NASA press release for the existence of a speech that was made to Congress.
Another question. I'm assuming this speech was also in EIR. Was there an objection to citing that directly, i.e. was the existence of a speech made to the Duma deemed an extraordinary claim requiring an independent source? Does the publication of the speech in the conference's program, which is space-limited, show notability and at least some fact-checking? Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The evidence presented by Blueboar, Coleacanth and Squidfryerchef is, to my mind, sufficient to establish that "Forum International" is a special-purpose publication that chronicles the proceedings of the International Investment Forum/Kuban/Sochi conferences, as well as related topics of interest (in which category would fall Mrs. LaRouche's speech before the Duma.) These conferences, according to the Moscow News article [87], attract scholars, government officials including ambassadors, and leading businessmen. The fact that a highly reputable agency like SOPS would entrust FI to chronicle the meeting is sufficient to establish reliability. Plus, the source is being used for a very limited purpose, to confirm that the speech before the Duma took place (which we have already from the LaRouche magazine,) and to establish that these circles found her remarks sufficiently noteworthy that they were included in the special issue devoted to a conference which took place some years after the speech was delivered. That's my view. Will, with general support on this board for the use of the source, your refusal to state your objections is bound to arouse suspicions that there is something POINTy going on here. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Leatherstocking gives a very reasonable and cohearant rational for saying that FI is reliable.
Will, any burden that exists for saying FI is reliable has been met. If you disagree, that is fine... but don't hide behind WP:BURDEN any more. It is now up to you to explain any flaws you find with this rational and explain why you think FI is not reliable. Otherwise, let's end this debate. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing the article de novo, I see no evidence that this individual has recieved the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As such, I have redirected it to her obviously notable husband. Hipocrite (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional independent sources have been supplied. I move that we restore "Forum International" as well. --Leatherstocking (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Has anyone noticed that "forum international" is apparently "larouchepub.com." I think there is wide agreement that "larouchepub.com" is not a reliable source for anything except the beliefs of the Larouche movement. It's certainly not a reliable source for anything about the rusian Duma or the like. Hipocrite (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... Given what has been said above about this, I think "larouchepub.com" is mearly a courtesty link. ie they seem to be hosting a document published by someone else. Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh. There's really no way for me to tell that (internet filter blocks as "fringe/extremist" here), but if we're going to cite some magazine article, just linking to a courtesy copy isn't nearly enough. We'd need to get the magazine name and the date it was published, at the very least, so that someone could get it from the library and verify the link. Could we get that info? Hipocrite (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem. The PDF file contains the entire magazine issue, not just the relevant article. All page numbers are accounted for, so it is unlikely that there has been any tampering... The publishing information is on the last page. So it is really just a matter of getting someone who understands Russian (which I don't) to format the citation correctly. All the info is there. Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Great! Hipocrite (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hipocrite, of course it's a courtesy link. It's a program printed up by the organization that runs the conference, this particular one happens to have a copy hosted by the LaRouche organization because they spoke at the conference. We should be able to do a dead-tree cite as "program of the XYZ conference, Sochi (date/year). I would feel better about getting an OCLC number or other identifier; I didn't notice an ISSN or ISBN on the program. It's likely many of these copies would end up in Russian libraries as well as some worldwide university libraries with Russian Studies departments. Do Russian libraries use OCLC? PS. Why is your firewall blocking political material? That's pretty disturbing. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The firewall blocks sites that whoever runs the internet where I'm currently at thinks are "fringe/extremist." I tend to agree with them that Larouche is both. The morality of internet filters is for a different time/place, but the existance of internet filters is a given, my ability to turn off the internet filter is non-existant, and my Iphone doesn't work without incurring massive fees where I am at the current time. If someone could make the dead-tree cite happen, that would be super. Hipocrite (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

ex-cult.org

I would be grateful if two or three editors could quickly comment on the suitability of ex-cult.org] as a WP:Reliable source. I would like to show consensus on its suitability or otherwise. It's included in Friends of the Western Buddhist Order at this diff if you need some context. Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Since it has a strong disclaimer on its front page, it is effectively acting as host to WP:SPS articles by individuals, without checking or peer review. So not RS.Martinlc (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
But it also hosts an important RS source, a 1997 article by the Guardian newspaper. And there is also a significant amount of self-published material from the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (ie the Order writing about itself), both in the main article and also in the external links, which is not RS, if the same criterion is applied.EmmDee (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that such soruces shoudln't be used either way. If The Guardian artcile can be shown to be an accurat version, cite it as The Guardian with a convenience link to FWBO Files.Martinlc (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
We don't do "convenience links" to copyvios. Ever. DreamGuy (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

David Duke - Finders-Keepers - Is a primary source required?

It is factual that David Duke published the book, Finders-Keepers, under the pseudonym, Dorothy Vanderbilt. But it can't be substantiated that the book, Finder's Keepers, contained advice on "vaginal contraction exercises, fellatio and anal sex." Why? Because the book is unavailable and the secondary sources cited do not actually cite the primary source, Finder's Keepers. If someone can link to the book, Finders-Keepers, the matter can be resolved. Until then, it's hearsay and does not belong on Wikipedia.

Even though David Duke is widely despised, Wikipedia ought to maintain its standards and require that extreme claims be backed by primary sources, especially when the secondary sources don't cite the primary source!

Shady References:

1. The 1992 article, "The Picayune Catches Up With David Duke", does not cite a primary source, it defers only to this mysterious book having received front-page play in the Shreveport Journal on August 21, 1990. The article does not provide any reference but claims the book deals with "Vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex."[88]

2. The book, Troubled Memory, by Lawrence N. Powell, plays on the phrase with "vaginal contraction exercises, fellatio and anal sex". But Powell does not cite the book Finder's Keepers nor any page number. Powell's claim is totally unsubstantiated. Check Powell's book, page 448, here:[89]

3. The ADL article discusses Duke's pseudonym but cites nothing for the book's sexual content.[90]

--Bureaucracy (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, "Shady Reference #2", Troubled Memory, is published by the University of North Carolina Press. The book is thoroughly footnoted, though the notes for page 448 are not available on Google.   Will Beback  talk  02:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


You have made an error. The book Troubled Memory is available in its entirety.[91] The book, Troubled Memory, does not cite the primary source, Finder's Keepers, yet it characterizes the book with, "vaginal contraction exercises, fellatio and anal sex." That's shady scholarship. Again, I care not for publishing prestige, especially when negligence is involved.

--Bureaucracy (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A primary source would not only not be required, it would be discouraged in this instance. If notable/reputable pubs write about it, it's notable. IronDuke 03:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
It is not "available in its entirety". It is availible in limited preview. However, there is no point in "footnoting" a summary of the contents of a book, since it by definition epitomises the whole text. There's nothing 'shady' about that at all. Paul B (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying Wikipedia defers to notable/reputable publishing houses as the authority on the content of a book, and not the actual book itself? --Bureaucracy (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No. We are saying that the best way for us, the anonymous editors behind wikipedia, to judge if a neutral encyclopedia would mention this detail is to see if someone else mentioned it first. In very narrow cases are we to use primary sources, mainly situations where detail gleaned from primary sources offers necessary context for the subject as a whole and it would be silly to demand secondary sourcing. I don't think this is one of those cases. Protonk (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, asking for proof is silly. So far, Wikipedia is relying on three sources which fail to backup a serious charge.

What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. — Hillel--Bureaucracy (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Wait, what? Are you saying that the three sources cited are insufficient to make the claims made in the article? If that is the case, it can be discussed on the article talk page--that isn't specifically an issue for this noticeboard. If you are arguing that access to the primary source is require for editors to verify a claim made by an otherwise reliable secondary source, I would disagree with you most of the time. For some extreme claims or claims where there is doubt as to the reliability of the secondary source (doubt from a source besides a single wp editor), then we can talk about comparing claims about the text to the text itself. But there is a difference between removing material on the claims that it is hearsay (a legal term of art which has no real meaning in wikipedia) and comparing claims in secondary sources which are explicitly falsified by the primary text. Protonk (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I see that Troubled Memory has won a couple of awards:
  • Winner of the 2000 Lillian Smith Book Award, Southern Regional Council
  • Winner of the 2000 Kemper and Leila Williams Prize in Louisiana History, Louisiana Historical Association
  • A 2000 Booklist Holocaust Literature Best of the Year Selection
Per the publisher's website.[92]   Will Beback  talk  05:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, Yes. The wiki sources do not substantiate that Duke's book offers advice on "vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex." The Wiki page cites authors, Lawrence Powell and Jeanne W. Amend - but these authors failed to consult Duke's book, Finder's Keepers, because it's out of print and not available online. Powell's bibliography doesn't even list the book, because he couldn't find it, yet he characterized it without having read it. Here's the claim with no footnote, it's in the first paragraph[93]


BTW....I was directed here from the talk page by User:   Will Beback  talk  02:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC) who seems to want to defer rather than fact check. --Bureaucracy (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, I think that we can roughly say that the Powell book is reliable (assuming that list of rewards is accurate and given our policy on reliable sources). We are down to the assertion that Powell didn't read the book in question. I don't think we can make that accusation without some evidence. the omission of the book in the bibliography may be telling or it may be benign. I don't think that the books being out of print is sufficient to support your accusation, especially because one of the principal subjects of the book is Duke. Protonk (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Powell's book is published by a university press, has won awards, and Powell is a Professor at Tulane specializing in this and related topics[94]. Of course this book is a reliable source. And, but that's by he way, has anybody tried getting a copy of Finder's Keepers via a good academic library with competent staff? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


Perhaps it would be appropriate to contact Powell. Troubled Memory was published only nine-years ago, and it is possible that he still has his copy of Finders Keepers, or a partial copy. If (possibly a big if) he was concerned enough about this doubt to take action to clarify the matter, he could make small amounts of Finders Keepers available online without breach of copywrite.Ordinary Person (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, good lord. There are literally a half dozen other book sources noting the same connection. I don't think this can be attributed to Powell, Tyler and the ADL making up the claim. Protonk (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, I agree, there are half a dozen sources characterizing the book as giving sexual advice. There seems to be two competing descriptions, one is dating advise for women and the other is "vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex." Not one of these sources cites the book itself, not even a footnote in these scholarly works.

Perhaps these scholars are chasing each others' tail. Perhaps they know they won't be held accountable because it's David Duke. Or, perhaps Duke did indeed published a pornographic book.

I'm with Ordinary Person. Should I contact Powell or is that the responsibility of the Administrators?--Bureaucracy (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    • At this point I'm not going to entertain the notion that all of these books have fabricated the same claim. There is a more likely but still incredible claim to be made that someone like Tyler fabricated the passage and later scholars just repeated the falsehood. That, to me, is only compelling in the presence of positive evidence. Is there some reliable source that makes the claim that Duke did not author the book? That the book did not contain those passages? This kind of this is a content decision and so should be made on the article talk page but my read is that we can't in good conscience throw out ~9 sources because we don't see confirmatory primary documents. If you want to email Powell and ask him, please do so. Protonk (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Also, this is not to say that I think the sentence belongs in the article. It's unconnected to the rest of the paragraph and seems designed to show how lewd Duke was while writing under a pseudonym. I know that both Finders-Keepers and African Atto were written in persona, arguably one that Duke projected upon the intended audience. The article should use sources supporting a claim like that to contextualize the segment. But until that happens we might consider just cutting the sentence. Protonk (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


Thanks, Protonk. I suppose it is not impossible that these sources have all relied on a set of false sources, but I think that should be enough weight for now. (To my mind, suggesting that Duke wrote such a book only enhances his reputation by implying that at one time he wrote something potentially helpful.) Still, it would be nice if someone can lay their hands on a copy of Finders Keepers, so that a couple of confirming quotes can be placed in the article. I'm emailing Powell anyway: you never know your luck. Ordinary Person (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Treat it as true, until something contradicts it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many cases in which secondary sources discuss primary sources that are not readily available. The primary source may be a rare manuscript or a long out of print book which exists in only a few copies. We have to trust the secondary sources according to their reliability, not according to the degree of access we have to the primary sources. Whether or not the sentence belongs in the article is not a matter for this noticeboard. Paul B (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


I did contact Professor Powell, explained the circumstances, and he gave a very helpful reply:

I did look at the book, and should have cited it. During Duke's meteoric rise in Louisiana politics in the late 1980s and early '90s, the PAC we set up to expose him came into possession of Finders-Keepers, courtesy of independent journalist Patsy Sims. She had interviewed Duke extensively for her book, The Klan (NY: Dorset Press, 1978). On p. 212, she discusses Duke's clumsy efforts to enlist her help in placing his sex manual with her literary agent. She also talked with klansmen who had been alienated by Duke's over-the-top narcissism . When Sims sent us her personal copy of Finders-Keepers, we made copies for distribution to the media, and deposited one photocopy with the Amistad Research Center at Tulane University. It is in its "Louisiana Coalition Against Racism and Nazism" collection. (For what it's worth, Patsy Sims can be reached at Goucher College in Baltimore, where she heads the MFA Program in Non-Fiction.)

I visited the collection today and photocopied pertinent pages of Finders-Keepers. Arlington Press (a neo-nazi house, if memory serves) released it in 1976. Duke wrote it under the pseudonym James Konrad and Dorothy Vanderbilt. I'm more than happy to send you Chapter Ten: "Toward a More Fulfilling Sex-Life."

Meanwhile, here are a few representative quotations that clinch the argument:

p. 115-- "One simple exercise you can do (and you can do it any time of the day--driving to work, sitting at your desk, or watching TV--and nobody will know you are doing it) involves merely contracting the vaginal muscles. It is not difficult to learn. Get in a sitting position, and imagine you are urinating (sounds gross, doesn't it?). Now use the same muscles you would use to stop the urination. Do you feel the muscles tighten?....Another exercise you can do involves the vibrator."

pp. 117-8-- "In fellating your lover, you can assume any position that is comfortable and in close proximity to his penis, In your normal foreplay of kissing this area, kiss him up and down the shaft of the penis and lubricate it quite well with your tongue."

p. 119-- "A very sensitive and erogenous area to both yourself and your lover is the anus....Some women occasionally place (carefully) one of their fingers in it during intercourse when body position makes it possible Most men really enjoy such activity on your part during lovemaking....Many couples today see nothing wrong with limited anal sex."

I think this nails it.
Ordinary Person (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ordinary Person, nice one. I think Duke's pages needs a new section: Pornographer. Can you forward me the photocopies or post them? I'd like to see.... since Powell went to the trouble of copying them.--Bureaucracy (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I was curious to see whether all BLP articles are handled in a similar manner, so I went to W.H. Auden. Auden wrote plenty of porn, but his bio handles the issue in a way that is delicate in the extreme. I don't anticipate that this will be the case with David Duke. --4.233.125.91 (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I will put them up somewhere when I get them, but in my own opinion, sex advice of this kind is not pornographic.Ordinary Person (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
My apologies: I foolishly neglected to send Professor Powell my mailing address. That's the cause of the delay. I have now sent it to him. Ordinary Person (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I've received, scanned and uploaded the documents to Freespace.com.au. They are in multipage PDF format.
http://www.freespace.com.au/filehosting/71253 Finders Keepers by Vanderbilt and Konrad (selected pages): download
http://www.freespace.com.au/filehosting/879592 The Klan by Patsy Sims (selected pages): download

Ordinary Person (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"This" doesn't "nail" anything. There is a fundamental conflict as the origin of this book is subject to extreme bias. The only copy known to be in existence was supposedly sent from Patsy Sims to "Ordinary Person" [95]. Her personal belief system is diametrically opposite to the system which David Duke holds. Given this account, the only way we will know definitively whether or not this book was written wholly or in part by David Duke is to obtain an affidavit from Arlington Press documenting the real identity of "James Konrad" and "Dorothy Vanderbilt". Without unequivocal proof, such as the type for which I am calling, anyone could take the same measures documented above and fabricate a supposed author. Obtain official documentation or leave this "fact" out. --Dmess0r (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
That's an absurd standard, and it would qualify as unacceptable original research even if we got such an affidavit. We have multiple reliable sources say that Duke is the author, one of which quotes him on it directly. Patsy Sims, according to an official biography, "is the recipient of National Endowment for the Arts creative writing fellowship, two Associated Press awards for investigative reporting, and an Academy Award nomination for the documentary, 'The Klan: A Legacy of Hate.'"[96] Her book was published by the University Press of Kentucky. There is no basis for saying that it is not a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
How is it absurd? The claim in question is of highly controversial nature due to its subject matter and the utmost scrutiny should be taken to ensure accuracy. If a legally binding document acceptable in a U.S. court of law, such as an affidavit, is unacceptable research material, how can you justify the acceptability of any other document? Contesting the acceptability of a legally binding document is quite the opposite of absurd. The publishing of a book does not implicitly indicate the reliability of the content, and quoting information gathered by person A from person B concerning some event, condition, or thing of which person A had no direct experience ("he said she said"), is hearsay. There are plenty of non-fiction books which represent opinion as fact. Source material is only as accurate as its respective source material. The content must be verifiable by anyone, not just a few. I've also contacted the Arlington Press with an inquiry as to the validity of the book and if so, to the original author(s).--Dmess0r (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
According to whom is this controversial? Has Duke ever issue a statement denying the authorship? Has he sued those who've asserted it? I don't see any sources offer a contradictory explanation. We have at least two university press books which make this assertion, one of which quotes the subject directly. There really aren't any better sources than that. But if more are needed we have Newsweek,[97] a highly reliable news magazine, plus yet another university press book.[98] To top it off, a highly unreliable site, Stormfront, has a poster saying that Duke admitted to him writing a chapter of the book.[http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=369420] If you're expecting us to accept your private correspondence with a publisher as a reliable source then you don't understand WP:V.   Will Beback  talk  23:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Alleging composition of sexual nature by someone other than yourself is controversial in virtually every community with a few statistically insignificant exceptions. His comment in the Newsweek source, albeit it non-cited and without date, plainly says: "Duke says he wrote only one innocuous chapter on diet and exercise." The JHU press book also does not cite the source of Finders-Keepers, ISBN or who published it, which leaves it questionable as well. Lastly message-boards where people are quite concerned about identity is the last place one should look for verifiable material. Finally, I am not asking anyone to accept any private correspondence with a publisher or anyone else, I am attempting to have the publisher produce documentation which may be directly verifiable by parties other than myself.--Dmess0r (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The answer is to attribute the information to the sources. It is indisputable that the assertion has been made. "According to scholars and journalists, Duke collaborated on a book....", or we can even list the sources. And, if we have a reliable source for Duke's comment that he only wrote one chapter on diet, then we can add that too.   Will Beback  talk  01:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that attribution is reasonable for whichever chapters are pertinent and verifiable. To simply state that David went under a pseudonym, or was responsible for the publication of the book would be stretching the facts. I will check back with Patsy Sims and Arlington as I've not heard word back from them. I will touch base with them again tomorrow to make some headway.--Dmess0r (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The only copy known to be in existence was supposedly sent from Patsy Sims to "Ordinary Person". To clear that up somewhat: The copies were sent to me by Professor Lawrence N. Powell, of the Tulane University's History department. Ordinary Person (talk) 05:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC) To clarify even further: the italicised text above is the contents of Professor Powell's email to me. The italicised text is not my words.Ordinary Person (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Replying to Dmess0r: by attributing the assertion, we would not be simply stating that Duke wrote the book. Instead, we'd be saying that Sims says that Duke wrote the book. It is 100% verifiable that Sims, et al, have made statements to that effect.   Will Beback  talk  06:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I would note in opassing that Powell's characterisation of it as a '"sexual self-help book"' (Powell's quotation marks) 'crammed with helpful advice about vaginal contraction exercises, oral and anal sex and adultery' is misleading - these are mentioned, but there's a lot of genral advice about diet, health, fashion and relationships ; and Ordinary Person's view that this text is pornography is arguable. It sounds like the sort of advice any frank women's magazine of the time would include. Martinlc (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
and Ordinary Person's view that this text is pornography is arguable.. I never offered that view. I offered the opposite view. Ordinary Person (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I meant Bureacracy Martinlc (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Ulrike Putz, "Betet für uns!", Der Spiegel 15-06-2009
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_36&oldid=1136438493"